|
Author
|
Topic: My Blu-Ray Experience
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted June 26, 2009 12:08 PM
Well I finally took the plunge. After months of resisting the purchase of a Blu -Ray player I have finally got one. The thing that did it was that Best Buy had the Panasonic BD60 on sale for $249.00, and I have read nothing but glowing reports on the stunning picture quality of this particular player. So I took it home and hooked it up to my 5 year old Panasonic AE700, which is a 720P projector, NOT a 1080P. The first disc I put in was the BD version of Pinnochio, and I ran it side-by -side with the DVD version of the same film. I was very disappointed - the DVD version looked better! Then I realised that I had not programmed the player to output 720p through the component cables, so it was outputing the default 480i! I also needed to adjust the Panasonic's picture settings for the component input. When I had done this, the picture quality was breathtaking with really stunning sharpness, detail, and glorious color saturation. Next up was the BD version of Sleeping Beauty, and the picture is unbelieveably beautiful. The DVD versions of both these films are of superb quality, but the BD version is a whole new viewing experience. So yes, hooking up a 1080p BD player to a 720p projector will still buy you an enormous improvemnt in picture quality over standard definition DVD.
So I am delighted with my Panasonic BD60 player, it has truly raised the quality of my home theater to a whole new level, and I am seeing the true 720p capabilty of my Panasonic projector for the first time.
I thought I would be dragged kicking and screaming into Blu-Ray, because the selection of classic films is so poor, but with Disney now starting to release all their classic films on BD, I'm really glad I took the plunge. Can't wait for the BD release of Snow White and Fantasia in October.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maurizio Di Cintio
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 977
From: Ortona, Italy
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted June 27, 2009 08:07 AM
While I can only rejoice for Paul's satisfaction, I, as a 50Hz PAL TV-standard addict on the other side of the pond, must say that, after being using BD's (Sony S350) since DEC 2008, I am rather disappointed for what seems to be the typical NTSC 3:2 pull down I have always experienced every time I travelled to America and happened to watch a film on TV. In other words, while definition, contrast and colours are really impressive using blu-ray discs and my Philips 42' LCD 1080p Full HD screen, I can't say the same for the "cinematic" qualities of the 'new' standard: the problem I am referring to is obvious when you watch end credits with vertical scroll, or during a not too short panning camera movement; the actions seems to stop & start almost continuosly every fraction of a second. Since my player also outputs playback info on the screen, and it always reads 1080p/60 instead of /50, I am inclined to believe that all films released on Bluray are transferred to video according to NTSC specs. Now if the American audience is pretty much used to this since the heyday of movies on TV, the same cannot be said for us Europeans: our TV standards work at 50 Hz and in order to make film scannning compatible with that, they simply have to 'overcrank' the frame rate to a mere 25 fps instead of 24; consequently, there's no pulldown effect: the film is transferred in a 2:2 fashion (every film frame outputting to 2 video fields) and pans, scrolls and every kind of motion appear to be no more flickery than in a cinema without artifacts. I wonder if others have experienced this and/or agree with my thoughts.
Regards
--------------------
Maurizio
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Whittle
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 791
From: Northridge, CA USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted June 27, 2009 05:54 PM
quote:
the problem I am referring to is obvious when you watch end credits with vertical scroll, or during a not too short panning camera movement; the actions seems to stop & start almost continuosly every fraction of a second. Since my player also outputs playback info on the screen, and it always reads 1080p/60 instead of /50, I am inclined to believe that all films released on Bluray are transferred to video according to NTSC specs.
Maurizio,
There is absolutly no "NTSC" in Blu-Ray transfers. NTSC is the analog 525 line interlaced color system with a 3.58 subcarrier.
Transfers are made at either 30fps or 24fps since to do a "pull down" would just increase the amount of space needed on the disc. The transfer itself is stored at a 24fps element and your player outputs what is needed for your display device.
Now pure 24fps output to projectors can be troublesome and result in really bad pans which will appear jerky for a very simple reason. If you watch a 24fps film in a theatre you're watching each frame twice (48 interruptions per second) and the picture is on the screen for a short flash followed by darkness.
The human brain takes those flashed images and blends them into smooth motion so the pans are smooth.
What happens with your digital display device is totally different, the picture is contantly displayed and then only the changed pixels are displayed. This can result in the pure display form of a jerky pan, a jello look to stationary items when panned and strobbing.
Many of the latest devices that take a 24p input will employ motion compensation and instead of displaying the image repeatedly 3 times (for 72fps displays) or more, they look ahead and estimate motion to scene change and then create new "imaginary" pictures which are displayed and smooth out the action much like the brain does when looking at a movie on film.
There are several different ways of doing this and some look better than others, in many cases the quickest solution is to output a 1080i picture which the player will build from the 24fps disc image and then the set will build that to 1080p.
In short a pure 24p signal on it's own doesn't display well on current electronic displays. The old CRT scanning method actually provided a blending of it's own since the picture was never completely displayed, but the eye built it out of the lines of the picture on the screen.
But not NTSC, the one hold over that is totally unnecessary if the frame rates of 29.97 and 23.97 which were tied to the old 3.58 Mhz subcarrier frequency for the color subcarrier but it was necessary to stations to maintain time code between analog and digital transmissions during the transistion period. I don't know if it will ever go way however.
John
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maurizio Di Cintio
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 977
From: Ortona, Italy
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted June 28, 2009 07:36 AM
This is not comforting at all. In any case the dynamic artifacts I previously described do not show AT ALL on DVD's; but they constantly do on BD's. ANd Yes, my set is linked to the BD player via HDMI (a very steep one) and I am using Region B Blurays, otherwise I don't think I could get any image from the player, right?
Now let's leave apart some thoughts that have appeared in this thread and concentrate on the artifacts per se: first of all I guess American-based users of BD's won't be able to see these problems, unless they already have the habit to notice the cinematic differences of film (in movie theatres) and at home. That's because films shot and projected at 24 fps realy need the 3:2 pull down conversion when screened on ANY kind of electronic devices (be it analogue or digital): this way the American TV standard is able to "fill the gaps" if I may say so, left blank by those 6 frames missing (30 video frames per second Vs 24 film frames per second). And it is my understanding this process works like this: film frame # 1 (and all subsequent odd frames) is transferred onto 3 identical TV fields; film frame # 2(and all subsequent even frames) is transferred onto 2 identical TV fields. This way half a second of film (odd frames) produces 36 TV fields, and the other half (even frames) produces 24 video frames, which summed to the first 36 gives a total of 60 (fields) Hertz. All this is imperative with the American NTSC. But in Europe both PAL and Secam work at 50 Hz. This means that it is possible to bring up the original 24 fps speed to 25 fps and transfer each original film frame onto video for 2 video fields, this giving a total of 50 fields, in which odd frames and even frames are scanned for the very same amount of final video fields. The final result on video is no way more jerky than real film projection. But perhaps is one is unfamiliar with European TV screens, this is a bit tough to understand but has nothing to do with the fact the we actually see film at 48 fps in movie theatres. Fact remains when I watch a BD on my Full HD TV set, I seem to be watching a film in the USA: whan I watch a DVD, I don't, but of course definition is less pleasant. Probably my considerations are idle for Americans, but I'd like to know Europeans' opinions.
Thank you all.
--------------------
Maurizio
| IP: Logged
|
|
Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 111
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted June 28, 2009 08:17 AM
Maurizio, I'm pretty sure (and willing to be proven wrong) that NTSC, PAL and SECAM are analogue colour standards, and no longer have any relevance when talking about a Blu-Ray player connected to a modern flat screen television via the digital link of HDMI.
Progressive scan is the present and future of moving image presentation, we are no longer limited by image bandwidth concerns, so interlaced video should be phased out immediately.
To eliminate pulldown syndrome, purchase a television set with native 24 frame playback. This solution, however does little to dispell complaints by many individuals that 24 frames a second is, and always has been much to slow to convincingly capture motion without creating visible judder.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Maurizio Di Cintio
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 977
From: Ortona, Italy
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted June 28, 2009 04:59 PM
I read the article, John. It seems to (albeit) indirectly vouch my opinions.
Damien, even if we are living in a digital era, differences remain between the two sides of the pond: video equipment in the USA capture images at 60 Hz and so they deliver it to TV Sets, while in Europe they do it at 50 Hz. Perhaps the distinction is less meaningful than in the past (when it wasn't uncommon to refer to multi-standard VCR, TV), but is still necessary.
Proof: I own the Bluray disc of the Indiana Jones' latest instalment, which features plenty of extra material (backstage, making of... you name it). Such material was originated not on film but on HD video cameras. Guess what? When playing back that material, the display-function of my BD player still reads "1080p/60", but there is no judder!!! Why? IMHO because that is native 60 Hz material, it doesn't come from 24 fps film transferred to video via the 3:2 pull down.
So back we go to my initial issue: are BDs manufactured primarily for (former) NTSC markets? I think only the orginal developers of the standard can give the ultimate answer.
--------------------
Maurizio
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Whittle
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 791
From: Northridge, CA USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted June 28, 2009 07:25 PM
Maurizio,
The capture is done at 24 for blue-ray and for DVD, any conversion is done in the player not on the disc. The point is your problem is in the display which I tried to explain was due to the nature of the display (and the size). If you view on an CRT which scans the image out, the eye will integrate the image where as if you view on a flat panel, you are at the mercy of the display system. If it's a computer display, only changed pixels are displayed and you can get lots of judder (look at thegreenbutton.com for people having trouble with their media center displays) depending on how your display takes the incoming information and builds the image. Video material is stored on the disc at 30fps and film at 24fps and how you set your player will determine how it looks. That's why Steven and others don't see what you're talking about.
In a theatre (cinema) the alternating dark and light periods make the brain integrate the image and make it smooth, but believe me titles strobe on crawls if the speed is wrong and it's smoother with a three blade shutter than a two blade shutter. I spent 30 years in film in all areas but about half that in post-production of film and then telecine. Even my Canon HD camcorder which will record 24P plays it back with a 3-2 pull down. But it isn't really a frame repeat, it's a field repeat with a blended frame with fields from two film frames which the eye will see as blur not studder. If you have studder it due to a wrong build out of the dvd/blue-ray signal to your display device or the way your display device handles the signal. This is what frame/field interpolation software is all about. If you took the shutter out of a film projector, aside from the blur from the film advance, the pictures wouldn't look like smooth motion.
None of this is really new, but back in the 40s and 50s with the response of the vidicon tube and the decay of the CRT, it really didn't show up, plus the bandwidth and the quality of OTA was such that the ghosts and image blur covered alot up.
But if you read the articles, there is a solution to your problem, but it's with hardware not with the discs.
John
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted June 29, 2009 07:08 AM
Paul, your original post has stimulated a really fascinating discussion.
Before any comments on motion judder, I have to agree with you that the two Disney Blu-ray titles are stunning, but Sleeping Beauty must take the crown for the level of detail on show.
In the past, I have sometimes found that Disney restoration jobs actually result in such a clinical image, which isn't as involving as it's film equvalent; somewhere the "magic" of watching it on film (super 8) was missing.
So I watched Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio with some trepidation. The truth is, though, that these transfers, with their pristine images and huge levels of detail, actually draw you right into the "film" and the experience is engrossing (not giving any of my super 8 away though!)
As for motion judder...great discussion and links here. Oddly, for me, motion judder seems to be more of an issue on some titles and less on others, although I confess there should be no technical reason for this. The Pixar titles on Blu-ray, for example, although marvelous, do (for me) display a lot of motion judder. On the other hand, the other evening I watched Predator and what with all the sweeping camera moves expected loads of judder. The truth was that is wasn't really noticeable; strange!?
It actual makes me smile that once again, with all of todays's technology, video systems still struggle with an issue that is of little consequence to good old film!
Out of interest, how do professional cinema digital projectors address motion judder?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted June 29, 2009 10:53 AM
Indeed, John. In my case the motion judder I am refering to is that which is apparent from Blu-ray at 1080p/24 output, with the projector set to (and acknowledging) 24Hz.
I have owned a Full HD projector that, despite the ability to do it, totally refused to acknowledge 1080p/24 from my HD-DVD player and insisted upon projecting a 1080p/30Hz image. All despite firmware upgrades - this certainly lead to noticeable and avoidable judder (player works fine with my current projector).
In the case of DVD playback; my own experience is that HD-DVD and Blu-ray machines are not that great at playing back and upscaling standard DVDs, despite manufacturer's claims.
My £600 Pioneer Blu-ray is fanatstic with Blu-ray but full of bugs when upscaling DVD (again, latest firmware running).
My £250 Toshiba HD-DVD player is, again, great with HD-DVD but a mess when upscaling DVD.
I use a separate dedicated upscaling DVD player which is the only way I have found to provide good, stable results from that old 576i (or 480i!) for a 1080p display.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
