Hey guys,
New member, so I wasn't quite sure what forum to post this in, but hopefully it fits here.

I have a question for the "techies" here (more info can be provided, if needed):

There's a studio (I won't mention the name) who is releasing titles and claiming "1080p" on the box covers of their releases, however, when you play their titles back, the titles are playing at 1080i. Not just on my system - we've checked with multiple set-ups, TVs and players...so that's not the issue.

When I confronted the studio with this fact, this is the reply I got back. My question is are they giving us a line of BS? :)

Here's the reply:

its a blu-ray spec thing.
The image people are viewing is a full 1920x1080
If the frame rate is 29.97 then the player reports it at 1080i even though the image you are viewing is 1080p
If the frame rate is 23.97 or 24 then the player reports it at 1080p.

So technically all of our videos are showing 1080p. The player reports 1080i when the frame rate is 29.97. So the customer is getting the full 1080p regardless of what the blu-ray player is saying with 1080i.

If anyone is interested we can show them the encodes before they go onto blu-ray disc. They are all 1080p

Thanks in advance!

If 1920x1080i and 1920x1080P have the same resolution (which they are) . . .

What is it that you think you are missing?

If you would like help, you need to tell us what title you are referring to.

This is similar to the thread called "Bluray does not support 1080p30!! Did not know this!"
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=752275

If the title is a feature film, originally filmed at 24p but the player is reporting it as interlaced (eg. "Death Sentence"), then maybe that's a bad encoding and was encoded as interlaced instead of 24p progressive.

If the title is a documentary or concert or scenery disc (like the HDScape titles), maybe it was recorded at 30p or 60i or - unlikely but maybe some time in the future - given that such cameras already exist: 1080p60 (US) or 1080p50 (Europe). For Blu-ray it can't, as far as I know, encode it in progressive in anything other than 24p.

From the thread I mentioned above, I think they said if it was recorded at 30p it would have to be encoded as 60i (maybe they can flag it somehow to help it be converted back by the TV or player so it looks just like it would have had it been encoded at 30p? - though the encoding may not be quite as efficient as if it had been encoded at 30p - but with a high enough bitrate it shouldn't really matter).

If it is encoded on disc at 60i but it was originally recorded in-camera at 30p, and you want to get back the 30p exactly as it had been filmed/taped I wonder if all TVs (and players?) would do this correctly - I didn't think the de-interlacing in all TVs was correct?

Some of the HDScape titles are labelled as 1080p, despite some of them being recorded using interlaced video cameras.

It would help if Blu-ray could encode full HD at more frame rates, including more progressive ones, like 25p, 30p, 48p, 50p, 60p etc. I'm sure James Cameron would be okay with that when his 3D films are released on Blu-ray.

If 1920x1080i and 1920x1080P have the same resolution (which they are) . . .

What is it that you think you are missing?
They're not totally the same though really.

With 1080i60 (1920x1080/60i) you're only getting 540 new lines on each refresh (60 times a second).

With 1080p60 (1920x1080/60p) you get 1080 new lines on each refresh (60 times a second).

Though 1080p60 (like 1080p25 and 1080p30) isn't a valid Blu-ray format.

But they could encode 1080p30 content at 1080i60 and hopefully it will look as it should. But will the player and TV always de-interlace it properly, and will the player and/or TV, once given a 1080i60 signal be able to identify whether the content really was originated at 1080i60 or whether it was really 1080p30 to display it correctly?

Personally I think they should add all those progressive frame rates I mentioned in my previous post to the Blu-ray specs, and not record any future content in interlaced. Interlaced is an ancient form of compression better suited to broadcasting to CRT TVs without flicker (or to give seemingly better motion portrayal within a given analogue bandwidth). If they need to record something at 1080p25, 1080p30, 1080p50 or 1080p60 they should do that and encode it like that too, and if it needs compressing more because of too high a data rate, they should compress it more using normal VC1/AVC/Mpeg style compression instead of interlacing - which adds it's own artefacts (like feathering - and the fact that you only get half the number of lines/resolution on each refresh).
---------------
EDIT:
Even though, as I have said above, I think no new content should be recorded in interlaced (where possible), ie. they should be recorded at 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30 or 1080p50 or 1080p60, assuming they have one of the available cameras that can record in this format, so even though I'd prefer no new content to be recorded in interlaced, people currently assume that progressive is always better than interlaced, whereas, depending on the refresh rate, that may not be the case.

Ignoring the look of 24p/25p footage (which may be good, for particularly for fictional work), if all you wanted was an exact replication of something, 1080i60 should record it more accurately than 1080p24, due to the refresh rate. So in that case, purely from an accuracy point of view, at those refresh rates, interlaced (at 60i) would be even more accurate than progressive (at 24p) - and 1080p60 should be even more accurate - well assuming the bitrate was high enough. Though 24p (or 25p or 30p) may give a better look depending on the content/look required.

When I confronted the studio with this fact, this is the reply I got back.

You emailed a studio and they offered to provide samples of their encodes pre-authoring??

I think they are correct. It is a Blu-ray spec thing.
The Blu-ray spec does not support 1080 at 29.97 fps, so it has to interlace it.

I think they are correct. It is a Blu-ray spec thing.
The Blu-ray spec does not support 1080 at 29.97 fps, so it has to interlace it.

Well as Blu-ray doesn't support 1080p30 natively, are they really correct to be claiming on the box that it is "1080p", especially when the player it is being played back on is reporting that it thinks the content is interlaced?

There's a 10 page thread questioning whether Blu-ray can really support 1080p30 content. Some people said yes, some people said no. But anyway it has to be encoded on to the disc as a 1080i60 video file, and you just need to hope that your TV will display it correctly.

Sort of OT, but as we're talking about the correct labelling of Blu-rays - I still think it's not entirely correct (maybe almost false advertising?) labelling or describing a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 movie as "1080p" - given that people aren't supposed to be watching the black bars, and there's nothing in those black bars apart from black. Could someone encode a 480 line video within 1920x1080 picture frame, and have 600 black lines, but still justifiably claim, on the back of the case that it was "1080p" - even though it has tons of black lines encoded in the picture?

Sort of OT, but as we're talking about the correct labelling of Blu-rays - I still think it's not entirely correct (maybe almost false advertising?) labelling or describing a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 movie as "1080p" - given that people aren't supposed to be watching the black bars, and there's nothing in those black bars apart from black. Could someone encode a 480 line video within 1920x1080 picture frame, and have 600 black lines, but still justifiably claim, on the back of the case that it was "1080p" - even though it has tons of black lines encoded in the picture?

As long as the vertical resolution is 1080 or the horizontal resolution is 1920 you are getting the maximum amount of resolution possible while maintaining the correct aspect ratio. Personally I don't know why studios don't label them 1920p.

As for the original post. Do you consider DVDs to be 480p? If you think they are then you have no reason to complain.

As long as the vertical resolution is 1080 or the horizontal resolution is 1920 you are getting the maximum amount of resolution possible while maintaining the correct aspect ratio. Personally I don't know why studios don't label them 1920p.

As for the original post. Do you consider DVDs to be 480p? If you think they are then you have no reason to complain.
So it's okay if I make a 1920x10 pixel movie, make the rest of the lines (all 1070 of them) black, write on the box in big letters that my movie is presented in full 1080p format and that would be totally okay and no one would complain?

All I'm saying is that I think they should be a bit more honest, and if you have a 2.40:1 HD on BD, as well as saying that the screen resolution is 1080p also mention just under that figure, on the specs, that it only has 800 lines or so of actual picture area (ie. non-black bars, the picture area that people should actually be watching, as they aren't supposed to be watching the black bars). And you may get even less lines that aren't black bars than the aspect ratio figure may lead you to believe, seeing as they may crop even more on the top and bottom to make sure neither the top nor the bottom of the frame take up a partial macroblock height.

For one thing, what if in future we get something like a TV/display and media format that really is capable of the full 1080p with 2.40:1 movies (ie. they store it on the disc as 2592x1080 pixels) - how will they distinguish it from the current BD versions of 2.40:1 movies which also claim to be 1080p?

And I consider DVDs to be encoded interlaced not progressive.

As long as the vertical resolution is 1080 or the horizontal resolution is 1920 you are getting the maximum amount of resolution possible while maintaining the correct aspect ratio...

But as other have said, with movies that have a wider ratio than 1.78, the vertical resolution is not really 1080. Its a real shame that Blu-ray does not support anamorphic widescreen. If it did then you could you use an FP with an anamorphic lens to get the full 1920x1080 resolution on 2.35:1 films.

So we have the equipment today to take full advantage of 1080p, but not a format or media.

But as other have said, with movies that have a wider ratio than 1.78, the vertical resolution is not really 1080. Its a real shame that Blu-ray does not support anamorphic widescreen. If it did then you could you use an FP with an anamorphic lens to get the full 1920x1080 resolution on 2.35:1 films.

So we have the equipment today to take full advantage of 1080p, but not a format or media.

Actually they can, it just that it would look jerky on everybody elses setup.

Actually they can, it just that it would look jerky on everybody elses setup.
Jerky? - I don't see how as it's not altering the frame rate in any way. If current Blu-ray formats didn't have a way to "de-anamorphic" (or whatever the word is :)) the picture height, it would look all wrong and people would probably look taller and thinner than they really are which would be bad.

I don't know whether that could be fixed by a firmware update or whether you'd need new hardware in a Blu-ray player to "de-anamorphize" it. It might even look a tiny bit worse on current 1920x1080 fixed pixel displays if it was anamorphic and you had the correct processing to de-squeeze the picture height - but when they start selling higher resolution screens (probably any higher than current ones), these anamorphic ones should look better (as well as looking better on current projectors). They could also sell special anamorphic discs separately or have one disc in the package non-anamorphic and one anamorphic and people would use whichever would work best in their setup (and perhaps eventually most players sold could be made to allow anamorphic picture height HD video).

Of course it would also be good if they could encode on disc at higher pixel resolutions (and not just putting everything into one standard pixel window size/shape) - and scale it down for displays not capable of those resolutions (just like 720p displays do). These too should look better, especially once we start getting bigger displays than current ones.

Jerky? - I don't see how as it's not altering the frame rate in any way. If current Blu-ray formats didn't have a way to "de-anamorphic" (or whatever the word is :)) the picture height, it would look all wrong and people would probably look taller and thinner than they really are which would be bad.

Jerky as in the way you described.

Actually, I just realized it would not have to be anamorphic. They just to a 2nd version. That's what those 50 GB discs are for right? You would have the regular 1920x800 and the streatched 1920x1080 for people with lenses.:D

You gain over 500,00 pixel of resolution!

Actually, I just realized it would not have to be anamorphic. They just to a 2nd version. That's what those 50 GB discs are for right? You would have the regular 1920x800 and the streatched 1920x1080 for people with lenses.:D

You gain over 500,00 pixel of resolution!
Or separate 50GB discs in the case so we don't limit the bitrate for long movies.

Or separate 50GB discs in the case so we don't limit the bitrate for long movies.

That wouldnt the studios want, there is the possibility that you sell the second edition.

One disc would be sufficient, just put the extras on the second disc. Both encodes can share the same audio so you save some bandwith there.

Make the anamorphic accessable by setting a code in the menu such as 235. So any J6P doesnt access it by mistake. They market the movie as bluescope ready or something like that.

As long as the vertical resolution is 1080 or the horizontal resolution is 1920 you are getting the maximum amount of resolution possible while maintaining the correct aspect ratio. Personally I don't know why studios don't label them 1920p.

As for the original post. Do you consider DVDs to be 480p? If you think they are then you have no reason to complain.

Because some are 4:3

Or separate 50GB discs in the case so we don't limit the bitrate for long movies.

Do you realize that HD doesn't need near 50gbytes? Most movies that I rip to my media server are 13-23gbs... with lossless audio. There are a rare few exceptions that approach the 30gb mark, but you would need a very long movie like the stand to even approach that.

Do you realize that HD doesn't need near 50gbytes? Most movies that I rip to my media server are 13-23gbs... with lossless audio. There are a rare few exceptions that approach the 30gb mark, but you would need a very long movie like the stand to even approach that.
If you constantly max out the bitrate I think you could fit around 2.4 hours on a 50GB disc. But that assumes there are no extras or anything on the disc too (and I think it would be better if the extras were on a seperate disc, if they would affect the quality - especially for longer movies).

One longer movie is:
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - closer to 3 hours (2:48:31) "disc size" 45,035,768,044 - So they can't/haven't maxed out the video/audio bitrate (ie. they've used an average video bitrate of 22 mb/s).

I still think, if you are going to do an entirely new encode of a movie so people have an anamorphic version as well, if the movie is >around 1.5 hours long, it is probably better to use a separate 50GB disc for each version of the movie - as other wise, the two separate encodes of the movie on one 50GB disc is likely to affect the quality.

I still think, if you are going to do an entirely new encode of a movie so people have an anamorphic version as well, if the movie is >around 1.5 hours long, it is probably better to use a separate 50GB disc for each version of the movie - as other wise, the two separate encodes of the movie on one 50GB disc is likely to affect the quality.

There is no reason to encode a movie with that high bitrate, if it were then would it be a serious problem to encode action scenes, because high action scenes would need as much bitrate as low motion scenes.

There is no reason to encode a movie with that high bitrate, if it were then would it be a serious problem to encode action scenes, because high action scenes would need as much bitrate as low motion scenes.
What I mean is, for things like Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, currently taking up 45 GB and using an average of 22mb/s for the video, to have two copies of that movie, at the same quality, you'd need 90GB of disc space. Also, storing an anamorphic version would probably need more bitrate as it's easier to encode non-anamorphic 2.35:1 films than anamorphic ones (encoding black bars, where there is no change between frames is easier for the encoder than encoding moving video).

So for the above film, if they wanted to have both anamorphic and non-anamorphic encodes on the same 50GB disc, with it's current uncompressed soundtrack, they'd have to almost half it's current average video bitrate. I don't think something just over 11Mbit/s average for a full HD movie (especially an anamorphic one) would be high enough quality (and it would be half it's current quality), especially on a large display.

Actually a 2 hour movie at 22mbs should take about 20GB and since both can use the same audio file there would be room for extras aswell.

Actually a 2 hour movie at 22mbs should take about 20GB and since both can use the same audio file there would be room for extras aswell.
I think you're right for a 2 hour movie. I've just calculated it and by my calculations, unless I'm mistaken, at 22mb/s average a 2 hour movie should be 18.44GB.

Pirates of the Carribean is a 2:48 minute movie though not a 2 hour movie, and has uncompressed PCM, and uses 45GB according to the video specifications thread - maybe that's because they also have a lot of extras on the disc as well (actually I've just checked and that disc does have a lot of extras on the same disc so that would account for it using the 45GB figure).

But I still would like them to have the highest bitrate possible, and encoding anamorphic video (or full 1.78:1 video) will need more bitrate due to moving video needing more bitrate than static black bars.

Pirates of the Carribean is a 2:48 minute movie though not a 2 hour movie, and has uncompressed PCM, and uses 45GB - it's in the video specifications thread - if they're wrong maybe you should could tell them the correct specifications.

I never said POTC wasnt 45GB just saying that a 2 hour movie using 22mbs as ABR would take 20GB for the videofile.

And PCM would be waste of space in this case.

And if they use TrueHD or DTS HD MA they would have at least have 17mbs as ABR for the video if they wanted to reencode POTC with dual encodes.

If you constantly max out the bitrate I think you could fit around 2.4 hours on a 50GB disc. But that assumes there are no extras or anything on the disc too (and I think it would be better if the extras were on a seperate disc, if they would affect the quality - especially for longer movies).

One longer movie is:
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - closer to 3 hours (2:48:31) "disc size" 45,035,768,044 - So they can't/haven't maxed out the video/audio bitrate (ie. they've used an average video bitrate of 22 mb/s).

I still think, if you are going to do an entirely new encode of a movie so people have an anamorphic version as well, if the movie is >around 1.5 hours long, it is probably better to use a separate 50GB disc for each version of the movie - as other wise, the two separate encodes of the movie on one 50GB disc is likely to affect the quality.

What you don't seem to understand is the size of the main features. disk size has nothing to do with feature size.

This is the size of the actual features.

These are actual rips. Also, they are not reencoding.... just ripped and stripped. Keeping the lossless adds about 1-3gb on average. I just ripped I am legend BD the other day and it as about 15.5GB with lossless and that has great PQ.


Slysoft.com (http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=11770)
<original GB / this guide GB>


A Few Good Men…..<41.2 / 23.1>
Memento…..<22.4 / 15.1>
The Patriot…..<42.2 / 30.6>
The Replacement Killers…..<30.3 / 18.7>
Ghost Rider…..<46.4 / 28.3>
Underworld…..<43.3 / 25.3>
Rocky Balboa…..<43.1 / 22.0>
Spiderman 3…..<44.7 / 31.3>

02/24/08 update:

Cars.....<38.5 / 20.3>
Crash.....<20.8 / 18.0>
Shoot Em up.....<46.4 / 17.0>
War.....<40.3 / 19.3>

03/04/08 update:

The Rock.....<36.4 / 24.1>

I never said POTC wasnt 45GB just saying that a 2 hour movie using 22mbs as ABR would take 20GB for the videofile.

And PCM would be waste of space in this case.

And if they use TrueHD or DTS HD MA they would have at least have 17mbs as ABR for the video if they wanted to reencode POTC with dual encodes.

It really surpised me how little lossless takes the first time I kept it. Anymore, I keep both the standard track, lossless and a directors commentary and it usually adds no more than 2-3gb to the rip which doesn't seem enough of a saving to discard anything except the foreign tracks.

If you constantly max out the bitrate I think you could fit around 2.4 hours on a 50GB disc. But that assumes there are no extras or anything on the disc too (and I think it would be better if the extras were on a seperate disc, if they would affect the quality - especially for longer movies).

What you don't seem to understand is the size of the main features. disk size has nothing to do with feature size.

At the start of my post I said "if you constantly max out the bitrate". Constantly maxing out the video bitrate would be 40mbit/s just for the video (48 mbit/s total). So two 2 hour or longer encodes of a movie maxing out the bitrate wouldn't fit on one disc. Though they don't constantly max out the video bitrate, but as I said, encoding anamorphic video would use up more bitrate. But everything would be okay usually, as long as if they had long extra features in HD, they put them on a separate disc.

Though I understand that the title I quoted has a lot of extra features, so those will be using a lot of the extra disc space on that title - which is why extra features discs would be needed probably if they ever did do dual encode discs for long movies in full quality and wanted many extra features in HD.

At the start of my post I said "if you constantly max out the bitrate". Constantly maxing out the video bitrate would be 40mbit/s just for the video (48 mbit/s total). So two 2 hour or longer encodes of a movie maxing out the bitrate wouldn't fit on one disc. Though they don't constantly max out the video bitrate, but as I said, encoding anamorphic video would use up more bitrate. But everything would be okay usually, as long as if they had long extra features in HD, they put them on a separate disc.

Though I understand that the title I quoted has a lot of extra features, so those will be using a lot of the extra disc space on that title - which is why extra features discs would be needed probably if they ever did do dual encode discs in full quality and wanted many extra features in HD.

I don't think you understand how these codecs work. You will never always max out the bitrate. There are scenes that quite frankly you would never notice a difference. A good deal of most movies are usually in the 9-15 bitrate. It is only in heavy action scenes or pans that you get into the 25+ range.

Truth is that you NEVER will have a constant maxbitrate. If a movie is at the max bit rate throughout, then the cap is too low. Truth is you don't need to have the bitrate that high.

Also anamorphic would have very little to do with consantly maxing the bitrate. The bitrate is the bitrate regardless. An anamorphic would make it higher than the movie that is letterboxed, but there are a number of films that are already in the native 16:9 for BD. And they don't approach the max bitrate. They set the max bitrate well above what is ever actually used.

bjmarchini, they typically do include foreign dub and legacy original language tracks though. Although, did Superbit DVDs have multiple audio tracks?

Joe Bloggs, you need to look at the "movie size" in that thread. PotC3 = 38.64GB for just the movie. This includes the LPCM and other audio tracks, as well as subtitles, etc.

bjmarchini, they typically do include foreign dub and legacy original language tracks though. Although, did Superbit DVDs have multiple audio tracks?

They each had a Dolby Digital 448kbps track and a DTS 768kbps track. A few foreign language titles such as Das Boot had a DD 2-channel English dub at 192kbps.

So it's okay if I make a 1920x10 pixel movie, make the rest of the lines (all 1070 of them) black, write on the box in big letters that my movie is presented in full 1080p format and that would be totally okay and no one would complain?

Yes because it's maxing out "Full HD" resolution while maintaining the original aspect ratio. Obviously I wouldn't buy such a film as I doubt it would be exciting to watch in such a uber widescreen presentation.

Yes because it's maxing out "Full HD" resolution while maintaining the original aspect ratio. Obviously I wouldn't buy such a film as I doubt it would be exciting to watch in such a uber widescreen presentation.
Well that's where we disagree, because I think if I labelled that disc as full 1080p I'd really be misrepresenting what is on the disc. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of really, ultra-wide movies - 10 pixels high is going too for though ;) - but that was just to prove a point - but I wouldn't mind seeing 1 or 2 films in 2.80:1 or something - as long as the disc was properly labelled as to what pixel resolution of actual moving video I was actually getting on my disc (but I hope they wouldn't make a habit of doing aspect ratios >2.40:1 on Blu-ray as that would mean less resolution of actual moving video could be stored on the disc using current Blu-ray tech (or displayed on my TV), and increased resolution is why people want Blu-ray in the first place).

So as I said previously, I think they should always specify the actual number of lines of moving video (non-black lines) they are actually giving us on the disc, underneath the "1080p" figure (like "800 lines of motion picture" or something similar), to be clear with consumers (and this will also allow us to compare it with other formats that may be released in future that could actually give 1080p resolution for 2.40 films (like storing it as 2592x1080 or storing it anamorphically).

I think that information is already present when a br is specified as "1080p" and "2.40:1" content. It is already understood that br is non-anamorphic (and that 1920 horizontal is tied to that 1080 vertical?...I'm not sure about this part). So a spec of "1080p/2.40:1" inherently tells you that the actual image will utilize some smaller portion of the 1080p. If the consumer is not smart enough to figure out what that means (or the standard implications), I doubt that any additional spec ("800 lines of motion picture") will make any more sense to that "type" of customer, nor would they care, imo. Otoh, it ["800 lines..."] could just as well create even more confusion for such a consumer.

Comparison to any future formats will naturally have to be taken with the complete context of what the respective formats are capable of (1080p non-anamorphic vs. 1080p anamorphic vs. 1080p with another native aspect, altogether).

At the very least, it won't make any difference what/how it is specified until >1080p displays or projectors start becoming available (you'll get what you get with a standard 1080p display, and it literally won't be able to display any more than what a 1080p br could deliver, anyway). Then the counterpoint to that is that by that time br will likely be a retired/retiring format, so no one is really going to care if it adheres to a maximum spec. The maximum spec for the format will be obsolete, anyway.

I don't think you understand how these codecs work. You will never always max out the bitrate. There are scenes that quite frankly you would never notice a difference. A good deal of most movies are usually in the 9-15 bitrate. It is only in heavy action scenes or pans that you get into the 25+ range.

This would seem to be a similarly flawed understanding of how codecs work. Bitrate can still remain at moderate levels even under heavy action or pans, as long as the screen motion remains predictable. The "predictability" of the motion allows the codec to leverage inherent data reduction techniques. The demand is further reduced as motion blur often accompanies such scenes.

The "9-15" citing can be a bit misleading, as it often entails specific conditions in place to make it possible w/o overt pq corruption, in the first place- aggressive dnr (or particularly noise-free video-based content), subtle corruption of film grain level detail if not dnr'd, "unseen" instances of major clipping in the extreme black and white range, styles of animation that focus on large regions of flat color as opposed to texture detail, titles lacking much HF detail due to age, directorial style, or plainly poor transfer.

The things that really demand higher bitrates are instances of heavy HF detail (even worse, if it is HF detail in motion), noisy/grainy image, or rapid series of cutscenes. Additionally (as an extension to the earlier comment), if the onscreen motion defies predictability or is extremely disordered in nature (essentially as ambiguous as a screenful of noise), then the encoding will definitely suck down bitrate if pq reduction is to be avoided. In those scenarios, a high degree of headroom or bitrate ceiling is definitely desirable. This is the difference between a format just handling the averages vs. being able to accomodate the peaks. You want that headroom to be present, and even if the averages fall well below that, you don't want to just fill up that headroom with a ridiculous number of lossless audio tracks just because the space/bandwidth is there.

At the very least, it won't make any difference what/how it is specified until >1080p displays or projectors start becoming available...
Which they have been for a long while. 2560 x 1600 LCDs are not uncommon with HTPCs. It is a shame to have that all that resolution and only 700 vertical lines coming from the source.

The few people with these kinds of displays (used for movies?...greater than 50"?) aren't worth the justification of requiring scaling hardware that everyone else would then need to properly expand to the aspect ratio on a standard 1080p display. 16:9/1080p displays will be the gold standard for this era.

Others with eclectic setups will certainly adapt to make the most of the content as it is provided (...and they will not hesitate to tell you how fantastic the result is- if that is the case, then clearly "800 lines" is quite adequate to get the job done). They've done so for decades since the laserdisc age (mere 480i).