Are bluray movies really full HD?

[nycguy]

I've noticed that a lot (most?) Bluray movies that claim to be 1080p, are not really full HD resolution. Full HD is 1920x1080. Yet so many movies I've tested I have noticed have black bars on top and bottom on my HDTV. When I tried to figure out why that is, I saw that the actual picture of the movies is 1920x800 resolution, therefore not a 16:9 ratio. Can anybody tell me why this is? This disappoints me. I thought bluray movies are true full HD and cover the entire screen. :(

[rtjnyoface]

Change the option on your tv to a different ratio. Even though the movie might have an actual different resolution where the actual picture is displayed, you will not notice any difference if you just change the aspect ratio on your tv. The 280 lines won't make a bit of difference to you, I promise.

[prOnorama]

Can anybody tell me why this is? This disappoints me. I thought bluray movies are true full HD and cover the entire screen. :(

Most films (nowadays) aren't originally shot at 16:9 (for full HD: 1920 x 1080) but at 2.39:1 or at 1.85:1 aspect ratio, so in order to maintain the original aspect ratio of the movie black bars are added. Blowing up (stretching) a 2.39:1 film to 16:9 would look very distorted (long faces etc.), it's not the way the movie looked in the theatre. With 1.85:1 movie it's much less noticable, so you get small horizontal black bars (since it's fairly close to 16:9 which is 1.78:1).

[Ghitulescu]

It really depends on the camera which format was used to record.

For instance, there were a lot of movies shot at 4:3 and the director simply matted the top and the bottom to give the WideScreen aspect (if you manage to find such positives, you may find there time codes and other info). So the theaters received the rolls and the window (mattes) together.
Others were shot with panoramic lenses. The theaters received the rolls and they have to place the lenses themselves.
There were also many other techniques to shot a movie.

It happens to me that I saw long time ago the 4:3 version of a movie from one source and the 16:9 from another. And guess what, the 16:9 was matted and resized (people keep saying that 4:3 is obtained from 16:9 by P&S or cropping). I don't remember now the title.

The 2.35:1 thing looks to me again a trick, like the "invention" of Cinerama and WideScreen after the TV was in business (as a rival).

As an amateur video enthusiast, I find it extremely stupid to cut the face of the main character, unless you want to draw the attention of the public towards a specific target (eyes, mouth). The faces (heads) would fit perfectly in a 4:3 frame.

See the examples I could find in 5 minutes from my available collection. The last two are from the Ingluorious basterds, if Tarantino really wanted to draw our attention to the words (and the mouth) of Pitt, he would have other means at his disposal to do this. If the movie would have been shot in 2.66:1 (which is the maximum the used lenses would allow ;)), a director would have been taken this into account - so my impression is that, like most other movies, the matting was done at editing/releasing). So the first image show a good framing of Pitt (the attention is focused on him) while the last one exemplifies my point.

[moviefan]

When I read the topic of this thread, my first thought went towards the question "Are Blu-ray movies really Full-HD in terms of their actual detail?". The original question however points to the fact that cinema movies have a different aspect ratio than the aspect ratio given by the Full-HD specification. Since my first interpretation is an issue that has been bothering me for quite some time, maybe you allow me to join in here with the question whether the actual detail given on a Blu-ray disc is Full-HD. I did some tests with a few Blu-rays so far, resizing them with e.g. Spline64Resize to 1280x720 and then back to 1920x1080 and compared the original frame with the resized one. I viewed the result on my 52" LCD TV from at first about 4m distance and then from about 1m distance and I could not actually see any difference. I switched between the images to notice changes in pixels but there were basically none. My conclusion was that most Blu-ray movies do not contain actual details at a resolution of 1920x1080. Does that conclusion make sense? I was/am really annoyed by this!

[Ghitulescu]

I did some tests with a few Blu-rays so far, resizing them with e.g. Spline64Resize to 1280x720 and then back to 1920x1080 and compared the original frame with the resized one. I viewed the result on my 52" LCD TV from at first about 4m distance and then from about 1m distance and I could not actually see any difference.

1920x1080p is exactly 1.5x (or 2.25x in terms of surface or pixel count) its little bro, 1280x720p. Interpolation and extrapolation algorithms for 1.5 are not so difficult, so, if properly done, there should be little difference. The issue is that the human eye has an optical resolution of 1", therefore the distance to the object plays an important role.*

I think BD movies are indeed FullHD, as they are scanned at 2k and the negative films do provide that resolution (a regular 35mm frame can yield 24 Mpixels). While this can be difficult to acheive by a consumer with consumer gear (does anyone here really thinks that a FullHD camcorder can give you the optical resolution of 2k?**), the pro use better lenses, a better focusing system*** and so on.

Bottom line, my personal opinion is that the technique exists to provide FullHD (optics, camera, support) and if the FullHD is not reached is then due to postprocessing and encoding.
----
*Corolar: if they want to market 4k (which is the next "breakthru" if 3D wouldn't catch) I think they have to create TVs of at least 4m (200") size.
**You can put VHS recordings in 1080i/p but that doesn't mean it's FullHD in terms of resolution.
***The bigest loss in optical resolution is due to improper focusing. It includes the "depth of field", a nice tool to have and to use.

[moviefan]

1920x1080p is exactly 1.5x (or 2.25x in terms of surface or pixel count) its little bro, 1280x720p. Interpolation and extrapolation algorithms for 1.5 are not so difficult, so, if properly done, there should be little difference. The issue is that the human eye has an optical resolution of 1", therefore the distance to the object plays an important role.*

Just to make sure I am understood correctly because I noticed I didn't make my point clear: I could not see any difference between the resized and the original image - neither from 4m distance nor from 1m distance. I didn't mean I could not see a difference between viewing from 4m distance and viewing from 1m distance. Of course the movie looks better from a greater distance because I cannot notice improper image quality as much from greater distance.

Bottom line, my personal opinion is that the technique exists to provide FullHD (optics, camera, support) and if the FullHD is not reached is then due to postprocessing and encoding.

So my conclusion is that Blu-rays seem to be postprocessed and/or encoded badly as I am able to obtain (almost) identical image quality and richness in detail at 1280x720. It might also be that focus is not perfect.

[Dark Shikari]

So my conclusion is that Blu-rays seem to be postprocessed and/or encoded badly as I am able to obtain (almost) identical image quality and richness in detail at 1280x720. It might also be that focus is not perfect.Welcome to the joyous world of lowpassing ;)

[moviefan]

Welcome to the joyous world of lowpassing ;)

I really hate it... But why do the Blu-ray authors lowpass them? I mean, don't those high bitrates keep high frequencies well? I would understand lowpassing if they had only a couple of Mbps, but they have plenty of bitrate considering the 50GB space on a disc! Do you have an explanation for their doing?

[2Bdecided]

I think BD movies are indeed FullHD, as they are scanned at 2k and the negative films do provide that resolution (a regular 35mm frame can yield 24 Mpixels).You can scan at however many pixels you want - but in terms of real frequency response, detail, and noise, I think you're being very generous to film with this number!

While this can be difficult to acheive by a consumer with consumer gear (does anyone here really thinks that a FullHD camcorder can give you the optical resolution of 2k?**)Nope. The lenses on consumer gear aren't up to it, and to get clean pixel-sharp 2k, you need to start with a higher resolution (rather than using a Bayer sensor of the target resolution, which can't come close).

Cheers,
David.

[Ryu77]

I get this question at work all the time and it is one that bothers me quite a bit as to why some don't understand that film recorded for Cinema is most often recorded in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

TV's were first released in a 4:3 aspect ratio which meant that 2.39:1 aspect movies would naturally require large borders to play correctly on the screen (or you could use a zoom function and chop bits off the side). 16:9 movies would also need smaller borders to display on a 4:3 screen.

Now we have 16:9 screens, so 2.39:1 aspect movies still need small borders to be displayed on this screen. Of course 16:9 aspect movies fill the entire screen... But! 4:3 content now require borders to be placed on the left and right side of the screen to be played correctly.

Please consider that although Blu-ray discs can often seem to waste resolution with black border fill, this is no different to DVD's recorded in the same aspect ratio. Except they had 480(NTSC)/576(PAL) lines to begin with, so the resultant image ends up being about 300 or so lines of actual resolution.

So in short, we are not getting ripped off just because most movies have black borders. In actuality, we are getting the film in it's most pure, untouched form. If we wish to zoom in and fill the screen, then most TV's or players have this function but just be mindful that to achieve this, some portion of the side of the film will be sacrificed.

[Ghitulescu]

I get this question at work all the time and it is one that bothers me quite a bit as to why some don't understand that film recorded for Cinema is most often recorded in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio.
...
So in short, we are not getting ripped off just because most movies have black borders. In actuality, we are getting the film in it's most pure, untouched form. If we wish to zoom in and fill the screen, then most TV's or players have this function but just be mindful that to achieve this, some portion of the side of the film will be sacrificed.

The 2.35:1 thing looks to me again a trick, like the "invention" of Cinerama and WideScreen after the TV was in business (as a rival).
WideScreen and Panoramic and so on were invented because the TV started having a place in every home of the average American, so the Cinema owners (who have a strong Union) felt the TV as a competitor. And they succeeded in persuasing the media content producers (Hollywood) in promoting new techniques that would force the people to rather go to Cinemas than to stay at home and watch the same movie on their TVs.

While it makes a bit of sense to use 16:9 by arguing that that's the human sightfield, it must also be clear that the laws of physics are equally valid, in this case the optics. You can't have a perfect representation of 2.35:1 in a world where the optic is 1:1. The photographers know (maybe?) what "vignetting" is. The anamorph lenses usually induce space deformations ("fish eye" is an extreme case, most profi lenses are somehow corrected). So most WS movies were/are (?) actually shot on 4:3 35mm film.
It happens to me that I saw long time ago the 4:3 version of a movie from one source and the 16:9 from another. And guess what, the 16:9 was matted and resized (people keep saying that 4:3 is obtained from 16:9 by P&S or cropping). I don't remember now the title.
Found one - Mandingo. But it's not the movie I was talking about, so there are at least 2 of them.

[Brazil2]

An interesting thread about this topic:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1082785

[Ghitulescu]

Yeah, I think people should make a distinction between pixels (megapixels) and resolution. Or viceversa.

[lordsmurf]

I've seen a lot of Blu-ray's that only look marginally better than the DVD, much less argue over 720 vs 1080.

Worse yet, I've seen butchered/deinterlaced bonus features on BD, that were properly interlaced on the DVD.
SD res for bonus on both BD and DVD.
What a mess.

Film can have a high res.
HD can have a high res.
The problem is cheap quick/releases are just slopping through the process, giving marginal quality improvements, if any.
Or as noted, sometimes quality loss.

[Ghitulescu]

It might also be that focus is not perfect.
Not on cinema movies, as a movie camera has two operators, one of them is in charge with the focus!!!!!
It might be however true for movies made for TV as the TV cameras are served by one operator only.

[invisible]

It's true, it's all a big lie!

Btw, IT'S PEOPLE, BLURAY IS PEOPLE!



Anyways, if you want to talk about crappy, there were some old DVDs like around the late 90s that were actual 16:9 widescreen movies but were released on DVD with 4:3 aspect setting with black bars. That was really annoying and no other better versions were ever released (as far as I know). One example is Streets of Fire.

[lordsmurf]

The correct name is "Blu-ray Disc" with a big B, little R and a hyphen.
The laser is violet, too, not blue.

The abbreviation is "BD", as in BD-R, BD-RE, BD-ROM.

[invisible]

The correct name is "Blu-ray Disc" with a big B, little R and a hyphen.
The laser is violet, too, not blue.

The abbreviation is "BD", as in BD-R, BD-RE, BD-ROM.

well too bad for the corpos because it will often be called bluray. as if a hyphen makes all the difference. they should have thought of a catchier acronym. BD, yeah, that just rolls off the tongue and doesn't sound like VD at all. I would have called it BRD or BVD

[lordsmurf]

Or "blue ray DVD" :stupid:

I remember the 1990s naysayers that said DVD sounded too much like BVDs.
The problem with Blu-ray is not the name, but the minimal (if any) improvements in the product, and lack of need.

[invisible]

No, BRD seems fine to me: "blue ray disc", even though I always hated the name "blu-ray" from the moment I heard it, but oh well, it's done. And BVD could be "blue-ray video/versatile disc" if you really wanted to.

blu[hyphen]ray doesn't really go anywhere and I suspect it won't catch on, especially not "BD" and people will always be harping on about it, like how "it's not ogg it's vorbis" ~ yet nobody cares and they call it ogg anyways; I mean to a point, not in media-geek circles. "BD" I will resist it as much as possible and will never bring up the correctness when called something else.

Although BDR probably will catch on.

[Guest]

Getting OT, guys.