Who Wants More Resolution & Color with John Schuermann & Shawn Kelly - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 39 Old 02-06-2014, 11:57 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 707

John Schuermann, a consultant to Panamorph and active AVS member, returns to the show, joined by Panamorph founder and CEO Shawn Kelly to talk about two new technologies invented by Shawn and under development by the company. Multi-Format Encoding (MFE) encodes an anamorphic image on Blu-ray and future physical media using the entire available vertical resolution, allowing full-resolution reproduction of widescreen movies on 2.4:1 displays as well as letterboxed images on 16:9 displays. Deep Color Encoding (DCE) delivers the equivalent of 12-bit color on an 8-bit Blu-ray as well as an expanded color gamut, and the full 12-bit data can be recovered for future displays. A very geeky episode!

 


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 39 Old 02-07-2014, 01:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
interesting stuff.

I've a couple questions:

How are studios responding to the idea of supplying the original archived masters to panamorph for the multi format encoding, so the extra resolution is there (and potentially gamut and bit depth). I understand that once UHD is finalized, there'll be a push to master new content for consumer distribution with this extra information, but I'm interested in current archives.


Regarding deep color encoding, there was one point that didn't seem to get fully clarified:

My understanding of the process is as follows:

original 12 bit image gets encoded as an 8 bit image, and the information in the dithering patterns of this encoded 8 bit image are used to decode the image into what is hopefully a perceptual match to the original 12 bit image.

Am I correct in assuming that one would still need a 12 bit display to gain the full benefit of this process?

(I can't see how one could eliminate banding with wide gamut gradients on an 8 bit display).

thanks again to everyone involved here - this is quality stuff!
spacediver is offline  
post #3 of 39 Old 02-07-2014, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacediver View Post


I've a couple questions:

How are studios responding to the idea of supplying the original archived masters to panamorph for the multi format encoding, so the extra resolution is there (and potentially gamut and bit depth). I understand that once UHD is finalized, there'll be a push to master new content for consumer distribution with this extra information, but I'm interested in current archives.

Regarding deep color encoding, there was one point that didn't seem to get fully clarified:

My understanding of the process is as follows:

original 12 bit image gets encoded as an 8 bit image, and the information in the dithering patterns of this encoded 8 bit image are used to decode the image into what is hopefully a perceptual match to the original 12 bit image.

Am I correct in assuming that one would still need a 12 bit display to gain the full benefit of this process?

(I can't see how one could eliminate banding with wide gamut gradients on an 8 bit display).

thanks again to everyone involved here - this is quality stuff!

Thanks for your comments! We agree that there is a lot to absorb in this episode. Scott is a great host; it's really wonderful to have a discussion like this with someone who understands a great deal about so many different facets of a/v technology smile.gif

To answer your first question, the studios are open to supplying masters for this type of encoding, but just like anything else, they want to see a clear business proposition. To make things easy for the studios, we are offering the encoding algorithms free of charge to studios and mastering houses. We would not be doing the encoding ourselves, we would just be licensing the encoder at no charge to the mastering houses to incorporate into their software / hardware suites.

This is a classic chicken and egg scenario, in that the studios want to know that there are displays / Blu-ray players capable of decoding the process, and the consumer electronics manufacturers want to know that Hollywood will be supplying the content. Fortunately for us, the Deep Color Encoding technology has caught the attention of both camps, and we are in substantial discussions with content providers and CE manufacturers. This is all evolving, but some major discussions will be taking place over the next couple of weeks. Our goal is to integrate both technologies so that high resolution UltraWide and deep color go hand in hand.

On to question number two. Yes, you will need a 10, 11, or 12 bit display to gain the full benefit of the DCE (Deep Color Encoding) process, and of course one that has built into it a DCE decoder. The goal is to keep backwards compatibility, so that a DCE encoded disc will play back on standard Blu-ray players and display properly on an 8 bit display. The challenge we are working on is making sure that any new color values (such as those from REC2020) will be decoded in such a way that we get a reasonable color representation on a REC709 display. As you point out, a color that exists in REC 2020 that does not exist in REC709 still needs to be represented in some way so that the image "makes sense" from a color point of view on a 709 display. This is what we are currently exploring, but of course it's difficult since the next generation color space has not been officially decided on yet.

To give an example of a source element we could work with: most modern films exist in the form of a DCI master (DCI stands for Digtial Cinema Initiative). This is what you see when you go to the movie theater. A typical DCI "print: is 10 or 12 bit and uses the P3 (DCI) color gamut. If it's a 4K, 2.40:1 "print," the resolution is 4096 x 1728. From this DCI master, we now have plenty of additional vertical resolution to create a 1920 x 1080 anamorphic master with high color bit depth. As you can see, depending on the film, masters already exist that have extra resolution and color bit depth that we could encode using our process onto a standard Blu-ray. (Of course, the player or display would need a decoder built into decode this information.)

Hope this all makes sense smile.gif
RLBURNSIDE likes 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 #4 of 39 Old 02-07-2014, 09:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Yep, this makes perfect sense. Very exciting stuff, and kudos to Panamorph for taking action smile.gif

When transforming a wider color gamut into Rec 709, I imagine the greens are the hardest, as the hue angle of a really saturated green primary is very different from the Rec 709 primary, given the same D65 point. But as you say, it's already done when going from P3 to Rec 709.

Really looking forward to seeing what emerges from this, and thanks for the very thorough reply!
spacediver is offline  
post #5 of 39 Old 02-07-2014, 12:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Exciting stuff, for sure. I noticed while watching that there was a *Requires Decode Device* caption on the bottom right of the screen from time to time.

I have a projector with an anamorphic lens, so I'm assuming from this caption that the V-stretch on my projector won't be enough to show the full 1920x1080 image that the MCE process delivers? Would this be working at a blu-ray player level? If so, would it be easy enough to implement a firmware update or would all those interested need to upgrade their blu ray player? Or would there be a small intermediary device somewhere in the chain that could decode this, as well as DCE?

If this goes through, zoomers may want to start saving up for a lens. wink.gif

blastermaster is offline  
post #6 of 39 Old 02-07-2014, 02:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post

Exciting stuff, for sure. I noticed while watching that there was a *Requires Decode Device* caption on the bottom right of the screen from time to time.

I have a projector with an anamorphic lens, so I'm assuming from this caption that the V-stretch on my projector won't be enough to show the full 1920x1080 image that the MCE process delivers? Would this be working at a blu-ray player level? If so, would it be easy enough to implement a firmware update or would all those interested need to upgrade their blu ray player? Or would there be a small intermediary device somewhere in the chain that could decode this, as well as DCE?

If this goes through, zoomers may want to start saving up for a lens. wink.gif

You are correct - V-stretch is a scaling function, where MFE offers a true 33% additional resolution in the vertical. There will need to be a decode device in the projector, the Blu-ray player, or in a separate decoder box. It's way too early to determine where that will end up.

Some players might be able to be upgraded via firmware, but most probably not.

You are also correct in thinking that zoom will not be able to take advantage of the additional resolution.

All of this depends upon adoption by the studios, obviously smile.gif

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 #7 of 39 Old 02-07-2014, 09:30 PM
Newbie
 
Bytec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That deep color encoding stuff looks a lot like HDCD audio format where least significant bits are used to signal extended dynamic range...
Bytec is offline  
post #8 of 39 Old 02-08-2014, 08:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Terrific article. I'm also curious about strategies for playback / realtime conversion of different colour spaces into rec.709 for backward compatibility.

I need to do some more reading up on Rec.2020 and Rec.709, because if all you do is increase each colour channel from 8 bits to 12, increasing the steps from 256 to 4096, then why does the green expand out so rapidly, and the others don't. I guess that's because the human visual system is more sensitive to green? If so, why not put 12 bits per channel in green and keep red and blue at ten bits each, keeping the total at 32? I guess I learned something from this video, in that if Blurays are encoded with 8 bits per colour component, and there's no alpha, then it's 24 bits total. Increasing it to 32 without needing alpha would mean 12 bits could go to green and ten to the other two. I know there are some texture formats in 3D graphics programming on GPUs that so support exactly that, and probably for that reason (is the human eye capable or discerning more steps of green? or are there simply more steps there to begin with).

My knowledge of colour spaces really needs some work. If green is indeed so prevalent, it seems silly to use the same number of bits per channel, sort of like Huffman coding where you encode different bit counts depending on the frequency. Like "e" in the english language would use less bits than "z", due to its greater prevalence in words. In this case, "e" would be akin to red, since fewer steps would be needed. I'm probably totally off the ball here.

Anyway, I love the idea of granting the industry free licenses for MFE, that would really make the case for anamorphic lenses.

I'm also curious if MFE could be used for 2.20 : 1 films or other aspect ratios, or does the algorithm only work when translating 3 -> 4 or 4 -> 3 "magic" numbers.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #9 of 39 Old 02-08-2014, 11:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post


I need to do some more reading up on Rec.2020 and Rec.709, because if all you do is increase each colour channel from 8 bits to 12, increasing the steps from 256 to 4096, then why does the green expand out so rapidly, and the others don't. I guess that's because the human visual system is more sensitive to green?

The green doesn't expand out just by changing from 8 to 12 bits. It expands out if you increase the size of your color gamut.

It just so happens that the red and blue primaries chosen for SD and HD were much more saturated than their respective green primaries. Interestingly, back in the NTSC days, the green primary was more saturated than it is in HD (in fact it was as saturated as Adobe RGB is).

So, if anything, one could argue that green has been chronically undersaturated, and we are finally on the threshold of restoring balance.

You do touch upon an interesting point, however.

Take a look at the colors associated with different wavelengths in the visible spectrum:

spectrum.jpg

You can see that green and blue take up quite a bit less of the spectrum than does red.

Yet when we look at the plot of the spectral locus in the CIE xy color space, we see something interesting:

CIE1931xy_blank.svg

Notice how when you go from 600 nm to 620 nm, there is only a change of about 0.05 in y. However, when you look at the change between 480 nm and 500 nm, there's a difference of about 0.4 in y.

This is what accounts for the fact that green appears to occupy more real estate.

However, it's important to remember that the CIE xy color space is a very abstract space to begin with. It's a projection of the three dimensional XYZ color space, and the X Y Z primaries are themselves transformed from a set of real R G B primaries used in color matching experiments back in the early parts of last century.

Now despite the abstraction involved in the CIE xy plot, there may be some deep perceptual significance behind the asymmetries. My best guess is that it reflects the fact that we experience rather sudden perceptual changes in color at certain wavelength transitions. For example, when you go from 480 nm to 500 nm (look at the first image), notice how there's a sudden change from blue to green. Yet, when you go from 600 to 620, you're still within the reddish region. Accordingly, in a color space whose axes reflect changes in hue, you're gonna accelerate pretty fast along the spectral locus as you traverse the 480-500 nm wavelength transition. You can probably trace these sharp transitions back to the cone fundamentals, by considering how the cone responses differ between those wavelength transitions, and then taking into account color opponent mechanisms.

Now it's important not to conflate the issue of color change as a function of wavelength with the issue of perceptual resolution. Just because going from 480 to 500 nm results in a sudden change in color doesn't mean we can't see a huge number of gradations between those colors. It just means that we might have to quantize the wavelength that much more finely compared to when we go from 600 to 620 nm.

As for the question of whether we need more bits to encode a particular color channel, it is instructive to look at a more perceptually uniform color space, such as CIE LUV, where physical distance within the color space more closely matches perceptual distance:

292y2wy.png


The CIE LUV color space suggests that to get from white to fully saturated blue actually requires a taller perceptual "ladder" than red or green. That is, you would need to encode more individual steps to represent all the visible gradations from white to blue.


As for exploiting this perceptual asymmetry by more efficiently assigning bits to different color channels, I'm not in a position to comment. I can see how the scheme might work if you're encoding in RGB space, but I'm not sure how that would translate into other encoded spaces.

btw, Craig Blackwell has an excellent four nine! part series on youtube that's a good starting point for those interested in colorimetry and color vision. Here's Part 1.
mtbdudex likes this.
spacediver is offline  
post #10 of 39 Old 02-09-2014, 10:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Thanks, I love coming to this website and learning new stuff!
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #11 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 11:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
How much more space would a MFE take up vs. a non MFE movie?
img eL is offline  
post #12 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post

How much more space would a MFE take up vs. a non MFE movie?

Our estimate is 10 - 15%.

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 #13 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 03:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Even 15% extra storage for 33% increase in vertical resolution is a good deal, especially to avoid scaling artifacts on top of that. Also, even if anamorphic or DCE 1080p Bluray discs never materialize, if they keep MCE for UHD that could further inventivize the adoption of that resolution.

I wonder, John, can you tell us if that's a possibility? Or do they want to keep the 1080p bandwagon going. Most people don't need / can't use MCE anyway, so if you're going to target the high end with a new disc encoding, then might as well do it for UHD only. That would be the savvy / "evil" capitalist move here (one which I would probably do).

I mean, sure, switch even 1080p production to MCE-compatible discs due to backwards compatibility with current players and displays, but the real value added if for UHD, which can easily cut the rez in half and output towards 1080p displays with or without higher bit depth support.


Q) Does HDMI handshake tell the upstream electronics what bit depth signal it can interpret? Or is the current HDMI spec just always 8 bits per channel and that's that.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #14 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Is MFE only for 2.39.1?
img eL is offline  
post #15 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 07:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Looks like it's for 2.37 : 1 (1920 x (1080 x 3/4) in the vertical = 1920 x 810 ~ 2.37 : 1)

Their algorithm appears to only work at 3/4 and 4/3 magic number integral ratios, which is a good middle ground between 2.35 and 2.4 anyway.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #16 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 07:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
btw a question came up during the episode about how 1920x1080 came about. It's an interesting story, and has to do with political compromises involving Japan, North America, and Europe, the need for square sampled pixels, and the idea that it should be the geometric mean of 4:3 and 2.4:1.

Here's a reference that should be relevant. I haven't yet read it as I'm not an SMPTE member. It should be available in hard copy in most university libraries though.
spacediver is offline  
post #17 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 07:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,332
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Nice. Bluray should have been anamorphic to begin with. Will this require new players and displays?

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #18 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Thanks to Panamorph (Shawn and John) and Scott for sharing this. Very exciting times are ahead.
John Schuermann likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #19 of 39 Old 02-10-2014, 08:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

Looks like it's for 2.37 : 1 (1920 x (1080 x 3/4) in the vertical = 1920 x 810 ~ 2.37 : 1)

Their algorithm appears to only work at 3/4 and 4/3 magic number integral ratios, which is a good middle ground between 2.35 and 2.4 anyway.

The actual ratio will be 2.37:1

1080 x 1.33 = 1440
1080 x 1.78 = 1920
1080 x 2.37 = 2560

2160 x 1.33 = 2880
2160 x 1.78 = 3840
2160 x 2.37 = 5120

D-Cinema uses 2048 and the D-Cinema ISCO A-Lens is 1.25x. 2048 x 1.25 = 2560 and 2560 / 1080 = 2.37.
Right now, Scope ARs on video vary between 2.35 and 2.40. On a '21:9" video display, a 2.40:1 AR exhibits slivers of black top and bottom. I personally would like to see these films trimmed back to 2.37 so that the entire 1080 (2160 for 4K stuff) vertical rez is used.

This has been done on 1.85:1 films on BD and in the end who actually misses that 4%?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #20 of 39 Old 02-12-2014, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

Even 15% extra storage for 33% increase in vertical resolution is a good deal, especially to avoid scaling artifacts on top of that. Also, even if anamorphic or DCE 1080p Bluray discs never materialize, if they keep MCE for UHD that could further inventivize the adoption of that resolution.

I wonder, John, can you tell us if that's a possibility? Or do they want to keep the 1080p bandwagon going. Most people don't need / can't use MCE anyway, so if you're going to target the high end with a new disc encoding, then might as well do it for UHD only. That would be the savvy / "evil" capitalist move here (one which I would probably do).

I mean, sure, switch even 1080p production to MCE-compatible discs due to backwards compatibility with current players and displays, but the real value added if for UHD, which can easily cut the rez in half and output towards 1080p displays with or without higher bit depth support.


Q) Does HDMI handshake tell the upstream electronics what bit depth signal it can interpret? Or is the current HDMI spec just always 8 bits per channel and that's that.

Not all that familiar with HDMI protocols, so perhaps someone else here can answer that in more depth.

Shawn's technology works equally well with UHD as it does with HD. We have had interest on both sides of the equation. Things are moving fast in the industry with many different proposals as to how things "should" go. What we are focusing on is creating technologies that are agnostic to specific formats so the benefits are pretty much universal. The only real issue comes in with streaming technologies, which may or may not degrade the images (and therefore the processing) so much that the benefits get lost. But once again we are in a place where things are evolving at such a pace it is hard to make an accurate prediction.

I just want to point out that an MFE encoded 1080P disc will deliver visible benefits to anyone with a 4K / UHD display, even if it is only 16:9. There will still be an additional 33% vertical resolution for 2.40:1 / UltraWide content that can then be upscaled.

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 #21 of 39 Old 02-12-2014, 03:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post

Is MFE only for 2.39.1?

No, it will work with any UltraWide aspect ratio, with the *maximum* potential increase of resolution being 33% (which gets you to 2.37:1, as pointed out). So, a 2.40:1 movie will still get a 33% increase of resolution but part of that resolution will be wasted on very slight black bars remaining even after we apply the process (an end result might be an effective increase in vertical resolution of 32%). A movie like "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" has an aspect ratio of 2.76:1, which on Blu-ray means a resolution of 1920 x 738. MFE will benefit this movie by 33%, but 33% greater than 738 - which gains you an anamorphic vertical resolution of 982 lines (1920 x 982).

Make sense? There will be a 33% increase, but whether or not you get to 1920 x 1080 depends on the aspect ratio of the film in question.

2.40:1 motion picture - 1920 x 800 - MFE boost to 1920 x 1064
2.37:1 motion picture - 1920 x 810 - MFE boost to 1920 x 1080
2.76:1 motion picture - 1920 x 738 - MFE boost to 1920 x 982

Hope this helps smile.gif

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 #22 of 39 Old 02-12-2014, 03:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacediver View Post

btw a question came up during the episode about how 1920x1080 came about. It's an interesting story, and has to do with political compromises involving Japan, North America, and Europe, the need for square sampled pixels, and the idea that it should be the geometric mean of 4:3 and 2.4:1.

Here's a reference that should be relevant. I haven't yet read it as I'm not an SMPTE member. It should be available in hard copy in most university libraries though.

Most explanations of 16:9 have dealt with the "equal pain" theory (which I planned to bring up on the show, but did not have the opportunity). Up until the advent of 16:9, most material likely to be viewed was either 4:3 or 2.40:1. Use of 16:9 (1.78.1) splits the difference, with both 4:3 and 2.40:1 requiring roughly the same amount of "black bar space" to be displayed properly. Therefore, both formats suffer equal compromises - or equal pain, depending on how you look at it smile.gif

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 #23 of 39 Old 02-12-2014, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Nice. Bluray should have been anamorphic to begin with. Will this require new players and displays?

Blu-ray did not include anamorphic as part of the format since there was no path to 21:9 / 2.40:1 home displays on the horizon when the standard was formalized. We who have anamorphic lenses would have been the only ones able to take advantage of it, and unfortunately, we are only a small minority of consumers. However, 21:9 displays ARE currently being marketed (or soon will be) and this may change.

That said, an anamorphically enhanced 1080P Blu-ray will have visible benefit when upscaled to 4K on a UHD display since there is 33% greater vertical resolution available on the disc. There will still be black letterbox bars, but there would be a definite 33% increase in vertical resolution in the picture content displayed within the bars. All that is needed is a scaling mode on the 4K display that knows what to do with anamorphic video.

Some Blu-ray players could probably be upgraded via firmware, but most likely both processes will require you to purchase a new Blu-ray player. Anyone with a projector and anamorphic lens would be able to instantly benefit from such a player, those with 4K or 21:9 displays would need proper scaling within their display that could make sense of the anamorphic 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 #24 of 39 Old 02-14-2014, 11:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Most explanations of 16:9 have dealt with the "equal pain" theory (which I planned to bring up on the show, but did not have the opportunity). Up until the advent of 16:9, most material likely to be viewed was either 4:3 or 2.40:1. Use of 16:9 (1.78.1) splits the difference, with both 4:3 and 2.40:1 requiring roughly the same amount of "black bar space" to be displayed properly. Therefore, both formats suffer equal compromises - or equal pain, depending on how you look at it smile.gif

Interesting, I was wondering why they chose the geometric mean - now it makes sense.
spacediver is offline  
post #25 of 39 Old 03-18-2014, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Scott_R_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rockwood,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I hope Companies like OPPO are listening / watching these events unfold .
They're usually pretty prompt in releasing new Technology in their Products . Like the Darbee !
Fingers crossed .
Scott...............smile.gif

"Home Theatre is a Journey , not a Destination "
Scott_R_K is offline  
post #26 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 10:35 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
One way to make anamorphic more appealing to the movie industry is to include a feature for the masses with 16:9 displays: Pan & Scan of 2:40:1 movies to "get rid of the bars".

I personally do not like it, but apparently a lot of people still complain about the black bars when watching 'scope movies on their HDTVs. Adding support for anamorphic 1080p (and 2160p) with a 64:27 aspect ratio would allow to implement a user choice of "Letterboxed" or "Pan & Scan" in the Blu-ray player, similar to how anamorphic DVDs are treated with 4:3 screens.

A Blu-ray player could then simply offer three HD output "modes":
  • 16:9 Letterboxed / Full
  • 16:9 Pan & Scan
  • 21:9 Full (Since "21:9" is now the accepted term for 4:3 to the third power)
In addition to the SD output modes already in place:
  • 4:3 Letterboxed
  • 4:3 Pan & Scan
And instead of the only current HD option:
  • 16:9 Full

This would allow authoring facilities to define the center spot on the 2.40:1 frame, so that the 16:9 crop can travel left and right to preserve essential parts of the full frame. Any current "zoom" option of Blu-ray players is fixed to the center of the frame, and crops equal amounts on the left and right without regard to the picture content.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #27 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 04:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

One way to make anamorphic more appealing to the movie industry is to include a feature for the masses with 16:9 displays: Pan & Scan of 2:40:1 movies to "get rid of the bars".

I personally do not like it, but apparently a lot of people still complain about the black bars when watching 'scope movies on their HDTVs. Adding support for anamorphic 1080p (and 2160p) with a 64:27 aspect ratio would allow to implement a user choice of "Letterboxed" or "Pan & Scan" in the Blu-ray player, similar to how anamorphic DVDs are treated with 4:3 screens.

A Blu-ray player could then simply offer three HD output "modes":
  • 16:9 Letterboxed / Full
  • 16:9 Pan & Scan
  • 21:9 Full (Since "21:9" is now the accepted term for 4:3 to the third power)
In addition to the SD output modes already in place:
  • 4:3 Letterboxed
  • 4:3 Pan & Scan
And instead of the only current HD option:
  • 16:9 Full

This would allow authoring facilities to define the center spot on the 2.40:1 frame, so that the 16:9 crop can travel left and right to preserve essential parts of the full frame. Any current "zoom" option of Blu-ray players is fixed to the center of the frame, and crops equal amounts on the left and right without regard to the picture content.

Actually, we had exactly what you are proposing as a major part of the original MFE pitch to the studios. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it) the studio response was negative. They want to keep Blu-ray as the most accurate and highest fidelity delivery media when it comes to delivering the artistic intent of the filmmakers, and building in "pan and scan" goes directly against that philosophy.

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 #28 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 04:37 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Actually, we actually had exactly what you are proposing as a major part of the original MFE pitch to the studios. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it) the studio response was negative. They want to keep Blu-ray as the most accurate and highest fidelity delivery media when it comes to delivering the artistic intent of the filmmakers, and building in "pan and scan" goes directly against that philosophy.

That sort of integrity is good, I suppose. As long as that desire extends to a commitment of delivering movies with 1067 instead of 800 lines of picture content on Blu-ray.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #29 of 39 Old 03-28-2014, 12:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bytec View Post

That deep color encoding stuff looks a lot like HDCD audio format where least significant bits are used to signal extended dynamic range...
If normal 8 bits per colour channel colour isn't enough (really less if you consider it 16-235. Actually does MFE make use of values below 16 or >235 to store extra info even though that may contain picture info, but which may not be shown if a TV is properly calibrated) if they use the least significant bits to encode other data (for extended colour ranges for players that can decode it), or encode it some other way in the dithering pattern, couldn't that mean that, for players that don't decode the extra information, the encoding could be/look worse than a Blu-ray encoded normally - since some of the bits are being used for other purposes and the dithering pattern won't necessarily be the optimum dithering pattern to give the best/most accurate standard colour range (not extended colour) but will instead be a type of dithering which is more optimised for encoding other data - only decodable by stuff with MFE decoders?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #30 of 39 Old 03-31-2014, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

If normal 8 bits per colour channel colour isn't enough (really less if you consider it 16-235. Actually does MFE make use of values below 16 or >235 to store extra info even though that may contain picture info, but which may not be shown if a TV is properly calibrated) if they use the least significant bits to encode other data (for extended colour ranges for players that can decode it), or encode it some other way in the dithering pattern, couldn't that mean that, for players that don't decode the extra information, the encoding could be/look worse than a Blu-ray encoded normally - since some of the bits are being used for other purposes and the dithering pattern won't necessarily be the optimum dithering pattern to give the best/most accurate standard colour range (not extended colour) but will instead be a type of dithering which is more optimised for encoding other data - only decodable by stuff with MFE decoders?

The MFE/DCE process can use either the full 256 levels or limited levels of an 8-bit value, dependent upon the desired implementation by content producers and how they want to fit within standards. It does not need to use values above and below such limited levels for extra information. Obviously the more values that can be used by both the image and the extra information, the better the resultant image can become. But generally the approach is 1:1 – if the image is 16-235 for example, then that is the range we use for extra information.

Note that the use of a dithering pattern is just one tool in the tool box and we have evolved a number of alternative processes with which to communicate greater precision. Technically speaking, dithering of the LSB of an 8 bit image would be virtually invisible. However, in our currently leading implementation there is actually no dithering in the base 709 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  
Reply AVS Forum Podcasts

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