Anamorphic encoded Blu-Rays on the Horizon ! - Page 3

Discussions about 4K Blu-ray are already in the works. Look for info on the H265 video codec.

It's my understanding that large format 21:9 panels - 50" or larger - are no longer in production. I hope this is wrong.

On the positive side, if 21:9 becomes popular as a computer monitor aspect ratio - and it might - that could spur a re-launch of television sets in that aspect ratio.

To me personally 21:9 on computer screen does not much make sense. Working on documents, web etc is totally different from watching movies. Of course this is a matter of taste, but it's also a matter of what's available. Earlier 1920 x 1200 and even 1600 x 1200 monitors were available, but not anymore. More 21:9 screens could help the production of larger 21:9 sets though.

What about projectors then? While large panel manufacturing lines costs millions thus making the panels expensive in the beginning ala Philips, for projectors upgrading to 2560 x 1080 would be much much cheaper. The component critical for producing the better resolution must be only a fraction of a projector's cost, while in LCD TV the panel must weigh some 70-90% of the price.

Adding to that, the space needed in the living room is not that critical with projector screens since they are used only for the time the movie is watched. For most living rooms, it's width that's critical for the TV panel, not heihght. So it might be harder to find real estate for 50" 21:9 screen than to say larger 46" or 48" screen.
For the silver screen there is much more real estate availble in the living room.

The black pillars are not really a problem with projectors and screens, since most of the titles watched are 21:9. Plus silver screen is adaptable to sizes and not really dependable on the projector.

The projectors are for movie lovers who understand the importance of aspect ratio and better resolution.

And last, most projector owners have the 16:9 TV set for everyday casual non-movie watching anyway.

So I think there are many reasons why 2560 x 1080 AND 5120 x 2160, both with MFE, should very much appeal especially to projector manufacturers.
Have you at Folded Space tried to approach especially projector makers?

WHAT IF: The MFE coding was not put into the Blu Ray player, but to the TV set?

If you put MFE coded Blu Ray disc into today's Blu Ray player, what amount of information comes out? Will the extra data hided on black bars still come out?

If this is the case, then you could skip the Blu Ray player and put the MFE decoding into the TV set.

Also, then strategically, you could directly proceed with the projector makers, putting the EMF encoding into new 2560 x 1080 projectors. They are not megacorporations like Sony or Samsung and while not having such market dominance, as relatively small companies easier to negotiate with and capable for faster decision-making.

In any way, even if this scenario is impossible because of Blu Ray specs' limitations, we will stll need EMF decoding for TV sets for the streaming needs.

So my prayer: An EMF decoding firmware upgrade to the Philips Cinemascope 21:9 ..!

(PLUS you need to make sure that N times MFE encoded movie file always = 1 time encoded. Doesn't change after first iteration. Otherwise there will be a mess when the TV set will start to decode already decoded file. Shouldn't be able to iterate once the decoding is done. That proprerty should be put right into the EMF algorithm and file syntax as the first extra bit (DECODED ALREADY / NO = 0, YES = 1) and not to let be handeled by the TV set's other programs which are messy, varying and not in your control. All you have to do is to sacrifice just one bit for each movie file. )

Both DPI and projection design make projectors using 2560 x 1080 DLP chips. So far, both models are quite expensive, much more expensive than pairing an equivalent 16:9 projector with even a fairly high end anamorphic lens. Both companies are aware of our process and are supportive, as it creates source material that matches the aspect ratio and resolution of those pieces exactly.

The problem is always that there must be high consumer demand in order to convince TI, Epson, JVC, Sony and others to gear up whole new production lines to create 21:9 DLP, LCOS, or LCD chips. On top of that, it's not just a matter of creating the chips with the correct aspect ratio, it's also a matter of creating light engines and optics to support it (not to mention new video processing chips to support the new aspect ratios and resolutions). It's a classic chicken and egg scenario. We of course are hoping that the Folded Space technology creates the content that fuels the demand to further develop the technology.

We have already looked at putting the MFE technology into the display, but there is one major problem - subtitles and close captions. The display has no way of knowing where to place the subtitles depending on how the consumer would decode the MFE video. On the other hand, that capability could easily be built into the Blu-ray player. For example, the subtitles will need to be placed one way if someone decodes MFE to be straight letterbox, another way if someone decodes anamorphic, and yet another if someone chooses MFE Full. With the Blu-ray player, you can simply have the player choose the correct subtitle track depending on how the video is decoded. The display would not have a way of telling the Blu-ray player which subtitle stream to output.

Otherwise, your thought process is very sound, and exactly what we originally thought to do - approach display and projector manufacturers in particular for exactly the reasons you point out. It was because of the subtitling and close captioning issue we had to abandon that approach. That said, the streaming application you mention does have merit, though again it is easier just to put it in the Blu-ray player or set-top box.

And yes, a player would output the extra resolution, just hidden behind the black Java graphics we put on the standard output to mimic standard letterboxing.

Extra data in the black bars!, reminds me of the old PAL-plus enhanced 16:9 system from the nineties.
In the end PAL- plus was only a stopgap, it did work however but was never fully implemented though I did enjoy watching the broadcasts, I think we are seeing the same thing here again albeit in the digital domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PALplus
The wiki needs serious updating regarding some of the transmission standards but as a general guide its fine.

I post this question here to.

CIH pain... BD-Java Problems.

I asked Oppo why it's not possible to use VS with BD-Java i.e. using the zoom function. It works for the setup menu of the movie but as soon as the movie actually starts it reverts back to the dreaded letterbox format. I want to be able to stretch the image to use together with Panamorph fixed lens http://www.panamorph.com/cinevista/index.html and 2.35:1 screen.
And then use the 4.3 format in the Oppo to horizontally compress the image when using 16.9 format material.
Got the answer from Oppo within 1 one hour excellent. (please see below)

"Dear Christian

As long as it is not Java based it is possible to stretch with zoom function, but some Java based discs are locked by the film companies.
There is nothing we can do about that because it is the movie that is locked not the player doing it.

There is no functions available when sending a HDMI signal in to the player at this time, only video processor is active nothing else you have to choose format and aspect ratios with your cable box. Ifpossible there will maybe be added some functions in future firmware.

Best Regards
Bjorn
OPPO European Support Engineer"

Anybody know why this limitation or have a solution that might work?

Thanks are you sure also with Java encoded content when AR is locked by author?

Great thanks.

/Christian
Edited by Christian Bergh - 1/14/13 at 10:35pm

Following up with Scaling issues; Looks like the Lumagen is the way to go.

"Dear Christian

At the time it is not possible to change because of legal reasons, You have to use an external source to stretch Java locked discs.

Best Regards
Bjorn
OPPO European Support Engineer"

It's a pity you have to add something that costs several times the Oppo, when the Oppo already has the hardware to do it. I don't see how Oppo can make successful future products if they are going to let themselves be handicapped like this.

We CIH viewers are a tiny niche within a niche. Given that no other Blu-ray player manufacturer can do this either, I don't see how this will affect OPPO's business one iota.

Possible they will sell more units and that will influence business :-o

Oppo have had the second video chip in all their designs since the BDP-83 to act essentially as an independant scaler when needed. Oppo has to do things that the other manufacturers don't, to justify the price point, but with the 103 they removed the scaling that the 83 and 93 can do. But I think there's still a chance they'll add it back.

Looking forward to hearing more news about this!!

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

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).

Good to hear this is still happening. I don't think a 2.37:1 master is that much of an issue (apart from some new gear including 2.37:1 monitors) and menus can float in the centre 16:9 portion which ensures compatibility with those wanting to use the side crop 16:9 feature.

For 4k Blurays they should just encode the aspect ratio into the header and let the player decide how to display it (i.e. all movies should be encoded anamorphically). It's really sad to waste image quality / resolution like that. But I certainly like this tech, hopefully they'll go for it and we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

FYI, none of the studios so far have been keen on the "side crop 16:9" feature. In some ways, I am happy that they are being purists about maintaining the correct aspect ratio of the motion picture. On the other hand, years of experience training folks on film aspect ratios and why the "black bars" are there has taught me that there is a HUGE demand out there for a cropped format. They would simply sell more Blu-rays if they included it.

Most of the pushback has been around subtitles. Since they are actually graphics that need to be intelligently placed, there needs to be separate subtitle tracks for each format AND in each language. All of those subtitle tracks also need to be QC'd in real time. Not insurmountable stuff, but it is amazing what you learn once you start digging into this stuff

I can foresee this being an issue for Warner Bros, which still insists on placing subtitles in the black letterbox bar.

Unless the STs are hard burned into the image, this is not a problem. Films with STs burned in have them in the picture anyway All generated text floats over the image and why players like OPPO and Phillips can now move it.

There are 4 modes and if Folded Space works the way I believe it will, it won't matter because these STs should now float over the picture when used in the 2560 x 1080, the 1920 x 1080 anamorphic and the 1920 x 1080 centre crop modes. In 16:9 cropped mode, the STs should do the same as they would for either 21:9 or anamorphic mode. The only mode the STs will sit in the letter box will be the letter box mode. Hopefully John S can confirm that.

I think John's point is that the studio dictates where the subtitles go and what they look like. A company like Folded Space is not allowed to alter that without the studio's direction and permission. This is considered an artistic decision. That's why so few Blu-ray players offer the ability to move subtitles.

Unfortunately, Warner keeps stubbornly clinging to the notion that subtitles belong in a letterbox bar.

And the Studios can. If they want the STs in the bottom 12.5% of the image, fine with me because this technology will then give you a 4 way solution -
1. Letterboxed 16:9 with STs in the black bars
2. Centre cropped 1920 x 1080 image with STs along the base of the image
3. Anamorphic Image 1920 x 1080 image with STs along the base of the image
4. Full 2560 x 1080 image with STs along the base of the image (inside the 16:9 portion).

Actually, you are both correct. The issue with subtitles is a bit more complicated than most of us realize. I certainly didn't before I got involved in this!

Having four different versions of the movie on one disc can mean four different subtitle streams, all of which are separate graphics streams that need to be created, placed properly, and QC'd. For example, the letterboxed version of the movie needs one subtitle stream placed in a specific location (in or out of the letterbox bars, it matters not for purposes of this discussion), the anamorphic version needs another anamorphically stretched set placed properly within the picture, the cropped version another set that fits within the 16:9 space, etc. And each of those different streams need to be re-created for each language on the disc as well.

Again, these are not insurmountable issues, just challenges that need to be overcome

I'm sorry, apart from politics (or someone's over inflated ego), I don't see why this is an issue at all.

When you go the cinema, the STs are placed in the picture. End of story, nothing more to discuss. Why should that change just because the film is being transferred to home video?

Yes, in the days of SD video on DVD, the STs may have been easier to read on the black bars. In HD, text is perfectly legible in the picture just like it is in the cinema.

Lets go back to SD for bit. The first player (possibly the only player at the time) to shift STs was the Samsung I used to use. The truth is, it didn't actually shift anything. On an XY axis plot, the STs never moved. The image behind was vertically stretched and this gave the impression that the STs had been moved up into the picture. This is why the STs appeared stretched in the screen grabs I did a few years back (of STAR WARS). The anamorphic lens was optically expanding the image including the STs.

With a BD, and either the OPPO or Phillips players, the STs do indeed move up or down and the end user decides where they will go. So much for Artistic Intent.

With Folded Space (and my image below), there is no need to shift the STs any more. The Studios will have the final say as to where they want them and the system will work around that assuming Folded Space can be encoded as 2560 x 1080 pixels. The following should show the options for the user and it won't matter if "artistic" decisions decide the place the STs in the black bars of the letter box mode or not. For reference, the left tip of the T in SUBTITLES should be at 800 x 600 pixels on an XY axis from the top left of the image in all the cases except the ANAMORPHIC example where I have horizontally squeezed the text to simulate ANAMORPHIC MODE.






MODE 1 [Image 1]
FULL SCOPE at 2560 x 1080 which will map 1:1 on a display with 2560 x 1080 pixels. NB: The current Phillips 21:9 can not map this image 1:1 it can only take 1920 x 1080 as an input.
MODE 2 [Image 2]
ANAMORPHIC WIDE SCREEN and the version all us A-lens users want. This is what the anamorphic mode would look like mapped 1:1 on a 2560 x 1080 display. The image itself would be 1920 x 1080 and sit in the middle of 2560 x 1080. I've added the back side pillars to show this. The trick will be mapping the centre 1920 x 1080 at 1:1 on a 1920 x 1080 display because when I made this image 2560 x 1080 and displayed it, my system scaled it to be letter boxed. So maybe the decode chip in the player discards everything outside the centre 1920 x 1080 image to allow 1:1 pixel mapping.
MODE 3 [Image 3]
CENTER CROPPED this allows the screen of a 16:9 (1920 x 1080) display to be filled without black bars. The sides of the original image would be cropped off. You can see this in the planets missing that are visible in Image 1 and this mode would keep all the 16:9 users that don't care about OAR very happy.
MODE 4 [IMAGE 4]
LETTER BOXED This is who it would look on a standard HD display allowing backwards compatibility with all current HT systems.

So based on the above, there is no where else for the STs to go in the first three of the modes of Folded Space.

Disclaimer: This post is based on my understanding of the technology and may not be 100% correct.

Are there really that many movies out there that have STs? Why can't you just start off with releasing the larger percentage of movies (ones without STs) and continue to work out the issue of the STs with the studios while proving to them that there is a market for your product?

-Sean

If you think about it, essentially all movies have subtitles of some kind, as most movies are released with French and Spanish subtitles at a minimum. Otherwise you limit your release to US only. With Folded Space, the intent is to offer greater flexibility for compatibility with the greatest variety of systems, rather than the other way around.

The other issue is that some of the most popular series, such as the STAR WARS, STAR TREK, and James Bond series, all have rather extensive subtitles.