Spectre Dvd/Blu-Ray resolution?

Shouldn't the screen size on the Spectre Dvd be bigger than this? I don't have Blu-Ray so i can't compare.

vlcsnap_2016_11_25_12h11m39s12.png

Comments

  • Posts: 4,325
    That image is 1024x576 pixels; DVD is 720x576 in a 4:3 aspect ratio
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited November 2016 Posts: 260
    DVD is 720x576 (for 50Hz base) or 720x480 (for 60Hz base), regardless of aspect ratio. Anything other than native 4:3 content is usually code as NSP (non-square pixels), in other words a digital form of anamorphic.

    Looks like the still in question is a VLC screen grab which means the resolution is the net result of remapping NSP to SP (while not the most accurate word, you can say that at playback it is "stretched" horizontally).

    If you were asking about the aspect ratio, that looks just about right for a nominal 2.35:1 film.
  • Posts: 4,325
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    DVD is 720x576 (for 50Hz base) or 720x480 (for 60Hz base), regardless of aspect ratio. Anything other than native 4:3 content is usually code as NSP (non-square pixels), in other words a digital form of anamorphic.

    Looks like the still in question is a VLC screen grab which means the resolution is the net result of remapping NSP to SP (while not the most accurate word, you can say that at playback it is "stretched" horizontally).

    If you were asking about the aspect ratio, that looks just about right for a nominal 2.35:1 film.

    All DVDs are 4:3, that's why they have to be encoded anamorphically so that it fills 16:9
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    Not true. By that same logic one could say "all DVDs are 16:9, and thats why they have to be encoded as square-pixel so that it fills 4:3" but that would not be correct either.

    DVD format supports either aspect ratio equally. Player support for both SP and NSP is mandatory.

  • edited November 2016 Posts: 4,325
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    Not true. By that same logic one could say "all DVDs are 16:9, and thats why they have to be encoded as square-pixel so that it fills 4:3" but that would not be correct either.

    DVD format supports either aspect ratio equally. Player support for both SP and NSP is mandatory.

    The native image is 4:3, sorry. The native image of Blu-ray is 16:9.

    A DVD labeled as "Widescreen Anamorphic" contains video that has the same frame size in pixels as traditional fullscreen video, but uses wider pixels. The shape of the pixels is called pixel aspect ratio and is encoded in the video stream for a DVD player to correctly identify the proportions of the video. If an anamorphic DVD video is played on standard 4:3 television without adjustment, the image will look horizontally squeezed.

    Unlike DVD, Blu-ray supports SMPTE HD resolutions of 720p and 1080i/p with a display aspect ratio of 16:9 and a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1, so widescreen video is scaled non-anamorphically (this is referred to as "square" pixels).
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited November 2016 Posts: 260
    One could just as easily say "if a 4:3 DVD video is played on standard 16:9 television without adjustment, the image will look horizontally stretched".

    You could argue that NTSC and PAL define a 4:3 image, but while DVD uses those signal formats, it does not define one pixel aspect as "native" and the other as "optional" or "non native": The player HAS to accommodate both aspects (otherwise it cannot have the DVD logo on it).
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 4,325
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    One could just as easily say "if a 4:3 DVD video is played on standard 16:9 television without adjustment, the image will look horizontally stretched".

    You could argue that NTSC and PAL define a 4:3 image, but while DVD uses those signal formats, it does not define one pixel aspect as "native" and the other as "optional" or "non native": The player HAS to accommodate both aspects (otherwise it cannot have the DVD logo on it).

    At no point have I being talking about the player, but what is on the disc itself. NTSC and PAL are colour encoding systems. Native refers to what is on the disc. At no point have I said that a DVD player doesn't accommodate both 4:3 and 16:9 anamorphic (from the original 4:3 image), in fact that's precisely what I've being saying.

    It's no different to 35mm film, the film negative is not the aspect ratio of the film (whether that be 2.40:1, 2.56:1 etc.). To display it correctly you need an anamorphic lens.

    Anamorphic, 16 x 9, enhanched for widescreen TV's were different slogans manufacturers used to describe that a DVD was also formatted 16 x 9 within the disc. DVD is a 4 x 3 format and including the movie in 16 x 9 on the same disc increased the vertical resolution by 33%. It was a way for manufacturers to increase the quality of the DVD video. There is no need for anamorphic since Blu-ray is high definition 1080P/24 or 1080i/60 or 1080i/50.

    480i:
    3 x 4 Letter box = 172,800 pixels (360 x 480
    16 x 9 anamorphic: = 337,920 pixels (704 x 480)

    1080P
    HD Blu-ray: = 2,073,600 pixels (1920 x 1080)
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    Sounds like we are taking at cross purposes (quick: name the Bond reference! :) )

    You are asserting that the native aspect for NTSC and PAL is 4:3, which it is. No disagreement there. I'm simply pointing out that is not intrinsically the defacto "native" aspect of the DVD format itself. There is no document from the DVD Forum (consortium) or SMPTE rec I am aware of which defines 4:3 as the "primary" or "native" aspect of the DVD media format.

    As an aside I have always been against the use of the term anamorphic for DVD. Sounds cool from a marketing perspective but that is a physical/optical process. Digital video data does not actually undergo "squeezing" nor "stretching".
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 4,325
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    Sounds like we are taking at cross purposes (quick: name the Bond reference! :) )

    You are asserting that the native aspect for NTSC and PAL is 4:3, which it is. No disagreement there. I'm simply pointing out that is not intrinsically the defacto "native" aspect of the DVD format itself. There is no document from the DVD Forum (consortium) or SMPTE rec I am aware of which defines 4:3 as the "primary" or "native" aspect of the DVD media format.

    As an aside I have always been against the use of the term anamorphic for DVD. Sounds cool from a marketing perspective but that is a physical/optical process. Digital video data does not actually undergo "squeezing" nor "stretching".

    DVD is a 4:3 format, images that are 16:9 without black bars are horizontally compressed into 4:3. Likewise if you wanted to put a 2.35:1 film on a blu ray with no black bars (therefore enhancing the resolution) you would need to compress the 2.35:1 image into 16:9. You can't get a true 16:9 image on a DVD without compressing it.

    And yes, it is digitially squeezed and compressed.



    See this video - the first step is digital squeezing, but the unsqueezing is done with an anamorphic lens - first step is digital, second step is physical/optical.

    Get your facts right.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    "...horizontally compressed into 4:3". Says who? :) No pixels were harmed (or compressed) in the making of this film. The MPEG2 stream simply includes a metadata tag letting the player know if the content is 16:9/NSP or 4:3/SP.

    Think about it: if the video is tagged as 16:9, and you have a 16:9 display device, the player actually does NOTHING to the signal: it just outputs the 720x480/576 as is. No "stretching". If (and only if) the display device is 4:3 does the player have to do something special with a 16:9 DVD (it has to remap the content to a window within the 4:3 raster).

    Conversely when the content is 4:3, then the paradigm is reversed: with a 4:3 display device the material is untouched, with 16:9 device it is remapped to a window with the the 16:9 raster.
  • Posts: 4,325
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    "...horizontally compressed into 4:3". Says who? :) No pixels were harmed (or compressed) in the making of this film. The MPEG2 stream simply includes a metadata tag letting the player know if the content is 16:9/NSP or 4:3/SP.

    Think about it: if the video is tagged as 16:9, and you have a 16:9 display device, the player actually does NOTHING to the signal: it just outputs the 720x480/576 as is. No "stretching". If (and only if) the display device is 4:3 does the player have to do something special with a 16:9 DVD (it has to remap the content to a window within the 4:3 raster).

    Conversely when the content is 4:3, then the paradigm is reversed: with a 4:3 display device the material is untouched, with 16:9 device it is remapped to a window with the the 16:9 raster.

    DVD is a 4:3 format.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,854
    SPECTRE looks great on Bluray!
  • Posts: 4,325
    SPECTRE looks great on Bluray!

    It does indeed!
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited November 2016 Posts: 260
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    You can't get a true 16:9 image on a DVD without compressing it.

    It seems you assume that whatever the aspect ratio works out to with square pixels is somehow the "native" aspect of the format.

    Neither 720x480 (NTSC) nor 720x576 (PAL), if square pixel, work out to a 4:3 aspect meaning that, yes, even for 4:3 content DVD uses non-square pixels. Check out ITU-R BT.601-4. If you think 16:9 is "squeezed" on DVD, well, you would have to say 4:3 is too (just to a slightly lower factor). People often quote it (and I am guilty of this) as being square pixel, but its not.

    So there is nothing "untrue" about a 16:9 image stored in a 720x480/565 container and flagged with the corresponding pixel aspect.
    See this video - the first step is digital squeezing, but the unsqueezing is done with an anamorphic lens - first step is digital, second step is physical/optical.

    Get your facts right.

    In that video they are demonstrating the use of a consumer anamorphic lens system which has nothing to do with how content is formatted for DVD. The process they outline in that video involves starting with a 16:9 video (which in and of itself is a perfectly true 16:9 image), they digitally scale it in the Y axis, then optically stretch it in the X axis. Applicable only to scope material delivered in a 16:9 raster. It is a complicated and expensive way of getting a slight gain in image quality, assuming a high quality scaling algorithm, by reclaiming the display device's pixels which would otherwise be wasted on black bars, but again, nothing to do with how content is formatted on DVD.

    My facts are 100%. I've given plain, objective explanations of how the DVD Video format is image aspect-ratio agnostic, supporting both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect content equally across both 4:3 and 16:9 display devices, how both 16:9 and 4:3 content use non-square pixels, and how the only difference separating 16:9 and 4:3 content on DVD is the pixel aspect metadata.
  • Posts: 4,325
    DVD is a 4:3 format.
  • Thanks for all answers. I think it's a pity that the aspect ratio in the Bond Dvd's can't be a littler bigger so the black bars aren't so big.
  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Thanks for all answers. I think it's a pity that the aspect ratio in the Bond Dvd's can't be a littler bigger so the black bars aren't so big.

    Why would you want that? The apect ratio of the film is the same on DVD and Blu-ray at approx. 2.40:1, the way the film was shot. Why would you want to lose some of the image? If you're that bothered about it most TVs will have an aspect ratio setting that will allow you to zoom the image up to 16:9, removing all the black bars. But again, you'd be losing a good amount of the film's image and reducing resolution.
  • It is just because i like a bigger picture without too much black bars. I am used to bigger picture (Often) on my Tv broadcast's, so you can say that the reason to small pictures on Dvd is because of the size of Dvd storage? If you compare a 1080p video file the size for about 40min in 9Mbits would be around 3Gb, and the quality on them must be better than on Dvd when the resolution is often 1920x1080. I am sorry but i am a amateur on video quality but i learn more and more. Thanks for your patience.
  • Posts: 4,325
    It is just because i like a bigger picture without too much black bars. I am used to bigger picture (Often) on my Tv broadcast's, so you can say that the reason to small pictures on Dvd is because of the size of Dvd storage? If you compare a 1080p video file the size for about 40min in 9Mbits would be around 3Gb, and the quality on them must be better than on Dvd when the resolution is often 1920x1080. I am sorry but i am a amateur on video quality but i learn more and more. Thanks for your patience.

    You are a cinematographers nightmare - you want to chop up those perfectly composed shots! Would you do that to a Monet? A Rembrandt?!!!
  • No. I just saw The World Is Not Enough on my Tv, there the picture is bigger and i have not changed any on the Tv. Much bigger than the Spectre dvd.
  • No. I just saw The World Is Not Enough on my Tv, there the picture is bigger and i have not changed any on the Tv. Much bigger than the Spectre dvd.

    The picture isn't bigger on your TV, they've just zoomed in to get rid of the black bars, but that means you're missing some of the picture on the left and right. You're actually seeing less information with The World Is Not Enough.
  • Posts: 4,325
    No. I just saw The World Is Not Enough on my Tv, there the picture is bigger and i have not changed any on the Tv. Much bigger than the Spectre dvd.

    I think that means you're watching it on ITV where they chop half the frame off :( Although surprisingly they did show Casino Royale over Christmas in a ratio approximating it's full 2.40:1 frame.
Sign In or Register to comment.