I have a question about our current HD-DVD and BluRay media. These discs are mastered at 1080P with varying aspect ratios. Regardless of aspect ratio, is the effective resolution 1080P for each aspect ratio or is the 1080P mastering done based on a 16:9 aspect and resolution is dropped for any aspect wider than this?

For example let's say I buy movie "X" in 3 different versions. Version 1 has an aspect of 1.78:1, so I would expect to be getting full 1080P resolution. Version 2 has an aspect of 1.85:1, so it's my belief that I would only be getting somewhere around 1039P. Version 3 has an aspect of 2.40:1 so again I would believe that I'm only really getting 801P.

Movie "X"

1.78:1 - 1080P
1.85:1 - 1039P
2.40:1 - 801P

Is my line of thinking correct or is the real resolution for any aspect truly 1080P?

~Ryan

I have a question about our current HD-DVD and BluRay media. These discs are mastered at 1080P with varying aspect ratios. Regardless of aspect ratio, is the effective resolution 1080P for each aspect ratio or is the 1080P mastering done based on a 16:9 aspect and resolution is dropped for any aspect wider than this?

For example let's say I buy movie "X" in 3 different versions. Version 1 has an aspect of 1.78:1, so I would expect to be getting full 1080P resolution. Version 2 has an aspect of 1.85:1, so it's my belief that I would only be getting somewhere around 1039P. Version 3 has an aspect of 2.40:1 so again I would believe that I'm only really getting 801P.

Movie "X"

1.78:1 - 1080P
1.85:1 - 1039P
2.40:1 - 801P

Is my line of thinking correct or is the real resolution for any aspect truly 1080P?

~Ryan

Resolution per linear inch on your screen will always be the same, both horizintally and vertically. But per picture height, yes, since the black bars are part of the 1080 vertical resolution, you will not see 1080 vertical pixels in the image portion of titles wider than 1.78:1.

It could not be otherwise with fixed-pixel devices. Even it the discs were anamorphically encoded (as is done to some extent on SD-DVD) there were would be no place to put the extra vertical resolution without distorting the aspect ratio. (As long as the maximim resolution of our displays is 1920 x 1080 and no one makes displays wider than 16:9).

Projector guys with anamorphic lenses could use this feature (see the Constant Image Height forum) but there is no provision for anamorphic encoding on either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

-Bill

So quite simply put a 2.40:1 aspect will never have greater than 801 lines of resolution from a 1080P source?

~Ryan

So quite simply put a 2.40:1 aspect will never have greater than 801 lines of resolution from a 1080P source?

~Ryan

Correct. 1920 / 2.40 = 800.

Even better: BEN HUR: 1920 / 2.76 = 695.

-Bill

And then we should account for that a 1080P picture wouldnt have 1080 lines. They do have a bit of Antialising to counter the checkboard effect.

Have anybody done a MTF50 test on a disc?

The genesis of this thread came out of a conversation Ryan and I were having. He was explaining CIH and the advantages. My position is that, with 1080p displays and 1080p sources, the "more resolution" argument goes away. Of course, that depended on the topic of this thread.

Jeff

The genesis of this thread came out of a conversation Ryan and I were having. He was explaining CIH and the advantages. My position is that, with 1080p displays and 1080p sources, the "more resolution" argument goes away. Of course, that depended on the topic of this thread.

Jeff

Jeff,

This is definitely making me re-think using a VC lens. Other than added brightness the Crystalio would be "extrapolating" additional vertical resolution on a vertical stretch for any source wider than 1.78:1. I'm not sure at this point there is any reason to vertical stretch a 2.40 source and then recompress it if there is only 800 lines of resolution to start rather than 1080. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

~Ryan

** I should probably add that I'm using the JVC DLA-RS1, eventually with a Crystalio II (it's on the way).

Jeff,

This is definitely making me re-think using a VC lens. Other than added brightness the Crystalio would be "extrapolating" additional vertical resolution on a vertical stretch for any source wider than 1.78:1. I'm not sure at this point there is any reason to vertical stretch a 2.40 source and then recompress it if there is only 800 lines of resolution to start rather than 1080. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

~Ryan

** I should probably add that I'm using the JVC DLA-RS1, eventually with a Crystalio II (it's on the way).
Well, there are still proponents who cite the "cinematic experience," but the "higher resolution" argument is gone (with 1080p displays and sources) and with the light output of the RS1 and a few other new projectors, I'd say the "brighter image" argument is moot. When many of the pluses are gone, what's left is only the minuses - expense, possible image degradation/distortion introduced by additional optics and expense. :)

Let us get Anamorphic DVD specs. in HD DVD now please!

2:35:1 material authored in 1080p and you choose the correct AR for non CIH displays in the player menu.
Why should 2:35:1, "the biggest AR" have the lowest vertcal resolution?
They have to change this in the future when 2:35:1 TV's and PJ's with better integrated 2:35:1 solutions becomes available. Why not do it imediately?

I was originally shocked to discover the hd/br formats lack anamorphic support. However, I have come around a bit on this position with the realization that perhaps this was a "signal purity" justification. As soon as you start scaling the original picture to different aspects/sizes, you will lose some detail in the blending operation. So it is better to just leave it as "original" as it comes. It's not ideal from the standpoint of maximizing the utilization of the data format, but it is still incrementally better than what would occur after a mandatory blending operation (if there was to be an anamorphic adjustment for final presentation). There is still plenty of resolution to ensure high performance video.

Let us get Anamorphic DVD specs. in HD DVD now please!

2:35:1 material authored in 1080p and you choose the correct AR for non CIH displays in the player menu.
Why should 2:35:1, "the biggest AR" have the lowest vertcal resolution?
They have to change this in the future when 2:35:1 TV's and PJ's with better integrated 2:35:1 solutions becomes available. Why not do it imediately?

Better get Hollywood to change their mastering process, then. The masters are telecined as letterboxed 16:9 images, so even if it got built into the HD disk spec there'd be essentially no movies ready to take advantage of it.

When many of the pluses are gone, what's left is only the minuses -:)


Woudn't this simply be a truism ? These subjects have been covered on the 2.35:1 forum. Most agree that when one uses the same picture height and start with 800 lines it isn't as sharp as when you have 1080 but the cinematic feel and overall quality leaves CIH as a better way to go (absent the cost and complexity).

Art

Woudn't this simply be a truism ?
Well, worded slightly differently, it served Sherlock Holmes pretty well. :)

These subjects have been covered on the 2.35:1 forum. Most agree that when one uses the same picture height and start with 800 lines it isn't as sharp as when you have 1080 but the cinematic feel and overall quality leaves CIH as a better way to go (absent the cost and complexity).
Huh? If it "isn't as sharp," how can the "overall quality" be better? And how can you take out the cost and complexity?

Much better than standard DVD

720/2.35 = 306 pixels

Much better than standard DVD

720/2.35 = 306 pixels

Well, being pedantic here, but remember that SD-DVD uses non-square sampling. I think a 2.35:1 title anamorphically encoded on SD-DVD at 16:9 is 480 / (2.35 / 1.78) = 363 vertical pxels.

-Bill

Better get Hollywood to change their mastering process, then. The masters are telecined as letterboxed 16:9 images, so even if it got built into the HD disk spec there'd be essentially no movies ready to take advantage of it.

Even though the masters are telecined at 16:9, what is the resolution of the master? 2K? 4K? Greater than 4K? Ideally couldn't the production studios crop the unused portions of the frame in order to meet a specific anamorphic spec and then our displays would have the proper aspect ratio detection built-in in order to apply scaling/image manipulation if necessary? Just a thought!! :rolleyes:

Even though the masters are telecined at 16:9, what is the resolution of the master? 2K? 4K? Greater than 4K? Ideally couldn't the production studios crop the unused portions of the frame in order to meet a specific anamorphic spec and then our displays would have the proper aspect ratio detection built-in in order to apply scaling/image manipulation if necessary? Just a thought!! :rolleyes:
That's a good point - what are the masters? I've *heard* that shot on film movies are being scanned at 4k. If so, transcoding (?) to HD-DVD/BD could probably be done so that there's always 1080 lines regardless of aspect ratio. But why would they do that when only a fraction approaching zero of the market - CIH'ers - would benefit?

That's a good point - what are the masters? I've *heard* that shot on film movies are being scanned at 4k. If so, transcoding (?) to HD-DVD/BD could probably be done so that there's always 1080 lines regardless of aspect ratio. But why would they do that when only a fraction approaching zero of the market - CIH'ers - would benefit?

I think the day of native 2.40 displays are coming. Not to mention, this could be taken full advantage of when 4K projectors become mainstream in the next 3 - 5 years. ;)

That's a good point - what are the masters? I've *heard* that shot on film movies are being scanned at 4k. If so, transcoding (?) to HD-DVD/BD could probably be done so that there's always 1080 lines regardless of aspect ratio. But why would they do that when only a fraction approaching zero of the market - CIH'ers - would benefit?Why do they do it for SD DVD? Granted, SD DVD currently has a larger market, but eventually HD will have a large market (we all hope anyway). Maybe when the HD market is large enough, they will change it so HD discs are anamorphic? Not sure how feasible that is to make a change like that later in the game. Were SD DVDs anamorphic from the beginning?

Why do they do it for SD DVD?

When SD-DVD was defined, 4:3 screens were standard but HDTV and 16:9 were known to be coming, so they accomodated both, to some degree. I suspect the HD disc commitees presumed that 1920x1080 and 16:9 will be "it" for the next ten years. I think that's right.

Maybe when the HD market is large enough, they will change it so HD discs are anamorphic? Not sure how feasible that is to make a change like that later in the game.

No chance with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Both deep color and anamorphic or higher resolution have to wait for whatever comes after HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, again say in about ten years.

Were SD DVDs anamorphic from the beginning?

Yes, it was in the standard, although certain geniuses in the studios didn't use it in the early years.

-Bill

I think the day of native 2.40 displays are coming. Not to mention, this could be taken full advantage of when 4K projectors become mainstream in the next 3 - 5 years. ;)
You know, don't you, that only 16:9 material will have 4k? ;)

Why do they do it for SD DVD? Granted, SD DVD currently has a larger market, but eventually HD will have a large market (we all hope anyway). Maybe when the HD market is large enough, they will change it so HD discs are anamorphic? Not sure how feasible that is to make a change like that later in the game. Were SD DVDs anamorphic from the beginning?
I remember a few "shovelware" movies - Mission Impossible for one - that had their own built-in letterboxes which I could not get rid of unless I outputted 480i (from my 3910) and zoomed with my projector.

Even though the masters are telecined at 16:9, what is the resolution of the master? 2K? 4K? Greater than 4K? Ideally couldn't the production studios crop the unused portions of the frame in order to meet a specific anamorphic spec and then our displays would have the proper aspect ratio detection built-in in order to apply scaling/image manipulation if necessary? Just a thought!! :rolleyes:

Fair enough, if they are willing to go back to a digital scan master like that-- if the film actually has one! Most don't and they're telecined at 1920x1080 simply because there's no consumer display format with rez higher than that.

But for that matter they could just go back to the original film elements. It's not a matter of "why couldn't they?" it's more "will they?" and for the niche market of CIH-- especially since it's not in the standards of either Blu-ray or HD DVD-- that answer's going to be "No" for the foreseeable future. Which is a damn shame.

Fair enough, if they are willing to go back to a digital scan master like that-- if the film actually has one! Most don't and they're telecined at 1920x1080 simply because there's no consumer display format with rez higher than that.

But for that matter they could just go back to the original film elements. It's not a matter of "why couldn't they?" it's more "will they?" and for the niche market of CIH-- especially since it's not in the standards of either Blu-ray or HD DVD-- that answer's going to be "No" for the foreseeable future. Which is a damn shame.
I thought I remembered reading that film-based movies were being scanned/telecined at 4k specifically for future use in a higher resolution format and/or even digital cinema?

It seems there is little/no argment on the benefits of CIH for SD DVDs. Then why there argument about it's benefits for HD?

The benefits of CIH come not from making better use of the source resolution, but from making better use of the display resolution. CIH allows for a brighter, smoother (more dense pixel grid) picture than that of a 16x9 screen of equivalent 2.35:1 size. Also allows for a larger, more cinematic presentation than a 16x9 screen of the same height.

All of those benefits (and especially the "The way it's meant to be presented" benefit) are equally, if not more true for HD than for SD

Scope SD has ~ 350 lines of resolution (vertically filtered mind you).
Scope HD has ~ 800 lines of resolution, not vertically filtered.

That's a significant difference, over 2x the vertical resolution. If anything, CIH with a lens is even more beneficial with HD than with SD due to the better source to scale, and the resulting scaling is more "close" to the source, more accurate. The more samples, the better after all. This whole "but HD isn't anamorphic, so what's the point" doesn't make any sense to me. Both HD and SD (DVD) are 16x9 formats, when we talk about CIH, we're talking about scope screens, 2.35:1 or greater. In that light, both HD and SD on on an even playing field with respect to the benefits of CIH, they're both 16x9 native formats. All the benefits of SD apply to HD and vice versa. The only difference is HD is a better source to start with, so the end result will be better.

The only argument with any merit I've seen thus far, is the "pixel-perfect" 1080p/1080p argument, that given a 1080p source and a 1080p display, 1:1 pixel mapping is possible resulting in "cleanest" presentation.

However I'd take scaled/lens'd CIH over 16x9 display any day, and the "zoom" method is just far too inelegant for my taste.

The benefits of CIH come not from making better use of the source resolution, but from making better use of the display resolution. CIH allows for a brighter, smoother (more dense pixel grid) picture than that of a 16x9 screen of equivalent 2.35:1 size. Also allows for a larger, more cinematic presentation than a 16x9 screen of the same height.

All of those benefits (and especially the "The way it's meant to be presented" benefit) are equally, if not more true for HD than for SD.
It seems to me that the somewhat stilted "The way it's meant to be presented" has nothing to do with how wide the projected image is vis-a-vis the 4:3 baseball game one watched a few days before and everything to do with the aspect ratio - when one is watching it. And human visual acuity at reasonable and customary viewing distances prevents us from seeing a difference in resolution beyond a certain point. The RS1, for example, has no visible pixel structure at the aforementioned viewing distance. No screendoor either. And the picture is already "film-like" (even though one sees WAY more detail than one does in all but the highest quality cinemas with pristine *copies" being projected).

Image brightness is not an issue either with the RS1 (and an increasingly greater number of projectors coming to market), so the "brighter" argument is moot. Toss in the additional system complexity, expense and possible (probable?) chromatic abberations and distortions introduced by additional optics and, I believe, the credible case for CIH goes away with this generation of projectors.

But then I don't fall for the old Jedi mind trick either.

Can CIH proponents cite any comparative tests? I've never seen any. Let's have less faith and more science with this issue.

I think HD DVD may be able to do anamorphic now with the current spec, since it supports interactive scaling of the video. So just encode the disc anamorphicly and use HDi to scale it back to the appropriate aspect. :D

But what will owners of the LG combo player do? :D