Blu-ray's Big 'Picture Problem'

[PaulGo]

Blu-ray's Big 'Picture Problem'
By Swanni

... Blu-ray offers the best high-def picture; it's better than streaming (far better, in fact), better than cable and satellite, better even than what you see at your local movie theater.

So why doesn't Sony, and its studio colleagues, say that. That consumers should buy Blu-ray because it's better than streaming, cable and satellite, movie theaters, you name it. And why don't the studios run national TV spots telling people that Blu-ray's picture is so much better than anything else? If more consumers were aware of that fact, don't you think that Blu-ray sales would rise?

I do, but here's the problem: In addition to getting a percentage of each Blu-ray sale/rental, the studios generate revenue from streaming rentals, cable and satellite VOD purchases and, of course, movie theater receipts. The Blu-ray divisions of the studios don't want to diminish the value of these competitors because they are actually on the same team. They all bring in money to the studio.

Full article at:

http://www.tvpredictions.com/blu031912.htm

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

... Blu-ray offers the best high-def picture; it's better than streaming (far better, in fact), better than cable and satellite, better even than what you see at your local movie theater.

Why does Swanni think that Blu-ray is better than your local movie theater??

Movie theaters are either showing film which is much higher effective resolution than Blu-ray... OR they are showing a digital transfer probably 4K even...

If he is going to movie theaters that aren't showing as good as his Blu-ray at home, then he needs to go to a new theater!

[Al_The_Strange]

I'm sure the studios would rather have customers pay per month for streaming titles rather than to pay $10 or $20 one time to own a copy of a given movie forever.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Why does Swanni think that Blu-ray is better than your local movie theater??

Movie theaters are either showing film which is much higher effective resolution than Blu-ray... OR they are showing a digital transfer probably 4K even...

If he is going to movie theaters that aren't showing as good as his Blu-ray at home, then he needs to go to a new theater!

While that is true, I often prefer my picture at home to the theater. The only exception is the local IMAX theater(Note: not faux Imax). This is usually because the black levels and contrast at the local theater can't hold up to my plasma.

[krazeyeyez]

1. its not better then the theatre

2. Its truly technology dependent. What i mean is someone with tv speakers or a sound bar could not only care less about lossless audio, but would be hard pressed to tell the difference, someone with a 40" or less tv would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 720 streams and 1080 blu's.

3. What they need to differentiate to the public and in terms j6p can understand is the difference between blu-ray 1080p and streaming 1080p. As far as colors and other aspects are concerned. If they don't get ahead of the curve on this one blu won't reach the levels of penetration it should although imo it is already past the point of being reduced to a niche market.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

1. its not better then the theatre

It depends on the theater. BD on my plasma looked significantly better than any film projection I have ever seen in any theater in my town (Albuquerque). And, yes I know that theoretically 35mm has much higher rez than 1080p, and that the majority of BD are sourced from 35mm The main multiplex here finally went all digital about a year ago. Sometimes it looks great, sometimes I notice a distracting flicker, which no one I've talked to seems to be able to see. And the black levels are not as good as a good plasma. Rumors are that an IMAX theater is finally about to break ground here, but then I heard that in about 2007 as well.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

It depends on the theater. BD on my plasma looked significantly better than any film projection I have ever seen in any theater in my town (Albuquerque). And, yes I know that theoretically 35mm has much higher rez than 1080p, and that the majority of BD are sourced from 35mm The main multiplex here finally went all digital about a year ago. Sometimes it looks great, sometimes I notice a distracting flicker, which no one I've talked to seems to be able to see. And the black levels are not as good as a good plasma. Rumors are that an IMAX theater is finally about to break ground here, but then I heard that in about 2007 as well.

Well of course same as BD depends on the home theatre, my buddies vizio lcd which he blows up to eliminate those annoying black bars looks like crud. But the tech against the tech, theatre wins, even on the low end, not even considering the high end digitals or proper film setups, let alone real imax.

P.S. i wouldn't hold your breath on the IMAX as more then likely it will be of the AMC variety unfortunetly

[Blu-dock Saint]

While I agree with points of this article am I the only one here disturbed by the comments on the articles site? Claiming that blu-rays cost $30 and such.....I can't remember the last time I payed $30 for a blu-ray. Is this site known for anti blu-ray type posters or something? Reminds me of the days of FUD being spread around like crazy on blu-ray passing on. I personally still feel that we're early enough into the cycle that blu-ray will be supported very well for at least another 8-10 years. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Blu-dock Saint

While I agree with points of this article am I the only one here disturbed by the comments on the articles site? Claiming that blu-rays cost $30 and such.....I can't remember the last time I payed $30 for a blu-ray. Is this site known for anti blu-ray type posters or something? Reminds me of the days of FUD being spread around like crazy on blu-ray passing on. I personally still feel that we're early enough into the cycle that blu-ray will be supported very well for at least another 8-10 years. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

While places like best buy and walmart have finally begun to have what i would consider reasonably priced blu-rays at least during sales or in bins, many titles still hold a $25-$30 price tag and that perspective is still very common among people i talk to that have yet to adopt blu-ray. My buddy who just got his first BDP this last christmas, bought his first 2-3 movies at best buy, which luckily he did not open before i got there. I was able to find him the same 3 movies for 1/4 of the price. The high price on 3d blu-rays as well does nothing for the format as at a glance consumers see the price and associate it with the format in general not making the distinction between 3d and other blu-rays.

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Well of course same as BD depends on the home theatre, my buddies vizio lcd which he blows up to eliminate those annoying black bars looks like crud. But the tech against the tech, theatre wins, even on the low end, not even considering the high end digitals or proper film setups, let alone real imax.

Exactly... and even moreso considering that any Blu-ray release would be sourced from the same place the theater's film/digital copy came from... so while your local theater might be crappy, your home video setup could be crappy too. But the source shown at the theater should always be better quality than the Blu-ray you could have in your home.

When someone like Swanni who is attempting to be credible says something so obviously incorrect, it kind of casts a shadow on the rest of the article.

[KubrickFan]

Because people don't care. HD is HD, in their opinion, and since streaming and watching cable is far easier (and cheaper) than buying Blu-rays, they're going to stick with that. Look, we're talking about a huge group of people that, if you showed them a DVD and a Blu-ray playing side by side on two televisions, wouldn't see a difference. It's the same reason why they don't care about mp3 downloads, even though CDs have a far better quality (and of course vinyl before that).

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Why does Swanni think that Blu-ray is better than your local movie theater??

Movie theaters are either showing film which is much higher effective resolution than Blu-ray... OR they are showing a digital transfer probably 4K even...

If he is going to movie theaters that aren't showing as good as his Blu-ray at home, then he needs to go to a new theater!

It is not true, even though film has (can have) higher definition than BD, the reality is most (probably all) theatres are not properly set-up and so the definition seen tends to be lower. Also a lot of the digital projectors for cinemas are not 4k, so there too there is no more resolution than BD (and again, if they are not properly focused they lose resolution).

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

It is not true, even though film has (can have) higher definition than BD, the reality is most (probably all) theatres are not properly set-up and so the definition seen tends to be lower.

Film always has more than Blu-ray (HD) resolution. All film, even the much lamented 16mm film that some hate has more resolution than 1920x1080 used for HD and Blu-rays. That's just science and truth.

Now we can debate if a particular movie theater has a poor projector, doesn't have it focused properly, etc... but you'd have to say some people hook their Blu-ray up to SD tvs too!

The point is... you can't say Blu-ray is better than movie theaters. You *could* say that some home theaters w/ Blu-ray might seem better than some theaters... since an awesome home setup might trump a crappy theater setup.

But... that's not what Swanni said. He made a more absolute Blu-ray > Theaters statement that is just not true... unless I'm misreading his article.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Movie theaters are either showing film which is much higher effective resolution than Blu-ray...

That’s an urban myth expressed repeatedly on hobbyist audiovideo boards and it runs counter to the ‘science and fact’ published by the ITU-R Study Group 6….
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

which despite protestations by some in the film community, the celluloid people never did provide a scientific study to counter the findings of the independent ITUR. If the technicality of the article and graphs seem somewhat intimidating to folks, the Cliff notes version is that MTF resolution of release prints measured out (using a microdensitometer scan of the film element in the lab) at only 1000 lines of resolution.

Do you still think that the ‘effective resolution’ of the film which people commonly see in theaters significantly surpasses that of Blu-ray? Additionally, the international study showed that the subjective or ‘observed’ resolution of release prints playing in movie theaters set the bar even lower, with the highest assessment being 875 lines and the average assessment being 750 lines.

[HDMe]

I think you are mis-reading that document... and perhaps others in the motion picture industry are as well.

Firstly... of course the original source would be the best quality, and copies made after that and copies of copies and so forth would be of diminishing quality.

Secondly, projecting an image on the screen doesn't show all of the available resolution. Human perception is limited. It would be like saying that since you can't hear a dog whistle then it must not be making a sound.

The point with film is... you could blow that image up even larger and not see a loss of detail. Your brain is going to perceive in terms of reality... so you aren't going to see the full level of detail that the film is capable of delivering until you reach the limit.

So... you'd have to blow that image up to the point where you are pushing the limits of its detail, then you could see the flaws... until that point, the same film projected in a smaller movie theater is going to look about the same to your brain as on a large movie theater with a bigger screen.

That study was done with the idea in mind to see how people would perceive digital projection vs film projection... and their "hope" I imagine was to prove what they proved... which is that human perception is limited and cannot necessarily process the full detail which is there so that the digital projection technology can be limited in detail and still look as good.

Think MP3 and CDs vs analog audio. Nothing beats hearing an actual band perform live right in front of you. Sound is analog and our ears are designed to process that... but we are imperfect creatures, so you can digitize a live performance and essentially throw away large amounts of detail in the audio, but still provide a quality experience that most people will not tell is different or lower in quality than an analog performance.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Film always has more than Blu-ray (HD) resolution.

Always might be a bit strong, but yes, you are right film can have more detail. But you don't see a first generation film in theatre but an image created by a projector using film that is several generations old (copies of copies) and with each generation definition is lost and when projected it can lose even more. And most theatres don't have the image at the best sharpness because

1) focus drifts and they don't have the expertise to focus the image often (someting that I do on a regular basis at home)

2) theatres don't focus perfectly at all just because over sharpness will show the FG and other film artifacts and they want people to sit very close while not being assaulted by those artifacts

3) a film deteriorates with every use so unless it is the launch presentation of the film you won't get a presentation that is as detailed.

Now we can debate if a particular movie theater has a poor projector, doesn't have it focused properly, etc...

not at all like PM already pointed out (so I won't bother adding links) there are reputable studies conducted and they all show that a theatrical film presentations does not have more definition than 1080p.

but you'd have to say some people hook their Blu-ray up to SD tvs too!

true, but how is that BDs fault. And if some closes his eyes in a theatre he would not see an image, would it make sense to use that to decide the quality of theatrical presentations? What you forget is that at home the customer (I) have control while in the theatre the customer (I) does not.

The point is... you can't say Blu-ray is better than movie theaters. You *could* say that some home theaters w/ Blu-ray might seem better than some theaters... since an awesome home setup might trump a crappy theater setup.

But... that's not what Swanni said. He made a more absolute Blu-ray > Theaters statement that is just not true... unless I'm misreading his article.

not at all. The simple reality is that except for size (which is important in enjoyment) someone will have a more detailed image at home unless he is watching his BDs on a 720p or SD display. On any flat panel 1080p TV he should have a perfectly focused 1080p image so there can beother issues (colour, brightness, uniformity...) but not resolution like in theatres, and for projection, most people that have one take their viewing seriously which is why they went with a projector, so they will probably make sure it is properly focused and sit as close as they can while having that perfect focus. Just look at the 4k thread, when I moved up from a 720p projector to 1080p I also moved my front row a bit closer and if/when 4k becomes a reality my room might change again but I (and anyone else I know) won't sit too close to the point that the image structure becomes annoying and then de-focus the projector to make it palatable again. But at a theatre it is all about sticking bodies in the room and so it makes sense for them to do that if it means they can add a row or two more.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Secondly, projecting an image on the screen doesn't show all of the available resolution.

exactly

Human perception is limited. It would be like saying that since you can't hear a dog whistle then it must not be making a sound.

not at all, if "projection" is killing the detail, what does human perception have to do with it?

The point with film is... you could blow that image up even larger and not see a loss of detail.

not sure what you mean by this.

That study was done with the idea in mind to see how people would perceive digital projection vs film projection... and their "hope" I imagine was to prove what they proved... which is that human perception is limited and cannot necessarily process the full detail which is there so that the digital projection technology can be limited in detail and still look as good.

so where you a member of that study to pretend to know what they where after? and let's assume you are right, do you have a different study that points otherwise and that the outcome is bogus?

Also in Fig.4B (LA) location B & E it scored 875, in 4C (NY release print) location H it scored 433 do you think that difference is due to people in LA having better vision or trying harder then the people in NY? How about in the LA where at H it only scored 525 or In NY A&E scored 733

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Always might be a bit strong, but yes, you are right film can have more detail.

I meant to qualify it a bit... because certainly someone could bring up an 8mm film and that might not have more.. so always was strong, but I was trying to push the envelope a bit since the article seemed to be saying "always" in the other direction which is just as exaggerated.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

But you don't see a first generation film in theatre but an image created by a projector using film that is several generations old (copies of copies) and with each generation definition is lost and when projected it can lose even more. And most theatres don't have the image at the best sharpness because

1) focus drifts and they don't have the expertise to focus the image often (someting that I do on a regular basis at home)

2) theatres don't focus perfectly at all just because over sharpness will show the FG and other film artifacts and they want people to sit very close while not being assaulted by those artifacts

3) a film deteriorates with every use so unless it is the launch presentation of the film you won't get a presentation that is as detailed.

True... but you are now talking about different copies of the film, different projection equipment, and different environments. The same could be said about the quality of my HDTV, the viewing distance, whether I have a CRT or an LCD or a Plasma, etc.

For the purposes of comparison... you should consider the ideal installation of a theater vs the ideal installation of a home theater setup. To compare a perfect home setup to a crappy theater setup is unfair at best.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not at all like PM already pointed out (so I won't bother adding links) there are reputable studies conducted and they all show that a theatrical film presentations does not have more definition than 1080p.

The study posted in this thread is not being used as it was intended. It is being used to imply something that it didn't set out to conclude. I would like to see a study if you have a link to one that does prove what you are saying, because I have never heard of one.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

true, but how is that BDs fault. And if some closes his eyes in a theatre he would not see an image, would it make sense to use that to decide the quality of theatrical presentations? What you forget is that at home the customer (I) have control while in the theatre the customer (I) does not.

So... because you can control the ideal home setup and you can't control the theater, you will conclude that ALL home setups are better than all movie theaters?

That's not a correct conclusion to make... which was my original point in questioning Swanni's statement. Is there a home theater that looks better than a specific movie theater? Probably so. I have been to some crappy theaters with crap-quality films that were rather worn... but I wouldn't take that experience and extrapolate it to say that all movies in all theaters would be bad compared to my home setup.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not at all, if "projection" is killing the detail, what does human perception have to do with it?

Human perception has EVERYTHING to do with the posted study. Did you read it? It was not an objective study. It was a subjective study. We don't know the quality of eyesight of each viewer nor do we know how they interpret other things they see.

I hold up a picture and ask you if it looks good... I do that for 100 people... I can't conclude that it is the best picture possible or the worst based on that test. I can only conclude that those people liked or disliked it.

IF I point you at an eye chart and you can only read 15 of the 20 lines, it doesn't mean those 20 lines aren't there or aren't printed clearly. It just means you can't read them. A subjective study of the eye chart reveals the average person has 20/20 vision... but an objective study of the eye chart reveals that there is more detail there than the average person can see... and some people can actually see that extra detail.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not sure what you mean by this.

A fixed pixel 1920x1080 picture is fixed at resolution. IF you blow that picture up, you have to interpolate new pixels OR just make each pixel bigger. You quickly see loss of detail at large sizes.

IF you take film, however, say 35mm... You can project it on a small screen or a large screen. You can make the picture quite large before you begin to see flaws in blowing up the image. So, there is more detail in there than you usually see on the average film screen projection.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so where you a member of that study to pretend to know what they where after?

Did you read the study? It says in the beginning they were conducting a study to see how digital projection compared to film projection... I presume they were doing this to consider conversion to digital theaters. In order to have a baseline, they first needed to actually conduct a study on perception of film projection... so that when they conducted their intended study on digital projection they had comparative data.

Doing a study on "how good is this digital video" wasn't what they were after... they were after a comparison so that IF they proved the average person was satisfied on a similar level with digital vs film projection they would know making the switch was ok. IF, however, they had found people didn't like the look of digital projection or rated it lower... then that would have been a negative in terms of switching to digital projection.

The first page or so of the study pretty much states the ultimate reason for the study.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

and let's assume you are right, do you have a different study that points otherwise and that the outcome is bogus?

Who said the outcome of their study was bogus? I didn't say that.

I'm saying you and the original poster are using the study to conclude something it was not meaning to determine.

The study itself merely concluded that the average viewer in their study only perceived a certain amount of detail. That's it. It was not a measure of how much detail was actually there! It was a study of how much detail viewers said they saw.

See the difference?

It's like if I asked you do you prefer blue or red, and then tried to conclude that the one you didn't choose was not a color.

The study found that average viewers saw a limited amount of detail... similar to studies that show people have a limited range of hearing... so when making a digital copy of video or audio you can assume a level of compression and data-trashing that stays above the threshold which viewers have indicated they can detect.

In other words... if your theater goers aren't seeing more than 800 lines of resolution... then you don't have to worry about trying to exceed 1920x1080 because your average viewer isn't going to complain.

That doesn't mean the film didn't contain more resolution. They didn't test actual resolution. They tested perception.

It's an important distinction when you read that study and its conclusions.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Also in Fig.4B (LA) location B & E it scored 875, in 4C (NY release print) location H it scored 433 do you think that difference is due to people in LA having better vision or trying harder then the people in NY? How about in the LA where at H it only scored 525 or In NY A&E scored 733

Hard to say. Some were different prints... some were different locations... different lighting, different viewing distances, different people... all kinds of variables.

As I said. It was a subjective study... not an objective one. It asked for perception, not scientific measure of detail.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Film always has more than Blu-ray (HD) resolution.

Film negatives. Average theater projection, not so much. Sadly. Many times I go to a theater the film may not even be focused once. When that happens I then tell that to managers, they open the door to the hall looking at the film from 4 to 5 PHs away at the hall door and say: "Looks fine to me!". Sometimes I offer to go up and focus it myself but they decline . Sadly.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by HDMe

I think you are mis-reading that document... and perhaps others in the motion picture industry are as well.

Firstly... of course the original source would be the best quality, and copies made after that and copies of copies and so forth would be of diminishing quality.
Secondly, projecting an image on the screen doesn't show all of the available resolution. Human perception is limited. It would be like saying that since you can't hear a dog whistle then it must not be making a sound.

The point with film is...

Well, I’ll give you one thing, you must have been the champion of your Debate Club in high school, or else a ‘subjective’ assumption by me is that you would have been, had you decided to pursue that endeavor.

The point is, you said to Anthony P “Movie theaters are either showing film which is much higher effective resolution than Blu-ray”

Perhaps you didn’t understand the part where I stated “MTF resolution of release prints measured out (using a microdensitometer scan of the film element in the lab)”, which is an objective measurement. Each element was measured for MTF and the results plotted. Or perhaps you don’t understand the significance of objective MTF curves. And yes, then, as would be expected, following passage of the release prints thru the film projectors, there was further resolution degradation identified subjectively ~ in the range of 500 – 875 lines/PH (average being 750). What this all means is that to create equivalence to the release prints tested by ITU, if the pixels on screen are “1 to 1” with resolution, 1280 x 1024 projectors are/were adequate to project typical release prints.

Your thoughts about ‘human perception being limited” is really not significantly relevant to the gist of the findings of this study. If you think they are, care to express in % a human’s visual threshold in terms of modulation? The only *discrepancy* I can find with the data of this study is that the investigators’ objectively measured absolute resolution of 2400 lines per picture height corresponding to 106 lp/mm which is higher than Kodak quoted on their spec sheets at the time for Kodak Vision 200T color negative film, 5274. But this can be explained by the fact that Kodak prepares (or prepared) its data using a camera to write to film and anyway, that, if anything, would shift the curves of this study toward being more *friendly* to the resolution of film than they really are.

Let me make it easy for you, there is always online film school charts…http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_l...HD_vs_35mm.htm I suggest you read this link completely and thoroughly as I think it is clearly written in laymen’s terms and may help you understand better.

However, hey, I’m always willing to learn from any mistake I’ve made as I’m far from perfect. Perhaps I am “mis-reading that document... and perhaps others in the motion picture industry are as well”.