Recent Posts

Showing posts with label hdtv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hdtv. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Anamorphic Widescreen: Which Standard DVDs Get the Best Picture on My HDTV?

Despite a growing number of high definition televisions (HDTVs) penetrating consumer's homes, standard definition DVDs are still being sold and rented in record numbers. A growing quantity of these DVDs is showing movies and television episodes in the modern widescreen formats. While DVDs are expected to still work on older boxy-screen TVs, they are also expected to look their best on the new widescreen HDTVs. Although many earlier DVDs struggled with this, an "anamorphic widescreen" technique optimizes the data on the DVD for best viewing on an HDTV. Here, I will help explain how this works and why it is important to look for an "anormorphic widescreen" or "enhanced for 16:9 televisions" notation on the back of DVDs.

Despite the advancement in new forms of entertainment media, including high-definition disc players, the traditional DVD saw another record year in 2006. This continued its upward sales trend since the late 1990s. In 2006, consumers spent over $24 billion in DVD sales and rentals (Digital Entertainment Group), a 6% increase over the prior year (sales outpaced rentals 2 to 1). Folks are continuing to accumulate DVDs, despite having a widescreen high definition televisions at home (see 10 Things I Should Know About HDTV). It is important to understand that the anamorphic widescreen DVDs are those optimized for the widescreen televisions. Because high-definition discs such as HD DVDs and Blu-ray disc are already optimized for HDTVs, the use of an anamorphic methods are much less relevant.

The issue at hand arises with the playing of DVD content on 4:3 traditional aspect ratio televisions as well as 16:9 widescreen televisions (see Pain in the Aspect Ratio for a description of aspect ratios and associated black bars). All content burned on the DVD is originally stored in a 4:3 aspect ratio before it is decoded by the DVD player and displayed on the TV. When a program is stored on a DVD in a widescreen format, we have a mismatch between the 4:3 image stored on the DVD and the widescreen image of the program. We'll use a television program shown in 16:9 widescreen for an example. We'll look at how two different types of DVDs handle the delivery of the image: the Letterbox Widescreen DVD vs. Anamorphic Widescreen DVD.

Letterbox Widescreen DVD
The non-anamorphic letterbox DVDs that have a widescreen video will store the image on the DVD with the black bars at the top and bottom - as shown below. The black pixels at the top and bottom are part of the image and take up stored memory on the DVD.
When this image is projected on a traditional 4:3 aspect ratio television, the presentation looks identical to the way it was stored on the DVD. The black bars are part of the image.

When this letterbox image on the DVD is placed on a widescreen TV with the 16:9 aspect ratio, something bad happens. Since the black bars are part of the image, the total height is interpreted to include the black bars at the top and bottom - and this image is placed in the middle of the screen. To maintain an undistorted image, black bars are not added to the left and right - as shown below. Yuck. To make things look a little better, this image may be zoomed to fit the screen. Once this is done, however, the zoomed image is of lesser quality. A lower resolution image is actually blown up to fit the screen. This is not desirable.

Anamorphic Widescreen DVD
With the introduction of anamorphic DVDs, widescreen videos can look better on widescreen televisions. This is not new technology. For years, DVD players have been able to interpret videos using the anamorphic widescreen technology. Here is how it works.

The image stored on the Anamorphic DVD is still in the 4:3 ratio (it has to be - all DVDs are just made that way), but the widescreen image is stretched to the top and bottom. This is what it looks like.


When this image is sent to a television with the 4:3 aspect ratio, the anamorphic status is interpreted and the image height is shrunk to create black bars at the top and bottom. These black bars are not part of the image, but are more like "voids" on the TV. This maintains an undistorted image. Not surprisingly, it looks like this:

The real magic comes in when this video is played on a widescreen television with 16:9 aspect ratio. There is no loss of resolution in the height and the television takes all of the information on the DVD and just stretches it to fit the screen. This maintains the highest quality possible on a DVD. Here is what it looks like:

Conclusion
While the Anamorphic Widescreen DVD is the way to go if you have a widescreen TV, you may not be getting rid of all black bars. The aspect ratio mismatch between the 16:9 screen and the wider theatrical aspect ratios (such as the popular 1.85:1 and 2.35:1) still exists. Without zooming or distorting the image, the HDTV will have to live with black bars (although the black bars will not be as big as on a 4:3 TV). The anamorphic methodology will make sure that you maintain the highest resolution for images you see on your widescreen television. So before you buy your next DVD, take a look at the back of the DVD and watch for the "anamorphic" or "enhanced for 16x9 televisions" label. After all, you don't want the capabilities of your HDTV to go to waste. Give the DVD the best chance of looking good on your widescreen TV.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Pain in the Aspect Ratio! Why Do I Still Have Black Bars On My HDTV?

The consumer electronics manufacturers and motion picture industry have teamed up to bring you a point of confusion regarding aspect ratios and the simple task of watching TV. Black bars and stretched images due to mismatched aspect ratios give unexpected results for new TV buyers. Laced with many new benefits, the High Definition Television (HDTV) standards brought us three new features: (1) higher resolution pictures that provide greater detail, (2) surround sound output that can be directed to multiple speakers, and (3) a new aspect ratio for the screen. It is the "strange but true" topic of the aspect ratio that has brought confusion and is addressed here.

First of all, the aspect ratio is not the size of one’s buttocks in relation to one’s overall height (in the sense that Jennifer Lopez would have a higher aspect ratio than Paris Hilton), but rather the relationship of your TV’s width to its height. The standard aspect ratio that has been used on TVs since their inception has now changed with the new HDTV standards. Original TVs had a 4:3 aspect ratio, which means for every 4 inches wide, they are 3 inches tall. This gives the appearance of a rectangle that is almost as tall as it is wide – close to a square. This ratio may also be written with reference to a single unit of height, or 1.33:1 (4 divided by 3 = 1.33). In contrast, the new HDTV standard uses a 16:9 aspect ratio or 16 inches of width for every 9 inches of height. This ratio, also known as 1.78:1, is much broader and is referenced as a widescreen format.

The reason for the move to the wider screen is to provide a much more theater-like experience. Back in the 1950s, the motion picture studios were fearful of television’s ability to erode the attendance at movie theaters (Sound familiar? Now HDTVs are further eroding theater attendence). In response, the studios changed the aspect ratio on movies from 4:3 to a much wider stance. This allowed movie-goers to feel much more immersed. It is not until recently that a wider aspect ratio has been brought to the home. Now, thanks to HDTV, we have the widescreen 16:9 format. Peculiar enough, however, is the fact that the 16:9 ratio is unlike anything produced by movie studios. Hmmm. Will this cause problems?

According to a Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) study released in April 2007, about 28% of U.S. households have HDTVs (see TVweek.com). Despite this growing number, only a small percentage of channels available on cable and satellite provide HD programs. A clear majority of the programming is still in standard definition with the original 4:3 aspect ratio. Most television content providers are showing less than 20 HD channels, often amounting to less than 10% of its programming. So if we must live with it, how do we display a 4:3 program on a 16:9 television? There are three basic ways to do this. The first method is to zoom the picture and crop the top and bottom. Be careful, though, because close ups can give Clint Eastwood a flattop. The second method is to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the picture to fill the screen. This is what makes Brad Pitt look like Jack Black (see post on non-HD content on HDTVs). Lastly, you can maintain the full image and 4:3 aspect ratio by showing black bars at the side. This is called a pillarbox effect. For those concerned about preserving the original image without distortion, pillarboxing is the best alternative.

So it would appear that we have this aspect ratio thing understood. Now I can go out and spend $5,000 on a 50-inch HDTV for my bathroom. Since I usually watch movies from my bathtub (I call it my “pruning” time), I’ll also plan to hook up a DVD player to it. This will allow me to show widescreen movies on my widescreen TV: a perfect match. I will purchase G.I. Jane, featuring the best bald-headed chick since Ripley in Aliens 3, and pop it into the player. To my surprise, I will not have escaped the annoying black bars. The bars have merely rotated ninety degrees and pushed themselves to the top and bottom. What the…? Does this TV need to go back to the manufacturer? Not so fast.

The movie G.I. Jane is presented in a 2.35:1 theatrical aspect ratio. The motion picture industry now has a few different standards, many of which are even wider than 16:9. The 1.85:1 ratio is another popular ratio for movies, but much closer to our TV’s 16:9 ratio. When you display a video with an aspect ratio wider than 16:9, you get black bars at the top and bottom, giving a letterbox display. So let's review. We have a 1.33:1 standard aspect ratio (aka 4:3), a 1.78:1 HDTV widescreen ratio (aka 16:9) and several theatrical aspect ratios such as 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Whew!

Now here’s the bad news. When you have a 16:9 widescreen TV and display a standard definition program in 4:3, the black bars on the side mean that 25% of the screen you recently purchased goes unused. When you watch a movie filmed in the 2.35:1 ratio, the black bars are at the top and bottom, but again 25% of the screen is always black. The 1.85:1 ratio is the closest to 16:9 and translates into a mere 4% loss. Those other numbers are pretty big, though. This is like buying a car that can only use three tires on most roads? It’s the price we all pay for the variety of aspect ratios out there. Now you know why I consider this topic a “pain in the aspect ratio!”

Despite all of this complexity surrounding aspect ratios, the HDTV standards do bring many benefits to those who upgrade their equipment. In the near future, high definition 16:9 programs will be prevalent among the viewing options. We will eventually be much happier as we use 100% of our television screen and Brad Pitt will look like…well…Brad Pitt. Then the only worry we have left is watching our dessert consumption so we don’t increase our own body’s aspect ratio. The last thing we want is to develop a personal widescreen format. A pillarbox shirt is not slimming.

[Note: This is a revised version of the original post, 5/3/07]

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Full HD May Be Full of It! Is the High Resolution 1080p HDTV Worth The Premium Price?

With the emergence of high definition televisions that have a greater resolution than standard HDTVs, some interesting questions are popping up. Is this new technology, dubbed "Full HD" or "1080p", worth the price?

Question:
What? Now that 1080p Full HD televisions are being sold, my 720p HDTV must be only "partially" high definition! Is that something like being partially pregnant? I thought a television was either high definition or it wasn't. What is all the fuss about?

Answer:
While the minimum requirement for high defintion is indeed 720 lines of resolution, the HD television manufacturers have been pushing these new "Full HD" televisions. These sets tout incredible clarity through the use of 1080 lines of progressive scan resolution - otherwise known as '1080p'. Progressive scan means that every line is refreshed during each cycle, as opposed to the inferior interlaced scan (1080i) that refreshes every other line at a time. With 1920 columns for each of those 1080 lines, the Full HD package delivers over 2 million pixels (pixels are those miniscule dots that make up the picture). That is over twice as many pixels as the typical 720p high definition television that emerged first into the HDTV market. Three circles in the illustration above show how the shape becomes smoother when more dots (pixels) are used to create the object. The three circles represent pixel counts to similate 480p (DVD quality), 720p (standard HD), and 1080p (full HD). An example of how a photographic image becomes sharper with greater pixel count is shown, too. For best results, click on the image to get the larger version. The 1080p resolution sounds impressive. So why is there any question that this technology is the way to go? Two reasons: visual acuity and content availability.

Visual Acuity
Let us first address the issue of visual acuity. I initially discussed this topic in a post entitled, Size Matters. Back then, I explained that visual acuity refers to the capability of the human eye. A person with 20/20 vision is able to distinguish lines on a screen that are separated by 1/60th of a degree. The reason this figure is described as degrees of an arc is because you can see a smaller line when up close, but when further away the line must be larger to be visible. This creates an angle - an angle of approximately 1/60th of a degree.

How much detail a person can see on a television depends two things: (1) the line thickness determined by the screen resolution and (2) the viewing distance. The greater the resolution, the more lines on the screen and the more difficult it is to distinguish the individual lines. If you are able to actually see the individual lines on a TV screen, you may need to sit farther away, get a higher resolution screen, or both. It is my belief that you don’t want to be able to distinguish individual lines. This will ensure top picture quality perception.

Based on visual acuity, the chart at the left was created to show at what resolution screen lines become indistinguishable. For example, watching a 46-inch television at a 10-foot distance, the 720p resolution has a line thickness that is virtually indistinguishable by the human eye. There is likely no benefit to using a 1080p screen in this situation. At that same 10-foot distance, however, a 60-inch television could benefit from 1080p. Or the 46-inch screen viewed at a shorter 8-foot distance could also benefit from Full HD. The recommended resolution depends on the combination of screen size and viewing distance. This chart is useful in finding those instances when 1080p may be justified.

This chart also provides information about recommended screen sizes for different home applications. The black areas show situations that adhere to professional cinema guidelines for immersive (hard core) home theater viewing. The grey areas adhere to specifications and recommendations for more typical (practical) home entertainment applications. Again, please see the earlier post, Size Matters, for more details. Again, you may click on the chart to get a larger image.

Content Availability
There is another concern about the effectiveness of Full HD. Despite the capabilities of a 1080p television, there is very little content available to take advantage of this ultra high screen resolution. Currently there is no satellite, cable, or over-the-air programming presented in 1080p. All of the available HD content from these sources is in either 720p or 1080i.

There are, however, two proven methods to get 1080p content to a Full HD television. First, a qualified HD disc player such as a Blu-ray or HD DVD may be capable of this type of high resolution output. While all Blu-ray players are capable of 1080p, it is necessary to bypass the introductory HD DVD players and make sure the upgraded 1080p player is used. The second source for 1080p content comes from either the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 gaming system. These have games capable of Full HD output as well as disc players that can provide top notch resolution. That just about sums up the current availability of HD content in crystal clear 1080p.

Despite the lack of 1080p content today, the emphasis of this high quality resolution in the television marketplace will eventually trickle down to the content providers. As more folks invest in this technology, they will look (and pay) for content to take advantage of it. Technology will continue to move forward and 1080p televisions will become the standard. And when homes are filled with 1080p televisions, you will see content providers begin to offer the improved content. It will take time, but it will happen. If you're investing in a TV that you plan on keeping beyond the end of 2008, it is reasonable to expect that you will have more content available in the 1080p resolution. The investment in Full HD should be considered a longer term commitment.

Conclusion
The technological advancement of 1080p is undisputed. It is hard to argue with twice the pixel count. The issue comes from whether this improved performance is worth the 20 - 25% price premium a Full HD television can carry. If the television size and viewing distance at least gives the opportunity to enjoy the enhanced image, then 1080p should be considered. If considered, the decision should be made based on the range of content available now and in the near future. For many, movies on HD discs are the primary reason they would want improved clarity anyway. So these folks, Full HD will bring the ultimate in picture clarity and an incredible viewing experience. For others, their circumstances just don't justify the higher resolution. So look at your individual circumstances and determine for yourself whether 1080p is worth it - or whether the extra expense for Full HD is just "full of hi-def dung".

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

12 Hottest HD DVD Movies! What Are The Most Visually Entertaining Movies for My HD DVD Player?

One of the first questions that people have after they hook up their HD DVD player is, "what are the best movies to watch in HDTV?" The issue at hand is that the HD DVD format is still relatively new and not all of your favorites will be available. Despite being offered through movie distributors that support HD DVD, movies like Twister are still not available in the higher resolution format. Also among the ranks of those movies not yet introduced in HD DVD are the Jurassic Park trilogy, Shrek/Shrek 2, and The Lord of the Rings series. These flicks represent some of the eye candy and action blockbusters that are expected to "wow" you on your new HD DVD player. Alas, they are not available yet. So, this situation begs the question: what are the best movies I can get for my HD DVD?

The following is a list of a dozen of the top eye-popping movies currently available (or soon to be) under the HD DVD format. The release date, domestic box office revenue and displayed aspect ratio are listed. Additionally, you can mouse-over the images for ordering information.

  1. King Kong
    Universal, released 11/16/06; U.S. Box Office est. $218,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  2. 300
    Warner, estimated release 07/31/07; U.S. Box Office est. $210,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  3. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
    Warner, released 10/10/06; U.S. Box Office est. $206,500,000; Aspect Ratio 1.85:1



  4. Batman Begins
    Warner, released 10/10/06; U.S. Box Office est. $205,300,000; Aspect Ratio 2.40:1



  5. The Mummy Returns
    Universal, released 01/16/07; U.S. Box Office est. $202,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  6. Superman Returns
    Warner, released 11/28/06; U.S. Box Office est. $200,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  7. The Fugitive
    Warner, released 05/23/06; U.S. Box Office est. $183,900,000; Aspect Ratio 1.85:1



  8. The Perfect Storm
    Warner, released 06/06/06; U.S. Box Office est. $182,600,000; Aspect Ratio 2.40:1



  9. Mission: Impossible
    Paramount, released 05/22/07; U.S. Box Office est. $181,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  10. Happy Feet
    Warner, released 03/27/07; U.S. Box Office est. $198,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.40:1



  11. The Bourne Supremacy
    Universal, released 05-23-06; U.S. Box Office est. $176,000,000; Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  12. The Polar Express
    Warner, released 10-10-06; U.S. Box Office est. $176,600,000; Aspect Ratio 2.40:1


For a list of the top Blu-ray movies, visit my post highlighting the alternate format.



Monday, June 25, 2007

12 Best Blu-Ray Movies! What are the Most Visually Stunning HDTV Movies Available to Watch on My Blu-ray Player?

One of the first questions that people have after they hook up their new Blu-ray player is, "what are the best movies available?" The issue at hand is that the Blu-ray format is still relatively new and not all of your favorites will be available. Despite being offered through movie distributors that support the Blu-ray format, movies like Titanic (Fox), Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles (Buena Vista) are still not available in crystal clear 1080p Blu-ray discs. Other cinema series such as Star Wars and Spider-Man are still awaiting release, too. These types of flicks represent some of the action blockbusters that should "wow" you when played on your new HD Blu-ray player. Alas, they are not available yet. So, this situation begs the question: what are the best movies I can get for my Blu-ray?

The following is a list of a dozen of the top eye-popping movies currently available (or soon to be) under the Blu-ray format. The release date, domestic box office revenue, and aspect ratios are displayed. Additionally, you may mouse over the disc cover graphics for ordering information.

  1. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
    Buena Vista, released 05/22/07, U.S. Box office est. $423,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  2. Night at the Museum
    Fox, released 04/24/07, U.S. Box office est. $251,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  3. 300
    Warner, to be released 07/31/07, U.S. Box office est. $210,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  4. Pearl Harbor
    Buena Vista, released 12/19/06, U.S. Box office est. $198,500,000, Aspect Ratio 2.20:1



  5. X-Men: The Last Stand
    Fox, released 11/14/06, U.S. Box office est. $234,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.40:1



  6. Superman Returns
    Warner, released 11/28/06, U.S. Box office est. $200,000,000 Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  7. The Fugitive
    Warner, released 09/26/06, U.S. Box office est. $183,900,000, Aspect Ratio 1.85:1



  8. Mission: Impossible
    Paramount, released 05/22/07, U.S. Box office est. $181,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  9. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
    Lionsgate, released 06/27/06, U.S. Box office est. $204,800,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  10. Monster House
    Columbia, released 10/24/06, U.S. Box office est. $74,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  11. Planet of the Apes
    Fox, released 02/13/07, U.S. Box office est. $180,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.35:1



  12. Happy Feet
    Warner, released 03/27/07 , U.S. Box office est. $198,000,000, Aspect Ratio 2.40:1


For a list of the top HD DVD movies, visit my post highlighting the alternate format.