Upconversion of Standard Definition Material On Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Tony Bensley]

All DVDs are interlaced. This is the only way they can be encoded. Many discs were "flagged" for progressive display (and several were flagged incorrectly, creating a royal bloody mess), in which case, the player would discard the extra fields generated to be compatible with the majority of displays in existence when the DVD format was developed (interlaced) when connected to a progressive display.

Hi Stephen!


I'm not saying the above is right or wrong. However, I do have a question.


Assuming that all DVD's are interlaced (i), then how come some DVD sets list various titles within them as 480i and 480p? If DVD titles are always interlaced, shouldn't they all be listed as 480i, or at least with one designation or the other, if companies don't know the difference?


CHEERS!


Tony

 

[CraigF]

^ Anything common you can think of that is 480p on DVD? IOW something I might have. Don't mean to put you on the spot or for you to go to any trouble, but I am curious about these "anomalies" and like to mark them in my collection (I even collect DVD "atrocities", for my amusement).


On the Oppo players there is a Source Direct mode that outputs the video format that's on the disc. I haven't noticed a U.S./Canada disc that isn't 480i so far, it seems a waste of disc space to me, but I wouldn't be too surprised if some had 480p for some specific reason (that I can't immediately think of).

 

[Will Krupp]

All DVDs are interlaced. This is the only way they can be encoded.

from wikipedia: (emphasis mine)

"On DVDs, telecined material may be either hard telecined, or soft telecined. In the hard-telecined case, video is stored on the DVD at the playback framerate (29.97 frame/s for NTSC, 25 frame/s for PAL), using the telecined frames as shown above. In the soft-telecined case, the material is stored on the DVD at the film rate (24 or 23.976 frames/s) in the original progressive format, with special flags inserted into the MPEG-2 video stream that instruct the DVD player to repeat certain fields so as to accomplish the required pulldown during playback.[14] Progressive scan DVD players additionally offer output at 480p by using these flags to duplicate frames rather than fields.
NTSC DVDs are often soft telecined, although lower-quality hard-telecined DVDs exist. In the case of PAL DVDs using 2:2 pulldown, the difference between soft and hard telecine vanishes, and the two may be regarded as equal. In the case of PAL DVDs using 2:3 pulldown, either soft or hard telecining may be applied."

Also, from handbrake: https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/Telecine:
"Soft Telecine
Now, a lot of DVDs don't use hard telecining. This is a good thing. Instead, they use soft telecining. This preserves the 24fps content for the DVD. It just uses something called "repeat flags" to tell the DVD player "show this field extra long," instead of actually storing the duplicated frame on disc. It saves space, while still technically being 30fps because of the repeat flags.
Soft telecining looks like this:

Frame 1: A1A2 (Top, Bottom, Repeat Top)
Frame 2: B2B1 (Bottom, Top)
Frame 3: C2C1 (Bottom, Top, Repeat Bottom)
Frame 4: D1D2 (Top, Bottom)
...meaning it can be presented at 30fps exactly like the hard-telecined example above. It also makes things easy for computers and progressive scan DVD players, which can just ignore the repeat flags and frame order to decode the video at film speed, with no visible interlacing."





If you do a google search of "soft telecine" you will see many examples of what I was talking about.

Those older progressive scan players were still applying 3:2 pulldown even though the 30 frames were de-interlaced.

 

[Will Krupp]

On the Oppo players there is a Source Direct mode that outputs the video format that's on the disc. I haven't noticed a U.S./Canada disc that isn't 480i so far, it seems a waste of disc space to me, but I wouldn't be too surprised if some had 480p for some specific reason (that I can't immediately think of).

Hard encoded interlaced frames are a waste of disc space.


I believe the default output of Oppo's Source Direct for DVD material is always 480i regardless, as Source Direct is only specifically designed to prevent upscaling of the image in the player. It is designed for users who have sophisticated external video processors that can do a better processing/upscaling job than the chips found in commercial players. It's possible that Source Direct does nothing to prevent the player from reading and responding to the puldown flags.


Of course, there's also a chance that the label you're seeing (480i) is representative of how the video is flagged rather than how it is stored.

 

[CraigF]

^ That is likely (i.e. I will always see 480i with Source Direct and a NTSC DVD).


So there aren't really any 480p DVDs then, that was just a misprint on the advertising/blurb that Tony was seeing? I thought maybe I would have a new "specimen" to mount...

 

[LeoA]

The author's assertion can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect: if 480i (or 480p) material on Blu-ray wasn't upscaled on a 1080p display, the result would be a small letterboxed image in the middle of the screen.

No, that doesn't confirm what you think it does.


The end result if SD content on Blu-Ray wasn't allowed to be upscaled by the player would be that the HDTV's internal scaling chip would then have to handle that chore, upscaling the non-conforming image to match the set's native resolution.


Nobody ever said that upscaling doesn't happen in these situations since it has to happen somewhere thanks to the nature of HDTV's. They simply said that it doesn't happen at the player end.


So the true test would be if your tv has the feature to display the resolution of the signal that it's receiving. Then if the upscaling indeed was done by the player, the listed resolution will match what you've set your Blu-Ray player to output at. And if it doesn't and the tv instead had to handle the post-processing, it will list 480i.

 

[Will Krupp]

So there aren't really any 480p DVDs then

No, just the opposite is true... (honestly, how did you get THAT out of what I wrote? )


The majority of DVD's of film based material STORE (encode) their information progressively and the PLAYER creates the interlaced/pulldown frames (soft telecine.) According to the specs of DVD, however, the video feed ALWAYS needs to be flagged so the player knows to create those 30 frames (approximately) out of 24 (after all, storing the files at 24p was originally a space saver, they had no knowledge that we would eventually be able to watch them back that way.) They are still progressive scans but, since DVD's were invented when we all still had interlaced displays, the very nature of the format assumes we still do. Blu-Ray Players that support DVD playback at 24fps IGNORE the flags that tell them to add pulldown to create 30 frames. I was just saying that, when you play from Source Direct, the 480i label you're seeing is likely a result of your display reading the "flags" contained in the progressively stored files (telling it to add pulldown) rather than a descriptor. Either that OR Source Direct itself doesn't affect the player creating extra frames. I'm not sure which.


If you have a DVD drive on your computer, open the VOB folder on a film based DVD and check the frame rate of the main feature. If it's 23.97 (often written in windows as 23) then it's progressively stored.

 

[Mark-P]

The first Blu-ray player I bought only output 24p on actual Blu-ray Discs. DVDs all played back at 30 fps. However I was astounded when my next Blu-ray player played back progressive DVDs at 24p! At the time I didn't understand how that was even possible. But now I understand it.

 

[CraigF]

No, just the opposite is true... (honestly, how did you get THAT out of what I wrote? )

I actually *did* get that out of what you wrote. Several times! [Now you know why I get confused by explanations of Mulholland Dr.]


Let me read it all again, so that I still won't get it... You are saying that DVDs have 480p stored on them. Not how they're played, but how the video is stored. Didn't you agree with me that storing 480p video on a DVD would be a "waste of space"?


[I know we are way OT re the OP's thread purpose, and for the sub-forum too, but so far so good...]


Edit: OK, I get what you were saying. I actually used to know this stuff, years ago, but I have strayed from the techy details fold and become mostly just a user nowadays. Use it or lose it, my memory of stuff I used to know is vast... That flag stuff and how some DVDs way back had incorrect flags is coming back to me.


More, after more reading:

Quotes from "experienced" people on video tech forum:

"All DVDs are interlaced. All DVDs (99.9%) can be de-interlaced to form a progressive image."

"A DVD is either interlaced or non-interlaced, not interlaced or progressive. Progressive scan is a way of interpreting the frames in a playback mode."

"All DVDs are "interlaced". Every last one of them."


Easy to get confused. I think we are talking in circles of terminology, about the source and the storage formats, and how they're interpreted for playback.

 

[Will Krupp]

You are saying that DVDs have 480p stored on them. Not how they're played, but how the video is stored. Didn't you agree with me that storing 480p video on a DVD would be a "waste of space"?


...


Easy to get confused. I think we are talking in circles of terminology, about the source and the storage formats, and how they're interpreted for playback.

Yeah, it's funny but I came to a similar conclusion about the terminology we use this morning (in the shower, of ALL places!) and how that's likely getting in our way.


If you define "480p" as 60 progressive frames per second stored on disc then yes, that would be a complete waste of space and I can't imagine that ANY DVD has ever done it or would ever need to. If you define "480i" as 30 pairs of interlaced frames per second stored on disc (which is what I was talking about) then I would count that as a complete waste of space as well, though SOME DVD's do do it. (do do, heh!)


What I, and others like Mark and Tony (though I hate to speak for them I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here,) mean by "480p" is any video stream that is 480 lines high and progressively stored. In that case we would count a stored DVD video stream of 24fps as 480p as well.

Quotes from "experienced" people on video tech forum:
"All DVDs are interlaced. All DVDs (99.9%) can be de-interlaced to form a progressive image."
"A DVD is either interlaced or non-interlaced, not interlaced or progressive. Progressive scan is a way of interpreting the frames in a playback mode."
"All DVDs are "interlaced". Every last one of them."

Well Mr. "Smarty Pants" there is most likely correct that we should be saying "non-interlaced" rather than "progressive" when referring to hard storage (there's one in every crowd! ) We tend to casually refer to it that way in the same way we refer to blu-ray storage as 1080p. For the sake of shorthand, we MEAN non-interlaced when we say "progressive."


Statements saying that ALL DVD's are interlaced are just not true, however. It WOULD be true to say that ALL DVD players** output an interlaced signal (progressive scan players could then de-interlace that signal into 60 progressive fps but they had to create those extra frames first) but the DVD's themselves are not, which is why we can recover the 24fps material so easily today.


**I actually have no idea whether or not any newer, standalone DVD players will output 24fps or if it just supported in BDP's so maybe I shouldn't say "ALL" but that it was traditionally true.

[Now you know why I get confused by explanations of Mulholland Dr.]

Don't beat yourself up, you're NOT alone!

 

[Tony Bensley]

I recently read the following, regarding the SD-on-BD transfer the 1925 silent version of The Wizard of Oz, at http://www.silentera.com/video/wizardOfOzHV.html:


"The standard-definition video transfer has been lifted, without HD remastering, from the 2005 Warner Home Video DVD edition (noted below). While many viewers would not see anything wrong in this and will be happy with this edition on Blu-ray Disc, discerning viewers will see aliased ‘stairstepping’ to some diagonal edges and around intertitles type.


Most Blu-ray Disc players, when playing a DVD disc, will upconvert the standard-definition interlaced 480-line NTSC signal of a DVD to a progressive-scan signal and approximate image details between scan lines of picture information, filling in picture information where there is none. The results are not high-definition, but are much smoother and filmlike. A standard-definition video transfer is not upconverted when played back from a Blu-ray disc because the player assumes the content is an encoded HD signal."


Is the author's assertion correct? It makes sense but having tested it out with several different discs where I own both the DVD and its equivalent BD, I can discern no difference in image quality when projecting onto a 104" screen. Though I only own Oz on BD, I've just tried it again by pausing various frames of The Invisible Boy (1957), from the Forbidden Planet 50th Anniversary Edition DVD and the BD...

Hi Brent!


Having just received THE WIZARD OF OZ 75TH ANNIVERSARY 5 Disc set, I've done comparative screenshots from the 1925 Silent Feature from my Blu-ray and DVD sets. I'm afraid that in the former, the stairstepping is all too evident, at least to my eyes!


The following two screenshots were both Print Screen captured at approximately 720p, using Leawo Blu-ray software and Microsoft Paint. Both images were saved as PNG files for maximum PQ retention.


THE WIZARD OF OZ (1925 - Silent) SD Blu-ray Version (Note The All Too Evident Stair-Step Pattern On The Book!):

The above is from the 75th Anniversary Limited Collector's Edition of The Wizard Of Oz 5 Blu-ray/DVD set (2013), and is also included within the 4 Blu-ray/DVD 70th Anniversary Edition.


THE WIZARD OF OZ (1925 - Silent) SD DVD Version (Note The Much Smoother Imaging!):

The above is from The Wizard Of Oz Three Disc (DVD) Collector's Edition (2005).


And I was hoping to ditch the DVDs, but I'm now undecided!


Ah, well!


CHEERS!


Tony


************UPDATE************


In checking some of the other "Additional Bonus Content" Blu-ray Disc (Disc 2 of the four disc 70th Anniversary, and Disc 3 of the five disc 75th Anniversary Limited Editions of THE WIZARD OF OZ.), which consist entirely of SD port overs from previous "Wizard Of Oz" DVD editions, I've found the results of upscaling on this particular Blu-ray to be a rather mixed bag, to say the least!


While thankfully, one of my favorite Theatrical extras, "Another Romance In Celluloid" appears to be free of the annoying stair-stepping, "The Wizard Of Oz" 1925 silent starring Larry Semon and Oliver Hardy, appears to have the worst case of this! What makes it all the more painful for the latter, is that it was so beautifully restored for the 2005 DVD release, complete with Robert Israel scoring, and the stair-steps are now forever baked in on its SD port over Blu-ray version!


On the other hand, at least some of the non silent Blu-ray extras include English subtitles, unlike their DVD counterparts!

 

[dvdclon]

I had wondered why someone like Mill Creek didn't use the plentiful capacity of Blu-ray for their multi-title collections of horror, westerns, etc.


Apparently these not-too-good transfers on Blu-ray would be even worse than the DVD sets. I guess they knew not to press their luck.

 

[Persianimmortal]

To be honest I'm now not 100% sure what the author quoted in the original post was trying to say, but surely the raw screencaps above confirm at least that the BD isn't a straight SD transfer. If it was, then as I described earlier in this thread the video image in the screencap would be a small 480p window surrounded by big black bars on all sides - if that was the way it was encoded on the BD. It looks as if the SD image has been upscaled (badly) on the BD.

 

[Tony Bensley]

To be honest I'm now not 100% sure what the author quoted in the original post was trying to say, but surely the raw screencaps above confirm at least that the BD isn't a straight SD transfer. If it was, then as I described earlier in this thread the video image in the screencap would be a small 480p window surrounded by big black bars on all sides - if that was the way it was encoded on the BD. It looks as if the SD image has been upscaled (badly) on the BD.

Hi Koroush!


I would imagine that some sort of upscaling was performed to fill up the screen to 1.37:1 (Or thereabouts!), so to speak.


In any case, I agree that the upscaling on the Blu-ray version does look pretty lousy, to the point that I now really don't want to part with the DVD version, and I was hoping to free up some space on my shelf! Oh, what to do?


CHEERS!


Tony

 

[Tony Bensley]

I had wondered why someone like Mill Creek didn't use the plentiful capacity of Blu-ray for their multi-title collections of horror, westerns, etc.


Apparently these not-too-good transfers on Blu-ray would be even worse than the DVD sets. I guess they knew not to press their luck.

Hi David!


In my opinion, it's bad enough that Mill Creek crams too much onto their DVD releases. Thankfully, this hasn't extended to their Blu-ray releases--That I know of!


From what little I've seen, SD material on Blu-ray media is just a really bad idea! My screenshot comparisons of the same title from its DVD and Blu-ray versions by the same company have convinced me of that!


Of course, DREAMER OF OZ (1990), in all its VHS Transfer "splendor", looks terrible on DVD and Blu-ray! Myopic Nightmare is more like it!


CHEERS!


Tony

 

[Will Krupp]

To be honest I'm now not 100% sure what the author quoted in the original post was trying to say, but surely the raw screencaps above confirm at least that the BD isn't a straight SD transfer. If it was, then as I described earlier in this thread the video image in the screencap would be a small 480p window surrounded by big black bars on all sides - if that was the way it was encoded on the BD. It looks as if the SD image has been upscaled (badly) on the BD.

I think it's pretty clear by this point that the author quoted in Brent's original post has it wrong and didn't understand what he was seeing. He saw the stair-stepping of the interlaced SD frames and thought it had something to with HD vs SD resolution, which it doesn't. I think that's why Brent questioned it in the first place because ALL standard definition material (unless, like the restoration feature on the new MY FAIR LADY disc, it is is purposely upscaled on the disc to 1080 which means it's technically no longer SD) is ported over in 480. Doing so, although, wouldn't mean the 4:3 image would be small with black bars around it because upscaling is always going to be applied by the player or the display as it is with any DVD. What he's actually seeing is the difference between the progressive 24fps image on the DVD and the interlaced 60i image on the blu-ray. The irony, of course, is that HAD they actually been able to port the untouched progressive image over from the DVD (which was the author's incorrect conclusion about what they did) it would have looked BETTER than the hard-encoded interlaced image we wound up with.

The Blu-Ray spec doesn't officially allow 480p for primary SD video streams.

This statement has been revelatory to me and not at all in a good way

I had no idea that NO standard def material was progressively encoded on blu-ray but it's completely true. Even identical material that appears on both DVD and blu-ray (I've been checking and checking. Just yesterday, for example, I compared SUPERMAN & the MOLE MEN from both the DVD set of ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN and the SUPERMAN ANTHOLOGY blu-ray) is 24fps on DVD and 60fps on blu-ray.

 

[Will Krupp]

In my opinion, it's bad enough that Mill Creek crams too much onto their DVD releases. Thankfully, this hasn't extended to their Blu-ray releases--That I know of!

I agree about the Mill Creek over-cramming (is that even a term?) Tony but, considering that I THINK Mill Creek already uses old, telecined TV masters on their releases (I don't actually picture them making new transfers by scanning 16mm or 35mm prints but I can always be wrong about that) it shouldn't make much difference in terms of quality. In fact, the extra space on blu-ray may allow for a little breathing room in terms of bit rate.

 

[Tony Bensley]

I think it's pretty clear by this point that the author quoted in Brent's original post has it wrong and didn't understand what he was seeing. He saw the stair-stepping of the interlaced SD frames and thought it had something to with HD vs SD resolution, which it doesn't. I think that's why Brent questioned it in the first place because ALL standard definition material (unless, like the restoration feature on the new MY FAIR LADY disc, it is is purposely upscaled on the disc to 1080 which means it's technically no longer SD) is ported over in 480. Doing so, although, wouldn't mean the 4:3 image would be small with black bars around it because upscaling is always going to be applied by the player or the display as it is with any DVD. What he's actually seeing is the difference between the progressive 24fps image on the DVD and the interlaced 60i image on the blu-ray. The irony, of course, is that HAD they actually been able to port the untouched progressive image over from the DVD (which was the author's incorrect conclusion about what they did) it would have looked BETTER than the hard-encoded interlaced image we wound up with.



This statement has been revelatory to me and not at all in a good way

I had no idea that NO standard def material was progressively encoded on blu-ray but it's completely true. Even identical material that appears on both DVD and blu-ray (I've been checking and checking. Just yesterday, for example, I compared SUPERMAN & the MOLE MEN from both the DVD set of ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN and the SUPERMAN ANTHOLOGY blu-ray) is 24fps on DVD and 60fps on blu-ray.

Hi Will!


I have a question regarding Blu-ray fps:


Apart from documentation, how can fps for Blu-ray based media be determined? I ask this because neither our Samsung Blu-ray Player, nor any of my Blu-ray based software kicks up that particular bit of information. Neither do the mts BD files when I right click them and bring up "Properties" when I check on my PC, unlike when I do the same for VOB DVD files, which does give me the fps under the details tab.


I'm at a bit of a loss here, and would greatly appreciate some assistance in this!


CHEERS!


Tony

 

[Will Krupp]

Hi Will!


I have a question regarding Blu-ray fps:


Apart from documentation, how can fps for Blu-ray based media be determined? I ask this because neither our Samsung Blu-ray Player, nor any of my Blu-ray based software kicks up that particular bit of information. Neither do the mts BD files when I right click them and bring up "Properties" when I check on my PC, unlike when I do the same for VOB DVD files, which does give me the fps under the details tab.


I'm at a bit of a loss here, and would greatly appreciate some assistance in this!


CHEERS!


Tony

Hey Tony,


With blu-ray it's a little bit easier because, with very few exceptions, the HD content of film based blu-ray material is, according to their specs, going to be 24fps. If not, there's almost going to be a notification somewhere on the packaging. That being said I have no way of knowing how to check it using the files (I don't have a blu-ray drive on my computer) so I rely on the information provided by the Sony player. Hitting display on the player will show me in the upper left hand corner the output resolution and frame rate of what the player is outputting. Since I choose auto-resolution for SD material, it always says 1080. When the source is 24fps it will say 1080/24p and if it is interlaced it will say 1080/60p (the hard encoded, interlaced image reads as progressive because it's hard baked and the player is sending it as 60 frames rather than 30 fields.) If I'm watching SD material and it says "60p" then i know the source material was interlaced.


So...in short (long? ) I really don't know how you can tell other than relying on the player to provide the information.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Tony,


There's a handy, open-source program for windows called MediaInfo that allows you to right-click on any video or audio file and bring up a detailed report about the file that includes, amongst a ton of other detail, the framerate. It's great! Hope that helps.