16:9 aspect ratio and StarTrek movie in Blu Ray

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Edmund wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Charles Tomaras wrote:

You keep using the term EDITED. We don't want movies edited (altered)
for television. We want the original vision of the film maker, not an
edited (altered, hacked up, squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down,
compromised, etc) version of the film. The loss of a bit of resolution
in this instance is preferable over loss of the actual picture
composition.
Leaving aside preferences for a moment, I am still thinking that a
properly formatted movie, originally shot in, say 2.3:1 and being shown
on 16:9 with black bars will be as high a resolution as possible. In
other words, the material is being shown on a reduced sized screen (due
to the bars) and this alone will increase the apparent resolution unless
the screen is so small that more pixels per inch won't matter.

As I told you before, the HD format is 1080 lines and that includes
the black bars.
There is no way to squeeze in more lines on the disk by making the
picture smaller and there is no way a HD TV will produce a higher
resolution on any
part of the screen.
Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.

Do you have one iota of technical information to back up your assertion as
to resolution and picture information?

Clearly bars reduce apparent screen size, but the rest is your personal
preference, not fact.

--
john mcwilliams

I don't see the problem with what he said. The display has a fixed
resolution and if you only use part of it you ARE reducing the effective
resolution. If there are 1080 lines encoded, and they get displayed on
less, you get what you get. How the display handles that may vary
considerably, but the bottom line is that the vertical resolution of the
display is usually fixed in most modern displays.

Leonard

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:13:51 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Charles Tomaras wrote:

You keep using the term EDITED. We don't want movies edited (altered) for
television. We want the original vision of the film maker, not an edited
(altered, hacked up, squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc)
version of the film. The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is
preferable over loss of the actual picture composition.

Leaving aside preferences for a moment, I am still thinking that a
properly formatted movie, originally shot in, say 2.3:1 and being shown
on 16:9 with black bars will be as high a resolution as possible. In
other words, the material is being shown on a reduced sized screen (due
to the bars) and this alone will increase the apparent resolution unless
the screen is so small that more pixels per inch won't matter.

Resolution, in the video display world, is pixels per square inch.
From that point of view only, you'd be right. A one square inch
picture will have the same resolution as a 1000 square inch picture on
the same screen. But digital pictures are also comprised of the
amount of information available per pixel. Regardless of the media in
use, there is a finite value that can be had.

A 100 minute Blu-Ray video could be 324 Gb in size, or 54 Mbps of play
time. At 40 Mbps of video we're still under 1 bit per pixel per frame
- or 19.3 bits per pixel per second / 24 fps, for a 1080p video from
film.

If the black bars take zero bits per pixel (certainly not true, but a
value much closer to zero than to one) then closer to, or even greater
than, 1 bit per pixel can be made available to the non-black-bar
portion of the image. Thus, picture quality per square inch could be
greater in a letter box or pillar box picture than even a 16:9 OAR
film image transferred to Blu-Ray.

Of course, that depends upon Hollywood wanting to produce the best
possible image rather than merely one considered good enough -or
acceptable quality per dollar spent. I've seen Blu-Ray videos here
that vary drastically in bits per pixel. They almost all look equally
great and seem none the less so for zooming the picture a tad.

I don't think I'd want to zoom a 2.4:1 video to 1.78:1, but I think
that few in the HT audience would notice it. I'm less inclined to
think I'd not enjoy some 4:3 images zoomed to 1.78:1. Let's not
forget that film creators in the 30s and 40s were not making artistic
decisions regarding aspect ratio. They might have made artistic
decisions regarding centering, framing, and ECUs which might influence
the subsequent cropping of their work.

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Edmund wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Charles Tomaras wrote:

You keep using the term EDITED. We don't want movies edited
(altered) for television. We want the original vision of the film
maker, not an edited (altered, hacked up, squeezed, adulterated,
dumbed down, compromised, etc) version of the film. The loss of a
bit of resolution in this instance is preferable over loss of the
actual picture composition.
Leaving aside preferences for a moment, I am still thinking that a
properly formatted movie, originally shot in, say 2.3:1 and being
shown on 16:9 with black bars will be as high a resolution as
possible. In other words, the material is being shown on a reduced
sized screen (due to the bars) and this alone will increase the
apparent resolution unless the screen is so small that more pixels
per inch won't matter.

As I told you before, the HD format is 1080 lines and that includes
the black bars.
There is no way to squeeze in more lines on the disk by making the
picture smaller and there is no way a HD TV will produce a higher
resolution on any
part of the screen.
Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.

Do you have one iota of technical information to back up your
assertion as to resolution and picture information?

Clearly bars reduce apparent screen size, but the rest is your
personal preference, not fact.

I don't see the problem with what he said. The display has a fixed
resolution and if you only use part of it you ARE reducing the effective
resolution. If there are 1080 lines encoded, and they get displayed on
less, you get what you get. How the display handles that may vary
considerably, but the bottom line is that the vertical resolution of the
display is usually fixed in most modern displays.

If 1080 lines are displayed on a smaller area, resolution increases. I
won't be noticeable on a small screen, but on a larger one it can be seen.

See Clicker's reply also.
--
john mcwilliams

In article "Edmund" writes:

Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.

Edmund

Not always true. The picture is mpeg encoded, and the mpeg coding
must at times compromise on resolution of parts of the image to fit in
its bit-rate budget. As a result, replacing part of the area of the
picture with black bars allows the coding to increase the resolution of
the remaining pictue.

The resolution limit is not always the 1920 by 1080 resolution of the
physical screen.

Alan

"Edmund" wrote in message
...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I
am pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen
size and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3
content is shown with black bars on the sides.

You keep using the term EDITED.

I know, that is what one get if some smartasses select a new world wide
NON existing screen format. ( 16X9 )


There isn't a world wide standard aspect ratio for theatrical movies for
television manufactures to match. No matter what aspect ratio you choose for
a television it's always going to be a compromise for everything except for
things shot in 16x9 which is pretty much what most television is shot in
these days. So, the majority of new material CREATED FOR TELEVISION is in
fact 16x9. The majority of movies meant for movie theaters is not. When
movies are "made for television" they are for the most part shot in 16x9.



We don't want movies edited (altered) for television. We want the
original vision of the film maker, not an edited (altered, hacked up,
squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc) version of the
film.

You mean you want a miniaturized or in case of a wide anamorphic movie
a hardly visible version of the original, OK.

So are you saying you want a larger TV's. I don't know what TV you have or
how far you sit from it but you can just buy a larger television or move
your chair closer and the picture will be just as big in comparison you’re
your head.




The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is preferable over loss
of the actual picture composition.

When a new movie is edited the way I suggest, you never know is
was edited in the first place, exept you would enjoy the full resolution
AND the full screen size.

Look up the word edit in a dictionary then come back and tell us all how a
movie can be edited yet still be the same. If a new movie is edited as you
suggest is not some part of the picture missing? Are you just saying that
you don't find the sides or top and bottom of a frame to be worthy of
viewing? Would you go to an art gallery to see a cropped version of the Mona
Lisa?



If you want to adulterate your video do it on your own time but don't
try to impose that on the rest of us. We don't want FULL SCREEN versions
of wide screen films. We don't want dual media stocked in stores and we
don't want to pay for additional discs or additional version data on the
discs we purchase.

There is no way for me to lay my hands on a full resolution cinema movie
and edit that,. All I can do is stretch the part with picture information
from
a disk but that would not give me full HD.

I think if the HD standard resolution were doubled or tripled you would
still be complaining. You are not a movie lover, you are a resolution
junkie. You are the type of person who invites people over to "watch my HD
television" not "watch a movie."


Stop watching the black bars.

Let say we have an different opinion.


No, I actually think you are under the illusion that that a screen full of
half the movie is better than half a screen filled with the entire movie.

I think you are so fixated on black bars that you cannot enjoy the art. Turn
down your lights, move your chair a few feet closer and relax.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Edmund" wrote in message
...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I
am pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen
size and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3
content is shown with black bars on the sides.

You keep using the term EDITED.

I know, that is what one get if some smartasses select a new world wide
NON existing screen format. ( 16X9 )


There isn't a world wide standard aspect ratio for theatrical movies for
television manufactures to match. No matter what aspect ratio you choose
for a television it's always going to be a compromise for everything
except for things shot in 16x9 which is pretty much what most television
is shot in these days. So, the majority of new material CREATED FOR
TELEVISION is in fact 16x9. The majority of movies meant for movie
theaters is not. When movies are "made for television" they are for the
most part shot in 16x9.

Yes now they are, but at the time they choose fot the 16X9 format
it was non exising.



We don't want movies edited (altered) for television. We want the
original vision of the film maker, not an edited (altered, hacked up,
squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc) version of the
film.

You mean you want a miniaturized or in case of a wide anamorphic movie
a hardly visible version of the original, OK.

So are you saying you want a larger TV's. I don't know what TV you have or
how far you sit from it but you can just buy a larger television or move
your chair closer and the picture will be just as big in comparison you’re
your head.

Great solution thanks.




The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is preferable over loss
of the actual picture composition.

When a new movie is edited the way I suggest, you never know is
was edited in the first place, exept you would enjoy the full resolution
AND the full screen size.

Look up the word edit in a dictionary then come back and tell us all how a
movie can be edited yet still be the same. If a new movie is edited as you
suggest is not some part of the picture missing? Are you just saying that
you don't find the sides or top and bottom of a frame to be worthy of
viewing? Would you go to an art gallery to see a cropped version of the
Mona Lisa?

That is why I said " a NEW movie" most of us have seen the mona lisa
once in there life. I meant a movie which you haven't seen yet.


If you want to adulterate your video do it on your own time but don't
try to impose that on the rest of us. We don't want FULL SCREEN versions
of wide screen films. We don't want dual media stocked in stores and we
don't want to pay for additional discs or additional version data on the
discs we purchase.

There is no way for me to lay my hands on a full resolution cinema movie
and edit that,. All I can do is stretch the part with picture information
from
a disk but that would not give me full HD.

I think if the HD standard resolution were doubled or tripled you would
still be complaining.

LOL as long as it isn't perfect...

Edmund

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Edmund" writes:

Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.

Edmund

Not always true. The picture is mpeg encoded, and the mpeg coding
must at times compromise on resolution of parts of the image to fit in
its bit-rate budget. As a result, replacing part of the area of the
picture with black bars allows the coding to increase the resolution of
the remaining pictue.

The resolution limit is not always the 1920 by 1080 resolution of the
physical screen.

Alan

I don't know all in's and out's of the blue ray format and I take it from
you
that it is or would be possible to increase the color dept or even
resolution
but I am sure that a TV cannot produce more then 1080 vertical lines.
So that means there is no way the resolution can be increased with the
black bars.
(Unless you build your own TV with a higher resolution.)

Edmund

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...


If 1080 lines are displayed on a smaller area, resolution increases. I
won't be noticeable on a small screen, but on a larger one it can be seen.

See Clicker's reply also.
--
john mcwilliams

If the display was capable of resolving infinitely small pixels, or if you
were using a variable scan rate CRT system with large enough CRT(s), this
might be so. For most display systems today, the display resolution is
fixed, and those 1080 lines in the source are displayed on less pixels.
What you are saying is the equivalent of trying to argue that you get higher
resolution on a smaller screen because those 1080 lines are displayed over a
smaller area.

One of the benefits of CIH systems is that you use the whole display area.
Certainly the source and how you accomplish it matters, but at the display
end, you have a fixed number of pixels and using more of them results in
higher resolution of the displayed image.

Leonard

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:31:40 +0100, "Edmund"
wrote:


"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Edmund" writes:

Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.

Edmund

Not always true. The picture is mpeg encoded, and the mpeg coding
must at times compromise on resolution of parts of the image to fit in
its bit-rate budget. As a result, replacing part of the area of the
picture with black bars allows the coding to increase the resolution of
the remaining pictue.

The resolution limit is not always the 1920 by 1080 resolution of the
physical screen.

Alan

I don't know all in's and out's of the blue ray format and I take it from
you
that it is or would be possible to increase the color dept or even
resolution
but I am sure that a TV cannot produce more then 1080 vertical lines.
So that means there is no way the resolution can be increased with the
black bars.
(Unless you build your own TV with a higher resolution.)

Edmund

Alans comment is based on the fact that you never get the full
1920x1080 resolution from the consumer HD distribution we have
(today), not even Blu-Ray. At least when the material is moving
pictures the MPEG coding always throws away picture details.

So the point is that the bits (bit rate) that is available is anyway
spent on the picture content, so the effective details per square unit
can be higher for letterboxed material.

The upper limit is of course set by either the fixed pixel screen or
the signal format. In fact, (if I have understood it correctly) the
signal formats we use for moving pictures never use the full 1920x1080
spatial resolution for colour information. That pixel resulution is
only available for luminance while the colour is sub sampled to lower
pixel resolution.

/Jan

"Edmund" wrote in message
...

: Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.
:
: Edmund
:===================================

Bull!

Without black bars, picture information WILL be reduced!

The resolution of the 25% of the picture that is discarded is ZERO
resolution!

Just watch the movies in whatever aspect ration they were filmed it and all
will be perfect!