Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

hd-dvd/blu-ray native (encoded) res, 720p or 1080i?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:33:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Which are the new gen of dvd players going to use for their native
resolution?
I get that my 720p dlp will convert, I just want to know what the assets
on the discs are going to be encoded at.
Thanks
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:33:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michael Lankton wrote:
> Which are the new gen of dvd players going to use for their native
> resolution?
> I get that my 720p dlp will convert, I just want to know what the assets
> on the discs are going to be encoded at.
>

We won't really know until they start being produced, but I wouldn't be
surprised if they use both geometries. I think the real question will
be: will the studios allow 1080p.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:33:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Michael Lankton wrote:
> > Which are the new gen of dvd players going to use for their native
> > resolution?
> > I get that my 720p dlp will convert, I just want to know what the
> > assets on the discs are going to be encoded at.
>
> We won't really know until they start being produced, but I wouldn't
> be surprised if they use both geometries. I think the real question
> will be: will the studios allow 1080p.

The main argument for 1080i over 720p is that most of the originals
will be 24fps film. Which means you've effectively got 1080p already
with a pulldown circuit, just as current DVDs are effectively 480p. So
there isn't going to be any push for real 1080p encoding until somebody
starts producing 1080p60 or better content -- i.e. when either the TV
broadcast standards are upgraded, or the film industry starts to
abandon 24fps. I wouldn't expect either for many many years.

Of course, the film industry might start using 2160p internally at any
time...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:55:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Paul Kienitz wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Lankton wrote:
>>
>>>Which are the new gen of dvd players going to use for their native
>>>resolution?
>>>I get that my 720p dlp will convert, I just want to know what the
>>>assets on the discs are going to be encoded at.
>>
>>We won't really know until they start being produced, but I wouldn't
>>be surprised if they use both geometries. I think the real question
>>will be: will the studios allow 1080p.
>
>
> The main argument for 1080i over 720p is that most of the originals
> will be 24fps film. Which means you've effectively got 1080p already
> with a pulldown circuit, just as current DVDs are effectively 480p.

Effectively progressive less the effect of filtering for interlaced display.

> So
> there isn't going to be any push for real 1080p encoding until somebody
> starts producing 1080p60 or better content -- i.e. when either the TV
> broadcast standards are upgraded, or the film industry starts to
> abandon 24fps.

I think a significant installed base of 1080p displays will be required
as well as requiring the players do the interlace filtering of 1080p so
it can be displayed on 1080i displays.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 9:11:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Paul Kienitz wrote:
>>We won't really know until they start being produced, but I wouldn't
>>be surprised if they use both geometries. I think the real question
>>will be: will the studios allow 1080p.
>
> The main argument for 1080i over 720p is that most of the originals
> will be 24fps film. Which means you've effectively got 1080p already
> with a pulldown circuit, just as current DVDs are effectively 480p. So
> there isn't going to be any push for real 1080p encoding until somebody
> starts producing 1080p60 or better content -- i.e. when either the TV
> broadcast standards are upgraded, or the film industry starts to
> abandon 24fps. I wouldn't expect either for many many years.
>
> Of course, the film industry might start using 2160p internally at any
> time...

Since they will be using new codecs - MPEG 4 AVC and Microsoft VC.1
(aka WMV9), why wouldn't they provide for 1080p at 24 fps encoding of
movies? Should make for a more efficient compression. Let the hardware &
software in the player send it out at a user selectable 1080p24,
1080i60, or 720p60? Along with 480i/p for backward compatibility.

The answer is that Blue Ray will support 1080p24 (but not 1080p60
which might be a mistake). We will see what the studios put on the
disks. Went to the Bluray.org website and quickly found this:

"Video highlights
The BD-ROM format for movie distribution supports three highly advanced
video codecs, including MPEG-2, so an author can choose the most
suitable one for a particular application. All codecs are industry
standards, meaning easy integration with existing authoring tools, and
choice from wide range of encoding solutions. All consumer video
resolutions are available:
- 1920 x 1080 HD (50i, 60i and 24p)
- 1280 x 720 HD (50p, 60p and 24p)
- 720 x 576/480 SD (50i or 60i)"

Alan F
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 1:23:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Since they will be using new codecs - MPEG 4 AVC and Microsoft VC.1
> (aka WMV9), why wouldn't they provide for 1080p at 24 fps encoding of
> movies? Should make for a more efficient compression. Let the hardware &
> software in the player send it out at a user selectable 1080p24,
> 1080i60, or 720p60? Along with 480i/p for backward compatibility.

....and 1080/60p for future-proofing.

--
Jeff Rife | "Having your book turned into a movie is like
| seeing your ox turned into bouillon cubes."
|
| -- John Le Carré
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:05:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:23:13 -0500, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Since they will be using new codecs - MPEG 4 AVC and Microsoft VC.1=20
>> (aka WMV9), why wouldn't they provide for 1080p at 24 fps encoding of=20
>> movies? Should make for a more efficient compression. Let the hardware &=
>=20
>> software in the player send it out at a user selectable 1080p24,=20
>> 1080i60, or 720p60? Along with 480i/p for backward compatibility.
>
>...and 1080/60p for future-proofing.

Why not pushing for 50Hz?
Meaning that Film in 24fps is output speeded 4% but we don't see a
problem with that in Europe. The benefit would be to get rid of the
3:2 pull down problems (or is it 2:3 pull up?).

I was hoping for a _standard_ with the transition to HD, but it is
clear from all the "HDTV Ready" guidelines that they only increase the
mess by including almost all possible versions to the list.

To realy benefit from fixed pixel image display, we need ONE defined
resolution and frame rate to be used in the source material.
The high quality displays will then adopt to that.
Any conversion will sacrifice picture quality so I think that should
only be done when needed for backward compatibility with SD displays.

From the HD list, I suggest the selection 1280x720p 50Hz.
/Jan
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:05:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jan B (nospam@nospam.se) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >...and 1080/60p for future-proofing.
>
> Why not pushing for 50Hz?

Because the amount of HD produced in the US at either 24fps, 30fps, or 60fps
already dwarfs that of the rest of the world, and it's just going to get
more lopsided.

But, if somebody wants to manufacture a HD-DVD (or BluRay) player for Europe,
they can add the necessary conversions for 50Hz output. That's the whole
point...the player should do all the conversions, but limiting the content
on disc to a reasonable number of resolutions is good, and 50Hz modes just
don't make the cut when there is little 50Hz-sourced content.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/CatsAndDo...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 10:20:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:05:39 GMT, nospam@nospam.se (Jan B) wrote:

>To really benefit from fixed pixel image display, we need ONE defined
>resolution and frame rate to be used in the source material.

I disagree. Computers support all kinds of aspect ratios, resolutions,
frame rates and even encodings, and, while some look better than
others, there's a high degree of flexibility which is invaluable. Not
all source material is the same resolution nor frame rate, so why
should the display have only one?

One of the problems I see with DVD right now is that it *isn't* very
flexible: only 720 x 480 or 720 x 576, with just two possible display
aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9) and just two frame rates (50Hz or
59.94Hz)? Not good enough...


>From the HD list, I suggest the selection 1280x720p 50Hz.

Hmm... that looks like a pretty bad choice to me. If film is 24fps,
what is 50Hz doing there?? There is no way (as a North American) I
want my audio sped up 4% all the time, and 1280 x 720p is going to
look positively low-end in the resolution department sooner rather
than later. Why not go with 1920 x 1080 -- it already exists, after
all.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:43:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> But, if somebody wants to manufacture a HD-DVD (or BluRay) player for
Europe,
> they can add the necessary conversions for 50Hz output. That's the
whole
> point...the player should do all the conversions, but limiting the
content
> on disc to a reasonable number of resolutions is good, and 50Hz modes
just
> don't make the cut when there is little 50Hz-sourced content.

As I understand it, most modern European TVs multisync to support 60hz
input. They have to because of the amount of 60hz content, plus 24fps
film looks bad at 50hz unless you speed it up to 25 fps.
February 12, 2005 11:22:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <420c43bb.6142279@wingate> nospam@nospam.se (Jan B) writes:

>Why not pushing for 50Hz?
>Meaning that Film in 24fps is output speeded 4% but we don't see a
>problem with that in Europe. The benefit would be to get rid of the
>3:2 pull down problems (or is it 2:3 pull up?).

Well, there are reports of problems by those who have reasonably
accurate sense of pitch in their hearing. From one note to the next
in the chromatic scale is approximately 6% so a 4% speed up is rather
substantial from a musical point of view.

The speed up of motion is also reported as being a problem in some
movies.

When comparing video at 50 Hz with 60 Hz video, there is more smoothness
of motion, and a more capturing presence.


Alan
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Alan" <nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:cukecd$1rv$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <420c43bb.6142279@wingate> nospam@nospam.se (Jan B) writes:
>
>>Why not pushing for 50Hz?
>>Meaning that Film in 24fps is output speeded 4% but we don't see a
>>problem with that in Europe. The benefit would be to get rid of the
>>3:2 pull down problems (or is it 2:3 pull up?).
>
> Well, there are reports of problems by those who have reasonably
> accurate sense of pitch in their hearing. From one note to the next
> in the chromatic scale is approximately 6% so a 4% speed up is rather
> substantial from a musical point of view.
>
> The speed up of motion is also reported as being a problem in some
> movies.
>
> When comparing video at 50 Hz with 60 Hz video, there is more smoothness
> of motion, and a more capturing presence.
>
>
> Alan



If you want to see what motion pictures look like when they
match the video frame rate (what is seen in Europe when 24 FPS film
is speeded up 4% )...Get the USA DVD version of OKLAHOMA. (or watch the
Turner Classic Movies broadcast)

It was filmed at 30 frames per second.
February 12, 2005 5:26:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <110n71mftv9q934@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> We won't really know until they start being produced, but I wouldn't be
> surprised if they use both geometries. I think the real question will
> be: will the studios allow 1080p.

So far, a lot of the demo content, maybe all of it, has been encoded at
1080p from what I understand.

The real question is what kind of bit rate they will use.

They may try to keep things at single-layer to save costs, which would
necessitate lower than optimal bitrates.
!