posted 01-16-2009 04:02 PM                    

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Does any one know if current blu-ray Scope films are mostly 1920x1080 anamorphic or are they letterboxed?

---

posted 01-16-2009 04:48 PM                   

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Anamorphic enhancement isn't used on any 1080p-based movies in Blu-ray. If the image is 2.39:1 it is merely letterboxed. The only anamorphic-enhanced video I've seen on Blu-ray has been extras in DVD-quality 480p format -such as the Dangerous Days documentary in the Bladerunner 5-disc collector's edition

---

Bummer! Anamorphic squeeze was used plenty in DVD discs, and BD actually DOES use it but only for 1440x1080 content, not for 1920x1080 (and then only to stretch it to 16:9, not 21:9).

Who on earth designed the specs for BD? A new HD format and they only include anamorphic enhancement for 1440x1080. A new HD format and no provision for 3D stereoscopic content whatsoever. Makes you wish HD-DVD would've won the battle (not that it was any better, just out of spite for the stupidity of settling on lesser standards when better ones don't cost any more ... )

I smell BD specs update 2.x and a new set of anamorphic special edition BD disc's a few years down the road to allow squeezed images in 1920x1080 that the TV can later un-squeeze to correct ratio, thus using all available resolution instead of 1920x800 we get today from BD scope movies ...

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Hollywood studios are not going to change to a 2580 X 1080 pixel layout over one electronics manufacturer offering such a set.

---

posted 01-17-2009 12:15 PM                    

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Bummer! Anamorphic squeeze was used plenty in DVD discs, and BD actually DOES use it but only for 1440x1080 content, not for 1920x1080 (and then only to stretch it to 16:9, not 21:9).

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Who on earth designed the specs for BD? A new HD format and they only include anamorphic enhancement for 1440x1080. A new HD format and no provision for 3D stereoscopic content whatsoever. Makes you wish HD-DVD would've won the battle (not that it was any better, just out of spite for the stupidity of settling on lesser standards when better ones don't cost any more ...

---

posted 01-18-2009 01:27 AM                    

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Zooming seems to be working for many in DCinema...those screens are much larger.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

2K digital intermediates for Scope films are often 2048x1556 square pixel (1.33) anamorphic if coming from 35mm scope film.

---

posted 01-18-2009 11:25 AM                   

quote: Lyle Romer

---

The vast majority of 2K digital intermediates for so-called 'scope films these days are non-anamorphic coming off of a super35 negative at 2048x856 or they are cropped off HD Cameras at 1920x802 or something like that.

---

Indeed. That's why, if you read the quote in your post, I said *IF* coming out of a Scope film. If it comes from an spherical (super 35, digital, or whatever), then the resolution coming from the DI "master" is not even 1080p to begin with ...

But with a Scope film (scope as in classic true scope), the DI is digitally re-scaled to 1920x820 for Blu-Ray, so any "worries" that digital (what Bobby calls "fixed grid") re-scaling is "bad" per-se is ... well, not NECESSARILY well founded.

What I'm trying to say is that ALL (true) scope movies have been re-scaled for blu-ray. And that ALL *digital* re-scales are "fixed grid". There is no way to convert a (true) scope 2K digital intermediate to a 1080p blue ray 2.35 release w/o digital (non-optical) re-scaling today.

If you buy a blu-ray disc that came from any (true) scope 35mm film and you are happy with the quality ... well, that means "fixed grid" re-scaling is fine with you.

To be honest, I know what Bobby means, but you must also realize that digital re-scaling, be it from a DI 2048x1556 to a letterboxed 1920x820 blu-ray is no "voodo" art, and that a good digital real-time re-scaler can do it at the TV level if it was necessary. The rescaling of Scope films is not done optically at the scanner, but digitally at the DI level. So if you are ok with your blu-ray copy of ANY Scope film, you are OK with digital ("fixed grid") re-scaling (when done right).

Rescaling a "natural" image is a no-brainer and perfectly normal process that is done almost every step of the way in professional imaginering, photography, editing. Changing 2048 to 1920 is already a "fixed grid" re-scale.

What you are objecting to is not a "re-scale" but an "up-scale", where a lesser resolution image, usually not a natural image but text or similar, is upscaled to fit a display with more pixels in a proportion that is not even (i.e. 2x, 4x, 8x). Then you'll see all sort of artifacts.

But to complain that a picture of superior resolution that is (say) 2048x1556 (like a Scope movie DI) will lose quality when "converted to a fixed grid of" 1920x800 to be displayed ... is to complain that every single BD disc of a Scope movie in the market today is "unacceptable" because it has been digital rescaled from non-multiples pixel "grids" sizes.

A scope blu-ray will have MORE resolution than a 1080p display can handle, so it will DOWNSCALE and it will look just fine, exactly like it does today, where it's already have been downscaled before putting it in the disc.

It's upscaling that's "bad". And that's the "zoom" you are talking about. You wouldn't need to "zoom" an anamorphic blu-ray for your non-2.35-ratio display. It will be a "zoom-out" (and only in the vertical dimension at that), and that looks fine. It's already what is being done, except that it's being done in the studio prior to encoding the movie in the disc. Actually, blu-ray players already re-scale 1440x1080 discs. And there are several in the market.

And if you are still not convinced that an anamorphic blu-ray of a scope movie will look good in your 1.78 TV ... well, you can always purchase the "full screen" version ("full screen", for Blu-ray, would be 1.78 ... just like full screen, for DVD, was 1.33) That way, you can enjoy your 1920x820 Scope movie from the downscaled 2048x1556 master.

Meanwhile, those purchasing the "anamorphic" version of the blu-ray with a 2.35 TV (or a home projector with an anamorphic lens) would be watching a 2560x1080 movie, upscaled-in-one-dimension ("stetched") from 1920x1080, downscaled from the same master 2048x1556.

All this theorizing about a future update to blu-ray specs allowing for anamorhpic discs. But I'm sure it will happen as I'm sure LOTS of people are gonna go for the 2.35 ratio 2.5k resolution displays in the (not too distant) future.

It's not even out yet and I already have customers willing to buy it. If the price is not outrageous which, as I said, there is no manufacturing reason for it to be.

About Philips being a "bad brand", like Mark said, and their parts often failing, Mark has to realize that Philips is one of the two leading vendors of tuners in the world, and as a result basically "all" TV's will have philips parts. As a result, ANY tv in the world of any brand which tunner "breaks", for any reason (i.e. electrical storm) .... it's probably a philips. So philips parts would ALWAYS be 100% of all the failures because they are .... 100% of all the market.

I'm exagerating, of course. Philips pbbly only has like 60% of the market. But this automatically means 60% of the failures.

On the other side, Philips shares factories and production with LG. Actually, most panels they use, are join Philips-LG. If you don't want to buy a Philips TV, then don't buy an LG TV either. Basically same thing.

Also, they supply panels and components to almost all other manufactures in the world. As you said, it's very common to see philips parts on plenty of TV's around. 22% of ALL THE LCD's manufactured IN THE WORLD are Philips-LG. Buy an LCD TV monitor, TV or laptop screen and you have 1 in 4 chance of it being manufactured by Philips-LG.

My experience, BTW, happens to be completely the opposite of yours. I usually enjoy the machines with philips parts inside and find them usually great and reliable. No wonder they are the number one in the many markets.

But the philips "whole products" (i.e. a philips-branded TV or a sound equipment, not the IC's or individual components), I haven't found very reliable. But notice that the same thing applies to Sony. I've had so many Sony electronics that I had to repair or send back and lost so much money with them, I try really hard not to buy or sell anything Sony again.

[ 01-18-2009, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

posted 01-18-2009 09:44 PM                    

quote: Julio Roberto

---

But to complain that a picture of superior resolution that is (say) 2048x1556 (like a Scope movie DI) will lose quality when "converted to a fixed grid of" 1920x800 to be displayed ... is to complain that every single BD disc of a Scope movie in the market today is "unacceptable" because it has been digital rescaled from non-multiples pixel "grids" sizes.

---

posted 01-18-2009 10:11 PM                   

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

You're also not acknowledging the situation that there's probably no HDTV sets in existence that will do a vertical squeeze function to make a full screen 1.77:1 letterbox down to 2.39:1. Encoding an anamorphic enhanced image on every 2.39:1 BD movie just for the sake of that Phillips TV is just not going to work.

---

I did acknowledge that. I said a firmware update would be needed for current players, but that no current player should have problems letterboxing the decoded image. The TV wouldn't have to do the downscaling ... the player would and I would be passed letterboxed 1080p as it's being done now.

Alternatively, if your player's manufacturer neglects to offer you a (simple) firmware update, you could just buy the "non-anamorphic" version of the disc.

I believe that 2.35 TV's are going to become very common in a few years and other manufacturers are quickly going to come out with their own models. Then enthusiasts will push for an updated Anamorphic blu-ray format, and blu-ray and Hollywood would see the $$$$ of selling the same movies over again and be delighted to make the (very minor technical) necessary changes.

We'll continue this conversation in a couple of years.