Oh, no, not another Nature's Journey thread... only in this case I believe it's justified. Moderator, please feel free to close it if it turns into another fanboy bickering thread.

I'm surprised that nobody brought this up before, or that nobody ever noticed, but I'm under the impression that this title is interlaced (1080i, as opposed to progressive, or 1080p).

What makes me think so? Well, I'm using PowerDVD Ultra with deinterlacing turned off, which is a recommended setting (per HTPC section), and the picture was practically unwatchable -- there were horizontal lines wherever there was motion. I've made a few screen shots from a close distance and also cropped some details at the camera's full resolution so you can clearly see individual pixels. The screen is a 1366 x 768 plasma driven at native resolution at 60p (progressive).

This is the first time I'm noticing such an effect, and I've just compared with King Kong (the ultra-high motion dinosaur chase scene where the bitrate approached and at times surpasses 30 Mbps), and the scene was played with no visible artifacts, so it doesn't appear that it's my equipment, or that I've messed up the configuration, or that maybe the high bitrate alone is doing this.

Is anyone else using PowerDVD? Could someone please confirm or deny this?

Here are the screenshots:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8206/dsc04790og9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6955/dsc04790detailtu5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5485/dsc04801py4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3051/dsc04801detailid1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

These white things are flying birds (looks like they are energizing):
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/807/dsc04808cz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This is an interlaced title. It says so on the box, and Richard Casey says so in number of Nature's Journey threads. It's interlaced because it was shot with a 1080i video camera and not film.

warning issued

nothing to add? move on please

Unfortunately the only way to get that "looking through a window" HD "pop" is to shoot at a 60fps refresh rate. 24/30P is a bit too stuttery to pull that look off, so the only options are to shoot 1080i at 60 fields per second or 720P at 60 frames per second. 1080P at 60 frames per second is not an officially supported video format :(

I'm sure the creators of Nature's Journey could have shot at 24P if they'd wanted to, but they apparently were going for that reality look that 60fps provides.


I think one of the problems is that CE manufacturers (and HD DVD/BD) have hammered the public with the whole "1080P Full HD" slogan for so long that everyone's forgotten that 1080i and 720P are the actual broadcast standards :)

...I think one of the problems is that CE manufacturers (and HD DVD/BD) have hammered the public with the whole "1080P Full HD" slogan for so long that everyone's forgotten that 1080i and 720P are the actual broadcast standards :)

It is a shame too. 720p actually looks better than 1080i if there is a lot of movement. It is the reason ESPN, ABC, and FOX broadcast in 720p instead of 1080i. ABC did several studies and found that sports just look much better in 720p instead of interlaced.

My bet is that 720p at 60 fps gets upscaled to 1080p nicely and that only people who freeze frame and analyze from 1 foot away (AVSers!) could tell the difference between that and true 1080p.

The problem is you can't sell 720p anymore. People look at 1080i, see a bigger number and think that it is better.

The problem is you can't sell 720p anymore. People look at 1080i, see a bigger number and think that it is better.

I agree 100%. I've always hated interlaced video. The only reason I pulled the trigger on my 1080i camcorder was because it supports 24P and 30P as well.

This is an interlaced title. It says so on the box, and Richard Casey says so in number of Nature's Journey threads. It's interlaced because it was shot with a 1080i video camera and not film.
Thanks for clarifying this. It figures, I guess.


warning issued

nothing to add? move on please
???
(this was directed at me, I presume)



I'm not surprised that there are interlaced hi-def media out there -- I guess the TV shows would be interlaced (the 1080 ones), I just haven't seen any of those yet. What I'm surprised is that this particular title that generated so much discussion (heated enough to be closed in this section, and heading in that direction in the BD and HD-DVD sections as well), and claimed by many posters to be reference material, testing the limits of both formats, and ultimately differenting between them, is also interlaced. If I remember correctly from the insider thread, interlaced material is more difficult to encode, so these very high bitrates on both formats may not be overkill after all.

So, as satisfying as it is, and even as a product of one of our own members, which is the reason I was interested in it in the first place, it should be taken for what it is -- a nice relaxation title with pretty images of nature and maxed out bitrates. Reference title, ultimate test of each format's capabilities, or proof of one formats superiority or lack thereof, come on.

By the way, I only looked at the HD-DVD version. Are the specs identical on Blu-ray, including frame rate? It's 30i, isn't it? Also, would it be beneficial to remove interlace in post-production while still in master, using professional equipment, and encode it in 24p? The bitrate may have gone a longer distance in that case, I guess, or a lower bitrate might have sufficed.

Would something be lost in the process? Maybe those with tube TV's (true interlaced technologies) would be at a loss. How about at 30p? Or should it have been shot in progressive to begin with, if the cameras support it?

Thanks.

I think the frame rate for both Blu-ray and HD DVD is 1080/60i.

Thanks for clarifying this. It figures, I guess.

???
(this was directed at me, I presume)


Thanks.Not to worry DJ, I believe it was directed to me. You were just an innocent bystander:)

Some of the HDNet titles look excellent and they are 1080i.
I haven't ordered Natures Journey yet. It's on my Birthday Wish list at Amazon so I'm waiting to see if I get it for my Birthday before I order it.

DJ79, what video card are you using? If you have an nVidia 8600 or ATI 2400/2600 do you have hardware acceleration enabled?

Hey, MidnightWatcher, glad to see a familiar face on this side of town (we are both active on the HTPC forum).

I am using a 7900GS board with whatever hardware acceleration it does. I had it off in earlier versions (prior to 2911), but now it's on, and I can't turn it off without messing with the registry. Not that there's much of a difference, anyway. I did experiment with the 2400 and the 2600pro earlier, though -- you may have seen some of my posts in the 2x00 thread.

But I'm not trying to troubleshoot this -- it's just a matter of flipping a switch. I had deinterlacing turned off, as was recommended, otherwise I may not even have discovered that this title is interlaced. But now that I have, I wanted to point out to those members who were hoping that this title could prove anything, that they really don't have a case.

EDIT: switched to a 2600XT video board in the meantime

Hey, MidnightWatcher, glad to see a familiar face on this side of town (we are both active on the HTPC forum).

I am using a 7900GS board with whatever hardware acceleration it does. I had it off in earlier versions (prior to 2911), but now it's on, and I can't turn it off without messing with the registry. Not that there's much of a difference, anyway. I did experiment with the 2400 and the 2600pro earlier, though -- you may have seen some of my posts in the 2x00 thread.

But I'm not trying to troubleshoot this -- it's just a matter of flipping a switch. I had deinterlacing turned off, as was recommended, otherwise I may not even have discovered that this title is interlaced. But now that I have, I wanted to point out to those members who were hoping that this title could prove anything, that they really don't have a case.I'll try to write this so I don't get another warning and have my post deleted again. I have a very strong suspicion that when I receive my pre-ordered Blu-ray version of Nature's Journey, I'm not going to be able to see these horizontal lines no matter how hard I try or no matter how I try to fiddle with my monitor. And I suspect no one else will without resorting to "special" settings on their television. I'll post my impressions in mid-October when I get my copy from Amazon.
...otherwise I may not even have discovered that this title is interlaced....You could have tried reading the outside of the package like the rest of us do. Not hard to "discover" when you read what is plainly written.

I'll try to write this so I don't get another warning and have my post deleted again. I have a very strong suspicion that when I receive my pre-ordered Blu-ray version of Nature's Journey, I'm not going to be able to see these horizontal lines no matter how hard I try or no matter how I try to fiddle with my monitor. And I suspect no one else will without resorting to "special" settings on their television. I'll post my impressions in mid-October when I get my copy from Amazon.

I think you would be surprised. Those lines are combing artifacts from TV deinterlacing 1080i incorrectly. They are inherent to 1080i encoding and I don't think Blu-ray is going to change that since it too is 1080i encoded.

I'll try to write this so I don't get another warning and have my post deleted again. I have a very strong suspicion that when I receive my pre-ordered Blu-ray version of Nature's Journey, I'm not going to be able to see these horizontal lines no matter how hard I try or no matter how I try to fiddle with my monitor. And I suspect no one else will without resorting to "special" settings on their television. I'll post my impressions in mid-October when I get my copy from Amazon.


even being viewed through blu colored lenses isn't going to change the characteristics of what appears to be incorrectly deinterlaced 1080i... ;)

edit: xrad beat me to it... <sigh of relief> at least i wasn't off in left field somewhere... :)

Also, would it be beneficial to remove interlace in post-production while still in master, using professional equipment, and encode it in 24p? The bitrate may have gone a longer distance in that case, I guess, or a lower bitrate might have sufficed.

Going to 24p would require throwing away fields resulting in inconsistant motion.
Going to 30p would evenly reduce the smoothness and ultimately reduce the quality as native 60i doesn't blend well into 30p in fast moption scenes.

Personally I'd rather have my TV take a 60i souce and convert it to 60p. Than have pre production go from 60i to 30p and then have my TV go back to 60p.

Your display issue is caused by showing a 60i source in a progressive output form without any processing. Activate the pixel adaptive de-interlacing and it should clear up a lot.

Also Interlacing adds around 1% efficiencey reduction in encoding stage, so nothing to stress about.

wippersnapper, xradman,

I don't expect that anyone with a standalone player of either format (assuming correct implementation, and correct encoding, too) should see any horizontal lines. I shouldn't have seen them with my player, either, had I used the default configuration of my player, and had all the components and their combinations worked glitch-free, which is not 100% guaranteed, hence the recomendation to keep it simple.

This is how my equipment is set up:

PowerDVD Ultra -- software application running on a dedicate home theater computer, set up not to deinterlace, or in other words, to send interlaced material to the display as if it were progressive, thus bypassing any deinterlacing circuitry. Not a problem with film based material, but it is for interlaced video, which is much less common on hi-def disks. This is what caused the lines -- not the display, not the deinterlacer -- the player was instructed not to deinterlace.

The signal is sent to the display at its native 1366 x 738 resolution at 60p (at 59.994 Hz, to be precise). Standalones don't support this mode that I'm aware of.

The display is the Panasonic 7UY plasma with the DVI board. This signal is pixel-perfect and progressive, so there is no scaling and no deinterlacing by the display. It is displayed exactly as sent by the computer.

I hope this clarifies it a little. By the way, this was a Netflix rental, otherwise the case would be the first place to look for confirmation. But then, I guess, the thread title wouldn't have the question mark.

gooki, that's exactly what it was. Speaking of that, is 1080 at 60p in the specs of either format? That would obviously be the best thing for fast motion material. I know it isn't in broadcast, but I don't see why it wouldn't be in optical high-def. This was such a missed opportunity to get rid of intelaced once and for all. Now we're stuck with it for a very long time.

To the best of my knowledge neither formats support 1080p/60 on disc. And you answered the why question yourself: it isn't in broadcast. So if it's not used for film, and not used for broadcast, who's going to make content for it?

One can still get rid of interlaced by choosing either 1080p/24 1080p/30 or 720p/60, with 1080p/30 worth paying particular attention to as it splits into 1080i/60 broadcast stream without loss or field duplication.

Yes, correct...and the cameras we used are listed on the printed insert in case anyone is interested.

Rich

This is an interlaced title. It says so on the box, and Richard Casey says so in number of Nature's Journey threads. It's interlaced because it was shot with a 1080i video camera and not film.

Richard,

I have asked this question in a couple of threads but perhaps you missed it so I will ask it here again.

You claimed on NJ that RBFilms took every advantage of each format to make the best possible product for the customer. You also claimed 30% higher replication for the br version YET you priced the HD DVD version the same. Please explain why you did not take EVERY advantage and price the HD DVD cheaper.

k

gooki, that's exactly what it was. Speaking of that, is 1080 at 60p in the specs of either format?

No. It's a pity in the case of Blu-ray since the maximum bitrate and capacity is plenty high enough for it.

However, both support 1280x720x60p.

1080i made some sense in the CRT era since it would be displayed as interlace. Now, it has to be deinterlaced which makes it just a clumsy data compression method. There's no perfect deinterlacer; they all produce different results. A simple-minded deinterlacer will weave two fields into one and produce the motion artifacts shown above.

Nothing wrong with interlaced, the screenshots just show a HD player not working properly.

A have both discs just arrived. Give me a day or two.

...claimed by many posters to be reference material, ...
It is indeed amusing to see fan boys grasping at anything to justify their positions. I recalled heated bickering about 1080p vs. 1080i a while back. It's interesting fan boys putting down 1080i then are now proclaiming 1080i as reference materials:rolleyes:

Right now the bickering about lossless audio on HDM is deafening, as if the miserable failure of SACD/DVD-A is not enough. When a thread with such a stupid title "Transformers = No Lossless. What will you buy instead? The SD DVD?" pops up, I wonder if I am in wrong forum.

I wonder what will come next:)

It is indeed amusing to see fan boys grasping at anything to justify their positions. I recalled heated bickering about 1080p vs. 1080i a while back. It's interesting fan boys putting down 1080i then are now proclaiming 1080i as reference materials:rolleyes:


That just shows whoever is making such a comment has no idea what interlaced and progressive actually mean. Not terribly surprising though, as you suggest.

And to think someone has started a thread telling Warner to let RBFILMS do all their encodes - HAH!! :p ROTFLMAO

Yeah we sure wouldnt want these bad encodes they do would we (perfect on every review I have seen on BOTH formats)? We SURELY wouldnt want both formats optimized either would we? ;)

It is indeed amusing to see fan boys grasping at anything to justify their positions. I recalled heated bickering about 1080p vs. 1080i a while back. It's interesting fan boys putting down 1080i then are now proclaiming 1080i as reference materials:rolleyes:

Right now the bickering about lossless audio on HDM is deafening, as if the miserable failure of SACD/DVD-A is not enough. When a thread with such a stupid title "Transformers = No Lossless. What will you buy instead? The SD DVD?" pops up, I wonder if I am in wrong forum.

I wonder what will come next:)


Simple.................rent.

Simple.................rent.
Not sure I follow. I am just getting really tired of petty bickering over matters that bear no significance over the success of HDM.

Yes, lossless audio does not matter in the format war; minute, if any, difference in PQ does not matter in the format war. The real war is with SD DVD, both HDM formats are good enough for average consumers, their buying into HDM is the key to HDM's success. All these bickerings miss the boat by miles.

I have nothing against lossless audio or encode at highest bit rate possible, they are just not relevant in HDM success.

how come the BBC Version of Planet earth is 1080p?

how come the BBC Version of Planet earth is 1080p?

seems they used these:

main cameras:
Panasonic VariCam HD
Fastcam SA1
Cineflex® V14HD

others:

Super 16 Arri SR2
Sony HD Cam

Nothing wrong with interlaced, the screenshots just show a HD player not working properly.
Nothing could be further from the truth. OP posted that he was using a software player to weave the interlaced signal into a progressive frame. The type of combing is what you are supposed to see when the input signal is truly from an interlaced source.

Since this is a native interlaced material, I would be curious to see how static screenshots are going to be used for comparison. Since each field (1/2 frame) in interlaced signal is going to show a slightly different image in time, you can't just merge the 2 fields together without getting combing. I believe that most progressive displays just interpolates the 2 fields for each progressive frame which results in softening of the image (Bobbed image). I wonder how Xylon would handle this dilemma. Would he show only isolated fields (1920 x 540) or somehow pick a shot with no motion, so that he could interpolate the fields without losing too much resolution.

Nothing could be further from the truth. OP posted that he was using a software player to weave the interlaced signal into a progressive frame. The type of combing is what you are supposed to see when the input signal is truly from an interlaced source.


You're never supposed to see such artifacts. An interlaced source through a player should, at bare minimum, be measuring motion so as to decide whether to use bob or weave. Those screenshots show it's either perma-weaving, or not doing a decent job at detecting motion (not a problem for PDVD for a long while). This is absolutely basic, bottom of the line stuff, and PowerDVD will do it by default ("smart de-interlacing" under video/advanced) unless you've switched off deinterlacing altogether.

However, this is too basic for good quality. What you really need is motion or vector adaptive deinterlacing, so you have constant 60fps but with the deinterlacing taking into account temporal as well as spatial info - essentially bob on steroids. PowerDVD can do this in software, but it eats CPU something horrendous (think quadcore core2duo). It's better to do it in hardware, and for VC1 and h264 1080i you need an Nvidia 8600+, or ATI 2600+.

You're never supposed to see such artifacts. An interlaced source through a player should, at bare minimum, be measuring motion so as to decide whether to use bob or weave. Those screenshots show it's either perma-weaving, or not doing a decent job at detecting motion (not a problem for PDVD for a long while). This is absolutely basic, bottom of the line stuff, and PowerDVD will do it by default ("smart de-interlacing" under video/advanced) unless you've switched off deinterlacing altogether.

OP states that he switched off deinterlacing on PowerDVD Ultra. :)

That's correct, xradman. De-interlacing was intentionally off. Later I turned it on, and it displayed properly. If it were a TV show, I would have done it before I popped the disc in.

The only reason I posted this was because I accidentally found out about it; it wasn't discussed before, and I knew, as arfster knows that intelaced material is much more bandwidth demanding, and that any discussion of this title determining the outcome of the format war is totally moot.

I also wanted to see the reaction of people that have demonstrated their misconceptions about 1080i and 1080p (for 24p source, 60i or 60p transport is irrelevant if implemented correctly) when they realize that this ultimate answer to the bitrate question and the format war itself is interlaced and according to the marketing they were fed suboptimal.

Correct - using this title as some sort of poster child for the war being over is utterly ridiculous.

A 1080i title touted as superior, when 99% of the real movies out there are 1080p, is a joke.

And all these big hyper-elecution threads about what it took to produce this uber-release (in 1080i, mind you) are rather mystifying.