said certain movies

[john_1958]

[Moderator's Note] This thread is a continuation of the conversation found here: https://www.blu-ray.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=294 Unfortunately I'm unable to merge the two threads.

I said certain movies not all movies in hd-dvd. I did say blu-ray was way to go
Sure i'm all for blu-ray in hope of High def movies and games
My point was also what about holographic disc? and keep movies in original formats not fullscreen dvds

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by john_1958

I said certain movies not all movies in hd-dvd. I did say blu-ray was way to go
Sure i'm all for blu-ray in hope of High def movies and games
My point was also what about holographic disc? and keep movies in original formats not fullscreen dvds

Yeah HVD is great ! But it's just in development now ! ^^ Sorry, I didn't knew what was your point and could you explain what you say about the original formats ? :wink:

[zombie]

Originally Posted by Gorkab

could you explain what you say about the original formats ? :wink:

I believe by "original formats" he means original aspect ratio.

[john_1958]

Original formats?
Well widescreen is an original format just like full frame for old movies but fullscreen is modified so you lose two 3rds of the original movie.
Hope Blu-ray can promise no fullscreen movies

[john_1958]

yeah thats what i meant by original format (original aspect ratio)

[zombie]

I hope OAR (original aspect ratio) is mandatory for all Blu-ray & HD-DVD releases. However I fear there's a chance that some 2.35:1 movies will be cropped to 16:9 (1.78:1). I hope this never happens but some of the U.S. cable stations have done just that for some of their movie broadcasts.

[tater]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think the standard should be set up as follows:

1) Record all movies anamorphically at 1920x1080p or whatever HD resolution. The the video stream will contain this "real" pixel aspect ratio number, and the viewer can set up their player to play a 2.35:1 movie letterboxed if they desire.

2) Also include at least two "pan and scan" tracks, which would work much like a subtitile track. These record the "edges" of the cropped frame for viewing in different aspect ratios. For example, let's say a movie is originally 2.35:1. The 16x9 pan&scan track would specify that for fames 2300-2755, the 16x9 window of the movie is bounded by (210,0) and (1662,1080). At the same time, the 4x3 pan&scan track would indicate that the 4x3 window for the movie is bounded by (210,0) and (1299,1080).

I think this gives the viewer the most choice. They will always be able to view a panned & scanned film formatted for their screen, or they will be able to choose to watch the film with all the original data letterboxed. I think the loss of resolution when watching a 16x9 letterboxed version of a 2.35:1 movie will not be a big deal (1452 pixels of horizontal resolution is most likely still plenty).

The scaling & cropping logic needed for this feature is probably already in all players, so I don't think added cost would be much of an issue, either. The only added cost would be generating the pan&scan tracks during authoring, but even this isn't much. The pan & scan data is already captured at least once by the studios when reformatting for the 4:3 DVD, HBO, or hotel pay-per-view services.

Another option, of course, would be to actaully record the movie at a full aspect ratio resolution, for example 1080 x (2.35) = 2538 horizontal pixels. This way the 16x9 pan&scan track indicate a full 1920x1080 pixels of image data. If the new standard allows for arbitrary-resoltuion images, and mandates a flexible scaler be available inthe player, this would work.

Manufacturers, of course, would be free to differentiate themselves on the quality of their scalers and their user interfaces for these features.