Why CIH??--Why not CIW?? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 114 Old 05-04-2011, 02:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvted View Post

Of course, but as I stated to achieve what AVC and VC1 does MPEG will require higher bit rate encoding hence larger file size. If I remember something on the order of about 1.5 times.

If that were true, an anamorphic 16:9 DVD would require 1.5x more bit rate than a "full screen" 4:3 DVD. But it doesn't, because from a raw data standpoint, an anamorphic 16:9 image is identical to a 4:3 file. It uses the same number of pixels on the same parts of the screen. It just looks funny to the eye if you don't unstretch it on playback.

Likewise, a (theoretical) 21:9 anamorphic Blu-ray would be identical in terms of bandwidth and bit rate to a 16:9 image. It takes up the exact same amount of disc space. It just looks funny if you don't display it right.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 114 Old 05-04-2011, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If that were true, an anamorphic 16:9 DVD would require 1.5x more bit rate than a "full screen" 4:3 DVD. But it doesn't, because from a raw data standpoint, an anamorphic 16:9 image is identical to a 4:3 file. It uses the same number of pixels on the same parts of the screen. It just looks funny to the eye if you don't unstretch it on playback.

Likewise, a (theoretical) 21:9 anamorphic Blu-ray would be identical in terms of bandwidth and bit rate to a 16:9 image. It takes up the exact same amount of disc space. It just looks funny if you don't display it right.

That would only be so if the 21.9 material has a higher rate of compression.

One would hope the Anamorphic 21.9 frame/s have more detail than the 16:9 version to enable the 33% horizontal expansion without IQ loss.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #93 of 114 Old 05-04-2011, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

That would only be so if the 21.9 material has a higher rate of compression.

One would hope the Anamorphic 21.9 frame/s have more detail than the 16:9 version to enable the 33% horizontal expansion without IQ loss.

If the disc is formatted to be stored in the same 1920 x 1080 pixels array a standard 16:9 disc is, then the data rate would be the same as the geometry is a non issue so far as data on the disc is concerned.

The benefit of "extra detail" will be seen in V rez where there would be 1080 pixels of image Vs 810 vertically stretched.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #94 of 114 Old 05-04-2011, 04:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Here's what it really boils down to: With a Constant Width system as the current HDTV dynamic has been established, your average episode of Two and a Half Men provides a larger and more immersive picture than the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars, or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, etc. I'm sorry, but that's just messed up.

Hahaha!! Nice. That's the first example I've seen that makes me understand "y'all's" point of view.
David Susilo likes this.
javanpohl is offline  
post #95 of 114 Old 05-04-2011, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

If the disc is formatted to be stored in the same 1920 x 1080 pixels array a standard 16:9 disc is, then the data rate would be the same as the geometry is a non issue so far as data on the disc is concerned.

The benefit of "extra detail" will be seen in V rez where there would be 1080 pixels of image Vs 810 vertically stretched.

On an anamorphically encoded BRD I would expect more detail be addressed to each pixel.

Thus the bitrate will be higher along with the detail, consuming more space and bandwidth, so when stretching it 33% horizontally over a larger area, there is no degradation in image quality.

The difference is akin to Gladiator, DNR'd and the remastered version, same number of pixels, but one has more detail, requires a higher bandwidth and needs more space??

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #96 of 114 Old 05-04-2011, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

On an anamorphically encoded BRD I would expect more detail be addressed to each pixel.

The pixels are square. It is their sum that creates an image that will either be geometry correct in the 1920 x 1080 frame or it will be geometry incorrect in the same 1920 x 1080 frame.
The above image was captured using a 1080/30P HD camera through an anamorphic lens.

When you run this in REAL mode of the projector (or any 16:9 display) this is how it looks.

When I project this through my A-Lens, the image looks like this.


The ONLY way you get more horizontal detail is to encode an image at 2560 x 1080 (requiring source greater than 2K) which now changes the shape of the final image.
Quote:


Thus the bitrate will be higher along with the detail, consuming more space and bandwidth, so when stretching it 33% horizontally over a larger area, there is no degradation in image quality.

Does the 2nd image above look that bad?

Quote:


The difference is akin to Gladiator, DNR'd and the remastered version, same number of pixels, but one has more detail, requires a higher bandwidth and needs more space??

Gladiator is bad example. The original version looked like up-scaled DVD. There was more than excessive DNR in that one.
LL
LL

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #97 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 04:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

On an anamorphically encoded BRD I would expect more detail be addressed to each pixel.

A pixel is a pixel, it just stores one value of color, can't store more or less, you can't assign "more detail" to one or less.

What you would have on an anamorphic BD is more "detail" addressed to more pixels (vs a letterboxed version), so yes it would take more data than a letterboxed version (picture takes more data than bars) but not necessarilly any more than a regular 16:9 BD.

Quote:


The difference is akin to Gladiator, DNR'd and the remastered version, same number of pixels, but one has more detail, requires a higher bandwidth and needs more space??

That's a completely separate issue.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #98 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tvted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If that were true, an anamorphic 16:9 DVD would require 1.5x more bit rate than a "full screen" 4:3 DVD. But it doesn't, because from a raw data standpoint, an anamorphic 16:9 image is identical to a 4:3 file. It uses the same number of pixels on the same parts of the screen. It just looks funny to the eye if you don't unstretch it on playback.

Likewise, a (theoretical) 21:9 anamorphic Blu-ray would be identical in terms of bandwidth and bit rate to a 16:9 image. It takes up the exact same amount of disc space. It just looks funny if you don't display it right.

Josh it seems you are overlooking or not reading what I am saying.
This would be comparing am AV or VC1 encode vs an MPEG one. I am not suggesting this for an anamorphic encode vs a 16:9 one within the same codec.

For the MPEG to achieve what the AVC or VC1 transfer is capable of will require a higher bitrate or do you disagree with that? And why you are telling me this is beyond me, given either my professional experience or my HT one (I've only had a CH setup in the time I've used digital pjs - since 2004) though giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may not be familiar with.

tt
tvted is online now  
post #99 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 09:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Resolution, I doubt is an issue since observed resolution on 35mm theatrical release prints is apparently lower than blu-ray
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf
http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf
DCI 2K projectors are only 1080x2048 and not all have motorized zoom, some use lenses set to one position for 2.35:1 858x2048, 1.85:1 858x1587. I think they also used to have 1.3K projectors.


I would expect how detailed and vivid the image looks to be down to brightness. How solid looking down in part to size and visibility of film grain and other artifacts.
dovercat is offline  
post #100 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvted View Post

Josh it seems you are overlooking or not reading what I am saying.
This would be comparing am AV or VC1 encode vs an MPEG one. I am not suggesting this for an anamorphic encode vs a 16:9 one within the same codec.

For the MPEG to achieve what the AVC or VC1 transfer is capable of will require a higher bitrate or do you disagree with that? And why you are telling me this is beyond me, given either my professional experience or my HT one (I've only had a CH setup in the time I've used digital pjs - since 2004) though giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may not be familiar with.

All right, I think I understand what you're getting at now. If the MPEG (or MPEG-2, presumably?) codec includes a provision for 21:9, then yes, reverting back to use of that codec would require more bandwidth than a VC-1 or AVC encoding (which don't have a provision for 21:9).

However, it's all a moot point anyway. Even if the codec has a provision for 21:9 enhancement, none of the Blu-ray hardware out there has been designed to do anything with it. At this point, it doesn't matter what codec a studio uses. All Blu-ray players ever made would need to be upgraded to support those 21:9 discs (specifically, designed to downconvert them to standard 16:9 letterbox for regular viewers not using 21:9). That's just not going to happen.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #101 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tvted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
However, it's all a moot point anyway. Even if the codec has a provision for 21:9 enhancement, none of the Blu-ray hardware out there has been designed to do anything with it. At this point, it doesn't matter what codec a studio uses. All Blu-ray players ever made would need to be upgraded to support those 21:9 discs (specifically, designed to downconvert them to standard 16:9 letterbox for regular viewers not using 21:9). That's just not going to happen.
No disagreement here. Since the discussions of said possibility in the early days of the format surfaced I felt it was an improbaility. For special editions and HTPC users MPEG 21:9 encoding would offer an out. I would likely subscribe to such a service.

ted
tvted is online now  
post #102 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 02:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 148
You can do those sorts of things just as easily with AVC (and I presume VC1). Like I think I mentioned earlier, I've made an anamorphic BD (might have technically been AVCHD format) with H.264 video. Plays just fine on an HTPC, which letterboxed it appropriately for it's square-pixel, non-anamorphic display. And it worked fine if you've got a lens as it was distorted appropriately.

The "only" issue with special/anamorphic BDs is people without lenses have no way of letterboxing it as BD players don't seem to have the capability.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #103 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 04:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tvted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
You can do those sorts of things just as easily with AVC (and I presume VC1). Like I think I mentioned earlier, I've made an anamorphic BD (might have technically been AVCHD format) with H.264 video. Plays just fine on an HTPC, which letterboxed it appropriately for it's square-pixel, non-anamorphic display. And it worked fine if you've got a lens as it was distorted appropriately.

The "only" issue with special/anamorphic BDs is people without lenses have no way of letterboxing it as BD players don't seem to have the capability.
T'would interesting if Anamorphic BD's shipped with frmware upgrades that allowed for a seamless viewing, though bricking might of some concern. Interesting find.

EDIT: I'm not much for consumer apocrypha, but any idea how it was introduced with DVD? Was it in the players and the format from the gate?

tt
tvted is online now  
post #104 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

A pixel is a pixel, it just stores one value of color, can't store more or less, you can't assign "more detail" to one or less.

What you would have on an anamorphic BD is more "detail" addressed to more pixels (vs a letterboxed version), so yes it would take more data than a letterboxed version (picture takes more data than bars) but not necessarilly any more than a regular 16:9 BD.



That's a completely separate issue.


What happens with a low bit rate(less detail) vs a high bitrate(more detail) of the same program(2 separate encodes) displayed on the same resolution panel.

Is not more detail addressed to the pixels in the high BR encode?

If a higher rate is used during the scaning of 'the'2.35:1 film, this higher rate can be addressed to the full 16:9 panel with greater detail and then optically stretched using an A-lens?

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #105 of 114 Old 05-05-2011, 11:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

What happens with a low bit rate(less detail) vs a high bitrate(more detail) of the same program(2 separate encodes) displayed on the same resolution panel.

Is not more detail addressed to the pixels in the high BR encode?

If your referring to comparing a DVD to a BD, then of course the BD has a higher data rate.

Quote:


If a higher rate is used during the scaning of 'the'2.35:1 film, this higher rate can be addressed to the full 16:9 panel with greater detail and then optically stretched using an A-lens?

For a given codec, there is a finite amount of data for a 16:9 encode. The max number of pixels is 1920 x 1080 (say a full white field) and the AR will be 1.78. Adding an A-Lens only changes the AR from 1.78:1 to 2.37 by magnifying those pixels in the horizontal direction.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #106 of 114 Old 05-06-2011, 04:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

What happens with a low bit rate(less detail) vs a high bitrate(more detail) of the same program(2 separate encodes) displayed on the same resolution panel.

Is not more detail addressed to the pixels in the high BR encode?

But that too is a separate issue, once you start talking about lossy compression you're not really talking about pixels anymore, you're talking about blocks.

If you use too much compression then a block is not given enough bits to store the information for all the pixels it represents and detail/information is lost.

But that's all really beside the point, the same rules/logic applies to anamorphic or non-anamorphic encodes. That's the point, there's nothing about an anamorphic encode that can magically make it have more resolution/detail than a non-anamorphic encode, it's 1920x1080 either way, you can't cram more detail into an anamorphic version.

Quote:


If a higher rate is used during the scaning of 'the'2.35:1 film, this higher rate can be addressed to the full 16:9 panel with greater detail and then optically stretched using an A-lens?

No, you can't scan at "higher data rates". Scans are "raw", they are what they are, if we're talking a 2k scan it's on the order of 2048*1080*30 (or 36) bits per frame, anamorphic or not.

You can't say "oh, well this is anamorphic so each pixel contains 1.33 pixels of detail", that's impossible, you've still only got ~2 megapixels of storage.

The benefit to anamorphic encoding is being able to use the entire 2 megapixels for the image rather than only 1.5 like we have on BD today because of the non anamorphic encoding.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #107 of 114 Old 05-06-2011, 06:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

That's the point, there's nothing about an anamorphic encode that can magically make it have more resolution/detail than a non-anamorphic encode, it's 1920x1080 either way, you can't cram more detail into an anamorphic version.

The only way "more detail" is seen is in the projected image as a whole where vertically, an anamorphic encode will be 33.3% taller than the same letter box version. Once optically expanded, detail on screen may be easier to see, hence the "more detail" and all of us with BD and an anamorphic lens are getting that anyway as the images after CIH processing (scaling + optics) are 78% larger than letter boxed images.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #108 of 114 Old 05-06-2011, 10:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvted View Post

T'would interesting if Anamorphic BD's shipped with frmware upgrades that allowed for a seamless viewing, though bricking might of some concern.

It would have to update the firmware of every single brand and model of Blu-ray player ever released.

Quote:


EDIT: I'm not much for consumer apocrypha, but any idea how it was introduced with DVD? Was it in the players and the format from the gate?

Yes, 16:9 enhancement was built into the DVD format from the very beginning. One of the very first DVDs ever released, Blade Runner, was an anamorphic disc.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #109 of 114 Old 05-06-2011, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

But that too is a separate issue, once you start talking about lossy compression you're not really talking about pixels anymore, you're talking about blocks.

If you use too much compression then a block is not given enough bits to store the information for all the pixels it represents and detail/information is lost.

But that's all really beside the point, the same rules/logic applies to anamorphic or non-anamorphic encodes. That's the point, there's nothing about an anamorphic encode that can magically make it have more resolution/detail than a non-anamorphic encode, it's 1920x1080 either way, you can't cram more detail into an anamorphic version.



No, you can't scan at "higher data rates". Scans are "raw", they are what they are, if we're talking a 2k scan it's on the order of 2048*1080*30 (or 36) bits per frame, anamorphic or not.

You can't say "oh, well this is anamorphic so each pixel contains 1.33 pixels of detail", that's impossible, you've still only got ~2 megapixels of storage.

The benefit to anamorphic encoding is being able to use the entire 2 megapixels for the image rather than only 1.5 like we have on BD today because of the non anamorphic encoding.


Surely 2Mpixels at 50Mbps has greater detail potential than 2Mpixels at 25Mbps let alone 2Mpixels DCI @ 250Mbps.

This is waht I am talking about. Baraka original capture at 8k, down rezed at a high bit rate to 2k. The same can be done with Anamorphically BD(if it were ever to happen).

The film(2.35:1) is scanned at a higher rate(capturing more detail) lower compression is applied(allowing more detail), this detail is addressed to the full 16:9 space, optically stretched for projection.

More detail..better IQ than the current 1920 x 810.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #110 of 114 Old 05-06-2011, 03:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Surely 2Mpixels at 50Mbps has greater detail potential than 2Mpixels at 25Mbps let alone 2Mpixels DCI @ 250Mbps.

This is waht I am talking about. Baraka original capture at 8k, down rezed at a high bit rate to 2k. The same can be done with Anamorphically BD(if it were ever to happen).

But again, that's a completely separate issue, that applies equally whether anamorphic or not. The encoder has no idea whether the data it's compressing is anamorphic or not, and it doesn't care, it's just dealing with pixels.

You're not going to get any more data in an anamorphic encode than a non-anamorphic encode if both are 1920x1080 pixels.

Quote:


The film(2.35:1) is scanned at a higher rate(capturing more detail) lower compression is applied(allowing more detail), this detail is addressed to the full 16:9 space, optically stretched for projection.

But again, none of that has anything to do with anamorphic encoding. If you scan at a higher resolution (not sure what you mean by higher rate), of course you get more detail, well up to the limits of the source. And yeah, lower compression obscures less detail as well, but this is all universally true and is completely unaffected by whether it's anamorphically encoded or not.

Quote:


More detail..better IQ than the current 1920 x 810.

Right, but that's because you're using 33% more pixels. The only benefit to anamorphic storage is avoiding "wasted" space that letterboxing takes up, allowing the use of all the medias capabilities.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #111 of 114 Old 05-07-2011, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

The only benefit to anamorphic storage is avoiding "wasted" space that letterboxing takes up, allowing the use of all the medias capabilities.

But that Sir, is THE PRIMARY Benefit, bringing additional detail to the frame, rather than stretching existing detail found in 1920 x 810 over 1920 x 1080, which does nothing to provide additional IQ.

Doubt anamorphic BD encodes will ever come to the market, but there could be a 2560 x 1080 BD with higher bandwidth (75Mbps ?)somewhere in the future.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #112 of 114 Old 05-07-2011, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

If your referring to comparing a DVD to a BD, then of course the BD has a higher data rate.

For a given codec, there is a finite amount of data for a 16:9 encode. The max number of pixels is 1920 x 1080 (say a full white field) and the AR will be 1.78. Adding an A-Lens only changes the AR from 1.78:1 to 2.37 by magnifying those pixels in the horizontal direction.

There is a finite amount of information in the master(2 or 4k), however, the amount of detail addressed to the encode will vany depending on the bitrate applied by the compressionist.

The detail for example found on a DCi (2k) encode would be significantly greater than the BluRay version of 1920 x 1080, due to DCi higher bandwidth and lower compression.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #113 of 114 Old 05-07-2011, 05:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

But that Sir, is THE PRIMARY Benefit, bringing additional detail to the frame, rather than stretching existing detail found in 1920 x 810 over 1920 x 1080, which does nothing to provide additional IQ.

Right, but it's also the only thing about anamorphic encoding that benefits picture quality that is unique to anamorphic encoding. Everything else, bit rate, scan quality, etc, etc, is universal to any format or storage method.

Quote:


Doubt anamorphic BD encodes will ever come to the market, but there could be a 2560 x 1080 BD with higher bandwidth (75Mbps ?)somewhere in the future.

I doubt it, I think any hope for better than BD whether it be anamorphic encoding higher resolutions, whatever, will have to come from the "next" format, be it some future disc based format, or IMO more likely, a future "niche" digital distribution system.

While true that digital distribution is primarily a boon for convenience seekers, it also reduces distribution costs so it could lead to future Criterion-like outfits popping up distributing special versions to quality nuts.

Quote:


There is a finite amount of information in the master(2 or 4k), however, the amount of detail addressed to the encode will vany depending on the bitrate applied by the compressionist.

The detail for example found on a DCi (2k) encode would be significantly greater than the BluRay version of 1920 x 1080, due to DCi higher bandwidth and lower compression.

It's not nearly that simple, BD has much bigger problems than bitrate when it comes to qualty, first and foremost is the master quality. Probably the next biggest is the limitations of 8-bit encoding, and 4:2:2 color sampling, and lets not forget the smaller gamut of consumer home video. And then maybe the last one is the significant difference between DCI gamma and home video ~2.2 gamma.

You can crank up the bitrate all you want on a BD, but the fact of the matter is it's really not going to do a lot. BD already has more than enough space given the above limitations, more bitrate will not make much difference given BD's non-bitrate constraints.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #114 of 114 Old 05-08-2011, 08:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 368
This thread has really gotten derailed on the anamorphic/bit rate digression. Can we wrap that up now?

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off