HD-DVD Titles Announced for 4th Qtr Release- (1 Viewer)

[SteveJKo]

Can you explain 20X9 encoding or direct me to where on this site I can find an explanation?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

20x9 is the aspect ratio of the rectangle...just like we mean when we say 16x9 or 4x3 (4x3 = 12x9 if you keep everything consistent with a common demoninator).

20x9 is a rectangle much wider than 16x9...and approximates a 2.35:1 shaped box that's just a tad taller...just a few scan-line more than an actual 2.35:1 (just like 16x9 is a tad taller than a literal 1.85:1 image). The reson for sticking with 20x9 rather than a literal 2.35:1 shape is that 20x9 is easier to mathematically convert to 16x9 and 12x9...what we refer to as 'anamorphic downconversion' in DVD players. Keeping whole-integer math makes better image-quality results easier to do cheaply in affordable players.

20x9 probably won't happen realistically...partly because (unlike standard def DVD) our 16x9 1920 x 1080 HD format is composed of square-shaped pixels and I'm not sure the HD folks would want to change the porportions of the pixels from their 1:1 shape (remember reading somewhere that square-pixels were part of the plan with HD). However an even better solution than 20x9 encoding with the current 1920 x 1080 format would be to simply increase horizontal resolution for an "scope-HD" format that would have 2538 x 1980 pixels...basically just adding on horizontal pixels until the 16x9 frame widens to 2.35:1 in shape. This would provide full resolution for 2.35:1 films in a constant-height projection environment (versus simply magnifying the existing 1920 horizontal of the 16x9 frame) and playback hardware could easily be designed to downconvert to 1920 x 1080 lbx for conventional HD displays that can't take advantage of the added resolution.

-dave

 

[SteveJKo]

Thanks for the explanation David. Seems to me that all of us would benefit from this encoding (I assume that on my 16X9 HDTV all the lines of resolution would go to the "scope" image, and the DVD player would simply put in black bars on it's own) and owners of front projection set ups would be the most benefited since the "scope" aspect ratio could be the largest image on their screen.

 

[Paul.S]

I was quite taken with Batman Begins, esp. the last hour or so.

Sure got me thinking of a day-and-date HD DVD as a delicious Xmas gift for myself . . .

-p

 

[Bradley-E]

Typical, just when you spend zillions of dollars on one thing they begin another. It will be a while for me. I cannot afford a HD TV or replacements for all the DVD's I own.

 

[Opi]

@Bradley-E
Why would you have to replace all your DVDs ?

 

[Felix Martinez]

The standard already exists. 20:9 anamorphic is already part of the mpeg-2 spec, but no one uses it.

More info here...

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm

scroll about 2/3 down...

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

 

[Josh Simpson]

It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.

 

[Paul.S]

Interesting random observation: two of the five DVDs I got for free as part of the Toshiba/Warner Bros./The Good Guys promotion back in 1998 (buy a Tosh at GGs and get 5 WB DVDs for free) are also skedded to be amongst Warner's first HD DVD releases. Both pics--U.S. Marshals and Eraser--are also Arnold Kopelson productions, as is the also announced The Fugitive.

-p

 

[Paul.S]

Some interesting titles in common between the announced HD DVD slates of, on the one hand, what Warner is releasing on Mini DVD and, on the other, what Universal and Par have already released or have announced for release soon on UMD for PSP.

As it becomes more likely that we won't get all of these HD DVD titles in October/anytime this fall, the common titles may be an indication of what we'll eventually get first.

-p

 

[Gary Palmer]

Given the extra amount of information which can be included in upcoming high definition (and, eventually, ultra-high definition) discs, it's clear that separate 4:3, 16:9 and 21:9* versions can be included on each DVD (at least as far as 2.35:1 movies are concerned). 4:3 televisions will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs, and 16:9 will remain the standard for 'regular' television for the forseeable future.

But the future of home theater is almost certainly 21:9 monitors, with unlimited sizes and picture quality/resolution which is indistinguishable from the negative/print used to create the DVD. If you have the architecture and money, you'll be able to hang a 20-foot screen in your dedicated home theater area, with stunning images from an Ultra-HD disc. The technology is still scattered and unfocused at the moment, not to mention very expensive (!), but that's the way home theater is headed, no question about it. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are mere stepping stones on the way to Home Theater Nirvana.

*I noticed that some people use '20:9' as the MPEG-2 spec, but I've always seen it referred to as '21:9', which measures approximately 2.33:1. It would be interesting to nail this discrepancy once and for all. Anyone got any ideas?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I was pretty sure it was 20x9...but that's just "memory" so don't take it for certain.

But there's a better solution. Let's forget this idea of "aspect ratio" altogether. HD resolution specs represent square pixels...so my simple solution would be to keep the vertical resolution at 1080 for all "movies" and then vary the horizontal-resolution to accomodate the width of the program...keeping the pixel structure square.

For 1.33:1 movies this means about 1436 horizontal pixels (what you've got inside the "windowboxed" area of a 16x9 HD 1920 x 1080 signal), for 1.77:1 would still be 1920, and for 2.35:1 movies wuold be 2538.

Essentially, this number could vary and accomodate any aspect ratio precisely...and I don't see why the high-quality scaling in today's computational world couldn't easily and affordibly produce high-quality results to fit any standard 4x3 or 16x9 SD/HD traditional display.

Basically what I'm suggesting is a "contant height" resolution encoding scheme.

 

[Paul.S]

Saw it at Comic-Con last weekend and dug it even more upon second viewing this weekend--The Island is another title that would mos def be amongst the two dozen others already announced that I'd get an HD DVD version of sooner rather than later. For the sake of this pic (and Gladiator, Road To Perdition and Almost Famous), I sure wish Dreamworks would let us know which way their HD wind is gonna blow.

Bits is rumoring October 18 for SD Batman Begins . . .

-p

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Finally!
DaViD, I've been asking this question all over the web; Will Full Frame sources benifit from HD transfers?

You say; "For 1.33:1 movies this means about 1436 horizontal pixels"
Thank you.

Now can you or anyone else tell me what the rez (native)would be of a Full Frame DVD transfer on a HD dispaly?

Does anyone 'believe' Full Frame would benifit from wondowboxed transfers?
Thanks!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ed,

DVD uses the same number of pixels for both 4x3 and 16x9 image incoding...720 horizontal by 480 vertical. DVD is interesting in that the digital encoding is actually designed to use the full pixel array for either of those two aspect ratios. So "full frame" 4x3 DVD images are 720 x 480 and 16x9 images are also 720 x 480.

We call 4x3 encoding "4x3" on DVD but usually people (technically incorrectly) call 16x9 encoding "anamorphic" or "enhanced for widescreen". In reality both aspect ratios are on equal footing...neither is "standard" and the other "stretched".

BTW, in both cases on DVD the pixels are not square in shape. with 4x3 encoding they're taller than they are wide and with 16x9 encoding they are wider than they are tall. This is why taking a digital screen-capture from a DVD will look distorted unless it's resized. If we really want to get picky...BOTH aspect ratios on DVD are "anamorphic" if we define 'anamorphic' of a digital image to be an image represented with non-square pixels (there really is no actual definition for 'anamorphic' with digital imagery...but that one seems to be the most logical if you had to pick to me).

HD images are fixed at only one aspect ratio at present: 16x9. and the pixels are perfectly square (whether 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080). Considering the higher-resolution HD format...1080P...

a "full frame" HD transfer would be a 1.78:1 (16x9) rectangle that is 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high.

Obviously, fitting a 4x3 1.33:1 image inside this area requires left/right windowboxing...and also reduces the amount of horizontal pixels used to encode the actual image area.

Likewise, fitting a 2.35:1 image into the 16x9 area requires letterboxing which reduces the number of vertical pixels used to encode the actual image area.

My philosphy is a "constant height" one which means that the ultimate home theater keeps the image height constant for all aspect ratios...and therefore ideally your max vertical resolution would remain constant for everything (1080) and then you'd just vary horizontal pixels to adapt to each image. This probably won't happen for home-theater, but it's quite likely for digital cinema...which means 2.35:1 movies will be "compromised" in letterbox form on HD-home media but will be "full resolution" for the theater. Just a guess but it will probably work out this way.

 

[Paul.S]

Another rumination re Batman Begins: it is the second biggest (in terms of gross and profile) 2005 theatrical release that has already been announced for HD DVD by the format's biggest supporter (#1 being Charlie). It's going to be very interesting to see whether we get an announcement of HD being day-and-date, no announcement at all but with 2005 theatricals coming on HD later in the fall/spring '06, or '05 theatricals' HDs getting released at the same time as the catalog HD titles.

Fall is gonna be very interesting.

-p

 

[RaymondSteiner]

I think the only "weapon" the HDDVD has over BluRay is time frame. If by the time we get BluRay HDDVD is the standard the war will become very interesting...

By the way, a propietary format has future, as has been show by the UMD, lot of releases lately... So i think BluRay has a future, i hope as a standard!

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Yeah for a Niche Format UMD is selling enough to Justify it's Existance. I've even caught the bug I got about 12 disks So far. Still I think two versions of the Same format is deadly like VHS was to Beta.

 

[Shane Martin]

It also has DVD in the name which Blu Ray doesn't. This helps name recognition with J6P. Having Microsoft on your side doesn't hurt either.

Notice that Blu Ray has yet to announce any titles.