Are 2.35 "1080p" movies are encoded in 817 x 1920 pixels ? Or is it a vertically stretched 1080 x 1920 ???

I haven't heard of an anamorphic BD or HD DVD, so I'm assuming (someone can confirm) that the black bars are part of the 1080p image, so the wider the resolution, the fewer horizontal lines.

I haven't heard of an anamorphic BD or HD DVD, so I'm assuming (someone can confirm) that the black bars are part of the 1080p image, so the wider the resolution, the fewer horizontal lines.

this is exactly what I thought...

most movies are anamorphic. 16x9 unsqueezed. Just like DVDs.

most movies are anamorphic. 16x9 unsqueezed. Just like DVDs.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

most movies are anamorphic. 16x9 unsqueezed. Just like DVDs.
They're not anamorphic.

To answer the OP, the video is always encoded at 1920x1080. The ratio of the original film determines the letterboxing that will be present, and the "black bars" are encoded into the video itself.

^My understanding as well.

Are 2.35 "1080p" movies are encoded in 817 x 1920 pixels ? Or is it a vertically stretched 1080 x 1920 ???

2.35:1 movies are encoded on disc as 1920x1080. With hundreds of black bars :) (1080-817=263 so around 263 black bars maybe).

1920/2.35=817 so the actual number of pixels containing the actual image content is 1920x817 (the rest being the black bars).

Isn't encoding black bars a waste ;) Also, you'd think in the picture quality thread that 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 would have higher scores for sharpness/resolution than 2.35:1 movies, as they are stored with a higher number of pixels to make up the picture. True, it's harder to compress 1.85:1 content than 2.35:1 content because of the increase in actual picture content resolution so you might get more artefacts but it should be possible to get a sharper picture/fuller resolution etc.

Simple: All BD/HD-DVD's are encoded at the full 1080x1920 (unless another supported resolution is used) and there is no anamorphic stretch used or supported on either format. So a 1.85 encode has about 20 black lines on the top and about 20 on the bottom. A 2.40 has about 140 black lines on top and about 140 black lines on bottom. A 1.33 (4x3) would be pillarboxed with about 240 black lines on the left and about 240 black lines on the right. The black takes very little bandwidth to encode. On a 2.40 the black would probably take way less than 1mbps to encode.

A 1.33 (4x3) would be windowboxed with about 240 black lines on the left and about 240 black lines on the right. The black takes very little bandwidth to encode.

Think you mean pillarboxed - not windowboxed. (Windowbox- also know as postage stamp - is what happens when you take an image that has been letterboxed and then pillarbox it - giving black bars all the way round the image)

A 4:3 image pillarboxed into a 1920x1080 16:9 frame will occupy the centre 1440x1080 portion, as you say, with 240 columns of black each side.

most movies are anamorphic. 16x9 unsqueezed. Just like DVDs.

In video terms 16:9 HD isn't described as anamorphic, as it is based on square pixels - where each pixel has an aspect ratio of 1:1. HD material would only be described as anamorphic if the aspect ratio of the pixels were not 1:1 (i.e. a 21:9 image was compressed into a 16:9 frame to utilise the whole frame without letterboxing)

DVDs and standard def digital TV doesn't use square pixels (either in 4:3 or 16:9) both 4:3 and 16:9 are generally produced using 720x480 or 720x576 ITU/CCIR 601 sampling. This was originally defined for 4:3 (with an alternative resolution for 16:9 which remains largely, or totally, unused), but quickly became used for 16:9 material as well, with each pixel/sample having a wider aspect ratio in 16:9 than 4:3, and thus when a 720x480 16:9 image is displayed on a 720x480 4:3 display it appears squashed horizontally (or stretched vertically) and appears anamorphic. (Anamorphic techniques were used in movie production a long time before TV)

FHA - Full Height Anamorphic - is often used to describe 16:9 SD material which is 16:9 full height/full width in an SD frame - though many broadcasters now frown on it as an inaccurate description, and instead use the XX#YY where XX is the active aspect ratio, YY is the raster aspect ratio and # is the conversion system. XX and YY are scaled to refer to XX:9 or YY:9, (so 4:3=12:9) and # is either F for full-screen, L for letterbox or P for pillarbox.

4:3 material pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame is thus 12P16.
16:9 material letterboxed into a 4:3 frame is thus 16L12.
16:9 material full frame in a 16:9 frame is thus 16F16 etc.

Think you mean pillarboxed - not windowboxed. (Windowbox- also know as postage stamp - is what happens when you take an image that has been letterboxed and then pillarbox it - giving black bars all the way round the image)

A 4:3 image pillarboxed into a 1920x1080 16:9 frame will occupy the centre 1440x1080 portion, as you say, with 240 columns of black each side.

Correct: Edited my post.;)

Also, you'd think in the picture quality thread that 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 would have higher scores for sharpness/resolution than 2.35:1 movies, as they are stored with a higher number of pixels to make up the picture. True, it's harder to compress 1.85:1 content than 2.35:1 content because of the increase in actual picture content resolution so you might get more artefacts but it should be possible to get a sharper picture/fuller resolution etc.

why? if you "cut out" a 2.35 section of a 1.85 film, there'd be the same amount of pixels there.

why? if you "cut out" a 2.35 section of a 1.85 film, there'd be the same amount of pixels there.

Exactly, but a 1.85:1 film doesn't have a 2.35:1 section cut out. A 1.85:1 film on optical media gets to use the entire 1920x1080 pixels for the image.

Imagine - I don't know a scene with lots of resolution - millions of tiny stars - you'd probably get to see more of the stars (or better detailed stars) with the whole 1.85:1 being used on optical media. Though 1.85:1 most likely isn't the best aspect to use for a film set in space - it's just used for an example.

Basically any film with lots of detail in (eg. in screen height) should be capable of better detail/resolution if the entire 1080 in pixel height was actually used.

I'm not complaining about aspect ratios really. I'm just trying to say that the more pixels you have the more resolution/"sharpness" (probably not the right word but you know what I mean) - you can have.

Obviously for example if there was a format with 1920x10 pixels you'd see less information than you'd have with a format with 1920x800 pixels.

nope, still doesn't make any sense... the "resolution" doesn't change...

:confused: i freely admit that i may be being dense here... but i don't see how "filling the screen" vs. "not filling the screen" (and yea, i know you aren't griping about oar) would allow for greater "resolution", "sharpness" or whatever it is... trying real hard to understand what you are getting at...

why? if you "cut out" a 2.35 section of a 1.85 film, there'd be the same amount of pixels there.

nope, still doesn't make any sense... the "resolution" doesn't change...

:confused: i freely admit that i may be being dense here... but i don't see how "filling the screen" vs. "not filling the screen" (and yea, i know you aren't griping about oar) would allow for greater "resolution", "sharpness" or whatever it is... trying real hard to understand what you are getting at...

What I'm trying to say is you can more "resolution" (picture information in 2,073,600 pixels (1920x1080) than you can get in 1,568,640 pixels (1920*817).

2,073,600 pixels is more than 1,568,640 pixels. That's kind of what I mean when I say you get "more resolution" (though it's true all HD media use the entire 1920x1080. But for stuff that isn't 1.78:1 it's not all actual content from the movie if you know what I mean).

on an anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD you get about 480 lines of picture
on an anamorphic 2.35:1 DVD you get about 400 lines of picture
on a 2.35:1 HD you get about 800 lines of picture (I assume you don't sit and watch the 300 lines of black)
on a 1.85:1 HD you get about 1080 lines of picture

So what exactly is the problem?
If you compare a 2.35:1 DVD to HD the quality difference is much less than comparing a 1.85:1 DVD to HD (30% ish)

So if you watch Transformers on DVD then on HD using a 120" screen you think, that's good (100% better)
But if you watch Life of Brian on DVD then on HD using a 120" screen you think, I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW GOOD IT LOOKS! (120% better)

PS
On the other hand using a 42" Tv (or smaller) I doubt you would even notice the difference between DVD and HD.

What I'm trying to say is you can more "resolution" (picture information in 2,073,600 pixels (1920x1080) than you can get in 1,568,640 pixels (1920*817).

2,073,600 pixels is more than 1,568,640 pixels. That's kind of what I mean when I say you get "more resolution" (though it's true all HD media use the entire 1920x1080. But for stuff that isn't 1.78:1 it's not all actual content from the movie if you know what I mean).

but there isn't any more "picture" to "get"...

i think you are confusing "fuller screen" with "better picture"...

So what exactly is the problem?
If you compare a 2.35:1 DVD to HD the quality difference is much less than comparing a 1.85:1 DVD to HD (30% ish)


no. this statement is incorrect. merely "filling the screen" (i.e. using all the pixels) does not imply a greater "quality difference"... i think you are making the same mistake as joe bloggs is... there's not a linear relationship at work here...

oh well.

on an anamorphic DVD you get about 480 lines of picture

Except I'm from the UK where you get 576 lines of picture (actually it's less than 480/576 lines for films that are >1.78:1 in aspect ratio).

on a 2.35:1 HD you get about 800 lines of picture (I assume you don't sit and watch the 300 lines of black)
on a 1.85:1 HD you get about 1080 lines of picture

So what exactly is the problem?
I didn't say there was a problem. I was just pointing out that there is less resolution in terms of number of pixels in a 1.85:1 film than a 2.35:1 film. Of course the actual resolution you get depends on lots more things to do with how they filmed it/quality of the transfer etc.

PS
On the other hand using a 42" Tv (or smaller) I doubt you would even notice the difference between DVD and HD.

I have a 26" LCD HDTV and a 37" 1080p LCD HDTV and I can definitely see the difference between DVD and HD. It also depends on viewing distance I suppose. If I walked back 100 metres I probably couldn't tell the difference :D

Basically I'd like the highest resolution possible for all high def media, regardless of the aspect ratio (and I'm not sure encoding black bars is necessarily a good idea as it might give you less flexibility in how you view it with different/future displays. Just like non-anamorphic 1.85:1 standard def DVDs, when viewed on a Blu-ray (or HD-DVD) player get shown with black bars on all four sides unless your TV has a specific option to remove them).

So I want the maximum pixel resolution, colour palettes etc. 4K would be OK. ;)

but there isn't any more "picture" to "get"...

i think you are confusing "fuller screen" with "better picture"...

2.35:1 may give a more pleasing aspect ratio for certain types of films than 1.85:1. But if we can't agree that 2 million pixels can potentially give you a higher resolution than 1.5 million pixels, then I think maybe we should just agree to differ.

PS: If a 2.35:1 movie was stored on disc with 2 million pixels for the entire image content (ie. excluding the black bars) and watched on a 2.35:1 TV that used the full 2 million pixels for displaying the picture, I'd say that would be about the same resolution as a 1.78:1 movie on a 1.78:1 TV that used 2 million pixels for the full picture (actually there could be less real resolution for 2.35:1 depending on the type of lens used or more distortion maybe? - but I think we can ignore that for this discussion).

As for there not being any more picture to get. Film can and is scanned at higher resolutions than 1920x817. Though it's true that current high def media is limited in the pixel resolutions and aspect ratios it can store without resorting to black bars. And most people don't generally watch on 2.35:1 displays etc.

no. this statement is incorrect. merely "filling the screen" (i.e. using all the pixels) does not imply a greater "quality difference"... i think you are making the same mistake as joe bloggs is... there's not a linear relationship at work here...

oh well.
As I said before, 2.35:1 can be a more pleasing aspect ratio for some types of films. In your opinion, ignoring the aspect ratio differences which could produce the best quality in terms of picture resolution:
A) 1920x817 pixels
B) 1920x8 pixels (yes just 8 pixels high :D)
?

ok, the aspect ratio changes the resolution, that's for sure.

ok, the aspect ratio changes the resolution, that's for sure.

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or not,
but if all films are being encoded in a 1920x1080 picture frame with square pixels, no matter what the original aspect ratio of the film, in a way it does. See previous posts ;)

I think that you guys are discussing two different things and you are both right. The pixel density per square inch on the viewable area of a 2.35:1 film is the same as the pixel density on a 1.85:1 film so they will have the same resolution across the 2.35:1 viewable area. The 1.85:1 image will be larger, however, with the same pixel density, thus higher resolution.

2,073,600 pixels is more than 1,568,640 pixels. That's kind of what I mean when I say you get "more resolution" (though it's true all HD media use the entire 1920x1080. But for stuff that isn't 1.78:1 it's not all actual content from the movie if you know what I mean).

Joe,

I think there's a flaw in your reasoning. Since all HD media is encoded at 1920x1080, regardless of the film's aspect ratio, there's always the same number of pixels for any movie. Now, if some of those pixels are used by the black bars to "matte" the image to the proper aspect ratio, that's fine.

Some pictures may help explain what I'm thinking.

Imagine a director films his movie at 16x9 "open matte" with the intention of later cropping it for presentation at 2.35:1 (this is common).

The 16x9 "open matte" original film stock may look like:

http://www.fruvous.com/foo.jpg

And the 2.35:1 final version may be what's inside the blue box in the pic below. (Imagine the stuff outside the blue box being covered by black bars)

http://www.fruvous.com/foo2.jpg

The resolution has not changed. Both images on HD media would have 1920x1280 pixels. Yes, on the second image you're seeing less CONTENT than the first open matte image, but of the content you see in both versions, the resolution is exactly the same. The 16x9 image may have more picture content, but does not have more resolution, inherently. And, conversely, it's not like when the director cropped his open matte image to produce a 2.35:1 image, he lost any resolution in the viewable part of the image.

Chris

Also, you'd think in the picture quality thread that 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 would have higher scores for sharpness/resolution than 2.35:1 movies, as they are stored with a higher number of pixels to make up the picture. True, it's harder to compress 1.85:1 content than 2.35:1 content because of the increase in actual picture content resolution so you might get more artefacts but it should be possible to get a sharper picture/fuller resolution etc.

As a follow up (and you kind of touch on this in your quote):

Since a 16x9 film does in fact have more picture content than a 2.35:1 film (when displayed on a 16x9 TV), the video codec has a lot more picture content to deal with.

Imagine a video encoded at a constant bitrate of 30mbps. A 2.35:1 film has an advantage, in a weird way, since the black bars take up a sizeable portion of the total image. The impact of the black bars on the codec is negligable. Thus, the codec is using its 30mbps "horsepower" on less picture content than a full 16x9 image.

Therefore, I would contend that, all other things being equal, 2.35:1 films have a distinct ADVANTAGE over 1.85:1 films. The video codec is dealing with less picture content and can do a better job at keep the number of artifacts down. Thus, 2.35:1 films have the potential of looking sharper, only because the video codec is processing the image content it's given more easily.

Chris

As a follow up (and you kind of touch on this in your quote):

Since a 16x9 film does in fact have more picture content than a 2.35:1 film (when displayed on a 16x9 TV), the video codec has a lot more picture content to deal with.

Imagine a video encoded at a constant bitrate of 30mbps. A 2.35:1 film has an advantage, in a weird way, since the black bars take up a sizeable portion of the total image. The impact of the black bars on the codec is negligable. Thus, the codec is using its 30mbps "horsepower" on less picture content than a full 16x9 image.

Therefore, I would contend that, all other things being equal, 2.35:1 films have a distinct ADVANTAGE over 1.85:1 films. The video codec is dealing with less picture content and can do a better job at keep the number of artifacts down. Thus, 2.35:1 films have the potential of looking sharper, only because the video codec is processing the image content it's given more easily.

Chris

ok, now that's a good point!

In the end, 2.35 movies lose some active pixels but they have an advantage with the compression that's being done.

I still say the 1.85 version has more actual resolution when you're viewing on a 1.78:1 HDTV. Imagine if they have a scene where they show a full page newspaper (in portrait format) that has small writing on, and it takes up the full height of the screen. Which type of film would you be most likely to read all of this newspaper's small-print on when watching on a 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV - a 2.35:1 movie or a 1.85:1 movie? So which has the highest resolution when watched on this HDTV?

I repeat that if there was a device capable of displaying 2 million pixels of actual picture content (non-black bars) for 2.35 ratio films and it was stored on the disc that way the pixel resolution for the entire picture would be the same (though there might be other picture quality differences).

ok, now that's a good point!

In the end, 2.35 movies lose some active pixels but they have an advantage with the compression that's being done.

So you think they should throw away more screen pixels to make it easier to compress? 1920 x 8 pixels would be even easier to compress ;)

Blu-ray has a high maximum bandwidth, if a high bandwidth is used high screen pixel resolutions (in terms of number of pixels making up the entire screen) should easily be possible in good quality. I'd like to see even higher resolutions (whether that is possible with Blu-ray even in the future - I don't know).

People making releases with really low bandwidths for various reasons where it results in picture quality loss would be better using higher bandwidths (I know there are other things you can do to fix compression problems with encodes - they should do those too ;)).

I still say the 1.85 version has more actual resolution when you're viewing on a 1.78:1 HDTV. Imagine if they have a scene where they show a full page newspaper (in portrait format) that has small writing on, and it takes up the full height of the screen. Which type of film would you be most likely to read all of this newspaper's small-print on when watching on a 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV - a 2.35:1 movie or a 1.85:1 movie? So which has the highest resolution when watched on this HDTV?

Look at my pics again. The 2.35:1 image is not SHRUNK from the 16x9 image, it's CROPPED. The picture content inside the blue square is exactly the same on both images. It's not like the lady's face is 'clearer' on the 16x9 image.

In your example, yes, you would see MORE of the newspaper, but the part common to both would have the same clarity.

A 8x10 photo and a portion of that photo cropped to 4x6 have the same resolution for the portion that's common to both. Same thing for HDM. Remember, the image is merely matted, not reduced in size to 'fit' in the 2.35:1 area.

I still say the 1.85 version has more actual resolution when you're viewing on a 1.78:1 HDTV. Imagine if they have a scene where they show a full page newspaper (in portrait format) that has small writing on, and it takes up the full height of the screen. Which type of film would you be most likely to read all of this newspaper's small-print on when watching on a 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV - a 2.35:1 movie or a 1.85:1 movie? So which has the highest resolution when watched on this HDTV?

1.85:1 and 2.35:1 have exactly the same resolution in HD, 1920x1080. The only difference is that the 2.35 image has black bars instead of the image content at the top and bottom that 1.85 would. The newpaper you talk about would be cropped in the 2.35 version and have the print exactly the same size and exactly as legible as the 1.85 version. Think of it like this: if you draw 1080 lines on a piece of paper and then cover up 200 of them with another piece of paper, do the uncovered lines suddenly get sharper? The lines are exactly as sharp as before, there are just 200 lines you don't see anymore.

Using your logic, if you partially draw the shade in one of the windows in your house, the scene outside has less resolution then if you had the shade fully open. In reality the scene outside has exactly the same resolution to you, that is whatever the limits of your current eyesight are.

no. this statement is incorrect. merely "filling the screen" (i.e. using all the pixels) does not imply a greater "quality difference"... i think you are making the same mistake as joe bloggs is... there's not a linear relationship at work here...

oh well.

Sorry, I'm using a PJ and keep the picture a constant height

Using your logic, if you partially draw the shade in one of the windows in your house, the scene outside has less resolution then if you had the shade fully open. In reality the scene outside has exactly the same resolution to you, that is whatever the limits of your current eyesight are.

This only works for a TV, not a PJ if you are using constant height, as a lot of us do on this forum.

Using your logic, if you partially draw the shade in one of the windows in your house, the scene outside has less resolution then if you had the shade fully open. In reality the scene outside has exactly the same resolution to you, that is whatever the limits of your current eyesight are.

Great analogy...wish I'd thought of it. ;)

This only works for a TV, not a PJ if you are using constant height, as a lot of us do on this forum.

You still can't get more resolution then was in the original image. As someone else said, the image stored on the disc has an inherent pixel density. A 2.35 image can not be any sharper then a 1.78 image since it's just a 2.35 image stored in a 1.78 frame. Comparing 2.35 to 1.85 on constant height projector is similar to comparing images on a 70" tv to images on a 50" tv. The 50" is going to be much sharper then the 70" even though the original image resolution hasn't changed. Obviously 1.85:1 has more pixels then 2.35:1, but they are both limited in sharpness by being stuck in a 1.78 frame.

It's a shame that we won't be able to get true anamorphic 2.35:1 with either of the HD media choices. No expanded color gamuts with deep color and xxXYC. Who knows what else could be thrown in now. The specs for these HD formats looked great 2 years ago, but even now only a little over a year in, it's really looking like both jumped the gun and launched too early (not that people weren't asking for anamorphic long before the first players came out).

Great analogy...wish I'd thought of it. ;)

yea me too... :) although i'm afraid we are beating our heads up against a brick wall here... i tried the "cropped" analogy that you are attempting to use earlier (although i didn't phrase it as elegantly as you :o ), and that didn't get anywhere either...

pixel density is pixel density... that's what determines resolution... not the amount of screen filled...

I concur with fatherom... I am no expert in all this... but there are some good sources to learn about Cinema film. Basically cinema photography has not changed alot over the years - the original source was 1.33:1 or 4:3 just like our SDT TVs until TVs hit the consumer market. Then the MPA went to 1.85:1 so that they were "different" than watching a TV. Film could be shot/printed in different ways by the directors/studios - but they eventually had to be shown in movie houses across the US that all had a standard size/type of projector - so when they go to DVD/High Def - you still have to go back to the original source, and that dictates what you end up seeing on our home 16:9 screens or projection systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions


Cheers...
Nate

I haven't heard of an anamorphic BD or HD DVD, so I'm assuming (someone can confirm) that the black bars are part of the 1080p image, so the wider the resolution, the fewer horizontal lines.

This is correct. There is no anamorphic flag for HD. There is only letterboxing and pillarboxing.

Look at my pics again. The 2.35:1 image is not SHRUNK from the 16x9 image, it's CROPPED. The picture content inside the blue square is exactly the same on both images. It's not like the lady's face is 'clearer' on the 16x9 image.

In your example, yes, you would see MORE of the newspaper, but the part common to both would have the same clarity.

A 8x10 photo and a portion of that photo cropped to 4x6 have the same resolution for the portion that's common to both. Same thing for HDM. Remember, the image is merely matted, not reduced in size to 'fit' in the 2.35:1 area.

No I was talking about 2 different films:
* A 1.85:1 film with a scene of the full page newspaper (in portrait format) framed to take up the entire height of the 1.85:1 frame.

* And a 2.35:1 film with a scene of the full page newspaper (in portrait format) framed to take up the entire height of the 2.35:1 frame.

The newspaper has small writing on. Obviously it would be easier to read the writing on one of these two films when watched on a 16:9 1920x1080 square pixel screen.

If nobody is going to admit that 2 million pixels is more than 1.5 million pixels I am going to agree to differ. ;)

No I was talking about 2 different films:
* A 1.85:1 film with a scene of the full page newspaper (in portrait format) framed to take up the entire height of the 1.85:1 frame.

* And a 2.35:1 film with a scene of the full page newspaper (in portrait format) framed to take up the entire height of the 2.35:1 frame.

The newspaper has small writing on. Obviously it would be easier to read the writing on one of these two films when watched on a 16:9 1920x1080 square pixel screen.

If nobody is going to admit that 2 million pixels is more than 1.5 million pixels I am going to agree to differ. ;)

I agree that 2 million is greater than 1.5 million. :)

I had a feeling you were talking about two different films or shots or whatever we want to call it. I was coming at it from the opposite side of the argument, matting a 1.85:1 image to create a 2.35:1 image.

I think I understand what you're describing. But obviously, if a director intends a movie to be presented in 2.35:1, and the image is cropped and blown up to fill a 16x9 screen, then you don't gain anymore detail...in fact, the zooming will cause it to look worse, IMHO.

But, yes, I think I see what you're saying...

Chris

If nobody is going to admit that 2 million pixels is more than 1.5 million pixels I am going to agree to differ. ;)

i'll admit that if you'll admit that 2 million pixels over 10 square inches is the same resolution as 1.5 million pixels over 7.5 square inches.

i'll admit that if you'll admit that 2 million pixels over 10 square inches is the same resolution as 1.5 million pixels over 7.5 square inches.

well.... they have the same PIXEL DENSITY. But 2 million is still more than 1.5 million.

How about this scenario:

1) You take a 1.78 DVD and upscale it to 1920x1080.

2) You compare it to a 2.35 Blu-Ray disc (pick your own high quality transfer).

Which has more resolution? The 1.78 upscaled image may have 2 million pixels, but the 2.35 has a much higher inherent resolution. Having more pixels is only part of the equation.

Scenario 2:

1) A high quality 2.35 BD

2) A high quality 1.85 open mat version of the same transfer.

If you take a digital image capture of the same frame from each one and then take a 100x100 pixel box out of the middle of each image, which 100x100 box has more detail? They both will contain exactly the same amount of detail. On a HDTV, both images have the same exact resolution 1920x1080. The only difference is that one has black bars and the other doesn't. Neither one will be any sharper then the other on the same TV.

Your mistake is thinking that 2.35 doesn't have the same number of pixels as 1.85. 2.35 has exactly as many pixels, it just uses a lot of them as black bars.

Your mistake is thinking that 2.35 doesn't have the same number of pixels as 1.85. 2.35 has exactly as many pixels, it just uses a lot of them as black bars.
Please don't say I'm making a mistake. I said that 2.35:1 on HD media only uses about 1920x817 for the actual picture content (excluding the black bars).

I don't see why we are still arguing. We both know what each other means by what they say. If everyone is happy with the image quality they are getting don't worry about it too much. Personally I'd like higher quality & higher resolutions. But just enjoy high def content and don't worry about it too much if you are totally happy with the quality. Peace :)

No I was talking about 2 different films:
* A 1.85:1 film with a scene of the full page newspaper (in portrait format) framed to take up the entire height of the 1.85:1 frame.

* And a 2.35:1 film with a scene of the full page newspaper (in portrait format) framed to take up the entire height of the 2.35:1 frame.

The newspaper has small writing on. Obviously it would be easier to read the writing on one of these two films when watched on a 16:9 1920x1080 square pixel screen.

But you see less of the sides of the newspaper with 1.85 than 2.4, i.e. the 1.85:1 aspect ratio provides a zoomed in view for the scenario you describe.


If nobody is going to admit that 2 million pixels is more than 1.5 million pixels I am going to agree to differ. ;)

For HD encodes on BD or HD discs the resolution is exactly the same, no matter how the image is framed, and is equal to 1920x1080 pixels.

ok, everyone got it.... it's got less active pixels, whatever way you put it. It's got the same pixel density on the selected area, though. BTW, we all like 2.35 aspect ratio...

ok, everyone got it.... it's got less active pixels, whatever way you put it. It's got the same pixel density on the selected area, though. BTW, we all like 2.35 aspect ratio...

I'm a fan of any aspect ratio... as long as it is the original.

I'm a fan of any aspect ratio... as long as it is the original.

The original aspect ratio of almost all movies shot on film is 4:3
Sergio Leone did use some custom hardware, Techniscope, to allow 2 widescreen frames to be shot on one 35mm frame during the "man with no name" movies in an attempt to save money on film stock. Some US "made for Tv" movies are also shot on custom equipment, super 35 a, b or c that produces a 16:9 aspect ratio.

The original aspect ratio of almost all movies shot on film is 4:3

The "original aspect ratio" is whatever a film was shown at theatrically. There is no point in you trying to redifine commonly understood terms. It'll just confuse people new to this stuff.

The original aspect ratio of almost all movies shot on film is 4:3
Nope. For example, the AR of anamorphic scope negatives is actually 1.20:1. This is because the amount of space used on the negative by the frame line varies depending on the format.

Your statement would only apply to a standard non-anamorphic negative shot with a 1.33:1 hard matte in the camera.

Vern

I agree with Joe; in my mind (perhaps only) if the original film stock (master) has way higher resolution than 1080X1920, then the number of pixels used to digitize the master will affect resolution.

Saying this a few other ways:

Some say 35MM has 4000 lines, so if you can digitize it with 1080 instead of 817 lines, you should see more detail at 1080.

If you take a slice of the 35MM (say 2.35:1) and if the slice has over 1080 lines then digitize the slice with 1080 instead of 817 lines, you should see more detail at 1080.

Or: If you take a slice of the 35MM (say 2.35:1) and if the slice has over 2 million pixels then digitize the slice with 2 million instead of 1.5 million, you should see more detail at 2 million.

Not counting black bars, if more pixels are used to digitize the actual picture area (content) that should yield better resolution (if the master content has an equivalent of more pixels than the digitizer).

Cheers and HNY.

1920x1080 is 1.78:1. Every single HD movie released in 1080p is 1.78 or if it's anything other then 1.78 it is letter boxed in a 1.78 frame. Saying a 1.85:1 more has more resolution then a 2.35:1 movie is the same as saying 1.78 has more resolution then 1.78. You are comparing 2 different sized rectangles stored in the same size box. It's impossible to store any more detail in either a 1.85 or 2.35 frame then would fit in a 1.78 frame since they are both within that frame.

How about this, if you are watching a HD movie and someone stands in front of your screen blocking part of it, does your movie now have less reslution? Does the person standing in front of the TV make the visible sections of the screen sharper or blurrier? Watching a 1080p 2.35 movie is exactly the same as if you were watching a 1080p 1.85 movie and you took 2 pieces of cardboard and covered a section at the top and bottom of your screen.

ok we get it... It's got the same resolution.... still it has less active pixels :)

This is all very interesting and I enjoy some of the discussion between those of you who know much more about this then I, but I hate those bars. I hated watching Wide Screen films on a standard 4:3 set so.... I bought a 16:9. What do I get? More bars.

I actually bought a couple of those 2.4 AR knockoffs, but no more. If they can't fill the screen they can keep them. Furthermore calling them 16:9 should constitute false advertising and leaving off the aspect ratio? That borders on fraud. Perhaps charging less for these less then expected copies would mitigate the blow that many will feel over being duped?

The BBC and Imax films are great.I have already consulted the software thread and will use that to guide all future purchases Also there is plenty to watch on DIRECTV that is full screan High Definition.

Pardon my rant I have just needed to get this off my chest! I'm glad to have found this forum and check several threads daily.

So with your IMAX films do you get bars on the sides or do they just chop off the top and the bottom of the movie?;)

You know you can always just use stretch mode to make the bars go away if you hate them that much.

Just to confuse the issue further, consider this ...

If HD-DVD and BD had an anamorphic spec to compensate for ARs greater than 1.78, you would concievably "squeeze" the entire 2.35 frame into a 1.78 frame. You'd end up with squished pixels that would have to be stretched out by the player.

OK, so theorectically, there would be more information to be had (1080 pixels high vs. 817 pixels high), but ultimately, for display on 1080p TVs, the information would then have to be squeezed down again to 1920x817. Would there be any advantage overall.

I contend that there would be little to gain for most people. However, you'd end up with more confusion among consumers. You'd have the same situation now where users would have to set the zoom modes on their TVs differently for various movies.

The way it is now, you set the player up for 16:9 and everything works the same way.

ft

Just to confuse the issue further, consider this ...

If HD-DVD and BD had an anamorphic spec...
...and if frogs had wings, and if I won the lotto, and if the sun stopped shinning ,and if...;)

This is all very interesting and I enjoy some of the discussion between those of you who know much more about this then I, but I hate those bars. I hated watching Wide Screen films on a standard 4:3 set so.... I bought a 16:9. What do I get? More bars.

I actually bought a couple of those 2.4 AR knockoffs, but no more. If they can't fill the screen they can keep them. Furthermore calling them 16:9 should constitute false advertising and leaving off the aspect ratio? That borders on fraud. Perhaps charging less for these less then expected copies would mitigate the blow that many will feel over being duped?

:D

OK, so theorectically, there would be more information to be had (1080 pixels high vs. 817 pixels high), but ultimately, for display on 1080p TVs, the information would then have to be squeezed down again to 1920x817. Would there be any advantage overall.

You nailed it. The whole thing came about on DVD because there were both 4:3 and 16:9 TV sets in use and anamorphic discs could present a better picture on 16:9 sets.

If they were to introduce 2.4:1 TV sets with a 2592 x 1080 display, then anamorphic discs would make a lot of sense. We'd still only get 1920 resolution across the 2592 pixels, but we'd get the full 1080 insted of 8-something vertically.

What i dont get is this.
if film studios are using 2:35:1 as their aspect ratio for most movies, why do HDTV manufactures adopted a 16x9 aspect ratio as their baseline?

NBC, CBS, ABC, etc etc etc, just jumped into ht eHD era a few years ago, with a aspect ratio of 16x9 with no real reason for it....

why isnt there 2:35:1 HDTVs out there designed for the public not having to deal with the stupid black bars???
who said movies have to be at 2:35:1 or who said TV must be 1:85:1???
I know we want to get the most use of the cinemas and thats why 2:35:1 is used for most films, but why cant TVs be the same?

who said movies have to be at 2:35:1 or who said TV must be 1:85:1???
I know we want to get the most use of the cinemas and thats why 2:35:1 is used for most films, but why cant TVs be the same?

I think that the 16:9 ratio came about because it was a good compromise between movies and tv. Imagine if 2.35:1 was adopted for HDTV ... what would the stretch modes look like!

Although, if 2.35:1 were the HDTV ratio, you could have two 4:3 shows with a little overscan on simultaneously.

ft

What i dont get is this.
if film studios are using 2:35:1 as their aspect ratio for most movies, why do HDTV manufactures adopted a 16x9 aspect ratio as their baseline?

Because 1.78 (16x9) is exactly 1/2 way between 1.33 (4x3) and 2.35.;)

I think 16x9 was chosen because of mathimatical reasons. Like you could have x amount of 4x3 boxes in a 16x9 frame. I don't think they were thinking too much of 2.35:1 material as it still gets the short end of the stick in terms of active image area.

if there were 2.35:1 TV's you'd still have your 1.78:1 TV so you'd have bars on the side and image how wide the bars would be when you were watching old 4:3 material.