I'm confused.

This may apply more to a direct view LCD than my DLP but how can a movie be 1080p, which to me means 1080 lines of resolution when the aspect ratio does not fill the entire screen?

On an LCD pixels are mapped directly to a particular spot on the screen. When a movie claims to be 1080p but only used maybe 800-900 lines.

Same with my DLP unless there is some optical trickery.

So if the video really is encoded at 1920x1080, and they are showing a full 1920 horizontally, what do they do with the extra data in the vertical?

If they were truly displaying 1920x1080 then the screen would be filled.

I'm confused.

This may apply more to a direct view LCD than my DLP but how can a movie be 1080p, which to me means 1080 lines of resolution when the aspect ratio does not fill the entire screen?

On an LCD pixels are mapped directly to a particular spot on the screen. When a movie claims to be 1080p but only used maybe 800-900 lines.

Same with my DLP unless there is some optical trickery.

So if the video really is encoded at 1920x1080, and they are showing a full 1920 horizontally, what do they do with the extra data in the vertical?

If they were truly displaying 1920x1080 then the screen would be filled.

You are correct that the film may not have 1080 lines of usable resolution. With HD DVD and BD the entire frame (including any black bars from letterboxing) take up 1920x1080 pixels.

There is no anamorphic compression like used in DVD for widescreen movies.
The resolution of the actual video would be:
1.78 1920x1080
1.85 1920x1038
2.39 1920x804

A film that is 2.39:1 aspect ratio would form a rectangle of 1920x804 pixels. Above an below the film are rectangle bars of 1920x138 pixels. The film only uses about 75% of the formats available resolution.

The HD media, HDMI transmitter/receiver, and your TV have no concept of "black bars" it is all simply pixels. In a 2.39 film 530K of those pixels will be constantly black during the entire playback.

There is no anamorphic compression like used in DVD for widescreen movies.
Actually, anamorphic is supported, but hasn't been used in any released titles AFAIK. HD DVD supports 1440x1080 and 1280x1080 16:9. These would be useful when coming from tape formats that are already anamorphic, like HDCAM and HDV (1440x1080) or DVCPROHD (1280x1080). I wouldn't expect it ever to be used for studio titles.

You are correct that the film may not have 1080 lines of usable resolution. With HD DVD and BD the entire frame (including any black bars from letterboxing) take up 1920x1080 pixels.Thanks. I was wondering the same thing too.

I always loved OAR and bought letterbox even back in my VHS days when I still had a 4:3 TV... But I am finding myself hoping for more Open-Matte releases that are true 1920 x 1080 as well as more native 16:9 cuts.

More open matte releases? There hasn't been one yet, thank god.

The OAR crowd says "I don't give a hoot for resolution". The "fill-the-screen" crowd says "I don't care what the director wanted". If movies were just shot 16:9 (the shape now and for the forseeable future of millions of video screens), we would not be forced to compromise one or the other.

Dave

The OAR crowd says "I don't give a hoot for resolution". The "fill-the-screen" crowd says "I don't care what the director wanted". If movies were just shot 16:9 (the shape now and for the forseeable future of millions of video screens), we would not be forced to compromise one or the other.

Dave

the point is not what either crowd thinks. It is how the director wants to shoot his movie... End of story.

For the life of me - I can't find the link so accept what I am going to say "at your own risk" - approx 56% of the 500+ movies made each year are 2.40 AR. This hasn't changed in quite some time

The OAR crowd says "I don't give a hoot for resolution". The "fill-the-screen" crowd says "I don't care what the director wanted". If movies were just shot 16:9 (the shape now and for the forseeable future of millions of video screens), we would not be forced to compromise one or the other.

Dave
A 2.35:1 movie has the same resolution as a 16:9 movie. A 16:9 image uses more of the available pixels, though.

More open matte releases? There hasn't been one yet, thank god.

Good Night and Good Luck was 1.85 in theatres and was opened to 16:9 for Blu-ray. I think the DVD was even OAR anamorphic. I think I've watched another movie or two that was 1.85 opened to 16:9, but I can't recall titles, just momentarily noticing a lack of letterboxing. ~4% doesn't really affect the composition much, and it does assuage j6ps

cite: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=23652

1. It seems to me more pixels = more resolution.

2. A director can choose whatever he--she wants. There WILL be compromises to the video viewer if anything but 16:9 is chosen though. Just seems to me a lack of consideration for the many video viewers. We're just the ones buying the product!

Dave

IF more movies are filled with 16:9, I'm happy with that, but I want movies in the original aspects.

A 2.35:1 movie has the same resolution as a 16:9 movie. A 16:9 image uses more of the available pixels, though.

No it doesn't. It only has the same Hortizontial Resolution. The vertical resolution is based on the number of lines that create the image - you are using less for a 2.35 image as was shown above compared to a 1.78 or 1.85.

Imagine an image in a 2.35 ratio with black bars above and below. Yes, some of the pixels are being used for the black bars.

Now imagine that they "open up" the matte and the black bars are filled with additional visual information. The pixels that used to be in the black bars are now being used for new visual information. But the original image that was in the 2.35 area REMAINS UNAFFECTED. The original part of the image (the 2.35:1 part) does not get any more of those pixels making up the image. It has just as much "pixel density" as the new 1.78:1 image.

So I'd agree with Slim's statement:

A 2.35:1 movie has the same resolution as a 16:9 movie. A 16:9 image uses more of the available pixels, though.

I think some people may be missing this point and are therefore making this into more of an issue than it is.

Your TV came with so many pixels. If you choose not to use all of them, you'll have lower resolution.

Dave

Your TV came with so many pixels. If you choose not to use all of them, you'll have lower resolution.

Dave
I am using them.

BTW, 1080p isn't a resolution.

BTW, 1080p isn't a resolution.

It is an abbreviation for 1920x1080. Yes when you add the P it becomes a format not a resolution per say. We only have 2 HD resolutions; 1920x1080 and 1280x720.

1080p is not a resolution, but it is an understood standard to mean, 1920x1080.

So a movie advertising 1080p, but is anything but 2.35 is not, 1080p based on the interpretation most would use.

My point was more to correct advertising. The consumer, and I'm talking of others, is more confused everyday because buzzwords have had less and less basis in reality over the years.

Slim,

I gather then that you choose not to watch any letterboxed or pillarboxed pictures. If the picture does not fill the screen, it (the picture) has less resolution and is smaller.

Dave

Well why don't we use the horizontal resolution and label everything 1920p.

That way every movie released so far would meet that statement accurately. And since 1920 is a bigger number than 1080 it'll look cool for marketing reasons. Hell I'm surprised Sony aren't already using it as part of their Beyond HD campaign.

Well why don't we use the horizontal resolution and label everything 1920p.

That way every movie released so far would meet that statement accurately.
I didn't find many "full 1080p" images on those sites. :p

So a movie advertising 1080p, but is anything but 2.35 is not, 1080p based on the interpretation most would use.

My point was more to correct advertising. The consumer, and I'm talking of others, is more confused everyday because buzzwords have had less and less basis in reality over the years.
Oh, 1080/720 is baked in as a term of art now. I don't think we'll see any change in advertising, just consumers getting used to what it means.

Well why don't we use the horizontal resolution and label everything 1920p.

That way every movie released so far would meet that statement accurately. And since 1920 is a bigger number than 1080 it'll look cool for marketing reasons. Hell I'm surprised Sony aren't already using it as part of their Beyond HD campaign.
That'd work for HD movies today, but lots of HD sources that are 1080 lines are anamorphically compressed to 1440x or 1280x in production or broadcast.

The entire frame of a 2.40 movie on HDM is 1920x1080x24P. The frame consists of the 16x9 space on your display. The fact that some of the vertical resolution is "black only" is just a fact of letterboxxing.

It has always been this way since the first letterboxed movie came out so many years ago - Woody Allen's MANHATTAN - used blue bars instead of black. On VHS.
And continues for LD and DVD.

They should have made anamorphic 2.35:1 for HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

I predict years from now many will regret this wasn't put in the specs.

They should have made anamorphic 2.35:1 for HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

I predict years from now many will regret this wasn't put in the specs.

The difference would be slight if any. The size of the image is dictated by the AR. To maintain this we have a fixed frame to place it in - 1.78. We can't increase the vertical resolution (make the black bars smaller) because then we lose the 2.40 AR - it becomes something else.

We use 1080 or 1080P because the consumer knows 480 and 480P. We are just continuing to use the same reference - only we increase it to reflect HD. I never heard DVD referred to as 704. Only 480.

Which if you really want the truth and strip out all the marketing and such the numbers are really 1125 and 525 - not 1080 and 480. The difference is the housekeeping lines that we never see but are there for picture sync and such.

Dont think we need that much res.

1920*810 would be enough for a 2,35:1 screen in your "home" theater.

Remember Star wars ep2 is only 1440*810 in res. Ep3 is only 1920*810.

I think this is a discussion of Vertical resolution and how important is it.

When explaining resolution to noob's, I try to make it very simple:

Hort. Res = sharpness of the image

Vert. Res = density of the image

I have seen, what was then termed "Super HDTV" - 2500x2000. The HR is about 25% better than HDTV, but the VR is 100% better than HD. It almost makes HD look like SD in comparison

More open matte releases? There hasn't been one yet, thank god.

The World's Fastest Indian was 2.35:1 in theaters, but opened up to 16:9 for home video per the director's wishes.

Warner and Paramount open 1.85:1 movies up to 16:9 as a matter of policy, but the difference is so small in that case that it has no affect on the compositional intent of a shot and can still be considered close enough to "OAR".

The difference would be slight if any. The size of the image is dictated by the AR. To maintain this we have a fixed frame to place it in - 1.78. We can't increase the vertical resolution (make the black bars smaller) because then we lose the 2.40 AR - it becomes something else.

I was referring to the possibility of a 2.35:1 display, but also the scaling of the full rez 2.35:1 to 16x9 "letter box" by the player as DVD players did with anamorphic widescreen DVDs on regular 4:3 displays.

A full rez widescreen DVD looks significantly better even on a regular 4:3 TV even after being "letterboxed" by the player compared to a natively letterbox widescreen DVD. Why would HD be any different?

I was referring to the possibility of a 2.35:1 display, but also the scaling of the full rez 2.35:1 to 16x9 "letter box" by the player as DVD players did with anamorphic widescreen DVDs on regular 4:3 displays.

For a CIH setup - then yes a anamorphic HD release would look better because we are using all the VR to create the image - teeny, tiny market. This is the principal of the anamorphic system - camera squeezes a 2.40 image into a 1.33 frame. Projector unsqueezes the image to present 2.40 image using a 1.33 frame to do it. - Constant Height - Variable Width.

A full rez widescreen DVD looks significantly better even on a regular 4:3 TV even after being "letterboxed" by the player compared to a natively letterbox widescreen DVD. Why would HD be any different?

Because there is less frame to work with using a 1.78 versus a 1.33. Remember anamorphic only relates to the VR - has nothing to do with the HR. Again, we cannot increase the VR without losing the 2.40 AR. If you increased it 10% you now have a 2.20 AR - another 10% - now we are at 2.00.

I want the full OAR - 2.40 - no cropping or zooming.

Because there is less frame to work with using a 1.78 versus a 1.33. Remember anamorphic only relates to the VR - has nothing to do with the HR. Again, we cannot increase the VR without losing the 2.40 AR. If you increased it 10% you now have a 2.20 AR - another 10% - now we are at 2.00.

I want the full OAR - 2.40 - no cropping or zooming.

No, no - I'm not talking about any cropping or zooming. You're misunderstanding me. Think an anamorphic 16x9 DVD displayed on a regular 4:3 TV in the OAR. Then take this to the HD level: Think an anamorphic 2.35:1 HD displayed on a regular 16x9 display in the OAR. The player will scale the 2.35:1 to 16x9 OAR with black bars the same way a regular DVD scales an anamorphic DVD to fit on 4:3 display. Get it?

No, no - I'm not talking about any cropping or zooming. You're misunderstanding me. Think an anamorphic 16x9 DVD displayed on a regular 4:3 TV in the OAR. Then take this to the HD level: Think an anamorphic 2.35:1 HD displayed on a regular 16x9 display in the OAR. The player will scale the 2.35:1 to 16x9 OAR with black bars the same way a regular DVD scales an anamorphic DVD to fit on 4:3 display. Get it?

I got it but I don't understand. You are looking for an increase - you want anamorphic HDM - I am trying to explain why it will do nothing but decrease the AR of the image.

Originally Posted by RWetmore
They should have made anamorphic 2.35:1 for HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

I predict years from now many will regret this wasn't put in the specs.

I got it but I don't understand. You are looking for an increase - you want anamorphic HDM - I am trying to explain why it will do nothing but decrease the AR of the image.

I'm talking about an increase in resolution from right to left (not an increase from top to bottom). Whatever the 1 to 1 pixel mapping of a 2.35:1 ratio is using the 2,073,600 pixels from the full 1920x1080 specification (whatever it turns out to be).

I would want 2.35:1 OAR content mastered to disc in this way for potential 2.35:1 displays, but also to improve the PQ when scaled to fit the OAR with black bars on a 16x9 display.

I'm talking about an increase in resolution from right to left (not an increase from top to bottom). Whatever the 1 to 1 pixel mapping of a 2.35:1 ratio is using the 2,073,600 pixels from the full 1920x1080 specification. Simple.

The resolution from R to L is the Hort. resolution - this is 1920 - this doesn't change using an anamorphic transfer. An AT only improves the Vert. res - top to bottom.

Anamorphic is the wrong word then.

Anamorphic is the wrong word then.

OK.

The only way we can increase the overall resolution is to increase both:

Super HDTV = 2500x2000

Ultra HDTV = 4000x2000

Super Duper, it aint going any higher HDTV :D = 5000x4000

Currently believe it or not - all three are in use:

Super - CAD - was the HDTV format that MIT wanted to use in 1990

Ultra - Digital Cinema - they are just starting to use RED camera's that have this res. The projectors are/will be available from Sony, JVC and others

Super Duper - Used in commerical venues like Plantiariums - All computer generated - Evans & Sutherland makes the laser projector that will do this.

Even if anamorphic (all the 1080 vertical resolution), it would still provide an improvement on 16x9 displays and provide future compatibility for full resolution (1080x1920) 2.35:1 displays.

Can we at least agree on this?

Even if anamorphic (all the 1080 vertical resolution), it would still provide an improvement on 16x9 displays and provide future compatibility for full resolution (1080x1920) 2.35:1 displays.

Can we at least agree on this?

You lost me. The only people who can benefit from this is someone with a FPTV setup that has a special lens on the front of the PJ and a special HDM that uses the whole 16x9 frame to hold the 2.35 image (squeezed) - the PJ then unsqueezes the image.

There are no plans that I know of to make 2.35 (really 2.40) displays like Plasma or LCD.

The FPTV market is so small compared to the FPD and RPTV markets - I can't really seeing this happening. You not only have to have a FPTV but you also have to have a 2.40 screen - the market just lost about 90% of it's customers.

You lost me. The only people who can benefit from this is someone with a FPTV setup that has a special lens on the front of the PJ and a special HDM that uses the whole 16x9 frame to hold the 2.35 image (squeezed) - the PJ then unsqueezes the image.

There are no plans that I know of to make 2.35 (really 2.40) displays like Plasma or LCD.

The FPTV market is so small compared to the FPD and RPTV markets - I can't really seeing this happening. You not only have to have a FPTV but you also have to have a 2.40 screen - the market just lost about 90% of it's customers.

Not if all players could simply scale the 2.35:1 anamorphic to 16x9 (keeping OAR with black bars) like regular DVD players do with anamorphic 16x9 material on 4:3 displays. Each HD player's setup menu would simply have the option of selecting both a 16x9 or a 2.35:1 display. If you don't have 2.35:1 display, you simply select 16x9 and the player takes care it.

Not if all players could simply scale the 2.35:1 anamorphic to 16x9 (keeping OAR with black bars) like regular DVD players do with anamorphic 16x9 material on 4:3 displays. Each HD player's setup menu would simply have the option of selecting both a 16x9 or a 2.35:1 display. If you don't have 2.35:1 display, you simply select 16x9 and the player takes care it.

From a technical standpoint - yes - that would work - from a marketing stand point - again the market is too small to cater to.

One thing that is being done is to put subtitles on the image as opposed to below the image. This benefits the CIH crowd because they may lose the subtitles. It is also the way we see them when we go to a theater.

I think we have played this to the end - nice discussing this with you.

From a technical standpoint - yes - that would work - from a marketing stand point - again the market is too small to cater to.

Perhaps so, but I think the improvement it would offer on 16X9 displays alone is sufficient enough to warrant it. It provided a significant increase in quality when watching DVDs on a 4:3 TV, and I'm inclined to believe HD would be no different.

Just the idea of having the wider-screened movies mastered with all or nearly all the resolution of the HD spec makes long term sense to me, especially since these new formats are almost certainly the last optical video disc format we are going to see.

However, I do understand the added costs to do this probably aren't economical since most people are totally unaware of this potential benefit or they just don't care.

I think we have played this to the end - nice discussing this with you.

Yeah. Regardless, I know it isn't going to happen. :(

Perhaps so, but I think the improvement it would offer on 16X9 displays alone is sufficient enough to warrant it. It provided a significant increase in quality when watching DVDs on a 4:3 TV, and I'm inclined to believe HD would be no different.


You keep saying this, but I have never seen this effect (granted, there are precious few movies where the transfer is the same, so it's hard to decouple this from the effect of the studio making a new transfer and not reusing an old LD master).


Just the idea of having the wider-screened movies mastered with all or nearly all the resolution of the HD spec makes long term sense to me, especially since these new formats are almost certainly the last optical video disc format we are going to see.


True. The biggest issues are: this isn't how 2.35:1 movies are currently HD mastered, so the studios would have to pay to have them done YET AGAIN. $$$ In addition, the players would have to add downconversion circuitry, as with DVD some would work better/worse than others, leaving some people with 16:9 sets dissatisfied with the picture on their set because it's been optimized for 2.35:1. Which is the same that happened on DVD, but it was more palatable there because it was clear with the HDTV specs that 16:9 was the wave of the future anyway. Not so 2.35:1 sets.

I agree with you on the benefits. But there's just not enough demand out there for this.

I like to have my movies displayed in hi def as much like the director intended as possible. I don't mind black bars and for those who do there is the option of adjusting the aspect display of their monitors. Of course by eliminating the black bars they will also be eliminating some portions of the movie.

My local television stations are on cable both in regular definition and, on separate channels, in high definition. One of the stations on their high def version has chosen to simply "stretch" their regular version aspect to the left and the right. Make everyone look fat and distorts everything. I cannot stand to watch that channel in high def. But it does not have black bars.

Even if anamorphic (all the 1080 vertical resolution), it would still provide an improvement on 16x9 displays and provide future compatibility for full resolution (1080x1920) 2.35:1 displays.

Can we at least agree on this?
Nope. Future development of non-square pixel displays are dead. Plasma really the last holdout in some models.

Also, neither HD DVD nor BD support an aspect ratio flag other than 16:9 for HD content, so there aren't any players that would support this format. I expect we won't see >816 lines for 2:35:1 until we move into the 4K era (and those might be 4096x2048 dsplays, so 2:1, and hence smaller letterboxes).

Also, neither HD DVD nor BD support an aspect ratio flag other than 16:9 for HD content, so there aren't any players that would support this format. I expect we won't see >816 lines for 2:35:1 until we move into the 4K era (and those might be 4096x2048 dsplays, so 2:1, and hence smaller letterboxes).

MPEG2 supports 20:9 encoding does it not?

I also recall way back when CJPlay mentioned that he thought it would be possible to do it with scripting - he never elaborated.

Nontheless ~816 lines is a good sight better than what we had - with a good scaler and an anamorphic lens......

ted

MPEG2 supports 20:9 encoding does it not?
Yes, but not the subset allowed by the HD optical formats.
I also recall way back when CJPlay mentioned that he thought it would be possible to do it with scripting - he never elaborated.
Ah! He was probably thinking of encoding at the full raster, and then scripting the whole movie to do a default anamorphc scale to add letterboxing, which could be turned off by the user...

The might actually work,although it'd be dependent on having a high-quality scaler...

[/QUOTE]

Ah! He was probably thinking of encoding at the full raster, and then scripting the whole movie to do a default anamorphc scale to add letterboxing, which could be turned off by the user...

You don't mean a type of "Open Matte" do you wherein the black bars would be added to provide a 2.35 ratio? My understanding was that the encoding would provide the optical stretch so for 2.35 users there would be no scaler needed - simply the lens. This does of course mean that the scaler would still be necessary for non 2.35 screen users with the resulting scaling errors possible of course.

The might actually work,although it'd be dependent on having a high-quality scaler...

No this is about 2.35 CH folk - we're trying to *obviate* the scaler. Its on our agenda. ;)

Thanks for your clarification re MPEG2.

ted

You don't mean a type of "Open Matte" do you wherein the black bars would be added to provide a 2.35 ratio? My understanding was that the encoding would provide the optical stretch so for 2.35 users there would be no scaler needed - simply the lens. This does of course mean that the scaler would still be necessary for non 2.35 screen users with the resulting scaling errors possible of course.
Right, yes, this would assume the scaler would be used for 99.9% of users, so it'd have to be pretty good :).

As an alternative, would you be at all placated by discs that used display metadata to flag to the player when it's using part of the screen, so the projector can then us an anamoprhic lens?

Another way of asking: which is more important (and you can't say both!) - to get more useful light out of your bulb, or to get more pixels of image?

Right, yes, this would assume the scaler would be used for 99.9% of users, so it'd have to be pretty good :).

As an alternative, would you be at all placated by discs that used display metadata to flag to the player when it's using part of the screen, so the projector can then us an anamoprhic lens?

Another way of asking: which is more important (and you can't say both!) - to get more useful light out of your bulb, or to get more pixels of image?

I don't quite get what you are saying. With 2.35 we stretch vertically to fill the panel with interpolated pixels. So in using the full panel we get more light. The image stretching is then restored optically (via the lens) to the correct geometry,

So if we are using all pixels from the disc it would have to be stretched in the encode, or else we would be losing the outer 33% of the frame would we not, and if all the pixels are used but not stretched, how would we then get the requisite stretch to be restored by our lenses? So would you explain why it *wouldn't* have to be both?

Again, I am only speaking from the perspective of that small segment of users with FP +anamorphic lenses and 2.35 screens. It is a growing segment however, and speculation has suggested that someday we may see native 2.35 panels.

ted

I don't quite get what you are saying. With 2.35 we stretch vertically to fill the panel with interpolated pixels. So in using the full panel we get more light. The image stretching is then restored optically (via the lens) to the correct geometry,

So if we are using all pixels from the disc it would have to be stretched in the encode, or else we would be losing the outer 33% of the frame would we not, and if all the pixels are used but not stretched, how would we then get the requisite stretch to be restored by our lenses? So would you explain why it *wouldn't* have to be both?

Again, I am only speaking from the perspective of that small segment of users with FP +anamorphic lenses and 2.35 screens. It is a growing segment however, and speculation has suggested that someday we may see native 2.35 panels.

Right. So you're looking for more image data, so you don't have to stretch as much basically?

Really, I'm afraid you've missed the boat on this generation. There simply isn't any support in the playres for anything other than 16:9. This would require new player that don't exist yet. Plus the sources the movies are encoded from are almost always square-pixel 1920x1080 with letterboxing, and just maybe sometimes 2048x square pixel digital intermediats. There are very few films out there with a 4K DI ready to encode from, which is what this would take.

But hey, you still have nearly 6x the actv pixels of DVD!

Right. So you're looking for more image data, so you don't have to stretch as much basically?

Wouldn't have to stretch at all electronically - you guys would have done that. I already have a lens. :p

Really, I'm afraid you've missed the boat on this generation. There simply isn't any support in the playres for anything other than 16:9. This would require new player that don't exist yet. Plus the sources the movies are encoded from are almost always square-pixel 1920x1080 with letterboxing, and just maybe sometimes 2048x square pixel digital intermediats. There are very few films out there with a 4K DI ready to encode from, which is what this would take.

But hey, you still have nearly 6x the actv pixels of DVD!

Actually I know that - I doubt you remember but you and I have discussed this before, still there seemed to be faint hope (though your comment about MPEG2 was the final dash) with the scripting thingie and yes I agree as I stated earlier ~816 lines is a damn sight better than what we have with SD.

So back on topic - 2.35 at 816 lines vertically encoded with black bars filling to 1080 on a Hi Def format disc fits my definition of what is high def. Interpolating is my friend.

ted