1 - I do not think that making an anamorphic bd would in any way be outside any "standards" now in place. It would still be 1920X1080 and the only difference would be all video information instead of a bunch of black pixels not wanted.
This is only true if you include another disc--the anamorphic disc (which the vast majority of consumers would not understand so would lead to a bunch of confusion or support calls). I can't see anyone wanting to live through that nightmare.
My solution was to put it on one disc and make it "idiot proof". To do that, the specs have to change.
Boilermaker wrote:
7 - I imagine the new proposed scope flat panels would have no problem in properly displaying an anamorphic bd with all the zoom, fill, stretch, etc. features they will probably have.
Again, they would have to "understand" if they were getting black bars or not. They could do it by content inspection, but no flat panel maker today would have a mode to support anamorphic BD because the concept does not exist.
Boilermaker wrote:
8 - As a result of all the above, I feel that 4K will (at least for the forseeable future) be a scaled process within the display device, and not from a consumer program source.
4K is a way to sell product. I find it pretty hard to believe that in a typical home theater anyone is going to be able to tell the difference. Hell, a Greek HT group did a single blind 720p/1080p shoot out between two identical Marantz PJs--only difference was the resoloution--both PJs showing the top half of the frame from the same source and the images stacked one over the other on the same screen at the same time. At viewing distances of 1.5x screen width (16:9) and greater the difference between them was pretty much undetectable (there was no correlation between what people "guessed" was the 1080p PJ and which one it is). People were not accurately able to identify the 1080p PJ until they moved up to between 1.1 and 1.3x (depending upon content and person). And this is with an HT group looking for differences--being told one was 720p and one was 1080p! Imagine how a "normal" casual observers would fair!
Now, imagine the seating distance you would need to tell the diference between 2K and 4K! .6 or .7 screen width? I don't know anyone who sits at that distance. Few sit under 1.0x the width of a scope image in a CIH HT. And the 4K will not really help as we don't perceive resolution changes in the horizontal as well as the vertical.
Basically 4K will come into the home market to give rich guys like Art bragging rights. _________________ Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Link Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:37 pm Post subject:
Dave - I agree with everything you just said, but I think I didn't emphasize enough that I realize this would be a small niche market. The thing that made me think of this possibility is the success that Analog Productions is having by re-mastering old analog tapes and putting them on new vinyl. Even at the high price they charge, their business is expanding and they are building a new production facility. This is on a medium that was pronounced dead 20 years ago!
There are three groups of people who would benefit from anamorphic BD's: those with 1080 digital projectors/A-lenses, those with very well set up 9" crts and those with blended crt's. The things that almost all of them have in common are that they would understand what anamorphic is and would not mind spending the premium on discs. I think there is enough of us nuts around to make it feasible!
BTY - I wonder if those Greeks you spoke about were using source material that was 720P and the 1080P was just scaled up from there.
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX
Link Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:56 pm Post subject:
Boilermaker wrote:
The thing that made me think of this possibility is the success that Analog Productions is having by re-mastering old analog tapes and putting them on new vinyl. Even at the high price they charge, their business is expanding and they are building a new production facility. This is on a medium that was pronounced dead 20 years ago!
I don't think this is a legit analogy for anamorphic BDs. This is materially different. People are "getting back into vinyl" for a number of reasons. The main one is "all the cool kids are doing it". That accounts for the vast majority of vinyl sales now. The other two (which account for a much smaller percentage of the whole) are:
1) Some people like the distortion and artifacts produced by vinyl.
2) Nostalgia
Although there would be some element of "the cool kids" with anamorphic BDs, I don't think it is the same. In your analogy then, the anamorphic BD consumers would be the "videophile" niche that would be equivalent to the folks that like the distortion produced by vinyl. This is a much smaller set--not large enough to account for the growth and likely not large enough to make anamorphic BDs viable.
Also, let me take it from this angle: Many people can at least hear a difference between a CD and Vinyl. Scaling like we are talking about is pretty good--I understand scaling--imaging software (static not video) is what I do for a living. The difference between a vertically stretched 1080p image and an anamorphic is likely to be imperceptable in the vast majority of cases. In other words, the difference between a current BD stretched and an anamorphic presented 1:1 is going to be MUCH MUCH MUCH closer than the difference between vinyl and a CD.
Boilermaker wrote:
There are three groups of people who would benefit from anamorphic BD's: those with 1080 digital projectors/A-lenses, those with very well set up 9" crts and those with blended crt's. The things that almost all of them have in common are that they would understand what anamorphic is and would not mind spending the premium on discs. I think there is enough of us nuts around to make it feasible!
I think in the end, the benefit will be minimal. Seriously, have you seen a BD vertically stretched by a Lumagen or equiv (not DVDO stuff)? Watching movies I NEVER see scaling artifacts and I do image scaling--I know what to look for! To see any I have to watch a scene over and over and over and look for them! I have way more artifacts from my a-lens then from the vertical stretch! The benefit is likely to be so minimal that you will not be able to see it.
Boilermaker wrote:
BTY - I wonder if those Greeks you spoke about were using source material that was 720P and the 1080P was just scaled up from there.
They did HD video (1080i), HD film (1080--though not from BD IIRC because this was when 1080p DLPs first came out), and SD content. they used two identical HTPCs outputing at the native resolution of the PJ (either 720p or 1080p) through the same brand and model cable to the PJs which were both in 1:1 pixel mapping mode.
They had 35 people in attendance for the shoot out. _________________ Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Link Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I think in the end, the benefit will be minimal.
The only way to tell for sure is to compare the two! I sent an e-mail to Spears & Munsil with the concept to try in perhaps their next disc. I'll share the response when I get it.
I do remember, however, the difference between a regular dvd scaled to 960P and an anamorphic dvd scaled to 960P was dramatic. While at a much lower total level of resolution, it is the same ratio as it would be with an anamorphic BD comparison.
Link Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:34 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Calm down Bob, take deep breaths... there you go... lol
Damn - Am I hyperventilating again!
Actually, if you really think about it - every BD should be anamorphic. Every flat panel and digital projector has a scaling engine built-in to it. The discs could easily be flagged so that on conventional 1.78 displays, it would simply down-rez to 800 lines and create the black bars - OR it could be left alone with the sides cropped for those that feel they have been cheated by not filling the screen of their new HDTV!
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 12340 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56
Link Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:53 pm Post subject:
Person99 wrote:
So, back to the thread. Where are you at Kal? CIH, CIW, or CIA?
I'm nowhere at the moment.
Still working to decide how to lay out the basement. Once we have a better idea on what will fit, I'll start to spend more time trying to figure out which way to go.
Part of me is thinking to keep the 16x9 96" foot wide screen I have now (1.1-1.2 gain) and use it initially with something like the RS45. Once I have a new projector in I'll be able to play with the zooming and see (and measure) the loss of brightness/resolution/etc. I need to see it with my own eyes and play with it. I can then deside if I want to go with a bigger screen or not, or a different AR screen.
After I go though one bulb on the thing and see how it changes over the lifespan I'll have a better idea on what makes sense.
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 12340 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56
Link Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:58 pm Post subject:
Boilermaker wrote:
This is only true if you include another disc--the anamorphic disc (which the vast majority of consumers would not understand so would lead to a bunch of confusion or support calls). I can't see anyone wanting to live through that nightmare.
100% agreed. This is why studios would (IMHO) never go for it. No studio's going to put effort into making a version of the movie that less than 1% of the market wants to buy and will cause confusion for those who buy it by mistake. Retailers would never want to give up the shelf space for it either so it would not get seen much (online only buying?) which means that nobody other than enthusiasts would know it exists.
It has to be 'idiot proof' like Dave said.
Small niche markets just aren't worth the risk of screwing up the established market which earns the bread and butter.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 3912 Location: Comedy Central
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:39 am Post subject:
Person99 wrote:
4K is a way to sell product. I find it pretty hard to believe that in a typical home theater anyone is going to be able to tell the difference. Hell, a Greek HT group did a single blind 720p/1080p shoot out between two identical Marantz PJs--only difference was the resoloution--both PJs showing the top half of the frame from the same source and the images stacked one over the other on the same screen at the same time. At viewing distances of 1.5x screen width (16:9) and greater the difference between them was pretty much undetectable (there was no correlation between what people "guessed" was the 1080p PJ and which one it is). People were not accurately able to identify the 1080p PJ until they moved up to between 1.1 and 1.3x (depending upon content and person). And this is with an HT group looking for differences--being told one was 720p and one was 1080p! Imagine how a "normal" casual observers would fair!
Now, imagine the seating distance you would need to tell the diference between 2K and 4K! .6 or .7 screen width? I don't know anyone who sits at that distance. Few sit under 1.0x the width of a scope image in a CIH HT. And the 4K will not really help as we don't perceive resolution changes in the horizontal as well as the vertical.
Basically 4K will come into the home market to give rich guys like Art bragging rights.
I am going to disagree. It isn't a perfect comparison, but we used the e-shifted RS55 at Cedia going back and forth. Steve Smith sits about 1.0x away and wanted to see where the noticeable difference was. IIRC, it was right around the 1.0x distance for most. It may have been a little less for me as my right eye is worse than my left and that one probably isn't 20/20. Would most people care? Probably not. I know Kris Deering mentioned a couple of times the last thing he ever thinks about is needing more resolution when watching a movie. Honestly, 4k displays need 4k material. I didn't think BR looked a lot better on the JVC 4k pj over the regualr 1080p pjs. When the 4k demo material came up though, it was in another league.
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:23 am Post subject:
Spanky, you hit the 'general consumer' on the head. Ignorance is blissful, both for the uninformed consumer and the retailer making money off of the marketing success of buying into 1080P. Way too many consumer buy based on market with little conscious efforts to doing what it takes to benefit from their buying.
If I am not benefiting, then I am not buying--at least that is what I try to remain conscious of. Let the Bose/Monster consumer do whatever they do. They are happy in their ignorance, and the retailers are happy with them. _________________ Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject:
OK Nash - I'm starting to hyperventilate again!
Just got a response from Stacey Spears and he hopes to include in his next disc not only an anamorphic comparo/demo, but anamorphic static test patterns.
Trust me - if it happens, I'll be getting one and relate what I see.
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 5148 Location: Osceola, Indiana
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject:
Is there such a thing as too sharp or too real? I know I can't stand watching a movie that has the weird looking frame creation crap turned on that some digital displays do. If we get 4K will that have the same too real look? I'm used to the way film looks, don't get me wrong the movies shot digital with iMax cams look great. Will the 4K stuff look soap opera-ish or is that all to do with the frame rate?
Mike _________________ Doing HD since the last century!
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:21 pm Post subject:
MikeEby wrote:
Is there such a thing as too sharp or too real? I know I can't stand watching a movie that has the weird looking frame creation crap turned on that some digital displays do. If we get 4K will that have the same too real look? I'm used to the way film looks, don't get me wrong the movies shot digital with iMax cams look great. Will the 4K stuff look soap opera-ish or is that all to do with the frame rate?
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:59 pm Post subject:
Person99 wrote:
Hell, a Greek HT group did a single blind 720p/1080p shoot out between two identical Marantz PJs--only difference was the resoloution--both PJs showing the top half of the frame from the same source and the images stacked one over the other on the same screen at the same time. At viewing distances of 1.5x screen width (16:9) and greater the difference between them was pretty much undetectable (there was no correlation between what people "guessed" was the 1080p PJ and which one it is). People were not accurately able to identify the 1080p PJ until they moved up to between 1.1 and 1.3x (depending upon content and person). And this is with an HT group looking for differences--being told one was 720p and one was 1080p! Imagine how a "normal" casual observers would fair!
Now, imagine the seating distance you would need to tell the diference between 2K and 4K! .6 or .7 screen width? I don't know anyone who sits at that distance. Few sit under 1.0x the width of a scope image in a CIH HT. And the 4K will not really help as we don't perceive resolution changes in the horizontal as well as the vertical.
.
I dont know how this could be a valid conclusion of anything since the projectors have a native resolution and no matter what resolution you send to it, that resolution would be scaled to the native panel. So the only thing you could possibly identify is a difference of the fill(or compressed) pixels of the non native resolution. It would also depend on what the actual resolution of the source disc was and how the player scaled it. But the actual display resolution would always be the same. And the difference between 720p and 1080p pixel fill(or compressed) would be practically unidentifiable.
Its more likely a visual of artifacts and not a resolution difference since there is no resolution difference on screen. _________________ macgyver566@gmail.com
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 3912 Location: Comedy Central
Link Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject:
Boilermaker wrote:
OK Nash - I'm starting to hyperventilate again!
Just got a response from Stacey Spears and he hopes to include in his next disc not only an anamorphic comparo/demo, but anamorphic static test patterns.
Trust me - if it happens, I'll be getting one and relate what I see.
Bob
I told you Stacey is a nice guy.
MikeEby wrote:
Is there such a thing as too sharp or too real? I know I can't stand watching a movie that has the weird looking frame creation crap turned on that some digital displays do. If we get 4K will that have the same too real look? I'm used to the way film looks, don't get me wrong the movies shot digital with iMax cams look great. Will the 4K stuff look soap opera-ish or is that all to do with the frame rate?
Mike
I don't know the answer except to say that the native 4k material on the JVC 4k had me drooling and Crabb zombiefied. The Sony 4k demo had source issues, but I thought the Spiderman clip was pretty darn nice. Hopefully next year there will be some better 4k movie demos. Oh, I assume you are just talking about movies.
macgyver655 wrote:
Person99 wrote:
Hell, a Greek HT group did a single blind 720p/1080p shoot out between two identical Marantz PJs--only difference was the resoloution--both PJs showing the top half of the frame from the same source and the images stacked one over the other on the same screen at the same time. At viewing distances of 1.5x screen width (16:9) and greater the difference between them was pretty much undetectable (there was no correlation between what people "guessed" was the 1080p PJ and which one it is). People were not accurately able to identify the 1080p PJ until they moved up to between 1.1 and 1.3x (depending upon content and person). And this is with an HT group looking for differences--being told one was 720p and one was 1080p! Imagine how a "normal" casual observers would fair!
Now, imagine the seating distance you would need to tell the diference between 2K and 4K! .6 or .7 screen width? I don't know anyone who sits at that distance. Few sit under 1.0x the width of a scope image in a CIH HT. And the 4K will not really help as we don't perceive resolution changes in the horizontal as well as the vertical.
.
I dont know how this could be a valid conclusion of anything since the projectors have a native resolution and no matter what resolution you send to it, that resolution would be scaled to the native panel. So the only thing you could possibly identify is a difference of the fill(or compressed) pixels of the non native resolution. It would also depend on what the actual resolution of the source disc was and how the player scaled it. But the actual display resolution would always be the same. And the difference between 720p and 1080p pixel fill(or compressed) would be practically unidentifiable.
Its more likely a visual of artifacts and not a resolution difference since there is no resolution difference on screen.
So do you think the best comparison would be with a scene shot with two different cameras in both 720p and 1080p? How about a native 4k clip scaled to both resolutions? I think Stacey was talking about doing something like that on his next disc. He was going to shoot some 4k material with his Red camera.
Link Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:14 am Post subject:
The only thing any comparison at different resolutions would show would be scaler function. Any digital display will show it's best when fed its native resolution. And that also includes the source device and source material. The closer all components and sources are to the native resolution (no matter what it is) the better the picture.
If there must be a difference between the source material and the native display then testing the scaling between the display scaler and the source hardware scaler to see which provides less artifacts and overall better picture would be advisable. _________________ macgyver566@gmail.com
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 5148 Location: Osceola, Indiana
Link Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:32 am Post subject:
TheVerge wrote:
It's frame interpolation, you can turn it off.
I know that. ...I'm just saying I don't care for it.
Spanky Ham wrote:
I don't know the answer except to say that the native 4k material on the JVC 4k had me drooling and Crabb zombiefied. The Sony 4k demo had source issues, but I thought the Spiderman clip was pretty darn nice. Hopefully next year there will be some better 4k movie demos. Oh, I assume you are just talking about movies.
Yes Movies...personally the 4K Lite stuff I saw in Indy looked nice but it didn't look like film at all. There was one shot of Blue Jeans you could see the fibers in the fabric. It almost looked like some type of sharping process was ran on it. Not really natural..To be fair it was shot at 4K then downconverted to 2K then scaled back up to 4K so it was far from native 4K.
Mike _________________ Doing HD since the last century!
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX
Link Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:00 pm Post subject:
Boilermaker wrote:
Quote:
Calm down Bob, take deep breaths... there you go... lol
Damn - Am I hyperventilating again!
Actually, if you really think about it - every BD should be anamorphic. Every flat panel and digital projector has a scaling engine built-in to it. The discs could easily be flagged so that on conventional 1.78 displays, it would simply down-rez to 800 lines and create the black bars - OR it could be left alone with the sides cropped for those that feel they have been cheated by not filling the screen of their new HDTV!
Bob
Did you actually read my posts? I had priviously said this is the only way to implement it properly by no spec (BD, EDID, HDMI, etc) contains this provision--so it will not be done. _________________ Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX
Link Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject:
macgyver655 wrote:
Person99 wrote:
Hell, a Greek HT group did a single blind 720p/1080p shoot out between two identical Marantz PJs--only difference was the resoloution--both PJs showing the top half of the frame from the same source and the images stacked one over the other on the same screen at the same time. At viewing distances of 1.5x screen width (16:9) and greater the difference between them was pretty much undetectable (there was no correlation between what people "guessed" was the 1080p PJ and which one it is). People were not accurately able to identify the 1080p PJ until they moved up to between 1.1 and 1.3x (depending upon content and person). And this is with an HT group looking for differences--being told one was 720p and one was 1080p! Imagine how a "normal" casual observers would fair!
Now, imagine the seating distance you would need to tell the diference between 2K and 4K! .6 or .7 screen width? I don't know anyone who sits at that distance. Few sit under 1.0x the width of a scope image in a CIH HT. And the 4K will not really help as we don't perceive resolution changes in the horizontal as well as the vertical.
.
I dont know how this could be a valid conclusion of anything since the projectors have a native resolution and no matter what resolution you send to it, that resolution would be scaled to the native panel. So the only thing you could possibly identify is a difference of the fill(or compressed) pixels of the non native resolution. It would also depend on what the actual resolution of the source disc was and how the player scaled it. But the actual display resolution would always be the same. And the difference between 720p and 1080p pixel fill(or compressed) would be practically unidentifiable.
Its more likely a visual of artifacts and not a resolution difference since there is no resolution difference on screen.
I do not really follow this. They did 1:1 pixel mapping so scaling in the projector was not done. Scaling was done with the HTPC. Secondly downscaling produces far less artifacts that upscaling--in fact, downscaling can be done almost perfectly.
Since they used 1080 content as the HD source, the 720p projector was at a disadvantage technically since it had the scaled content. Given this disadvantage, it is even more surprising that from typical viewing distances it was tough to tell them apart. It was only when they got within distances where differences in fill and resolution could be noticed that they could tell the difference.
My point was extrapolating this to 4K likely means you have to sit under 1.0 screen width to see the difference--I don't and I don't know many that do. _________________ Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX
Link Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject:
Spanky Ham wrote:
I know Kris Deering mentioned a couple of times the last thing he ever thinks about is needing more resolution when watching a movie.
I would agree. Resolution typically is about 3rd on the list of what makes a great image once you passed a certain threshold.
Spanky Ham wrote:
Honestly, 4k displays need 4k material. I didn't think BR looked a lot better on the JVC 4k pj over the regualr 1080p pjs. When the 4k demo material came up though, it was in another league.
I would like to see an a/b of the same content. I have honestly not seen that yet. My local commercial cinema has Sony 4K projectors. The majority of the content they screen is 2K scaled up--but I have seen a couple Sony releases in 4K in that theater. Typically I have a halfway decent eye and from my 1.1x scope screen width position (in the commercial theater--in my theater, I'm closer to 1.2x) the 4K releases did not hit my as substantially better. However, I clearly did not see the same content back to back both 4K and 2K on the same PJ so my experiences are less than ideal for drawing a hard and fast conclusion. _________________ Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Link
...I'm just saying I don't care for it.
