Could this be it? Folded Space Enhanced Resolution - Page 7 - AVS | 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: 
 24Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #181 of 189 Old 05-18-2015, 04:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 311
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 189 Old 05-18-2015, 06:48 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 62
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 online now  
post #183 of 189 Old 05-18-2015, 11:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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 189 Old 05-19-2015, 04:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 311
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 189 Old 05-19-2015, 05:59 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 62
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 online now  
post #186 of 189 Old 05-19-2015, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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 189 Old Yesterday, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Liked: 397
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 online now  
post #188 of 189 Old Yesterday, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 93
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 online now  
post #189 of 189 Unread Today, 01:13 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 10,179
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1663 Post(s)
Liked: 869
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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat



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