logo Sign In

Karyudo

User Group
Members
Join date
23-Oct-2004
Last activity
12-Jan-2025
Posts
805

Post History

Post
#97496
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
How 'bout this instead:

1. Capture original LD signal from high-quality player, as exactly as possible (at least 9-bit ADC, to lossless codec).
2. IVTC, not in real time, with best possible algorithm in AviSynth (free, and testable/tunable) to get full-resolution progressive frames.
3. Scale, not in real time, with best possible scaling algorithm in AviSynth (free, and testable/tunable).

Wouldn't that be a radical idea?
Post
#96100
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: eros
doing the anamorphic conversion without using filters would be a fairer comparison.


No, it wouldn't, because the statement didn't say anything about filters -- it only said, "changing ld ripped video to anamorphic will degrade picture detail and sharpness," which just isn't true in all cases. As has been proven. QED.


Post
#95789
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi

Some of the first-generation players didn't do a very good job of 'downconverting' the anamorphic image for standard TVs. A lot of shimmering was created. This happened because when a player downconverts an image, it (basically) removes one line of resolution for every four. Different players do this in different ways, but generally the older players didn't do near as nice a job as today's do.

I don't disagree with that at all -- but I see the word "basically" in parentheses there, implying that a more complicated (and accurate) answer is beyond the scope of this document. "Basically" four lines are being converted to three -- that's incontrovertible -- but how that is done is unclear. I would submit that a picture with one of every four lines of information removed wholesale would be immediately recognizable as such, and virtually unwatchable.

On a 4:3 TV without doing the 'squeeze', the DVD player must be set to '4:3' within its setup menu. This forces the player to 'downconvert' the anamorphic image by removing some of the scan lines. This plays the image back at the correct proportion, but obviously loses some of the original resolution. It can also introduce unwanted artifacts, especially on scrolling credits etc.

Again, this citation is accurate in saying that scan lines are removed, and that some of the original resolution is lost. What it does not say (although having seen other similar references, it seems to imply) is that one of every four lines is actually plucked out whole. It is true that for every four DVD scan lines, three 4:3 TV lines are displayed. It's still not clear that that is done by tossing whole lines away.

When it comes to DVDs, anamorphic DVDs are specially encoded to include more visual information than standard DVDs. When an anamorphic DVD is played on a standard 4:3 TV, every fourth line of this extra resolution is ignored. (Keep in mind that your DVD player needs to be set for a 4:3 TV.) You still get a superb picture and you probably would not be able to tell the difference between anamorphic and non-anamorphic DVDs.


You've quoted too much! A fact I will now use against you: I simply reject any statement like this written by someone who asserts, "you probably would not be able to tell the difference between anamorphic and non-anamorphic DVDs". Fact is, I could write a widescreen DVD page and say anything I liked, but it wouldn't make it true. A half-truth, oft repeated, is still not fact.

If this "toss one of four lines" scenario is true, how come there's never been any explanation of exactly which lines are discarded? Do you start at the top and go, "keep, keep, keep, toss; keep, keep, keep, toss...," or do you try to keep lines with different information than their nearest neighbours (and therefore preserve detail, but introduce local distortion), or do you do something else as yet unexplained? Doing something like this would be nearly analogous to IVTC, yet there's never been any technical discussion like there has been with IVTC. I submit that this is because it doesn't happen that way; it happens like a Photoshop linear (or bilinear, or bicubic, or Lanczos, or what-have-you) resize.

QED, you cannot "squeeze" a picture larger than 720x480 into a DVD frame.


I say you can and do, because on playback, the 720 x 480 non-square pixels cover the same area as the "original" 854 x 480 square pixels. You're using 720 skinny pixels to describe the width 854 square pixels normally would. (Some DV cameras do this on the fly at the image capture stage, do they not?) Same as when you use an anamorphic lens and about 1" of horizontal film to describe what 2" would normally describe if you were using a spherical lens. Of course, you'll say the 854 virtual frame size never actually existed, to which I'll say the 2" spherical picture never existed, either!

Post
#95780
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Many films are telecined or scanned to HD resolution before the DVD is made. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the resolution is 1080p -- 1920 x 1080. Or, let's say that we're looking at a frame from Episode II or III, which originates from 1080p. Whatever: we're starting with 1920 pixels wide, by 1080 pixels high. Those pixels are square, by the way.

Now we go make a DVD.

The horizontal width goes from 1920 pixels to 720 pixels -- a compression of 8:3, or 2.66:1. The vertical height goes from 1080 pixels to 480 pixels -- a compression of 2.25:1. Ergo, exactly analogously to film, the image is squashed horizontally more than it is squashed vertically, and everything in the frame appears too tall and skinny.

Assuming the 16:9 flag is set in the MPEG-2 stream (duh...), this video plays back correctly by applying a horizontal stretch to the pixels (PAR is 1.18 for NTSC) -- again, exactly analogous to the use of an optical lens to stretch the picture horizontally. Not quite as much as the 2:1 stretch I've heard is used for an anamorphic lens, but analogous nonetheless. QED.

Actually, I just wanted to use QED. I don't know if I really can in this case...

Also, I should point out that at no time do any DVD players simply toss out one out of every four lines for display on a 4:3 set. That would simply look way too crappy. There's a resizing algorithm that's used. The net effect is cramming 4 lines of info into 3, but it's more like using some sort of linear resizing in Photoshop than simply failing to display every fourth line.

Post
#95704
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: Moth3r
- so should we refer to a 4:3 letterboxed DVD as "isomorphic" then?

No, 4:3 discs are anamorphic, too! At least in the strictest sense of the term they are. Clearly not in popular terms...
Do the math: 720 x 480 is 3:2, so it doesn't match either 4:3 or 16:9. PAL's the same: at 720 x 576, you're looking at 5:4.

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
But in film terms, an anamorphic transfer is where the picture is shrunk (visually compressed?) into a smaller frame. When applied to DVDs, it is incorrect usage of the established terminology.


What's not the same? The picture for 16:9 DVDs is shrunk / visually compressed into a smaller frame, too, just like its film counterpart. It's not what we're doing, exactly, because we're starting with stuff that's too small and stretching it vertically to fill the space, but this is just a very special case. Usually, working from an HD master, there's more than enough resolution and the visual compression / shrinking is obvious.
Post
#95514
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: skyman8081
they COULD, but it would still be stretched vertically.

Anamorphic film prints are 2.35:1

Anamorphic NTSC is 1.78:1

there would still be bars, but they would be the same size as the bars you see on movies that are 1.85:1


I'm afraid you've got some stuff wrong here. Anamorphic film prints are NOT 2.35:1; they're 1.3:1 or thereabouts. When projected, anamorphic lenses stretch the image about two times horizontally, so the final image is about 2.4:1.

If you were to transfer the film without an anamorphic lens, you'd have something that doesn't match any standard DVD ratio. No problem: that's what AviSynth is for. In fact, it would be sorta dumb to transfer the film WITH the anamorphic lens, I'd imagine, since then you'd have to add black bars right at the beginning. Far better to keep as much image information until as late in the mastering process as possible. And to answer SilverWook's question, making a 16:9 friendly version is dead simple.


@Molly: As SilverWook says, film is attainable. It ain't cheap, but it's available. Actually, getting the film digitized (telecined or scanned) is the extremely tough part. No post house I know of will touch copyrighted stuff without a lot of paperwork. A lot of paperwork nobody but Lucasfilm has the authority to sign.
Post
#95405
Topic
Usenet tutorial?
Time
Originally posted by: Metallaxis
What do I do from now on?

Every time you fire up Agent (or go to use it), retrieve headers in the group(s) you're interested in. Then pick what you want, and start it downloading.

Is it just me, or there isn't anything posted for download?

It's definitely just you! There are a few good things up at the moment.

Do I have to wait for someone to post a file?


Yes. To speed it along, you might want to post a REQ: post. But I'd recommend a bunch of lurking first. As a long time Usenet user, it's annoying to get too many newbie questions in a forum that hums along nicely without. All the answers are out there (here?); you shouldn't need to clutter a good binaries group with help requests.

And after he posts it, how long does it stay there for people to get it?


That's highly dependent on your newsserver. A free server from your ISP might give you only a couple of days (and parts might be broken). A pay server like Giganews or EasyNews might run you $15 or $20 a month, but have way better retention and completeness.
Post
#95346
Topic
Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion
Time
Originally posted by: eros
changing ld ripped video to anamorphic will degrade picture detail and sharpness.


No, it won't.

There you go: two almost-useless sentences, completely opposite, with equal amounts of proof (i.e. none) to support them.

I really, REALLY, get tired of people espousing some dogma or another without any sort of proof or analysis on their part. Moth3r provides tons of good information, backed up with references (of a kind) and personal experience, and still someone posts a one-liner something like "changing ld ripped video to anamorphic will degrade picture detail and sharpness".

I happen to be in the camp that says anamorphic made from LD will NOT degrade picture detail and sharpness. At least, it doesn't have to. Why do I think that? Because I've actually played with this sort of thing at length, and read at even greater length about others doing similar things. Any competent filter chain can improve the picture quite a bit as the size goes up -- hell, a lot of the procedures in AviSynth super-sample the picture to several times its original size in order to get better results! Anyone who says otherwise hasn't put in the time reading in the right places and experimenting with the right filters.
Post
#95205
Topic
<strong>The &quot;EditDroid&quot; Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread</strong> (Released)
Time
Originally posted by: The Dark One
[C]orrect me if I'm wrong, that letterboxing would actually take up more disc space versus anamorphic. I mean, you have to encode the black bands at top and bottom...that must take up disc space, no?


In a word, no. Letterboxing takes up less space, because it's easy to compress black. It takes more bandwidth to encode anamorphic titles, because there's more actual picture information. The black bars are still there, but they're much narrower.

Post
#95180
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
"Palacement" and "quess" passed a spelling check?? Wow. I might also point out that there are plenty of native, pretty-much-unilingual English speakers in non-US, non-UK countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand...

But seriously, Metallaxis, I don't know what country you're from, nor what language is your native tongue, but there are native speakers of English who could take a few pointers. I'd kill to be able to be that fluent in a second language!
Post
#94006
Topic
.: The Zion DVD Project :. (Released)
Time
Not only is five sides more of a pain, but when you're buying copies of the DC, it's difficult to tell if you'll get one with Leia's welding chopped. Among other little problems.

A pretty comprehensive guide to SW on LD is located at http://www.blam1.com/StarWars/index.htm. Doesn't include PAL, but does include everything NTSC. At least, I think it's everything.
Post
#93955
Topic
STAR WARS: The Torrents thread
Time
I think you'd probably get a better response if the details on how to set up a tracker, what sort of bandwidth is needed, what things might cost, etc., were posted. Then somebody -- anybody -- in Canada could go ahead and do it. I'd be really reluctant to say, "Yeah, I'll do it!" without knowing up front all the effort, cost, and legal hassles I could reasonably expect to encounter.
Post
#93638
Topic
.: The X0 Project Discussion Thread :. (* unfinished project *)
Time
Originally posted by: Laserman
She is busy reading "The System Of The World" by Neal Stephenson


That was a good book. So were the other (first) two in the Baroque Cycle trilogy. I read each one in a week -- a "fast read" from the local public library. At about 800+ pages each, and characters like Roger Comstock, Marquis de Ravenscar and spellings like "phant'sy", I don't think the library quite understood that even a "fast read" of any of these books is anything but.