Do 1080P dvd's exist?

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

It's got a 720p version.

1080p *isn't* officially part of the HDTV specification, at least not yet. Even if it were, most movies would probably ship in 720p on BluRay or HD-DVD media, probably encoded h.264.

Where did you get this bogus information from? The ATSC standard for digital broadcasting has specs for all sorts of input signals I bet you know nothing about: 720i50, 720i60, 720p24, 720p25, 720p30, 720p50, 720p60 , 1080i50, 1080i60, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30 (see page 33 - or see here for all links)

The resolution and encoding format is going to vary from studio to studio. The most likely scenario is that most movies come in 1980x1080x24psf - the use of mpeg2, mpeg4, or vc-1 will depend on the studio.

While all true HDTV's support 720p and 1080i, NONE supports a 1080p input (which is fine, since there aren't any). Some of the newer HDTV's claim to *upsample* to 1080p, but personally, I'm skeptical.

Jason

Skeptical about what exactly? If you feed a native 1920x1080 display a source of 480p, it has to upsample the video to fill the panel. Otherwise you'll get a lot of unused screen space.

Hmm, 1080p must have been added recently then, because I know that when I had my editing classes a year and change ago, 1080p was NOT part of the spec.

As for having to upsample, no they don't! When you have a 480p or 480i signal it *doesn't* fill the whole panel! I see SD TV on my HDTV ALL the time and the SD signals *never* fill the panel. With component and DVI sources you can stretch them, but they look like crap. My skepticism has to do with the QUALITY of the upsample. A 480p or i source upsampled to 1080p is going to look like sh1t any way you slice it.

As for your claim that they'll most likely ship Hi-def movies natively as 1920x1080/24psf, I wouldn't bet on it. Movies will be targeted to the most common format among HDTV's, and those are 720p or 1080i. They aren't going to alienate the biggest part of their audience by forcing them to spend another $10,000 on a new HDTV for 1080p when they've already got a sizeable investment in their existing HDTV's.

Jason

So you're saying you think people watch DVDs on their 1080p displays at native res and only have it fill up about 1/4 of their screen?

Could be, I dunno Mine does 1080i and 720p, and I can tell you that SD signals sit dead in the middle of the screen with pretty good sized bars on all sides. And mine is a *very* nice HDTV

Jason

You mean to tell me that a DVD (SD material) is window boxed with black bars on all sides?

If so the TV and player aren't setup correctly. Your TV should not be window boxing anything.

No, I said SD signal, as in, from cable. It processes the DVD input just fine and scales it to fit the native resolution, which is 720p. Most DVD's look fine, though some of the smaller name movies have crappy transfers and don't look so hot.

What really looks crappy on an HDTV, though, are PS2 games and most Xbox games. Odd as it seems, GC games seem to look the best overall, LOL. Zelda: Wind Waker looks great, of course.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: gsellis
There is some "interesting" info here. First, 1080p is HD. It is not HDV, which is 720p or 1080i, but it is HD (actually, some argue that HDV is not HD but those are the HDPro guys). DVD will play HD content, but most DVD players do not support it. Remember that DVD is a media, not a codec. KiSS and IOData make DVD players that support HD content currently with red laser DVD media.

720p is LESS information than 1080i or 1080p, therefore, it is not better. 1080i is still better than 720p. Remember that 1080i is at 60 fps.

1440x1080 -> 1920x1080 when 1920 is square pixel. Sony does this with their camera. Wierd, but the pixels are rectangular (squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square). Not sure how it applies here.

Most "DVDs" play in interlace format as that is NTSC. Your TV may support P mode and a player can upconvert it to progressive.

1080i is higher *pixel resolution*, but it's not better image quality by any stretch. 720p looks *much* better than 1080i. I'm sure that 1080p, natively, would look better still, but you'll probably never see that on broadcast.

Jason

That's incorrect. 720p may look better if your deinterlacer is sub-par.

That's complete bullsh1t. Every HDTV I've *ever* seen looks better in 720p than 1080i. Using my PC with the DVI connection, image quality is sharper, clearer and more pleasant on the eye than at 1080i. I have a top-of-the-line 2004 model Samsung DLP, 61"; there is *nothing* sub-par about this TV.

Jason

Your TV is 720p native. It does have a reasonable deinterlacer, but is nowhere near as good as the standalone units available. Of course a 720p native TV with a built in deinterlacer is going to look better with 720p native input than 1080i. That does not IN ANY WAY mean 720p is better than 1080i.

Yeah, and how many people have standalone external de-interlacers sitting in their living rooms? I'd love to see a count on that. The vast majority of HDTV's use their own *internal* deinterlacer, man! What's the point of counting the performance of something practically no one has?

Jason

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

It's got a 720p version.

1080p *isn't* officially part of the HDTV specification, at least not yet. Even if it were, most movies would probably ship in 720p on BluRay or HD-DVD media, probably encoded h.264.

Where did you get this bogus information from? The ATSC standard for digital broadcasting has specs for all sorts of input signals I bet you know nothing about: 720i50, 720i60, 720p24, 720p25, 720p30, 720p50, 720p60 , 1080i50, 1080i60, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30 (see page 33 - or see here for all links)

The resolution and encoding format is going to vary from studio to studio. The most likely scenario is that most movies come in 1980x1080x24psf - the use of mpeg2, mpeg4, or vc-1 will depend on the studio.

While all true HDTV's support 720p and 1080i, NONE supports a 1080p input (which is fine, since there aren't any). Some of the newer HDTV's claim to *upsample* to 1080p, but personally, I'm skeptical.

Jason

Skeptical about what exactly? If you feed a native 1920x1080 display a source of 480p, it has to upsample the video to fill the panel. Otherwise you'll get a lot of unused screen space.

Hmm, 1080p must have been added recently then, because I know that when I had my editing classes a year and change ago, 1080p was NOT part of the spec.

As for having to upsample, no they don't! When you have a 480p or 480i signal it *doesn't* fill the whole panel! I see SD TV on my HDTV ALL the time and the SD signals *never* fill the panel. With component and DVI sources you can stretch them, but they look like crap. My skepticism has to do with the QUALITY of the upsample. A 480p or i source upsampled to 1080p is going to look like sh1t any way you slice it.

As for your claim that they'll most likely ship Hi-def movies natively as 1920x1080/24psf, I wouldn't bet on it. Movies will be targeted to the most common format among HDTV's, and those are 720p or 1080i. They aren't going to alienate the biggest part of their audience by forcing them to spend another $10,000 on a new HDTV for 1080p when they've already got a sizeable investment in their existing HDTV's.

Jason

So you're saying you think people watch DVDs on their 1080p displays at native res and only have it fill up about 1/4 of their screen?

Could be, I dunno Mine does 1080i and 720p, and I can tell you that SD signals sit dead in the middle of the screen with pretty good sized bars on all sides. And mine is a *very* nice HDTV

Jason

That's because regular tv SD is a 4:3 signal and not 16:9 what do you expect it to do?

To fill up the screen it has to stretch it or cut off the top and bottom.

If DVDs fill up your whole screen and don't have black boarders all the way around the whole image then it's being scaled to your native res.

Yes, I know that. That's what I said, if you'd paid attention you'd have realized that.

Jason

Ok... so yeah... 4:3 has bars because it's not 16:9 but you said earlier that people don't have 16:9 images filling their whole screens. DVD is 480i and you say it never fills up your screen?

EDIT: also "all sides" implies more than just Left and Right to me.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: gsellis
There is some "interesting" info here. First, 1080p is HD. It is not HDV, which is 720p or 1080i, but it is HD (actually, some argue that HDV is not HD but those are the HDPro guys). DVD will play HD content, but most DVD players do not support it. Remember that DVD is a media, not a codec. KiSS and IOData make DVD players that support HD content currently with red laser DVD media.

720p is LESS information than 1080i or 1080p, therefore, it is not better. 1080i is still better than 720p. Remember that 1080i is at 60 fps.

1440x1080 -> 1920x1080 when 1920 is square pixel. Sony does this with their camera. Wierd, but the pixels are rectangular (squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square). Not sure how it applies here.

Most "DVDs" play in interlace format as that is NTSC. Your TV may support P mode and a player can upconvert it to progressive.

1080i is higher *pixel resolution*, but it's not better image quality by any stretch. 720p looks *much* better than 1080i. I'm sure that 1080p, natively, would look better still, but you'll probably never see that on broadcast.

Jason

That's incorrect. 720p may look better if your deinterlacer is sub-par.

That's complete bullsh1t. Every HDTV I've *ever* seen looks better in 720p than 1080i. Using my PC with the DVI connection, image quality is sharper, clearer and more pleasant on the eye than at 1080i. I have a top-of-the-line 2004 model Samsung DLP, 61"; there is *nothing* sub-par about this TV.

Jason

Your TV is 720p native. It does have a reasonable deinterlacer, but is nowhere near as good as the standalone units available. Of course a 720p native TV with a built in deinterlacer is going to look better with 720p native input than 1080i. That does not IN ANY WAY mean 720p is better than 1080i.

Yeah, and how many people have standalone external de-interlacers sitting in their living rooms? I'd love to see a count on that. The vast majority of HDTV's use their own *internal* deinterlacer, man! What's the point of counting the performance of something practically no one has?

Jason

I do. I know a lot of people who do. The Focus Enhancements CenterStage CS-1 scaler/processor is far better than what's in any TV, and has dropped in price recently from the $1999.95 MSRP to less than $200.

Regardless, 1080i is simply superior, quality wise to 720p. Whether or not your display can take advantage of the difference is another story.

 

[Maetryx]

This weekend I saw a 1080p 52" Sony XBR HDTV at Circuit City. It caught my eye almost immediately as looking better than the other TVs around it. What was remarkable is how CLOSE I could get to the screen and it still looked great. I'm sure it was upscaling a 720p signal to 1080p but it was doing a hell of a good job at it.

My wife was almost mesmerized. It costs "only" $3999.99 [to the person that suggested $10k to get 1080p].

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
This weekend I saw a 1080p 52" Sony XBR HDTV at Circuit City. It caught my eye almost immediately as looking better than the other TVs around it. What was remarkable is how CLOSE I could get to the screen and it still looked great. I'm sure it was upscaling a 720p signal to 1080p but it was doing a hell of a good job at it.

My wife was almost mesmerized. It costs "only" $3999.99 [to the person that suggested $10k to get 1080p].

Are you sure it's not the 50"?

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=11402915/sort_type=price

Personally, I think the 60" is a better buy for most people, considering the price difference.

http:/www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=11403514/sort_type=price

 

[spidey07]

Apex, that seems like a heck of a deal for a good scaler. Any opinions?

Or is it only a SD de-interlacer?

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Apex, that seems like a heck of a deal for a good scaler. Any opinions?

Or is it only a SD de-interlacer?

I've only played with it a little so far. So far, pretty impressive, especially for the price.

It handles a lot of resolutions, though (of course) it could always use more.

http://www.focusinfo.com/products/centerstage/centerstage.htm

I'm going to end up using it to take all of my inputs (HD, DVD, ReplayTV, etc) and scale to the native 1400 x 1050 of my D-ILA projector, as soon as my remodel is done.

 

[imthebadguy]

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes
No such thing. 480 is all you'll get off DVD.

this is my understanding as well, the upconverting dvd players are a sham

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Maetryx
This weekend I saw a 1080p 52" Sony XBR HDTV at Circuit City. It caught my eye almost immediately as looking better than the other TVs around it. What was remarkable is how CLOSE I could get to the screen and it still looked great. I'm sure it was upscaling a 720p signal to 1080p but it was doing a hell of a good job at it.

My wife was almost mesmerized. It costs "only" $3999.99 [to the person that suggested $10k to get 1080p].

Are you sure it's not the 50"?

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=11402915/sort_type=price

Personally, I think the 60" is a better buy for most people, considering the price difference.

http:/www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=11403514/sort_type=price

These and the cheaper Samsung 1080p DLP TVs (50" = $3,300) seem to be the front-runners in the under-$5K category at the AVS forums.

My brother has a Samsung 61" 1080p DLP and really likes it.

(Note that neither the Sony nor Samsung can accept a 60-frame 1080p signal over their HDMI / component inputs, they accept 1080i then de-interlace internally to display 1080p)

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Maetryx
This weekend I saw a 1080p 52" Sony XBR HDTV at Circuit City. It caught my eye almost immediately as looking better than the other TVs around it. What was remarkable is how CLOSE I could get to the screen and it still looked great. I'm sure it was upscaling a 720p signal to 1080p but it was doing a hell of a good job at it.

My wife was almost mesmerized. It costs "only" $3999.99 [to the person that suggested $10k to get 1080p].

Are you sure it's not the 50"?

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=11402915/sort_type=price

Personally, I think the 60" is a better buy for most people, considering the price difference.

http:/www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=11403514/sort_type=price

These and the cheaper Samsung 1080p DLP TVs (50" = $3,300) seem to be the front-runners in the under-$5K category at the AVS forums.

My brother has a Samsung 61" 1080p DLP and really likes it.

(Note that neither the Sony nor Samsung can accept a 60-frame 1080p signal over their HDMI / component inputs, they accept 1080i then de-interlace internally to display 1080p)

Yeah I'm thinking about getting the Samsung 50" 1080P TV.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: fs5
gotta wait for blu-ray or hd

Or encode your own like Goose and send the signal to your 1080p TV from the HTPC.

have to have source material at >1080p to do that.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: fs5
gotta wait for blu-ray or hd

Or encode your own like Goose and send the signal to your 1080p TV from the HTPC.

have to have source material at >1080p to do that.

Or take 1080i material ala D-VHS and de-interlace in the digital domain.

Good results.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: fs5
gotta wait for blu-ray or hd

Or encode your own like Goose and send the signal to your 1080p TV from the HTPC.

have to have source material at >1080p to do that.

Or take 1080i material ala D-VHS and de-interlace in the digital domain.

Good results.

might as well leave it as 1080i, it won't improve quality any.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: fs5
gotta wait for blu-ray or hd

Or encode your own like Goose and send the signal to your 1080p TV from the HTPC.

have to have source material at >1080p to do that.

Or take 1080i material ala D-VHS and de-interlace in the digital domain.

Good results.

might as well leave it as 1080i, it won't improve quality any.

I give up trying to post video advice on ATOT.

:disgust:

Of course it does.

-edit- what I mean is I don't like interlacing artifacts or combing.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: fs5
gotta wait for blu-ray or hd

Or encode your own like Goose and send the signal to your 1080p TV from the HTPC.

have to have source material at >1080p to do that.

Or take 1080i material ala D-VHS and de-interlace in the digital domain.

Good results.

might as well leave it as 1080i, it won't improve quality any.

In other words, you own a Teranex VC600? Man, you're serious about this video stuff. I wish I could afford to spend $98,000 on a scaler.

 

[User1001]

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

That's a WMV and probably 1080i. And it's T2 not T3.

no its 1080p WMV; I have it.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: User1001

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

That's a WMV and probably 1080i. And it's T2 not T3.

no its 1080p WMV; I have it.

It actually appears to be 1440 x 816

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: User1001

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

That's a WMV and probably 1080i. And it's T2 not T3.

no its 1080p WMV; I have it.

It actually appears to be 1440 x 816

HDV format is an anamorphic 1440 x 1080 sampled 8bit 4:2:0 with offset pixels horizontally filling out the 1920 x 1080 (in square pixel) space. Even with $100k+ cameras, such as the $$$$$$$ Sony HDW-F900 still downsample to 1440, and record to tape at just a hair under 200mbps. Expand it out to fit square pixels, and you do get 1920.

Now, for the height: It's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio movie.

1080 / 2.35 = 817 pixels

So, it's got the full 1080 resolution for a 2.35:1 movie, minus 1 pixel cropped.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: gsellis
There is some "interesting" info here. First, 1080p is HD. It is not HDV, which is 720p or 1080i, but it is HD (actually, some argue that HDV is not HD but those are the HDPro guys). DVD will play HD content, but most DVD players do not support it. Remember that DVD is a media, not a codec. KiSS and IOData make DVD players that support HD content currently with red laser DVD media.

720p is LESS information than 1080i or 1080p, therefore, it is not better. 1080i is still better than 720p. Remember that 1080i is at 60 fps.

1440x1080 -> 1920x1080 when 1920 is square pixel. Sony does this with their camera. Wierd, but the pixels are rectangular (squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square). Not sure how it applies here.

Most "DVDs" play in interlace format as that is NTSC. Your TV may support P mode and a player can upconvert it to progressive.

1080i is higher *pixel resolution*, but it's not better image quality by any stretch. 720p looks *much* better than 1080i. I'm sure that 1080p, natively, would look better still, but you'll probably never see that on broadcast.

Jason

That's incorrect. 720p may look better if your deinterlacer is sub-par.

That's complete bullsh1t. Every HDTV I've *ever* seen looks better in 720p than 1080i. Using my PC with the DVI connection, image quality is sharper, clearer and more pleasant on the eye than at 1080i. I have a top-of-the-line 2004 model Samsung DLP, 61"; there is *nothing* sub-par about this TV.

Jason

Your TV is 720p native. It does have a reasonable deinterlacer, but is nowhere near as good as the standalone units available. Of course a 720p native TV with a built in deinterlacer is going to look better with 720p native input than 1080i. That does not IN ANY WAY mean 720p is better than 1080i.

Yeah, and how many people have standalone external de-interlacers sitting in their living rooms? I'd love to see a count on that. The vast majority of HDTV's use their own *internal* deinterlacer, man! What's the point of counting the performance of something practically no one has?

Jason

lol. you were owned. shut up and take it.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: gsellis
There is some "interesting" info here. First, 1080p is HD. It is not HDV, which is 720p or 1080i, but it is HD (actually, some argue that HDV is not HD but those are the HDPro guys). DVD will play HD content, but most DVD players do not support it. Remember that DVD is a media, not a codec. KiSS and IOData make DVD players that support HD content currently with red laser DVD media.

720p is LESS information than 1080i or 1080p, therefore, it is not better. 1080i is still better than 720p. Remember that 1080i is at 60 fps.

1440x1080 -> 1920x1080 when 1920 is square pixel. Sony does this with their camera. Wierd, but the pixels are rectangular (squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square). Not sure how it applies here.

Most "DVDs" play in interlace format as that is NTSC. Your TV may support P mode and a player can upconvert it to progressive.

1080i is higher *pixel resolution*, but it's not better image quality by any stretch. 720p looks *much* better than 1080i. I'm sure that 1080p, natively, would look better still, but you'll probably never see that on broadcast.

Jason

That's incorrect. 720p may look better if your deinterlacer is sub-par.

That's complete bullsh1t. Every HDTV I've *ever* seen looks better in 720p than 1080i. Using my PC with the DVI connection, image quality is sharper, clearer and more pleasant on the eye than at 1080i. I have a top-of-the-line 2004 model Samsung DLP, 61"; there is *nothing* sub-par about this TV.

Jason

Your TV is 720p native. It does have a reasonable deinterlacer, but is nowhere near as good as the standalone units available. Of course a 720p native TV with a built in deinterlacer is going to look better with 720p native input than 1080i. That does not IN ANY WAY mean 720p is better than 1080i.

Yeah, and how many people have standalone external de-interlacers sitting in their living rooms? I'd love to see a count on that. The vast majority of HDTV's use their own *internal* deinterlacer, man! What's the point of counting the performance of something practically no one has?

Jason

Face it. You made an inherently false statement.

The debate on 1080i/720p has been rehashed over and over for years. Regardless of the scaler used.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: User1001

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

That's a WMV and probably 1080i. And it's T2 not T3.

no its 1080p WMV; I have it.

It actually appears to be 1440 x 816

HDV format is an anamorphic 1440 x 1080 sampled 8bit 4:2:0 with offset pixels horizontally filling out the 1920 x 1080 (in square pixel) space. Even with $100k+ cameras, such as the $$$$$$$ Sony HDW-F900 still downsample to 1440, and record to tape at just a hair under 200mbps. Expand it out to fit square pixels, and you do get 1920.

Now, for the height: It's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio movie.

1080 / 2.35 = 817 pixels

So, it's got the full 1080 resolution for a 2.35:1 movie, minus 1 pixel cropped.

Drool... IIRC, the F900 is 4:4:4 color (which is why it is at 200mbps). Freaking stunning and usually to film.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: User1001

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

That's a WMV and probably 1080i. And it's T2 not T3.

no its 1080p WMV; I have it.

It actually appears to be 1440 x 816

HDV format is an anamorphic 1440 x 1080 sampled 8bit 4:2:0 with offset pixels horizontally filling out the 1920 x 1080 (in square pixel) space. Even with $100k+ cameras, such as the $$$$$$$ Sony HDW-F900 still downsample to 1440, and record to tape at just a hair under 200mbps. Expand it out to fit square pixels, and you do get 1920.

Now, for the height: It's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio movie.

1080 / 2.35 = 817 pixels

So, it's got the full 1080 resolution for a 2.35:1 movie, minus 1 pixel cropped.

Oh cool. So I guess I was right originally.

Thanks.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: User1001

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes

Originally posted by: Newfie
terminator 3: extreme edition i do believe

That's a WMV and probably 1080i. And it's T2 not T3.

no its 1080p WMV; I have it.

It actually appears to be 1440 x 816

HDV format is an anamorphic 1440 x 1080 sampled 8bit 4:2:0 with offset pixels horizontally filling out the 1920 x 1080 (in square pixel) space. Even with $100k+ cameras, such as the $$$$$$$ Sony HDW-F900 still downsample to 1440, and record to tape at just a hair under 200mbps. Expand it out to fit square pixels, and you do get 1920.

Now, for the height: It's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio movie.

1080 / 2.35 = 817 pixels

So, it's got the full 1080 resolution for a 2.35:1 movie, minus 1 pixel cropped.

Drool... IIRC, the F900 is 4:4:4 color (which is why it is at 200mbps). Freaking stunning and usually to film.

My understanding is the F900 is 4:2:2 YCrCb, and the F950 is 4:4:4 RGB. I do admit I'm more familiar with the output side of things than input, so you could be right.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: gsellis
Drool... IIRC, the F900 is 4:4:4 color (which is why it is at 200mbps). Freaking stunning and usually to film.

My understanding is the F900 is 4:2:2 YCrCb, and the F950 is 4:4:4 RGB. I do admit I'm more familiar with the output side of things than input, so you could be right.

I think you may be right. I was thinking the 950 for sure though. Anything CineAlta or Grass Valley will do too.