2K masters for bluray, is the extra information cropped off? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 Old 07-07-2011, 08:13 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PRO-630HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Assuming the master is 2K which I think is the majority for the basic aspect ratios we have

1.37:1 = 1332 x 1828 scaled to 1080 x 1482 for obvious reasons

1.85:1 = 1080 x 1998 (rescaled to 1038 x 1920?)

2.39:1 = 858 x 2048 (rescaled to 804 x 1920?)

For 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 is the extra info simply being cropped off or is it being rescaled? I know we would be losing a bit of picture info on the sides, but I would think using pixel for pixel info would create less problems and better picture than rescaling.
PRO-630HD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 Old 07-07-2011, 09:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post

For 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 is the extra info simply being cropped off or is it being rescaled? I know we would be losing a bit of picture info on the sides, but I would think using pixel for pixel info would create less problems and better picture than rescaling.

I've heard it claimed that some transfers do this, but I don't know how common it is.

This might explain why the Alien Blu-ray is visibly cropped on all four sides of the frame.

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #3 of 32 Old 07-07-2011, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
msgohan is offline  
post #4 of 32 Old 07-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Member
 
celboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
It depends on the scanner and how the optics are set. On Spirit scanners it depends on how your gate is. you can have a super 35 gate or an academy 35 gate. the 2k ccd's see's whatever the gate is. You can also get an optional (+expensive) electronic scaler which will do electronic blow-ups resizes so you still end up with a 2k file. Obviously you try and check the framing chart if they shot one so you see what they intended.

Since I work with Spirits, thats all I can comment on. But some machines could well scan 2k across full ap and 1828 across academy.
Marc Wielage likes this.
celboy is offline  
post #5 of 32 Old 07-08-2011, 08:54 PM
Member
 
AaronMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'm curious how neatly digital cinema resolutions translate to our 1920x1080 fixed pixel displays and media. When reading about "2k" they usually just specify 2,048 horizontal lines, leaving the vertical resolution out. While pixels used for the image vary for different aspect ratios on blu-ray, they usually say "1920x1080" regardless. (Or "1080p" when wider movies may actually be 817p.)

In digital cinema, post production, digital intermediates, etc, are anamorphic images common? Are anamorphic lenses common in digital filming and projection, or are they working with "fixed" pixels as well? If they do in fact use anamorphic lenses to squeeze out every pixel, it seems some scaling will be unavoidable for blu-ray, at least for wider films.

(I've read that the digital master for Terminator 2 is anamorphic.)
AaronMK is offline  
post #6 of 32 Old 07-08-2011, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Just my $0.02 worth. They would have to be re-sized. If the image in mapped 1:1 and the edges simply cropped, how does a letter boxed 2.40:1 image become 1920 x 800 if the original is 2048 x 853? To preserve the 2.40:1 AR, the height would also need to be reduced to fit the width.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #7 of 32 Old 07-08-2011, 09:22 PM
Member
 
celboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post

In digital cinema, post production, digital intermediates, etc, are anamorphic images common?

Anamorphic is definitely less common due to the availability of good anamorphic lenses. Anamorphic photography also requires more light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post

Are anamorphic lenses common in digital filming and projection, or are they working with "fixed" pixels as well?

????
pixels are pretty much fixed regardless of the lenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post

(I've read that the digital master for Terminator 2 is anamorphic.)

Since T2 was shot flat, I would think it was rendered flat and optically printed scope.
celboy is offline  
post #8 of 32 Old 07-08-2011, 10:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by celboy View Post

????
pixels are pretty much fixed regardless of the lenses.

It won't upload, but I have an image of a (1K?) D-Cinema projector with two anamorphic lenses. If the projector was 1024 x 768 (12:9), then I guess they would be 1.33x and 1.78x for both 16:9 and 21:9.

ISCO made 1.25x lenses for 2K projectors (2048 x 1080) but AFAIK they aren't being used in D-Cinema projection. The 2K Christie I watched Transformers 3 on (in 3D) did not use an A-Lens. The REAL D 3D shutter panel was mounted on a sled that allowed it to move in and out of the light path, but there was no sign of an Anamorphic Lens in this cinema.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #9 of 32 Old 07-08-2011, 10:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CoreyM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post

I'm curious how neatly digital cinema resolutions translate to our 1920x1080 fixed pixel displays and media. When reading about "2k" they usually just specify 2,048 horizontal lines, leaving the vertical resolution out. While pixels used for the image vary for different aspect ratios on blu-ray, they usually say "1920x1080" regardless. (Or "1080p" when wider movies may actually be 817p.)

In digital cinema, post production, digital intermediates, etc, are anamorphic images common? Are anamorphic lenses common in digital filming and projection, or are they working with "fixed" pixels as well? If they do in fact use anamorphic lenses to squeeze out every pixel, it seems some scaling will be unavoidable for blu-ray, at least for wider films.

(I've read that the digital master for Terminator 2 is anamorphic.)

When I worked for a big CG shop (mid-2000's) digital dailies were done with an anamorphic 3-chip DLP projector but nothing went final until it was shot on film at least once. At the time this was a big deal though because the tech was finally there that they could do what we called "digital film outs" with the anamorphic and a custom LUT that got us very close to film which saved tons of money (less stressful on the staff too since the deadlines for film by morning did not apply).

That was ages ago in terms of how rapidly technology has evolved since then and I haven't really kept up since I left.
CoreyM is offline  
post #10 of 32 Old 07-08-2011, 11:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,004
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyM View Post

When I worked for a big CG shop (mid-2000's) digital dailies were done with an anamorphic 3-chip DLP projector but nothing went final until it was shot on film at least once. At the time this was a big deal though because the tech was finally there that they could do what we called "digital film outs" with the anamorphic and a custom LUT that got us very close to film which saved tons of money (less stressful on the staff too since the deadlines for film by morning did not apply).

That was ages ago in terms of how rapidly technology has evolved since then and I haven't really kept up since I left.

Joe Kane wrote a piece a year or two ago about how dropping pixels from a 2k image to put it in 1080p resulted in a far better image than downscaling use any scaler available at the time.

____________________

Build Thread:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
nathan_h is offline  
post #11 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 12:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

It is.

So it can't be 1:1 then?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #12 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's an example I made awhile ago of how much is cropped out of a 2k 2.35:1 frame to get to 1080p:

Kram Sacul is offline  
post #13 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 11:31 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul
Here's an example I made awhile ago of how much is cropped out of a 2k 2.35:1 frame to get to 1080p:
interesting, wonder why they dont just change the ratio
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #14 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 12:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This raises a question in my mind.

For example, was Star Trek (2009) cropped for the blu-ray or was it resized?

That question goes for just about every new release Hollywood movie of the past several years, since most of them have been complete DI's, either 2K or 4K.
Fang Zei is offline  
post #15 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 01:53 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes

I was able to see a comparison for a couple of films from last year. The Blu-rays were cropped compared to the 2k cinema version. Can't speak for all films but I wouldn't be surprised if its a standard procedure.

Of course it is. That's the whole reason for cropping it. Its just like masking the edges of the frame.
Can't you squeeze the image like an anamorphic image scan the whole thing and then unsqueeze it?
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #16 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 06:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

I was able to see a comparison for a couple of films from last year. The Blu-rays were cropped compared to the 2k cinema version. Can't speak for all films but I wouldn't be surprised if its a standard procedure.

And looking at the image of the re-frame, it makes perfect sense and still allows 1:1. As for that extra clipped bit, how many cinemas would actually have their projector framed to full show the bit outside the BD frame anyway?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #17 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 06:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Can't you squeeze the image like an anamorphic image scan the whole thing and then unsqueeze it?

Whilst I would love to see true anamorphic titles, I don't think it would work at 2K without introducing a heap of artifacts. Maybe if the scans are 3K or more.

I found "wall paper" images that were 2560 x 1600, cropped them down to 2560 x 1080, H-Squeezed them to be 1920 x 1080 (anamorphic) and then displayed them 1:1 expanding them through my 1.33x A-Lens. Some looked great, others revealed some jaggies. Expanding electrically looked bad in every case.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #18 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 09:15 PM
Member
 
celboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The 2K Christie I watched Transformers 3 on (in 3D) did not use an A-Lens.

I believe Anamorphic lenses for the most part are no longer used in d-cinema projection. DCI compliance requires flat images. But you can get anamorphics for special presentations--but I guess thats rare. I think digital anamorphics was deemed too expensive (to be added to the projector price).

I did see Bladerunner projected anamorphically in NYC and it was one of the best presentations I've ever seen.
celboy is offline  
post #19 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 09:54 PM
Member
 
celboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

For example, was Star Trek (2009) cropped for the blu-ray or was it resized?

That question goes for just about every new release Hollywood movie of the past several years, since most of them have been complete DI's, either 2K or 4K.

I am confused on some of the comments I am seeing here.Can someone enlighten me.or cite a specific title that was "cropped"?

Most major motion pictures are resized down to hd resolution for blu-ray.If anything is cropped, it was intended to be. Star Trek 2009 was shot scope and I see a 2.40 movie on blu-ray.

I believe I usually see more on blu-ray than in theatres because so many cinemas projection practices are horrible throughout the industry.
celboy is offline  
post #20 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 10:18 PM
Member
 
AaronMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

As for that extra clipped bit, how many cinemas would actually have their projector framed to full show the bit outside the BD frame anyway?

Yea, that is why the picture does not bother me. It looks like the BD has everything that would be in the "safe area", and on current displays, overscan is really a non-issue.
AaronMK is offline  
post #21 of 32 Old 07-09-2011, 10:56 PM
Member
 
AaronMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I found "wall paper" images that were 2560 x 1600, cropped them down to 2560 x 1080, H-Squeezed them to be 1920 x 1080 (anamorphic) and then displayed them 1:1 expanding them through my 1.33x A-Lens. Some looked great, others revealed some jaggies. Expanding electrically looked bad in every case.

Is it possible that the jaggies were caused from the H-Squeeze, and not using an anamorphic lens on digital image (as opposed to film)?

I was wondering why, if anamorphic lenses worked for film (light issues and all), they would not provide the same advantages when sending light into an image sensor and out from a DLP. I take it from this experiment and posts, the bigger issue is scaling artifacts, even if uniform, that would be required between formats.

After the scaling artifacts (even with a good scaler) from anamorphic DVDs had me racing to the service mode on my 4:3 TV back in the day, I would not doubt this.
AaronMK is offline  
post #22 of 32 Old 07-10-2011, 12:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by celboy View Post

I believe Anamorphic lenses for the most part are no longer used in d-cinema projection. DCI compliance requires flat images. But you can get anamorphics for special presentations--but I guess thats rare. I think digital anamorphics was deemed too expensive (to be added to the projector price).

I truly don't see the "cost" of an anamorphic lens being the real issue. The ISCO 1.25x lens is about $12K USD. When you consider the cost of the projector, the server and all the other hardware needed to make it run, the said $12k is but a ripple in the finance pond.

Quote:


I did see Bladerunner projected anamorphically in NYC and it was one of the best presentations I've ever seen.

I bet. Running that film on my system looks pretty amazing and I only have it in BD, so one can only imagine the extra detail and colour from the DCI source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post

Yea, that is why the picture does not bother me. It looks like the BD has everything that would be in the "safe area", and on current displays, overscan is really a non-issue.

Exactly. How much "story telling" information would be stored in the (approx) 53 pixels vertically and 128 horizontally?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post

Is it possible that the jaggies were caused from the H-Squeeze, and not using an anamorphic lens on digital image (as opposed to film)?

Yeah, I would guess the jaggies came as a result of scaling it back from 2560 to 1920.
Quote:


I was wondering why, if anamorphic lenses worked for film (light issues and all), they would not provide the same advantages when sending light into an image sensor and out from a DLP. I take it from this experiment and posts, the bigger issue is scaling artifacts, even if uniform, that would be required between formats.

Interesting points. I ran a few experiments with a HD video camera capturing images through my A-Lens. The results varied and I was able to capture some "true anamorphic video" which I use as a demo for CIH systems. When projected back through the A-Lens, the image looks great. The catch it seems is, that because an cylindrical A-Lens has adjustable astigmatism correction that you set for the projector's throw distance, that focus is out past that point from the camera. I'm sure a better camera would have given a better result, but then again, maybe that is why parts of films shot on film with an anamorphic lens are also way out of focus.

Because the image captured by the imaging chip was optically squeezed by the A-Lens, there was no scaling artifacts. The 1920 x 1080 chip does not know if light is being bent out of shape or not. On playback, the reverse happened where the light projected was simply expanded to restore the geometry. Also because the SAME lens was used or both capture and projection, any "anamorphic mumps" issues are not present either. Even though this lens is corrected for grid distortion, you would (and I've seen this in some BDs where the film was originally captured with an A-Lens) see such an artifact on a lens that was not corrected or had a different optical expansion rate from the 1.33x of my lens.

Also because the projected image was a native 1920 x 1080 pixel, the image is dense. It has a feel to it that scaled BDs don't.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #23 of 32 Old 07-11-2011, 08:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by celboy View Post

I am confused on some of the comments I am seeing here.Can someone enlighten me.or cite a specific title that was "cropped"?

Most major motion pictures are resized down to hd resolution for blu-ray.If anything is cropped, it was intended to be. Star Trek 2009 was shot scope and I see a 2.40 movie on blu-ray.

The recent Blu-ray of Alien is cropped in comparison to earlier video transfers. It still maintains a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, but is missing picture information on all four sides, more on the left and right than on the top or bottom. It has been speculated that this was a case of a 2k scan being cropped to maintain 1:1 pixel mapping. The amount of picture missing appears to be consistent with the example that Kram Sacul posted above.

DVDBeaver has screen shots here:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare2/alien.htm

The first comparison (cryo-chambers opening) is the clearest.

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #24 of 32 Old 07-11-2011, 10:08 AM
Member
 
celboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks Josh,
I didn't realize that was being practiced for features.Its interesting this is happening since many of these features are anamorphic. So non-square images in square pixels are getting re-sampled to square square pixels anyway.
celboy is offline  
post #25 of 32 Old 08-14-2014, 11:59 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Why not keep the vertical resolution of the master? Why hard matte 1080 to 1040 (only some titles) and 858 to 816/810/800? If the original framing is already lost, might as well change the ratio.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #26 of 32 Old 08-14-2014, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Phantom Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Between the known and the unknown...
Posts: 3,107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Why not keep the vertical resolution of the master? Why hard matte 1080 to 1040 (only some titles) and 858 to 816/810/800? If the original framing is already lost, might as well change the ratio.
I think that is done in some cases, it depends on the people supervising the transfer.
Marc Wielage likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(last update: July 30, 2014)


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



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Phantom Stranger is offline  
post #27 of 32 Old 08-21-2014, 10:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thebarnman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scottsdale AZ
Posts: 3,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post
Here's an example I made awhile ago of how much is cropped out of a 2k 2.35:1 frame to get to 1080p:


This is disappointing, really disappointing. There's lots of info cut off all away around!


Overscan is controllable on my set so when I watch a movie on Blu-ray, I set it to "Dot-to-Dot" thinking I'm getting the complete image originally captured for theatrical presentation. So what is it that a transfer house have to do to make sure where're getting the complete image? Is scanning at 2k the problem? If so, is scanning at 4, 6 or 8k the answer?

There's talk about scaling the image. Till now, I thought scaling the image was a way to fit a 2k (2048×1556) scan onto Blu-ray's resolution (1920×1080 pixels) so it would look correct (not cutting off any image area along with keeping the correct ratio even though the overall image would be a tiny bit smaller) on Blu-ray.


So as implied by the above post, if scans are being "cropped" to fit the resolution of a video format, then I would think a DVD would look horribly wrong. For example, DVD's resolution is 720x480. So does that mean even more significant image area is "cropped" to fit onto DVD?

Movies must be OAR, sports and movies must also have 5.1 audio, No EE or NO SALE!
Thebarnman is offline  
post #28 of 32 Old 08-22-2014, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,004
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Losing 60 pixels off each side to avoid scaling and softening (losing resolution) across the whole image has been the higher fidelity choice to date.

Some industry people are saying that scaling is good enough with the current gen that that is no longer necessary.
nathan_h is offline  
post #29 of 32 Old 08-25-2014, 10:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Going back to the example of Alien, what doesn't make sense is that the Blu-ray came from a new 4k scan, not 2k. It had to be scaled anyway. Why crop it?

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #30 of 32 Old 08-25-2014, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,004
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Going back to the example of Alien, what doesn't make sense is that the Blu-ray came from a new 4k scan, not 2k. It had to be scaled anyway. Why crop it?
We know that sometimes the crop of a HD image is because of the desire to not scale from 2k down to 1080p.

But just because something is cropped when delivered as HD doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a choice to not scale. It might just be someone's interpretation of the "safe area" or intended projection.

(Then again, it might be because scaling from 4k to 2k was easier or higher fidelity than 4k to 1.9k.)

____________________

Build Thread:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
nathan_h is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

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