Technical Issues and Questions

[EddieLarkin]

Are you sending 1080p from the player to the TV?

Definitely. I've tried turning the upscaling off and sending it to the TV as 576i as well, but it makes no difference.

[jindianajonz]

Without getting at all technical, non-anamorphic DVDs of widescreen films will fill up the sides of a 4:3 TV, but on a widescreen TV, there will be thick black bars all around the whole image. In other words, non-anamorphic DVDs were made assuming that they would only ever be watched on 4:3 TVs, which has proven not to be the case.

Oh, I don't mind it getting technical- in fact, that's what I was going for (my background is engineering; i just never really looked into AV issues before)

So non-anamorphic just means that the image is squished horizontally? If this is the case, then how is information being lost (according to what MichaelB said)? Or is the lost information just referring to every third column of pixels being removed as opposed to a solid 33% taken off the sides?

And re: Zot!s comment, what is anamorphic film projection? Is that where they "squish" the image to fit it onto film, but then use another lense to "stretch" the image back to normal again as its being projected?

If this is the case, then does that mean a non-anamorphic DVD just displays the same squished image directly off of the film?

[David M.]

@EddieLarkin: when I get a spare moment, I'm going to check this out. I don't have that exact player but do have access to a few generations of Panasonic BD players.

So non-anamorphic just means that the image is squished horizontally? If this is the case, then how is information being lost (according to what MichaelB said)? Or is the lost information just referring to every third column of pixels being removed as opposed to a solid 33% taken off the sides?

And re: Zot!s comment, what is anamorphic film projection? Is that where they "squish" the image to fit it onto film, but then use another lense to "stretch" the image back to normal again as its being projected?

If this is the case, then does that mean a non-anamorphic DVD just displays the same squished image directly off of the film?

With video, you basically need to understand the concept of non-square pixels.

HDTV did away with this (for the most part). 720p and 1080p both use 1:1 pixels, like a computer display.

*All* SD video is "anamorphic" to an extent. ("Anamorphic" is a term borrowed from optics, where the squishing/unsquishing was done with lenses). In video, even 4:3 SD doesn't use square pixels, although it's not usually referred to that way.

[MichaelB]

So non-anamorphic just means that the image is squished horizontally? If this is the case, then how is information being lost (according to what MichaelB said)? Or is the lost information just referring to every third column of pixels being removed as opposed to a solid 33% taken off the sides?

Non-anamorphic means that the image isn't squished at all - when you watch a 2.35:1 widescreen film in a non-anamorphic transfer, you're essentially watching that image framed within a 4:3 shape, so that the vertical resolution is comparatively low.

But if the same film was rendered anamorphically, the picture would be horizontally "squished" on the actual DVD, thus allowing the vertical resolution to be increased substantially. During playback, the film can be "unsquished" in a couple of ways, depending on whether the player has been set to generate a 4:3 or 16:9 picture to work with an appropriately-shaped screen. If the screen is 16:9, you get the benefit of the additional resolution.

(On the other hand, if the screen is 4:3, you potentially might lose resolution depending on how the player reframes the picture and whether it loses any information during that process. If I remember rightly, this is why Criterion was slow to move into anamorphic transfers, because 13-14 years ago they believed that most of their customers were still using 4:3 sets.)

You probably know this already, but anamorphic processes aren't needed for Blu-ray, since the image is natively 16:9.

[EddieLarkin]

The big black bars necessary to fit a 2.35:1 image into a 4:3 box are essentially hard coded on non-anamorphic DVDs, so there is no squishing or stretching involved. For 4:3 TVs this isn't a problem, but for widescreen TVs the result will be something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/cRk9aPv.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (note this example is of a 1.78/1.85:1 image rather than 2.35:1, but the principle is the same)

Only the red section shows film image.

For anamorphic DVDs the widescreen image is stretched horizontally to fit the 4:3 DVD, and then squashed back into its original form during playback, thus filling a widescreen TV end to end

Anamorphic projection is essentially the same yes. The image is stretched to fill a 4:3 35mm frame, and then squashed back to 2.35:1 during projection.

@EddieLarkin: when I get a spare moment, I'm going to check this out. I don't have that exact player but do have access to a few generations of Panasonic BD players.

That would be great thanks.

[jindianajonz]

The big black bars necessary to fit a 2.35:1 image into a 4:3 box are essentially hard coded on non-anamorphic DVDs, so there is no squishing or stretching involved. For 4:3 TVs this isn't a problem, but for widescreen TVs the result will be something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/cRk9aPv.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (note this example is of a 1.78/1.85:1 image rather than 2.35:1, but the principle is the same)

Only the red section shows film image.

For anamorphic DVDs the widescreen image is stretched horizontally to fit the 4:3 DVD, and then squashed back into its original form during playback, thus filling a widescreen TV end to end

Anamorphic projection is essentially the same yes. The image is stretched to fill a 4:3 35mm frame, and then squashed back to 2.35:1 during projection.

Ok, thank you, that makes a lot more sense. So really all it means (from a viewing perspective) is that a non-anamorphic DVD has the black bars "burnt in" to the image, while an anamorphic DVD does not. I hadn't realized this.

Also, am I correct in understanding that the specs of a DVD mandate that the image always be 4:3, i.e. there is no such thing as a DVD with a native image in widescreen?

And sorry to keep asking more questions, but what is the purpose of anamorphic projection? If the image has to be stretched to fill a 4:3 frame, who not just film in 4:3 and matte the resulting image? I can see how this would add more vertical resolution in a digital format, but since film doesn't really have "resolution" is anything really added?

[Zot!]

Also, am I correct in understanding that the specs of a DVD mandate that the image always be 4:3, i.e. there is no such thing as a DVD with a native image in widescreen?

Yes, and for Blu-Ray the image must always be 16x9. So any movies that don't have those exact dimensions have black burned in. The HD picture is a little more forgiving however.

[zedz]

And sorry to keep asking more questions, but what is the purpose of anamorphic projection? If the image has to be stretched to fill a 4:3 frame, who not just film in 4:3 and matte the resulting image? I can see how this would add more vertical resolution in a digital format, but since film doesn't really have "resolution" is anything really added?

I think all this talk of squishing and unsquishing might have confused things, since some people are talking like images have been squished vertically, which is confusing. If you want to photograph an image that's rectangular rather than square(-ish), there are a few ways of doing it without completely reinventing the cinematographic apparatus. You could (apologies for any technical ineptitude - I'm no expert in any of this):
- photograph a regular 1.33 image on regular 35mm film stock, then mask the image in projection to a smaller lateral 'slice' of the original image. This is called shooting 'open matte'. Upside: you can shoot it just the same as regular academy ratio 35mm, and you've got flexibility when masking it to a narrower ratio. Downside: you're restricting yourself to only a half or a third of the frame as shot, so your projected image will have its resolution reduced accordingly (since you're only using a half or a third of the film grains that you would have at your disposal if shooting and projecting in full frame 1.33)
- photograph a widescreen image on a larger gauge of film, like 70mm, so the camera is capturing a widescreen image in the first place. Upside: fantastic resolution. Downside: expensive in terms of film stock and equipment, limited venues for projecting 70mm, so you'll need to reduce it to 35mm anyway.
- photograph a widescreen image on regular 35mm by shooting through an anamorphic lens, which will optically squish the rectangular image in front of the camera to a squarish shape, so it can fit on the 35mm film. Then, when it's projected, the image is 'unsquished' back into widescreen by attaching an anamorphic lens to the projector. Upside: utilises the full resolution of the 35mm frame. Downside: relies on having good lenses in the first place and at every screening. This optical squishing and unsquishing can also be used for transferring 70mm images to 35mm film.

[EddieLarkin]

Further to my problem, I tried replicating it on my PS3 and sure enough it happens there as well. 4:3 DVDs appear as approximately 1.29:1. The PS3 doesn't have a zoom feature, but it does have a stretch to fit option. When engaging this the image is stretched out to 16:9 but I gain info on the sides. I figured I should be able to "de-stretch" the result with my TVs 4:3 mode but when I do so, it crops all 4 sides. This is driving me crazy now, what do the bastards not want me to see? I suggest you all try and replicate this on your own set ups; right now I'm ready to believe this is some great conspiracy I'm the first to discover.

[David M.]

It's difficult to say for sure without checking this out for myself, but it could be the case that the players are actually correctly implementing the active picture area as specified in Rec.601 (the ITU spec for digital SD video).

I'll need to read it again and actually research this when I have time, but the DVD resolution of 720x480 / 576 is wider than D1 resolution of 704 pixels across. Some downconverting hardware adds 8 black pixels to the left and right of the 720x480 frame for that reason. Strictly speaking, these are designed not to be shown; some masters have the black pixels "baked in" and some players (perhaps like your Panasonic) do not count these small side-bars as part of the picture. Other players will show this though. But this rule hasn't been strictly enforced which is maybe part of the reason why we're seeing this mismatch. I'd imagine that overscan in the CRT days meant that manufacturers took a "who cares" approach to how to deal with the width of the video.

Just a theory. I haven't checked it out yet.

Have you got a copy of Digital Video Essentials? I think there's a pixel cropping detection pattern on there. Which spec it's accurate to, I don't know! I'll need to check when I get time!

[Zaki]

I've expreienced the same with the Dollar trilogy (also MGM). It's not a faulty disc, but rather an issue with the player/firmware, IIRC. The BD player I used was a cheap, no-brand player. I haven't tried the discs on my new Panasonic, but I imagine it would play just fine. Don't know how to resolve it though. I would imagine a firmware update migh do to the trick, but I never had the opportunity to try that out with my old player.

Thanks, Robert. I guess you are right that it is the player, but at least in my case it is not a firmware issue.

[EddieLarkin]

It's difficult to say for sure without checking this out for myself, but it could be the case that the players are actually correctly implementing the active picture area as specified in Rec.601 (the ITU spec for digital SD video).

I'll need to read it again and actually research this when I have time, but the DVD resolution of 720x480 / 576 is wider than D1 resolution of 704 pixels across. Some downconverting hardware adds 8 black pixels to the left and right of the 720x480 frame for that reason. Strictly speaking, these are designed not to be shown; some masters have the black pixels "baked in" and some players (perhaps like your Panasonic) do not count these small side-bars as part of the picture. Other players will show this though. But this rule hasn't been strictly enforced which is maybe part of the reason why we're seeing this mismatch. I'd imagine that overscan in the CRT days meant that manufacturers took a "who cares" approach to how to deal with the width of the video.

Just a theory. I haven't checked it out yet.

Have you got a copy of Digital Video Essentials? I think there's a pixel cropping detection pattern on there. Which spec it's accurate to, I don't know! I'll need to check when I get time!

I've not I'm afraid. But I can tell that the BD players do not overscan Blu-rays or Anamorphic DVDs as they measure precisely as their respective ARs should, and I can even see tiny black bars either end of the screen where the image ends. My Spears & Munsil disc also shows that the BD player and TV do not overscan at all when showing 16:9 material.

So it's just 4:3 DVD, which wouldn't be much of a problem really, the extra information as you say may not even be intended to be displayed. But now that I know I'm seeing 1.29:1 images, I can't help but notice they look much too narrow. So now I have to turn the TVs overscan on to compensate and make them 1.33:1. Again, not a problem in itself but a big problem now that I have to remember to switch overscan on or off depending on what I'm watching. It's just annoying and pointless, the extra information that gets revealed when I zoom or stretch is clearly "proper" information rather than noise or anything like that.

EDIT: Trying this with some other players I've discovered it works fine with my PC, Xbox 360 and a spare DVD player I have. All give a 1.33:1 image that definitely shows the missing information I lose when using my Panny BD players or my PS3. Coincidentally, my Pannys and PS3 are hooked up through my AV whilst the others are not. Must be the AV then you say? NOPE! Hooking up my BD player straight to the TV still gives me a cropped 1.29:1 image. Now I'm really f***ing annoyed. If some crappy old DVD player can give a 100% uncropped image why the hell can't my Blu-ray players?!

[htom]

Trying this with some other players I've discovered it works fine with my PC, Xbox 360 and a spare DVD player I have. All give a 1.33:1 image that definitely shows the missing information I lose when using my Panny BD players or my PS3. Coincidentally, my Pannys and PS3 are hooked up through my AV whilst the others are not. Must be the AV then you say? NOPE! Hooking up my BD player straight to the TV still gives me a cropped 1.29:1 image. Now I'm really f***ing annoyed. If some crappy old DVD player can give a 100% uncropped image why the hell can't my Blu-ray players?!

I'm not sure this will help with your issue with the Panasonic player, but the PS3 has at least four settings for playback of DVDs, and these are quite separate from the Blu-Ray playback settings. The manual claims these are: 1) no upscaling, 2) double scale, 3) normal, and 4) full screen. As you don't want to stretch the image in any way you won't use 4. But I recall that 2 and 3 gave different results on my setup, and I think 2 was unusual in that the resulting image was not quite as tall as setting 3 would give you (mapping a 960 pixel tall image to a 1080 pixel tall display). But presumably the option to allow your TV or your AVR/TV combo to do the upscaling themselves is there with setting 1.

If you get more or less info with any of these settings in relation to each other you may be able to determine which type of upscaling your Panasonic player is employing. I assume it is doing this because I think they all do, but I would also guess you can't toggle that feature either...

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, I've tried them. Normal is what I'm getting from the other players, i.e. a crop on the sides. Double scale crops the top and bottom in addition. Full screen stretches the image (and reveals the missing info, but said info disappears again when I squish back to 4:3 using the TV aspect ratio feature). No upscaling makes the image 480p/576i, but also stretches the image for some reason, but does not reveal any additional info. Turning off upscaling also does not help on the Pannys.

Regardless, my TV upscaling is far inferior to the PS3/Panny's upscaling, so it would not be a worthwhile solution even if it did give me a proper 1.33:1 image. Here are some pictures anyway.

4:3 DVD through PS3, Panny BDs:

http://i.imgur.com/F9Vki38.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4:3 DVD through Xbox 360/DVD player/PC:

http://i.imgur.com/FiL1V0A.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be clear, the AV is bypassed, and turning upscaling off makes no difference.

Also, I managed to test this with my Dad's super cheap Phillips Blu-ray player (unsure of the model) and it too gives a proper 1.33:1 image. So I know at least that this problem is not an issue for ALL BD players. Just the 3 different ones I have

[David M.]

It's been a while since I looked at SD for long, so my scale may be out, but the missing info on each side does look like it could be 8 pixels, which would validate my theory.

In which case, the Panny BD player is actually doing things correctly ('by the book'). Those 8 pixels should be blank on the disc. Of course, that's not always how it's done (I'm also guilty of this). This is just another example of why standards matter in video and what can go wrong if they're not adhered to.

Will look into it more - promise!

[EddieLarkin]

Your theory is sound, I just don't like what it suggests. If it's the correct standard to lop off 16 pixels from the image, then the "standard" is that all 1.33:1 material be actually shown as 1.29:1! You can't maintain 1.33:1 if you're only taking pixels from the side. So this forces me to lop MORE pixels from the top and bottom of the picture to get back to a 1.33:1 image. It's f***ing ridiculous.

Suddenly all my pictureboxed Criterion DVDs are looking worthwhile. The boxing on the sides is lopped off by the player, the boxing on the top and bottom is lopped off by my TVs overscan, giving me a 1.33:1 image that loses no picture information.

Anyway, I've tried just about everything there is, it's clear there is no solution to this, so I'll start saving for one of them new Oppos I reckon. God help their customer service line if they also insist on this "standard" too.

[zedz]

Suddenly all my pictureboxed Criterion DVDs are looking worthwhile. The boxing on the sides is lopped off by the player, the boxing on the top and bottom is lopped off by my TVs overscan, giving me a 1.33:1 image that loses no picture information.

I believe this was always Criterion's rationale for the practice.

[TMDaines]

A practice that ensured that everyone with a kosher setup got a compromised picture or had to fiddle with their settings, and, needless to say, the DVDs were released without their optimal picture quality (loss of pixels, waste of data on encoding the black borders). The bordering on the War Trilogy set was utterly ridiculous.

[Black Hat]

Just to follow up, the Viera ST50 arrived today, popped on the MOC blu of Jeanne as my first film to watch and from where I was to this is not just a home theater improvement but a lifestyle change. I can not possibly be happier. I'm ready with the burn in disc swo was kind enough to share but if there's any advice on calibration or anything else I should know, it would be greatly appreciated. Specifically any resource available to recommend I read that would be akin to calibration for dummies? I have it set to Cinema now and I read David M's article on calibration that he posted a few pages back but almost all of it flew right over my head.

[David M.]

Just to follow up, the Viera ST50 arrived today, popped on the MOC blu of Jeanne as my first film to watch and from where I was to this is not just a home theater improvement but a lifestyle change. I can not possibly be happier

Welcome to Plasma world

Full calibration (to get the best possible colour accuracy) is done by an ISF/THX trained professional with an expensive probe which measures the colours and brightness levels from the TV screen so they can be precisely tuned out. Since you're in New York, if you're interested in that, give Kevin Miller a call and pass my regards! - http://www.isftv.com/Contact_Info.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[EddieLarkin]

A practice that ensured that everyone with a kosher setup got a compromised picture or had to fiddle with their settings, and, needless to say, the DVDs were released without their optimal picture quality (loss of pixels, waste of data on encoding the black borders). The bordering on the War Trilogy set was utterly ridiculous.

But who would have ever described a Panasonic GT30 + a Panasonic BDT110 as a non-kosher set up, before my posts? This overscan business appears to be a lot more common and hard to defeat than most think, and I suggest everyone replicate my zoom test detailed above, especially if you have a PS3 or Panny BD player. You might be surprised at what you're missing.

[zedz]

A practice that ensured that everyone with a kosher setup got a compromised picture or had to fiddle with their settings, and, needless to say, the DVDs were released without their optimal picture quality (loss of pixels, waste of data on encoding the black borders). The bordering on the War Trilogy set was utterly ridiculous.

But who would have ever described a Panasonic GT30 + a Panasonic BDT110 as a non-kosher set up, before my posts? This overscan business appears to be a lot more common and hard to defeat than most think, and I suggest everyone replicate my zoom test detailed above, especially if you have a PS3 or Panny BD player. You might be surprised at what you're missing.

And this is the problem Criterion was anticipating. When the pictureboxing 'scandal' first broke, everybody (like TM Daines) was up in arms, hand-wringing that the Great March of Technology meant that overscanning would never ever be a problem ever again. Which is patently false. So Criterion's grounds for instituting the practice remain valid, unfortunately.

[Black Hat]

Welcome to Plasma world

Full calibration (to get the best possible colour accuracy) is done by an ISF/THX trained professional with an expensive probe which measures the colours and brightness levels from the TV screen so they can be precisely tuned out. Since you're in New York, if you're interested in that, give Kevin Miller a call and pass my regards! - http://www.isftv.com/Contact_Info.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[/quote] expensive or expansive? (extensive also works)

[TMDaines]

A practice that ensured that everyone with a kosher setup got a compromised picture or had to fiddle with their settings, and, needless to say, the DVDs were released without their optimal picture quality (loss of pixels, waste of data on encoding the black borders). The bordering on the War Trilogy set was utterly ridiculous.

But who would have ever described a Panasonic GT30 + a Panasonic BDT110 as a non-kosher set up, before my posts? This overscan business appears to be a lot more common and hard to defeat than most think, and I suggest everyone replicate my zoom test detailed above, especially if you have a PS3 or Panny BD player. You might be surprised at what you're missing.

And this is the problem Criterion was anticipating. When the pictureboxing 'scandal' first broke, everybody (like TM Daines) was up in arms, hand-wringing that the Great March of Technology meant that overscanning would never ever be a problem ever again. Which is patently false. So Criterion's grounds for instituting the practice remain valid, unfortunately.

I watch my stuff predominatly on five different setups and none of them have this issue. It doesn't have to be a problem but if people buy equipment without properly researching and calibrating it, then of course they'll be issues. In the digital age there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for manufacturers creating equipment with mandatory overscanning, so people shouldn't settle for it.

I feel sorry for Eddie in this instance as quite clearly he's found something unusual and is doing his upmost to overcome it.

Criterion's practice is completely undermined by the fact that they don't even consistently apply it, so it's not as if there's a clear method to their madness. Their Blu-rays don't feature black borders, for instance. They've at least realised to an extent that it's completely illogical to introduce another flaw to compensate for another, releasing a compromised product in the process. They don't colour time the video of their films for the average settings of a store-bought TV, for example. You process the video and audio aspects so that they are optimally tweaked for the most accurate representation of the artist's intent on a perfectly calibrated display.

[David M.]

But who would have ever described a Panasonic GT30 + a Panasonic BDT110 as a non-kosher set up, before my posts? This overscan business appears to be a lot more common and hard to defeat than most think, and I suggest everyone replicate my zoom test detailed above, especially if you have a PS3 or Panny BD player. You might be surprised at what you're missing.

It's not technically overscan. Although it may as well be the same in practice.

A better way to think of it is like the video world's version of "Open matte". Those pixels *technically* aren't meant to be seen... but many discs have something filling them just in case they ARE shown.

By the way, this also has ramifications for the display geometry. It might be the case that the players that show the entire 720-pixel wide frame are squashing the image slightly.

Criterion's windowboxing would be a separate, but related issue.

Again though, I still need to confirm what is actually happening.
Give me an hour, I'm making test patterns