Bladerunner Broadcast at 1080i

[Pookie]

Debating where to post this, but since there have been some posts in the past regarding restoring older copies, perhaps it makes more sense to wait for the HD release. The dimensions of the preview clip I saw was 1920x800. Looks like the original aspect ratio, but I don't know the movie well enough to say.

Here Are Some Stills at Half Res

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2200/h16ay.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1442/dh66dl.png (http://imageshack.us)

[actionman133]

Well, the aspect ratio matches the film's original ratio, 2.4 (which is actually the true ratio of all '2.35:1' films) perfectly. It also looks pretty accurate by sight, so I'd be pretty confident that it is properly sampled (my understanding is that HD is the correct pixel ratio, anyway, so it *should* be right)...

[anton_foy]

film's original ratio, 2.4 (which is actually the true ratio of all '2.35:1' films)
I am not sure that is true because older films have been shot in both 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 it depends on tje anamorphic squeeze and the matting of the image.
The original aspect ratio of Blade Runner is 2.50:1, correct me if im wrong.
BTW Pookie, I would be very happy if you would share some full res images from it :) my e-mail: jonas.hed82@gmail.com

Thank you!

[MrTroy]

2.4 (which is actually the true ratio of all '2.35:1' films)That's not true. Movies can be 2.40, 2.39, 2.35, etc. Some HD broadcasts indeed have 1920x816 dimensions.

And HD camera's are 1.78 by default, so the director has to crop the footage after recording. He can himself choose how to do this, so it can be 2.35 just as well as 2.40.

[Mug Funky]

YEAH!

bladerunner is one of those neglected titles that hasn't got a (decent) DVD release. i've got the only release i know of, and it looks alright (bit dirty, a DVD-5 and authored really badly. plus the highlights blow a bit suggesting a weird transfer).

a 1080p version would be very cool. and those screens look to be from a good print (possibly restored in both analog and digital?).

now i'll just wait for it to be broadcast here and set my DBV-T card to "kill".

[Inc]

Hi Mug,

here in germany the DVB-T Quality is even at 720x576 a pain.
AVGs between 2300kbit and 2800kbit are usual. And these AVGs arent resulted out of encodings in their quality we are able to archive at even below realtime.
At night sometimes the AVGs do rise as then some stations do set priorities on currently shown movies.

[Mug Funky]

situation is different in australia. i've had a DVB-T card for some time, but a while ago i buggered up something in directshow and now i can't seem to make the thing work.

however, when it was working, i didn't see anything below 6mbps except TV guides and ABC-2. (true) HD channels were 12mbps IIRC. sadly our government for some reason stipulated that 720x576 @ 50p counts as HDTV, so channels 2, 7, and SBS all do a smart bob on their regular SD stuff...

[MrTroy]

sadly our government for some reason stipulated that 720x576 @ 50p counts as HDTV, so channels 2, 7, and SBS all do a smart bob on their regular SD stuff...The 'some reason' is that one possible definition of HD is "anything with a higher quality than SD".

[actionman133]

situation is different in australia.

Hey, Mug Funky... hail from one Aussie to another... I was thinking I was the only one. But isn't 576x50p recognised as EDTV?

Re: my previous post about 2.4:1 movies. I know read this somewhere (and I believe, but can't confirm, the source was quite authoritive), but it was referring to display ratios of the film when played in the cinem. I know some films get digitally masked at a slightly different ratio when released on video and DVD (Film Art by Bordwell & Thompson shows a good example with Back to the Future).

But still, have we actually answered the original question? I assume HDTV to have a PAR of 1:1... if that assumption is correct (I'm not too familiar with HD), then the film as the original poster has recorded it should be at its correct ratio.

[anton_foy]

Im almost sure the original aspect ratio on Blade Runner is as wide as 2.50:1 but I have never seen a DVD or broadcast where image has been so wide. Only at the cinema. So I guess that they crop some area on the left and right to crop from 2.50:1 -> 2.40:1. Just my theory...

[MrTroy]

Im almost sure the original aspect ratio on Blade Runner is as wide as 2.50:1I've never heard of 2.50:1 movies. IMDB reports Blade Runner as 2.35:1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/technical).

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well i took me a while but I believe I've managed to find the same frame on my PAL DVD as Pookie's HDTV still: -

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1694/vlcplayer4oi.png


Pookie's HDTV still
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1442/dh66dl.png


When you compare the two, Pookie's still shows a fair bit more image to the left, right and bottom of the frame :D

I'm jealous

[MrTroy]

Well i took me a while but I believe I've managed to find the same frame on my PAL DVD as Pookie's HDTV stillI measured your PAL screenshot, it has an AR of 2.29:1. Strange....

[edit] Some reading taught me that 2.29:1 is probably the original AR.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I measured your PAL screenshot, it has an AR of 2.29:1. Strange....Don't forget "software" media players always display 16:9 anamorphic content using 1024x576 pixels and not 1048x576 pixels as directed by the ITU specs!

If you resized to 1048x576 and then cropped all the black away you'd get a movie AR of around 2.35:1....

[MrTroy]

Don't forget "software" media players always display 16:9 anamorphic content using 1024x576 pixels and not 1048x576 pixels as directed by the ITU specs!So if I understand correctly, 16:9 is actually
874x480 (NTSC)
1048x576 (PAL)
?

Nevertheless, the distributor's website says it's 2.29:1 too...

[Alain2]

Hum, so why call it 16/9=1.77 if it's displayed 1048x576=1.82 (PAR 1:1)...? What does 16/9 correspond to then? I doubt that your ITU spec correspond to PAR 1:1

[laserfan]

Well i took me a while but I believe I've managed to find the same frame on my PAL DVD as Pookie's HDTV still... When you compare the two, Pookie's still shows a fair bit more image to the left, right and bottom of the frame :D I'm jealous
Gosh SMD, I'm not sure what you're jealous about; the "extra image" does nothing to clarify anything.

In fact, I think you should be happy--there is virtually as much detail in your SD DVD as in that HDTV still! I hope the HD-DVD or BD that is eventually released is a lot better! :scared:

[SeeMoreDigital]

In fact, I think you should be happy--there is virtually as much detail in your SD DVD as in that HDTV still! I hope the HD-DVD or BD that is eventually released is a lot better! :scared:Perhaps Pookie can provide us with a full resolution still image...

[soresu]

The high definition version may be released this year from what this news item describes http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14724

[laserfan]

The high definition version may be released this year from what this news item describes...
Nice find. I don't think Blade Runner is "great cinema" by any means, but it certainly is a visual feast. Release on HD (properly restored and transferred) would likely make my heart go pitty-pat.

In the current (sorry) state of the HD wars, I'm having trouble generating any enthusiasm for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. :p

[smok3]

the dvd releases i saw had the most horrible sound quality i ever heard on a dvd (and that was the one when sound was supposedly fixed..), i wonder if there is something that can be done about that.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Agreed.... I have the NTSC and PAL DVD versions ad both have Dolby "Pro Logic" audio, complete with it's horrible matrixed audio channels!

[soresu]

From what the media news details, the DVD/HD release of the 1993 'Directors Cut' will be a restored version (Sept 2006), and then the definitive directors cut will receive both limited cinematic release (2007)and DVD release along with 3 other versions of the film. As to how well the other versions will be restored, thats anyones guess, but the same guys worked on the Alien Quadrilogy boxset, and recent Gladiator Extended + Kingdom Of Heaven Directors Cut boxsets - so I kinda expect good things

[Pookie]

This must be one of the more difficult movies there is to encode -> mostly dark scenes, smoke, rain, etc.

http://ho5t.us/display/e2d607a4d3.png (http://ho5t.us/show.php?locm=e2d607a4d3.png)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well here we go...

If I overlap my DVD still image onto Pookie's HDTV capture you get this: -

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/1075/overlap1920x82023410xz.th.png (http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?image=overlap1920x82023410xz.png)

An image with a resolution of 1920 by 820 = 2.34:1

[MrTroy]

Strange to see that so many HDTV broadcasts are a bit too low on red and too high on blue (RGB colours). It gives them an unwanted artificial look.

[Soulhunter]

here in germany the DVB-T Quality is even at 720x576 a pain...
Indeed -> Without comment... ;D (http://soulhunter.chronocrossdev.com/data/DVBT03.jpg)

Btw, this bladerunner HD pics look a bit... smooth, no!? Denoising, AVC, or both?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well here's a still from the NTSC DVD: -

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6899/ntsc853x4809mq.png


Colour-wise it looks much the same as the PAL DVD: -

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1694/vlcplayer4oi.png


Cheers

[SeeMoreDigital]

Btw, this bladerunner HD pics look a bit... smooth, no!? Denoising, AVC, or both?When you compare both DVD sources to the HDTV still, the whites are totally over-blown. Flaring-out all of the fine detail :scared:

[Inc]

Agreed.... I have the NTSC and PAL DVD versions ad both have Dolby "Pro Logic" audio, complete with it's horrible matrixed audio channels!
Although I prefer the english audio you should listen at the german 5.1 Track of the Indiana Jones Boxset --- thats what I call a sound mess with a THX stamp on it :scared:

Regarding over-blown white areas on DVB streams: As I only got DVB-T I can only report on that. Many broadcastings which have been filmed on video do come in a luma clipped state. The very high luma details are simply cropped off.