Could this be it? Folded Space Enhanced Resolution - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 116 Old 03-15-2014, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
What happened to the folded-space.com website - it is no longer there? Does that mean the folded space system isn't continuing?

What about the new Blu-ray format extension (said to be coming around the end of this year) for "4K" (UHD) / higher frame rates / better colour etc. If they are going to extend the Blu-ray format for those things, if they wanted to add 2560x1080 and/or 4096x2160 or anamorphic options as well as the 3840x2160 standard options, wouldn't they be likely to just add them to the spec instead of using a system like the folded space one?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 116 Old 03-17-2014, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

What happened to the folded-space.com website - it is no longer there? Does that mean the folded space system isn't continuing?

What about the new Blu-ray format extension (said to be coming around the end of this year) for "4K" (UHD) / higher frame rates / better colour etc. If they are going to extend the Blu-ray format for those things, if they wanted to add 2560x1080 and/or 4096x2160 or anamorphic options as well as the 3840x2160 standard options, wouldn't they be likely to just add them to the spec instead of using a system like the folded space one?

Glad you are checking on us smile.gif Don't worry, Folded Space is alive and well and attracting more attention than ever. We just folded "Folded Space" onto the Panamorph web page, under a separate heading (www.panamorph.com).

Unfortunately there are two Folded Space threads here in this Forum. I most recently updated this one:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436729/anamorphic-encoded-blu-rays-on-the-horizon

I am extremely pleased to report that we have gotten significant interest from several of the majors in the last couple of months, mainly because we have also added our DCE (Deep Color Encoding) process to the mix. Shawn and I did a whole show on the two technologies last month right here on AVS. If you want to learn all about the Folded Space technologies give it a watch / listen:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1516457/who-wants-more-resolution-color-with-john-schuermann-shawn-kelly
Joe Bloggs likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #93 of 116 Old 07-16-2014, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
I know there are a few people who consistently monitor this thread, so I thought I would share a quick update. As I posted elsewhere on the Forum:

We (Folded Space / Panamorph) are getting some real traction for true anamorphic (horizontally squeezed) content delivered via Multi-Format Blu-ray. The good news is that anyone with an anamorphic lens will be able to take advantage of the extra 33% resolution that this provides. The bad news is that zoomers will not. However zoomers are definitely on the right path, as they already have 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screens and in most cases can add a lens if they want to get the additional true resolution and brightness It's taken a while, but we are finally getting some real interest in this idea, so keep your fingers crossed.

We are also lobbying for anamorphic to be an intrinsic part of UHD delivery formats. We were already successful in getting support for anamorphic built into the HDMI spec.

Right now we have interest from at least one major studio plus at least one major CE manufacturer. The trick has always been getting interest on both the Hollywood and CE sides at the same time. That's the major thing we have going right now, as before it was either one or the other


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #94 of 116 Old 07-16-2014, 04:05 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Great news John. Thanks very much for the update. Keep us posted please.
John Schuermann likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #95 of 116 Old 07-16-2014, 08:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jautor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,895
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Great to hear, John - keep it up!
John Schuermann likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 -- CIH, Panamorph, Martin Logan, SVS PB2000, Carada Masquerade, Grafik Eye, Bar table, Green Glue, JVC RS50 
Theater build photos:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jautor is online now  
post #96 of 116 Old 07-16-2014, 08:59 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Hi John, thanks for the update.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
... We were already successful in getting support for anamorphic built into the HDMI spec.
Yes, I was very happy that we were able to do that. We also managed to get 2560x1080p (non-anamorphic 21:9) into the same specification, and I'm waiting for adaption by TV makers in "Cinema Wide" screens. (Again, since Philips and Vizio threw in the towel...).

An important part of having this as official video formats, on HDMI and other systems, is that CE manufacturers can create their menus and OSD screens for that aspect ratio, which makes for a much more consistent presentation on 2.39:1 screens. Besides "Standard" and "Wide", you can now have "Ultra Wide" in the TV setup of your Blu-ray player.
John Schuermann likes this.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #97 of 116 Old 07-17-2014, 04:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
We (Folded Space / Panamorph) are getting some real traction for true anamorphic (horizontally squeezed) content delivered via Multi-Format Blu-ray.
So am I correct in inferring that that would require new players? Could a Video Processor (Lumagen) perform the MFE "decoding" (obviously current Lumagens can't but is it theoretically possible or does it have to happen on the decode side).

Also, I know I've asked before, but for those of use with media servers, who don't use standard Blu-ray players most of the time, what would our options be? I'm guessing I'd have to give up the media server (XBMC) and go with a standard BD player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
Yes, I was very happy that we were able to do that. We also managed to get 2560x1080p (non-anamorphic 21:9) into the same specification, and I'm waiting for adaption by TV makers in "Cinema Wide" screens. (Again, since Philips and Vizio threw in the towel...).

An important part of having this as official video formats, on HDMI and other systems, is that CE manufacturers can create their menus and OSD screens for that aspect ratio, which makes for a much more consistent presentation on 2.39:1 screens. Besides "Standard" and "Wide", you can now have "Ultra Wide" in the TV setup of your Blu-ray player.
So I've been trying to figure out since I saw it, but what exactly does "anamorphic" support in HDMI mean? Just metadata to tell the display the content is anamorphic and to reshape it correctly?

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 offline  
post #98 of 116 Old 07-17-2014, 08:38 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
So am I correct in inferring that that would require new players? Could a Video Processor (Lumagen) perform the MFE "decoding" (obviously current Lumagens can't but is it theoretically possible or does it have to happen on the decode side).
As far as I understand the current Blu-ray development, this would be plain anamorphic content, not MFE (which is anamorphic niftily rearranged and recalculated so that the center portion matches the traditional letterboxed picture). John, correct me if I'm wrong. This can, by the way, also be carried by any other digital encoded video, as long as the framework allows to use that aspect ratio parameter. So Netflix etc. could also decide to do anamorphic 1080p, as well as on ripped Blu-rays (mp4, matroska, or whatever you kids use these days).

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
So I've been trying to figure out since I saw it, but what exactly does "anamorphic" support in HDMI mean? Just metadata to tell the display the content is anamorphic and to reshape it correctly?
Yes, it is metadata (specifically, new video codes in the AVI InfoFrame) that tells the display "This 1080p signal has a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio, resulting in a 64:27 picture aspect ratio. If your panel has a different aspect ratio, feel free to ask your user whether to letterbox, crop, or (if you must) stretch the content to make it fit."

Similar on the Blu-ray, there is metadata in the stream that says: "This 1080p video has a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio, resulting in a 64:27 picture aspect ratio." The Blu-ray player then has to handle this content with regards to the selected TV output setting:
  • 1080p 16:9: Vertically downscale to 810 lines and letterbox the picture, or horizontally upscale to 2560 pixel width and crop the picture back down to 1920
  • 1080p 64:27 (anamorphic): Pass picture through unchanged
  • 2560x1080p 64:27 (non-anamorphic): Horizontally upscale the picture from 1920 to 2560 pixel width.
All three of these functions are things a current Blu-ray knows nothing about. It might be possible to add these features and additional output settings via a firmware update, but it's more likely that there will be new Blu-ray players that support all of the new features, including UHD.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #99 of 116 Old 07-17-2014, 09:03 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Since the VIC codes seem to be public knowledge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEA-861 ), I'll upload an overview of the video timings supported by CEA 861-F. I created this presentation to illustrate anamorphiness (is that a word?), that's why I show the pictures without anamorphic distortion.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CEA861F_VIC_Overview_1_SDTV.png
Views:	17
Size:	84.6 KB
ID:	166433   Click image for larger version

Name:	CEA861F_VIC_Overview_2_HDTV.png
Views:	17
Size:	77.5 KB
ID:	166441   Click image for larger version

Name:	CEA861F_VIC_Overview_3_UHD.png
Views:	17
Size:	85.1 KB
ID:	166449  
John Schuermann likes this.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #100 of 116 Old 07-17-2014, 09:14 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Also, I know I've asked before, but for those of use with media servers, who don't use standard Blu-ray players most of the time, what would our options be? I'm guessing I'd have to give up the media server (XBMC) and go with a standard BD player.
I think all we need is the software change to get the rip (to mkv for example) correct so it extracts the movie's anamorphic stream. Surely that could be implemented quickly by the "rippers". It's in Panamorph's best interest to get every possible media solution to be able to use the anamorphic content, so I don't see that as a roadblock. Then, on your media server, you'd simply have a stored 16:9 image that is anamorphic, ready for the single step of optical expansion to correct, full 1080 resolution without scaling.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #101 of 116 Old 07-17-2014, 09:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Yup, that's what I'm hoping for, but my question/fear is that the MFE process is proprietary and thus would be unlikely to be available for <insert ripper>. It would be great if they would release an AVISynth filter so we could process MFE encoded video, if that truly is what ends up on Blu-ray.

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 offline  
post #102 of 116 Old 07-17-2014, 11:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
The bad news is that zoomers will not.
Regarding the Folded Space source material:

What about zooming with a native 4K projector? In principle (talking about 1080p Blu-Ray resolution at the moment), since a native 4K display has many more pixels to play with, couldn't a video processor re-scale the extra anamorphic resolution to the 2:35:1 area, for a higher resolution image while using the zoom method?

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #103 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
So am I correct in inferring that that would require new players? Could a Video Processor (Lumagen) perform the MFE "decoding" (obviously current Lumagens can't but is it theoretically possible or does it have to happen on the decode side).
Sure, a Lumagen could perform the necessary decoding, but of course, that capability would have to be added. We have actually kept Jim Peterson in the loop during some of our explorations.

Right now the momentum seems to be to put the decode into the display / projector. Keep in mind that the studios / CE manufacturers see this as more of an "Enhanced for UHD" product than something targeted specifically at those with anamorphic lenses, or those with 21:9 displays. A 16:9 UHD flat panel with MFE decoding built in gets the same 33% increase in resolution for Scope movies.

That said, there is no reason why Oppo or some other player manufacturer could not implement the decode in the player as well. We've got friends at Oppo that have been watching our progress with interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Also, I know I've asked before, but for those of use with media servers, who don't use standard Blu-ray players most of the time, what would our options be? I'm guessing I'd have to give up the media server (XBMC) and go with a standard BD player.
Unfortunately that type of implementation is not even on our radar, however, the code for decoding this is so simple I don't see any reason why it could not be adopted for HTPC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
So I've been trying to figure out since I saw it, but what exactly does "anamorphic" support in HDMI mean? Just metadata to tell the display the content is anamorphic and to reshape it correctly?
Perhaps one of those more conversant in HDMI implementation can answer this more authoritatively, but it's my understanding that it can pass a flag so the display knows what to do with the signal once it is received (much like a receiver knows what type of audio bitstream it is receiving). It's up to the display manufacturer to decide what to do once it receives the flag.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #104 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
As far as I understand the current Blu-ray development, this would be plain anamorphic content, not MFE (which is anamorphic niftily rearranged and recalculated so that the center portion matches the traditional letterboxed picture). John, correct me if I'm wrong. This can, by the way, also be carried by any other digital encoded video, as long as the framework allows to use that aspect ratio parameter. So Netflix etc. could also decide to do anamorphic 1080p, as well as on ripped Blu-rays (mp4, matroska, or whatever you kids use these days).
Good summation of what MFE does And this is the more authoritative answer I was looking for :

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
Yes, it is metadata (specifically, new video codes in the AVI InfoFrame) that tells the display "This 1080p signal has a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio, resulting in a 64:27 picture aspect ratio. If your panel has a different aspect ratio, feel free to ask your user whether to letterbox, crop, or (if you must) stretch the content to make it fit."

Similar on the Blu-ray, there is metadata in the stream that says: "This 1080p video has a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio, resulting in a 64:27 picture aspect ratio." The Blu-ray player then has to handle this content with regards to the selected TV output setting:
  • 1080p 16:9: Vertically downscale to 810 lines and letterbox the picture, or horizontally upscale to 2560 pixel width and crop the picture back down to 1920
  • 1080p 64:27 (anamorphic): Pass picture through unchanged
  • 2560x1080p 64:27 (non-anamorphic): Horizontally upscale the picture from 1920 to 2560 pixel width.
All three of these functions are things a current Blu-ray knows nothing about. It might be possible to add these features and additional output settings via a firmware update, but it's more likely that there will be new Blu-ray players that support all of the new features, including UHD.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #105 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 02:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Sure, a Lumagen could perform the necessary decoding, but of course, that capability would have to be added. We have actually kept Jim Peterson in the loop during some of our explorations.

Right now the momentum seems to be to put the decode into the display / projector. Keep in mind that the studios / CE manufacturers see this as more of an "Enhanced for UHD" product than something targeted specifically at those with anamorphic lenses, or those with 21:9 displays. A 16:9 UHD flat panel with MFE decoding built in gets the same 33% increase in resolution for Scope movies.

That said, there is no reason why Oppo or some other player manufacturer could not implement the decode in the player as well. We've got friends at Oppo that have been watching our progress with interest.
That's interesting, I guess I had sort of assumed that this would be something that ended up in the player, so if you don't have a capable player you'd be SOL (like those of us with media servers, or a Kaleidescape for example). But if the "push" is for the display/VP to do it, that's more interesting in the sense that those of us with "unorthodox" playback chains could be covered, though that also means a more expensive upgrade. It would be great it Jim could get it into a Lumagen, super great if it could "fit" in existing ones with just a firmware update.

Quote:
Unfortunately that type of implementation is not even on our radar, however, the code for decoding this is so simple I don't see any reason why it could not be adopted for HTPC.
Now accepting the above information makes me more optimistic/excited. This is sort of what I was expecting, but was hoping to put on your radar. For those of us unwilling/able to upgrade to an MFE compatible display, but with anamorphic lenses, it would be great to be able to preprocess the content with MFE offline so we could still get the benefits. What I'm saying is here's to hoping you can either produce a filter, or the information necessary for the community to build one.

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 offline  
post #106 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post
I think all we need is the software change to get the rip (to mkv for example) correct so it extracts the movie's anamorphic stream. Surely that could be implemented quickly by the "rippers". It's in Panamorph's best interest to get every possible media solution to be able to use the anamorphic content, so I don't see that as a roadblock. Then, on your media server, you'd simply have a stored 16:9 image that is anamorphic, ready for the single step of optical expansion to correct, full 1080 resolution without scaling.
The only real hurdle is that the licensing fee for MFE is in the decode, not the encode, so whatever software player you use will need to come to an agreement with Folded Space.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #107 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Regarding the Folded Space source material:

What about zooming with a native 4K projector? In principle (talking about 1080p Blu-Ray resolution at the moment), since a native 4K display has many more pixels to play with, couldn't a video processor re-scale the extra anamorphic resolution to the 2:35:1 area, for a higher resolution image while using the zoom method?
Yes, that's possible with HD 1080P MFE material, but of course, not what we want you to do

We are also discussing true 4K implementations of MFE as well, to support the upcoming 5120 x 2160 21:9 displays and 4K anamorphic (and possible 8K displays down the road).


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #108 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 07:27 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
The only real hurdle is that the licensing fee for MFE is in the decode, not the encode, so whatever software player you use will need to come to an agreement with Folded Space.
That would be a hurdle then I'd expect. Those guys aren't known for following decoding restrictions if you know what I mean. May slow things down, but if the folks who make it possible to move BRD's to media servers can decode the encryption, I'd think decoding MFE would be be relatively trivial. If they get interested. There are only 3 such products off the top of my head, I think one is more open source oriented, one is free perpetual trialware, one is fee based. None seem like the kind of orgs that will pay the fee. But I can hope that they pay up and take the fast route. Anyway, getting ahead of ourselves, practically speaking it's not real, yet.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #109 of 116 Old 07-18-2014, 11:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Yes, that's possible with HD 1080P MFE material, but of course, not what we want you to do

We are also discussing true 4K implementations of MFE as well, to support the upcoming 5120 x 2160 21:9 displays and 4K anamorphic (and possible 8K displays down the road).
Why aren't the BDA adding a 5120x2160 (or other wider than 3840) square pixel mode for the "4K" Blu-ray spec? Wouldn't that potentially give better picture quality than storing it in the 1.78:1 frame?

Do you have any demo clips that we can view of video encoded in the MFE process? And is it absolutely certain that the black bar areas won't have any visible difference to non-MFE encoded video when played on non-MFE capable players/displays and that there will be no visible degradation of the picture on non-MFE players/displays compared to non-MFE encoded video?

Assuming the BDA added anamorphic modes to the Blu-ray HD standards (for 1080p and 2160p) so that it stored the video in 1920x1080 or 3840x2160 but with a flag/flags to say they were non-square pixels, wouldn't encoding that anamorphic video be less efficient than normal 1.78:1 square pixel video (without black bars)? eg. wouldn't things like rotations (eg. for a 2D wheel) be harder to predict if it was stored anamorphically instead of with square pixels?

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-19-2014 at 12:16 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #110 of 116 Old 07-19-2014, 04:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Why aren't the BDA adding a 5120x2160 (or other wider than 3840) square pixel mode for the "4K" Blu-ray spec? Wouldn't that potentially give better picture quality than storing it in the 1.78:1 frame?

Do you have any demo clips that we can view of video encoded in the MFE process? And is it absolutely certain that the black bar areas won't have any visible difference to non-MFE encoded video when played on non-MFE capable players/displays and that there will be no visible degradation of the picture on non-MFE players/displays compared to non-MFE encoded video?

Assuming the BDA added anamorphic modes to the Blu-ray HD standards (for 1080p and 2160p) so that it stored the video in 1920x1080 or 3840x2160 but with a flag/flags to say they were non-square pixels, wouldn't encoding that anamorphic video be less efficient than normal 1.78:1 square pixel video (without black bars)? eg. wouldn't things like rotations (eg. for a 2D wheel) be harder to predict if it was stored anamorphically instead of with square pixels?
For the record, we are only discussing square pixels. MFE works with square pixels going in and going out. The end result after decode is a true anamorphic image at 1920 x 1080 using square pixels.

As to what the BDA is doing, I can't say definitively, but I would guess that they are not really looking at 5120 x 2160 because there would be very little application for it. Unless 21:9 displays start taking off in a big way, the reality is that just about any display in the future is going to be 16:9. That plus the fact that human beings perceive detail much more acutely in the vertical than in the horizontal. An anamorphic 16:9 image - even one at 1080P - will reveal almost all of the detail inherent in the source material, particularly if the source material is 35mm film.

One of the things that is being discovered very quickly is that perceptible visual detail from 35mm film scans maxes out somewhere around 1080P, perhaps a bit higher, but nowhere near 4K levels. From the testing being done in Hollywood (some of which I have witnessed), 4K resolution seems to be considerable overkill when it comes to 35mm film. Once you reach a certain threshold, limiting factors such as camera judder, MTF and film grain just obliterate the fine detail you would want in a 4K transfer (70mm is a different story). So many people talk about 35mm film having massive potential resolution, however, potential vs. visible are two different things.

This is also true when considering 4K cameras like the RED. Due to limitations in optics and imaging sensors, true visible resolution tops out at around 3K or so. So, while 5120 x 2160 might be have potentially better PQ than 3840 x 2160 anamorphic, there isn't a camera in the world that will capture that kind of detail. Perhaps someday, but not right now. And 4K also seems to capture all visible detail from even 70mm film. Again, someday we might have camera systems that can truly capture these incredibly high resolutions, but for now, these high resolution figures are just numbers that have very little relationship to picture detail we can actually perceive.

No, we don't have any demo clips we can share of MFE due to NDAs with the studios we have licensed footage from.

If someone plays back an MFE disc on a standard display and player, the black bars are Java generated black bars that cover the additional resolution stored "behind" them. For that reason, they are totally opaque.

We have demo material with standard letterbox material on the left and MFE generated letterbox material on the right. No one yet has been able to discern a difference.

Hopefully I addressed the last question when I mentioned that MFE utilizes square pixels


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #111 of 116 Old 07-21-2014, 08:29 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
... true anamorphic image at 1920 x 1080 using square pixels.
I'm afraid that terminology of yours is a bit confusing. I know you are talking about a 1920x1080 "container", but that is only a pixel grid and does not have inherently square, anamorphic or otherwise shaped pixel. The pixel get their aspect ratio from the accompanying meta data. And if you put a picture with an aspect ratio of 64:27 into a 1920x1080 pixel grid, then the pixels will have an aspect ratio of 4:3, not 1:1.

In broadcasting, 1920x1080 is traditionally associated with a 16:9 picture aspect ratio and therefore square 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. But that does not mean these technical values stay that way if you put pictures with other aspect ratios into them, no matter what the established specifications say.

So, for 64:27 (2.39:1) content, you have:

Full HD = 1920x1080, square pixel, 75% of area used

Encoded MFE = 1920x1080, square pixel, 100% of area used (center 75% of lines identical to Full HD counterparts)

Decoded MFE = Anamorphic Full HD = 1920x1080, 4:3 pixel aspect ratio, 100% of area used
scarabaeus is offline  
post #112 of 116 Old 07-21-2014, 09:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
I'm afraid that terminology of yours is a bit confusing. I know you are talking about a 1920x1080 "container", but that is only a pixel grid and does not have inherently square, anamorphic or otherwise shaped pixel. The pixel get their aspect ratio from the accompanying meta data. And if you put a picture with an aspect ratio of 64:27 into a 1920x1080 pixel grid, then the pixels will have an aspect ratio of 4:3, not 1:1.

In broadcasting, 1920x1080 is traditionally associated with a 16:9 picture aspect ratio and therefore square 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. But that does not mean these technical values stay that way if you put pictures with other aspect ratios into them, no matter what the established specifications say.

So, for 64:27 (2.39:1) content, you have:

Full HD = 1920x1080, square pixel, 75% of area used

Encoded MFE = 1920x1080, square pixel, 100% of area used (center 75% of lines identical to Full HD counterparts)

Decoded MFE = Anamorphic Full HD = 1920x1080, 4:3 pixel aspect ratio, 100% of area used
I admit that I am not a technical expert by any means when it comes to the nuts and bolts of pixel values, but I wonder if we are talking about the same thing when it comes to anamorphic video. I am referring to anamorphic video only in the sense that the visible picture looks tall and skinny, not in the same sense that anamorphic was part of the DVD spec and used non-square pixel values.

With MFE, the film being processed would be sourced from a 4K or anamorphic 2K master provided by the studio (films shot anamorphically are usually archived by scanning in the entire anamorphic film frame). Both will give us the additional vertical resolution that MFE needs to make a noticeable improvement in picture detail. UHD masters of scope films are letterboxed at 3840 x 1620 (or 4096 x 1728, if we are talking true 4K) . To create the MFE master, the black bars would get eliminated by cropping and the image would be compressed horizontally (and vertically, but by a lesser degree) to create an anamorphic (horizontally squeezed) 1920 x 1080 MFE master. From there the image is put through the MFE process and the extra resolution extracted from the master is just folded into the space reserved for the black letterbox bars. (NOTE: the letterbox version of the movie on the disc is created by intelligently "extracting" resolution from the MFE anamorphic image. We do not add additional resolution to a "standard" letterboxed image to get to our anamorphic, we extract information from the anamorphic to create the letterbox version.) If a display (or Blu-ray player) has the necessary decoding, the extra resolution is "folded" back in to recreate the MFE master's original 1920 x 1080 resolution. At the beginning and end of the MFE process, you have an anamorphic 16:9 image, not a 64:27 image processed into a 16:9 container.

Hopefully this makes sense, and it is possible that I am missing something technical here that you are catching. I am sharing my understanding of our process, which I admit may be imperfect at the technical level we are discussing re: metadata and pixel aspect ratios (I am not the inventor or engineer, but I have a pretty good technical grounding).


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by John Schuermann; 07-21-2014 at 09:03 AM. Reason: For clarity.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #113 of 116 Old 07-21-2014, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
At the beginning and end of the MFE process, you have an anamorphic 16:9 image, not a 64:27 image processed into a 16:9 container.
Yes, we are saying the same, just with different words. An anamorphic "16:9" image is actually a 64:27 image. The anamorphism is defined by the pixel aspect ratio. 1:1, or square pixel, is equivalent to non-anamorphic. "'Scope" Film has a 2:1 anamorphism (resulting in a 55:23 picture, or 2.391304348:1), and in the case of MFE and the new HD/UHD HDMI video timings, we use a 4:3 anamorphism.

You actually have different anamorphism (pixel aspect ratios) all over the place in digital video. The worst is SD video.
720x480 "standard": 8:9
720x480 "wide": 32:27
720x576 "standard": 16:15
720x576 "wide" 64:49
704x480 "standard": 10:11
704x480 "wide": 40:33
704x576 "standard": 12:11
704:576 "wide": 16:11
1280x720, 1920x1080, 3840x2160, 7680x4320, 4096x1080, 8192x2160 "wide": 1:1
1280x720, 1920x1080, 3840x2160, 7680x4320 "ultrawide": 4:3
1680x720 "ultrawide": 64:63
2560x1080, 5120x2160 "ultrawide": 1:1
scarabaeus is offline  
post #114 of 116 Old 07-21-2014, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
Yes, we are saying the same, just with different words. An anamorphic "16:9" image is actually a 64:27 image. The anamorphism is defined by the pixel aspect ratio. 1:1, or square pixel, is equivalent to non-anamorphic. "'Scope" Film has a 2:1 anamorphism (resulting in a 55:23 picture, or 2.391304348:1), and in the case of MFE and the new HD/UHD HDMI video timings, we use a 4:3 anamorphism.

You actually have different anamorphism (pixel aspect ratios) all over the place in digital video. The worst is SD video.
720x480 "standard": 8:9
720x480 "wide": 32:27
720x576 "standard": 16:15
720x576 "wide" 64:49
704x480 "standard": 10:11
704x480 "wide": 40:33
704x576 "standard": 12:11
704:576 "wide": 16:11
1280x720, 1920x1080, 3840x2160, 7680x4320, 4096x1080, 8192x2160 "wide": 1:1
1280x720, 1920x1080, 3840x2160, 7680x4320 "ultrawide": 4:3
1680x720 "ultrawide": 64:63
2560x1080, 5120x2160 "ultrawide": 1:1
Got it. Thanks for clarifying


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #115 of 116 Old 09-06-2014, 09:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Hi John, so there's been an announcement for BD UHD without any mention of MFE, although they do state that the spec is not finalized yet and won't be until summer of next year.

4K Blu-ray News—You Can Buy It For Christmas 2015

Can you comment? I really hope this takes off. I'm also curious how MFE encoded discs (hopefully all UHD discs will be, in an ideal world) interact with the 21:9 resolution support in the HDMI 2.0 specification:

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdm...i_2_0_faq.aspx

What’s new in HDMI 2.0?
....
Support for the wide angle theatrical 21:9 video aspect ratio

-------
Does this mean the stream is sent anamorphically i.e. the res is still 16:9 (say 1080p or 2160p) but there is metadata sent that specifies that the display is to reinterpret this 16:9 content as 21:9 ?

Or does it mean, instead, that HDMI 2.0 BD players will output 2560 x 1080 or 5120 x 2160 signals along the wire?

Either possibility has advantages (the latter is better for native 21:9 displays, while the former is better for anamorphic lenses on projectors I guess).
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
post #116 of 116 Old 09-08-2014, 11:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Hi John, so there's been an announcement for BD UHD without any mention of MFE, although they do state that the spec is not finalized yet and won't be until summer of next year.

4K Blu-ray News—You Can Buy It For Christmas 2015

Can you comment? I really hope this takes off. I'm also curious how MFE encoded discs (hopefully all UHD discs will be, in an ideal world) interact with the 21:9 resolution support in the HDMI 2.0 specification:

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdm...i_2_0_faq.aspx

What’s new in HDMI 2.0?
....
Support for the wide angle theatrical 21:9 video aspect ratio

-------
Does this mean the stream is sent anamorphically i.e. the res is still 16:9 (say 1080p or 2160p) but there is metadata sent that specifies that the display is to reinterpret this 16:9 content as 21:9 ?

Or does it mean, instead, that HDMI 2.0 BD players will output 2560 x 1080 or 5120 x 2160 signals along the wire?

Either possibility has advantages (the latter is better for native 21:9 displays, while the former is better for anamorphic lenses on projectors I guess).
Good opportunity for some updates, and then I will answer your questions

Updates:

Panamorph joined the BDA several months ago and is actively participating in next generation 4K Blu-ray standards discussions. We are proposing MFE for both current Blu-ray production and 4K Blu-ray production. Our stance - why waste the space on black letterbox bars when you can use it for additional resolution? We think MFE should be part of 4K from the get go, supporting 21:9 displays plus anamorphic projection for home and commercial cinema. It's also a natural complement to newer 5120 x 2160 "5K" cameras and displays.

We are working with a major studio and a major post-production / transcode software company this week to demonstrate how easily MFE fits into Hollywood post-production and Blu-ray production workflows. Right now footage is being analyzed to see what would be most appropriate for the test. Some good news - the post-production / transcode software company confirmed that MFE works as claimed plus was so simple to implement that they created the software plug-in module in a single afternoon. (Sorry to be so cryptic about which companies and studios we are working with, but we are under NDA.)

TWO major CE manufacturers have directly indicated interest, which means we have interest on both the CE and studio side.

So, to answer your questions:

No, we are not part of the 4K Blu-ray spec at this time. Of course, we'd like to be part of the actual spec, but that's not absolutely necessary for implementation. We are working on this, though, trust me

RE: how will 4K Blu-ray work with HDMI 2.0 in terms of 21:9 support, the answer is I don't know. That is literally one of the questions I will be posing in a conference call later today. We propose that anamorphic 3840 x 2160 (or 4096 x 2160) is more than sufficient, as it a) does not violate the 16:9 container space, b) it utilizes the full vertical resolution capability, where our eyes are most sensitive to picture detail, and c) we are at the limits of human perception with 3840 x 2160 anyway.

Hope this helps!
RLBURNSIDE likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann 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