AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
a lot of the movies are 2.35:1, so they're not 1080 anything. Why don't they call it 1920 wide (progressive or interlace) instead of 1080p/1080i?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
1080p is used as a measuring stick just like 480i, 480p, 720p because the eye is most sensitive to verticle resoltion and not horizontal resolution. Really has nothing to do with 2.35. You start calling it 1920p and you are going to further confuse an already confused consumer.


My questions is, why don't they make anamorphic discs for Blu-ray? Make one just like you did with 16x9 anamorphic DVD's. This way you are using the full disc for the image. This would yield the best image quality for watching 2.35 movies. Perhaps it will come one day.
 

·
One-Man Content Creator
Joined
·
25,217 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheldonison /forum/post/12873238


a lot of the movies are 2.35:1, so they're not 1080 anything. Why don't they call it 1920 wide (progressive or interlace) instead of 1080p/1080i?

1080 is the signal, not the image. The HDTV max is 1920x1080 and this is what HDM uses, regardless of the aspect ratio of the title.


-Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Good question. I don't know why TVs and videodiscs go by vertical resolution but digital cinema does actually do it the way you suggest (e.g. 4k = 4096 pixels wide).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
If you know how CRTs work then you got your answer right there. Its just something carried over from older televisions. Going from SD to HD, we need a simple measurement of resolution and 640x480 is probably too confusing for the general public although we see it everywhere shopping for computer monitors. So it would be easier to call it 480i. And then you got fullscreen and widescreen, can you imagine DVDs having a 640x480 edition and a ###x### edition. Total mayhem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadly25 /forum/post/12873434


My questions is, why don't they make anamorphic discs for Blu-ray? Make one just like you did with 16x9 anamorphic DVD's. This way you are using the full disc for the image. This would yield the best image quality for watching 2.35 movies. Perhaps it will come one day.

I can see it definitely giving you better quality if you are watching on a screen of a higher resolution than 1920x1080, but if you are watching the full image on a 1920x1080 fixed, square pixel display, would encoding it anamorphic actually give you a better picture or worse?


(By anamorphic I'm assuming anamorphic in the vertical direction ie. all 1080 lines are used for picture not black bars).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/12873636


Why are TV's measured diagonally instead of horizontally or vertically?

Glad you asked that question.
Horizontal measuring gives a larger number than either vertical or horizontal and in the early days of TV that was important with small tubes. Of course this messes up comparing SD to HD sizes because of the aspect ratio difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Also, in the analog broadcast domain, the horizontal component can vary with bandwidth, but the vertical scanning structure is 'set in stone' for the format - so, while an ota NTSC broadcast will ALWAYS have 525 scanning lines with 480 used for visible picture, in the horizontal dimension the resolution is not fixed and has no set 'structure' like the vertical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/12873690


Glad you asked that question.
Horizontal measuring gives a larger number than either vertical or horizontal and in the early days of TV that was important with small tubes. Of course this messes up comparing SD to HD sizes because of the aspect ratio difference.

Thanks.


Also, I have a standard definition TV that is widescreen too


PS: I think encoding black bars is not very good. Hopefully when higher res HDTVs become more common they'll increase the image resolutions (and other things) possible on HD media. Perhaps even now they could store a higher res than 1920x1080 on HD media to encourage people to buy the higher res screens. Perhaps they should be encoding 2.35:1 movies at 2538x1080 or something ready for future displays (and 1.78:1 movies at higher res to, and downsampling in the player).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/12873739


Thanks.


Also, I have a standard definition TV that is widescreen too



PS: I think encoding black bars is not very good. Hopefully when higher res HDTVs become more common they'll increase the image resolutions (and other things) possible on HD media. Perhaps even now they could store a higher res than 1920x1080 on HD media to encourage people to buy the higher res screens. Perhaps they should be encoding 2.35:1 movies at 2538x1080 or something ready for future displays (and 1.78:1 movies at higher res to, and downsampling in the player).

I actually had a Pioneer analog 1.78 (16x9) TV also.



HD DVD and BD were both looking at making an anamorphic 2.35 spec to be included but in the rush to "war" they were never completed. But since both formats are now frozen at 1080x1920 it would have to be the next format to go 2.35.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts
Having anamorphic 2.35 HD movies is worthless unless we have 2.35 HDTV's and that isn't going to happen any time soon because 2.35 is only used for movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
A friend of mine and myself have acualy had this discussion...


they should have built the new tv standard to the largest movie format instead of an arbatrary 16x9 format or... they should develop a pan and scan 16x9 like they did for 4x3..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12873809


Having anamorphic 2.35 HD movies is worthless unless we have 2.35 HDTV's and that isn't going to happen any time soon because 2.35 is only used for movies.

Plenty of people do have 2.35 constant height setups.
If it was offered then CE manufacturers would have an extra reason to sell them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12873809


Having anamorphic 2.35 HD movies is worthless unless we have 2.35 HDTV's and that isn't going to happen any time soon because 2.35 is only used for movies.

What if I had an 4000 x 2247 square pixel 1.78:1 resolution LCD HDTV ?

The anamorphic stored 1920x1080 content should give me a better picture then than a 1920x1080 one that isn't anamorphic shouldn't it (if the film is 2.35:1)?


Of course it would probably be better to store the 2.35:1 movie on disc at something like 2538x1080 with 4:4:4 or higher res than 1920x1080 anamorphic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramimac /forum/post/12873821


A friend of mine and myself have acualy had this discussion...


they should have built the new tv standard to the largest movie format instead of an arbatrary 16x9 format or... they should develop a pan and scan 16x9 like they did for 4x3..

2.76 is used on a small number of films like Ben-Hur. Surely you don't mean that.
Also the HDTV aspect ratio of 1.78 (16x9) was choosen because it is exactly 1/2 way between standard TV (1.33 (3x4))/Academy (1.37) and Super35 (2.35)/Panavision (2.40).
This makes it a great compromise.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/12873836


Plenty of people do have 2.35 constant height setups.
If it was offered then CE manufacturers would have an extra reason to sell them

You are talking about a less than 1% of the total market percentage that have CIH HT's. They are VERY expensive.


Do not take what you see here at AVS as a yardstick for what the public owns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,110 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/12873539


I can see it definitely giving you better quality if you are watching on a screen of a higher resolution than 1920x1080, but if you are watching the full image on a 1920x1080 fixed, square pixel display, would encoding it anamorphic actually give you a better picture or worse?

It would probably be a little worse since the player would have to vertically downscale the image. The point is moot anyway since players don't have that ability.


At some point, if the master is done at a high enough resolution (which I imagine many aren't), I could see a company like Lionsgate maybe doing a version of a movie that is "anamorphic" anyway. It would actually be vertically stretched with no way for the player to correct it on a standard display, but when played on a CIH setup it would allow for the advantage of the extra resolution. It would be either (preferably) a separate disc or a second encode.
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top