Anamorphic Bluray? (1 Viewer)

[AstonMartin007]

Something I've been wondering for while, and this seems like the best place to ask it:

Why are there no anamorphic Blurays? Why is the standard not even supported by the format? Every Bluray proudly trumpets its 1080P sticker, but unless the film is 16:9, it's not really 1080P...how much data is wasted on encoding the 0's for the black bars on top and bottom?

This is the only article I've found that proposes a possible future solution:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/folded-space/

 

[Vincent_P]

Anamorphic Blu-rays of 'Scope and wider films could be a good match for 4K display devices. They would not be beneficial on standard fixed-pixel 1080P displays, though (excepting front projectors matched with an anamorphic lens).

Vincent

 

[Ernest]

Anamorphic, 16 x 9, enhanched for widescreen TV's were different slogans manufacturers used to describe that a DVD was also formatted 16 x 9 within the disc. DVD is a 4 x 3 format and including the movie in 16 x 9 on the same disc increased the vertical resolution by 33%. It was a way for manufacturers to increase the quality of the DVD video. There is no need for anamorphic since Blu-ray is high definition 1080P/24 or 1080i/60 or 1080i/50.

480i:
3 x 4 Letter box = 172,800 pixels (360 x 480
16 x 9 anamorphic: = 337,920 pixels (704 x 480)

1080P
HD Blu-ray: = 2,073,600 pixels (1920 x 1080

 

[Mark-P]

Anamorphic, 16 x 9, enhanched for widescreen TV's were different slogans manufacturers used to describe that a DVD was also formatted 16 x 9 within the disc. DVD is a 4 x 3 format and including the movie in 16 x 9 on the same disc increased the vertical resolution by 33%. It was a way for manufacturers to increase the quality of the DVD video. There is no need for anamorphic since Blu-ray is high definition 1080P/24 or 1080i/60 or 1080i/50.

480i:
3 x 4 Letter box = 172,800 259,200 pixels (360 x 480 720 x 360 skinny pixels
16 x 9 anamorphic: = 337,920 345,600 pixels (704 x 480) 720 x 480 fat pixels

1080P
HD Blu-ray: = 2,073,600 pixels (1920 x 1080
HD Blu-ray letterbox = 1,568,640 pixels (1920 x 817)

Corrected your math

 

[Vincent_P]

Anamorphic, 16 x 9, enhanched for widescreen TV's were different slogans manufacturers used to describe that a DVD was also formatted 16 x 9 within the disc. DVD is a 4 x 3 format and including the movie in 16 x 9 on the same disc increased the vertical resolution by 33%. It was a way for manufacturers to increase the quality of the DVD video. There is no need for anamorphic since Blu-ray is high definition 1080P/24 or 1080i/60 or 1080i/50.

480i:
3 x 4 Letter box = 172,800 pixels (360 x 480
16 x 9 anamorphic: = 337,920 pixels (704 x 480)

1080P
HD Blu-ray: = 2,073,600 pixels (1920 x 1080

Ernest: When it comes to 'Scope and wider films, an anamorphically-encoded Blu-ray could definitely be a benefit since you'd be using the area usually encoded by empty black bars for actual picture information, at least if coupled with a 4K display device or front-projector with an anamorphic lens (as Mark-P shows with his math above).

Vincent

 

[Yorkshire]

I think the basic answer is that few people have projectors and fewer still have anamorphic lenses.

Blu-ray is not the most succesful format on the planet (though it's doing quite well), so you're talking about instigating something for a niche within a niche of a product that's already pretty niche.

In addition, it's not completely clear whether anamorphic projection has a great future in the age of digital projection.

Steve W

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think the basic answer is that few people have projectors and fewer still have anamorphic lenses.

Blu-ray is not the most succesful format on the planet (though it's doing quite well), so you're talking about instigating something for a niche within a niche of a product that's already pretty niche.

In addition, it's not completely clear whether anamorphic projection has a great future in the age of digital projection.

Steve W

Blu-ray isn't a niche product! It's a mainstream format.

 

[Yorkshire]

Blu-ray isn't a niche product! It's a mainstream format.

Can we agree on a compromise - niche mainstream?

I think what I mean is this. How many copies is each title selling on Blu-ray Disc?

Well, I suppose it depends on the title, but we have 3,000 as a sort of ballpark benchpark for catalogue titles, judging by the TT releases.

How many of those are watched on a traditional display and how many on a projector? Surely 10% on a projector, maximum.

How many of those projectors are equipped with anamorphic lenses? I'm going to guess on 10% maximum again.

If anyone has any indication there might be more, I'll be happy to hear.

So that's maybe 1% (10% of 10%) of 3,000, which is 30.

They're not going to prepare, as an example, an anamorphic version of Oliver! for 30 people.

I think 30 people is pretty niche.

Has anyone any idea, how many people in the US own a projector and an anamorphic lens? It could be far more than I'm guessing.

Steve W

 

[David Weicker]

Anamorphic, as it relates to digital media, does not refer to projector lenses.Anamorphic merely means that the image is altered from its original shape.On film projectors, the celluoid image is stretched horizontally (or squeezed vertically) to create the image on the screen.For digital, instead of using pixels to create 'black bars', the player will alter the pixels to create the intended final shape.And since everyone showing a DVD or Blu-Ray has a player, that opens up the entire market.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, an anamorphic lens would not be necessary if the Blu-ray was enhanced for 21:9 playback. When mastering the disc, the 'Scope image would be stretched vertically so it fills the entire 1920x1080 space, instead of having black bars coded in. When playing the disc, the player squashes the image back to whatever 'Scope ratio is needed, thus filling a 'Scope screen whilst using 100% of the resolution available.

People without projectors would benefit too. On TV's, the 16x9 image would be squashed to 'Scope by the player in the same way, giving a higher resolution picture. The same principle works with anamorphic DVDs. This is why anamorphic DVDs were often worth a double dip back in the day, even if you only had a 4x3 TV, because they used the full 720x480 space instead of just a percentage.

 

[Everett S.]

I have a ? I saw an ad for "Ghost busters" Blu-Ray that says it's from a 4k source, what does this mean picture wise?

 

[JoeDoakes]

I have a ? I saw an ad for "Ghost busters" Blu-Ray that says it's from a 4k source, what does this mean picture wise?

I'm not qualified to get technical, but I think it means the digital image was created by scanning the source at 4K so a lot more detail was lifted from the film than would occur if it had been scanned at a lower resolution. In terms of the home theater environment, whether anyone could tell the difference between something coming from a 2k scan and a 4k scan, I don't know.

 

[Ernest]

Mark my math is correct the difference in our answers results in the figures we are multiplying. I researched through Google and these were the pixels various sites were reporting based on the formula they used. It doesn't matter I was only trying to say expanding the picture using an anamorphic lens does not increase picture quality it eliminates the black bars. That is a good thing I am all for getting rid of the black bars as long as the picture quality is not compromised.

 

[EddieLarkin]

A 16x9 Blu-ray of a 2.35:1 film does not use all of the 2,073,600 pixels because a large percentage is taken up by the black bars. An anamorphically enhanced Blu-ray would have vertically stretched picture in place of the black bars.

 

[Vincent_P]

What EddieLarkin said. A regular "letterboxed" Blu-ray of a 'Scope film wastes more than 250 X 1920 pixels encoding empty black space. If Blu-rays of 'Scope and wider films were "anamorphically encoded" in say a 21:9 format, far fewer pixels would be taken up by empty black bars and that precious digital real estate would instead be devoted to actual image information.

Vincent

 

[Persianimmortal]

The problem with using the anamorphic technique for digital reproduction is that the image needs to be rescaled. This can introduce scaling issues, depending on the quality of the hardware on the TV or player that is doing the rescaling. By encoding the entire image, black bars and all, at a fixed 1920x1080 on Blu-ray, there is no need for rescaling when that image is played back on a 1920x1080 (standard HD) display. I doubt the encoding of the black areas wastes much space, as duplicated information of that nature can usually be highly compressed.

So anamorphically encoding the image would only really benefit people on front projection systems with an appropriate lens, which as Yorkshire says, is a niche within a niche, within a niche - what with physical disc sales shrinking as part of the entire home media market, and Blu-rays being only around 25% of physical disc sales, we're talking probably less than 10% of the entire market at best.

 

[Alan Tully]

Please don't give the companies ideas, they can't leave things alone as it is. 3D, 4K & now anamorphic. I suppose we're just talking about 'scope films, as there's so little difference between 1:85 & 16:9 as to make no odds. I've been giving my DVD's away as I buy the Blu-ray (the next best thing to owning a print, as someone put it). The next thing is to throw my rubbish 2K Blu's away as 4K becomes available (& of course buy a new TV). Oh well, you can't stop progress, but as my favorite films come from the 40's - 60's & I'm sure that the elements arn't in a pristeen state, 2K Blu will do for me, but...Presented In 3D 4K Anamorphic, does have a ring to it.

 

[Carlo_M]

The problem with using the anamorphic technique for digital reproduction is that the image needs to be rescaled. This can introduce scaling issues, depending on the quality of the hardware on the TV or player that is doing the rescaling. By encoding the entire image, black bars and all, at a fixed 1920x1080 on Blu-ray, there is no need for rescaling when that image is played back on a 1920x1080 (standard HD) display. I doubt the encoding of the black areas wastes much space, as duplicated information of that nature can usually be highly compressed.

So anamorphically encoding the image would only really benefit people on front projection systems with an appropriate lens, which as Yorkshire says, is a niche within a niche, within a niche - what with physical disc sales shrinking as part of the entire home media market, and Blu-rays being only around 25% of physical disc sales, we're talking probably less than 10% of the entire market at best.

Absolutely right.

"Anamorphic DVDs" were needed because at the time we were in the midst of an aspect ratio change within home TVs (4:3 vs. 16:9). You could author for one or the other but not both. If you chose 4:3 authoring, you had to scale up to 16:9 TVs and that never looked as good as a DVD authored for 16:9.

However if you authored for 16:9 you got the best looking picture on a 16:9 TV...but it had to be scaled down on a 4:3 screen which introduced artifacts. Early downscaling attempts simply "discarded every fourth line of resolution" which resulted in keeping the picture sharp but introduced some aliasing artifacts, especially on straight lines which were vertically panned. Sony (and others) chose to use a different algorithm which did not introduce aliasing but instead had an overall softening effect on 4:3 sets displaying 16:9 DVDs.

Right now there is no reason to anamorphically enhance Blu Rays on either 1080p or 4K displays. Why?

[*]Right now 1080p displays are 1920x1080 pixels, perfectly matching what Blu-Ray outputs, no scaling needed. Those black bars that comprise the top and bottom of the screen when displaying 2:1, 2.2:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1 (and other wide aspect ratio movies) will always need to be black to preserve the aspect ratio. The remaining number of pixels that display picture will be perfectly matched by the pixels on a regularly authored Blu-Ray. If you were to "anamorphically enhance" a Blu-Ray, as PersianImmortal says it would need to be re-scaled for all 1080p sets. It would only benefit people with 2.35:1 TVs which I believe is...no one. Think of it this way, DVDs were anamorphically enhanced to support the newer 16:9 aspect ratio with higher pixel counts. What's higher than 1080p sets today? Nothing except...
[*]4K sets. Again, anamorphically enhancing Blu-Rays would do nothing good for 4K sets. Why? Because to scale up to 4K simply requires a doubling (in both directions) of pixels for 1920x1080 picture. Scaling by simply doubling would introduce basically no artifacts. Doubling is the easiest type of scaling to do because there's no odd mathematical computation. If you were to use an "anamorphically enhanced" Blu Ray of, whatever that resolution is (I'm terrible at math) it would not be a simple doubling to get it on a 4K set. Another set of computations will have to be performed, which even if it were a great algorithm, would still introduce artifacts and take up valuable CPU/computing cycles to perform.
[/list]
The only reason to "anamorphically enhance" any home video disc (and we're using the term only as it referred to DVDs) is if we're changing aspect ratios again. So if suddenly 2.35:1 were the de facto new TV set ratio, then we'd want anamorphic BDs mastered at 2.35:1 and then downscaled to 16:9. But that's not happening so any sort of anamorphic enhancement of BDs would be fruitless. The next step is native 4K content, which Sony is starting to provide if you buy their 4K set and 4K box.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

So it seems the best thing to be able to do is not squeeze, but to simply encode a smaller thing, 1920x850 or whatever the case may be, which leaves your pixels un-scaled, the player creates the black bars, and then instead of higher quality, you get more space on the disc for other things.

 

[Persianimmortal]

If you did that, you would save an almost negligible amount of space, at the cost of extra processing on the player to generate black bars in every frame, and introduce the potential for glitches near the borders depending on the accuracy of the process. Again: black bars contain the type of repeatable, featureless information that can easily be heavily compressed. If we want to head down this route, I would much rather studios removed "extras" to give us a better quality main feature, as the potential space savings there are much more substantial with no chance of causing playback problems.