Support NeoGAF

[bitq]

Ignore the technical problems. Zooming means you're cutting off the sides of the frame. If that's acceptable, then you shouldn't care about the reduced resolution either. Clearly nothing matters except getting all your pixels lit up.

That's a pretty big assumption...

Artistic vision and picture quality are completely different.

unrelated:
My biggest qualm about this whole thing is that the black bars aren't completely black, they give off backlight. That sort of ruins the "immersion" factor for me. I'm really looking forward to OLED TVs.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Actually, I think the initial low-end Reds shot in 2K or 4K, and the newer ones are 4K or 8K.

Could be, I could have sworn it was 4k minimum but I could totally be wrong here.

Ack, that changes everything. I thought the blu-ray player was adding those bars. I guess my idea requires a complete redesign of blu-ray, HDMI, TVs, etc. :[

I could be wrong but I think they are. Either way though, even something at say 1920x818 which I want to say I think is cinescope (2.35:1, though cinescope may be 2.4:1) would still fall under 1080p resolution. There's just nothing there to fill in the other 262 pixels. Like some one else said you theoretically could make anamorphic blurays but it would be way too much of a pain in the ass to do and serve no real purpose. Mostly cause you're not really getting 262 more lines of detail, you're just taking the 818 lines that are there and stretching them to fill more space.

 

[bitq]

I could be wrong but I think they are. Either way though, even something at say 1920x818 which I want to say I think is cinescope (2.35:1, though cinescope may be 2.4:1) would still fall under 1080p resolution. There's just nothing there to fill in the other 262 pixels.

1920x818 is essentially a 16:9 1080p image with some vertical resolution removed. My thought was that instead of removing vertical, you could add horizontal, so it would end up being 2538x1080.

 

[TheExodu5]

Ack, that changes everything. I thought the blu-ray player was adding those bars. I guess my idea requires a complete redesign of blu-ray, HDMI, TVs, etc. :[

The blu-ray player is adding those bars, because they're not part of the actual image source.

I don't know if they have hardware in place to scale down higher than 1080p resolutions though.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Artistic vision and picture quality are completely different.

Okay, so you're talking about people who want the most detailed, most perfect image they can get...but they don't care at all what it's an image of, as long as all their pixels get used.

I will never listen to such a person's suggestions about how art should be made, and you shouldn't either.

 

[bitq]

I don't know if they have hardware in place to scale down higher than 1080p resolutions though.

What ever happened to future-proofing?

 

[bitq]

Okay, so you're talking about people who want the most detailed, most perfect image they can get...but they don't care at all what it's an image of, as long as all their pixels get used.

Yeah, pretty much. But you're really trying to make things black and white. It's not that I don't care at all. I wouldn't sacrifice the whole image, just some stuff from the outer edges.

I will never listen to such a person's suggestions about how art should be made, and you shouldn't either.

I never said filmmakers shouldn't use ultra wide aspect ratios. They can keep on doing what they're doing. Try reading my posts before you get angry at me.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

1920x818 is essentially a 16:9 1080p image with some vertical resolution removed. My thought was that instead of removing vertical, you could add horizontal, so it would end up being 2538x1080.

Every Bluray player would then have to scale down this large image, adding more artifacts. Plus a good encode of your average length movie is like 30 gigs, you want to add another 667,440 pixels to recover 418,560 pixels you were "losing". You're adding 1,086,000 million pixels for the encoder to deal with on each frame. That's going to bump file sizes up a good bit. Mind you all this and you're still going to throw away all 1 million of those pixels when you scale the image back down, and the black bars will be back. So all you've accomplished is to make the file size on disc even bigger.

 

[bitq]

Every Bluray player would then have to scale down this large image, adding more artifacts. Plus a good encode of your average length movie is like 30 gigs, you want to add another 667,440 pixels to recover 418,560 pixels you were "losing". You're adding 1,086,000 million pixels for the encoder to deal with on each frame. That's going to bump file sizes up a good bit. Mind you all this and you're still going to throw away all 1 million of those pixels when you scale the image back down, and the black bars will be back.

Yeah I agree that the file size is a problem. I wrote about this when I first posted. I wasn't aware of the lack of scaling-down power of blu-ray players. As I said before, this idea requires a complete redesign of current video standards. Hence this only works hypothetically, or maybe years in the future when new standards are created.

So all you've accomplished is to make the file size on disc even bigger.

And in the process I've made everyone happy. That was the point.

 

[Metalic Sand]

Mite as well ask this here. I just realised my TV had "Just scan" so im now using it with my PS3 through HDMI but can i use Just scan through component on the 360? My 360 is currently being repaired so i cant see for myself. Thanks!

 

[phillipgessert]

When I do graphic design work, I first lay out my grids according to my own personal tastes that I've established through practice. They are a mix of subjective choices and concepts that have been proven to work for centuries of various forms of visual composition. The result is an appealing layout that can be 'understood' at a quick glance, even if the viewer doesn't know exactly why it works.

The idea of modifying a film to fill a TV screen seems tantamount to eliminating document margins in order to use all that paper you're paying for (crop/zoom), or simply trimming it out and pasting it onto a differently-shaped piece of paper (open matte). It can't be done without unhinging whatever a cinematographers equivalent to a grid might be.

I also don't like the idea of asking directors or cinematographers to conform to 16:9, because they would then be creating from a boxed-in position which is totally upside-down. I don't want filmmakers thinking about televisions, I want them thinking about their films.

 

[Raistlin]

Ack, that changes everything. I thought the blu-ray player was adding those bars. I guess my idea requires a complete redesign of blu-ray, HDMI, TVs, etc. :[

pretty much.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Yeah, pretty much. But you're really trying to make things black and white. It's not that I don't care at all. I wouldn't sacrifice the whole image, just some stuff from the outer edges.... Try reading my posts before you get angry at me.

I'm not angry. If I were angry, I'd have called you, oh, say, "a goddamn knuckle-dragging troglodytic philistine without the least fucking appreciation for aesthetics".

But I've absolutely read and understood your suggestion. You want the option to crop every widescreen film (which you can already probably do). In addition, you want higher-than-high-def resolutions so that your decision to ignore the filmmaker's intent doesn't cost you anything. It costs them millions of dollars, of course. But you don't want your desire not to waste any pixels to require any tradeoffs.

I know it's easy for cinephiles to sound (and be) elitist, but what you're talking about is actually far more selfish.

 

[Raistlin]

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/764

The above link goes into much detail on all of these issues, including open mattes.

The blu-ray player is adding those bars, because they're not part of the actual image source.

Actually, no ... they are in fact encoded at the source level for both BluRay and HD DVD. In other words, many movies are approximately 1920x800.

It isn't all bad though. While some resolution is lost, more bitrate can be concentrated on a smaller image. That can have advantages in overall IQ.

I don't know if they have hardware in place to scale down higher than 1080p resolutions though.

I'd suspect not. What bitq is talking about would have a variable horizontal resolution. Exactly how high should we assume it could go? That directly impacts the size of the framebuffer used, as well as the fact that variable resolution complicates scaling in general.

Not to mention that scaling in general adds artifacts. Considering this design would mean that everyone that wants the intended aspect ratio would have reduced IQ, I'm pretty sure the studios would be a bit miffed at the idea.

 

[Compass]

Against my better judgment, I've continued to skim through this thread. I'm pretty sure people like Kyo and TheExodu5 are just trolling people like PhoncipleBone. At least, that's what I'm telling myself so I can sleep tonight.

 

[Raistlin]

Mite as well ask this here. I just realised my TV had "Just scan" so im now using it with my PS3 through HDMI but can i use Just scan through component on the 360? My 360 is currently being repaired so i cant see for myself. Thanks!

Matters your TV.

Most ones I've seen offer it via HDMI and VGA ... so that latter may be an option if yours doesn't support component.

 

[ithorien]

I don't think I can read anymore of these arguments, it's like arguing with a brick wall. It's just gonna stand there, no matter what you say to it.

If Hollywood directors can't convince you of what they're trying to accomplish, none of us will do any good either.

 

[MrHicks]

currently in the ps3 menu messing with the settings

is it normal i CANT uncheck the "576p" box?
i checked the 720p one

and what is

"RGB full range (HDMI)"
do i put it on complete or limited?

 

[Solideliquid]

currently in the ps3 menu messing with the settings

is it normal i CANT uncheck the "576p" box?
i checked the 720p one

and what is

"RGB full range (HDMI)"
do i put it on complete or limited?

Just let it do that automatically, and set RGB to complete.

 

[MrHicks]

Just let it do that automatically, and set RGB to complete.

yea but when i choose 'automatic" its says "max resolution 1080p"

then i have something that looks like this

----------------------------------
Settingslist
Type connector HDMI
Resolution 576p
720p
1080i
1080p

------------------------------------
is this correct?

 

[Solideliquid]

That should be fine. You can uncheck 576p mine doesn't do that. See if the games run in 720p then. (use the "display" button on your remote)

 

[MrHicks]

That should be fine. You can uncheck 576p mine doesn't do that. See if the games run in 720p then. (use the "display" button on your remote)

but why did "automatic" also "check" 1080i and 1080p boxes?
tv can only handle 720p

am i gimping the screen like this or doesnt it matter?

 

[ithorien]

but why did "automatic" also "check" 1080i and 1080p boxes?
tv can only handle 720p

am i gimping the screen like this or doesnt it matter?

If you're 100% sure your TV can't handle it, turn off 1080 because your games won't even start.

 

[MrHicks]

ok ive put output resolution back to 720p

RGB is set to "complete"
what do i do with "cross color reduction filter" and "blablabla super white (HDMI)"?

 

[Raistlin]

but why did "automatic" also "check" 1080i and 1080p boxes?
tv can only handle 720p

am i gimping the screen like this or doesnt it matter?

The PS3 auto-detects what resolutions your TV will accept. So if something is output at 1080p, your TV can accept it, it will just downsample it to 720p (or whatever the panel's real native res is). Unless your TV is giving incorrect info to the PS3.


It shouldn't be a problem anyway, since ever game (other than maybe two?) will automatically output at their native res rather than forcing upscaling to 1080p. In other words, most games will output at 720p.

The one question is whether native 1080p games (the few that exist) will automatically output at 1080p? For example, if you have Wipeout HD ... check to see if it automatically runs at 1080p. If so, test it against 720p and see if you notice an lag differences. Generally downsampling is quite quick, but in a 60fps game, you could potentially notice it. If so, I'd manually uncheck 1080p.


I have a 1080p TV, so I don't know how PS3 handles res selection for a 720p TV that accepts higher res. Some devices will ask for the 'recommended resolution' of a TV via HDMI, but I don't know if PS3 does it (and also, sometimes the answer is incorrect by the TV manufacturer). Regardless, it's possible it will just do 720p for everything anyway.


Another thing to test is how the XMB and 1080p movies look at the different resolutions, and see what you like.

 

[Raistlin]

ok ive put output resolution back to 720p

RGB is set to "complete"
what do i do with "cross color reduction filter" and "blablabla super white (HDMI)"?

You don't need cross color reduction filter. That's actually for S-Video connections iirc.

As for super white, it matters if your TV supports 'whiter than white'. What model TV do you have?

 

[MrHicks]

You don't need cross color reduction filter. That's actually for S-Video connections iirc.

As for super white, it matters if your TV supports 'whiter than white'. What model TV do you have?

repost from few pages ago

its either "Samsung LE26A456" or "Samsung LE26A457"

for some reason the manual mentions both and im not sure which it is then tbh

 

[Raistlin]

It should state it on the back of your set. That said, I'm not really seeing much info regarding your TV on the net, so I'm not sure if it uses super white or not. My understanding is that if your TV doesn't use it however, it will simply disregard the extra info ... so leave it on.



For you guys talking about RGB 'complete' what is that? I believe the terminology is different for PAL regions. Are the options RGB 'limited' and RGB 'complete'? If so, go with limited. Most TV's (non monitors) are meant to run with limited. If you turn it to complete, you'll crush blacks.



BTW - Set BluRay output to YPbPr

 

[MrHicks]

Are the options RGB 'limited' and RGB 'complete'? If so, go with limited. Most TV's (non monitors) are meant to run with limited.[/B] If you turn it to complete, you'll crush blacks.



BTW - Set BluRay output to YPbPr

but Solideliquid saud to put in on complete
aaargh

and is there a way to increase the font size from the ps3 settings menu?
text could be bigger tbh

 

[Raistlin]

Not sure off the top of my head.

Are you running at 720p?

 

[MrHicks]

Not sure off the top of my head.

Are you running at 720p?

it says "output resolution 720p"
so i guess so

 

[Raistlin]

I figure that should make the font a little bigger (and clearer) than doing 1080p.

The problem is that 26" is a bit small for an HDTV, unless you're sitting somewhat close.


Now that I think about it, I don't think you can change the size ... but you can change the font. You may want to see if any of the other fonts are better for you.

 

[MrHicks]

ive read up on the RGB "limited" and "complete" issue
and it says if your tv supports it great
if it doesnt use limited (otherwise you make it WORSE)

where in the tv manual do i find out if this RGB thing is compatible?
what am i looking for

 

[Solideliquid]

Dude, play the damn games already and tell us about the WIN!!

 

[QuickSilverD]

Dude, play the damn games already and tell us about the WIN!!

ehh, it would be fun if he doesn't see any noticeable improvement in the picture quality

 

[Dead Man Typing]

ehh, it would be fun if he doesn't see any noticeable improvement in the picture quality

Fingers crossed, it would take this thread to the next level.

 

[Andronicus]

shouldn't HD cables have been /thread?

 

[Zoe]

shouldn't HD cables have been /thread?

Not until we get impressions!

 

[PhoncipleBone]

When I do graphic design work, I first lay out my grids according to my own personal tastes that I've established through practice. They are a mix of subjective choices and concepts that have been proven to work for centuries of various forms of visual composition. The result is an appealing layout that can be 'understood' at a quick glance, even if the viewer doesn't know exactly why it works.

The idea of modifying a film to fill a TV screen seems tantamount to eliminating document margins in order to use all that paper you're paying for (crop/zoom), or simply trimming it out and pasting it onto a differently-shaped piece of paper (open matte). It can't be done without unhinging whatever a cinematographers equivalent to a grid might be.

I also don't like the idea of asking directors or cinematographers to conform to 16:9, because they would then be creating from a boxed-in position which is totally upside-down. I don't want filmmakers thinking about televisions, I want them thinking about their films.

Another smart person in this thread.

And as other said, with Blu Ray the black bars are encoded onto the disc as part of the image. But the benefit is more bitrate available to the rest of the picture, meaning an increase in quality there if they film happens to be 2.35. Same goes with 1.33 film sources. Smaller frame to eat up the bitrate means more data per second for the image used.

 

[M3wThr33]

BTW - Set BluRay output to YPbPr

I did that for my DVDs and WOW, the difference was AMAZING.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Christopher Nolan experimented with Dark Knight by shooting certain parts in IMAX. Wally Pfister (the cinematographer) framed those scenes for IMAX presentation, but was careful to make sure the balance also worked within the 2.35 anamorphic frame that non IMAX theaters would see the movie in. Nolan usually works in 2.35 as his preferred method, but wanted to experiment with a LARGE format. It was too loud and expensive, so that is why only select scenes were shot that way.

I see you were part of the 100.000 people cap at the Warner's TDK BRD online screening as well

 

[Goldrusher]

http://plum.cream.org/HP/poa.htm

http://plum.cream.org/HP/ps.htm

That's another method, where both 4:3 and 16:9 viewers have extra "image".

I also don't like the idea of asking directors or cinematographers to conform to 16:9, because they would then be creating from a boxed-in position which is totally upside-down.

Unless you're shooting your movie with a different aspect ratio every other scene, you're always working within a box.

Anyway, just saying. I don't care.

 

[Sutanreyu]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812189053

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10240&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2

 

[Articate]

For you guys talking about RGB 'complete' what is that? I believe the terminology is different for PAL regions. Are the options RGB 'limited' and RGB 'complete'? If so, go with limited. Most TV's (non monitors) are meant to run with limited. If you turn it to complete, you'll crush blacks.

RGB limited would be 16-235 and full is 0-255 of RGB values. That's the only thing I've learnt trying to figure out if I should have it on or not. Suppose I'll just try it.

 

[Esch]

Thread of the year

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

man that's embarassing.

 

[McLovin]

Post impressions Neaooo!

 

[ZealousD]

He hasn't returned.

The shock must have killed him.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

He hasn't returned.

The shock must have killed him.

Doubt it.

He's gonna be like 99% of the people who get HD set up for the first time.

"I don't see a difference."

 

[McLovin]

Doubt it.

He's gonna be like 99% of the people who get HD set up for the first time.

"I don't see a difference."

Yeah most people don't see a difference until they switch back to SD.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

I see you were part of the 100.000 people cap at the Warner's TDK BRD online screening as well

Nope. I dont own a Blu Ray player yet. I just read up and research things like this all the time about artists I like. And info like this was everywhere before the movie ever hit theaters.