Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 84)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ... 103 104 105

Author

Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-26-2008 06:12 PM

1080i only achieves a 1920x1080 resolution if there is little to no motion going on.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-26-2008 06:31 PM

Yeah, the two interlaced fields of one single frame are recorded 1/60th of a second apart. And that's a big problem when recording anything with any significant motion. At the very least it softens an image. Often even worse things happen.

I thought I uploaded frames from 480i video I took of one of my friends nearly getting hurt lighting fireworks. He got the hell out of the way right before the "mortar round" exploded. The frame grabs are riddled with sawtooth artifacts due to that 1/60th sec. field difference.

Found the images, but they're a little small to see all the sawtooth shit in its asstastic glory.

One bad thing about interlacing that is noticeable in these frames is the ghosting that happens in frame #4 of that sequence. The launch charge of the fireworks round goes off. It's small in one field of the frame, yet ghosting significantly larger in the 2nd field of that same frame. Oh, and check out the very obvious ghosting in the explosion on the last frame.

The video is still funny as hell. I suppose I should upload it to YouTube. That friend of mine who nearly roasted himself has a copy of it on his MySpace page.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-26-2008 07:18 PM

Speaking of firework accidents (no I guess we were not but now we are thanks Bobbi)Any when I was a lad of 10 or so we took a trip at 4th of July back to Duncan where I was born. All my old friends were still there and we must have spent $20.00 each on all kinds of fireworks. Now that isn't a lot now but in 1965 that was a ton of money!

So we set off all the bottle rockets and then all the roman candles and saved the big bad boy rockets till last. I lit a humungus rocket and the fuse went in to the rocket and ... NOTHING, Nothing at all!

We all waited and waited then I walked over and stood over the rocket and looked down at just that moment the damn thing blew up! It was one of those big bang rockets with few sparks just a lot of nose and bright flash.

It blew debry in my eye, it burned me on my legs and arms and I got rushed to the emergency room where they picked all the burnt paper and things out and then flushed my eyes good and long!

Oh and Bobby what the guy is saying is if the source material is a DVD it is 480p not actually interlaced it is progressive. If it is blu-ray the source material is progressive as well. The machine converts it to interlaced and the tv converts it back to progressive so there shouldn't be a problem with that. There should in essence be no difference. I'm not saying he is right but I see the reasoning!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-26-2008 08:08 PM

Most movies on Blu-ray and DVD are authored in progressive form. However, some discs do have interlaced content. The Nine Inch Nails concert disc I have on Blu-ray was shot on video in 1080i, not 1080p.

Even if a progressive 1080p source is played on a HDTV in 1080i some flicker and other problems can be present.

I'm 100% sure why a lot of early 1920 X 1080 capable HDTVs were limited to displaying such images in interlaced form. I seem to remember it being limitations with HDMI standards then and limits of how many video formats those HD monitors would support. 1080p was just too "new" then.

Now we have 1080p/24, 1080p/30 and 1080p/60. Lots of 1080p TVs don't support all three of those 1080p modes. The drama continues.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-26-2008 08:22 PM

Well the one that that is constant in life is that things change! Sometimes that is just so sad!

I agree that anytime you look at most extras off a TV's shows DVD it looks really crappy no matter what your HD TV is set to or the up-convert! But then I don't watch that many extras!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-27-2008 12:46 AM

Ron, my DVD player does not interlace and then deinterlace progressive material before sending it out to the TV as 480p.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-27-2008 02:37 AM

As pointed out elsewhere...the whole interlace/deinterlace thing is not without its problems. There is a confusion between loss of image and how that image is displayed. The interlacing process inherently creates time-related artifacts and they are the hardest to get rid of.

Even in the article's description of how 3:2 pull down works (which is NOT the same as interlace/deinterlace) you can see how an interlaced image will create artifacts

quote:
It basically looks like this: 1a,1b,2a,2b,2c,3a,3b,4a…

A digital display will not show an interlaced image since it does not use a priciple of the CRT to create the interlaced image (persistence).

So on a digital display, you get the 1a and 1b picture up there and all is looking just fine, then 2a is put up there and you have a situation where 2a and 1b are on the screen at the same time...the digital display is going to refresh the whole screen (progressive, you know) but all it has at that instant in time is the 1b and 2a images to form the whole picture. The display doesn't know they are not from the same source frame. There is not loss of information but they are being displayed in a manner that is not like the original.

Conversely, a progressive source on a progressive dispplay will show 1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,4....etc. That is, all of frame one and update itself with all of frame one again, then switch to frame two (All of it) and show it three times and so forth. At no time is part of one frame and part of another frame on the screen at the same time. This is simple frame rate conversion from 24 to 60Hz.

It isn't a matter of "losing information" in a progressive to interlace transmission, it is how that interlaced transmission will be displayed. Now with 60i source material versus 60p source material then yes, there is have the resolution there. But when comparing 24p to 60p there is less than half the resolution too...just it isn't pixel resolution...it is motion resolution. It is a shame we are still using 24p or 24fps for anything...the industry should have jumped to 30fps a long time ago...it looks significantly better than 24 (which was chosen to get optical sound to have a high enough frequency response for 35mm film...why should that be the driving force at this time?...it will only get better with a faster moving print anyway. 30fps would be an immediate 25% improvement and to think that it was done with a couple of major releases back in the 1950s!

| IP: Logged

Tom Mundell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 120
From: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-27-2008 09:30 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
So on a digital display, you get the 1a and 1b picture up there and all is looking just fine, then 2a is put up there and you have a situation where 2a and 1b are on the screen at the same time...the digital display is going to refresh the whole screen (progressive, you know) but all it has at that instant in time is the 1b and 2a images to form the whole picture. The display doesn't know they are not from the same source frame. There is not loss of information but they are being displayed in a manner that is not like the original.

Don't most digital displays have an option for dealing with this specific scenario? My display has a "Cinema Mode" which is supposed to avoid the situation where 2a and 1b are on the screen at the same time (and seems to work quite well); if I turn the mode off comb artifacts are easily visible. My understanding is 2a and 2c are the same so the tv would do something like combine 1a and 1b, show twice, eliminate 2a and combine 2b & 2c and show that 3 times, etc. There may be side effects to this (time delay?) but results seem pretty good. This is only useful for movies of course.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-27-2008 10:00 AM

Joe the article didn't concern it's self with anything but 1080i vs 1080p and it being played on a digital HD TV. I didn't write the article for like the 3rd time here I posted it. I don't vouch for the tech that wrote the articles credentials. I merely read it and copied and posted!

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-27-2008 10:11 AM

Tom...yes most digital devices do have some form of 3:2 pull down recognition...they work to varying degrees. It all depends on what is going on with the image. Is it moving horizontally or vertically...there are tons of ways to trip them up. However, the simple fact is, if is progressive out to progressive in...then there is nothing to get tripped up.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-27-2008 04:21 PM

quote: Ron Funderburg
I didn't write the article for like the 3rd time here I posted it.

So that means I can't refute it?

Also, do most digital TVs upscale one field at a time (this would prevent any motion artifacts) or do they wait for the entire frame to get there (causing a 1/60th per second delay at the bare minimum) before it does anything?

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-27-2008 05:11 PM

Joe you can refute it, dispute it, disbelieve it or any other thing you want but realize that you aren't in an argument with me. I recently saw a side by side demonstration of some Sony HD TV at an appliance store a friend of mine owns where I'm from. One was using 1080i and playing it while the other was at 1080p not sure if it was off the same unit or not they seemed to be about half a second off que with each other. I couldn't tell the difference except in a few scene changes and you had some artifacts on the one that was a 1080i play. It handled the action scenes pretty good!

I don't know I haven't read up on how the units actually do the upscale or anything else! I haven't gotten to do any video editing or work in about 6 months miss it!

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 03-27-2008 06:48 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
I think you could word that better. 1080i from a 1080i source having missing information? Missing from what, itself? That's like saying my left eyeball has missing information from my left eyeball.

I could definitely have worded that more clearly.

What I meant to say is that the big difference is the source material. When the source material is interlaced (OTA and cable/satellite), you will not get the same results as when the source material is progressively encoded (Blu-ray and HD DVD). I firmly believe that a TV with a good deinterlacer (at least as good as the one in a Blu-ray or HD DVD player), the image will be the same whether the player is outputting 1080p vs 1080i.

Note that this only applies to a 1080p source! With 1080i material, such as that which is available on OTA broadcast and satellite/cable services, that 1080i is actually missing information that has to be reconstructed to some degree but never exactly as if the source was 1080p in the first place.

Many 1080i TV's, especially the older CRT models, were actually accepting the 1080i and converting it to 540p, making for less quality than 720p. Since consumers were told that 1080 is better than 720, that's what sold. Now we have to deal with it for a very long time.

On a happier note, I tried out the PS3 with the 2.20 update on some Blu-ray discs last night, and each of the four discs I tried (I Am Legend, Cars, No Reservations, and T2) were all BDMV, so the resume feature worked as advertised. It's nice to have that feature back!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-27-2008 09:36 PM

quote:
I recently saw a side by side demonstration of some Sony HD TV at an appliance store a friend of mine owns where I'm from. One was using 1080i and playing it while the other was at 1080p not sure if it was off the same unit or not they seemed to be about half a second off que with each other. I couldn't tell the difference except in a few scene changes and you had some artifacts on the one that was a 1080i play. It handled the action scenes pretty good!

That account sounds a little strange.

Ron, you're saying your friend had two identical Sony HDTV monitors set up playing the same video (presumably a 1080p movie on Blu-ray) on both. If the hardware is identical, how is he forcing one of the displays to show the video in 1080i? Use component cables and manually select the output mode from the movie player?

When I connected my PS3 to my Sony Bravia KDL52XBR4 HDTV using a HDMI cable the PS3 automatically detected the monitor's capabilities, setting 1080p by default and also enabling true 24p display due to the 120Hz refresh rate. I didn't have an option to force 1080i when using HDMI.

quote:
I tried out the PS3 with the 2.20 update on some Blu-ray discs last night, and each of the four discs I tried (I Am Legend, Cars, No Reservations, and T2) were all BDMV, so the resume feature worked as advertised. It's nice to have that feature back!

It's too bad Resume Play doesn't work on BD-Java authored discs, such as the 30th anniversary "ultimate collector's edition" of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Resume play works on "BDMV" discs. I tried it with [i]Casino Royale. Works like a charm, even if you power down and reboot the PS3. I've read the feature even works if you remove the disc from the player.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-27-2008 10:37 PM

I hope this doesn't mean that every time I stick a Blu-ray disc into my PS3 it's going to ask me to resume. How the hell will it know if I watched it all the way or just stopped somewhere? I will be super pissed if every movie I stick in the machine for the 2nd time starts up somewhere in the credits (or even asks to).

quote: Ron Funderburg
Joe you can refute it, dispute it, disbelieve it or any other thing you want but realize that you aren't in an argument with me.

Who said it was?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ... 103 104 105

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.