# No anamorphic Blu Ray/HD DVD 2.35:1 movies ?



## stopdog

Is this really true ? If so then does that mean 2.35:1 movies will have less than 1920x1080 resolution? What is that res? Even 1.85:1 movies will have less than full res also I suppose.


Why would anyone set up a 2.35:1 CIH theater for something less than full 1080p res? Wouldn't it be best to optomize for 16:9 since that would be the only ratio to fully achieve 1080p?


I guess I'm confused now on this whole idea of 2.35:1 CIH for the future. There was another thread regarding this and I thought it was all settled that 2.35:1 would still be the way to go with BR/HD DVD . Now I'm on the fence again and 2.35:1 plans are on hold until some actual movies are released and I can see which way to go.


----------



## CAVX

Well if it is true (as sad as that is) it will be proportional to the maxed out rez like SD DVD is today...


Right now 1.78:1 is the max rez, 1.85:1 is 4% less and 2.35:1 is (my calculation must be out but I get ) 25% less vertical, by the full horizontal rez...


Mark


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

Stopdog, just because we will not get 1080 lines of information on the HD-DVD or BluRay disc isn't a reason not to have a screen that matches the aspect ratio of the majority of the material we will be watching.


Come up to Clovis in about 6 weeks and I will show you first hand the difference between running 16x9 and 2.35:1 and I am fairly certain that will put any doubts to rest. I should be running by then.


----------



## stopdog

CAVX,


I thought anamorphic meant full resolution compressed into the original aspect ratio. Thus the difference between anamorphic and letterbox. In letterbox the black bars actually use some pixels where in anamorphic no pixels are used in the black bars ?? When DVD's first came out there were quite a few letterbox 2.35:1 movies but now pretty much all are 2.35:1 anamorphic.


If I am wrong then what is the difference between letterbox and anamorphic?


What will be the res of Blu Ray / HD DVD 2.35:1 movies ?


Would the res of Blu Ray / HD DVD be higher if they were anamorphic?


Mr. Poindexter, I am much looking forward to seeing your fabulous theater. Maybe you can straighten me out on this finally. Maybe even by then HD DVD will be out , that would be great !


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stopdog* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I thought anamorphic meant full resolution compressed into the original aspect ratio. Thus the difference between anamorphic and letterbox. In letterbox the black bars actually use some pixels where in anamorphic no pixels are used in the black bars ?? When DVD's first came out there were quite a few letterbox 2.35:1 movies but now pretty much all are 2.35:1 anamorphic.



DVDs can be formatted for either 4:3 (non-anamorphic) or 16:9 (anamorphic). 16:9 equals an aspect ratio of 1.78:1. Movies with ratios wider than that have small letterbox bars encoded as part of the video data at the top and bottom of the frame.


HDTV is natively 16:9 and works the same way. The new disc formats could have added a new form of anamorphic enhancement specially for 2.35:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen, but did not have that much foresight, so we are still limited to 16:9.



> Quote:
> If I am wrong then what is the difference between letterbox and anamorphic?



Generally, when people say "letterbox" they're referring to a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD, which is 4:3 with larger black bars wasting pixels.


----------



## stopdog

Josh, thanks. I was not aware that 2.35:1 anamorphic had wasted pixels top and bottom.


So 2.35:1 Blu Ray/HD DVD movies will have the same ratio of wasted info as 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD's have right now.



> Quote:
> The new disc formats could have added a new form of anamorphic enhancement specially for 2.35:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen, but did not have that much foresight, so we are still limited to 16:9.



I think I got it now. If they would have added this new form of 2.35:1 anamorphic enhancement, we could have enjoyed cinemascope movies at full 1920x1080 res. Is that right? Or would res have been even higher ? What were they thinking?

Could this be added later on?


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Yeah, same ratio as 2.35 anamorphic DVD, although at a much higher resolution obviously.


What they were thinking is that no one really cares besides us, the posters in this niche forum.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Yes,this would be one argument againt CH . The lowest vertical resolution gets the largest screen and the highest gets the smallest.I'm not saying all the other merits of CH aren't heavier in the balance but still fact.


Art


----------



## stopdog




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes,this would be one argument againt CH . The lowest vertical resolution gets the largest screen and the highest gets the smallest.I;m not saying all the other merits of CH aren't heavier in the balance but still fact.
> 
> 
> Art



Art this really bothers me. Could also be an arguement for constant width, especially in a width challenged







11' wide room like mine. The widest screen I could reasonably fit in there is around 110", but height is no problem (9' ceilings).

But if I go CW then throw distance becomes a problem since my room is only 18' long. Either is a compromise.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stopdog* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Art this really bothers me. Could also be an arguement for constant width, especially in a width challenged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11' wide room like mine. The widest screen I could reasonably fit in there is around 110", but height is no problem (9' ceilings).
> 
> But if I go CW then throw distance becomes a problem since my room is only 18' long. Either is a compromise.



Don't misinterpret my intention. None of the systems including constant area is without compromises, I realize that. The resolution paradox just happens to be one of those with CH.


Art


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

One major reason they didn't offer anamorphic HD is the extra processing to make the discs work for people without cinemascope displays. That would have added to the cost of every single player just for a few people without the hope of 2.35:1 becoming the new standard like 16x9 has for TV.


----------



## johnbr

Look at they designed a 2.35 anamorphic for dvd but did not use it or put it in the standard.

P/s hd/dvd should have 4 anamorphic modes 2.05 2.20 2.35 and 2.55


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.Poindexter* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> One major reason they didn't offer anamorphic HD is the extra processing to make the discs work for people without cinemascope displays. That would have added to the cost of every single player just for a few people without the hope of 2.35:1 becoming the new standard like 16x9 has for TV.



Maybe, but I kind of doubt it, look at it this way, these players already have to convert from from any of: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p to any other format, in comparision, adding letterbox bars should be trivial. I mean PCs have been able to properlly letterbox content for years, as have DVD players.



> Quote:
> P/s hd/dvd should have 4 anamorphic modes 2.05 2.20 2.35 and 2.55



IMO, they should have provided the capability to encode _everything_ at 1920x1080 with a 1-byte (8-bit) aspect ratio flag. Such a config would have made use of _all_ the available pixels and supported every aspect ratio from 1:1 to 2.56:1 with 0.01 incriments and no wasted pixels.


Allas it appears we're going to be stuck in square-pixel world.


----------



## stopdog




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I kind of doubt it, look at it this way, these players already have to convert from from any of: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p to any other format, in comparision, adding letterbox bars should be trivial. I mean PCs have been able to properlly letterbox content for years, as have DVD players.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, they should have provided the capability to encode _everything_ at 1920x1080 with a 1-byte (8-bit) aspect ratio flag. Such a config would have made use of _all_ the available pixels and supported every aspect ratio from 1:1 to 2.56:1 with 0.01 incriments and no wasted pixels.
> 
> 
> Allas it appears we're going to be stuck in square-pixel world.



Stanger89 that seems like the best solution. Is this something that could be possibly added later down the road or are are the HD Disc features set in stone as they are?


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

Most of those extra pixels will end up being thrown away anyway, so what is the point? Unless you can anamorphically adjust your projector to run full panel at every aspect ratio, such a system is going to have high overhead for little benefit.


We aren't talking about putting letter box bars in, but talking about taking one out of every 4 lines out and throwing them away for 16x9 displays. That is certainly more processor intensive than putting black bars at the beginning and end I would think.


----------



## CAVX

Exactly it catered for the masses. Pity...


Mark


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stopdog* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Stanger89 that seems like the best solution. Is this something that could be possibly added later down the road or are are the HD Disc features set in stone as they are?



The HD disc features may not be set in stone, but the hardware spec is. 20:9 enhancement won't be added to software discs if the players can't support it.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.Poindexter* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about putting letter box bars in, but talking about taking one out of every 4 lines out and throwing them away for 16x9 displays. That is certainly more processor intensive than putting black bars at the beginning and end I would think.



Players are already going to have to convert from 1080p to 720p (throw out 1 out of every 3 lines and colums), they'll likely have to convert to 480p (5 of every 6 pixels), and will likely have to be able to letterbox for 4:3 displays. Letterboxing anamorphic 1080p isn't any more difficult.


----------



## Monkey_Man

It sounds like 1997 tech with higher rez and more capacity. I'm sure we will see anamorphic high-def dvds in 2 or so years. You would think high-def dvds would start where SD dvd left off... what a joke.


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

I don't think we will see anamorphic HD-DVD/BluRay in a couple of years. This isn't like DVD because anamorphic was in the spec from the beginning even if the content didn't utilize it.


How would an old player that doesn't do anamorphic handle anamorphic DVD? Would stores need to stock anamorphic as well as non-anamorphic widescreen HD discs and think of that confusion. We will probably have to contend with pan and scan 2.35 cut down to 1.78 on top of it all. I doubt they are going to make the high def players sold in the first 2 years incompatible with the later discs just to take care of less than 1% of the market.


----------



## Randomcreek

Well it seems to me that one of the two formats should include an algorithm that would allow for full vertical resolution 2.35:1 ratio (at least). For example, this could be a competitive advantage that HD-DVD could use to get the big screen, high end buyers and also get some studios and directors into their camp as it were. I know it would influence my decision to go with Blue Ray or HD-DVD if one supported full vertical resolution 2.35:1 / CH set up and the other did not. I don't know how many folks currently are going CH, but 5 years ago how many front projectors were sold versus today? Perhaps the projectors themselves will have prismic lenses built in in the future? And 2.35:1 would be just a turn of a dial away . . . . hey, that was my idea.


----------



## mkerdman

Where has it been confirmed that neither HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be encoded to afford support for full a vertical resolution of 2.35:1 in a CH set up?


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

I think it isn't "confirmed they won't have it" as much as it is that neither camp has made any mention of it in their specs. With players hitting the shelves so soon I doubt we are going to see any changes this late in the game. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't put money on getting anamorphic CinemaScope into the spec.


----------



## CAVX

Like I've said before, back in 1996, no-one saw 16:9 coming either...


Mark


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.Poindexter* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't think we will see anamorphic HD-DVD/BluRay in a couple of years. This isn't like DVD because anamorphic was in the spec from the beginning even if the content didn't utilize it.
> 
> 
> How would an old player that doesn't do anamorphic handle anamorphic DVD? Would stores need to stock anamorphic as well as non-anamorphic widescreen HD discs and think of that confusion. We will probably have to contend with pan and scan 2.35 cut down to 1.78 on top of it all. I doubt they are going to make the high def players sold in the first 2 years incompatible with the later discs just to take care of less than 1% of the market.



One workaround would be to encode with MPEG which has provision for 20:9. I know it is not ideal in that it is an older codec, but it would allow all players to decode the stream as MPEG2 *is* part of the spec.


ted


----------



## CAVX

It might still happen. There was a post on another forum with plasmas that came out in native 20:9 ratio. Maybe they were designed to be constant area displays, but maybe, they are sign of things to come...


When did you first see a 16:9 WS TV? I saw my first set in 1993 from JVC, but anamorphically enhanced program like DVD didn't hit the market until 1996 and they didn't turn DTV on here (Australia) until 2001...


Mark


----------



## hdkhang

I think I've mentioned this in another subforum, but I believe the HD D5 masters are square pixels at 1080p, so for the HD-DVD or BD to be 2.35 anamorphic is really wasting bitrate.


With DVDs coming off of HD D5s with 1080 lines of resolution to be scaled down to 480 - 576 lines and over 816 lines of resolution in 2.35:1, there was a point to it.


If the source has only 800ish lines of resolution for 2.35:1 material, then scaling them up to 1080 would add additional bitrate requirements as black bars are far easier to encode than are regular images, and the quality of the upscale won't be such that there is an increase in quality that can't be achieved by a scaler/htpc/player with stretch functions.


I'd rather get a good 816 lines than macroblocked 1080 lines, not that this will ever coexist just that if the bitbucket were the same then that's how it would play out.


They have mentioned that the black areas are defined in metadata stored on the discs so that scalers would know what to not display if you were to fullscreen it for purposes of say horizontal stretches.


Cheers...

Duy-Khang Hoang


----------



## AustinR

Trying not to beat a dead horse, but want to make sure I understand.... With the way HD-DVD's stand right now they will have black bars on top/bottom for movies in 1.85 or 2.35 AR - the same way DVD's now do with a letterbox?


thanks!

Austin


----------



## stanger89

The way it looks HD-DVD/Blu-ray will be square pixels formats. It appears they support 4x3 and 16x9 resolutions (I believe I saw 1440x1080 and 1920x1080 given as examples once). Anything wider than 16x9 (1.85, 2.35 etc) will have bars just like _anamorphic_ DVDs today.


----------



## CAVX

That would be a shame, but most likey what will happen...


Mark


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The way it looks HD-DVD/Blu-ray will be square pixels formats. It appears they support 4x3 and 16x9 resolutions (I believe I saw 1440x1080 and 1920x1080 given as examples once).



I'm pretty sure the formats themselves only support 16:9 1920x1080. A 4:3 movie will be encoded with black pillarbox bars on the sides, which means that the movie image only uses 1440x1080 of those pixels and the rest are occupied by the bars. Due to the square pixels, there is no "enhancement" for any ratio other than 16:9.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> A 4:3 movie will be encoded with black pillarbox bars on the sides, which means that the movie image only uses 1440x1080 of those pixels and the rest are occupied by the bars.



Well that in itself puts a smile on my dial...


Mark


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the formats themselves only support 16:9 1920x1080.



I'm pretty sure someone posted that 1440x1080 was an allowed resolution, of course it could be that it's 16x9 anamorphic and 4:3 content would be pillarboxed in that


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure someone posted that 1440x1080 was an allowed resolution, of course it could be that it's 16x9 anamorphic and 4:3 content would be pillarboxed in that



But that would imply non square pixels. correct?

As Ben Waggoner stated over in the 'episodic BIG thread" after some of my haranguing. "square pixels are the future". I do not believe that anamorphic (non square) encoding is part of the feature set of new codecs, unfortunately.


Perhaps we can encourage MPEG 20:9 coding. There goes the bitstream.


Pls no arguments about the quality of Next gen vs Old gen codecs.


ted


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

Even still, 20:9 is only 2.22:1 and not the Full Monty.


I predict that limited footage of anamorphic 2.35:1 HD in 1080p24 will pop up sooner than anybody on this forum thinks.


In fact, I would bet a lot of money that there will be some footage in the following formats available in less than a month:

1080p24 anamorphic 2.35:1

1080i anamorphic 2.35:1

1080p30 anamorphic 2.35:1

720p60 anamorphic 2.35:1


This will likely be made in an effort to show what anamorphi 2.35:1 HDTV can look like. There will probably be only a handful of hard core users who can take advantage of it but that won't stop it from becoming a reality.


Anybody want to take that bet?


----------



## CAVX

Here's hoping...


Mark


----------



## tvted

Only question:

What codec? - Neither of the new ones provide for other than square pixels I believe.


ted


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

It isn't going to be backward compatible with non scope displays. It will be hard encoded in anamorphic - just like the LaserDiscs were.


It will be high bitrate MPEG2.


----------



## CAVX

Bring them on...


Mark


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.Poindexter* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It isn't going to be backward compatible with non scope displays. It will be hard encoded in anamorphic - just like the LaserDiscs were.
> 
> 
> It will be high bitrate MPEG2.



Great!

Any idea how high?

In your other thread, I infer this will be only available as download?

Since its incompatible and hard encoded, t'would seem no scaler is necessary as it would already be stretched - I'm assuming 16:9 format i.e. 1920 x 1080.

Thoughts on necessary hardware/software?


Let's go annoy the folk who say MPEG2 should be in the dustbins.










ted


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

Ted,


I was referring to demo clips being available for download. The distribution channel has not yet been confirmed. My guess is that it will be direct market disc of some format or another. Download is a possibility, but try and figure out what the current cost is for a 15-25GB download and the time it would take at your connection speed and it becomes rather obvious that direct download isn't ready for prime time.


----------



## mgoldsmith

Hi All,


I've some sad news i'm afraid.


I have a contact within Sony Australia and asked her to forward my 2.35:1 query to someone in the know over in the USA, with a detailed description and picture for each being submitted to make my query perfectly clear.


The response I just received back confirmed that #1 is the correct method for encoding of 2.35:1 movies on Blu-Ray (see below for both descriptions).


I send the same query to my Warner contact, but as yet have not heard anything back.. but i suspect it will be the same response.


Matt.G


====================

As per the images below (not included on this thread), I would appreciate knowing if either :-


1) 2.35:1 HD movies will be stored within the 1920x1080 pixel area pre-formatted/encoded WITH black bars top and bottom,

so as the 2.35:1 movie portion has only approx 818 pixels/lines of height and the other 262 lines of info will be the black bars top and bottom.



OR


2) 2.35:1 HD movies will be "anamorphically" encoded to take up full 1920x1080 pixel area, meaning NO black bars top and bottom. The consumer can then choose the desired output type via the player menu system and The full 1080 pixels/line of information is initially dedicated to the original 2.35:1 image for maximum resolution.


----------



## mkerdman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgoldsmith* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> I've some sad news i'm afraid.
> 
> 
> I have a contact within Sony Australia and asked her to forward my 2.35:1 query to someone in the know over in the USA, with a detailed description and picture for each being submitted to make my query perfectly clear.
> 
> 
> The response I just received back confirmed that #1 is the correct method for encoding of 2.35:1 movies on Blu-Ray (see below for both descriptions).
> 
> 
> I send the same query to my Warner contact, but as yet have not heard anything back.. but i suspect it will be the same response.
> 
> 
> Matt.G
> 
> 
> ====================
> 
> As per the images below (not included on this thread), I would appreciate knowing if either :-
> 
> 
> 1) 2.35:1 HD movies will be stored within the 1920x1080 pixel area pre-formatted/encoded WITH black bars top and bottom,
> 
> so as the 2.35:1 movie portion has only approx 818 pixels/lines of height and the other 262 lines of info will be the black bars top and bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> OR
> 
> 
> 2) 2.35:1 HD movies will be "anamorphically" encoded to take up full 1920x1080 pixel area, meaning NO black bars top and bottom. The consumer can then choose the desired output type via the player menu system and The full 1080 pixels/line of information is initially dedicated to the original 2.35:1 image for maximum resolution.




Is there any chance that this is but one method a studio might adopt (#1) while another might elect choose to use method #2?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgoldsmith* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> I've some sad news i'm afraid.



Sad but not surprising.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mkerdman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is there any chance that this is but one method a studio might adopt (#1) while another might elect choose to use method #2?



What's been suggested (if not stated) here on this forum, is that there's no provision in the new formats for anamorphic encoding, that 2.35 using the full resolution available isn't possible, that they will be square pixel formats.


Of course as mentioned already, it's been said that the D5 masters are 1920x1080 square-pixel (non-anamorphically) encoded, thus there would be no benefit to an anamorphic Blu-ray/HD-DVD release since the source would not have the added resolution to begin with.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgoldsmith* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As per the images below (not included on this thread), I would appreciate knowing if either :-
> 
> 
> 1) 2.35:1 HD movies will be stored within the 1920x1080 pixel area pre-formatted/encoded WITH black bars top and bottom,
> 
> so as the 2.35:1 movie portion has only approx 818 pixels/lines of height and the other 262 lines of info will be the black bars top and bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> OR
> 
> 
> 2) 2.35:1 HD movies will be "anamorphically" encoded to take up full 1920x1080 pixel area, meaning NO black bars top and bottom. The consumer can then choose the desired output type via the player menu system and The full 1080 pixels/line of information is initially dedicated to the original 2.35:1 image for maximum resolution.



I would take anything SONY Australia has to say with a grain of salt. Whilst I would believe the result will be number 1, SONY Australia said (and I still have the letter from 1999 or 2000) that we (R4) would not get DTS audio on DVD either. Yet for a time everting had a DTS soundtrack - not to mention the re-issues on Super-Bit.


Right now there is a clear misunderstanding of the need for true anamorphic widescreen (you just have to read theses threads







) so there is little wonder why people lean towards letterboxing.


Even so, 811 lines is a fair greater improvement from the 400 or so lines we have now. And at least we are getting OAR. There was talk that all titles might be P&S back to 1.78:1...and that would just suck...


Mark


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

The only way you are going to see 2.35:1 anamorphic is if it is shot that way or telecined that way. Either one would require specialized equipment.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Of course as mentioned already, it's been said that the D5 masters are 1920x1080 square-pixel (non-anamorphically) encoded, thus there would be no benefit to an anamorphic Blu-ray/HD-DVD release since the source would not have the added resolution to begin with.



Existing masters wouldn't benefit, but theoretically the studios could start striking new "anamorphic" masters. Many of the first-generation DVD titles were non-anamorphic letterbox because the studios tried to recycle their old laserdisc masters.


It's a moot point, anyway. The hardware won't support it.


----------



## tvted

In case you folks have not seen this......
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=750028 


Small note:

CJplay works for WBHE encoding the very movies you watch.


Though it still seems impossible, why not let your opinion be heard?


ted


----------



## CraigN

I am a bit confused here. So here comes a basic question.

I currently have a 2.35:1 screen, a Panasonic AX-100E projector and a Prismasonic 1200M anamorphic lens. I use the vertical fit function in the projector to do the vertical stretch for SD DVDs and am really enjoying the results.


If I buy an HD dvd or Bluray player, I see that most of the available titles are 2.40:1.

I realise that only about 810 lines of the possible 1080 are being used here. I assume this will be scaled to the 720P resolution of my projector and I will see the top & bottom black bars. But will I still be able to vertically fit that information to occupy the whole panel and then horizontally expand with the lens as I do with SD DVD?


----------



## CAVX

It will depend if the Panny can display the HD content "stretched". If not, then you will need an external scaler. You will come in front as the 810 lines will be scaled down to 720...


Mark


----------



## CraigN

The projector manual states that it can do it over HDMI, so it looks promising. I will have to get a demo at a Panasonic delaer first. Many thanks.


----------



## CAVX

OK but is that for SD DVD (16:9 enhanced) or the HD formats as well which are not 16:9 enhanced?


Mark


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OK but is that for SD DVD (16:9 enhanced) or the HD formats as well which are not 16:9 enhanced?



The HD formats are native 16:9. They don't need to be "enhanced" for 16:9. For the purposes of this discussion, the HD formats work exactly the same as an anamorphic DVD, only with more resolution.


What we're discussing is a new standard for "anamorphically enhancing" 2.35:1 content.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The HD formats are native 16:9. They don't need to be "enhanced" for 16:9. For the purposes of this discussion, the HD formats work exactly the same as an anamorphic DVD, only with more resolution.
> 
> 
> What we're discussing is a new standard for "anamorphically enhancing" 2.35:1 content.



Ok maybe my last post didn't make sense so I will try again. The SD DVD format is based around a 1.33:1 AR with 720 x 540 pixels (with 567 for PAL and 480 for NTSC). It has the ability to store a 16:9 image by using the anamorphic (16:9) process where by to fit the 16:9 image in, the image is squeezed (some say vertically stretched) so that more (all for 16:9) of the vertical pixels are being used. 235 film have the black bars encoded as part of the image and occupy about 25% of the vertical rez.


When we scale this image for CIH, we are by default displaying the image as it is stored on the disc - IE at 33% thinner than what is the correct geometric proportions.


If your projector "scales" the image we clip off the top and bottom portions of the image, hence lose the bars to and bottom.


The anamorphic lens than optically stretches (or compresses) the image by 33% to restore the geometry.


The HD formats offers both true HD at 1920 x 1080 as well as a SD version of 960 x 540 where both are 16:9 not 12:9.


I don't own either at this stage, so am keen to learn the specs...


Mark


----------



## CraigN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OK but is that for SD DVD (16:9 enhanced) or the HD formats as well which are not 16:9 enhanced?
> 
> 
> Mark



Mark,

the AX-100 manual specifically states that it can do vertical fit for 1080i & 1080p. That is all I can say without trying it.


----------



## nietzscheman

It is my understanding that movies shot on 35 mm film in Cinemascope use an anamorphic lens on the film projector when shooting the movie. Therefore, the image on the 35 mm negative has been horizontally compressed by a factor of 2. When projected later on in the theater, the theater projector also has an anamorphic lens to retore the proper geometry to the image. The resulting frame is then around 2.39-2.66:1 which results from doubling the original 1.33:1 35 mm frame.


Why wouldn't the studios simply transfer the original image from the negative during the telecine process and then require an anamorphic process for display?


This would remove the need for a vertical stretch using a video scaler and would natively use the full resolution of the display. Ironically, it would need to be a 4:3 display since that is the original aspect ratio of 35 mm film.


Does this thinking make any sense?









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen 


Thanks,


Michael


----------



## usualsuspects

This is one of my rants about the HD disks (HD-DVD and BR), no anamorphic enhancement. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the best way to go about this. If you drop a 4x3 image with 2x squeeze onto a 1.78:1 native disk format, you lose horizontal resolution. I would like to see a 2.40 film at 1920x1080 (1.33x vertical expansion). This works really well from many standpoints. Anamorphic lens users with 1080p projectors can output this image as-is with no scaling and get a great image, and 16:9 users can get a good image via the display or player dropping every 4th vertical line of resolution (easy to do for the display/scaler). It requires more work on the part of the people who are doing the transfer, but no more than is already needed to do the current letterbox scheme we see now. I am in total agreement with you that HD disks are in need of anamorphic enhancement, it is a pathetic oversight on the part of the HD disk spec committees (that last word is the problem right there).


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nietzscheman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't the studios simply transfer the original image from the negative during the telecine process and then require an anamorphic process for display?
> 
> 
> This would remove the need for a vertical stretch using a video scaler and would natively use the full resolution of the display. Ironically, it would need to be a 4:3 display since that is the original aspect ratio of 35 mm film.
> 
> 
> Does this thinking make any sense?



Your plan wouldn't work. First off, 35mm film has a native aspect ratio of 1.37:1. HD video has a native aspect ratio of 16:9. You can't just take the original 1.37:1 image and encode it onto HD video without pillarboxing it. Sure you could stretch this later, but you're still losing horizontal resolution due to the pillarboxing.


Also, your plan would require 2:1 anamorphic lenses, which are not currently sold on the consumer HT market.


Further, the players would still need a way to downconvert this stretched anamorphic image for standard 16:9 display. If you're going to do that anyway, you might as well do it the right way, would would be to stretch the 2.35:1 image vertically to fill the 16:9 frame and downconvert from there.


----------



## CAVX

usualsuspects is right on the ball here







Simply adding a 21:9 (lets call it "scope" ) setting to the player menus means that like SD DVD, the scope image would use the full height of the display and still allow it to be played on 16:9 screens, though removing every fourth line will upset the 16:9 HD crowd.


The other option is to format an image in to 2560 x 1080, then horizontally squeeze that image into the 1920 x 1080 frame.


But again, you end up with a non uniform standard across the board...


Mark


----------



## CraigN

So, after this discussion, I would really like to here if anybody has experienced Blu ray or HD DVD in a CIH setup.


----------



## CAVX

Maybe Mgoldsmith has on of the formats by now and might care to share...


Mark


----------



## wcaughey

I've gone over and over this debate in my head, mostly to try to understand what is going on, and what the impact of the hddvd format, square pixel resolution, has on 2.35 CH presentation.


Is there a distinct difference in PQ (what looks better) associated with HDDVD replication in 2.35:1 CH setups with 720p vs 1080p projectors? (I guess hddvd and bluray are interchangeable in my post)


Is there a benefit to using a 720p projector for 2.35:1 CH over a 1080p?


To expand a little...


Basically I'm wondering if with all this discussion about loosing resolution with 1080p projectors, the loss is as great for 720p projectors as it is for 1080p projectors.


Since a HD DVD disc is encoded with 1920x1080 lines of resolution, with the estimation that of that, 1920x263 is encoded black bars, there remains 1920x800 (basing off of 800 x 2.40 = 1920).


I'm suggesting here that 1920x800 is still great to work with on a scaler detail-wise, compared to 720x480 standard dvd resolution upscaled to 1080p if you are using equal scalers.


In scaling this to a 1280x720 projector, with the remaining 1920x800 the scaler would remove 1 vertical line for every 10 (you'd then have 1280x800) and 1 horizontal line removed for about every 8, to get to 1280x720. This 1.78 shape is then stretched out after projection through an anamorphic lens. This is more or less just a cropping technique of a richer source which is being down-rezed to fit a 1.78:1 space. In this technique,


614,400 pixels are lost from the actual movie image on the HD DVD disc.


In my opinion 720p 2.35:1 CH HDDVD, which I have seen, looks really detailed and sharp.


Let me say in advance that I am still a bit cloudy about what occurs from a hdvd feed scaled for a 1080p for 2.35:1 CH, but this is what I had in mind.


With 1080p projection I am already seeing a problem. with the 1920x800 of actual picture pixels you want to go to 1920x1080, a 1920x280 pixel increase out of nowhere. This opens the door to macroblocking and all the other problems one would have with upscaling a lower resolution image to fit a larger resolution display (very dependant on the quality of a scaler). This may not seem like such a big deal at first, but continue...


The larger problem, however, is because the pixels need to be 'square' to fill the resolution of the projector (1920x1080) and while trying to maintain as much of the 1920x800 and at the same time keep that square, you end up not only having the issues of upscaling, but having to drop vertical lines of pixels to maintain the integrity of geometry (have the 1.78:1 shape). This further lowers the available image resolution to approximately ~1424x800 (which is a 1.78 'square' pixel displayed image maintaining the 800 of useable height) which can then correctly scale to fill the projectors 1.78:1 1080p resolution.


In this technique, 396,800 pixels are lost from the original HDDVD (1920x800 image), however 934,400 more pixels must be artifically added to fill the 1080x1920 projector's resolution.


Now I'll admit I haven't seen a 2.35:1 CH HDDVD on a 1080p projector, but I'd imagine that the better quality a scaler one had, the better it would improve since a considerable amount of pixels had to be added. The picture would be sharper than 720 as the 1080p had about half as many discarded pixels. However, the quality of the scaler would ultimately impact (I think) how great of an image you'd get on a 1080p projector.


Please feel free to corect any of my thinking if it is indeed wrong.


In reference to proper scaling of hddvds for 2.35:1 CH, am I incorrect in thinking that 720p projector is more 'cropping' of pixels while a 1080p projector is ~1/2 the cropping, but a great deal of added processing for scaling?


Does anyone else see an advantage of the 720p projector over the 1080p?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've gone over and over this debate in my head, mostly to try to understand what is going on, and what the impact of the hddvd format, square pixel resolution, has on 2.35 CH presentation.



Basically the "square pixel" rez is to max out the panel of the projector at 1:1 mapping which is great for 16:9 1920 x 1080, but not useful for us in CIH without a scaler...



> Quote:
> Is there a distinct difference in PQ (what looks better) associated with HDDVD replication in 2.35:1 CH setups with 720p vs 1080p projectors? (I guess hddvd and bluray are interchangeable in my post)
> 
> 
> Is there a benefit to using a 720p projector for 2.35:1 CH over a 1080p?



I'm sure those who have a 1080P display would say that there is nothing better, but the way I see it, a 720 is going to be better than a 1080 when fed 810 lines...



> Quote:
> To expand a little...
> 
> 
> Basically I'm wondering if with all this discussion about loosing resolution with 1080p projectors, the loss is as great for 720p projectors as it is for 1080p projectors.



It is not that different to SD where whilst we gain projector rez, we by default lose on source rez. At least with a HD feed into a 720, there is still a surplus of pixels - IE 810 is still more than 720...



> Quote:
> Since a HD DVD disc is encoded with 1920x1080 lines of resolution, with the estimation that of that, 1920x263 is encoded black bars, there remains 1920x800 (basing off of 800 x 2.40 = 1920).



My figures are a little rounder with the "scope" image being 1920 x 810...



> Quote:
> I'm suggesting here that 1920x800 is still great to work with on a scaler detail-wise, compared to 720x480 standard dvd resolution upscaled to 1080p if you are using equal scalers.
> 
> 
> In scaling this to a 1280x720 projector, with the remaining 1920x800 the scaler would remove 1 vertical line for every 10 (you'd then have 1280x800) and 1 horizontal line removed for about every 8, to get to 1280x720. This 1.78 shape is then stretched out after projection through an anamorphic lens. This is more or less just a cropping technique of a richer source which is being down-rezed to fit a 1.78:1 space. In this technique,
> 
> 
> 614,400 pixels are lost from the actual movie image on the HD DVD disc.
> 
> 
> In my opinion 720p 2.35:1 CH HDDVD, which I have seen, looks really detailed and sharp.



And I would have to agree with that. The point is by using a 720 display, you down rezing everything to a common size, your not trying to upscale a smaller amount...



> Quote:
> Let me say in advance that I am still a bit cloudy about what occurs from a hdvd feed scaled for a 1080p for 2.35:1 CH, but this is what I had in mind.
> 
> 
> With 1080p projection I am already seeing a problem. with the 1920x800 of actual picture pixels you want to go to 1920x1080, a 1920x280 pixel increase out of nowhere. This opens the door to macroblocking and all the other problems one would have with upscaling a lower resolution image to fit a larger resolution display (very dependant on the quality of a scaler). This may not seem like such a big deal at first, but continue...
> 
> 
> The larger problem, however, is because the pixels need to be 'square' to fill the resolution of the projector (1920x1080) and while trying to maintain as much of the 1920x800 and at the same time keep that square, you end up not only having the issues of upscaling, but having to drop vertical lines of pixels to maintain the integrity of geometry (have the 1.78:1 shape). This further lowers the available image resolution to approximately ~1424x800 (which is a 1.78 'square' pixel displayed image maintaining the 800 of useable height) which can then correctly scale to fill the projectors 1.78:1 1080p resolution.



Good points but in working with "round numbers" 1.33:1 = 1440 x 1080, 1.78:1 = 1920 x 1080 and "scope" would actually be 2560 x 1080...Right now that scope image is 1920 x 810...



> Quote:
> In this technique, 396,800 pixels are lost from the original HDDVD (1920x800 image), however 934,400 more pixels must be artifically added to fill the 1080x1920 projector's resolution.
> 
> 
> Now I'll admit I haven't seen a 2.35:1 CH HDDVD on a 1080p projector, but I'd imagine that the better quality a scaler one had, the better it would improve since a considerable amount of pixels had to be added. The picture would be sharper than 720 as the 1080p had about half as many discarded pixels. However, the quality of the scaler would ultimately impact (I think) how great of an image you'd get on a 1080p projector.
> 
> 
> Please feel free to corect any of my thinking if it is indeed wrong.
> 
> 
> In reference to proper scaling of hddvds for 2.35:1 CH, am I incorrect in thinking that 720p projector is more 'cropping' of pixels while a 1080p projector is ~1/2 the cropping, but a great deal of added processing for scaling?
> 
> 
> Does anyone else see an advantage of the 720p projector over the 1080p?



I do simply from the perspective that you only get out what you put in. 1920 x 1080 looks fantastic on a 1920 x 1080 display.


However 1920 x 1080 down rezed to fit a 1280 x 720 display also looks divine. The benefit IMHO comes to play when we talk "scope" ratios, as we still have more source rez in the end...


Mark


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CraigN* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, after this discussion, I would really like to here if anybody has experienced Blu ray or HD DVD in a CIH setup.



I've got HD DVD, what do you want to know?


----------



## Vern Dias

I have both HD DVD and BD in a constant height setup. Sony Qualia 004 projector and Isco Cinema DLP anamorphic lens projecting on a 5' x 13' curved screen. Using a CII scaler for video processing. Believe me, it doesn't get any better than this with the technology available to us today.


And, no, despite what others have said in the thread, a 720P projector is clearly inferior in this setup. I also have a Sharp 12K, so I know this for a fact.


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've gone over and over this debate in my head, mostly to try to understand what is going on, and what the impact of the hddvd format, square pixel resolution, has on 2.35 CH presentation..



Scaler manufacturers either don't want to tell people exactly what they are doing, or they don't mind telling the specific details of what they are doing, but it's pretty obscure and no one asks. Here are some observations and guesses related to Lumagen HDP/HDQ/PRO scalers.


Remember - these are just my recollections and guesses. The below all assume you are using a 1.33x stretch or squeeze lens for scope viewing


You mention cropping, perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying (likely), but that cannot ever happen - if any cropping occurs anywhere you would end up with either: the wrong aspect ratio, or a border around the active image area would be missing (I see neither on my former 720p setup or my new 1080p setup). Perhaps you mean that there are two scaling operations going on for 1080 scope to 1920x1080 - a downscale then an upscale - if so, I don't think that is what is happening.


As to the square vs non-square pixels issues - I never understood this one, I don't think it applies to anything, other than the scaling engine needs to know this information on a technical level to do the scaling.


As I recall, Lumagen has said that downscaling is harder than upscaling.


I don't want to get into a debate about how many vertical lines are in a letterboxed scope active image area, I will use 800 vertical lines (1920/2.40).


My theory on what Lumagen is doing with 1080 output and 1080 input letterboxed scope films: all the pixels of the input target window (call it 1920x800) are being used, plus some added (vertical stretch) to fill the panel. None of the pixels are being dropped, rather more are added (in reality - all pixels are changed).


My theory on what Lumagen is doing with 720 output and 1080 input letterboxed scope films: I'm not sure exactly how the scaling is done on a technical level







, but I assume it is a direct shrink/scale from 1920x800 to 1280x720.


Here is how I look at it:

Film pixels: 1,536,000 (1920x800)

720P pixels: 921,600 (lose 40% of pixels)

1080P pixels: 2,073,600 (don't lose any pixels, and have to add 500k+ pixels)


The above is naïve because that comparison does not really apply, whenever you scale, you lose all the pixels in both cases - because all the pixels are changed).


The biggest plus to me on the 720p side is the vertical resolution is close and you don't lose too much there, but throwing away 1/3 of the horizontal resolution can't be without consequences.


When you use a lens, you introduce geometric and chromatic distortions. When you scale you introduce scaling artifacts.1080 scope on a 720p projector + lens looks great, far better than SD-DVD, so the question boils down to - is it worth it to use a lens + scaler for scope on a 1080 projector? I think the answer is: it's your call. I think that a good scaler + good lens = worth it to many people as evidenced by the number of persons who do 1080p projectors + scalers + lenses. Mediocre lens + mediocre scaler + 1080 projector = might not be worth it. Something to consider on 1080 projectors is that even if the scaling + lens = a wash on image quality vs zoomed scope, you will gain brightness (something lacking in most reasonably priced 1080p projectors currently).


I am in-between lenses at the moment, I had a 720p + Prismasonic setup, now I have a 1080P + waiting for my UH380 and sled setup







I have tried setting the output AR to 2.35:1 on my HDQ, but it is impossible to tell what it looks like w/o a lens in front.


I will surely post my impressions on the UH380 + 1080p projector setup once I get it up an running.


----------



## eq_shadimar

I have an A1 HD-DVD player, AX100, and H700 constant height setup. The projector is doing all necessary scaling. I too would be willing to answer any questions people have.


Inferior as it may be I still enjoy the picture










Laters,

Jeff


----------



## CraigN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eq_shadimar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have an A1 HD-DVD player, AX100, and H700 constant height setup. The projector is doing all necessary scaling. I too would be willing to answer any questions people have.
> 
> 
> Inferior as it may be I still enjoy the picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laters,
> 
> Jeff



Thanks to all.


Specifically, Jeff, I have an AX100 with a prismasonic lens and also do the necessary scaling with the pj. I have an SD setup at this time but am contemplating HD-DVD or Bluray. I notice most of their titles are 2.40:1. Am I correct?

When using the vertical fit mode on the Panny & the source is 2.40:1, , is the image fully stretched to occupy all of the pixels or do you still see quite small black bars top & bottom?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And, no, despite what others have said in the thread, a 720P projector is clearly inferior in this setup.



Oh, of course, all else equal, 1080p is better. But the real question is in the case of 720p PJ with anamorphic lens vs 1080p projector without. How much does the lens, and being able to drive all 720 lines with "real" image information close the gap vs native 1080p.


Obviously there's a gap, because 1280x720 is still not enough to fully resolve all lines of a 1080p scope film (1920x812),


The question is: How much better is 1280x720 vs 1280x544? Unfortunately I can't answer because my setup won't allow "proper" (read inside the screen) display of anything without the lens.


----------



## wcaughey

usualsuspects, great to hear how someone else thinks this works as well.


I called Lumagen today and had a chat with them about how their scalers work with HD sources and getting rid of encoded blackbars on those HD sources.


I just wanted to clarify that there are some different ways of operating scalers to achive the 2.35:1 CH that one would want.


I did misuse 'cropping'. What I did mean by this is that one is trying to rid themselves of the black bars, and instead replace their pixels with that of the movie. I will use pixel 'change' the same way you have to indicate a shift from static black to dynamic film pixel.


One of the methods lumagen uses for 2.35:1 CH with HD material is inputting the aspect ratio of your screen and then zooming in twice. Before zooming in, one sees the movie image framed in black bars, on top, bottom, and sides. We spoke at length in detail of what exactly this constitiutes. In a 1080p projector, setting the aspect ratio of your screen to 2.35 scales the 1920x800 film image to 1440x800 placing it within a blackframe. This is essentially a downscaling process.


Contrary to what you said, usualsuspects, the lumagen support represetative I talked to mentioned that downscaling is much easier than upscaling. This makes more sense too, as making something where there is formerly nothing is more difficult than taking information already there and removing some of it.


The user would then zoom in twice with the remote to fill the display pannel with the 1440x800 then becoming 1920x1080 - an upscaling process by way of the original 1440x800 material. In this method, you are actually removing 384,000 (480x800) of the orignal pixels on a 1080p anamorphic scaled display (from 1920x800 to 1440x800) and when the upscaling process of zooming takes place 921,600 pixels are 'changed' from black framing to film pixels, filling the display panel.


The second method we spoke about was that of maintaining the 1920 pixels and instead vertically 'stretching' the corners via topl and botml, and if that wasn't enough, the output->resolution->size. He agreed that this would better preserve as much of the original 1920x800 image we are most interested in, and the upscaling would occur when the image was vertically stretched to fill the panel. This would be the 1.33x stretch vertically instead of going through what the first process. As you mentioned, this results in no pixels lost and when the vertical upscaling takes place 500k (537,000 to be exact) pixels are 'changed' from black bars to film pixels, full panel once again.


judging from this, seems like the second option is much better.


For anyone else using a lumagen, he also mentioned that they'd shortly be adding a informative 2.35:1 CH FAQ including hd dvds to their site in order to help people achieve their goals with using lumagen scalers in anamorphic setups.


-Will


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> usualsuspects, great to hear how someone else thinks this works as well.....ED: (much useful info)...



That is very interesting. Amazing what you learn when you talk to the people who built the device you are trying to understand







I tried both the 16:9 output AR + severely manipulate the TOPL and BTMR vs the 2.35:1 output AR methods on my 720P + lens setup, and could not see one as being better than the other. Likely this is due to the lack of horizontal resolution on a 720P projector swallowing the double scaling penalty. It's nice to have a confirmation that you can/do get a 1.33x vertical expansion without losing horizontal resolution if you use the correct method, and that (Finally!!!) Lumagen will have a CH faq


----------



## wcaughey

Yea, I was also going to mention the downrezzing to a 720p anamorphic 2.35:1 CH with the lumagen in the same manner, but didn't have time...but now I do










I also have not yet seen 1080p projection, anamorphic or not, with either method of scaling. It would be great to hear the opinion of someone who can compare.


With a 720p it's not suprising that you wouldn't see much of a difference. Let's see how 1280x720 pixels and a 1920x800 source fits into the lumagen 2 methods...


Please correct me if my calculations are off, all these numbers are finally starting to mess with my head.


Through the first method...

The 1920x800 original 1080 image exists as a 1280x540 image in 720p land. When scaled down to our black framed box, we'd have an image of 960x540 (which is 1,017,600 (960x260) pixels removed from actual film image from the 1920x800 material). Interestingly, I calculated 960x540 to be 34% of the theoretical unaltered 1920x800 (518,400 / 1,536,00) source. Note that by method 1, 1080p projectors come to be 75% of the theoretical unaltered 1920x800 (1,152,000 / 1,536,000) source. Perhaps this can be seen as an efficiency rating, or use of original pixels rating. That was just the downscaling phase of method 1. The second part of method one is the upscaling. Using the 960x540, additional pixels are 'changed' to increase the overall resolution to 1280x720. 403,200 pixels are 'changed' through the upscaling zoom process to do this. It is also interesting to note that this is the 44% of the total resolution of the 720p projector added via the scaler (by this mean changing of the black area to dynamic film area, inversely 66% of the image is created directly by the source).


Moving on to method 2...


Having our 1280x540 to work with, method two keeps the 1280 horizontal pixels the same and once again just stretches the 540 to 720 on the vertical axis (~ a 1.33x stretch) via topl and botl on lumagen's scalers. Obviously there is loss from the 1920x800 original image to the 1280x540 downrez (844,800 pixels, wow), but maintaing the 1280 horizontal lines of resolution instead of downscaling it to 960 yields 172,800 more original (from the hd dvd source) than method 1.




In summary:

Scaling results via the 2 lumagen methods to achieve full panel resolution.


1080p method 1:

raw image after downrez: 1440x800

efficiency rating/use of orginal pixels: 75%


1080p method 2:

raw image after downrez: 1920x800 (no downrez)

efficiency rating/use of orginal pixels: 100%


720p method 1:

raw image after downrez: 960x540

efficiency rating/use of orginal pixels: 34%


720p method 2:

raw image after downrez: 1280x540

efficiency rating/use of orginal pixels: 45%


Going back to a previous question I asked about any advantage a 720p projector may have over a 1080p in displaying hd dvd's anamorphically, I guess I've answered that for myself. I swear vern, never for a moment did I think my 720p projector was better than any 1080p projector, anamorphic or not!










edit: also wanted to mention, it would be impossibly hard, I think, to see the difference between method 1 or 2 because the 'efficiency ratings' are so close. Remember to note that using these pixels the scaler very effectively generates the rest of the image. And if a scaler does there job well it would be near impossible to tell the difference between 720p method 1 and method 2.


For 720p projection, does anyone see implications in feeding the processor 720p from the HD DVD instead of 1080i? Anyone know if this would change any numbers?


Edit2: wrong number for a resolution in 720p method 2.


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For 720p projection, does anyone see implications in feeding the processor 720p from the HD DVD instead of 1080i? Anyone know if this would change any numbers?



Hmm, I think that is a try before you buy question. My theory is always feed the scaler a native image, why introduce double scaling if you don't have to? There does not seem to be any advantage to letting the player manipulate the image - that is the scalers job in my book.


On a way off topic note, I was watching The Good The Bad and The Ugly on "HD" cable and decided for no particular reason to compare it to my SD DVD version on the Toshiba A1. They were very close, there might have been a tiny bit more detail and/or some noise reduction in the "HD" broadcast version, but I don't really have my system dialed in yet for 1080. 90% of the time, if I see a film on "HD" that is 10 years old or older that I have on DVD, it looks about the same as my scaled SD DVD's. I question the actual source material - it looks like scaled SD to me.


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For 720p projection, does anyone see implications in feeding the processor 720p from the HD DVD instead of 1080i? Anyone know if this would change any numbers?



720p output on the HD DVD players looks a lot worse than it should. It may have been fixed with a firmware update, but they were recommending everyone to use 1080i output - even if you have a 720p display.


If you have a scaler you should use 1080i for HD DVD anyway. The discs are 1080p, the Toshiba outputs every other scan line (1080i), and the scaler will restore the original 1080p through deinterlacing, then downscale 1080p to 720p.


While it would seem intuitive that the HD DVD player would do that itself, based on the results it looks like another path is being taken (i.e. Toshiba internally converts 1080p to 1080i, then internally converts 1080i to 720p)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The second method we spoke about was that of maintaining the 1920 pixels and instead vertically 'stretching' the corners via topl and botml, and if that wasn't enough, the output->resolution->size.



The 1st method casues noticable softening on my 1080p Ruby. The 2nd method works, but it assumes the active image area will always be in the same place. I'm not sure that's always the case. Also, as Vern has pointed out, not all movies are exactly 2.35:1. It would be a nice feature for a scaler to autodetect the active image area, add black bars to maintain the user defined aspect ratio, and then scale the image up to a native 1:1 pixel mapping on the display.


----------



## wcaughey

I'm glad someone was able to actually test these 2 scaling methods with a 1080p projector. It's nice to see some tests of my multi-method theory. Thanks a lot rabident. It's comforting to know that method 1 is softer (as it should be) than method 2.


I also have witnessed the active area slightly shifting in some inputs versus others and have tried to explain this on the lumagen forums. I agree it would be awesome to have a scaler that autodetected the active area of the picture. On the lumagen forums this was discussed in a thread here:
http://www.convergent-av.co.uk/forum...c611f#msg_4171 


It basically calls the feature 'auto-cropping' which can be misleading. What they mean is detection of the active area and auto-stretching the image to fill it entirely with the active area.


When I did talk to the Tech on the phone he said they were working to create something similar to this for those that wanted it. I think one also replied to the thread and mentioned something towards this end.


I've honestly been bothering lumagen for awhile about doing something to this extent about preserving resolution with hddvds


----------



## AMRCC

So after reading all this...

In our movie collection databases, Are we to label our Blu-ray movies as Non-Animorphic or Not Applicable?

Previously I had three choices (? for not sure, N for Non and A for Animorphic)


In the past, the case inserts left much to be desired in determining this and while IMDB helped a lot it was sometimes inaccurate as well. They don't have a lot of info on the new formats yet either (as far as I can tell nobody does and the studios are all over the place with their case labels).


In my case, I was mainly labeling SD movies that were A or N so my wife would know which ones she would be able to make work. For Animorphics she can work the theater by just pressing [DVD] on the remote







Movies like True Lies (that are Non-Animorphic) they need a Zoom, flick of a toggle and a forced res (not remoteable). Now if I have to put a N next to the Blu-rays - How am I to explain that to someone not like us? (to put it nicely)


BTW - For me, Blu-rays are amazing looking and sounding - not changing anything on the setup right after I came home from the launch of the PS3 and pluggin it in and just popping a BR in it - the color depth and detail are at least 50% better than the best SuperBit. The sound in a 6.1 uncompressed track is equally impressive.


----------



## stanger89

Sounds like for you it might be better to revise your labeling to "widescreen" and "not widescreen", because most BD/HD DVDs have the same aspect ratio (1.78:1) as anamorphic DVD (note I'm talking the AR of the data not the movie).


Anamorphic or not, technically doesn't apply to BD/HD DVD, but most are made for 16:9 TVs just like anamorphic DVD, if that makes sense.


----------



## Vern Dias

Just a heads up: You need to be very careful when you choose a scaler. Some of the scalers / chips out there do not allow the width of the image to exceed the output resolution to the display.


One example: "Mutiny On the Bounty". Filmed in Ultra Panavision, the AR on the HD DVD is 2.76:1. When I tried to crop a little bit of the sides to fit it on my 2.65:1 screen, my CII refused to cooperate. It flat out refused to allow the image width to be scaled beyond 1920 pixels. Turns out that some scaling chips cannot do this. So my only alternative with this title using the CII was small black bars top and bottom


On the other side of the coin, I have been doing this for years with my HTPC using Theatertek. The new PowerDVD Ultra for HD DVD and BD using YXY for scaling will also allow this.


Vern


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> When I tried to crop a little bit of the sides to fit it on my 2.65:1 screen


----------



## Luke212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I kind of doubt it, look at it this way, these players already have to convert from from any of: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p to any other format, in comparision, adding letterbox bars should be trivial. I mean PCs have been able to properlly letterbox content for years, as have DVD players.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, they should have provided the capability to encode _everything_ at 1920x1080 with a 1-byte (8-bit) aspect ratio flag. Such a config would have made use of _all_ the available pixels and supported every aspect ratio from 1:1 to 2.56:1 with 0.01 incriments and no wasted pixels.
> 
> 
> Allas it appears we're going to be stuck in square-pixel world.



ahaha did you read my HD-DVD thread? i was arguing this and people were hammering me !! good to see a thread here with some commonsense!!!!!


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Luke212* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ahaha did you read my HD-DVD thread? i was arguing this and people were hammering me !! good to see a thread here with some commonsense!!!!!



Yeah...it's been discussed at length in this forum as it's really only an issue for CIH folks. As it is, you work with what you've got...


----------



## music.flick

i wish i had an equipment like this. in my dreams...


----------



## ca1ore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I called Lumagen today and had a chat with them about how their scalers work with HD sources and getting rid of encoded blackbars on those HD sources.
> 
> 
> I just wanted to clarify that there are some different ways of operating scalers to achive the 2.35:1 CH that one would want.



OK, don't mean to be dense, but why is this any different with 2.35:1 encoded films on HD versus standard DVD. In both cases, aren't the black bars encoded?


Simon


----------



## ca1ore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The second method we spoke about was that of maintaining the 1920 pixels and instead vertically 'stretching' the corners via topl and botml, and if that wasn't enough, the output->resolution->size. He agreed that this would better preserve as much of the original 1920x800 image we are most interested in, and the upscaling would occur when the image was vertically stretched to fill the panel. This would be the 1.33x stretch vertically instead of going through what the first process. As you mentioned, this results in no pixels lost and when the vertical upscaling takes place 500k (537,000 to be exact) pixels are 'changed' from black bars to film pixels, full panel once again.



Presumably in this scenario, one would not change the output aspect ratio to 2.35:1; rather leave it at 16:9?


simon


----------



## Cam Man

It seems the simplest and most cost efficient way to arrive at option 2 (full 1920 x 1080 24p anamorphic 2.35 content) is to use disc capacity rather than video processing. This could be done as the flip side of a disc, or another layer (HD-DVD is capable of 51 GB now). We need to find a pipeline to the right ears in the studios to get this idea out there and find some traction. Or will we see this as a specialty disc like Superbit, etc, in a couple of years?


----------



## wcaughey

Cam Man,


That has been brought up many a time in this forum, but always seems to fall on deaf ears outside this forum. A lot people in the home theater industry (engineering, development) don't even know what 2.35:1 CH means, sadly.


Ca1ore,


Yes, it seems to perserve the most of the original source, you'd have to leave it in 16x9 mode and either adjust LBOX or mess with topl and botl. Why lumagen hasn't cited this development (preserving the HD DVD & Bluray pixels in a 2.35:1 setup) is really beyond me, and quite an oversite for a scaler solution of their caliber.


----------



## mpeg3s

What's the resolution of movie film?


I know photo film is like 5300 x 4000.


----------



## ComputerCowboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What's the resolution of movie film?
> 
> 
> I know photo film is like 5300 x 4000.



Kodak scientists used Kodak Vision 500T color negative 5279 film at full aperture 35 mm (sometimes referred to as Super 35). Once developed, the film negative was scanned at 4K pixels per line with a Cineon Genesis scanner to produce digital data using a full scan resolution of 4096 pixels by 3072 lines.


----------



## mpeg3s

If that's the case we are getting RIPPED off!


I will not purchase HD-DVD or Blu-Ray until they make a new 1080p SA select aspect standard.


They should digitize movies at 1920x1080 without letterbox then have the player generate a letter box by scaling out to the ratio that was the director's capture or options.


I'm TIRED of the LB.


You shouldn't have to buy a 100" WS to get near a 60" WS picture. Consumers should have the right to have the entire 16:9 screen filled at 1080p for ALL releases.


Anamorphic should be put to rest.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ComputerCowboy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Kodak scientists used Kodak Vision 500T color negative 5279 film at full aperture 35 mm (sometimes referred to as Super 35). Once developed, the film negative was scanned at 4K pixels per line with a Cineon Genesis scanner to produce digital data using a full scan resolution of 4096 pixels by 3072 lines.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I will not purchase HD-DVD or Blu-Ray until they make a new 1080p SA select aspect standard.



Well then, you're never going to buy one.


Have fun sticking with DVD, which is both vastly lower resolution and doesn't have the feature you're looking for either.



> Quote:
> You shouldn't have to buy a 100" WS to get near a 60" WS picture. Consumers should have the right to have the entire 16:9 screen filled at 1080p for ALL releases.
> 
> 
> Anamorphic should be put to rest.



Filling a 16:9 screen isn't at all what the rest of us are talking about. You're in the entirely wrong forum for that.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wcaughey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For anyone else using a lumagen, he also mentioned that they'd shortly be adding a informative 2.35:1 CH FAQ including hd dvds to their site in order to help people achieve their goals with using lumagen scalers in anamorphic setups.



Interesting. Did they? I didn' t see it..


----------



## usualsuspects

It is here: http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=manuals


----------



## GetGray

Thank you.


----------



## Anthony1

Ok, I've read this entire thread, and my head is spinning. Is the basic gist of all this that if you have a CIH setup, with a 2:35:1 screen, and you watch Blu Rays and HD-DVD movies on it, you aren't actually getting the full resolution?


My projector is 720p, so am I losing out on anything anyways?


----------



## shamus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok, I've read this entire thread, and my head is spinning. Is the basic gist of all this that if you have a CIH setup, with a 2:35:1 screen, and you watch Blu Rays and HD-DVD movies on it, you aren't actually getting the full resolution?
> 
> 
> My projector is 720p, so am I losing out on anything anyways?



Im not understanding it either....


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok, I've read this entire thread, and my head is spinning. Is the basic gist of all this that if you have a CIH setup, with a 2:35:1 screen, and you watch Blu Rays and HD-DVD movies on it, you aren't actually getting the full resolution?



HD DVD and Blu-ray are encoded with square pixels, and with a 1920x1080 format, meaning a 16x9 aspect ratio. This means that scope content must be _letterboxed_ to fit the frame, so for a 2.35:1 movie, you have an active pixel area of 1920x812 or so, with ~130 pixel high bars top and bottom.


What this means for a CIH setup, is that there is no "gain" in source resolution by the CIH image manipulation process. CIH setups don't show any more source "resolution" than non CIH setups. This, of course, assumes 1080p projectors.


Note though, that CIH setups don't "lose" anything vs non CIH setups, the issue being discussed here is that if there were an anamorphic provision in HD DVD/Blu-ray, CIH setups would _gain_ additional source resolution vs non-CIH setups. Basically HD DVD and Blu-ray aren't able to fully utilize a 1080p CIH setup due to no anamorphic provision.


Basically we're complaining that HD DVD and Blu-ray should have been forward looking enough to realize that the high-end of home video reproduction (where HD DVD and Blu-ray really should be catering to) would be significantly 1080p CIH, and HD DVD/Blu-ray should have been designed with that in mind (ie 2.35:1 anamorphic enhancement).



> Quote:
> My projector is 720p, so am I losing out on anything anyways?



No, you don't lose anything, in fact, there can be significant gains on a 720p setup because with CIH you have a 2.35:1 area made up of 1280x720 pixels, vs a non-CIH setup which would have a 2.35:1 area of 1280x540 or so, so for a 720p CIH setup, you'll (potentially) see 33% more vertical resolution than a non CIH 720p setup.


----------



## Anthony1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No, you don't lose anything, in fact, there can be significant gains on a 720p setup because with CIH you have a 2.35:1 area made up of 1280x720 pixels, vs a non-CIH setup which would have a 2.35:1 area of 1280x540 or so, so for a 720p CIH setup, you'll (potentially) see 33% more vertical resolution than a non CIH 720p setup.



Yay!! 720p projectors FTW










Sucks to be you 1080p, lol.


----------



## GetGray

Also, regardless of not having a "gain" in resolution, you do get a gain in that the entire 16x9 panel is being used to generate video information, even if it is upscaled. So you get the extra brightness afforded by using those otherwise unused panel pixels.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yay!! 720p projectors FTW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks to be you 1080p, lol.



I once thought that too - that was until I saw a 1080P/anamorphic lens fed Bru-ray...


Mark


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yay!! 720p projectors FTW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks to be you 1080p, lol.



1920x812 scaled to 1920x1080 is still better than 1920x812 scaled to 1280x720.


----------



## ca1ore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yay!! 720p projectors FTW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks to be you 1080p, lol.



I thought you had to be an adult to post on AVS?


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Also, regardless of not having a "gain" in resolution, you do get a gain in that the entire 16x9 panel is being used to generate video information, even if it is upscaled. So you get the extra brightness afforded by using those otherwise unused panel pixels.



I'm starting to think that the additional pixel density from using the entire panel is more important than the extra light. Extra brightness does not explain the image quality increase that I see from using a lens + 1080P. It is easy for me to set my projector to High mode and zoom a letterboxed scope image to max width. If light increase was the the only or major factor in scope lensed image quality, then the zoomed + high should about equal the lensed + low image. It does not. The lensed + low image always looks significantly better. I think the old story about the light increase being the major factor in lensed quality increase for 1080P does not hold water with my equipment.


----------



## Nasty N8

The other big increase (not just brightness) is the contrast difference. In zoom or letter box 1/3rd the panel is creating deep black bars that will bleed or shadow the rest of the image. I guess more so with an Iris. If the entire panel is used for information then I would think the contrast detail would be way different? Just my take on it.


Nate


----------



## GetGray

Good points. Interesting especially about brightness.


----------



## Anthony1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 1920x812 scaled to 1920x1080 is still better than 1920x812 scaled to 1280x720.





no doubt, but it's nice for us poor folks to know that our 720p projectors, are probably getting a bit more bang for our bucks from this whole situation, in comparison to the 1080p crowd. Don't get it wrong, I'll be going 1080p at some point too, and I'm sure that will be even better, especially when watching 16:9 material, but from a cost basis to actual enjoyment ratio, I think the 720p projector set might get a tiny bit more value out of this situation, considering you can't loose what you never had.


----------



## bialio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 1920x812 scaled to 1920x1080 is still better than 1920x812 scaled to 1280x720.



So define "better"










I know a lot depends on the scaler, but also alot depends on how you feel about vertical vs horizontal resolution. The 720P image should be more acurate vertically, since it didn't have to add data on that plane. ANd the 1080 should be more accurate horizontally, since it preserves the full source width.


I've always been told Vertical was more important. Isn't the definition of HD ">= 720 lines of vertical resolution"?


I think bottom line is both setups probably look spectacular. IF there was a scaler that actually cropped the black bars and then squeezed the 1920x812 image into an anamorphic 720p frame - that might be best of all. But that seems unlikely in a CE product. Just way too specialized......


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bialio* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So define "better"



I'll take 812 scaled up to 1080 over 812 scaled down to 720 any day.



> Quote:
> I know a lot depends on the scaler, but also alot depends on how you feel about vertical vs horizontal resolution. The 720P image should be more acurate vertically, since it didn't have to add data on that plane.



I disagree, you're scaling both ways. If you're _really_ a purist, you'll "lose" something either way, but if you've got two options to represent 812 lines, either 720 lines or 1080 lines, only one can fully resolve 812 lines, and that's the 1080 option. Of course that totally ignores the idea/observation that upscaling generally improves image quality.



> Quote:
> ANd the 1080 should be more accurate horizontally, since it preserves the full source width.



Yup, you sacrifice resolution in both directions to scale to 720p, you don't sacrifice any to scale to 1080p.



> Quote:
> I've always been told Vertical was more important. Isn't the definition of HD ">= 720 lines of vertical resolution"?



I believe that's the generally accepted definition.



> Quote:
> I think bottom line is both setups probably look spectacular.



I think I agree in principal.



> Quote:
> IF there was a scaler that actually cropped the black bars and then squeezed the 1920x812 image into an anamorphic 720p frame - that might be best of all. But that seems unlikely in a CE product. Just way too specialized......



Seems to me any scaler can do the requisite vertical stretch and output @ 720p. And no, there's no way (all else equal, scaler, PJ), that 720p is better than 1080p at reproducing a 1920x812 image.


The only time there's even a question of what's better, is if you're talking a CIH (w/lens) 720p setup vs a no-lens 1080p setup. Even then, the 1080p projector has the advantage in resolution, but given my personal dislike for "ghetto" CIH (not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just not for me), I might go with the 720p setup for the more "correct" system.


For the record, I have a 720p PJ w/lens, but I've got no illusions that it's better than a 1080p setup. Just that because I have a lens, my setup is better than most 720p setups (non CIH) when it comes to scope HD.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm starting to think that the additional pixel density from using the entire panel is more important than the extra light.



This is what I am leaning towards too...


Mark


----------



## bialio

What I really think is the downfall of the '1920x810 scope -> 720p projector is better' logic is that scalers aren't stretching and scaling at the same time - they are two discrete steps.


If you could find a video processor that would take a 1080p source frame, and then 1) crop it to 1920x810 2) vertically compress to 1920x720 3) horizontally compress to 1280x720, in that order, I think you'd end up with a frame that is closest to the original source frame once it's projected at 720p through an anamorphic lens.


But I just don't think scalers work that way. The description up in the middle of this thread about how the Lumagen's work seems to bear this out. It's too specific of an application (those wanting 2.35 CH scope, with HD 1080 source and a 720p projector/anamorphic lense combo)


I base a lot of this on my experience with digital photos. Anyone that was around when digital cameras first came out (those of the 1 Megapixel variety) has first hand experience with the basic fact that downscaling has less apparent effect on the PQ than upscaling.


btl.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bialio* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What I really think is the downfall of the '1920x810 scope -> 720p projector is better' logic is that scalers aren't stretching and scaling at the same time - they are two discrete steps.
> 
> 
> If you could find a video processor that would take a 1080p source frame, and then 1) crop it to 1920x810 2) vertically compress to 1920x720 3) horizontally compress to 1280x720, in that order, I think you'd end up with a frame that is closest to the original source frame once it's projected at 720p through an anamorphic lens.



I just don't see how, there's no way to get around the fact that 1920x810 -> 1280x720 results in trying to represent 1.6Megapixels with 0.9 Megapixels.



> Quote:
> I base a lot of this on my experience with digital photos. Anyone that was around when digital cameras first came out (those of the 1 Megapixel variety) has first hand experience with the basic fact that downscaling has less apparent effect on the PQ than upscaling.



I think you're confusing sizing with scaling. When downscaling you usually mean making an image smaller, when upscaling, you're making the image bigger. However scaling and sizing are two different things. Scaling is just changing the number of samples that make up an image. That's not what we're talking about here. Here we're (I'm at least) making the assumption that the screen size is constant.


There are really two scaling operations going on, one electronic, where the source is scaled to match the display device's image generator (DLP/LCD/LCoS chip), and a second one, optically, scaling that


----------



## bialio

I totally agree that all things being equal, a 1080p projecter will have a sharper, more detailed image. Especially on screens of the same size. Smaller pixels and all.


I found some 1080p screen shots, and did some playing. The best result I got as far as retaining detail in scaling to 720p was to apply the vertical stretch to the 1080p frame, and then scale it down to 720p. The cropping / compression method that I've mentioned a few times was just a touch softer. And scaling to 720p then stretching was softer still.


So to make a long story short - if you have a HDDVD / BRD player and a 720p projector, the best results (at least from what I've tested) are to be had by transforming the 1080p source frame (letterbox) to a 1080p Anamorphic frame (vertical stretch), and then scale that down to 720p Anamorphic.


btl.


----------



## ThomasW

I have read this thread and find it very interesting. I am however pessimistic about future anamorphic releases for HDDVD and BD. I don't think so. As someone wrote, the HD masters are already made for 1920x1080 with square pixels. For anamorphic releases, these masters would have to be remade, right ?


Anyway, for CIH setup there is still 1920x817 source pixels to be used with a 2.35 scope movie. A huge improvement over anamorphic standard DVD's where max 720x576 (PAL) pixels can be used.


One question: I am considering to get a Lumagen HDP videoprocessor. Now, with this set to output 1920x817 to a projector, will the Lumagen be able to just "cut" away the black bar pixels electronically and display the rest natively without doing any scaling at all ? Or does it actually scale it down from 1080 lines to 817 ??


Thomas


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThomasW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> One question: I am considering to get a Lumagen HDP videoprocessor. Now, with this set to output 1920x817 to a projector, will the Lumagen be able to just "cut" away the black bar pixels electronically and display the rest natively without doing any scaling at all ? Or does it actually scale it down from 1080 lines to 817 ??



You don't output 817 (or 810, or 812







), you output 1080p from the scaler, what the scaler does, is stretch/scale the 1920x812 portion of the frame (the part with the picture) to the full 1920x1080. This results in a vertically distorted image. Then you project that through an anamorphic lens, which does the inverse stretch, the end result is the correct aspect ratio, but using the entire panel.


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThomasW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am however pessimistic about future anamorphic releases for HDDVD and BD. I don't think so. As someone wrote, the HD masters are already made for 1920x1080 with square pixels. For anamorphic releases, these masters would have to be remade, right ?



The old masters do not have to be remade. This seems to be a common line of thinking: "The masters are the same letterboxed resolution so what is the point?". If you have ever seen a broadcast TV studio master, it looks much better than anything you will ever see on your TV, because even though the signal that you end up seeing after the master has been sent through the broadcast system has the "same resolution", it has lost much of it's quality. What we see on HD disks is NOT the master, it is a compressed version that has lost most of the chroma information and quality. The masters have much more data in them than what ends up on the HD disks. The idea of anamorphic disks from letterboxed masters makes sense - use the dead space in the format (black bars) to capture more of the chroma, and indirectly more vertical resolution. This idea originated AFAIK from the CIH crowd, because it is nirvana for them - play a disk w/o scaling, and get a full anamorphic CIH image. But it also applies to soon to be released 4K displays - they will benefit for the same reason that SD anamorphic looks better than letterbox on HD displays. The other argument against doing this is that the scaling operations will be a detriment to 16:9 displays. I disagree. Disk mastering operations have very high end commercial scalers and equipment to create the anamorphic transfer from letterboxed. And now, HD players also have very good scalers, I argue that the few artifacts created by the downsample process on the player for those people with 16:9 displays are outweighed by the increased image quality that they will see from an anamorphic source that has more real image data from the master. Many new films masters are already being done at 4K, it is hard to argue that those transfers will not benefit from an anamorphic treatment.


1080p 16x9 display - benefit - more real image data from the master makes it to the display.

1080p CIH display - benefit - no scaling needed - more real image data from the master makes it to the display.

2160p display - benefit - more real image data from the master makes it to the display.


Everyone wins with anamorphic HD


----------



## ThomasW

stanger89: I should clarify: I use a CRT projector without any native resolution. You get whatever is fed to it. No anamorphic lens is used. My projector should be able to handle 1920x817 even if the aspect ratio of the tubes is more like 4:3.


usualsuspects: You're right, I forgot that the masters are most often made in 4K or at least 2K. I agree with you, but as discussed in earlier posts, I doubt that studios will bother to do anamorphic HDDVD or BD-releases since it is not within the specs . Maybe when digital screens in Scope AR will ever hit the market.


Thomas


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThomasW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyway, for CIH setup there is still 1920x817 source pixels to be used with a 2.35 scope movie. A huge improvement over anamorphic standard DVD's where max 720x576 (PAL) pixels can be used.



It's even worse than that. For a 2.35:1 movie, the max resolution encoded for the active picture content is 720x360 (NTSC) or 720x405 (PAL). The rest is black bars. So yes, 1920x817 is a huge improvement.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThomasW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> stanger89: I should clarify: I use a CRT projector without any native resolution. You get whatever is fed to it. No anamorphic lens is used. My projector should be able to handle 1920x817 even if the aspect ratio of the tubes is more like 4:3.



Ah... That makes sense











> Quote:
> usualsuspects: You're right, I forgot that the masters are most often made in 4K or at least 2K. I agree with you, but as discussed in earlier posts, I doubt that studios will bother to do anamorphic HDDVD or BD-releases since it is not within the specs .



I see an opening for Criterion


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I see an opening for Criterion



As in Criterion Collection - limited special editions that started on LD and progressed to DVD?


Mark


----------



## MAZMAN808




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Attached is a (contrived) example to illustrate the point. I've taken one frame from the Universal HD DVD intro, 1920x1080. I cropped that to 1920x810 to simulate a scope image. Then to simulate the 1080p projector scaling, I scaled (Lanczos) the 1920x810 image to 1920x1080. To simulate the 720p option, I scaled (Lanczos) the 1920x810 image to 1280x720, and then to simulate the optical "scaling" I scaled (Resize) the 1280x720 image to 1920x1080 so that both images are the same size, as they would be on the screen.



I understand what you did, and to show the difference in the pixels between the two etc...


What id like to compare, would be:

1920x1080 > 1920x810 > 1920x1080 = 1080p with lens/scope

1920x1080 > 1920x810 > 1280x720 = 720p with lens/scope


Isnt this what the scaling would be doing? (the 720 panel would'nt be scaling to a 1080p, but downscaling to 720p).

Im just curious and trying to learn.


Can you simulate this for the 720? like you did with the upscaling on both?


----------



## thorr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThomasW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyway, for CIH setup there is still 1920x817 source pixels to be used with a 2.35 scope movie. A huge improvement over anamorphic standard DVD's where max 720x576 (PAL) pixels can be used.
> 
> 
> One question: I am considering to get a Lumagen HDP videoprocessor. Now, with this set to output 1920x817 to a projector, will the Lumagen be able to just "cut" away the black bar pixels electronically and display the rest natively without doing any scaling at all ? Or does it actually scale it down from 1080 lines to 817 ??
> 
> 
> Thomas



Yes, I am doing this with my Barco Graphics 808. It is pretty confusing to set up, but basically you define the upper left corner of the real picture and the lower right corner. Works great at 1920x818p.


Mike


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/11339919
> 
> 
> As in Criterion Collection - limited special editions that started on LD and progressed to DVD?
> 
> 
> Mark



Exactly, I don't think it would entirely unreasonable for them to release "non compliant" anamorphic scope versions, just like they released special DVD versions. Especially if it's true the HDi (BD-J too?) are capable of dealing with anamorphic content.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MAZMAN808* /forum/post/11340335
> 
> 
> I understand what you did, and to show the difference in the pixels between the two etc...
> 
> 
> What id like to compare, would be:
> 
> 1920x1080 > 1920x810 > 1920x1080 = 1080p with lens/scope
> 
> 1920x1080 > 1920x810 > 1280x720 = 720p with lens/scope
> 
> 
> Isnt this what the scaling would be doing? (the 720 panel would'nt be scaling to a 1080p, but downscaling to 720p).
> 
> Im just curious and trying to learn.
> 
> 
> Can you simulate this for the 720? like you did with the upscaling on both?



That's basically what I did, I started with a 1920x1080 frame grab, then cropped it to 1920x810. I then scaled it to both 1920x1080 and 1280x720 (two files).


That part covers the "electronic scaling" part of the viewing process.


However this leaves you with (on the PC) two different "sized" images, one is 1920x1080 pixels, and the other is 1280x720 pixels, and as noted by bialio, smaller (downscaling) almost always looks better. And secondly, and probably more importantly, in a real world setup we're most interested in how these two compare with a common screen size (ie the 1080p image would not be shown on a screen 50% wider than it's 720p counterpart).


The problem, PCs are "fixed pixel" devices, and as such it is impossible to compare images of differing pixel dimensions without doing some sort of scaling.


Now in the real world, when comparing a 1080p vs a 720p projector on a common screen size, the 720p projector will simply have larger pixels than the 1080p projector. This is, in essence, scaling, but very crude scaling.


So, in order to simulate the entire signal path: 1920x1080 letterbox source -> 1920x810 intermediate crop -> (advanced Lanczos scaling) -> 1080p/720p display -> (simple optical scaling) -> fixed, equivalent screen size, we have to figure out how best to simulate that simple, optical scaling. Since in that process pixels are just made larger, I opted to do a simple resize, which basically just makes pixels larger.


The end result is probably about as close an approximation as is possible without resorting to fancy, custom scaling algorithms in matlab or photoshop, which I'm too lazy to try


----------



## MAZMAN808




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/11342291
> 
> 
> The end result is probably about as close an approximation as is possible without resorting to fancy, custom scaling algorithms in matlab or photoshop, which I'm too lazy to try



Ok, i understand what you did now and why, thanks for explaining.

So if using one size screen, lets say 3m wide scope;

- fit a 720 image on it

- fit a 1080 image on it

The 720 image would have larger pixels, thats a given, since it has less pixels and your stretching it on teh same sized screen, i was just confused at the first why you scaled a 720 > 1080










but, in saying that...

scaling the image down from 810 to 720 compared to scaling the image up from 810 > 1080, wouldn't that leave more artifacts and it would also stretch the pixels so to speak, and having a end result very similar?


----------



## stanger89

The more information the better, it's basically as simple as that. When you scale down to 720p you're reducing the number of pixels used to represent the image by about 33%. When you scale up to 1080p, you don't lose any data.


IMO (good) scaling doesn't _introduce_ artifacts. The idea that upconverting introduces artifacts comes from our experiencing with upconverting poor-quality interlaced 480i video (which was never meant for screens larger than 27") to high resolution, large screen displays.


The artifacts you see when you upconvert poor NTSC to 1080p on a large display is not due to the scaling, but present in the content from the beginning, it's a simple matter that the higher resolution display more easilly resolves those artifacts, and the size of the screen makes them easy to see.


Of course there's another issue that compounds things WRT to people's perception of scaling, and that is deinterlacing. NTSC is broadcast interlaced and with significant vertical filtering (to avoid aliasing), often resulting in very poor vertical resolution, perhaps as little as ~200 lines. What we end up with is a video source that's made out of alternating fields, that may or may not not be intended to match up (ie film vs video). Thus the deinterlacing task for "general" SD is a very difficult task. In the worst case, SD video, the deinterlacer must deal with fields containing less than 240 lines of information, and produce a (pre-scaler) 720x480 output.


You can see the inherent problem here, that's not a lot of information go on, especially on screens measured in feet, thus the need for fancy algorithms like DCDi to mitigate the limitations of the source data, ie eliminate "jaggies". Have you ever noticed the incredible magnitude of improvement of a well-mastered (ie progressive w/ minimal filtering) DVD over your normal made-for-broadcast version?


Now, when it comes to HD DVD and Blu-ray, we simply have none of those problems, we have high-resolution, progressive source data, and high quality scalers, such that scaling just isn't detrimental, with perhaps two exceptions:


First, downscaling is always detrimental, because it reduces the amount of information/data, thus theoretically always reduces detail.


Secondly, scaling to non-multiples is tricky, sub-optimal I guess you could say, because our displays have finite resolution. The easiest example to visualize this is scaling a 2x1 image to 3x1, say the 2x1 image is made up of one black and one white pixel. When you scale this to 3x1, there's no longer a way to represent that boundary between pixels because it now lies inside a pixel instead of along boundaries.


Of course in the real world, we're talking about far more pixels, and content with much "less precise" transitions. So yes, theoretically, scaling from 1920x810 to 1920x1080 will result in some deterioration due to being non-multiple scaling. However it's still better than scaling to 720p due to the significant amount of information lost by reducing the resolution so dramatically.


----------



## ThomasW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thorr* /forum/post/11340563
> 
> 
> Yes, I am doing this with my Barco Graphics 808. It is pretty confusing to set up, but basically you define the upper left corner of the real picture and the lower right corner. Works great at 1920x818p.
> 
> 
> Mike



Mike, Thanks for your tip, I have to store this somewhere so that I remember once I get my Lumagen.









I might try for 817(818)p, the bandwith of my NEC 6PGextra is limited to 80 MHZ though some say the electronics of this pj are actually built for 130 MHz.


Thomas


----------



## bialio

Something I just thought of is that not all scalers are created equal - and I am just guessing here but I would think that there are algorithms out there that produce a superior scaled imaged that can't be used in real time because of the complexity.


So would using some video tools to create an anamorphically stretched source film on an HTPC be of any value? I'm sure there are some opensource transcoding tools that could take an SD DVD and stretch / scale it up to the HD resolution of your projecter and put that in some video container (avi) file for instance. Then play it back straight from PC to projector / lens to get the utter scope goodness.....


I think that would be valuable on HD DVD/ BRD also, but last I checked backing up those to harddrive was not a fully functional solution yet. Maybe that's changed.....


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bialio* /forum/post/11350927
> 
> 
> Something I just thought of is that not all scalers are created equal - and I am just guessing here but I would think that there are algorithms out there that produce a superior scaled imaged that can't be used in real time because of the complexity.



Perhaps. but scaling really isn't that hard, you might want to check some of the threads in the HTPC forum, there have been some detailed discussions of scaling algorithms (Search for catmul-rom and lanczos). Suffice to say, the best algorithms (Catmul-Rom being "accurate" and lanczos being "sharp") can be run in realtime quite easilly on SD, and maybe even HD sources at this point, and that's in pure software.


Judging by the qualty of recent video cards, they probably use something Catmul-Rom like, and provide scaling from any resolution to any resolution for "free".



> Quote:
> So would using some video tools to create an anamorphically stretched source film on an HTPC be of any value?



IMO, not really, the only value in offline processing is to be able to run processing filters (other than scaling) that can't be run in realtime. For example sophisicated denoise and sharpen filters.



> Quote:
> I'm sure there are some opensource transcoding tools that could take an SD DVD and stretch / scale it up to the HD resolution of your projecter and put that in some video container (avi) file for instance. Then play it back straight from PC to projector / lens to get the utter scope goodness.....



There's a lot you can do with avisynth processing wise, and you can always encode back into H.264 via the OS x264 encoder. However, IMO, it's a futile effort as any time to go off to encode a lossy-compressed source with a lossy codec, you end up with degredation. Best case you end up with a result that's different, perhaps subjectively more pleasing, but probably not "better", especially not from an accuracy standpoint.


If what you're driving at is HQV/Teranex type processing, the stuff that isn't realtime isn't the scaling, it's the additional processing those provide, like the noise reduction and sharpenning. Both of those are very hard to do effectively and can easilly create artifacts when done "ineffectively".



> Quote:
> I think that would be valuable on HD DVD/ BRD also, but last I checked backing up those to harddrive was not a fully functional solution yet. Maybe that's changed.....



Backing up is easy, playing them back can be tricky depending on your requirements.


----------



## Scott_R_K

This is interesting...

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=500 


Pay special attention to the line description "Anamorphic" !


Can this be the start of a trend ? Let's hope so...










Scott.......................


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/11604249
> 
> 
> This is interesting...
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=500
> 
> 
> Pay special attention to the line description "Anamorphic" !
> 
> 
> Can this be the start of a trend ? Let's hope so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott.......................



Howdy Scott,

Long time - I trust the snow hasn't started piling at your door.










I saw that info as well and also was curious. I suspect it is simply a "loose" interpretation of what we hereabouts refer to as "anamorphic" i.e. they are simply meaning anything wider than 4:3.


It has been stated in the past that it would be possible with proper scripting of the encode (that has never been explained) but the player or display would have to interpret it and do the proper scaling. Someone wiser than I would have to clarify - *usualsuspects? stanger89*? I do not believe the current players are said capable. I can imagine a situation where there would be two seperate encodes on the disc - one the normal and the other the stretched version. This would limit the quality of the encode as it would push capacity and bandwidth limits unless the film was short in length.


good to see you are still about,

ted


----------



## usualsuspects

I have seen claims of "anamorphic" encodes on BR and HD-DVD disks before. Unfortunately they have always been errors. I think we would know if this was happening, it would make a big splash. Anamorphic disks could be released today and would work for everyone, but people with 16x9 displays would get "tall and thin" (and hey, as someone else pointed out, they might like that). IMOHO there would have to be at least a single bit flag in each frame - call it the "anamorphic flag" that would tell the scaler what to do with each frame depending on the Display AR chosen in the player setup menu. I seem to recall there there were multiple unused data fields in both mpeg and vc1 encoding - they could be put to good use here.


----------



## stanger89

Yeah, looking at the usage there, I'd interpret "anamorphic" there to mean the exact same thing (end user) as it does on DVD, ie that it's a 16x9 frame format.


Otherwise the 1.77:1 ratio stuff wouldn't be flagged as "anamorphic".


----------



## Scott_R_K




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvted* /forum/post/11608941
> 
> 
> Howdy Scott,
> 
> Long time - I trust the snow hasn't started piling at your door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that info as well and also was curious. I suspect it is simply a "loose" interpretation of what we hereabouts refer to as "anamorphic" i.e. they are simply meaning anything wider than 4:3.
> 
> 
> It has been stated in the past that it would be possible with proper scripting of the encode (that has never been explained) but the player or display would have to interpret it and do the proper scaling. Someone wiser than I would have to clarify - *usualsuspects? stanger89*? I do not believe the current players are said capable. I can imagine a situation where there would be two seperate encodes on the disc - one the normal and the other the stretched version. This would limit the quality of the encode as it would push capacity and bandwidth limits unless the film was short in length.
> 
> 
> good to see you are still about,
> 
> ted



Hi Ted ,


Yeah still around . Actually watching movies these days










That's too bad that the info might be dodgy and very interesting that the players themselves may be unable to make use of it anyway . If it did have the option for storing it anamorphically and then displaying a stretched image then all of us 235er's would be in heaven .


Scott.................


----------



## wcaughey

Long time, no posts - busy moving to Texas...


The obvious solution to combat the plight of lacking anamorphically enhanced HD 2.35/2.40 (due to squareness) content is variable native resolution between 1920x810 and 1920x1080 projectors . Importantly, the 810p panel should be zoomed to fill the vertical height of the 1080p panel, so it appears wider when activated.


No contrast reduction, 100% pure pixels, and no lens issues.


If you can't beat em, join em.


Now, someone get to work on that dual panel projector!! It's no problem if it costs a scaler+lens (4k?) more than a regular 1080p projector.


----------



## Aussie Bob

There's nothing stopping a projector manufacturer from building a 2560 x 1080 pixel projector (native 2.35:1) except lack of market.


I don't see why letterboxed HD 'scope 1920 x 810 movies couldn't be digitally zoomed 1.33 in both directions to fill such a panel when required by the user (a "Zoom Cinemascope" function). It would violate no standards and would obviate the need for a lens. But how many customers would require this function? That's the key question. You'd probably find that the extra $$$ you paid for the special projector would be more than you paid for a lens.


Also could Epson be cajoled into making the LCD chips?


Also, can't see why a Blu-Ray disk (with its extra storage capacity) couldn't have an anamorphic version alongside a letterboxed version. Again, no standards would be violated, just a new "in-house" one created: use it or don't use it.


Against this might be consumer confusion: too many versions on the one disk could turn the punters off.


I once asked Warner Bros. techo guys why not store 'scope movies as anamorphic full 16:9 frame. You could then nominate the "TV Type" on the player set-up and the player would either output the movie squeezed (it's native format) or letterbox it for you (by a digital "anamorphic lens" process). Their reply was that they didn't trust the player manufacturers to supply good enough rendering chipsets, so they simply didn't provide this option.


----------



## wcaughey

Bob, the 2560x1080 would be perfect for all aspect ratios concerned.


I still would argue the point of market. Why wouldn't there is as much a market for them as there is for for other projectors?


Either sold with a horizontal masking screen or even with some shutters on the projector's lens/iris, it could easily double as a 16x9 projector, right? It just is more "movie theater" worthy. I still contend that people use their dedicated theaters (and bulbs) primarily for movies, and those with CIH setups, primarily for 2.35/2.40:1 opportunities. Just a generalization.


Cost could be around 6k, which would be fine considering the cost of a scaler+lens+panamorphs lens slide.


I see a market with those that have not yet experienced projectors, but upon a demonstration of what our experimental projector can do, might want to supplement their existing tv setup and take the plunge.


Those already with a 16x9 projector but no lens may see this as an opportunity to stack projectors and upgrade to a new screen.


This would be a unique product, with feature beyond contrast ratio comparisons, lumen output, and PQ comparisons.


What say you?


----------



## Aussie Bob

I'm not arguing there wouldn't be a market, just that the market would be small.


Take professional 2K and 4K projectors (like Barcos and Sonys). They're calibrated in the 1.89:1 ratio (2048 x 1080 or 4096 x 2160). You'd think that for dedicated cinema projectors, if Texas Instruments went to the trouble of making a "non-standard" AR chip (compared to the consumer ratio of 1.78), they'd go the whole hog and produce a 2.35:1 AR chip and project 16:9 movies pillarboxed.


Why don't they do this?


It's easier to zoom, or use an anamorphic. The focal length of a projection lens is based on the longest diagonal, which in the case of a 2.35:1 LCD or DLP chip would be 1.25 times longer than a "standard" diagonal, necessitating longer focal length lenses. Longer focal lengths mean more expense: lenses are physically bigger and harder to fit into a projector chassis. If the market is small the expense in designing such a lens is much more than the 25% increase in focal length. You, as a consumer, get to pay that bill, plus a margin for profit.


Add a shutter or internal mask to minimize gray pillarbox bars and the cost again balloons. This mask would have to be added to EACH of the three imaging chips at their focal plane, unless it was a single chip color wheel DLP device.


With 33% more pixels fab yields on the display chips become 75% of their previous yield. More money.


I don't know where you got your "$6k" figure from, but I suspect you plucked it out of thin air. Triple that might get you nearer the mark (yeah, I plucked _that_ out of thin air too).


And this still doesn't get around the problem of a lack of program material available in full height anamorphic squeezed. You'd still be digitally zooming... I dunno, but I think the market just would reject such a projector and make it a non-viable product for years to come. Unless you wanted to pay the price. I'd be unwilling to say it would never happen (may be used in the military right now, for instance), but the day will be a fair way off, in my opinion, that it hits the retail market.

_Cue: some Forum member with a hot link to the new 2.35:1 Panasonic projector, introduced today for $6,000 (sheesh)._

_Just kidding._


None of this detracts from my earlier point that to make such a projector would violate some standard, and that new standards would have to be introduced. There's nothing stopping a projector manufacturer making a projector with an in-house 2.35 standard, as long as it's compliant with mainstream standards as well.


The same goes for anamorphically squeezed HDs, particularly if Blu-Ray lives up to its storage capacity hype.


Getting the film corporations interested is the problem. They're too busy infighting each other to get on the case it seems. I mean, look at the crap they've put out on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray already. Fully 50% of these movies are unwatchable from a dramatic point of view: cheesy comedies, papier mache monster movies and cult films made for the 14 year old pimply youth market that all failed at the box office. Sure, there are a gems in there, but not many. The great widescreen epics aren't even on the wish list at the moment. Name your favorites and they're guaranteed to be missing. It seems that the film corporations have ready-to-go HD transfers of crap movies and they're putting them out in preference to pristine versions of decent films that may need a little TLC in re-mastering. In other words the PS3-with-built-in-Blu-Ray-player market is being catered to, not the film buff market. Anamorphic transfers would be a long way off in this scenario. Imagine a marketing droid at Universal or Sony or Waners having nightmares about consumers complaining that all the people in whatever movie are tall and skinny... no, keep it simple, they'd be saying to their bosses.


----------



## wcaughey

Bob, the 6k figure was a rough estimate for what a panamorph lens, decent scaler, and lens slide come out to be. So yes, thin air but I was estimating a baseline for what a consumer may pick one solution over another. Of course, when you add in ease of use that can up the price and still be a viable solution. I'm by no means knowledgeable (obviously) about panel mechanics and focal length, but I can still dream! 


Speaking of dreams and thin air...if there was a 2.35:1 native 2560x1080 projector with the same performance and contrast ratio as the rs1/rs2 ...would $18k-20k really be too much for something like this? Do you think it would get a lot of attention from custom high end installers as well as this niche on the forum?


I think you are right about backwards compliance as as far as mainstream standards are concerned. I think such a solution, as unique as it would be, would hinge on its ability to be multi-capable of 16:9. It also would be hella cool if they released some anaorphically squeezed HD movies - that would be a MUCH cheaper solution all around! This has been brought up a few times in this forum, but I'll repeat it...How bout "widescreen" and a limited release "2.40 cinemascope - anamorphic lens required" version?



Yea, I know - they are too busy fighting a war right now to be innovative :-(


----------



## ooms

oh wow i feel dumb.


So this means that every single 2.35:1 HD/BD title I own has never appeared to my eyes with more than 818 lines of vertical resolution? And it only counts as 1080 if we count the space the BLACK BARS occupy?










So in essence, what everyone hoped for was a little label on back of BD and HD-DVD that read something like this:


"Enhanced for 2.35:1 Screens" or "2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen" ??


So the actual movies would NOT be encoded with black bars on top/bottom as standard (Letterboxed). Instead the disk player would do it when needed.


So when played on 2.35:1 screens, full 1080 lines of resolution would have been used. But, if played on a 16:9 screen, the disk player WOULD electronically add black bars to properly show the image. Granted I now understand there still would loss of vertical resolution, just as with Anamorphic DVD...


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13316847
> 
> 
> oh wow i feel dumb.
> 
> 
> So this means that every single 2.35:1 HD/BD title I own has never appeared to my eyes with more than 818 lines of vertical resolution?



Yes, but DVD only has about 220











> Quote:
> And it only counts as 1080 if we count the space the BLACK BARS occupy?



Basically.



> Quote:
> So in essence, what everyone hoped for was a little label on back of BD and HD-DVD that read something like this:
> 
> 
> "Enhanced for 2.35:1 Screens" or "2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen" ??
> 
> 
> So the actual movies would NOT be encoded with black bars on top/bottom as standard (Letterboxed). Instead the disk player would do it when needed.



Exactly, it should be trivial for a player to do that well-enough.


----------



## ooms

thx. this was a great thread. completely cleared up everything I ever wondered about AR and then some.


now that I understand, I fee like doing something about it.



also I understand better now the tug of war hardware providers face. On one had they need to accommodate television stations and their respective content, on the other content from Hollywood. In another thread I talked it would be nice to have 2.35:1 displays. But I suppose as long as HDM are Letterboxed by their makers, there truly is no point in having such a display.


----------



## syncguy

Are there BD players with high quality anamorphic stretch so that the limitation of 810 vertical pixel points of 2.35:1 content can be improved. This will never be the same as true anamorphic blu-ray disk, however, could improve the PQ depending on the quality of the anamorphic upscaler. Also this type of BD player could easily reposition subtitle raster image so that it will be a good solution for the subtitle problem on CIH displays.


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/13905247
> 
> 
> Are there BD players with high quality anamorphic stretch so that the limitation of 810 vertical pixel points of 2.35:1 content can be improved. This will never be the same as true anamorphic blu-ray disk, however, could improve the PQ depending on the quality of the anamorphic upscaler. Also this type of BD player could easily reposition subtitle raster image so that it will be a good solution for the subtitle problem on CIH displays.



No player exists, nor is there any announcement of such a player.


For the stretch, one would use the scaler built into the PJ (if it has that functionality) or an external scaler. Subtitles position outside of the active image area continue to be an issue in CIH set ups.


----------



## Vern Dias

HTPC's also handle this function with no problem using the appropriate SW (YXY).


Vern


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/13910526
> 
> 
> HTPC's also handle this function with no problem using the appropriate SW (YXY).
> 
> 
> Vern



Thanks Vern. How is the blu-ray PQ of the HTPC solution in comparison to PS3 which is topnotch PQ, IMO. I expect HTPC solution will fix the CIH subtitle problem as well. The external scalers cannot satisfactorily fix the CIH subtitle problem but if good quality stretching can be achieve in a HTPC, potentially it could solve the CIH subtitle problem.


----------



## Vern Dias

Image quality with the right video HW and SW is as good as anything I have seen. I am using a 5'x14' 2.65:1 screen and sitting about 14' from the screen and the quality is just breathtaking. I have both BD and HD DVD hardware players and a Crystallio scaler and the image quality is as good or better with the HTPC when compared to the hardware player / scaler combination.


In my case, the video HW is an Nvidia 9800GTX using HDMI and the SW is Vista Ultimate SP1 with PDVD8 modified to support HD DVD. This combo uses EVR and delivers perfect, smooth 24 FPS playback using 24PsF to a Qualia 004 projector. Audio is 8 channel analog from an Auzentech X_Meridian.


Vern


----------



## reincarnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/11287274
> 
> 
> Also, regardless of not having a "gain" in resolution, you do get a gain in that the entire 16x9 panel is being used to generate video information, even if it is upscaled. So you get the extra brightness afforded by using those otherwise unused panel pixels.



What does "being upscaled" mean exactly? Describe the image processing steps (not just electrical either) involved to get this "extra brightness" (that the wise already designed or accounted for)?

Now look at it from the retail "high end" marketing side. Is this a good way to generate profits?


Just curious.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/13915042
> 
> 
> What does "being upscaled" mean exactly? Describe the image processing steps (not just electrical either) involved to get this "extra brightness" (that the wise already designed or accounted for)?



To get say a 100" wide 2.35:1 image you have two choices, you can "zoom" to achieve it, by overscanning the screen, say we've got a 1000 lumen projector. You have 100" wide by 100/1.78 projected area, or 39.0 sqft. 1000 lumens/39 sqft = 25ftL


Now, if you take that same 1000 lumen projector and configure it with a vertical stretch scaler and anamorphic lens. Now you've got a 100" wide by 100/2.35 projected area, or 29.6 sqft. 1000 lumens/29.6 sqft = 33 ftL.


That extra 8 ftL (or 33%) is the "extra brightness". Now of course the lens takes a bit, so maybe it's only 25 or 30% brighter.



> Quote:
> Now look at it from the retail "high end" marketing side. Is this a good way to generate profits?



Market it as a "better than the theater", "correct to the film-makers intent", "best presentation possible" solution, I think that's exactly what high-end is about.


----------



## whiskersland

Hi, I was redirected to this thread by a moderator after my personal "epiphany" and I thought it might be useful to copy my original post below. If this becomes a reality it is IMO a Hardware or player issue too.... I can author a Blu-ray tomorrow that encodes a 2.35:1 image onto the 1.78:1 frame, but my Ruby projector can't display it correctly, like early DVD players.... Double dip from hell? New players, new disks...


I emailed studios in 1997 when Bill Hunt told me to. I proudly wear my Digital Bits Anamorphic widescreen T-shirts 11 years later but... This seems like a no brainer and I am puzzled. Most films (90%), are 2.35:1 and again on Blu-ray have black letterbox encoded on the disk. Surely if the 2.35:1 image filled the 1920 x 1080 (1.78:1) frame and was triggered to display correctly, exactly like anamorphic DVD, then we would see a dramatic picture quality improvement. Are we headed for a double dip to end all double dips? Any comments? Say it ain't so!


----------



## stanger89

Supposedly, unlike DVD, Blu-ray has no provision for anamorphic encoding.


----------



## audio4theroad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.Poindexter* /forum/post/7254195
> 
> 
> Stopdog, just because we will not get 1080 lines of information on the HD-DVD or BluRay disc isn't a reason not to have a screen that matches the aspect ratio of the majority of the material we will be watching.
> 
> 
> Come up to Clovis in about 6 weeks and I will show you first hand the difference between running 16x9 and 2.35:1 and I am fairly certain that will put any doubts to rest. I should be running by then.



i have a question for you, i saw a side by side comparison of a 2.35.1 and a 1.78.1 with the same still image i noticed that the background was much clearer and detailed when it was shown on the 2.35.1 screen and was blurry o the 1.78.1, way is that?

i have been thinking about getting a 2.35.1 screen but have not done it yet and would love some more in depth info on them if you don't mind


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audio4theroad* /forum/post/13921395
> 
> 
> i have a question for you, i saw a side by side comparison of a 2.35.1 and a 1.78.1 with the same still image i noticed that the background was much clearer and detailed when it was shown on the 2.35.1 screen and was blurry o the 1.78.1, way is that?



The system was improperly set up.


It may be that they were using an anamorphic lens that changed the focus. The focused it perfectly for the lens, then when they slid the lens out it was not focused.


----------



## wmcclain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whiskersland* /forum/post/13919421
> 
> 
> Surely if the 2.35:1 image filled the 1920 x 1080 (1.78:1) frame and was triggered to display correctly, exactly like anamorphic DVD, then we would see a dramatic picture quality improvement. Are we headed for a double dip to end all double dips? Any comments? Say it ain't so!



Projector people with anamorphic lenses care, but no one else does. If your display is fixed at 1920x1080, there would be no place to put the extra pixels of vertical resolution.


If higher resolution displays become popular, or displays wider than 16:9, then yes we will regret not having anamorphic encoding on Blu-Ray. I suspect if that ever happens we will have reached Blu-Ray's end of life.


-Bill


----------



## Aussie Bob

I once asked the tech-heads at Warners why they didn't encode 2.35 movies anamorphically, wih full vertical resolution.


It took a while to explain that I wished to expand the picture with an anamorphic lens. They couldn't figure out why I'd do that. Eventually I sent them a link to the Widescreen Museum site which explains about anamorphic optics and how it was introduced in the 1950s. My basic point was that this idea was not new and that it had advantages over the vertical expansion plus anamorphic lens route to a CIH screen, as it started out with a full 25% more image detail: 1080 lines of vertical resolution, rather than 810 or thereabouts.


After a bit of argey-bargey (from them) concerning this being 2008 and not 1951 so why should we use old-hat technology (and my explaining to them that almost every cinema in the world still has an anamorphic lens in its kit for showing _their_ 2.35:1 films), their "gotcha" answer was that they didn't trust the signal processing chips in the players to deliver a good result in letterbox form.


I pointed out that projectors have excellent signal processing, so why couldn't that be applied to players as well? Or for that matter, to the 16:9 display devices which, under this scenario, would receive a full-height squeezed image and letterbox it themselves.


Ah Ha! (they said)... that would render all existing 16:9 plasmas etc. obsolete overnight, because up to now they don't have this option.


It was a frustrating series of emails.


OK then, I said, why not just dump an extra copy of the movie onto the disk in full-height (1080) resolution and leave it up to the consumer to choose which version they wanted to use?


Too confusing for the Average Joe who just wanted to watch movies and not worry about the technology or fiddle with options (they replied). They had visions of mass complaints from purchasers saying "People look all tall and skinny," if the wrong menu option was chosen by mistake. These are the same media gurus who put the word "*OVERTURE*" right across the screen, complete with a garish still from the movie to stare at for five minutes, so viewers won't think their TV has broken down when they watch the start of a film like _Ben Hur_.


In short, their mindset was still mired in 16:9 display systems and they think their customers are idiots.


So, they have a system capable of delivering cinema-quality presentations, a tech savvy sub-audience who wants to do something with that quality, 60 years of film technology and lore behind them to say it all works and enhances their pictures and a struggling medium that just went through a war with another medium and is still finding its feet. And they still won't do anything to make it better (and totally in spec, as it would be an option, in the "separately encoded menu items" scenario at least). They still shake their heads and think they're talking to a crackpot.


These are the same people who are asking us to trust them that they are the experts and in the meantime release... _I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry_... in order to enitce new customers into completely refitting their HTs.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmcclain* /forum/post/13926134
> 
> 
> Projector people with anamorphic lenses care, but no one else does. If your display is fixed at 1920x1080, there would be no place to put the extra pixels of vertical resolution.



Anamorphic lens/CIH is becoming, not standard, but reasonably popular in the Home Theater area (I mean real Home Theater, not room with big TV, and sound).


When DVD came out, 16x9 TVs were probably about as rare as CIH is today. The same (minority) group that has CIH setups now is the same group that had 16x9 TVs then. Yet now we can't even think of non-anamorphic DVDs. So the argument that "nobody cares" is a flawed one for a format that better last a decade.


Moral of the story is, for a format that should last at least a decade, with CIH gaining popularity, it's incredibly short sighted *to not even include the provision for anamorphic encoding*.


I don't entirely blame the studios for not producing anamorphic encodes today, they don't have the masters, and they've got a point that "nobody cares" (though I would argue that people with CIH setups make up a disproportionately high percentage of their customers). However who knows what will happen in 10 years. I'd be surprised if 2.35:1 becomes "the new 16:9", but I expect 2.35:1 to become the standard home cinema configuration, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see some 2.35:1 TVs in that timeframe.


----------



## syncguy

Potentially, future Scope TVs could be the key to get anamorphic stretch and subtitle repositioning for the 2.35:1 content.









See this post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=901570&page=2 

post #38


----------



## usualsuspects

My opinion: CIH is not the reason that a lack of a provision for anamorphic encoding on HD media is so dumb. The reason is that it is inevitable that mainstream displays with higher resolution than 1080p will emerge (and soon). This is a problem that was dealt with long ago for SD-DVD, and to just ignore that history and the inevitable rise of greater than 1080p displays shows a total lack of vision on the part of the people who came up with the standards. There are other stupidities - lack of 444:8 or 444:10 encoding - or even real 422:8 encoding rather than the ancient 420:8 that was used on SD-DVD from day one and now is used on HD Disks. As usual, they were focused on consumer flashing lights (multiple video decoders for PIP overlay of commentaries, web connection for content, etc...) rather than real technical things that would easily improve image quality.


----------



## Dan P.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/13926808
> 
> 
> Anamorphic lens/CIH is becoming, not standard, but reasonably popular in the Home Theater area (I mean real Home Theater, not room with big TV, and sound).
> 
> 
> When DVD came out, 16x9 TVs were probably about as rare as CIH is today. The same (minority) group that has CIH setups now is the same group that had 16x9 TVs then. Yet now we can't even think of non-anamorphic DVDs. So the argument that "nobody cares" is a flawed one for a format that better last a decade.
> 
> 
> Moral of the story is, for a format that should last at least a decade, with CIH gaining popularity, it's incredibly short sighted *to not even include the provision for anamorphic encoding*.
> 
> 
> I don't entirely blame the studios for not producing anamorphic encodes today, they don't have the masters, and they've got a point that "nobody cares" (though I would argue that people with CIH setups make up a disproportionately high percentage of their customers). However who knows what will happen in 10 years. I'd be surprised if 2.35:1 becomes "the new 16:9", but I expect 2.35:1 to become the standard home cinema configuration, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see some 2.35:1 TVs in that timeframe.



The problem is that Cinema has nothing to do with the television broadcast industry. 16:9 is an ATSC standard. ATSC, interlacing, 60HZ, and all that is television, not cinema. Yet it's television standards that drive the hardware that's available to the home consumer. There's been some progress in addressing the home theater consumer (i/p conversion, 24 fps), but how far can that be taken?


What's really needed is a complete separation of these two entities (TV and HT). A line of equipment, and media, that's _strictly for home cinema_. Joe Football has his stuff to watch the big game on, and the people who want _Lawrence of Arabia_ have their stuff, and the twain shall never meet.


I want a scaled down version of exactly the same stuff my local MJR has, with the same media (satellite download or hard-copy), whatever that is. I guess that would be 2K (or 4K) for the home.


----------



## Andy238




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/13929340
> 
> 
> Potentially, future Scope TVs ...



We'll all be dead before these are around.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Andy238* /forum/post/13933366
> 
> 
> We'll all be dead before these are around.



It took 50 years for us to get 16x9 due to engineering limitations. The first TV was 4x3 due to a pure engineering limit but not because people liked it. The engineering barriers of CRT have been now broken with flat panel technologies. Therefore development of a new aspect ratio is not hard. If there is sufficient demand, a scope TV will be developed. I think there is a sufficient demand. There are millions of zoomers who do not like black bars. They will jump on a Scope TV set.


As given in one of the previous posts, the standards are important to ensure the interoperability. That is the TV sets should interoperate seamlessly with the TV broadcasts. However, moving from 16x9 (1.78:1) to scope (2.35:1) has no interoperability barrier. Therefore it is a matter of manufacturers developing a new model with that aspect ratio. There is no need for a new standard. Industry understanding is sufficient on a particular aspect ratio and pixel sizes. The scope aspect has already been tested (e.g. CIH). If there is a sufficient demand that will happen.


The panoramic vision is natural to people. Humans have a higher field of vision in the horizontal direction rather than the vertical direction. Also horizontal eye movement is higher than the vertical movement. That's why horizontal black bars are annoying and people do not like them. IMO, black columns are less intrusive than black bars. That is one of the reasons that people like CIH displays.


If Scope TVs are available, people will have a choice which is a good thing. They can go for 16x9 or Scope. Also many would have both one for TV and one for the scope movies.


If there is sufficient market acceptance and scope TV gains popularity, the TV networks will upgrade cameras and broadcast equipment to support the scope format.







A seamless evolution ...


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/13914624
> 
> 
> Image quality with the right video HW and SW is as good as anything I have seen. I am using a 5'x14' 2.65:1 screen and sitting about 14' from the screen and the quality is just breathtaking. I have both BD and HD DVD hardware players and a Crystallio scaler and the image quality is as good or better with the HTPC when compared to the hardware player / scaler combination.
> 
> 
> In my case, the video HW is an Nvidia 9800GTX using HDMI and the SW is Vista Ultimate SP1 with PDVD8 modified to support HD DVD. This combo uses EVR and delivers perfect, smooth 24 FPS playback using 24PsF to a Qualia 004 projector. Audio is 8 channel analog from an Auzentech X_Meridian.
> 
> 
> Vern



Thanks Vern. I think, I missed this post. Sounds impressive.










I am currently using PS3 for blu-ray but may have to go in this direction due to CIH subtitle problem. I do not have a blu-ray drive yet in my PCs. I am thinking of Pioneer BDR 202. Now I may need to get 9800GTX as well. Looks like this cost more than a PS3 just for the video card and the drive.


Would PDVDUltra place subtitles within the CIH frame when it is in the window-mode so that YXY could stretch the total window including the subtitles.


----------



## Vern Dias

No, unfortunately PDVD won't move the subtitles. The only answer that I can see to this problem is for the studios and mastering houses to wake up and realize that using the black bars for the subtitles creates problems when people don't want to waste screen area by projecting the black bars.


Vern


----------



## Cam Man

Aussie Bob, very interesting post! So, how is it that they got talked into doing it for SD-DVD for umpteen years, but they resist it now? The suggestion to use two layers/both versions of the movie with letterbox being the default is perfect. J6P gets the default, but we CIHers know where to go in the menu to change it to full res squeezed.


----------



## Cinema Gary

In real Digital Cinema they do not use a Scope Lens.


If a screen is say 60ft for scope and 30ft for flat which uses the full panel but for scope it uses the center of the panel.


The lens zooms out on an image that is wider than say flat, so flat is 1998 x 1080 and scope is 2048 x 858 so you either zoom the lens or have a second lens to fill the required image depends on the machine.


Christie machines are manual, Barco and NEC are automatic they have one lens which is a primary so as Scope is not using the full panel the remaining DMD’s are switched off and are only switched on when they are needed.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/13942971
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately PDVD won't move the subtitles. The only answer that I can see to this problem is for the studios and mastering houses to wake up and realize that using the black bars for the subtitles creates problems when people don't want to waste screen area by projecting the black bars.
> 
> 
> Vern



I use a PC for DVDs and TheaterTek repositions subtitles nicely for CIH. If TheaterTek upgrades to blu-ray, that would be a good solution. Is there any possibility of this?


Subtitles on black bars is a problem for the millions of zoomers out there in addition to CIH displays. I have started a discussion in the black-bar-haters thread in the blu-ray forum on this.


It is not hard for the manufacturers to recompose the subtitle raster image to give a simple nudge up/down function (similar to TheaterTek). I have requested Sony to take the lead and give us this solution through a firmware upgarde. I am not sure whether they are seriously considering this.


I cannot understand the reasons for the manufacturers not giving a solution to this major problem. The problem is not limited to CIH displays.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> If TheaterTek upgrades to blu-ray, that would be a good solution. Is there any possibility of this?



No not likely. According to Andrew, the cost of licensing and the requirements for a protected video path make that highly unlikely. Even if someone were to create a similar product, the protected path required for HD would not allow any custom filters to be included in the video path, so there is no way to do this.


Vern


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/13945597
> 
> 
> No not likely. According to Andrew, the cost of licensing and the requirements for a protected video path make that highly unlikely. Even if someone were to create a similar product, the protected path required for HD would not allow any custom filters to be included in the video path, so there is no way to do this.
> 
> 
> Vern



Okay. Thanks.


How about standalone players like PS3. I expect it would be easier to achieve a protected video path even if subtitle raster image is recomposed and repositioned (on the fly) in the standalone players. Oppo could be another possibility and the other brands as well.


----------



## Vern Dias

No, protected path means exactly that. There can be NO code in the video or audio path that has not passed a very expensive certification process. This applies to all vendors and all platforms. Not saying it can't be done, but it doesn't seem to be likely given the miniscule part of the relatively small HD market the we CIH users make up.


A PS3 is not a standalone player. It is a very sophisticated computer with a closed architecture.


Vern


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/13947589
> 
> 
> No, protected path means exactly that. There can be NO code in the video or audio path that has not passed a very expensive certification process. This applies to all vendors and all platforms. Not saying it can't be done, but it doesn't seem to be likely given the miniscule part of the relatively small HD market the we CIH users make up.
> 
> 
> A PS3 is not a standalone player. It is a very sophisticated computer with a closed architecture.
> 
> 
> Vern



Thanks Vern. You are most helpful.


It is disappointing that the industry has given the blu-ray solution for HD without clearly considering basic but extremely useful functions like repositioning subtitles.


The XML based blu-ray subtitle reposition function does not work well due to compatibility issues with individual players. After all it is not a mandatory feature in the specs. Hence studios and disk authors do not use this feature. The simplest and most effective method, i.e. raster image nudge up/down has not been considered or implemented. The most basic nudge up/down is vital for CIH displays as well as many zoomers for zooming out black bars and watch a movie in a way that they want to watch it. (Whether the zooming is right or wrong it is used by many people.)


The situation is hopeless. The industry is forcing people to seek assistance from unorthodox solutions such as AnyDVD.


----------



## Cinema Gary

So if your projector has an onboard scaler to be used with an external anamorphic lens can you get good results for CIH and Blu-ray scope films ?


Does any on out there using an external anamorphic lens for Blu-ray and a CIH be able to post any pictures to see how it looks ?


I have read that real D-cinema ie:commercial movie theatres they do not use an external anamorphic lens.


If a screen is say 60ft for scope and 30ft for flat which uses the full panel but for scope it uses the center of the panel.


The lens zooms out on an image that is wider than say flat so flat is 1998 x 1080 and scope is 2048 x 858 so you either zoom the lens or have a second lens to fill the required image depends on the machine.


Christie machines are manual, Barco and NEC are automatic they have one lens which is a primary so as Scope is not using the full panel the remaining DMD’s are switched off and are only switched on when they are needed.


So would zooming be an option, hope sombody out there can help


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Gary* /forum/post/13963403
> 
> 
> So if your projector has an onboard scaler to be used with an external anamorphic lens can you get good results for CIH and Blu-ray scope films ?
> 
> 
> Does any on out there using an external anamorphic lens for Blu-ray and a CIH be able to post any pictures to see how it looks ?
> 
> 
> I have read that real D-cinema ie:commercial movie theatres they do not use an external anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> If a screen is say 60ft for scope and 30ft for flat which uses the full panel but for scope it uses the center of the panel.
> 
> 
> The lens zooms out on an image that is wider than say flat so flat is 1998 x 1080 and scope is 2048 x 858 so you either zoom the lens or have a second lens to fill the required image depends on the machine.
> 
> 
> Christie machines are manual, Barco and NEC are automatic they have one lens which is a primary so as Scope is not using the full panel the remaining DMD's are switched off and are only switched on when they are needed.
> 
> 
> So would zooming be an option, hope sombody out there can help



Bear in mind most of us are not using DCI machines in our homes! The 2K and 4K DCI machines can work either with anamorphic lenses, or by zooming, or in CIW configs with no zooming. All the same can be done in your home with a DCI or consumer projector (assuming it has the zoom range).


There are any number of pictures in this forum of different projectors and different lenses. Though I'm not sure how much use they are. Screen shots are notoriously bad for communicating subtle differences.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> I have read that real D-cinema ie:commercial movie theatres they do not use an external anamorphic lens.



It's not that cut and dried. See this link:

http://www.mkpe.com/digital_cinema/faqs.php#single_lens 


Vern.


----------



## Cam Man

And one thing that is certain is change. There is serious consideration now being given to development of a new generation of anamorphic lenses for digital cinematography. These would use a squeeze factor more like we see in our home theater anamorphics rather than the 2x squeeze for 35mm anamorphic. This would provide full resolution for 2.40 at capture, and presumably would require a projection anamorphic with the same squeeze factor. I hope this comes to pass for us since it benefits us in both the theater and at home (since, hopefully, this would make it easier for us to get a full-res anamorphic release for the home).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Gary* /forum/post/13963403
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that real D-cinema ie:commercial movie theatres they do not use an external anamorphic lens.




Not the Barco 3 chip DLP D-Cinema projector I got to see. It has a 1.25x ISCO. Why only 1.25? The 3 chipper is actually 2064 x 1080, and 2064 x 1.25 = 2580/1080 = 2.3888889 or 2.39:1


And 2064 / 1080 = 1.9:1, so can do 1.85:1 by having very small pillar bars at the sides...


Mark


----------



## Scott_R_K

A while ago I heard that a so-called Industry Expert , in all things DVD and Blu-ray , was going to attend a conference hosted by the Blu-ray Association . This person asked , on his Web Site , if anyone had questions he could put to the attending Conference Leaders . I asked the following...


Why are there no Anamorphic Widescreen Blu-ray releases ?


To which he replied...


"Scott, there must be some misunderstanding. ALL high-def releases are anamorphic. High-definition video has a native signal aspect ratio of 1.78:1, meaning the EVERY Blu-ray is anamorphic. With DVD, this wasn't the case, because NTSC video was 4x3-based. HDTV, on the other hand, is 1.78 or 16x9. So they're ALL anamorphic. If there are people out there who misunderstand, please spread the word."


I was astounded considering I know who this person is and what he has done for the Industry over the years . He has even produced a Document explaining in great detail what Anamorphic transfers and Discs are all about .


I replied with quotes from his own Documents and that has been the last of the communications . It's a sad day for Anamorphic Blu-ray if one of the best sees the issues in this light .


Scott..................


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> I was astounded considering I know who this person is and what he has done for the Industry over the years



Scott, Yes it is amazing. This industry person shows an amazing lack of knowledge and understanding concerning this matter. If this is typical of the BD experts, we are all in big trouble.










Vern


----------



## syncguy

This is indeed sad. How could such people be considered as experts. That is really unhealthy for the industry. Sometimes I wonder how large businesses earn money, when their top brass has no clear direction, clear thinking or clear strategy in relation to their core business. May be the ball is so large, it keeps rolling.....!


----------



## Scott_R_K

Have you also noticed that the Reviews over at Widescreen Review identify that ALL Blu-ray Movies , regardless of AR , are all Anamorphic ? WTF is going on ?


Scott..............


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14627803
> 
> 
> Have you also noticed that the Reviews over at Widescreen Review identify that ALL Blu-ray Movies , regardless of AR , are all Anamorphic ? WTF is going on ?
> 
> 
> Scott..............



[quickly zips up flame suit] this is going to cause some of you pain, but when I scale for CIH using the projector - I have a BenQ, but the followig applys to SONY, JVC and others.


With the BenQ, I have 2 options -

1. 4 x 3 mode with 16:9 program (this means anything designed for a 16:9 display) will apear as if it is Horizontally Squeezed).

2. LetterBox mode provides what we call Vertically Stretched images.


The truth is IT IS NOT THE PROJECTOR, BUT THE SOURCE that provides these "scaled" results. Source is set to 16:9, but the display is running in a 4 x 3 mode. The result is an image that is geometry incorrect. If the source is set to 4 x 3, this no longer works and I end up with a goemetry correct letter boxed image in the 4 x 3 mode. Both 4 x 3 and letterbox modes are designed for 4 x 3 program, not 16:9 (native or enhanced), but as it turns out, provides CIH users with a workable "scaling" solution.


When we think of the term "anamorphic" we think of either film or the enhancement used on DVD (which is a 4 x 3 format that is expandable to 16:9), but this also includes native 16:9 program like HD DVD and BrD...


In the end of the day, it is the 16:9 mode that provides the "electrical stretch" needed to restore the geometry. In CIH using a lens, we are "optically stretching" the image to get the same result - IE to make a circle appear as a cirle and not an oval...


Mark


----------



## syncguy

As I understand, anamorphic is a technical term that refers to stretched recording or stretched encoding. If stretching is not involved, it is technically incorrect to call anamorphic.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14631062
> 
> 
> As I understand, anamorphic is a technical term that refers to stretched recording or stretched encoding. If stretching is not involved, it is technically incorrect to call anamorphic.



[still wearing that flame suit] Yes you are right. However, does the 16:9 mode on a wide screen TV not provide the "stretch" needed to restore the geometry? Therefore, is the format not squeezed on the disc? It sure appears this way when veiwed on a 4 x 3 (non stretch mode) display. Therefore, the term "anamorphic" should be correct...


Mark


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14631415
> 
> 
> [still wearing that flame suit] Yes you are right. However, does the 16:9 mode on a wide screen TV not provide the "stretch" needed to restore the geometry? Therefore, is the format not squeezed on the disc? It sure appears this way when veiwed on a 4 x 3 (non stretch mode) display. Therefore, the term "anamorphic" should be correct...



Mark, unlike DVD, Blu-ray is encoded with square pixels. There is no stretching employed in the disc data.


To watch a letterboxed Blu-ray on a 2.35:1 screen, you can do one of two things:


A) A straight zoom, which involves no stretching

b) Have the projector or video processor stretch the pixels vertically, then add an anamorphic lens to stretch them again horizontally (restoring the original geometry).


All of the stretching in Option B is done after-the-fact. The Blu-ray itself is not "anamorphic". There is no anamorphic enhancement in High Definition.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14631062
> 
> 
> As I understand, anamorphic is a technical term that refers to stretched recording or stretched encoding. If stretching is not involved, it is technically incorrect to call anamorphic.



Unfortunately "anamorphic" has become equated to 16x9 or "enhanced for 16x9" transfer in the home video industry.


----------



## Scott_R_K




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/14633759
> 
> 
> Mark, unlike DVD, Blu-ray is encoded with square pixels. There is no stretching employed in the disc data.
> 
> 
> To watch a letterboxed Blu-ray on a 2.35:1 screen, you can do one of two things:
> 
> 
> A) A straight zoom, which involves no stretching
> 
> b) Have the projector or video processor stretch the pixels vertically, then add an anamorphic lens to stretch them again horizontally (restoring the original geometry).
> 
> 
> All of the stretching in Option B is done after-the-fact. The Blu-ray itself is not "anamorphic". There is no anamorphic enhancement in High Definition.



Hi Josh ,

Thanks for chiming in . Is there any reason I prefer your BD Reviews over all the others ? Absolutely







You "get it" and we appreciate the accurate coverage .


Scott............


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/14633759
> 
> 
> Mark, unlike DVD, Blu-ray is encoded with square pixels. There is no stretching employed in the disc data.
> 
> 
> To watch a letterboxed Blu-ray on a 2.35:1 screen, you can do one of two things:
> 
> 
> A) A straight zoom, which involves no stretching



The straight zoom method: here the display itself electrically stretches the image when 16:9 mode is used - this is why 4 x 3 content gets stretched horizontally, and why new AVRs now offer Horizontal Squeeze - so one mode can be selected on the display with out the end user having to change display modes...zooming to fill the scope screen simply throws light off the top and bottom.



> Quote:
> b) Have the projector or video processor stretch the pixels vertically, then add an anamorphic lens to stretch them again horizontally (restoring the original geometry).



This is my point - the projector (despite popular belief) does not actually stretch the image vertically for CIH applications...what you are seeing is a 16:9 native program on a 4 x 3 display or 4 x 3 Zoom. Because in this display mode there is no electric stretch, the image appears either tall and thin or horizontally squeezed. Modes like Letterbox simply fill the width of the panel, then crop off the top and bottom because at that width, a 4 x 3 frame would be taller, but it does not vertically stretch the image or it would so for anything input...


Take SONY's WV60 - it has one zoom called "Anamorphic Zoom" which is used to provide the so called "vertical stretch" for CIH. It does not however offer a mode called "horizontal squeeze", yet the 4 x 3 mode will do this perfectly. Interestingly enough, both modes do not display the image "scaled" if you feed them a 4 x 3 signal. So if the projector was actually stretching or squeezing the image, then all of those horrid 4 x 3 transfers from Fox in R1 would not be presenting their owners any issues today - yet how many have asked how to deal with 4 x 3 letterboxed transfers?



> Quote:
> All of the stretching in Option B is done after-the-fact. The Blu-ray itself is not "anamorphic". There is no anamorphic enhancement in High Definition.



I am not referring to optical stretching here. Lets stick with what happens at the display before the lens is sat in the light path.

Test this you self.


Load any BD disc. With the lens removed, switch between 16:9 (wide) and letter box. Note the differences. Now stop the disc and set the player to 4 x 3 and repeat the process. Your letterbox mode that was providing you a vertical stretch will no longer do so and the 16:9 mode will now look overly stretched...


Mark


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14636414
> 
> 
> This is my point - the projector (despite popular belief) does not actually stretch the image vertically for CIH applications...what you are seeing is a 16:9 native program on a 4 x 3 display. Because in this display mode there is no electric stretch, the image appears tall and thin or horizontally squeezed. Modes like Letterbox simply fill the width of the panel, then crop off the top and bottom because at that width, a 4 x 3 frame would be taller.



Not (always) true. Take my old IN76 and current W5000 (both work the same). If you're feeding the projector a 16x9 HD image, it does exactly what we say, vertical stretch to crop the top/bottom. If you feed it an SD (720x480i DVD for example) it crops the top/bottom off and fills horizontally left-right without cropping. In that case it's up to some interpretation whether it actually "stretching" or cropping 4:3.


Also both those projectors do a horizontal squeeze when you hit the 4:3 button.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/14636484
> 
> 
> Not (always) true. Take my old IN76 and current W5000 (both work the same). If you're feeding the projector a 16x9 HD image, it does exactly what we say, vertical stretch to crop the top/bottom. If you feed it an SD (720x480i DVD for example) it crops the top/bottom off and fills horizontally left-right without cropping. In that case it's up to some interpretation whether it actually "stretching" or cropping 4:3.



And when feeding the projector 4 x 3 material, both letterbox and 4 x 3 modes will not change the geometry...



> Quote:
> Also both those projectors do a horizontal squeeze when you hit the 4:3 button.



Can we agree this is only for 16:9 enhanced or native (HD) program.


Please see diagram...


Mark


----------



## Josh Z

Mark, I don't know what to tell you. Blu-ray pixels are square, not stretched. That's all there is to it.


The 4:3 mode in your 16:9 projector was not meant to be used for CIH. That mode scales the image to a narrower ratio by throwing away pixels. Although the overall image may appear geometrically "stretched", the pixels themselves remain square. There are just fewer of them. You've taken a 1920x1080 disc and scaled the active image area to only 1440x1080, with the remaining 480 columns of pixels wasted creating pillarbox bars on the sides.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14636985
> 
> 
> And when feeding the projector 4 x 3 material, both letterbox and 4 x 3 modes will not change the geometry...



Both those projectors change geometry regardless of input resolution/timing. They always do what you show in the picture you attached.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/14637054
> 
> 
> Mark, I don't know what to tell you. Blu-ray pixels are square, not stretched. That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> The 4:3 mode in your 16:9 projector was not meant to be used for CIH. That mode scales the image to a narrower ratio by throwing away pixels. Although the overall image may appear geometrically "stretched", the pixels themselves remain square. There are just fewer of them. You've taken a 1920x1080 disc and scaled the active image area to only 1440x1080, with the remaining 480 columns of pixels wasted creating pillarbox bars on the sides.



So are you suggesting that the scaling in the projector's 4 x 3 mode will remove horizontal pixels so that 1920 will fit into 1440?


Mark


----------



## Vern Dias

Mark, Josh is 100% correct. HD uses square pixels, the widescreen 1.77:1 ratio is produced by dividing 1920 by 1080 or 1270 by 720.


DVD was a real kludge in the pixel AR department. The pixel AR on NTSC DVD is 1.5:1. On a PAL DVD the pixel AR is 1.25:1. Neither flat nor 16x9 disks actually use these AR's for a final projected or viewed pixel AR. The pixel AR on the DVD is actually modified for both anamorphic and non-anamorphic disks. This means that the term anamorphic is not used correctly on DVD as both 16x9 and 4x3 modify the disks pixel AR.


Vern


----------



## Scott_R_K

Are we not actually talking about two separate concepts here ? One , is the process used on later SD-DVD's to encode a Widescreen Movie (Anamorphic transfer) using all of the Real Estate available in the SD Format (4:3 or 5:4 depending on definition) then having a Player or Display that would "recognize" the "Enhanced for Widescreen DVD" and then display said movie in its correct AR . This resulted in a Widescreen image that theoretically was created using more pixels and should have had a better perceived result . The black bars were simply blanking provided by the TV to fill in the gaps that had no viable information .


The second concept is what we do next with the available Widescreen image . If we can provide the necessary Digital "Vertical Stretch" to a 2.35:1 image in a 16:9 frame , we keep the horizontal information and alter the vertical to use all the available pixels in the Display's panels . Then through the magic of Optics , specialized for a 1.33:1 horizontal stretch , we can restore the original , correct AR without the black bars and with more available light due to the use of the whole panel .


The problem , as I understand it , is that with Blu-ray the black bars are part of the "recorded" information in the 16:9 digital space allocated on the disc . The real vertical resolution of a 2.35:1 movie on a 1920 x 1080 display is roughly 810 lines . When we Stretch this for our Scope Theatres we are losing vertical resolution because it wasn't there to begin with .


Am I close with this or left field ?


Scott...................


----------



## VTPete

Hey, here's a little glimmer of hope for us all:


I'm sitting in a hotel room in Belgium looking at the programming being sent to my 16:9 screen. Guess what a lot of commercials and other broadcasts are starting to do? They're letterboxing the 16:9 image to make it look more theatrical! In other words, in the same way broadcasters started to letter box 16:9 commercials on 4:3 displays, we're now seeing 2.35:1 images letter boxed on 16:9 displays!


At first I thought I was seeing an artifact of the TV being set up incorrectly... but not so. (In several cases, the commercials then displayed text in the "black" portions of the screen showing me that it was intentional.) And people were neither squished nor stretched.


And, I also bought a home theater magazine with a long article on CIH.


We're gaining ground, folks!


We may never see bluray support a higher definition 2.35:1 anamorphic storage, but it's possible that someone decides to create a 1920x1080 version of a 2.35:1 movie in one of the many newer on-demand or downloadable formats.


(I'm convinced the future of video is NOT in a format pre-determined resolution and aspect ratio, but rather digital files that only store what's really needed.)


-Pete


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/14637265
> 
> 
> Mark, Josh is 100% correct. HD uses square pixels, the widescreen 177:1 ratio is produced by dividing 1920 by 1080 or 1270 by 720.



Fair enough, so why the geometry shift then?


Mark


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/14638976
> 
> 
> Hey, here's a little glimmer of hope for us all:
> 
> 
> I'm sitting in a hotel room in Belgium looking at the programming being sent to my 16:9 screen. Guess what a lot of commercials and other broadcasts are starting to do? They're letterboxing the 16:9 image to make it look more theatrical! In other words, in the same way broadcasters started to letter box 16:9 commercials on 4:3 displays, we're now seeing 2.35:1 images letter boxed on 16:9 displays!
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> We're gaining ground, folks!
> 
> 
> 
> -Pete



I also have noticed letterboxed commercials on 16x9. Interesting. Scope TVs could be a real possibility .....


See the nature - it is all panoramic, not boxy. IMO, there is a natural tendency in humans to appreciate panoramic images.


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14639137
> 
> 
> I also have noticed letterboxed commercials on 16x9. Interesting. Scope TVs could be a real possibility .....
> 
> 
> See the nature - it is all panoramic, not boxy. IMO, there is a natural tendency in humans to appreciate panoramic images.



I wonder what ever happened to round image viewing? That would be kinda cool, huh? Whoops, SERIOUSLY OFF TOPIC! Sorry!


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14637192
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting that the scaling in the projector's 4 x 3 mode will remove horizontal pixels so that 1920 will fit into 1440?



Yes, that's exactly what is happening.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/14640159
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what is happening.



So it that why we see the geometry shift as well - what we call "scaling for CIH" (VS/HS)?


Mark


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14646918
> 
> 
> So it that why we see the geometry shift as well - what we call "scaling for CIH" (VS/HS)?



In your comparison drawing, the "Original HD Image" is exactly what's excoded on the disc. The "Scaled for CIH" image stretches the geometry of that picture by cropping off the letterbox bars and interpolating new pixels within the active movie area.


The data on the disc is not encoded with anamorphic enhancement. The stretched image is created by scaling.


----------



## syncguy

Yes, that's correct. The blu-ray image on the disk is not stretched so that the disk cannot be called anamorphic. This is not easily correctable problem since anomorphic stretch is not part of the blu-ray specs. If this function is added to the blu-ray spec in a future date, the old blu-ray players will be obsolete (unless the display could unstretch the image).


----------



## Scott_R_K




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14648305
> 
> 
> Yes, that's correct. The blu-ray image on the disk is not stretched so that the disk cannot be called anamorphic. This is not easily correctable problem since anomorphic stretch is not part of the blu-ray specs. If this function is added to the blu-ray spec in a future date, the old blu-ray players will be obsolete (unless the display could unstretch the image).



Wouldn't it be great if Sony released Super-Bit versions of their Blu-ray Titles , call them Ultra-Bit , with Anamorphic encoding , then update their PS3 to process the new data ! Shouldn't be too hard , and Sony could scoop the competition overnight . Just dreaming but if the Industry had asked the Consumer base what they actually wanted I'm sure this would have been on the list.

Scott................


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14653114
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if Sony released Super-Bit versions of their Blu-ray Titles , call them Ultra-Bit , with Anamorphic encoding , then update their PS3 to process the new data ! Shouldn't be too hard , and Sony could scoop the competition overnight . Just dreaming but if the Industry had asked the Consumer base what they actually wanted I'm sure this would have been on the list.
> 
> Scott................



Good point - good thinking. Yes, of course they can do this. Sony can make blu-ray+ anamorphic blu-rays (so as other studios). PS3 can be upgraded to cope with blu-ray+ disks and other manufacturers can follow through firmware upgrades. They have a new business as they can position blu-ray+ slightly above blu-ray and we will get superior anamorphic blu-ray+ disks. Brilliant. This could be the starting point to push for Scope TVs as well. (a big win for the manufacturers).


The question is whether there would be sufficient market for them to do this? Strategically, IMO, they should do this to position themselves to maintain future revenue and growth.


They also need to fix blackbar subtitles "big" problem for the blu-ray+ disks to work. Perhaps they should fix subtitle problem for the blu-ray disks first .......


----------



## CAVX

If Sony did release BD+ discs, then the subtitle issue would be fixed as there would be no black bars to place them in anyway.


Come on SONY you can do it...and I like that name "Ultra-Bit" too...


Mark


----------



## Scott_R_K

It should be bloody easy , Sony has the power and has already demonstrated this in at least one of their releases...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies...73&show=review 


Quote: "Special Note: Due to overwhelming requests from users of fixed

height front projection systems, Sony has included an option to

move the subtitles of Immortal Beloved out of the black bars

of the widescreen presentation and into the actual picture area.

Those with fixed height 2.35:1 setups, have, up until this point,

been unable to view subtitles, as their screens eliminate the

black bars. Way to go Sony! " end quote !


Why don't ALL Discs have this option ? Who knows , but at least the technology is there , somewhere










Scott.......................


----------



## Aussie Bob

The "Ultra Bit" disk wouldn't be - strictly speaking - "encoded". It'd just be stretched in appearance but still use square pixels.


The only way you could unstretch it would be with a lens, or if you had a display device that could squeeze vertically, adding artificial black letterbox bars.


I reckon the simplest way of doing this is to release two versions of the movie per disk, both with square pixels: one of them a standard letterboxed 2.35:1 and the other a full frame and full definition anamorphic version, for users with lenses. You select whichever one you want before you start the movie. BluRay is supposed to have a lot of storage space isn't it? Well, use it, Hollywood!


That way users with 16:9 TVs or who didn't use lenses could watch their version, and the smart intelligent (and, dare I say, handsome) people with lenses could use _their_ version. Ships that pass in the night... no standards changed, no special software. The only thing you'd need to enjoy the stretched version would be a lens.


If these movies are originally mastered in 4K format and then scaled down for BluRay release to 2K (1920x810 + bars), then they could be just as easily scaled down to 2K-stretched (1920x1080, no bars) as well, without loss of image quality compared to the original 4K master.


Surely that would be worth a try out, at least?


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14658782
> 
> 
> It should be bloody easy , Sony has the power and has already demonstrated this in at least one of their releases...
> 
> 
> Quote: "Special Note: Due to overwhelming requests from users of fixed
> 
> height front projection systems, Sony has included an option to
> 
> move the subtitles of Immortal Beloved out of the black bars
> 
> of the widescreen presentation and into the actual picture area.
> 
> Those with fixed height 2.35:1 setups, have, up until this point,
> 
> been unable to view subtitles, as their screens eliminate the
> 
> black bars. Way to go Sony! " end quote !
> 
> 
> Why don't ALL Discs have this option ? Who knows , but at least the technology is there , somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott.......................



Sony didn't do it after Immortal Beloved. Reason as follows:


Sony used ASCII based subtitles for this and it needs BD-J to recreate the titles on the screen and adjustment. But this technique did not work consistently on all players, I think, due to a screw up in the BD-J subtitle specs. They fear that BD-J subtitles will not work at all in some players and stopped using it.


Unfortunately this is a big technology screw-up.










Options:

1. Fix BD-J screw up and update firmware - Then they can use this for new titles.


2. Develop certified firmware code to reposition raster-image based standard subtitles so that player manufacturers could use it. This will work for both existing and new titles. (The so-called protected blu-ray path does not allow manufacturers to interfere with raster subtitles unless certified code is developed),


3. Easy way out: Add two track; one on the black bar and the other within the screen so that the user can select it. This is extremely trivial at the authoring stage. Don't understand the reasons for not doing this.


----------



## Scott_R_K

Dare I ask...did HD-DVD sort out the Sub-Title issue or did everyone get it wrong ? So frustrating when the Industry hypes this new High-Def-on-a-Disk technology and doesn't get it right , plus they're not even working on it . Already looking at the next gimmick , 2K x 4K etc. No wonder Blu-ray isn't catching on as predicted , or hoped for , Consumers are a little smarter than expected . At least the 650,000 or so that hang out on AVS










Scott..............................


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14658782
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't ALL Discs have this option ? Who knows , but at least the technology is there , somewhere



Again why don't the studios just leave the subtitles in the picture area period?


Mark


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14670392
> 
> 
> Again why don't the studios just leave the subtitles in the picture area period?
> 
> 
> Mark



Good question and good point. I wish they do this. However, some people think subtitles on blackbars are better. I am not agreeing and questioning this. If someone is watching 3 hour movie with subtitles on blackbars they should get tired of it and they would be reading the subtitles rather than watching the movie. This affect is higher for larger screens.


If a movie is watched on a 20 set and subtitles fonts are large, it may cover the picture and one may think that the blackbars are better for the subtitles. However, this is not the case for large HD screens. Blu-ray could use smaller fonts because of the high resolution and in combination with large screen size, the bottom of the picture frame is ideal for the subtitles. Then it is possible to watch the movie rather than reading subtitles.










The question in my mind: Why studios do not use two tracks, one on the black bar and the other within the picture. This is extremely trivial at the authoring stage as it requires only few more clicks. It is good for their business as everyone would be happy and be able to equally enjoy movies.


----------



## Rob100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14671918
> 
> 
> The question in my mind: Why studios do not use two tracks, one on the black bar and the other within the picture. This is extremely trivial at the authoring stage as it requires only few more clicks. It is good for their business as everyone would be happy and be able to equally enjoy movies.



Good idea! So simple...


Likewise why don't the player manufacturers give us the facility to move the subs up/down. Yet again from a programming point of view this must be easy to do.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob100* /forum/post/14671983
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise why don't the player manufacturers give us the facility to move the subs up/down. Yet again from a programming point of view this must be easy to do.



Adjusting subs up/down is okay with DVD. But so-called blu-ray protected video path does not allow manufacturers to adjust raster image based standard subtitles.







BDA has to develop certified code to facilitate this.


Check above posts: #202 and #204.


----------



## Rob100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14672027
> 
> 
> Adjusting subs up/down is okay with DVD. But so-called blu-ray protected video path does not allow manufacturers to adjust raster image based standard subtitles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDA has to develop certified code to facilitate this.
> 
> 
> Check above posts: #202 and #204.



Okay I see... Crazy...


----------



## Scott_R_K

Would someone be kind enough to explain the term "Square Pixels" as it applies to Blu-ray and why we don't use this term when referring to SD-DVD ?


Scott............


----------



## stanger89

It's not too bad. Let's take the most simple case, ie 99% of BDs. They store a 16x9 frame, in 1920x1080 pixels. The ratio of the frame is 1.78:1 (Display Aspect Ratio), 1920/1080=1.78, ie the ratios match. That means the _pixel aspect ratio_ is 1:1 (1.78/1.78) a pixel's height is equal to it's width.


DVD is different, it can be either a 4x3 or 16x9 Display Aspect Ratio, however those are stored in 720x480 pixels. So for the "anamorphic widescreen" case, we have 1.78:1 DAR, and 720/480 = 1.5:1 pixels, so we have a Pixel Aspect Ratio of 1.187:1. For the 4x3 case, the PAR is 0.9:1.


----------



## Scott_R_K

That....was excellent ! Thank you . I'm printing that off so I can stuff it into my book of things I need to remember .










So , to carry this thought to the next step , why is it easier to anamorphically stretch the image on non-square pixels ?


Scott..............


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14818597
> 
> 
> So , to carry this thought to the next step , why is it easier to anamorphically stretch the image on non-square pixels ?



It isn't. The "square pixels" thing is a red herring for all practical purposes. Pixels from sources are pixels. They are always square. Fixed pixel display devices without anamorphic lenses always have square pixels. Projectors with anamorphic lenses stretching the image have rectangular pixels, but, this is meaningless from a practical perspective. The only real issue involved is one of scaling, tell the scaler what AR you want, and it does the scaling.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/14819207
> 
> 
> It isn't. The "square pixels" thing is a red herring for all practical purposes.



No it's not, it's just a fact, pixels can be square, or non-square, there's really no benefit to one over the other.


Scott, when people say "Blu-ray can't do anamorphic 'because it has square pixels'", they're somewhat oversimplifying, or more accurately, they're being redundant. It's not "because it has square pixels", it's just that Blu-ray specs don't support anything but square pixels. The designers/committies/whoever decided not to include support for anamorphic (non-square pixel) formats.



> Quote:
> Pixels from sources are pixels. They are always square.



Not necessarilly. The DV format specifies a 4:3 frame encoded by 720x480 pixels, resulting in a (non-square) 0.9:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio. The same is true for 4:3 on DVD. In fact, pixels on DVD are always non-square.


Whether the pixels in the source are square or not is determined by the resolution of the frame and the display aspect ratio it represents.



> Quote:
> Fixed pixel display devices without anamorphic lenses always have square pixels.



Not always, there are many plasmas that have non-square pixels.


----------



## Scott_R_K

Thanks stanger89 ,


So it's more of choice or decision rather than a technological barrier ? It could be done , just someone has to make the decision to do it . Will the Industry ever get this right ?


Scott...............................


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14820116
> 
> 
> Thanks stanger89 ,
> 
> 
> So it's more of choice or decision rather than a technological barrier ?



Absolutely no technical reason to prevent the Blu-ray spec from including support for anamorphic encoding.


> Quote:
> It could be done , just someone has to make the decision to do it . Will the Industry ever get this right ?



Unfortunately it's really too late now, the spec has been released, players built. Unless they can guarantee that all or at least the vast majority (excluding the PS3, which can do anything) could support it, it's not going to be added now.


That said, I'm about 99% sure that the chips in _most_ Blu-ray players would support it. Many of the new media extenders use chips from the same family Blu-ray players use. The PopcornHour A110 looks like it's basically a BD player without the drive and running different software. I've never tried playing a 21:9, 1920x1080 video file in my SageTV extender but I think it would handle it right.


----------



## usualsuspects

stanger89,


I understand where you are coming from on this, I take a different view of it. Technically, some devices don't have square pixels, ironically this strengthens my view on the matter. My point is that, conceptually, pixels are fixed point elements. There is no concept of half a pixel or 3/4 of a pixel or morphing pixel shapes - it does not exist on fixed pixel display devices. You have a matrix of pixels. That matrix is scaled fit a larger matrix. The amount of relative stretch in the V vs the H dimension does not have to be 1:1, and often is not 1:1. This does not change the "shape" of the pixels.


----------



## Rob100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/14820062
> 
> 
> In fact, pixels on DVD are always non-square.



Hmm, what about PAL 4:3 content which is 720x576


----------



## bass addict




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/14820322
> 
> 
> You have a matrix of pixels. That matrix is scaled fit a larger matrix.



So you're saying I can stretch pixels? No Neo, what I'm saying is when you're ready, you wont have to.


----------



## tausifs

I haven't followed this thread from the beginning, but IMO, if any studio is going to go to the trouble to make Anamorphic BD discs, then it would be a waste of time unless the active image area was also remastered to a 1920 x1080 resolution, ie. not only eliminating redundant encoding of horizontal black bars, but increasing the absolute resolution of the active image itself ( not simply upscaling). They might not need to re-encode the original source material if they already have a digital master which is of an ultra high resolution- the anamorphic encode could be derived from this digital master.


IMO, there is no point in making anamorphic discs without the benefit of an added resolution as most PJs and almost all video processors have buttons that would achieve the same effect anyway.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14820116
> 
> 
> Thanks stanger89 ,
> 
> 
> So it's more of choice or decision rather than a technological barrier ? It could be done , just someone has to make the decision to do it . Will the Industry ever get this right ?
> 
> 
> Scott...............................



I think the initial excuse for not implementing anamorphic stretch was technical. That is the anamorphic stretch would make players more complex and consequently may impact on the price. I think this is a lame excuse. The actual reason could be business related rather than technical (if it is not shortsightedness).


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tausifs* /forum/post/14822544
> 
> 
> I haven't followed this thread from the beginning, but IMO, if any studio is going to go to the trouble to make Anamorphic BD discs, then it would be a waste of time unless the active image area was also remastered to a 1920 x1080 resolution, ie. not only eliminating redundant encoding of horizontal black bars, but increasing the absolute resolution of the active image itself ( not simply upscaling). They might not need to re-encode the original source material if they already have a digital master which is of an ultra high resolution- the anamorphic encode could be derived from this digital master.
> 
> 
> IMO, there is no point in making anamorphic discs without the benefit of an added resolution as most PJs and almost all video processors have buttons that would achieve the same effect anyway.



If the masters are larger than 1080p, then there are obvious benefits to anamorphic encoding. But even if the masters are 1080p, there are two potential benefits to an anamorphic transcode from a 1080p master. Commercial mastering scalers (often computers) can be much better than any consumer scaler (mastering scalers don't have to work in real-time, etc...). Another potential benefit of a transcode is chroma resolution. HD disks use the same ancient 4:2:0 encoding that has been used on DVD for 10 years. The masters are not encoded at 4:2:0 and have more chroma data. This data can be recaptured via an anamorphic encode.


I many ways, HD disks are a time warp to the initial DVD spec with the only benefit being higher resolution, while keeping the limitations of the initial DVD spec - 4:2:0 8-bit video levels, non-anamorphic.


Clearly HD disks can look massively better than SD-DVD, but the lack of ANY real video quality improvements other than resolution and new codecs is disappointing to me. I guess those fancy menus and other blinking lights were more important than real technical innovation.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob100* /forum/post/14821453
> 
> 
> Hmm, what about PAL 4:3 content which is 720x576



720/576 = 1.25, so the Pixel Aspect Ratio on PAL is either 1.064 or 1.424 depending on if it's 4x3 or 16x9 respectively.


----------



## GetGray

I think the core reason, which is bad for us, is that the Blu-Ray market segment that has the ability to produce a 2.35,etc. image is miniscule. I understand that front projection is already a tiny market segment, so the anamorphic FP crowd is probably relatively microscopic.


On the other hand, for the past 2 years at CEDIA, I can't think of a single big name display company that did not show a 2.3x screen in their demos, including Sony. So one would think they would want to put some resources toward making that "top of the line presentation" a carrot for the consumers by giving them some enhanced content.


Maybe one day...


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/14823020
> 
> 
> I think the core reason, which is bad for us, is that the Blu-Ray market segment that has the ability to produce a 2.35,etc. image is miniscule. I understand that front projection is already a tiny market segment, so the anamorphic FP crowd is probably relatively microscopic.



Actually I'd be it's a significant part of the BD market. BD is basically and enthusiast format right now, and enthusiasts are the most likely to have a CIH setup.


----------



## wmcclain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/14820116
> 
> 
> So it's more of choice or decision rather than a technological barrier ? It could be done, just someone has to make the decision to do it . Will the Industry ever get this right?



I wrote this: Anamorphic vs 4:3 letterboxed DVDs to explain anamorphic vs non-anamorphic encoding on SD-DVD; you could extend the reasoning there to (non-existent) anamorphic HD sources.


I suspect the authors of the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD specs simply estimated (probably accurately) that 1920x1080 displays would be "it" for at least 10 years; beyond that you are looking at future technology hard to anticipate.


For 1920x1080 displays there would be no place to put the extra pixels provided by anamorphic encoding so the feature is not needed. This leaves CIH users yearning for more, or course.


As to "square pixels" it would be more accurate to say "square sampling", but I use the first expression anyway.


-Bill


----------



## Lamprey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/14823655
> 
> 
> Actually I'd be it's a significant part of the BD market. BD is basically and enthusiast format right now, and enthusiasts are the most likely to have a CIH setup.



Are you saying you think that the majority of DB purchases and purchasers have CIH?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lamprey* /forum/post/14833143
> 
> 
> Are you saying you think that the majority of DB purchases and purchasers have CIH?



Not necessarilly, what I'm saying is that the proportion of CIH with BD owners is probably disproportionately larger than it is with just DVD owners.


The best numbers I've found is that Blu-ray is probably around 10% of the home video market. CIH is maybe around 0.5%, though I bet that's optimistic. Both CIH and Blu-ray appeal to the same group of people, ie those who are most serious about their movie viewing, I think it's a very safe assumption that a far larger chunk of the BD market has CIH setups than the rest of it.


Hey, how about we (unscientifically) find out:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1074109


----------



## D_B_0673




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stopdog* /forum/post/7256573
> 
> 
> Art this really bothers me. Could also be an arguement for constant width, especially in a width challenged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11' wide room like mine. The widest screen I could reasonably fit in there is around 110", but height is no problem (9' ceilings).
> 
> But if I go CW then throw distance becomes a problem since my room is only 18' long. Either is a compromise.



I do the exact same, constant width. My room can only accomedate a 92 wide 16x9 screen. So when I use a lens I maximze pixels and brightness for 2.35 and use full screen for 16x9. If I had a wider room I would try a expansion lens but I have always argued that in a narrow room a horizontal expansion lens is a waste of money and resolution


----------



## miamia

Isn't the Iron Man blu-ray encoded as 2.40 anamorphic and therefore using all the pixels in a 2.4 CIH setup?


----------



## stanger89

No. 2.4:1 padded in a 16:9 frame.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Forgive the basic question, but I'm wanting to get into CIH and still cant get it 8 pages later.


Are you saying all Bluray movies are pan and scanned to fill a 16x9 screen, or just letterboxed without being anamorphic, so they dont use all the vertical pixels?


So what do you do with CIH? Is bluray with fewer vertical lines of resolution still better than upconverted DVD PQ with a CIH lens and good (ie RS2 or 20) PJ?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/14945700
> 
> 
> Forgive the basic question, but I'm wanting to get into CIH and still cant get it 8 pages later.
> 
> 
> Are you saying all Bluray movies are pan and scanned to fill a 16x9 screen, or just letterboxed without being anamorphic, so they dont use all the vertical pixels?



It's square pixels, non-anamorphic, I don't think we've seen a BD that isn't OAR. If the movie isn't 16:9 it's letterboxed on BD.



> Quote:
> So what do you do with CIH?



I vertically stretch it electronically to full panel size and then use a lens to correct that to my 2.39:1 screen shape.



> Quote:
> Is bluray with fewer vertical lines of resolution still better than upconverted DVD PQ with a CIH lens and good (ie RS2 or 20) PJ?



Let's see:

2.4:1 BD ~= 1920x812

2.4:1 DVD~=720x360


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/14945700
> 
> 
> Are you saying all Bluray movies are pan and scanned to fill a 16x9 screen, or just letterboxed without being anamorphic, so they dont use all the vertical pixels?



2.35:1 movies are letterboxed within a 16:9 HD frame. There is no anamorphic enhancement in Blu-ray.



> Quote:
> So what do you do with CIH? Is bluray with fewer vertical lines of resolution still better than upconverted DVD PQ with a CIH lens and good (ie RS2 or 20) PJ?



The 2.35:1 portion of a Blu-ray image uses approximately 1920x800 pixels of resolution.


A 2.35:1 movie on DVD (anamorphically enhanced) uses approximately 720x360 pixels.


So, what do you think will be the result?


[_edit: Looks like Stranger beat me to it._]


----------



## Scott_R_K

Just a little "dust-off" for the 2.35:1 folks....thought everyone might find this of interest...

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-a...lcd-television 


And they said it would never happen










Scott........................


----------



## HMenke

^ Sweet TV!










It seems like there could be some benefit to encoding Blu-rays with a horizontal squeeze, filling all of the available pixels vertically in a 16:9 frame. Then 2.35:1 playback devices (native 21:9 TVs, native 21:9 projectors, native 16:9 projectors with anamorphic lenses) could expand the picture horizontally during playback.


----------



## HDDummy

Yeah.....We had different Fullscreen and Widescreen DVDs back in the day. I don't understand why studios aren't encoding Anamorphic specific discs that squeeze a 2.35 frame into 1920x1080 pixels of information. Any of the three display options listed by HMenke would be able to handle the image appropriately and everyone else would just buy the standard format disc. Oh well...maybe one day.


----------



## Quidsane




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/14945817
> 
> 
> I don't think we've seen a BD that isn't OAR. If the movie isn't 16:9 it's letterboxed on BD.


*Equilibrium* (2002 - Christian Bale, Taye Diggs)


Theaters = 2.35:1

SD DVD = 2.35:1

HD-DVD = 2.35:1










BD = 1.78:1










You get the point. Other senseless damage includes:

*Gulliver's Travels* (cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.78:1)
*Roy Orbison: Black and White Night* (cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.78:1)
*The Truman Show* (A 1.66:1 workprint was stretched horizontally to create the 1.78:1 frame)


----------



## saprano

So with 4K coming you CIH guys are going to be getting at least 1900 lines of vertical resolution. Excited?


It seems no matter what though, we'll always be losing vertical and horizontal resolution on HDTV's and CIH setups because of different ratios. I didn't even know the samething happens in the theater.


I think it would be better if the display showed you the actual resolution being used. For 2.35 films it should say 1920x800p, for 1.85:1 1920x1023p?(I foget) etc. But that wouldn't be fun would it.


I don't get how the rest of the pixels are encoded in the black bars???????


----------



## pokekevin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scott_R_K* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just a little "dust-off" for the 2.35:1 folks....thought everyone might find this of interest...
> 
> http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-a...lcd-television
> 
> 
> And they said it would never happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott........................



Phillips....ehhh


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *saprano* /forum/post/21668479
> 
> 
> So with 4K coming you CIH guys are going to be getting at least 1900 lines of vertical resolution. Excited?
> 
> 
> It seems no matter what though, we'll always be losing vertical and horizontal resolution on HDTV's and CIH setups because of different ratios. I didn't even know the samething happens in the theater.



Well it does with digital, not film.



> Quote:
> I think it would be better if the display showed you the actual resolution being used. For 2.35 films it should say 1920x800p, for 1.85:1 1920x1023p?(I foget) etc. But that wouldn't be fun would it.
> 
> 
> I don't get how the rest of the pixels are encoded in the black bars???????



The black bars are a part of the image and the image has an Aspect Ratio of 1.78:1 regardless if the film is Scope or not.


----------

