Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Since we keep track of audio codecs, why not video?  Also, this could be used to list resoltion as there's no rule that Blu-Rays must be 1080p so we'll likely see some that aren't in the future.

I like the non-1080p list part particularly.

I would beg to differ with you on this, Ace. And good to you see you again. There probably are not very many yet, but there will be Academy Ratio and 1.33:1 releases done on BD and they aren't going to be 16x9, no matter what.

Skip

I could be remembering this wrong, but I thought to have read that hidef titles are in fact never anamorphic...

If my memory served well, then I guess it would mean the filter in program must be adjusted somehow to cope with this problem. (Right now I have no idea what that could actually mean or what filtering logic would be required to allow this.)

Agreed. HD media is a 16:9 format. In order to maintain OAR, pillarboxing or letterboxing will be present on non 1.78 aspect ratio material.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

Gracious, Ace. you couldn't be moire wrong. God forbid i put any ideas into the sick minds in Hollywood. Since MOST of the older films or especially TV are not likely to translate real well to 1080P because of the limitations of the older film stock and condition.<gasp>

Skip

Skip,
It's you who is dead wrong on this. 35mm Film stock, which is what the vast majority of Hollywood movies were filmed on has a scan limit of 4k (4096 pixels wide). HD, which at 1080x1920p, is even under 2k (2048 pixels wide), there is alot more detail on the film than what you are seeing even at 1080p. Even TV series which were many times shot on 16mm, which is half of a 35mm frame, still has a maximum 2k resolution. If they were shot for 1:33, when they are transferred to HD, they will have black pillars on the side as part of the picture, much like early DVDs did before the studios started doing anamorphic transfers of widescreen material.

In theory you are correct, cmae. The reality is another story entirely, many of the older films I have seen transferred to some form HD, not all, I wouldn't have in my library. They aren't worth the investment, whether it is film stock or condition of same I don't know since I am not directly involved in the industry. A Hi-Def transfer i have seen of Grease for example is almost obscene in the amount of film grain revealed in Hi-Def, it so bad it is a distraction from the film.

Some older films that have undergone major restorations such as The Searchers and GWTW should fare really well, I know The Searchers was done but I haven't reviewed it yet. But many other films will probably not fare as well, I can't speak to the new computer restorations taken to hi-def since I haven;'t seen one yet, they might work out OK.

Skip

Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
I could be remembering this wrong, but I thought to have read that hidef titles are in fact never anamorphic...

Exactly. As said before: anamorphic is a crutch for the line-based SDTV-technic and the whole 4x3 vs 16x9 mess.
HDTV is a pixel-based technic with fixed resolutions. Whatever you try to gain on resolution on the y-axis you would lose on the x-axis.


cya, Mithi

Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
I could be remembering this wrong, but I thought to have read that hidef titles are in fact never anamorphic...

Exactly. As said before: anamorphic is a crutch for the line-based SDTV-technic and the whole 4x3 vs 16x9 mess.
HDTV is a pixel-based technic with fixed resolutions. Whatever you try to gain on resolution on the y-axis you would lose on the x-axis.

Right.  Going back to the original poster's comment, Hi-Def video formats would be worth tracking in addition to aspect ratio.  The Hd resolution being analogous to SD enhancement.  They're not the same thing, but if you cared about the one in SD, you'll care about the other in HD.