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 3

post #61 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

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.

+1 - agree with everything above, well explained!
post #62 of 92
Let me just say this much:

Since we start with either a 3K or 4K source, we know exactly which material we are pulling out in order to encode the video with MFE and create the letterbox version. As I stated previously, the letterbox version is the core image that is still visible after the MFE process extracts the extra resolution and folds it into the letterbox bars. The decode pass - MFD - then contructs a true anamorphic 1920 x 1080 image (which is what most readers are concerned with in this forum) using the letterbox image and hidden info in the letterbox bars. There is no scaling involved in this process whatsoever - it is a process of reconstructing from existing information. The process is proprietary and I really can't say any more than that.

As to the question, when will we see this - I cannot even begin to make a prediction as there are so many variables at play. Studio demos are being setup and I can confirm genuine interest. Discussions are also occurring with hardware manufacturers.
post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Let me just say this much:
Since we start with either a 3K or 4K source, we know exactly which material we are pulling out in order to encode the video with MFE and create the letterbox version. As I stated previously, the letterbox version is the core image that is still visible after the MFE process extracts the extra resolution and folds it into the letterbox bars. The decode pass - MFD - then contructs a true anamorphic 1920 x 1080 image (which is what most readers are concerned with in this forum) using the letterbox image and hidden info in the letterbox bars. There is no scaling involved in this process whatsoever - it is a process of reconstructing from existing information. The process is proprietary and I really can't say any more than that.
As to the question, when will we see this - I cannot even begin to make a prediction as there are so many variables at play. Studio demos are being setup and I can confirm genuine interest. Discussions are also occurring with hardware manufacturers.

Makes total sense - sounds like a very powerful (and smart) process/algorithm. It's too bad this wasn't included in the original BD spec, the anamorphic crowd here has been missing out on an even better experience! But I truly hope you guys are successful in getting this pushed out to studios and BD player mfrs.
post #64 of 92
Thanks to HogPilot and all the well wishers here on the Forum! I will keep you updated as best I can as we go into meetings with all of the relevant parties smile.gif
post #65 of 92
John, let me ask this as a theoretical. Take the case of a movie that was produced with a variable width aspect ratio, such as Brainstorm, The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Brother Bear or Enchanted. In theaters, these movies played with the 1.85:1 scenes pillarboxed in the middle of a scope screen. The image then expanded horizontally during the 2.35:1 scenes. When transferred to video, the studio has to make the decision of whether to maintain the variable width format (which means that the 1.85:1 scenes will be pillarboxed with black bars on all four sides on the majority of displays) or altering the movie to a variable height format (which means that the scope scenes are now smaller than the 1.85:1 scenes).

Would Folded Space be able to accomodate real-time aspect ratio branching throughout the movie, so that a viewer could choose which format to watch in based on what type of screen they have?
post #66 of 92
Thread Starter 
Josh,

I think that with full vertical rez available, the studios would jump at the oppertunity these films provide. With Folded Space, the days of window boxing are all but gone. Take any film that starts at 1.33:1 (MAX MAX 2, THE INCREDIBLES etc) and the only reason these are allowed is because they only occupy a very small portion as the introduction of the film. This must annoy anyone that hates black bars because you have black bars at the sides and well as the top and bottom. With Folded Space, the format offers the end user full 1080 pixles, so just pillars at the sizes that with FS's centre crop mode would hardly go noticed on a 16:9 display. Those of use with an A-Lens see the pillars as well which is perfect in the CIH world.

The part I am really wanting to see this change is the 1.85:1 format. No more slivers top and bottom. No need to apply a small amount of zoom. The AR will actually be W I D E R than HDTV!

The only can of worms left is the 2.40:1 Vs 2.35:1 delimer. Will a 2.40:1 film gets it ends trimmed for the 2.37:1 AR of 2560 x 1080? I personally don't have a problem with this, but I am sure there are OAR fan boys that will.
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Josh,
I think that with full vertical rez available, the studios would jump at the oppertunity these films provide. With Folded Space, the days of window boxing are all but gone. Take any film that starts at 1.33:1 (MAX MAX 2, THE INCREDIBLES etc) and the only reason these are allowed is because they only occupy a very small portion as the introduction of the film. This must annoy anyone that hates black bars because you have black bars at the sides and well as the top and bottom. With Folded Space, the format offers the end user full 1080 pixles, so just pillars at the sizes that with FS's centre crop mode would hardly go noticed on a 16:9 display. Those of use with an A-Lens see the pillars as well which is perfect in the CIH world.
The part I am really wanting to see this change is the 1.85:1 format. No more slivers top and bottom. No need to apply a small amount of zoom. The AR will actually be W I D E R than HDTV!
The only can of worms left is the 2.40:1 Vs 2.35:1 delimer. Will a 2.40:1 film gets it ends trimmed for the 2.37:1 AR of 2560 x 1080? I personally don't have a problem with this, but I am sure there are OAR fan boys that will.

I think I can live with that, if all we have to fight about is if 2.40 or 2.35 is the way to go. smile.gif This would be fantastic.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I think I can live with that, if all we have to fight about is if 2.40 or 2.35 is the way to go. smile.gif This would be fantastic.

Well if the spec is locked in at 2560 x 1080, then it becomes 2.37:1. As I said, personally, I would not be concerned with the slight side crop to make a 2.40:1 film be full screen. I would rather that than the small slivers we have today.
post #69 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

John, let me ask this as a theoretical. Take the case of a movie that was produced with a variable width aspect ratio, such as Brainstorm, The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Brother Bear or Enchanted. In theaters, these movies played with the 1.85:1 scenes pillarboxed in the middle of a scope screen. The image then expanded horizontally during the 2.35:1 scenes. When transferred to video, the studio has to make the decision of whether to maintain the variable width format (which means that the 1.85:1 scenes will be pillarboxed with black bars on all four sides on the majority of displays) or altering the movie to a variable height format (which means that the scope scenes are now smaller than the 1.85:1 scenes).
Would Folded Space be able to accomodate real-time aspect ratio branching throughout the movie, so that a viewer could choose which format to watch in based on what type of screen they have?

I don't see why not - but unfortunately this is way ahead of anything we are looking at attempting right now frown.gif

Good idea, though! I will bring it up at the next brainstorming session.
post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The only can of worms left is the 2.40:1 Vs 2.35:1 delimer. Will a 2.40:1 film gets it ends trimmed for the 2.37:1 AR of 2560 x 1080? I personally don't have a problem with this, but I am sure there are OAR fan boys that will.

The choice of aspect ratio is going to be filmmaker / post production manager dependent. There is no reason everyone *has* to use all 2560 x 1080 pixels. A 2.40:1 film could end up being transferred at 2560 x 1066, and you would have the same "sliver bars" you have now with an anamorphic lens system.

If you actually look at Blu-ray transport streams, you can see that supposed "2.40:1" or "2.35:1" films are actually transferred at all kinds of odd ratios - 1920 x 810, 1920 x 817, 1920 x 812, etc. Oftentimes a DP or director will slightly change framing when transferring their film to video. Based on my experience in the filmmaking world, aspect ratios are not the kind of hard and fast, super-precise calculations many people think they are, so a little bit of "slop" in framing is standard.
post #71 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

The choice of aspect ratio is going to be filmmaker / post production manager dependent. There is no reason everyone *has* to use all 2560 x 1080 pixels. A 2.40:1 film could end up being transferred at 2560 x 1066, and you would have the same "sliver bars" you have now with an anamorphic lens system.

A 2K projector [2048 x 1080] needs a 1.25x A-Lens where we use a 1.33x with our 1920 x 1080 and the final AR is the same 2.37:1. Given more and more movies are shot and projected digitally, it would make sense to adopt 2.37 as the default AR for Scope. Just my opinion anyway.
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

If you actually look at Blu-ray transport streams, you can see that supposed "2.40:1" or "2.35:1" films are actually transferred at all kinds of odd ratios - 1920 x 810, 1920 x 817, 1920 x 812, etc. Oftentimes a DP or director will slightly change framing when transferring their film to video. Based on my experience in the filmmaking world, aspect ratios are not the kind of hard and fast, super-precise calculations many people think they are, so a little bit of "slop" in framing is standard.
Yup, and also I have notice there is sometimes vertical inconsistency as well i.e. the frame is not vertically centered but can be higher-or-lower in the frame.
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Well if the spec is locked in at 2560 x 1080, then it becomes 2.37:1. As I said, personally, I would not be concerned with the slight side crop to make a 2.40:1 film be full screen. I would rather that than the small slivers we have today.

I was kidding. smile.gif Slight cropping is what i have to do now, if I want to fill the entire screen.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan View Post

Yup, and also I have notice there is sometimes vertical inconsistency as well i.e. the frame is not vertically centered but can be higher-or-lower in the frame.

Exactly, and so cropping these back to 2.37:1 would be a very workable solution. And of course you could retain small side pillars for 2.35.
post #75 of 92
I stumbled upon this thread and was all excited and then the thread just.... .died.

I'm much more of an audio guy, but if I understand right, this technology will allow me to stop having to zoom to fit my 2:35:1 screen and I won't have the black bars off the screen on the top and bottom?

It that's the case, awesome. However this thread seems to be dead which is not so awesome.
post #76 of 92
You can do that now - you need an anamorphic lens though, and the means to vertically stretch the image to fill the displays panel height. You gain the use of 250,000 previously unused pixels and lose the black bars.

Even with Folded Space, you'll still need an anamorphic lens or a true 2.37 display panel to take advantage of it,.

Gary
post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

You can do that now - you need an anamorphic lens though, and the means to vertically stretch the image to fill the displays panel height. You gain the use of 250,000 previously unused pixels and lose the black bars.

Even with Folded Space, you'll still need an anamorphic lens or a true 2.37 display panel to take advantage of it,.

Gary



Oh, ok I get it - thanks Gary. Well, it doesn't affect me then because I spend so much on audio there's no way I could buy an A lens.
post #78 of 92
I thought one of the side 'perks' of this system was that it would be possible to view 2.35:1 content in 16:9 at full screen, though can't remember the how and why. In fact, sad as it might seem to us lens users it might be what is needed to get Joe public interested in this feature, then we could just use it as intended and those who just have to fill their screens regardless can do that too. Everyone is happy. smile.gif
post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

I thought one of the side 'perks' of this system was that it would be possible to view 2.35:1 content in 16:9 at full screen, though can't remember the how and why

It embeds the info to create a "full resolution" (1920x1080) 16x9 crop of the movie for 16:9 screens.
post #80 of 92
Thanks Stanger. I thought I'd read that somewhere.

This thread does seem a bit dead though otherwise, hope that it's not just going to disappear. frown.gif
post #81 of 92
Looks like this thread is really the continuation of the discussion that was taking place here, and it has lots of great new information and specifications. In fact, these two threads should probably be merged together under the better "anamorphic blu-rays" title. Mods?
post #82 of 92
So, just to be perfectly clear. If I have a 2:35:1 screen then the only way to not have the bars be above and below the screen is to have an A lens?

I have no regrets and love my screen, 90 percent of the time I'm watching 16:9 but when it comes time to watch a movie and it's in 2:35:1 it's friggin awesome - 158 inches. The bars didn't bug me at all at first because I never noticed them except for on really dark scenes. Over time though, it seems that there are more and more of those dark scenes and it is starting to bug me.

I'm considering putting up some black velvet above the screen, can't do much about below the screen but that doesn't show up near as much anyway since all the fabric is so dark below the screen. I recently covered up all my white outlets with some extra sound panels:







Here is a shot with my masking panels in, which is 90 percent of the time:

post #83 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

So, just to be perfectly clear. If I have a 2:35:1 screen then the only way to not have the bars be above and below the screen is to have an A lens?

Correct: The black bars don't existing when using a lens so no overspill to worry about. That looks an awesome room, but I'd recommend putting a dark rug in front of the screen area to cover that light carpet and stop it lighting up with the screen content.
post #84 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

So, just to be perfectly clear. If I have a 2:35:1 screen then the only way to not have the bars be above and below the screen is to have an A lens?

Yes, to eliminate the light above and below the screen, you have to change the shape of the light coming out of the projector from a 16:9 shape to a 2.35:1 shape, it is impossible to do that electronically, it has to be done physically.
post #85 of 92
Hello all -

Thought I'd drop in with a quick comment or two and post to both threads. Merging both into one might be a good idea smile.gif

We are still presenting this technology to the major studios. As you might guess, the heavy holiday film release schedule - and then the holidays themselves - diverted the studio's attention from our process for a bit (that plus CES, which most of the studios participate in to some degree). One of the studios is moving to advanced testing, which should happen in the next few weeks.

Challenges have been that studios would need to create a 2.37:1 master, which complicates work flow, plus BD-J concerns (how will menus and subtitles display).
post #86 of 92
John: Have you gotten any traction on this?
post #87 of 92
One of the majors is doing a test with a VERY popular title this month. Can't tell you any more at this point, other than by "test" I mean they are testing our technology internally.
post #88 of 92
Well, that sounds like traction. I hope it goes well. Good luck.
post #89 of 92
Any news on this?
post #90 of 92

i want to copy it,Anamorphic 16:9: What everyone that uses an A-Lens wants. The previous Subtitle issue will be no longer either. thank you

EjoE1i

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