STAR WARS: EP V "REVISITED EDITION"ADYWAN - 12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW — Page 972

Well, the broadcasts themselves weren't perhaps 1080p, but the captures of them available on the internet sure were.

Darth Editus said:

Look closer:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/1241/hdbd.jpg

Thats not a vary fair approach to prove your point. Your using 1080p jpg's that have been modified to actually show the difference. How about a side by side video comparison in 720p. The resolution that the edit will be in.

Mr Ghostface said:

Well obviously Ady has decided the blu-rays are the best source for his HD edit, so there's not much point having an ongoing debate about it. For one, the original HDTV broadcasts were NOT 1080p, they were 1080i, and although some people will argue that, I work for the broadcaster that showed them, and there are NO 1080p broadcasts. Either way the blu-rays are very good, clean transfers for the most part and I think Ady is doing the right thing.

You're right, I was just clarifying as people seem to believe the broadcasts were 1080p, which isn't the case. No biggie

All media is interlaced on TV, the cable or dish boxes can either do progressive or interlaced scanning. Progressing scanning will give you a better picture. The problem with cable broadcasts is the inherent ground noise within the signal due to how the signal is transferred. You need a line conditioner to minimize it. I have a line conditioner hooked up to my cable box, and the picture looks fantastic, very clean looking compared to how it looks without one.

Most people don't know this but the 1080i signal is actually a 1920x540 resolution signal where every other frame (actually called a field) is interlaced with the frame after it, giving you a perceived total resolution of 1920x1080.

Mr Ghostface said:

A capture is not 1080p or any other broadcast resolution and although I know what you meant, a capture at a high resolution does not contain more information/detail than its source.

Oh yes it can. You  can get a HD capture card for your PC and hook your HD line up to your PC and you can capture a 1080i broadcast at 1080p. I know of a HD capture card that captures at (1080i50, 1080i59.94, 1080i60,1080p23.98, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p29.97, 1080p30, 720p50, 720p59.94, 720p60)

Mr Ghostface said:

Harmy said:

Well, the broadcasts themselves weren't perhaps 1080p, but the captures of them available on the internet sure were.

That doesn't even make sense.

A capture is not 1080p or any other broadcast resolution and although I know what you meant, a capture at a high resolution does not contain more information/detail than its source.

No, I don't think you do know what I meant.

Let's see:

Each frame of 1080i video consists of two fields of 1920×540 pixels each.

The field rate of 1080i is typically 60 Hz for countries that use or used System M as analog broadcast television system (such as United States, Canada, Japan, and Brazil) or 50 Hz for regions that traditionally used television systems with 25 frames/s rate 

In other words, as these were PAL land broadcasts, they were effectively broadcast at 25fps (50 field p/s), so all the information for every frame was there, only it was divided between two fields - so you can then put these two fields together and what you get is a full 1080p frame, so the on-line available captures of the 1080i 50fields p/s broadcast were native 1080p 25fps.

Well said!

Sure, I never said there was more information in the captures :-)

I don't think it's ever going to happen. I think his ex-wife has alot to do with it, but I'm probably wrong. What Ady is doing is great.  It's funny about the Starwars BD, people are shelling out mega bucks for, just because it's starwars, knowing it still has alot of problems. Then complain about all the stuff it doesn't have including the alterations. I just had some words with a dude over in the general discussion thread over the complains regarding the BD problems. Man, all I basically sad was enjoy what he had, or take it back, then all the sudden he got all offensive towards me. Man, I have seen some fanatics in my time but that dude took the cake.

Anyway, lucas really only cares about the general starwars fan now days, and the BD's show it.

It's a good thing Ady doesn't really care about this thread?

Darth Editous said:

 

Most people don't know this but the 1080i signal is actually a 1920x540 resolution signal where every other frame (actually called a field) is interlaced with the frame after it, giving you a perceived total resolution of 1920x1080

No, it gives you a perceived resolution of about 1920x756, if you're talking about truly interlaced material. For progressive material you get a perceived and actual resolution of 1920x1080 (barring some minor differences in how colour is processed).

 

Hi Darth,

For truly interlaced material you are correct that it is impossible to get full-resolution progressive scan content, since each field (even or odd lines) represents an advancement in time of 1/50 sec (for PAL).  Motion is the killer here - a fast-moving ball for example will appear in one position for the odd lines and another for the even lines, making a full frame (both fields displayed at once) look wrong.  I'll take your word about the 756 lines, I assume that's something to do with a best-case deinterlacer?

Anyway this is not relevant to the 1080i Star Wars broadcast, as it was never truly interlaced - the film was of course captured at 24fps and sped up for PAL regions to 25fps.  The fact that is has been broken up into odd and even fields for broadcast has no effect on the ability to get a 1080p rip since the even and odd fields for any given frame will both be in exactly the same time domain (all motion is restricted to 1/25sec chunks). 

Venturing further OT, but I actually prefer watching content at higher frame rates but unfortunately it has become associated with low-budget soap operas with 50/60fps cameras and shaky operators so most folks seem to prefer the other-worldliness qualities of 24fps.

timdiggerm said:

It's a good thing Ady doesn't really care about this thread?

dark_jedi said:

AH, sorry but you are mistaken, I have ripped plenty of BD50's to my hard drive and it takes about 30-40 minutes, if it takes longer than that, then you have a shitty PC and an even worse Blu-ray drive\Burner, or you have no idea what you are doing.

I'm running a Quad core AMD with 8 gigs of ram on a 64 bit operating system. I takes longer than 40 min to rip a BD on my system. It could be the BD drive thats causing the problem, but I'm not going to replace it. And besides all that, I really don't do it all that much.

Darth Editous said:

They have not been modified at all - cherry-picked to prove a point, perhaps. I chose a reasonable amount of compression for the jpeg and they are an accurate depiction of those two sections of an HDTV frame and a BD frame.

Those Jpgs really don't mean much, and you know better than to do that, I want you to show a 720p video example, rip vs retail, side by side.

Darth Editous said:

"In the United States, 720p is the preferred format for the broadcast and cable networks of Fox/FX/Fox Sports Net, ABC/Disney Channel/ESPN, A&E Television Networks, Ion Television, MLB Network, and DirecTV's Audience Network."

Thats true, but however, not all TV sets do 720p.  Those networks still broadcast in 1080i. 720p may be the preferred format of those networks but they still have to accommodate the viewers that can only decode ( or to stupid to know otherwise ) 1080i, because there are still a few existing HD sets that only decode 1080i. So what I said was still true, just a little bit one sided.

Darth Editous said:

That's a massive generalisation, and not relevant to already frame-based material.

 Actually film-based material would be a better term, and yes a progressive scanned frame will look better than an interlaced frame. You loosed picture quality ( color and detail ) with through the use of interlaced decoding because the frame is split into 2 fields that alternate. Not so with progressive decoding, everything is scanned at once.[/QUOTE]

Darth Editous said:

This is only relevant if the HDTV rips were made from an analogue cable broadcast, which seems extremely unlikely. If you're on digital cable and you can see a difference in picture quality with or without a line conditioner... well, I'll stop there, because you just can't, but I have some Monster cables you can buy off me.

(edited to add: actually this is probably not quite right. Line hum can cause waves and other distortions to get through to the TV via earth, but if you're capturing digitally, it won't make any difference)

Get rid of your monster cables and go with something that has better quality terminators. Ones and zeros are one thing, most any cable will get you all of that. The problem is how the cables are manufactured. If they're cheap, then they are made cheap, and they will have cheap connectors, and cheap connector does make a difference. Monster cable isn't really all that bad, but I have seen alot better. The better ones will have more silver in the connectors. Audioquest has a great high performance line, that beats monster hands down. Tributaries make a great high performance cable also, as well as Kimber cable.

Darth Editous said:

No, it gives you a perceived resolution of about 1920x756, if you're talking about truly interlaced material. For progressive material you get a perceived and actual resolution of 1920x1080 (barring some minor differences in how colour is processed).

Well if your talking actual pixels on the screen then your 1920x 756 is wrong. Should be 1920 x 754 for 1,446,680 - 2.35

He is also adding more activity and depth to the Echo Base without being in your face about it. That may be what he's working on right now. ;-)