Ask questions to BD authoring and compression insider "2themax"

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Though I had HD DVD, I never played around with U-Control much (and had some of it explained to me earlier today). Could you elaborate?

~Alan

When you activated the P-i-P window via U-Control, the actual movie would shrink so that the P-i-P window would block only a small amount of the image.

[scott1256ca]

When you activated the P-i-P window via U-Control, the actual movie would shrink so that the P-i-P window would block only a small amount of the image.

Why would they do that? 2themax said it was a spec limitation. Which spec limited it? You would still have to read and decode the entire image, so there is no bandwidth saving, and since you'd have to scale afterwards, there doesn't seem to be any CPU savings either.

Thanks

[WickyWoo]

So you can see more of the movie itself while looking at the PiP

[scott1256ca]

Except that isn't a spec limitation. If that is the reason they chose it, I don't know if I think it is a good or bad decision, since I'm not likely to use PiP for movies anyway (concerts, opera perhaps, but not movies). Even then, if possible, I'd like the option to choose to size the "main" screen as I see fit. That might be asking too much of a SoC though.

[2themax]

Originally Posted by scott1256ca

Except that isn't a spec limitation. If that is the reason they chose it, I don't know if I think it is a good or bad decision, since I'm not likely to use PiP for movies anyway (concerts, opera perhaps, but not movies). Even then, if possible, I'd like the option to choose to size the "main" screen as I see fit. That might be asking too much of a SoC though.

The HD-DVD spec allowed for the scaling of main video while PIP was present. The Blu-ray spec does not. It's one of the few things HD-DVD had over Blu-ray.

[scott1256ca]

Thanks for the reply. All in all, I don't care too much, but it seems like something (the scaling I mean) that could have been done in BD without too much effort.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by 2themax

The HD-DVD spec allowed for the scaling of main video while PIP was present. The Blu-ray spec does not. It's one of the few things HD-DVD had over Blu-ray.

Have to admit I did prefer the re-sizing of the picture on the HD DVD's I have over the stuck in one corner. It did allow you to see more of the film while enjoying the U-CONTROL.

[FourToedStatue]

Hi 2themax,

I was wondering if you knew why Warner bundled dvd's with the Blade Runner blu ray last year? They did the same thing with the Matrix HD DVD (i hope they don't do it again when it hits blu ray). Was it a cost saving measure?

[2themax]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Hi 2themax,

I was wondering if you knew why Warner bundled dvd's with the Blade Runner blu ray last year? They did the same thing with the Matrix HD DVD (i hope they don't do it again when it hits blu ray). Was it a cost saving measure?

Without knowing the actual answer, I'd guess at a cost or a replication capacity issue. I don't think we'll see it happen on the Matrix set though. The DVD in the HD-DVD set had the Animatrix on it which is set to be in HD on the Blu-ray version.

[WickyWoo]

The extras for Blade Runner weren't finished in time for them to be compressed and authored for HD. The same thing happened with Animatrix for HD DVD (that set was rushed out anyway to combat pirates)

All the Matrix extras are SD to begin with and they will be on DVDs, though the material should be more consolidated

[FourToedStatue]

Hi 2the Max,

I had always assumed that the questionable picture quality of early BD's (Terminator, XXX, Total Recall) was transfer related. Recently though I've read some theories pointing to the use of a single layer (25GB) to house both the film and the space-eating PCM trackas the culprit. Who's right?

Thanks

[2themax]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Hi 2the Max,

I had always assumed that the questionable picture quality of early BD's (Terminator, XXX, Total Recall) was transfer related. Recently though I've read some theories pointing to the use of a single layer (25GB) to house both the film and the space-eating PCM trackas the culprit. Who's right?

Thanks

It was more than likely a combination of both bad mastering and limited storage. I would, however, say that the master played more of role in the less than stellar picture quality. Sony learned that the hard way. Just look at what they had to do with The Fifth Element.

[WickyWoo]

I've seen a fairly recent print of Terminator, I don't think that one was particuarly bad.

It was shot low budget almost 25 years ago. There's only so much you can do with it.

I'm grateful it looks as good as it does personally

[HeavyHitter]

I agree - the Terminator Blu-ray looks very filmlike.

[DjTimothyScott]

why are we still using blue/red, green/red glasses (sorry Red/Green deficient, can't see shades of those colors, not color blind. I saw Journey to the center of the earth at the IMAX in 3-D and they were using polarized Lenses. why don't we get that sort of technology for home dvd/blu-ray discs?

It really pissed me off when i bought it on blu-ray and found out that the 3D tech was old school. now i have to take the movie back and fight to get my money back because it is hard for me to see the 3D because of the tech. I know that i can not be the only one in the world that has this problem.

[Anthony P]

because your display can't produce polarized images.

[DjTimothyScott]

I don't have a screen, i have a 1080p Projector with a 256in picture.

is tech to expensive or has it not come out. why do our screens not allow this. i would think a projector would be able to.

with 3D tech coming Blu-ray as a codec or piece of equipment the need to figure a way to do it. this old tech is putting alot of people out.

[Anthony P]

you can do projected polarized light (like in theatres) but you would need the proper set-up and equipment,some of us would want to be able to use two projectors for this

The issue is Plasmas, LCD flat panels, CRTs can't do polarization and they are the vast majority of displays. And I don't think too many people would be willing to create a properly sett up dual projector system

The BDA is looking into a an official 3D specs. I (and a few others) hope that it will be a simple spec that would allow for manufacturers to be able to build different solutions for different displays (so that player A might output 3D the old fashion way and someone else could buy a player that outputs each image to a different projector.....)

[Shinma]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

because your display can't produce polarized images.

Actually, this isn't entirely true. LCD's do emit polarized light. It's how they work. The problem is that it is linearly polarized, and cannot emit the orthogonal polarization state, and certainly can't emit distinguishable circular polarization states. Plasma does not emit polarized light. LED can emit slightly polarized light, but not in a useful way. And finally laser can produce highly linearly polarized light, but it generally goes through techniques to reduce the speckle which do not preserve this state. The spirit of the response is correct though. Nothing is currently set up to display 3-D appropriate polarization states.

[2themax]

3D using polarized lenses is in the works for BD. Panasonic recently demonstrated the technology, https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1838. It would require new hardware and new compression techniques for it all to work, but it is possible.