Technical Issues and Questions

[swo17]

Yeah, I was going to mention that Pride & Prejudice and The Wrestler, two titles cited in that article, were both originally shot on 16mm and both look phenomenal on Blu-ray. Granted, not Wall-E phenomenal, but excellent representations of their source material nonetheless.

[MichaelB]

I've watched lots of 16mm-sourced Blu-rays - the BFI catalogue alone has loads of examples, including Jeff Keen's output, Nighthawks, two of the Jane Arden/Jack Bond films, Bill Douglas's My Childhood and loads of supporting extras on discs like Primitive London, London in the Raw, Winstanley and so on.

There's no question to my mind that they benefit enormously from high definition, not least because a 2K scan seems to be broadly equivalent to what a standard 16mm frame (Super 16 is a different matter) is capable of resolving in the first place. This is impossible to establish precisely, given the differences between chemical and digital media, but it seems to be a good general rule of thumb, and was certainly borne out by my own experience of sitting in on the transfer of The Other Side of the Underneath and getting a chance to directly compare zoomed-in grain on the original camera negative and the 2K telecine that was made from it.

The most obvious difference between a 16mm-sourced DVD and a 16mm-sourced Blu-ray is that the original grain structure is preserved far more accurately, so it creates a much more convincingly filmic look. Obviously, people who have a horror of grain won't be happy, but that's just tough.

British television's going to have a major headache when it comes to Blu-ray, though - relatively few productions were shot entirely on film, and most mix 16mm exteriors with SD PAL interiors, so there's no conceivable advantage to transferring them to Blu-ray except in terms of squeezing entire series onto a single disc. If anything, the high definition will make them look worse, as DVD already exaggerates the difference between film and video sequences in a way that was less apparent in the original broadcast.

[Tribe]

The Next Big Thing after HDTV: 3-D HDTV:

I’ve been watching HDTV since 1982, when the Japanese television network NHK and CBS joined forces to show the world what they thought TV could become. That year, HDTV images shot by Francis Ford Coppola’s team were demonstrated to TV executives around the country on square aspect ratio, rear projection TVs.

For the past year, I’ve been watching the first fruits of what many in the consumer electronics business believe will be the successor to HDTV: 3-D HDTV.

3-D on television has gotten a bad rap because the method used to display it during the Super Bowl and other events—cheap cardboard glasses with red and green filters that you pick up at the local 7-11—produces just about the worst 3-D effect around. It’s dark, devoid of colors, and headache-inducing.

But the system that the industry is perfecting is far better than that. Based on the content I’ve been seeing, such as Panasonic’s demonstration of the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies, the pictures are bright, extremely sharp and with a full color palette. Done right, a 3-D image doesn’t just add depth, but also brings an enveloping sense of reality and an even bigger image than the physical dimensions would indicate.

When HDTV first launched commercially, about a decade ago, many skeptics said it wouldn’t last, because there was no obvious business advantage to the networks to spend the extra money to produce in high definition. But now that Hollywood studios have stepped up their 3-D theatrical productions, networks have every reason to hope that 3-D on television succeeds: so they can stay profitable.

“We don’t see people taking a position against 3-D, as they did with high definition,” said Robert Perry, executive vice president of Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company. He was speaking at last week’s 3-D Entertainment Summit in Los Angeles, perhaps the last meeting on the subject before 3-D products launch next year.

All the stars seem aligned to make this a business: an increasing amount of 3-D theatrical films, a commitment from the major television manufacturers to bring 3-D TVs to market next year, and a coming standard that will allow 3-D programs to be distributed on Blu-ray discs.

While there are various methods that a consumer can use to see 3-D, the industry seems to be coalescing around an approach using active-shutter glasses. Unlike the throwaway glasses used in 3-D movie theaters, the higher-cost active shutter version automatically syncs each frame of an image with either the left or right eye. This allows the film to be transmitted to each eye with the same 1080p resolution of a standard Blu-ray disc.

While the glasses cost more, several pairs will most likely be bundled with a new 3-D capable TV (just make sure you don’t sit on them).

While many are willing to pay a premium to see 3-D on TV, they’re not willing to pay too much. According to Michelle Abrahams, an In-Stat analyst, 43 percent of those queried said they’d pay up to a $200 premium. But 25 percent said they wouldn’t pay anything at all. Also, 31 percent said they wouldn’t pay any more to get a 3-D capable Blu-ray player.

What these numbers tell us is that a major education project is needed if the industry is going to convince consumers that 3-D TV is worth having. It’s also doubtful that few consumers would ever have expected to pay $1,000 and more for an HDTV, when expensive analog picture tube sets cost $500.

To kick it off, both Mitsubishi and Panasonic are sending home theater trucks around the country to show retailers and customers prototype 3-D sets. According to one conference participant, more money will be spent in the first two years promoting 3-D TV than was spent on promoting HDTV when it was a new technology.

Nobody expects Americans to ditch their HDTVs just to buy a more expensive 3-D set; but as they’re ready to buy another TV, more will begin to think about making that replacement TV a 3-D model.

While it’s all speculation, the best guess from the DisplaySearch research firm is that about 120,000 3-D TVs will be sold in 2010, the majority of them being big screen plasma sets. By 2013, more than 11 million are predicted to be sold, with LCD TVs capturing about 70 percent of the market then.

Nobody’s clamoring for 3-D TV. But nobody clamored for HDTV either. Consumers are “not that dissatisfied until the consumer electronics industry can show them there’s something better,” said Jim Bottoms, managing director of FutureSource.

[fdm]

Actually, I was pretty much clamoring for HDTV. Zero interest in 3-D.

[Peacock]

So i've changed universities and am now at the Edinburgh College of Art, we were taken on a tour of the library today and i discovered they had the vhs of Greed (with only one person having ever taken it out!) so I straight away borrowed it having never seen the film in any format before.

Now if i was to go into one of these places which can convert vhs to dvd, are they legally able to do that with a) a library's property and b) with an official video?



Oh yeah and do these places exist in brick and mortar form and if so does anyone know some place in Edinburgh which does it?

[MichaelB]

Now if i was to go into one of these places which can convert vhs to dvd, are they legally able to do that with a) a library's property and b) with an official video?

Legally, absolutely not - in response to both (a) and (b).

Whatever anyone tells you, and regardless of whether the original video distributor's rights may have expired (which they probably have done), the film is unambiguously still in copyright across the EU. Very, very few films are genuinely in the public domain in Britain, and Greed certainly isn't one of them - it being less than 70 years after the death of the film's major creative contributors.

Of course, that's not to say that a conversion place won't turn a blind eye - but if the tape is clearly marked as library property, it's going to be completely obvious that you're on dodgy ground. Certainly, the transfer places I use would refuse to do the job without written proof of entitlement to copy this material, but they're professional facilities houses with reputations to protect. I imagine a backstreet Edinburgh place advertising in newsagents' windows might not be quite so fastidious.

[Finch]

So i've changed universities and am now at the Edinburgh College of Art

You know I was actually considering to go back to uni next year and enrol for their filmmaking course if it hadn't been so cost-prohibitive. Still waiting to hear back from Napier re their tuition fees. I'll be back in Edinburgh Tuesday (though with a massive jetlag) and would love to meet up sometime (we can take that to PM so the thread's not going off-topic).

[Zazou dans le Metro]

Oh yeah and do these places exist in brick and mortar form and if so does anyone know some place in Edinburgh which does it?

Yes there's a place (forgotten the name but the guy's called Chris and it's a video rental joint so quite obvious) opposite the Post Office in Stockbridge but it's quite expensive. It cost me £30 to get the 5 hour version of Best intentions transferred

A propos ECA - I suppose you've seen that Marc Isaacs is giving a talk for the SDI there late October?

[nsps]

Assuming you may want to save other videos/broadcasts to DVDs, you can get a DVD recorder for a decent price that will probably about as good a job as any not-so-reputable place that would agree to ignore obvious copyright issues.

As for 3-D HDTV, the idea that 3-D never caught on because of the technology ignores the fact that it's a shitty way to watch movies.

[SalParadise]

I saw this in a shop for sale a few days ago. It looked supremely awesome.

http://www.consumer.philips.com/c/cinem ... 49/cat/gb/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At over 3,000 euro it's not cheap:). I think if I had that money I would buy a digital projector(easy to move around). What would you choose?

EDIT: Btw, apparently it's actually wider than 16:9, true 1:2.35

[tenia]

Question encountered on a french forum. It made me laugh, though at the end, I'm not even sure : Do Blu Rays providing the main feature in SD exist ?

[perkizitore]

It would be useful for films like 'Human Condition' or TV series for saving space, which cannot be released in HD for several reasons (limited funds or if they were simply shot in video). I doubt it will happen though, because studios want people to regard blu-ray as a better format, not simply use it as a storage facility. When they offer inferior quality is usually because of the technical restrictions, but even then the feature occupies a high proportion of the blu-ray.

[tenia]

It would be useful for films like 'Human Condition' or TV series for saving space, which cannot be released in HD for several reasons (limited funds or if they were simply shot in video). I doubt it will happen though, because studios want people to regard blu-ray as a better format, not simply use it as a storage facility. When they offer inferior quality is usually because of the technical restrictions, but even then the feature occupies a high proportion of the blu-ray.

Technically, the guy I was talking claimed that, if the BR is made from an upscale of a SD master, then, even if it's 1080p, it is SD.

So, basically, he is saying that, if you buy a movie in BR, you might have some BR that provide the movie in SD.

I was saying that it's completely wrong, but he basicaly turned me down. So I was wondering if it materially exists or not.

[domino harvey]

I know there's Blu-rays out there of PD material, like some of the Bob Hope comedies, and I doubt a no-name studio has access or money to devote to a true HD transfer for these. But this is speculation, of course

[tenia]

I know there's Blu-rays out there of PD material, like some of the Bob Hope comedies, and I doubt a no-name studio has access or money to devote to a true HD transfer for these. But this is speculation, of course

But does that made the BR providing the movie in SD ?

The whole debate was that he said that, if the BR is made from an upscale of a SD master, then the BR is in SD. What I claimed to be completely wrong.

[domino harvey]

Again, total speculation here, but: An SD to HD transfer, even upscaled, will still only be an enlargement of a file with smaller original dimensions. So using this hypothetical, the Blu-ray's image file would be Blu-ray dimensions but essentially just a poorer quality enlargement of the SD file. So it'd be HD in dimension but SD in file quality.

[tenia]

Again, total speculation here, but: An SD to HD transfer, even upscaled, will still only be an enlargement of a file with smaller original dimensions. So using this hypothetical, the Blu-ray's image file would be Blu-ray dimensions but essentially just a poorer quality enlargement of the SD file. So it'd be HD in dimension but SD in file quality.

So, technically speaking, even if the quality does not match, it's 1080i/p so it's HD, not SD ?

[TMDaines]

Does anyone here have any experience of watching Blu-rays on their PC and using AnyDVD HD to circumvent region-coding? I'm wondering if this may be the best way for me to watch Blu-rays from any region, as all I'd need is a Blu-ray drive and not a region-free Blu-ray player and HDTV.

[subliminac]

I've been doing this for the past two years now (was initially my way around the HD-DVD vs Blu format war) and have had almost no problems. I run PowerDVD for Bluray and TheatreTek with an ffdshow configuration for DVDs. AnyDVD HD has proven reliable. I have yet to have any compatibility issues. Its nice to have my one (albeit large) box that can play everything along with my ripped CD collection. If I can be of any help let me know.

[mikkelmark]

I am not sure i understood this totally correct:

as all I'd need is a Blu-ray drive and not a region-free Blu-ray player and HDTV.

Does that mean youll have 2 blu-ray players hooked up to your tv? 1 from the computer and another seperate? And the reason you want the computer player is so you can play the region blu-ray that your seperate player cant? If so, then I think its easier just to buy another seperate blu-ray player, and I think for example youre european, then it should be possible to patch it with the US software, which should make it region a (can anyone confirm this?)

If you want blu-ray region-free played from only a computer to tv, then read this:
When I jumped on the blu-ray wagon a year ago, I made the same decision. Mainly because at the time a blu-ray pc player was around 150$ and a normal blu-ray player was around 400$ non region-free. First you have to check if your computer is fast enough, look here. You need powerdvd (what I am using), or similar software to play the blu-ray, which is usually bundled together with the player, only most of them gives you a stripdown version of powerdvd version 7 or 8 something, if you want the new powerdvd 9 youll have to pay extra. If you only want to play one of the blu-ray region codes, you can just change that in powerdvd, think it allows 6 changes before you have to format, to reset the counter again. If you want region free blu-ray playback from a pc, you need anydvd hd. It will make your computer blu-ray region free, but it costs 63 euro for a one year subscription (you can almost get a standalone blu-ray player for that price). Then maybe you think youre smart, and just pirate anydvd hd. If you do, you will not be able to update anydvd hd. The way anydvd hd works to be region free, is it needs a code from each blu-ray, so unless its up to date, it wont play new discs (it will still play discs according to whatever region its set to in powerdvd).

About performance/quirks: Takes around 10 sec from a blu-ray disc is popped into the from, before powerdvd has started up on the disc, from there on it loads most discs in less than 5 seconds. Youll miss a wireless mouse, unless you have one (I eventually bought one myself), to act as a remote-control. If you take the power from your tv it will forget the settings you can choosen from the computer (resolution ect.), it is not a problem if you just put your tv into standby. Bear in mind that some computer can be quite noisy.

I ended up buying a standalone used cheap Samsung player, and now i play region a from the pc to the tv, and region b with the Samsung. If the Tevion/Momitsu cheap region free players had been in Denmark, I would probably have choosen one of those instead, but they are not yet.

EDIT: Small correction, just found out the price for anydvd hd is lifetime, it has been changed, earlier it was annually.

[wiljan]

If AnyDVD HD doesn't work for you (or if you just prefer a free alternative), try this: BD Region Tray

It works very simple in that it resets the amount of times you can change your region in PowerDVD each time you change it to the proper region of the BD that you want to play. So while it doesn't remove the region coding or anything, it does make your player effectively multi-region. It works like a charm for me.

[mikkelmark]

If AnyDVD HD doesn't work for you (or if you just prefer a free alternative), try this: BD Region Tray

It works very simple in that it resets the amount of times you can change your region in PowerDVD each time you change it to the proper region of the BD that you want to play. So while it doesn't remove the region coding or anything, it does make your player effectively multi-region. It works like a charm for me.

I just tried it, great program. I guess if you haven't already paid for anydvd hd, then this seems like a much better alternative (money wise). Had I known about this program, I wouldn't have bought an extra seperate blu-ray player.

[TMDaines]

I am not sure i understood this totally correct:

as all I'd need is a Blu-ray drive and not a region-free Blu-ray player and HDTV.

Does that mean youll have 2 blu-ray players hooked up to your tv? 1 from the computer and another seperate? And the reason you want the computer player is so you can play the region blu-ray that your seperate player cant? If so, then I think its easier just to buy another seperate blu-ray player, and I think for example youre european, then it should be possible to patch it with the US software, which should make it region a (can anyone confirm this?)

No, no. It just means I'll watch Blu-rays on my computer instead. Not hooked up to any TV or the like as I don't own one. I know for sure it's fast enough as I built it myself a year and a bit ago for gaming. My monitor is 1680*1050 so whilst it won't be capable of full HD it will be good enough for the time being. At the moment I'm restricted to watching any Blu-rays I end up buying on my parents' setup at their home (I'm at university most of the time).

[Westwood]

Hi guys,
I live in Switzerland and have cable and satellite reception and I have been noticing some problems with how movies and programmes are being transmitted lately.
It has to do with 16/9 transmission and/or HD tv.

My cable provider is lame so I have had to call them dozens of times to correct mistakes with some channels especially Turner Classic Movies (from France) who have been transmitting some movies and their own jingles in 16/9 for some months now.
Because the provider didn't set the channel properly these images and films arrived on my tv normally but they were cut off on the sides. Basically the way widescreen movies were transmitted on tv for ages before the last decade or so. Even the tv station logo was cut off in half (logo on top right corner:the logo right half was out of the screen).
After a dozen of calls they finally fixed something, because the movies now arrived streched vertically. With a widescreen tv you can use the ratio function to set the image to 16/9 which stretches back the movie to normal image and in widescreen filling up all the screen.
Of course with an old tv you are forced to watch the movie stretched vertically. So because this problem does not happen with the other dozens of channels that transmit 16/9 programs, I know it must be the cable provider that is messing up the transmission (my friend who lives in another region of the country but still serviced by the same cable company, althought another language-part of it, sees programs normally, uncut or unstretched).
I mean, whether the program is in 16/9 or not, the image should arrived unstreched, normal like the old days, right?
I was happy enough though having the whole movie that I could stretch (especially The Montecarlo Story from the 50s with De Sica and Dietrich in widescreen), until....

Problem 1: I have noticed that for at least two movies from before the cinemascope/widescreen era were transmitted in 16/9 on TCM and this is how I saw them: the image was stretched vertically.
On an old tv, the screen was full (no black bars anywhere), the image stretched vertically and of course no way to compress it down to make it normal (and of course then creating black bars at the top and at the bottom).
On a widescreen tv the image arrives the same way, stretched vertically but with the 16/9 ratio button I can fix the image and unstretch it vertically, but in doing so, and filling the whole widescreen, with the whole tv station logo visible (so, not losing anything that come out of the tv station feed), obviously the top and bottom parts of the movie have been cutoff by the transmitting tv station TCM in France.
Basically, this seems tv for morons. For those who care more about having a wide image, nothing is sacred, they even chop off movies to fill the whole screen.

Am I right, or has technology changed and I am missing something? Users of widescreen tvs can zoom several ways so why not air the movie in full and let the morons chop off the movie if they want?

PROBLEM no.2:

Arte channel. They aired the movie Black Narcissus from 1947 tonight, a movie which of course is in full screen. Now, in this case the image arrived the same way in both my old and new tv: framed in black. So, black bars at the bottom and on the sides. On an old tv, you will see the movie normally but of course the actual movie will be smaller than the tv screen, and on a widescreen tv you can zoom in to fill the screen vertically and not losing movie parts.
But I doubt that by zooming in a movie that is being aired in High Definition (like they advertised), you still have a better quality image than if that movie was aired normally in full screen. Or not?
As a footnote I have to say that until a couple of weeks ago, because of my beloved (*cough) cable provider, all of arte programs being transmitted in 16/9 (all of them!) arrived streched vertically, but I didnt' care to check what and why. But someone else must have complained because now the Arte image arrives unstreched, nomally, always with black bars at the top and at the bottom (so you can zoom in with a widescreen tv). And that is why full screen movies arrived framed.

Seriously guys, hopefully you have nothing better to do and read the whole post and understand what I meant.
Obviously TCM is doing something wrong, while with Arte I am not sure.
I hope someone here knows about 16/9 or HD transmissions and can help me out.

Thanks!!!!!

[Antoine Doinel]

Ok, here's a bit of chicken/egg question.

A friend of mine recently got a new Toshiba HDTV and a Sony DVD player (connected via HDMI). Now both the TV and the DVD player work fine, everything looks great. But. For whatever reason, when a DVD is played, she has to manually select the right picture size. For example if the TV is set on 16:9 even a 4:3 dvd will be stretched to 16:9. If we change to TV picture setting to "Native" (which theoretically should take the info from the DVD player) it defaults to 4:3. It's an odd problem.

Is it the TV at fault? Or the DVD? Suggestions? Should I just upgrade firmware on both?