Could this be it? Folded Space Enhanced Resolution - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 35Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 234 Old 05-18-2015, 04:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
If your goal is 5120x2160 non-anmorphic, then you will most likely get better results with a secondary stream, as you proposed. This is mainly dependent on the extra bandwidth you can affort to use for this secondary stream. MFE only applies to 3840x2160p anamorphic content, any additional upscaling to 5120x2160 has to rely on established upscaling methods, with the respective artifacts in the horizontal direction.
MFE is supposed to be able to store/create a 2560x1080 frame for Blu-ray, not just anamorphic 1920x1080. I'd assume the same applies to 2160.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 234 Old 05-18-2015, 06:48 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
I found a possible interesting tidbit here in the new Onkyo Immersive Audio receivers. FWIW, they mention the 21:9 spec.

New Onkyo Receivers with 21:9 support
Nice, I had not seen the 21:9 capability mentioned anywhere, yet. I only found it in the manual Onkyo has on their website. Good to see that 21:9 gets some attention, now we only need a TV or two that also support this, since the Onkyo mainly just passes it trough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
That might be the new HDMI specs which I believe can support 21:9.
Yes, the new VICs (Video Identification Codes) for 21:9 were added in version F of CEA 861 (that is the specification for the audio and video formats on HDMI and other interfaces). HDMI 1.4b had only referenced version D, but HDMI 2.0 is referencing this new version F. Of course, manufacturers can choose to implement some features of later CEA 861 versions on older interface versions as well, so that even HDMI 1.4b interfaces could use 21:9. However, all features of HDMI 2.0 are optional, so having an HDMI 2.0 port is no guarantee that the manufacturer has included 21:9 support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post
Sounds cool. From an audio perspective, though, it seems to me like anything less than 7.x.4 is a waste of time when it comes to the new formats.
I agree, but Atmos is impressive even in 5.1.2. And this might be the most speakers a typical living room can handle, anyways, since few rooms have space behind the couch. And if you use the Dolby enabled reflective speakers, the lack of rear surrounds also deprives you of the right location to place the top rear upfiring modules for 5.1.4. So, I guess Onkyo looked at this most common use case and decided 7 amplified channels is enough in a $700 AVR for the masses.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #183 of 234 Old 05-18-2015, 11:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
Basically, if you start with an anmorphic 1920x1080 frame (2.37:1 content using the full frame, vertically stretched by a 4:3 ratio), then MFE is converting this into a 1920x1080 frame where the center 1920x810 pixel look identical to the center 1920x810 pixel of a non-anamorphic frame with letterboxed 2.37:1 content. The original 1920x1080 full anamorphic frame can be recaclulated from the complete 1920x1080 MFE frame, without any loss of information vs. the original anamorphic frame.
If that's true though, that it means that they're not encoding the letter-boxed version with the best quality. Surely the best way to downscale to a letterboxed version is by blending pixels, otherwise you're likely to get aliasing. If they are able to always get the exact anamorphic frame back, it must mean they're not blending a certain amount of pixels together to make the letterboxed version - they're probably don't something like nearest-neighbour. This must mean, especially for detailed content, that the letterboxed version will look worse (aliased) compared to a normally encoded letterboxed Blu-ray (this is also ignoring the increase in bitrate required for the MFE version). Perhaps that could be one of the reasons it isn't being used. There's also the fact that when getting back to the MFE anamorphic frame from an encoded Blu-ray, it will have been lossy compressed and in 4:2:0 colour.

Surely you can't have both the downscaled letterboxed version looking identical to a normal letterboxed Blu-ray if you can also get back exactly the original MFE anamorphic frame (ignoring compression/chroma subsampling) for the reasons above. If you are allowing the full range of values (0-255) for each of the 1920x1080 pixels and basically changing the position of each to get the letter-boxed version there's no other way not to get aliasing with detailed content. I don't think any of the threads have shown examples of MFE downscaled to letterboxed content with comparisons to a normally downscaled to letterboxed version either - if it did look identical, wouldn't there be examples showing it?

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 05-18-2015 at 11:14 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #184 of 234 Old 05-19-2015, 04:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Supposedly they encode the differences between the resampled letterbox version and all the other versions (anamorphic, Pan & Scan, and 2560x1080) into the areas normally occupied by the black bars. The player then blacks out those areas with BD-J. As for examples, I don't think they've made public any examples of MFE, probably for IP reasons.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #185 of 234 Old 05-19-2015, 05:59 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Surely the best way to downscale to a letterboxed version is by blending pixels, otherwise you're likely to get aliasing.
Sorry, I think you did not comprehend what I wrote. The center 810 lines are identical those of a normal letterboxed frame. That is, of course, correctly downscaled, not just some line removal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Surely you can't have both the downscaled letterboxed version looking identical to a normal letterboxed Blu-ray if you can also get back exactly the original MFE anamorphic frame (ignoring compression/chroma subsampling) for the reasons above.
Yes, you can have both, because: Math.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #186 of 234 Old 05-19-2015, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
Sorry, I think you did not comprehend what I wrote. The center 810 lines are identical those of a normal letterboxed frame. That is, of course, correctly downscaled, not just some line removal.



Yes, you can have both, because: Math.
You can't have both always giving you identical the the original, and always giving quality as good a normally encoded letterboxed Blu-ray (ignoring compression/luma) because a normally encoded letterboxed Blu-ray will have blended the pixels together on downscale. If MFE is able to get both back identically it can't have. There is no room in the 1920x1080 pixels to store both the 1920x1080 unblended original pixels from anamorphic 1920x1080 image and additional blended pixels for the best quality downscaled letterboxed version. If you have blended pixels, there's no way (easy, fast, guaranteed way) to get back the original unblended pixels - without storing the originals somewhere. But if you're storing blended pixels, you're not storing all the original non-blended pixels.

1920x1080 original unblended anamorphic pixels + x blended pixels = more than 1920x1080 required. Therefore not possible to have both (both able to get back to exactly the original & have as good quality normal letterboxed (blended pixels downscaled) version.

Can you give me an example method + image examples where you can always do both of the above?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89
Supposedly they encode the differences between the resampled letterbox version and all the other versions
That's possible. It may do that. But that method, unlike what scarabaeus says would not likely give you back exactly what was in the original anamorphic 1920x1080 frame (always), and give the best quality letterboxed downscale. Even ignoring compression and chroma-subsampling. eg. if the difference is more than you are able to store in the letterboxed areas. You've also got 2,073,600 (1920*1080) potential pixel differences (if comparing to an upscaled letterboxed version of 2.40:1 - they may do it differently but still it's a lot of differences to store) to store in 537,600 (4:2:0) pixels (the black bar area of 2.40:1). The method should be able to give you more information, but not to always give you an identical version of the original anamorphic version.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 05-19-2015 at 08:07 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #187 of 234 Old 06-01-2015, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,896
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 691 Post(s)
Liked: 544
I believe the secret sauce to be able to rebuild a 2560x1080 21:9 image from a 1920x810 + metadata stored in the black letterbox, must come from some kind of compression that's greater than 1:1 compression ratio.

Then yes, you definitely can re-create a 2560x1080 image from a 1920x810 + one that is uncompressed, and keep most of the quality of the original. Of course it's chroma compressed, but you can also expand an image that's been pre-separated / pre-compressed in chroma subsampling formats.

JPG allows 16:1 compression ratio, and PNG lossless is 2.7:1. TIFF is 2:1 (lossless). It's not that hard to squeeze a difference function to map 1920x810 to 2560x1080 inside 1920x270. Imagine reserving 25% of your storage space each frame towards a highly compressed image format, instead of one that's supremely ill-compressed like chroma-subsampling is. 420 is only a 50% compression ratio, lossy too. I bet any money JPG gives FAR better compression. That would also allow you to squeeze in extra data in the letterbox frames to improve quality further, like enhancing the bit depth.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #188 of 234 Old 06-01-2015, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 115
I'd like to hear some updates from John Schuermann if he has any. I think he's the only one who knows for sure where FS lies right now, and of it's going to see the cold light of day. I certainly hope so, but I somehow doubt it. As it's not in the UHD BD spec, it's not looking likely IMHO.

Gary
Dirk44 likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #189 of 234 Old 06-02-2015, 01:13 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 10,820
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1105
Yep. I would love to hear if this is going to make it or dying on the vine.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Sony, JVC, Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz, Yamaha & MiniDSP.
AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #190 of 234 Old 07-11-2015, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Sorry I've been away so long - I've been working on getting my little indie film off the ground. Check out the link in my signature to check out the webpage and my 5 minute "proof of concept" trailer

Quick update:

Still working with various standards committees to get support for MFE - now re-named DFE, for Dual Format Encoding - built into new signalling protocols and interface specs, etc. No, DFE is not a specific part of the UHD Blu-ray spec, but we still have our supporters and there is no reason DFE support could not be an optional add-in. One of the other things we are working on is how to make all this work with streaming. So yes, there is still interest out there, and yes, we are still working on it.

Nothing is simple and easy when you've got to make sure you take into the account the business interests of the many many different movers and shakers in this industry. Movie studios, post production engineers, marketing departments, CE standards organizations, the BDA - the list of who we need to convince and coordinate in this effort is staggering.

Wish me well

And support my movie too!

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #191 of 234 Old 07-19-2015, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,896
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 691 Post(s)
Liked: 544
I'm starting to think that UHD Bluray is going to be a bit of a red herring for the high end. Yes, it's going to have typically better bitrate than streamed for the most part, but if streaming companies can adapt the movie masters to work within their ecosystem and bypass Bluray specs entirely, then I hope that DFE Anamorphic encoding is at least possible as a user-selectable option for streaming. And that might be one way for a streaming company to differentiate their offerings. One checkbox for color space desired (709, p3, 2020), another for HDR (plus how many nits), and yet another for anarmorphic fullscreen.

I know how difficult it is now to convince people that anamorphic is a good thing, even in videogames where it's just a matter of changing a single float value (the picture aspect). There is so much ignorance / resistance to things they consider "fringe" namely the high end market.

There's no point in sending more pixels over the wire than you need (say, 2560x1080 instead of 1920x1080), it's wasteful. But if you want to pay for the bandwidth for anamorphic instead of letterbox, they should do that. A slight price premium would be worth it to some, for the increase in resolution. 1080p projectors are going to get a workout with UHD Blurays for the next few years, and anamoprhic lenses will be useful regardless. But I hope to have see some DFE discs, thanks for the update John! And good luck on your project.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #192 of 234 Old 07-19-2015, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
There's no point in sending more pixels over the wire than you need (say, 2560x1080 instead of 1920x1080), it's wasteful. But if you want to pay for the bandwidth for anamorphic instead of letterbox, they should do that. A slight price premium would be worth it to some, for the increase in resolution. 1080p projectors are going to get a workout with UHD Blurays for the next few years, and anamoprhic lenses will be useful regardless.
For DFE/MFE I can see the advantage that it is basically all in one file, but lets say 99% of people are watching on a 1920x1080 1.78:1 display - with DFE with streaming wouldn't those people be being sent pixels (and a bandwidth overhead) that they aren't really making use of? For streaming is bandwidth a much bigger cost/issue than server's disc space? Sending 2560x1080 wouldn't really be wasteful if you could see an improvement in quality - and depending on bandwidth (plus there are fixed pixel displays with 2560x1080 and 5120x2160 I think so if they could receive this format via HDMI they should get a better PQ version depending on the source).

If bandwidth is the major issue for streaming (rather than disc space server side), wouldn't the streaming companies create a 1920x800 (with or without black bars - whichever) - say for 2.40:1 content , and a 1920x1080 anamorphic (not DFE/MFE) version (assuming 2560x1080 isn't viable) - ie. 2 separate encodes - if bandwidth is what costs the most - wouldn't that be most efficient use? Also, the same applies to Ultra-HD type resolutions where people who want the very best picture quality will be more likely to get.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-19-2015 at 06:27 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #193 of 234 Old 07-20-2015, 09:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
1080p projectors are going to get a workout with UHD Blurays for the next few years, and anamoprhic lenses will be useful regardless. But I hope to have see some DFE discs, thanks for the update John! And good luck on your project.
As you note, there is already a large 1080P projector install base, some equipped with anamorphic lenses. One of the other things we are working on is to come up with a solution for converting UHD Scope material to anamorphic HD material on the fly, so that those with 1080P anamorphic projection systems get some of the benefits of UHD without having to buy a 4K projector.
RLBURNSIDE and dschulz like this.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #194 of 234 Old 07-20-2015, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
For DFE/MFE I can see the advantage that it is basically all in one file, but lets say 99% of people are watching on a 1920x1080 1.78:1 display - with DFE with streaming wouldn't those people be being sent pixels (and a bandwidth overhead) that they aren't really making use of? For streaming is bandwidth a much bigger cost/issue than server's disc space? Sending 2560x1080 wouldn't really be wasteful if you could see an improvement in quality - and depending on bandwidth (plus there are fixed pixel displays with 2560x1080 and 5120x2160 I think so if they could receive this format via HDMI they should get a better PQ version depending on the source).

If bandwidth is the major issue for streaming (rather than disc space server side), wouldn't the streaming companies create a 1920x800 (with or without black bars - whichever) - say for 2.40:1 content , and a 1920x1080 anamorphic (not DFE/MFE) version (assuming 2560x1080 isn't viable) - ie. 2 separate encodes - if bandwidth is what costs the most - wouldn't that be most efficient use? Also, the same applies to Ultra-HD type resolutions where people who want the very best picture quality will be more likely to get.
We are getting deeper into streaming permutations so am not an expert in this area as of yet. It is my understanding that they are sending 1920 x 1080 regardless - the black bars are hard encoded so the effective bandwidth will be very similar.

Separate encodes = more costs on the mastering end. Our process requires a single encode only with multiple applications. one of the biggest hurdles with any new proposed format is what the studios think of as "multiple inventory" - separate encodes for DVD, Blu-ray, streaming, anamorphic, 3-D, HBO / airlines (pan and scan), etc. We are trying to develop one piece of inventory that can be decoded multiple ways.

Much more that I could go into, but unfortunately I am bandwidth limited today

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #195 of 234 Old 07-20-2015, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
We are getting deeper into streaming permutations so am not an expert in this area as of yet. It is my understanding that they are sending 1920 x 1080 regardless - the black bars are hard encoded so the effective bandwidth will be very similar.
On YouTube trailers are sometimes 1920x800 (eg. The Dark Knight Rises Official Trailer 3 - the stats option shows this res), whereas other 2.40:1 trailers on YouTube are 1920x1080 with encoded black bars. I think either could be used for actual films on streaming/download sites. But where black bars are encoded into a film's video file, if there's no difference in those black bars from frame to frame with mpeg-style compressed video (eg. H264/H265) that will not lead to much use of bitrate for those sections. However DFE/MFE stores active picture within the black bar areas, drawing the black bars in later, so the mpeg type encoder will require more bitrate for those areas. Especially if the motion is harder to predict (eg. if the picture looks like noise (in the black bar area - as encoded - before rearrangement back to anamorphic/2.40:1 square pixel) isn't that going to be harder, and if the pixels have been rearranged in the way they are (for DFE), wouldn't that make the motion vector prediction in the mpeg-type encoders less simple - so possibly lead to an increase in bandwidth compared to more predictable motion?).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-20-2015 at 11:45 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #196 of 234 Old 07-20-2015, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Let me dig a bit more into this. Sorry - time and bandwidth limited today.

IIRC when we did initial testing increased overhead was about 10% vs. standard letterbox (which is still considerably less than 16:9 full frame video) but don't quote me on that yet

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #197 of 234 Old 07-22-2015, 05:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
But if you want to pay for the bandwidth for anamorphic instead of letterbox, they should do that.
Techically, a full frame 16:9 image and full frame anamorphic Scope film should use the same bandwidth. The only difference is the geometry.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #198 of 234 Old 07-22-2015, 06:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Techically, a full frame 16:9 image and full frame anamorphic Scope film should use the same bandwidth. The only difference is the geometry.
I agree it could be. It shouldn't be "considerably less than 16:9 full frame video". Basically 1920x1080 full frame video and anamorphic video which also uses all 1920x1080 pixels for the moving parts of the picture should in theory take up about the same bandwidth. They'd take the same bandwidth it they were uncompressed. Compressed, it would depend on the picture content and how easy they were to compress. One may be more detailed than the other. But I do think that if the picture is scrambled in some way (like with DFE) it could be harder to compress (though John says this isn't by much) - but like you say this shouldn't be less than a full frame 1920x1080 video. In theory it should take up more bandwidth than a 1920x1080 full frame video (unless, even though it's using the same amount of in motion pixels it just, for some reason is easier to compress (eg. perhaps the DFE 2.40:1 film - even in full frame anamorphic mode may be softer/contain less detail than an average 1.78:1 film so that may be easier to compress? Also things like lens used (anamorphic vs spherical) could also have an affect (on image detail/sharpness, compression).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-22-2015 at 09:15 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #199 of 234 Old 07-24-2015, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
I agree it could be. It shouldn't be "considerably less than 16:9 full frame video". Basically 1920x1080 full frame video and anamorphic video which also uses all 1920x1080 pixels for the moving parts of the picture should in theory take up about the same bandwidth. They'd take the same bandwidth it they were uncompressed. Compressed, it would depend on the picture content and how easy they were to compress. One may be more detailed than the other. But I do think that if the picture is scrambled in some way (like with DFE) it could be harder to compress (though John says this isn't by much) - but like you say this shouldn't be less than a full frame 1920x1080 video. In theory it should take up more bandwidth than a 1920x1080 full frame video (unless, even though it's using the same amount of in motion pixels it just, for some reason is easier to compress (eg. perhaps the DFE 2.40:1 film - even in full frame anamorphic mode may be softer/contain less detail than an average 1.78:1 film so that may be easier to compress? Also things like lens used (anamorphic vs spherical) could also have an affect (on image detail/sharpness, compression).
The letterbox plus ED actually takes less compressed bandwidth than the anamorphic version. Even in the simplest case the ED is based on difference values of neighboring anamorphic pixels so the ED typically actually has very little structure and almost looks monochromatic. For this reason the ED actually compresses very efficiently. There is also truth to the suggestion that at higher resolutions there is even less pixel to pixel variation (ie less extreme detail) so this also helps the ED require less bandwidth than the lower resolution letterbox image.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #200 of 234 Old 07-26-2015, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,896
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 691 Post(s)
Liked: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Techically, a full frame 16:9 image and full frame anamorphic Scope film should use the same bandwidth. The only difference is the geometry.
Right, what I meant to say was if you could choose Stream A : 1920x810 (or 800 or whatever), or Stream B : 2560x1080, or Stream C : 1920x1080 anamorphic.

Of course that would obviate the need for Folded Space entirely at the consumer end. It would still be useful at the content producing / streaming end to have a single format which could be stored and deliver any of those three choices on demand.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #201 of 234 Old 07-28-2015, 10:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Just keep in mind what that means for the post-production world / Blu-ray creation world -

Three separate renders, three separate filmmaker sign-offs, three QC passes, three pieces of "inventory."

One of the big complaints from the studios is having to create multiple inventory of a single title - a 2K DCP, a 4K DCP, a 2K 3D DCP, a 4K 3D DCP, a Blu-ray / streaming master (one letterbox, one pan and scan), a 3D Blu-ray streaming master, a DVD master, etc. One of the things I learned from studio XXXXXX is that even the films panned and scanned for HBO and airlines need a filmmaker signoff, which of course means $$$.

What we are suggesting requires only one anamorphic stream, from which both the letterbox and 21:9 versions can be extracted.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #202 of 234 Old 07-29-2015, 09:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
What we are suggesting requires only one anamorphic stream, from which both the letterbox and 21:9 versions can be extracted.
Correct me if I am mistaken, would it not be better to create the one "full rez" master image at 5120 x 2160 and down rez that to make both anamorphic and letter-boxed versions?

At this time, LG has the only UHD display capable of 5120 x 2160, but if they make software for that type of display, I think it will catch on and other manufactures will also start doing the same. This could bring Scope into the home sooner. As much as I love front projection, it is the flat panel that sets the market trend and the flat panel is only as good as the program it receives. Right now, it gets a maximum of 3840 x 2160 on Netflix.

From our perspective, an "anamorphic" version is easy as it will have every 4th pixel removed from the horizontal to create a pixel count of 3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080. So even at 1080 rez, the now 0.75H version will still be 1920 x 1080 and therefore 33% better than the current up-scaling of 1920 x 810 letter-boxed images.

A letter-boxed version is 3840 x 1620 or 1920 x 810 for 16:9 TVs could also be made by stripping every forth line from both the H and V rez.

Based on how digital photos work (especially when printing), it is always best to throw away extra pixels.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #203 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 08:59 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Based on how digital photos work (especially when printing), it is always best to throw away extra pixels.
That is the worst way to downscale pixels. This will get you jaggies and aliasing artifacts. To downscale 4 pixels into 3, you blend them in 3/4+1/4 and 1/2+1/2 ratios, respectively.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #204 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 09:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 359
I think what Mark was getting at is it's always better to have more information than you need, and scale it down to what you can display, than to have less information than you can display, and scale it up.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #205 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Correct me if I am mistaken, would it not be better to create the one "full rez" master image at 5120 x 2160 and down rez that to make both anamorphic and letter-boxed versions?

At this time, LG has the only UHD display capable of 5120 x 2160, but if they make software for that type of display, I think it will catch on and other manufactures will also start doing the same. This could bring Scope into the home sooner. As much as I love front projection, it is the flat panel that sets the market trend and the flat panel is only as good as the program it receives. Right now, it gets a maximum of 3840 x 2160 on Netflix.

From our perspective, an "anamorphic" version is easy as it will have every 4th pixel removed from the horizontal to create a pixel count of 3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080. So even at 1080 rez, the now 0.75H version will still be 1920 x 1080 and therefore 33% better than the current up-scaling of 1920 x 810 letter-boxed images.

A letter-boxed version is 3840 x 1620 or 1920 x 810 for 16:9 TVs could also be made by stripping every forth line from both the H and V rez.

Based on how digital photos work (especially when printing), it is always best to throw away extra pixels.
Other than the scaling issues that scarabaeus just mentioned, I'd like to address the "5120 x 2160" question.

Yes, in an ideal world it would be best to start out with such a master. But that means totally overhauling the post-production process already in place with a whole new workflow designed around that resolution. I think things will eventually head that way (there are already cameras capable of capturing at that resolution), but right now everything is mastered to DCI target resolutions - and 5120 x 2160 is not one of them.

Now here's another complication: almost every movie these days, whether it some scifi action blockbuster or Melissa McCarthy comedy, has numerous CGI FX or enhancements. Almost all of these FX are rendered at 2K resolutions. Going to 5120 x 2160 for CGI FX renders also adds considerably to production cost.

We are trying to work within current post-production workflows with an eye on the future. Our process is totally compatible with what you are suggesting, it's just that the post world is not there yet.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #206 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 02:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
I think what Mark was getting at is it's always better to have more information than you need, and scale it down to what you can display, than to have less information than you can display, and scale it up.
Exactly what I was wanting to say, thank you.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #207 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 03:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Other than the scaling issues that scarabaeus just mentioned, I'd like to address the "5120 x 2160" question.
Yeah, so I get informed by a guy in the industry the other day that even though the leading cinemas in this city have all upgraded their projectors to 4K, the DCI files are not 4K. Go figure...

That said, the cinemas with 4K projectors have improved image quality over their 2K competitors, no questions there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Yes, in an ideal world it would be best to start out with such a master. But that means totally overhauling the post-production process already in place with a whole new workflow designed around that resolution. I think things will eventually head that way (there are already cameras capable of capturing at that resolution), but right now everything is mastered to DCI target resolutions - and 5120 x 2160 is not one of them.
Didn't the 3 HOBBIT films get captured on 5K (or 6K?) RED cameras? 5K is 5120 (1024 x 5), so even though the vertical is more than the needed 2160, you have your scope image width fitting on that image chip at 1:1. Given those 3 films were shot close to 4 years ago, I would like to think other production houses followed the lead by Peter Jackson for their work.

What I also learned from a guy capturing adds for local TV stations is that even though his camera is 4K, he does not use the 4k for max rez purposes, rather to allow post to zoom in digitally and take what they need and still be better than 1080 and worst case, to never fall below 576! What ever happened to camera operators 'framing the subject" they are shooting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Now here's another complication: almost every movie these days, whether it some scifi action blockbuster or Melissa McCarthy comedy, has numerous CGI FX or enhancements. Almost all of these FX are rendered at 2K resolutions. Going to 5120 x 2160 for CGI FX renders also adds considerably to production cost.
You would think they would have learned from the transition from SD to HD that effects made at a lower rez look bad in higher rez. The Far Scape Blu-Rays come to mind along with some Star Gate stuff made in the late 90s'. Even Star Wars is going to need a full re-scan when they (Disney might make it happen?) release that in UHD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
We are trying to work within current post-production workflows with an eye on the future. Our process is totally compatible with what you are suggesting, it's just that the post world is not there yet.
The problem I see is it being a case "if it ain't broke, don't fix". The current way Scope is shown in cinemas today is a band-aid solution (cinema operators can't adjust the astigmatism correction, so they just won't use an anamorphic lens and leave it in the box to collect dust) and plays on the fact that 99.9% of the target audience just don not know any better. The image is clean, and that is all they need to know or care about.

So the challenge you guys face is a need to convince the powers that be that your process works with their process. But it starts with a new disc format and that is the brick wall.

I am (now) thinking that the electronics industry might be able to make more impact by incorporating a chip in the players (for end user controls) that allows the scaling to take place in the player, regardless if the software is flagged as 21:9 or not.

One extra button added to the remote for AR change that allows the end user to toggle through the options and allows them to select the best rez for their set up. Players like OPPO already have a "spanner" key to allow real time adjustments of the video whilst material is playing so you can see what is happening on screen in real time.

I have the OPPO 103D and it has a VS function, but that is limited by the discs, where Java Enhanced won't work. I'd like to see an AR option added to the 4K upscale part that includes upscaling, VS and HS (where HS can give a true 1920 x 1080 anamorphic image). The question is, can they get around the Java issues?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #208 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 09:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 137
I think that the cost and time of visual effects to render greater than 2K has been a big obstacle. IIRC, the Hobbit movies were captured at 5K or so, but the effects and DI are 2K. Same with Gravity and Oblivion, I think.


I hear that the effects in SW7 are rendering in 4K and the DI is going to be 4K. That's progress.
John Schuermann likes this.
Cam Man is offline  
post #209 of 234 Old 07-30-2015, 10:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
I think that the cost and time of visual effects to render greater than 2K has been a big obstacle. IIRC, the Hobbit movies were captured at 5K or so, but the effects and DI are 2K. Same with Gravity and Oblivion, I think.


I hear that the effects in SW7 are rendering in 4K and the DI is going to be 4K. That's progress.
But the Hobbit films were 48 fps and 3D. So the rendering time in that case (all else being equal) could have been around the same as 4K 24 fps (if it was 4x a 24 fps 2D 2K film). So if they rendered in 48 fps 2K 3D back then, they should also have had the resources back then for 4K 2D 24 fps rendering too. Rendering power is probably even easier today.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #210 of 234 Old 07-31-2015, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
But the Hobbit films were 48 fps and 3D. So the rendering time in that case (all else being equal) could have been around the same as 4K 24 fps (if it was 4x a 24 fps 2D 2K film). So if they rendered in 48 fps 2K 3D back then, they should also have had the resources back then for 4K 2D 24 fps rendering too. Rendering power is probably even easier today.
I think the "resource" that applies is money. I'm sure they had to make a choice, and HFR was the one they made.
John Schuermann likes this.
Cam Man is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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