or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Could this be it? Folded Space Enhanced Resolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could this be it? Folded Space Enhanced Resolution - Page 2

post #31 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

John, I guess I'm still confused as to whether the extra 691,200 pixels for 2560x1080 playback are actual genuine, unique picture detail, or interpolated from the 1920x1080 data.

Lets just stick with a true anamorphic title using 1920 x 1080. If I am understanding Folded Space correctly, the image masters will actually have real pixels and the technology removes the pixels for standard playback and creates the black bars that make it letterboxed. Either way, the image will not need scaling. It will be mapped 1:1 as either 1920 x 1080 anamorphic or it will be 1:1 as either 1920 x 1080 with a letterbox that could still be scaled on existing systems. You NEED the decoder to access the additional "real" pixels or scaling interpolates the image as we do now.
post #32 of 92
The most satisfying "aspect" of my Home Theater is that the movies are displayed in their original AR, just as in a premium public theater.

Assuming this development gets us still closer to the best home presentation vs. the original film elements, I am all for it! I'll be happy to upgrade both projector and player (and re-buy all my 'scope favorites) to take advantage of this new technology.

I wish Folded Space the best of luck in convincing studios and mfrs to adopt their new encoding technology. Not an easy task I'll bet!
post #33 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Lets just stick with a true anamorphic title using 1920 x 1080. If I am understanding Folded Space correctly, the image masters will actually have real pixels and the technology removes the pixels for standard playback and creates the black bars that make it letterboxed. Either way, the image will not need scaling. It will be mapped 1:1 as either 1920 x 1080 anamorphic or it will be 1:1 as either 1920 x 1080 with a letterbox that could still be scaled on existing systems. You NEED the decoder to access the additional "real" pixels or scaling interpolates the image as we do now.

Can't have it both ways. If 1920x1080 is anamorphic, then that 1920x1080 is vertically stretched, out of proportion so the lens puts it back right at 2.37. It's going to have to be scaled to add black bars. So either that's another copy of the video that is not stretched and includes encoded bars, or something has to scale.
post #34 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

The MFE process is totally compatible with 4K resolutions and provides for anamorphic and 21:9 enhanced versions even out to 5120 x 2160.

Are you saying we could have true 4k content on a blu-ray, or just that it is compatible by interpolating/upscaling a 2K image? Would blu ray even be able to hold a full movie at 4k resolution, which would be 4x as many pixels per frame as 2K?
post #35 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garlon View Post

Are you saying we could have true 4k content on a blu-ray, or just that it is compatible by interpolating/upscaling a 2K image? Would blu ray even be able to hold a full movie at 4k resolution, which would be 4x as many pixels per frame as 2K?

He's just saying that MFE would work with 4K, he's not speaking to BD's ability to hold a 4K movie. But with the new generation of upcoming codecs and a bump in capacity, it's possible that BD could hold 4K. Of course the spec would have to be amended, and you may or may not have to buy a new player.
post #36 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Can't have it both ways. If 1920x1080 is anamorphic, then that 1920x1080 is vertically stretched, out of proportion so the lens puts it back right at 2.37. It's going to have to be scaled to add black bars. So either that's another copy of the video that is not stretched and includes encoded bars, or something has to scale.

Sorry for the confusion. When I mentioned 1920 x 1080 for the letter boxed BD, I said this based on the fact that those black bars are actually part of the encoded picture. It could actually be a 3 way road.

If 1920 x 1080 = full HDTV rez, then the format after decoding would allow:
  1. a side cropped version of the film (yuk and of no interest to us)
  2. a letterboxed version (current BD which requires scaling to work)
  3. a true anamorphic version using all 1920 x 1080 pixels (bring this on!)
  4. 2560 x 1080 (beyond HDTV specs and no use unless we go 21:9).
Given we are using an A-Lens, we'd only be concerned with #3.
post #37 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Sorry for the confusion. When I mentioned 1920 x 1080 for the letter boxed BD, I said this based on the fact that those black bars are actually part of the encoded picture. It could actually be a 3 way road.

If 1920 x 1080 = full HDTV rez, then the format after decoding would allow:
  1. a side cropped version of the film (yuk and of no interest to us)
  2. a letterboxed version (current BD which requires scaling to work)
  3. a true anamorphic version using all 1920 x 1080 pixels (bring this on!)
  4. 2560 x 1080 (beyond HDTV specs and no use unless we go 21:9).
Given we are using an A-Lens, we'd only be concerned with #3.

[*]2560 x 1080 (beyond HDTV specs and no use unless we go 21:9).

Maybe of value with a 4K projector
post #38 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

[*]2560 x 1080 (beyond HDTV specs and no use unless we go 21:9).

Maybe of value with a 4K projector

Having seen 4K, yes it is impressive, but I just don't see it coming home when 1080P BD still has so much room to grow in the consumer market. What Folded Space wants to do makes sense. I just hope the studios and the BDA back this.
post #39 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Sorry for the confusion. When I mentioned 1920 x 1080 for the letter boxed BD, I said this based on the fact that those black bars are actually part of the encoded picture. It could actually be a 3 way road.

If 1920 x 1080 = full HDTV rez, then the format after decoding would allow:
  1. a side cropped version of the film (yuk and of no interest to us)
  2. a letterboxed version (current BD which requires scaling to work)
  3. a true anamorphic version using all 1920 x 1080 pixels (bring this on!)
  4. 2560 x 1080 (beyond HDTV specs and no use unless we go 21:9).
Given we are using an A-Lens, we'd only be concerned with #3.

After reading further, it seems that the letterboxed version of the movie (the same version that is currently stored on BD) would have to be the "base" version that can simply be passed from the player after decoding, since this is backwards compatible with current BD players.

To me it seems that the other three versions - the P&S, the anamorphic, and the wide versions would all have to be processed from the letterbox version. I'm guessing that the extra data in the black bars is used to enhance or "bolster" the anamorphic version that results from vertically scaling the original letterbox version. Perhaps there's other data that's used to further enhance the interpolated image when scaling to 2560x1080.

Of course, maybe they're cleverly able to store more than one "per-pixel" version of the film (i.e., letterbox and anamorphic) that requires no extra processing to produce. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
post #40 of 92
"decoding algorithms to play MFE content in three additional resolution modes with no black letterbox bars. These formats include anamorphic 1920 x 1080 for anamorphic projections systems; enhanced 2560 x 1080 for emergent, higher resolution 21:9 displays; and a "full screen" mode where full HD resolution content is modified to fit standard 16:9 HDTVs."

Looks to me that the winner here are those with 1.78 aspect ratio screens and that this technology will decrease the number of people wanting to go to 2.35. It eliminates one of the reasons to go 2.35, because there will not be any black bars on their 1.78 screens when watching a scope movie. We get to pick up the 30% of movies that are recorded in 1.78 (there about) aspect ratio and the 1.78 screen guys get to pick up the 70% of 2.35 movies with no black bars. In other words, everybody will have a constant area set up. You just choose if you want your setup to be 2.35 or 1.78. Since you will not be giving up any screen area, I think many people will decide against the extra expense of a lens.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Looks to me that the winner here are those with 1.78 aspect ratio screens and that this technology will decrease the number of people wanting to go to 2.35.

I don't think so as all it does is apply centre crop chopping off the sides of the films. The ONLY thing the 16:9 mode does is fill the screen of a 1.78:1 TV. It sacrifices OAR and some films will actually be unwatchable using this mode. SE7EN is but one example where it needs to be seen in its proper widescreen format just to make sense in some scenes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

It eliminates one of the reasons to go 2.35, because there will not be any black bars on their 1.78 screens when watching a scope movie.

And when an actor is framed at the edges of the Scope frame, they get chopped off. This is not a good feature and many will not use this once they work that out. How many people with 16:9 screens celebrated when their OPPOs did that weird centre crop zoom thing with ALIEN on BD? There were none! There were many complaints posted in the ALIEN threads about this chopping the ends off the picture though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

We get to pick up the 30% of movies that are recorded in 1.78 (there about) aspect ratio and the 1.78 screen guys get to pick up the 70% of 2.35 movies with no black bars. In other words, everybody will have a constant area set up. You just choose if you want your setup to be 2.35 or 1.78. Since you will not be giving up any screen area, I think many people will decide against the extra expense of a lens.

Folded Space technology should be able to maximize all films - even 1.85:1. Right now there is slivers of black (only about 4%), but with FT, the image should be able to be presented at full 1080 and therefore be that bit wider than 1.78:1. This probably only applies to the guys that leave their lens in the light path all the time, but it certainly has potential to do so. And yes, it would be able to centre crop those to fill HDTVs as well.
post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Can't have it both ways. If 1920x1080 is anamorphic, then that 1920x1080 is vertically stretched, out of proportion so the lens puts it back right at 2.37. It's going to have to be scaled to add black bars. So either that's another copy of the video that is not stretched and includes encoded bars, or something has to scale.

You're thinking of this too linearly. Right now, if you want to expand a 1920x810 image to anamorphic 1920x1080, you have to scale and interpolate the extra 1920x270 pixels. But what if the pixels that contain true picture detail for the middle of the movie image could be stored and hidden out of sequence behind the letterbox bars? The Folded Space decoder would both unhide the pixels and correctly map them to their proper positions in the middle of the picture. The pixels are just data, after all. They don't have to be stored in sequential order. It should be fairly trivial for a decoder to rearrange them into a predetermined order.

The "hiding" process could be as simple as blanking out the pixels when not in use.
post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I don't think so as all it does is apply centre crop chopping off the sides of the films. The ONLY thing the 16:9 mode does is fill the screen of a 1.78:1 TV. It sacrifices OAR and some films will actually be unwatchable using this mode. SE7EN is but one example where it needs to be seen in its proper widescreen format just to make sense in some scenes.


And when an actor is framed at the edges of the Scope frame, they get chopped off. This is not a good feature and many will not use this once they work that out. How many people with 16:9 screens celebrated when their OPPOs did that weird centre crop zoom thing with ALIEN on BD? There were none! There were many complaints posted in the ALIEN threads about this chopping the ends off the picture though.



Folded Space technology should be able to maximize all films - even 1.85:1. Right now there is slivers of black (only about 4%), but with FT, the image should be able to be presented at full 1080 and therefore be that bit wider than 1.78:1. This probably only applies to the guys that leave their lens in the light path all the time, but it certainly has potential to do so. And yes, it would be able to centre crop those to fill HDTVs as well.

If all that it is doing for the 16:9 guys is expanding and cropping off each end, then I agree with you.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

It sounds like he's saying that the anamorphic 1920x1080 (i.e. stretched vertically with no black bars) is all real picture data; when presented in either a 16:9 "pan&scan" version or a 2560x1080 version, they use processing to interpolate the extra image data.

Essentially correct. The vertical contains "real" resolution in that it is derived from the actual picture detail contained in the master. The horizontal is accomplished by an extremely accurate predictive algorithm developed by Folded Space. I just want to be clear that this is a new process, not simply "scaling," and it works very very well. I can't say much more at this point.
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Lets just stick with a true anamorphic title using 1920 x 1080. If I am understanding Folded Space correctly, the image masters will actually have real pixels and the technology removes the pixels for standard playback and creates the black bars that make it letterboxed. Either way, the image will not need scaling. It will be mapped 1:1 as either 1920 x 1080 anamorphic or it will be 1:1 as either 1920 x 1080 with a letterbox that could still be scaled on existing systems. You NEED the decoder to access the additional "real" pixels or scaling interpolates the image as we do now.

Mark, once again you are exactly correct There is no "scaling" involved, it's simply a matter or removing or re-integrating information.

They key to getting a true high rez anamorphic image is to ensure we have a master that has the additional vertical resolution available. This means we have to have either a 4K source or a 2K anamorphic source. If a film is shot anamorphically, it is scanned in anamorphically as well. This means we can get additional vertical resolution from existing 2K masters of anamorphically shot films. Make sense? Getting additional resolution from 4K sources is a no brainer
post #46 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Can't have it both ways. If 1920x1080 is anamorphic, then that 1920x1080 is vertically stretched, out of proportion so the lens puts it back right at 2.37. It's going to have to be scaled to add black bars. So either that's another copy of the video that is not stretched and includes encoded bars, or something has to scale.

As I mentioned above, there is no scaling done. As long as we have access to a master that has the additional vertical resolution, THAT becomes our master. Our master source is already anamorphically stretched using real resolution in the vertical. The letterbox version is created by simply removing information from that source.
post #47 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garlon View Post

Are you saying we could have true 4k content on a blu-ray, or just that it is compatible by interpolating/upscaling a 2K image? Would blu ray even be able to hold a full movie at 4k resolution, which would be 4x as many pixels per frame as 2K?

I am just saying our process is totally compatible with 4K resolutions. Whether or not we ever see anything like that is up to the Blu-ray manufacturers and studios, etc.
post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

After reading further, it seems that the letterboxed version of the movie (the same version that is currently stored on BD) would have to be the "base" version that can simply be passed from the player after decoding, since this is backwards compatible with current BD players.

To me it seems that the other three versions - the P&S, the anamorphic, and the wide versions would all have to be processed from the letterbox version. I'm guessing that the extra data in the black bars is used to enhance or "bolster" the anamorphic version that results from vertically scaling the original letterbox version. Perhaps there's other data that's used to further enhance the interpolated image when scaling to 2560x1080.

Of course, maybe they're cleverly able to store more than one "per-pixel" version of the film (i.e., letterbox and anamorphic) that requires no extra processing to produce. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

I guess the best way to look at this is that the 2560 x 1080 version is the "base" version, with the extra info stored behind the black bars. All other versions are extracted from this. Another way would be to say that the "anamorphic" 1920 x 1080 is the base version, since that is what precisely fits within the 16:9 container - and what would qualify as "pixel for pixel."

I can't really get into much more detail without revealing that which I cannot
post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Looks to me that the winner here are those with 1.78 aspect ratio screens and that this technology will decrease the number of people wanting to go to 2.35. It eliminates one of the reasons to go 2.35, because there will not be any black bars on their 1.78 screens when watching a scope movie. We get to pick up the 30% of movies that are recorded in 1.78 (there about) aspect ratio and the 1.78 screen guys get to pick up the 70% of 2.35 movies with no black bars. In other words, everybody will have a constant area set up. You just choose if you want your setup to be 2.35 or 1.78. Since you will not be giving up any screen area, I think many people will decide against the extra expense of a lens.

We think actually that the process would boost sales of anamorphic lens systems and 21:9 displays, as with those technologies you get it ALL - full resolution, an immersive, true widescreen display, and no black bars. The people who hate black bars and watch films on 16:9 displays can get rid of them right now just by pushing the "full" or "zoom" modes on their aspect ratio controls. All we are doing is offering those folks a higher resolution version of what they are already doing. And it would help Blu-ray sales because there are certainly those consumers who don't like films on Blu or DVD because they can't stand the letterbox bars. Knowing that a full screen option exists for them if they choose it should help bolster sales.

Here is how we think about it - four versions on one disc that hits all demographics. We think it's a win-win, and will certainly help raise awareness for 21:9 / anamorphic in the process. It will now be extremely evident that those who choose the full screen version are missing out on what anamorphic and 21:9 can deliver, since these "ultimate" formats will be illustrated when describing the process
post #50 of 92
Sounds good, but consumer education will be a buger. You guys know as well as I do how surprisingly difficult it can be to train even some dealers on anamorphic. But if it can be dummied down so the consumer can pick the right thing and understand the differences, might sell to them, too.
post #51 of 92
best case scenario - when does this become available?
post #52 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Mark, once again you are exactly correct There is no "scaling" involved, it's simply a matter or removing or re-integrating information.

They key to getting a true high rez anamorphic image is to ensure we have a master that has the additional vertical resolution available. This means we have to have either a 4K source or a 2K anamorphic source. If a film is shot anamorphically, it is scanned in anamorphically as well. This means we can get additional vertical resolution from existing 2K masters of anamorphically shot films. Make sense? Getting additional resolution from 4K sources is a no brainer

Makes perfect sense to me and I am looking forward to this - even just some demo material for a start. I just hope everyone else gets this so it can take off.
post #53 of 92
Thread Starter 


HERE is my 1080P Anamorphic Bees clip.

I would suggest turning the sound OFF. I have edited the sound to play some music, but not sure if that actually works.

The video was captured using a SONY "Bloggie" which I stood behind my MK4 A-Lens on this day. My front lawn was very over grown and the bees were busy pollinating flowers. I decided that it might make an interesting clip if I could capture this through the A-Lens.
LL
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

I guess the best way to look at this is that the 2560 x 1080 version is the "base" version, with the extra info stored behind the black bars. All other versions are extracted from this. Another way would be to say that the "anamorphic" 1920 x 1080 is the base version, since that is what precisely fits within the 16:9 container - and what would qualify as "pixel for pixel."

I can't really get into much more detail without revealing that which I cannot

Totally understand that you can't reveal any proprietary, unique processes here for obvious reasons.

That being said, if this is backwards compatible with current BD players, then my understanding is that the 1920x817 version (with black bars on top and bottom) - which is what we currently get with 'scope films on disc - is what's stored in its entirety, no? Any other version - the "anamorphic" version, the "wide screen" (2560x1080) version, and the P&S version - would all be derived by adding the "extra" info stored behind the black bars and interpolating the desired image using your proprietary algorithm?

I'm definitely a fan of multiple AR's being stored on a single disc - I like the flexibility and added choice that it gives to the end user - but I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's the "original" and what's derived using on-board processing.
post #55 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post


That being said, if this is backwards compatible with current BD players, then my understanding is that the 1920x817 version - which is what we currently get with 'scope films on disc - is what's stored in its entirety, no?

The discs should be able to store 2560 x 1080. A HDTV will only be able to use 1920 x 1080 of those pixels. The result should be a centre crop, but at full 1080 instead of working around 1920 x 810~816.

As I understand this, the discs will default back to a 1920 x 810 letterboxed version when played on a standard player or played with out the decoder. This is no different to switching a DVD player from 16:9 back to 4x3 mode. When you do that, it removes every fourth line of anamorphic encoded DVDs and compresses the image. As a result generates black bars to fill in the frame. The idea here is the same, just that there is now 1080 lines to work with and rather than reduce the image size to fit the width, the sides will be chopped.

The extra data is (should be) real data and will be stripped away for letter box playback. For anamorphic playback, the extra data is real and not interpolated. There is no need for scaling here and why films of this format will look even better than what we have with current BD - especially the anamorphic mode with a HQ A-Lens.
post #56 of 92
John:

I'd be interested in being a alpha tester. Happy to partner, and sign NDA's etc. Contact me at scott a*t techht d*t com. What's good for you is good for me

Thanks,
Scott
post #57 of 92
I'd also be interested in being a alpha tester. Happy to sign NDA's etc.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


The discs should be able to store 2560 x 1080. A HDTV will only be able to use 1920 x 1080 of those pixels. The result should be a centre crop, but at full 1080 instead of working around 1920 x 810~816.

Theoretically yes, I'm sure a BD could store 2560x1080 in terms of space available. The problem is that 1) the BD spec does not include that resolution, and 2) existing players would have no way of processing such a resolution without a firmware upgrade at a minimum - and that's assuming the on-board hardware would support such a resolution. In order to be backward compatible with existing BD players, any 'scope film would HAVE to exist on the disc in its letterboxed form as it would on current discs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

As I understand this, the discs will default back to a 1920 x 810 letterboxed version when played on a standard player or played with out the decoder. This is no different to switching a DVD player from 16:9 back to 4x3 mode. When you do that, it removes every fourth line of anamorphic encoded DVDs and compresses the image. As a result generates black bars to fill in the frame. The idea here is the same, just that there is now 1080 lines to work with and rather than reduce the image size to fit the width, the sides will be chopped.

Again, I'm sure this makes sense to a layperson, but the mechanisms at work here are not so simple. Anamorphic DVDs were actually encoded with rectangular pixels within the 720x480i box allowed by the spec, and the pixel aspect ratio was actually encoded on to the disc for use by the player. If you played such a disc on a 4:3 display natively (with zero processing), you'd get a horizontally compressed image 480 pixels high and 720 pixels wide. Anamorphic DVDs were included as part of the original DVD spec, so you could adjust a setting (usually called screen size, with choices of 4:3 and 16:9 or something similar) that told the player how to scale the image properly for viewing.

However the BD spec does not include any similar feature in terms of discerning between 2560x1080 content and 1920x1080 content, so no current BD player would know how to read anything but a 1920x1080 image. It certainly wouldn't know to "remove every 4th line" of the former resolution, and even if it did, the results would look awful - this is why we have scaling algorithms instead. Of course, no BD player currently is capable of scaling a 2560x1080 image to 1920x1080, and at best such an addition would have to come in the form of a firmware fix (at worst, the on-board VP chip wouldn't be firmware upgradable and such a capability couldn't be added). I guarantee you no BD player manufacturer is going to be willing to issue firmware upgrades for every single player it's made in order to allow the system you've described to work.

So we're back at square one - in order to be backwards compatible (and compliant with BD specs), any BD with a 'scope movie has to contain a 1920x1080 letterboxed version as the BASE version. What the guys at FS have done is use additional algorithms in concert with the "unused" space in the black bars to store additional information that can later be extracted to create one of three processed images - 1920x1080 P&S, 1920x1080 Anamorphic, and 2560x1080. The way I understand it, none of those three formats have purely "original" information in the extra space outside of the original letterboxed version; however some original information is used in concert with FS's proprietary predictive algorithms to create the versions above that are truer to the original (and contain more picture information) than one would achieve via pure scaling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The extra data is (should be) real data and will be stripped away for letter box playback. For anamorphic playback, the extra data is real and not interpolated. There is no need for scaling here and why films of this format will look even better than what we have with current BD - especially the anamorphic mode with a HQ A-Lens.

See my post above - although some real data from higher resolution masters is used and stored behind the black bars, the unaltered original that is stored on the disc - which requires no processing - is still the same as the 1920x1080 letterboxed versions that we own today.

As I said before, I'm all for the idea of having data stored on the disc - and processing available - that allows for variable ARs without having to interpolate all the extra picture area, and I hope that this gains traction with studios. However it also has to work with existing BD players, which has pretty clear implications as to what is and isn't being stored on the disc in terms of "all original" data.
post #59 of 92
Also interested in alpha testing - I barely got to use my scope setup before I left, and after being away for 4 moths I'll be ready to do some fun trials with RS55 and Isco3 should the opportunity present itself!
post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

What the guys at FS have done is use additional algorithms in concert with the "unused" space in the black bars to store additional information that can later be extracted to create one of three processed images - 1920x1080 P&S, 1920x1080 Anamorphic, and 2560x1080. The way I understand it, none of those three formats have purely "original" information in the extra space outside of the original letterboxed version; however some original information is used in concert with FS's proprietary predictive algorithms to create the versions above that are truer to the original (and contain more picture information) than one would achieve via pure scaling.

I think there's a bit of confusion going on, as there are two different perspectives being given here and in each "base" has a different meaning.

What John is saying when he say "base" is that their "source" is a true, 2560x1080 (or better) source, and that they then feed that "base" 2560x1080 video into their system. So as far as their system goes, they are starting with a real 2560x1080 picture.

The confusion is from our end we're trying to figure out what's the "base" source that the player starts with. In this case, I believe HogPilot is right, to retain backward compatibility, the base video on the disc has to be letterboxed 1920x1080 (1920x810 active area). They then "hide" essentially the difference between the 1920x810, letterboxed "base" version, and the "full" 2560x1080 version via some clever encoding in the letterbox bars. In fact this is exactly what John/Folded Space say
Quote:
"Folded Space's software employs proprietary algorithms to generate and store additional resolution which is hidden within the black bars above and below the letterboxed image of the movie."

So my guess then is that what happens is there's the base 1920x810, backward compatible version, then in addition to that there's the "difference" information for the 2560x1080, and possibly some P&S mettadata stored in the black bars. So when you play an MFE disc on an MFE player, it decodes the base version, plus the difference information, to create a "real" 2560x1080 image, which is then either displayed as is, scaled to 1920x1080 anamorphic, or P&S'd, with the later two happening on the fly. It seems to me that it would be storage-prohibitive to try and store three different difference images in the black bars and would be much more efficient to just store the 2560x1080 difference in the bars and create the Anamorphic and P&S versions on the fly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Could this be it? Folded Space Enhanced Resolution