HI All,

Take this one with a grain of salt as I am more J12P than a hard core A/V enthusiast. As someone who watched VHS/BETA, LD. DVD (and some obscure formats in there) I have to ask if 1080p is the ultimate experience for home use. I ask this because for some the difference between 720p and 1080p can be subtlt (although I imagine the difference will be more substantial the larger and better the display). Also, there have been some posts from some on these forums who have 35mm theature set-ups and found HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs to be the SAME as what they are seeing from original film prints!

If this is the case then aren't you guys (and gals) already getting a true movie experience at home (and perhaps in some cases better)? If this is the case then is HD-DVD and Blu-Ray the ultimate way to watch a movie at home? Could this be any better; especially with limits to how much detail the human eye can disipher. I was reading through my September 2006 Sound & Vision and read about the Ultra HD stuff that NHK is working with in Japan. Assuming that people are still using 50"-70" screens 20-30 years from now how much better is 4K video going to look over the 1080p stuff that you are all watching now (I have a 720p 50" set)?

With so many adds talking about owning "x" movie on "x" format perhaps with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray you ARE actually owning the movie as you can now watch it at a true 35mm level of experience.

I ask all of this because DVD has been out 10 years and now is facing its successor the HD optical discs. What could come 10 years from now to supplant HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? Assuming that 1080p will be the ultimate HD resolution for a long time to come (I don't know of any 1080p broadcasts) then I can't imagine anything coming along that would be "better" than HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray.

I am also interested in what "growth" there is to both formats. DVD sure has come a long way from its beginnings in 1997. Some of the early DVDs I viewed were nothing special. Fast forward 10 years and witness some of the well mastered DVDs viewed on an upscaling DVD player. Other than interactivity and sound codecs what other cool things will these formats bring us?

I watch both formats connected to a PT-AX100 via HDMI sending 1080p/24 - so no judder, or interlacing / deinterlacing issues etc - and view on a 106" screen.

I'm flabbergasted with the PQ I get - and consider it to be better than cinema quality most of the time.

Taking video games as an area for comparison, the constant advancement in the abilities of the machines we play on is necessitated by the evolution in video games - the games designers can keep on dreaming new and fantastic directions to take these experiences in, the only limit being the technology they have to implement it on.

Home cinema on the other hand - the actual material doesn't change that much at all. Films in 30 years time will still surely be about the same length, still shot at 24 frames per second, still have surround sound. The increasing visual complexity of movies may lead to more bitrate requirement, although more films may be shot digitally so could be easier to render. Either way, compression codecs are getting more efficient, not less.

Getting back to my set up, my pj is only 720p, and I'm watching a 106" screen, and yet I never feel that there is any deficiency to the picture caused by the lack of resolution. I'm in fact very happy with my set up - the only upgrades I'll make in time are a move to a 1080p pj, and a better contrast ratio would be nice also. But as I say, neither of these is ever something that detracts from the enjoyment of the movie.

Going back to the video games analogy, I remember in 1989 seeing Genesis games running for the first time and being gobsmacked that so many of the games seemed to be 'arcade perfect'. HD DVD & Blu-Ray have effectively delivered this to my living room now, for watching movies. Whilst they may actually only have half the resolution of film, I do not feel that this makes any difference at home cinema screen sizes. In fact, I have read that professional cinema digital presentations are in a resolution more similar to 1080p, as opposed to film resolution. An excellent 1080p transfer can be nearly perfect - a reviewer may point to a bit of banding in a sky scene, or one instance of macroblocking, but as time goes by, and encoding and compression codecs improve, quality will improve even further.

I truly believe that it is actually the displays where we will see rapid improvement. Plasmas, LCD's & projectors, I feel have come on in leaps and bounds in recent years as they each get to grips with their own particular issues. Film friendly refresh rates, motion handling, contrast levels and upscaling ability will all improve and all displays may eventually be 1080p.

Ultra HD sounds great - but I believe it is competely unnecessary in the home. What we are able to view now with HD is virtually transparent to the masters and so I don't see them ever convincing us that we need better still. HD is already proving a hard enough sell to the general population.

I ask all of this because DVD has been out 10 years and now is facing its successor the HD optical discs. What could come 10 years from now to supplant HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? Assuming that 1080p will be the ultimate HD resolution for a long time to come (I don't know of any 1080p broadcasts) then I can't imagine anything coming along that would be "better" than HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray.

I do believe 1080p offeres a very high level of detail, often capable of surpassing what is on resolveable from film elements.

However you will always have people pushing the envelope and creating content that exceeds the quality of consumer applications to create a "point of difference" thus allowing commercial interests to sell content on a different platform (read theatre) vs the consumer platform (HD Media).

What these points of difference this will result in is up in the air. Will it be:
- 2000p/4000p digital production and projection
- 3D projected or 3D holographic experience
- Multi sensory expereince (touch, smell combined with audio and video)
- Etc

Either way it's not going to stop. However it will take time to develop, and time for the public to accept. Obviously many "points of difference" would not be added to catalog titles, so in my opinion it's safe to acquire them now.

Other than interactivity and sound codecs what other cool things will these formats bring us?
Off the top of my head:
- Better picture and audio quality.
- Better interaction with content owners.
- Better access to content (region free - HDDVD only)
- Greater control over the movie (seemless branching etc)
- Grater insights into how films are produced
- New forms of media distribution. Internet access essentially allows for the creation of infinite length title. Personally I'd love to make a 30 minute short film, release it on HDDVD, and then every month add another 30 minutes to the story. Essentially bypassing the TV networks in the creation and distribution of what would otherwise be considered a TV serries.
- User created content. Think Exotic Salt Water Aquarium, except the disc owners gets to choose the fish. With every disc purchase you get to pick 1 fish, and name it etc, a day later you fish is added to the pool. Other disc owners add fish, ever day a new 30 minute HD is created and gets streamed to all the HDDVD players runing that disc.Then you can purchase more fish through built in ecommerce system or just sit back and enjoy.

Its 8bit video. Its not close to matching film. Think of a reasonable quality colour photocopy of a colour photograph and you are about right.

My 2 cents. I work with 16bit per channel (48bit RGB) and 8bit per channel (24bit RGB) still photography every day, and have to say with the current display devices i'm using, I can't see a lick of difference between the two when down sampled correctly.

I work with 16bit per channel (48bit RGB)) and 8bit per channel (24bit RGB) still photography every day, and have to say with the current display devices i'm using, I can't see a lick of difference between the two when down sampled correctly.

What monitor/display are you using?

1920x1080 is 6X the resolution of NTSC TV. It is the highest consumer available format for the public that has content made for it.

We are less than 10 years into HDTV. NTSC was born in 1953 (as we know "color TV") and 54 years later . . .85% of the TV's in the USA are still NTSC.

HDTV has a loooong way to go before we ever see the next incarnation; 2500x2000 or 4000x2000.

Off the top of my head:
- Better picture and audio quality.
- Better interaction with content owners.
- Better access to content (region free - HDDVD only)
- Greater control over the movie (seemless branching etc)
- Grater insights into how films are produced
- New forms of media distribution. Internet access essentially allows for the creation of infinite length title. Personally I'd love to make a 30 minute short film, release it on HDDVD, and then every month add another 30 minutes to the story. Essentially bypassing the TV networks in the creation and distribution of what would otherwise be considered a TV serries.


Very interesting insights. I have to wonder how much better the PQ can get though! It seems that half the battle seems to be in how the codec is mastered and the remastering of the source material. I suppose we will see all sorts of things learned as time goes on. DVD got a heck of a lot better over the years. As studios get better with the codecs and the computers that they used during the restoration and mastering process keep getting better and faster I guess things will get even better!

I have to wonder though how many versions of some films will come out. Some DVD titles seem to have 10 or so variations!

So far, Blu-ray and HDDVD are the ultimate for PQ.

Very interesting insights. I have to wonder how much better the PQ can get though! It seems that half the battle seems to be in how the encodec is mastered and the remastering of the source material.

Pro digital video cameras are improving, so although improvements there won't effect catalog titles, future release shot all digitally will benefit (not saying digital is better than film just there are large improvements to be made in this area).

Then there's your film scanning technology. I believe some of the poor transfers we are seeing is from films that were scanned/telecined a few years ago for HDTV release.

What monitor/display are you using?

2x HP LP2065s, and before that 2x Viewsonic 19inch CRTs

1920x1080 is 6X the resolution of NTSC TV. It is the highest consumer available format for the public that has content made for it.

We are less than 10 years into HDTV. NTSC was born in 1953 (as we know "color TV") and 54 years later . . .85% of the TV's in the USA are still NTSC.

HDTV has a loooong way to go before we ever see the next incarnation; 2500x2000 or 4000x2000.

Hence why I tend to think that HDM will be the "ultimate" media for the forseeable future. DVD was the "ultimate" SD source and on a nice CRT was leagues above what you could find on cable, or even digital satellite for that matter. It was HD sets that really started to show the limitations to me. I guess it would take a 2500x2000 or 4000x2000 set to show "limititations" to HDM. Even then would the average person be able to discern the difference?

TO me this shows that HDM at 1080p is good to go for a long time. With one format mass adoption should evolve over time as more and more folks pick up their first HD ready sets. I don't think HDM will fail. I do believe that one format is better to not confuse the average Joe. Get disc prices down to around $15 for an older title and sub $200 players and things should start to take off.

So if you the manufacturer (in this case, the studio) is going to offer a product that is 6X better than the one you already have. . . you charge exactly the same as what you are charging for the 1X product?

Does that make any business sense at all?

So if you the manufacturer (in this case, the studio) is going to offer a product that is 6X better than the one you already have. . . you charge exactly the same as what you are charging for the 1X product?

Does that make any business sense at all?

If they want to get to mass market they will (and that is where the big money is). Also, many of the newer DVDs I bought over the last number of years (like T-2 eXtreme edition) apparently were re-mastered to a HD level. So, pretty much any new movie and restored older movies already have an H-D master. Getting them onto HDM won't be that much of a burden. Of course older treasures that haven't been optimized to HD will require a time and $ investment.

DVDs were generally over $30 CDN (I am in Canada) when I started buying them. Now there are so many under $10 and some at $6.88 at Walmart! Pretty crazy to be able to buy a movie for $1-$2 over the cost of renting them! Plus there are about 4000 DVDs I can get from my library here.

More and more HD ready sets are being sold so the potential is there for a much wider adoption of HDM. I am on the sidelines for now; but will re-evaluate in 6 months or so. I hate that one format doesn't cover all the HD releases. To me this really sucks!:mad:

One HDM is needed for wider adoption. When we bought our 50" HD set last year my wife vetoed the A-1 as a purchase option (she always has a veto on bigger family purchases) as she didn't want to end up with a HD "Beta". She is all ready to give the green light when one format "wins". In the meantime I get to watch upconverted DVDs and HD from my Satellite feed...

So far, Blu-ray and HDDVD are the ultimate for PQ.

For a consumer format, but not overall.

A pristine 35mm print has a lot of things going for it, especially with regards to color and bit-depth. We're looking at 8-bit video, which is the bare minimum, which is of course chroma subsampled and heavily compressed (not inherently a bad thing). It can look very good, but IMO not compared to a pristine 35mm print, something that is unfortunately rare to find in most megaplexes. But you add in other film stocks like 70mm, and it's no contest. HD-DVD/BRD provide excellent consumer performnace, but they aren't the masters, they aren't what you find in D-cinema (a FAR cry), and they certainly are not the ultimate in PQ by any stretch, and I think anyone who has ever seen a 70mm print can attest to that, as well as I think most people who see a clean 35mm print.

For a consumer format, but not overall.

A pristine 35mm print has a lot of things going for it, especially with regards to color and bit-depth. We're looking at 8-bit video, which is the bare minimum, which is of course chroma subsampled and heavily compressed (not inherently a bad thing). It can look very good, but IMO not compared to a pristine 35mm print, something that is unfortunately rare to find in most megaplexes. But you add in other film stocks like 70mm, and it's no contest. HD-DVD/BRD provide excellent consumer performnace, but they aren't the masters, they aren't what you find in D-cinema (a FAR cry), and they certainly are not the ultimate in PQ by any stretch, and I think anyone who has ever seen a 70mm print can attest to that, as well as I think most people who see a clean 35mm print.

You may enjoy reading this PDF - it is all about how much resolution you are actually seeing in the local movieplex.

Be prepared to be surprised.:eek:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

Take this one with a grain of salt as I am more J12P than a hard core A/V enthusiast. As someone who watched VHS/BETA, LD. DVD (and some obscure formats in there) I have to ask if 1080p is the ultimate experience for home use. I ask this because for some the difference between 720p and 1080p can be subtlt (although I imagine the difference will be more substantial the larger and better the display). Also, there have been some posts from some on these forums who have 35mm theature set-ups and found HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs to be the SAME as what they are seeing from original film prints!Big difference between 1080p and 720p, w HD is blown up to a 10 foot screen - in fact, even on a 50" screen. There's nothing better than a fantastic HD presentation from an HDM disc. The experience can actually be far better than in the theater.

There is a difference between 1080p and 4K also, but it is really not as big a difference as between 1080p and SD DVD.
One HDM is needed for wider adoption. When we bought our 50" HD set last year my wife vetoed the A-1 as a purchase option (she always has a veto on bigger family purchases) as she didn't want to end up with a HD "Beta". She is all ready to give the green light when one format "wins". In the meantime I get to watch upconverted DVDs and HD from my Satellite feed...Well, at less that $250, there's no reason for her to veto it now. You have almost nothing to lose. Why gamble $500 to $1,000 dollars, when for around $200, you can start to enjoy fabulous HD.

Who gives a damn about "who wins"? It's a childish game of lies right now anyway, and it's simply designed to stop people from buying until one side figures out how to fix their problems. Screw'em, and start enjoying HD right now.
You may enjoy reading this PDF - it is all about how much resolution you are actually seeing in the local movieplex.

Be prepared to be surprised.

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf Exactly - what is in the movie theaters is not always that great. Often times HD DVD can actually be better quality.

If they want to get to mass market they will (and that is where the big money is). Also, many of the newer DVDs I bought over the last number of years (like T-2 eXtreme edition) apparently were re-mastered to a HD level. So, pretty much any new movie and restored older movies already have an H-D master. Getting them onto HDM won't be that much of a burden. Of course older treasures that haven't been optimized to HD will require a time and $ investment.

DVDs were generally over $30 CDN (I am in Canada) when I started buying them. Now there are so many under $10 and some at $6.88 at Walmart! Pretty crazy to be able to buy a movie for $1-$2 over the cost of renting them! Plus there are about 4000 DVDs I can get from my library here.

More and more HD ready sets are being sold so the potential is there for a much wider adoption of HDM. I am on the sidelines for now; but will re-evaluate in 6 months or so. I hate that one format doesn't cover all the HD releases. To me this really sucks!:mad:

One HDM is needed for wider adoption. When we bought our 50" HD set last year my wife vetoed the A-1 as a purchase option (she always has a veto on bigger family purchases) as she didn't want to end up with a HD "Beta". She is all ready to give the green light when one format "wins". In the meantime I get to watch upconverted DVDs and HD from my Satellite feed...

Buy the A2 online at Circuit City for $249 (Canadian dollar is doing well!). You get a $100 gift card with it. Only buy one or two HD movies for now and use the A2 to upconvert any others (can you get the 5 free movie deal in Canada?). Soon you wife will start asking for more HD movies when she sees what they look like. The worst case is you are out $149, have a good upscaling DVD player and a bunch of good HD movies. If you decide to stay with HD DVD, you can move the A2 to another room later and get a fancier player (that is what I did!).

So if you the manufacturer (in this case, the studio) is going to offer a product that is 6X better than the one you already have. . . you charge exactly the same as what you are charging for the 1X product?

Does that make any business sense at all?

It does, because in many cases you're re-selling content that's already been sold. Though admitedly I'd expect prices to settle around 1.3 times the SD counterpart because of the value added experience.

1080p probably comes close to saturating the abilities of the human visual system when viewed from a distance of 3 screen heights. But current with current HDM being only 8 bit 4:2:0 and only 24 fps I would guess it won't be the last generation of consumer movie technology.

Look at all the current flap on this board about lossless audio and then imagine the hype once it is possible to have "effectively lossles to reality" video in the home. (Like HDTV was supposed to be)

Not to mention things like 3D or even direct brain connect. ;)

- Tom

IMAX is the ultimate.

1080p probably comes close to saturating the abilities of the human visual system when viewed from a distance of 3 screen heights. But current with current HDM being only 8 bit 4:2:0 and only 24 fps I would guess it won't be the last generation of consumer movie technology.

Look at all the current flap on this board about lossless audio and then imagine the hype once it is possible to have "effectively lossles to reality" video in the home. (Like HDTV was supposed to be)

Not to mention things like 3D or even direct brain connect. ;)

- Tom

Higher resolutions have been in use for YEARS. CAD/CAM is 2500x2000

Evans & Sutherland makes a 5000x4000 Laser projector for commerical venues like planetiariums (Computer fed)

When we finally see Digital Cinema with it's 4000x2000 48bit color resolution on the screen - then we the public will see movies at their finest. Should be about a year.

We have ALL the pieces:

1. RED cameras - 4500x2000
2. 8 Mega pixel PJ's - Sony and JVC
3. 8 Mega pixel Scanners - WB
4. Lossless Audio - Dolby TrueHD
5. The Disc Array to store the data
6. The delivery system to get the data from "Hollywood" to the theater - the Boeing SAT.

Universal and WB are working with the top three movie theater chains (14,000 screens) to bring DC to life nation wide (now about 1000 screens)

Hollywood spends about $800 million a year for 35mm prints.

Lee - thanks for that PDF link - it's an interesting read.

Lee - thanks for that PDF link - it's an interesting read.

My pleasure . . . Not what you expected was it?

all we need now is only anamorphic HD and deep color to be added to our current technology for that true to theater experience.

Its 8bit video. Its not close to matching film. .
If it's the 8 bits then neither are all 8 bit MPEG2 digital cinema presentations...

all we need now is only anamorphic HD and deep color to be added to our current technology for that true to theater experience.

Can HDMI 1.3 get us there (deep color)? Do you see deep color happening in the next few years with widespread adoption of HDMI 1.3 on the players and displays?

I do believe 1080p offeres a very high level of detail, often capable of surpassing what is on resolveable from film elements.
Not even close. Depending on the quality of the film stock, effective resolution of 35mm film is somewhere between 24 and 36 million pixels. 65mm is an order of magnitude higher. 1080p is TWO.

In the real world, however--and particularly, in the home--we're past the point of diminishing returns. Members here who sit ~15 feet from 100+ inch screens will be able to take advantage of 4k presentations. For the rest of us, with more "normal" TVs in the 40-70" range, seeing any advantage of a resolution higher than 1080p is relatively unlikely. 10 or 12-bit color I could MAYBE see, 4k resolution, not so much.

1080-line HD is going to be with us for a LONG time.

You have to give people some time... the industry is pushing so hard to make TVs
disposable like game consoles, computers, music formats, video formats, etc, etc, etc...

Once the folks who think TVs should be good for 20-30 years after buying them are
gone, we'll see "new" TV technologies come out every 5-7 years and we'll all run out to
buy the new Ultra Definition TV or SuperDuper Definition TV or whatever...

I'm sure that's the plan for more than one company in the industry...

Can HDMI 1.3 get us there (deep color)? Do you see deep color happening in the next few years with widespread adoption of HDMI 1.3 on the players and displays?

hopefully!!

If it's the 8 bits then neither are all 8 bit MPEG2 digital cinema presentations...


You can maybe get away with 8bits for representing a print dynamic some of the time but a video intensity range always looks exactly like what it is : video. Flat blacks and comparatively harsh whites.

Personally, I don't think you're going to see much more increase in resolution in home theater for a while. The biggest area in need of improvement, in my opinion is color depth. A few years ago at Siggraph, I saw a true high dynamic range display (HDRI). It was an early prototype, but WOW! It's hard to envision these displays until you've seen one. The best way for me to describe it is this: If you are outside looking at a brilliant sunset and you take your hand and block the sun, your eyes quickly adjust to allow you to see details in shadows and landscape that you couldn't see before. Now imagine getting that same effect from a display system.

Some of the big CE companies have licensed that display technology, so you're likely to see it show up in consumer devices at some point (probably as active LED backlights). The company that developed the tech (which I believe was recently bought out by dolby) was also showing an adaptation of the mpeg-2 format that could hold the required color depth and was backwards compatible with standard mpeg-2. The only problem is, I haven't heard of any good motion picture capture solution for HDRI. The depth is far beyond what film is capable of. Stills and CG are easily do-able right now though.

The biggest challenge to any advancement like this, is that it requires a whole end to end production infrustructure behind it. I doubt you'll start seeing HDRI movies any time soon. What you might see though, are next-next-gen consoles and computers outputting optional HDRI games to capable displays.

You may enjoy reading this PDF - it is all about how much resolution you are actually seeing in the local movieplex.

Be prepared to be surprised.:eek:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf


It's not surprising at all, hence my repeated use of the term PRISTINE print, or: "a pristine 35mm print, something that is unfortunately rare to find in most megaplexes." I'm well aware of the resolution limitations that we find in average megaplexes, that's not really what I'm talking about.

If it's the 8 bits then neither are all 8 bit MPEG2 digital cinema presentations...

It was my understanding that they were >8 bit. The DCI spec calls for 12-bit, non-linear. I'm not aware of D-cinema content being 8-bit, but I haven't followed too closely, so I may be mistaken about what's going on in the field. But I would expect at least 10-bit though...

Big difference between 1080p and 720p, w HD is blown up to a 10 foot screen - in fact, even on a 50" screen. There's nothing better than a fantastic HD presentation from an HDM disc. The experience can actually be far better than in the theater.

There is a difference between 1080p and 4K also, but it is really not as big a difference as between 1080p and SD DVD.
Well, at less that $250, there's no reason for her to veto it now. You have almost nothing to lose. Why gamble $500 to $1,000 dollars, when for around $200, you can start to enjoy fabulous HD.

Who gives a damn about "who wins"? It's a childish game of lies right now anyway, and it's simply designed to stop people from buying until one side figures out how to fix their problems. Screw'em, and start enjoying HD right now.
Exactly - what is in the movie theaters is not always that great. Often times HD DVD can actually be better quality.

rdjam,

Usually like your posts, but I may have a problem with this one. This weekend I was at a store and had a chance to directly compare, side by side, same images, a $2400 1080p 46" LCD (Sony) to a $1400 720p 50" plasma (Philips). Image quality on still images was pretty much identical. But then the HD loop they were running began displaying a slow horizontal pan across a city skyline. This is where things got interesting. The LCD looked like it was smearing the image and moving in steps. Detail was lost as the buildings smeared across the screen. The plasma on the other hand looked smooth as silk, with perfect retained details in all the buildings. Which would you buy? Give me the smooth, 720p plasma any day. Better action sequences, and I save $1000.00.

When 1080p plasma's get into reasonable price range, then maybe I'll be interested in 1080p. Till then, 720p works best. LCD's are crap!

It was my understanding that they were >8 bit. The DCI spec calls for 12-bit, non-linear. I'm not aware of D-cinema content being 8-bit, but I haven't followed too closely, so I may be mistaken about what's going on in the field. But I would expect at least 10-bit though...

Yep its a 12bit pseudo print dynamic I think.

Personally, I don't think you're going to see much more increase in resolution in home theater for a while. The biggest area in need of improvement, in my opinion is color depth. .


I'd agree with this. I don't think we'll see films using HDR for a while but what we might get is a larger than print dynamic range with a 3dlut to take it into print. You would get the advantage of a larger dynamic range than video : nicer fallof into min black and peak white which is where video is lacking regardless of bitdepth.

I've even suggested 8bit 720p using something along these lines would be better looking than 8bit 1080p video. 1k 10bit log (1024x778 for fullap) with a print environment LUT still looks better than 1080p video in my opinion.

rdjam,

Usually like your posts, but I may have a problem with this one. This weekend I was at a store and had a chance to directly compare, side by side, same images, a $2400 1080p 46" LCD (Sony) to a $1400 720p 50" plasma (Philips). Image quality on still images was pretty much identical. But then the HD loop they were running began displaying a slow horizontal pan across a city skyline. This is where things got interesting. The LCD looked like it was smearing the image and moving in steps. Detail was lost as the buildings smeared across the screen. The plasma on the other hand looked smooth as silk, with perfect retained details in all the buildings. Which would you buy? Give me the smooth, 720p plasma any day. Better action sequences, and I save $1000.00.

When 1080p plasma's get into reasonable price range, then maybe I'll be interested in 1080p. Till then, 720p works best. LCD's are crap!


Interesting post. Obviously there is more to an image than just resolution. I wonder if the new, faster LCDs will be able to overcome this artifact? It seems that both Plasman & LCD keep getting better and better.

What is your take on the "higher end" RP TVS? e.g. LCOS, SXRD etc...

My pleasure . . . Not what you expected was it?

The read confirms what I've already been saying since I got my XA2: better than film.

You can maybe get away with 8bits for representing a print dynamic some of the time but a video intensity range always looks exactly like what it is : video. Flat blacks and comparatively harsh whites.
Are you comparing a full range of 0 to 255 with 16 to 235 here?

Not even close. Depending on the quality of the film stock, effective resolution of 35mm film is somewhere between 24 and 36 million pixels.
We are talking motion picture negative, not still frames. It's widely acknowledged that 35mm negative's MTF goes rapidly down > 3K and there is nothing of interest > 4K (e.g. 12 million pixels, not >= 24).

Yep its a 12bit pseudo print dynamic I think.
I was told MPEG can't do > 8 bits. Maybe I was told wrong...

This maybe a little off topic. But strictly speaking 1080p is not the ultimate PQ experience.

Some consumer computer displays such as Dell's 30" are capable of resolutions higher than 1080p, the 30" is 2560 x 1600. While there may not be any movies on a medium the take advantage of the resolution, I image video games and things like Flash presentations will be able to.

We are talking motion picture negative, not still frames. It's widely acknowledged that 35mm negative's MTF goes rapidly down > 3K and there is nothing of interest > 4K (e.g. 12 million pixels, not >= 24).

Try reading the PDF I linked . . . then come back and tell us how much resolution is up on the screen at your local movie theater.

Deep color is the only thing missing... especially now that theaters are cutting their resolution down by moving to digital 2K projection, which is (almost/very close) the same resolution as the HDM formats... we're just missing deep color!

Deep color is the only thing missing... especially now that theaters are cutting their resolution down by moving to digital 2K projection, which is (almost/very close) the same resolution as the HDM formats... we're just missing deep color!

Ahhhh . . . you also might want to read my linked PDF. Especially if you think Digital Cinema has less resolution than a 35mm print shown in your local theater.

Ahhhh . . . you also might want to read my linked PDF. Especially if you think Digital Cinema has less resolution than a 35mm print shown in your local theater.

I read the PDF, and I respectifully disagree with the research, based on past experience with the two theaters in my area that switched. I can't stand the DLP presentations... bright/crisp yes, but pixellated too much for my taste. It may just come down to "smooth w/ no detail" versus "large defined pixels", whatever the reason, I prefer the film presentation every time.

But in either case, I agree, in that 2K is the most we're going to see, either at the theater, or at home, for a LONG LONG time and should be considered to be a final product.

** Except for deep color, and I'd have to see a demo to see if there's really anything to that.

I was told MPEG can't do > 8 bits. Maybe I was told wrong...

Yeah, it most certainly can. The D5 masters are all 10-bit, and they're MPEG2.

My point is simply that 8-bit is really the BARE minimum to keep each step just below the JND threshold. If you really do anything to that and leave it in 8-bit, you'll get banding, and with artifical patterns with hard 1-step edges vertically or horizontally, you can discern that single step in an 8-bit image. On most images the gradations are kept less visible because of the lack of hard vertical/horizontal edges, and the fact that you don't have to go up one step all at once with RGB, you can go up on just one or two components at a time. 8-bit when handled correctly, can provide an excellent image, and keep banding below the visible threshold, but it provides really no margin for error, or the banding will become visible. This makes processing difficult or impossible if you're stuck in an 8-bit environment because you simply have to go to 10bit or more if you're going to do any kind of scaling or the like, and make sure you have that all the way through the rest of the display chain.

That being said, I don't think that we're going to see more than 8-bit video in the home for some time, and I think that 8-bit on HD-DVD/BRD is quite appropriate, given the tradeoffs and the fact that 8-bit is sufficient for a high-quality image, even if just barely so, at least for now with current LDR displays. If you look at 8-bit video on an HDR display, it looks terrible because the bit depth isn't enough, and because macro blocks become hideously obvious where they are usually more difficult to discern.

Many DI's are scanned at 4k. But 2k often is the norm as well, which is only a pinch above 1080p so yeah, I think this is as close as it gets to "film".

I did see a DLP projection too and I didnt like it overall. The blacks were definitely not as good. One thing that was nice though was that there were no scratches, no bad pj registration. I hate that stuff.

But something about a really nice 35mm projection can't be beat. It's just so warm and natural looking. Unfortunately most modern theaters are not so well maintained or set up well. Many of us HT geeks will have more impressive presntations due to being anal about pq and sq.

rdjam,

Usually like your posts, but I may have a problem with this one. This weekend I was at a store and had a chance to directly compare, side by side, same images, a $2400 1080p 46" LCD (Sony) to a $1400 720p 50" plasma (Philips). Image quality on still images was pretty much identical. But then the HD loop they were running began displaying a slow horizontal pan across a city skyline. This is where things got interesting. The LCD looked like it was smearing the image and moving in steps. Detail was lost as the buildings smeared across the screen. The plasma on the other hand looked smooth as silk, with perfect retained details in all the buildings. Which would you buy? Give me the smooth, 720p plasma any day. Better action sequences, and I save $1000.00.Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. You're comparing different display technologies here, not different resolutions. The differences between plasma and LCD can affect the look of fast movement, no question. But on my HD1 LCoS, this is not really the issue. There is still a big difference between 1080 and 720 on bigger screens :)

When 1080p plasma's get into reasonable price range, then maybe I'll be interested in 1080p. Till then, 720p works best. LCD's are crap!Also - not ALL LCD TVs fall into that category. Some are very very good, like the newer 120hz LCDs from various manuafcturers. My $1,000 Vizio 47 is certainly not very good on movement, YET, my $359 24" DCL LCD (1920x1200), which has something like a 1 or 2 millisecond refresh, is amazing with movement - crystal clear (I highly recommend this display, BTW, even though the built-in speakers are too quiet).

So it will vary greatly.

Is HD-DVD/Blu-Ray 1080p the "ultimate" PQ experience?

Only when combined with the "ultimate" display. There are many HDTVs that can reproduce a "Full HD" resolution image, but few come close to the full potental for color and precision. (A monitor like this http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=10007&p=8&sp=20073&id=80821&navid=master_series_video_monitors puts Sony's consumer Bravia XBR TVs to shame.) I think the "ultimate" PQ experience depends more on the display than the disc.

Yeah, it most certainly can. The D5 masters are all 10-bit, and they're MPEG2.

.

I was under the impression that D5 masters although sometimes 10bit ( more often the case these days) do not use mpeg2 compression.

In answer to other posts the Dcinema formats usually shown theatrically are not nominally 8bit mpeg2 . Neither is it a video format . By that I mean that its not a video intensity range . It contains a dynamic range closer to print film whether it be 10bit or greater. This is my main point its strictly speaking not "video". In the same way that a DI is usually a 10bit log ( or greater) format that encodes the entire density range of the camera negative.

I don't think the Dcinema formats are usually full negative density either ( being closer to a smaller print dynamic). However even if you had imagery that was full negative density ( like a DI) you can't display all the image information . If you did it will look flat ( I actually posted an 8bit jpeg on here somewhere that was full negative density for comparisson) . You have to lose nearly everything above the reference white level ( 685 in 10bit code values) and essentially degamma the intensity range ( accepted gamma being a simplification of the actual curve). So what you end up displaying is a negative format with a display LUT that takes it into a print dynamic.

The advantages of doing this ( apart from colour) are a much more natural fall off into black and peak white. Video just simply does not have this. Even if you display all the available intensity range from a video image ( and personally speaking I clip black at 16 and leave everything up to 255 on display) it will still exhibit a lack of intensity variation and notionally harsh clip into black and white compared with a print or something replicating a print dynamic.

This is why video regardless of resolution and bit depth never really looks like a print image enviroment. Its fundamentally missing intensity variation.

- -- - video
-------- print
--------------- negative

Its a bit like the above relationship. Imagine during a DI or grading session you can slide the print dynamic up and down against the negative range. Thats essentially what a colourist does when grading print from a negative they are deciding which intensity region to select from the negative.

The same thing essentially happens when the video master is telecined or generated from the negative. The video intensity range is slid up and down the full negative range if you will. The colourist slides it around based on image content : a dark scene will end up with the video range mostly down the bottom keeping the lower variation at the expense of upper range detail.

Its not quite as simple as this as nonlinear mapping also takes place ( contrast tweaks thats why I've put gaps in the video range..imagine these can move independantly). However its crowbarring the important image intensity variation from the negative into a comparatively small video range. Regardless just about every type of imagery loses intensity variation when mapped to video. The video is essentially empty in rather large areas relative to the original negative (or print) depending on how its been "telecined". Something somewhere is always sacrificed to get it into a smaller colourspace.

When you watch a 35mm print the sliding around required is much less dramatic from scene to scene, You usually have good levels of variation towards black and white regardless of image content.

On video the sliding around is much more severe, if you keep lower variation you have to lose a tonne towards white and vice versa ( a few psychovisual effects come into play that essentially mean you can still end up with an acceptable image..if you are careful...mainly that we percieve variation easier towards black than towards white). Relative to a print dynamic its always a compromise.

So what does this mean when you look at the images?

Print looks to have a much more consistent pleasing intensity range with natural detailed falloff towards min black and peak white. And this is consistent from shot to shot and scene to scene.

Video is mainly dedicated to representing the midrange and exhibits a fairly obvious emptiness towards black or peak white : sometimes both ( always both to a certain extent) or one or the other depending on image content.

Telecine ( for wont of a better word) technology has improved hugely in recent years. Do you remember in the 80s people complaining that they didn't like to watch films like Alien or BladeRunner because they were "too dark"? Thats because the image content was pretty much at the limit of what was succesfully transferable to video at the time and those masters had very little variation towards black.

Nowadays things are much better but video is always heavily compromised relative to ( not necessarily film) but a larger intensity range format like film or something that simulates it.

This throws up another couple of issues. Video being fairly empty towards black needs to be displayed with as large a display contrast range as possible to render a pleasing/acceptable contrast range. This means low blacks are preferred.

Print doesn't need as low blacks on display as the greater intensity variation towards black and white is enough to present a pleasing image to your eye. people often miss this point when discussing black level on video displays relative to print: although lower blacks are generally beneficial for displaying any naturalistic imagery. Its not quite as critical with print as it is for video.

My point is though that "video" will never look like print regardless of bitdepth , resolution and colour capability . To get a format that looks like print you'd have to encode a dynamic range that was the same as print... then its strictly speaking no longer video.

Yeah, it most certainly can. The D5 masters are all 10-bit, and they're MPEG2.
The D5 compression format for HD resolutions is specified in SMPTE 342M. It's DCT based, so it's somewhat like MPEG-2 I-frame only, but the bitstream syntax is entirely different.

Ron

Video is mainly dedicated to representing the midrange and exhibits a fairly obvious emptiness towards black or peak white : sometimes both ( always both to a certain extent) or one or the other depending on image content. Exactly, that is the obligatory artifacts of standard "video gamma" i.e. it's a zero sum game. Video is not as efficient when compared to negative film, in that color and intensity are tracked logarithmically like the human eye.

A full 10-11 f-stop (~1000:1) latitude of negative film capture must be truncated to ~7 1/2 stop video range. The bulk of the "video" image is represented in the midtone region, if emphasis is added at one end of the tonal range, this comes at the expense (zero sum) of the opposite extreme. Just because reference BLACK is thought of as zero light, this does not correlate to infinite dynamic range, compromises have to be made on real world complex images.

For example the mathematical difference between digital luma levels 235/17 can be calculated to be exactly a 985:1 contrast ratio; but VIDEO does NOT have 10 f-stops (~1000:1) of latitude like negative film. In fact a pristine print film at ~200:1 contrast ratio still out performs VIDEO due to its logarithmic nature.

My point is though that "video" will never look like print regardless of bitdepth , resolution and colour capability . To get a format that looks like print you'd have to encode a dynamic range that was the same as print... then its strictly speaking no longer video.
Then it's about the shape of the curve as with enough bits you can have any shape you like.

Try reading the PDF I linked . . . then come back and tell us how much resolution is up on the screen at your local movie theater.
I know this report. I was talking about camera negative, not >= 4th generation material.

I know this report. I was talking about camera negative, not >= 4th generation material.

But we NEVER see the CN, nor the dallies produced from it. We are not discussing the specs of the two formats (film & video) - we are discussing what we SEE in the local multiplex.

Whether the nextgen is simply DI-4K like or with YUV4:2:2 or with 10bit/12bit per channel is debateable.

Although CE AV takes major jumps at longer intervals compared to PCs, the technoogy trend shows no sign of stopping. This is not a discussion of which format the distribution happens, but more on the underlying technology.

So, I doubt if 1920x1080 YUV4:2:0 8bits/pel with max capped bitrate at 28 or 40Mbps is the end of PQ experience.

My belief is that our ability to discern detail is a bar that can keep going up. Once you grow up getting used to a particular level of video PQ, you can't go back to lower quality, but there is always a major improvement you can recognize if you see it.

Then it's about the shape of the curve as with enough bits you can have any shape you like.

Yep I've already hypothesized an 8bit log format that hel a print type dynamic at 720p instead of 1080p video.

Here are the specs of D-Cinema for the future as I understand them - please feel free to correct any errors:

1. Resolution - 4096x2160 on the screen (called SHD - Super HD)

2. Color Gamut - 12bit/36bit

3. Compression - JPEG 2000

Compression - JPEG 2000 (?)
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/technicalnotes/FL-GN-TN-0060-DigitalCinema.pdf

The Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI)
"The digital cinema system shall have the capability to present a theatrical experience that is better than what one could achieve now with a traditional 35mm answer print.

To achieve that, DCI expects a compliant system to display 4096x2160 pixels in 12 bit colour. The specification defines the Digital Cinema Distribution Master (DCDM) as the delivery file to the theatres. The DCDM is an authored format combining not just pictures and sound but subtitles, auxiliary data for encryption systems and other metadata. The content within the DCDM will be encoded using JPEG2000 (wavelet) compression."

http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/technicalnotes/FL-GN-TN-0060-DigitalCinema.pdf

The Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI)
"The digital cinema system shall have the capability to present a theatrical experience that is better than what one could achieve now with a traditional 35mm answer print.

To achieve that, DCI expects a compliant system to display 4096x2160 pixels in 12 bit colour. The specification defines the Digital Cinema Distribution Master (DCDM) as the delivery file to the theatres. The DCDM is an authored format combining not just pictures and sound but subtitles, auxiliary data for encryption systems and other metadata. The content within the DCDM will be encoded using JPEG2000 (wavelet) compression."

Thank you - corrected my post to reflect your post with correct data.:)

I remember a while back seeing a comparison of gladiator on 1080p, vs SD, vs FILM(it was a scene with an army the soldiers lining up(if someone else has seen it).

We have a long way to go until we hit film quality... A long way