[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: VB: Film for DVD



Your eye is sensitive to both horizontal and vertical resolution.  In fact,
your eye is more sensitive to horizontal resolution since bad guys typically
come from the left side and/or the right side.  4:2:2 already gives away the
horizontal part of resolution whether it is 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 sampling that
gets transmitted through the emission channel.  So the only question is
whether 4:2:0 gives away anything vertically over 4:2:2.

4:2:0 matches what your eye can see both vertically and horizontally when
the acquisition system and the emission system are both progressive. .  If
you are going to give away 4:4:4 for 4:2:2 then there is nothing left to
gain by maintaining more vertical resolution when the system is progressive.
In interlaced systems where there is vertical filtering present to eliminate
artifacts, 4:2:2 doesn't buy you anything.  While the system (and the people
in charge of it) may call it 4:2:2, there is really nothing being maintained
other than 4:2:0 on a per-field basis.  Therefore, 4:2:2 in interlaced
systems is equivalent to 4:2:0 in progressive system. 

I believe that there will be people who dispute this fact.  Let them dispute
it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Martin [mailto:ron at dvcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:06 PM
To: multiple recipients of
Subject: Re: [TIG] VB: Film for DVD


The real killer in DVD land is that it is a 4:2:0 vertical compression
scheme so any real advanage of progressive vs. interlace is gone in the
compression pass. I would guess that it looks better on the PC display
because of the higher refresh, not because it is a native progressive
format.

This brings up the issue of broadcast DTV vertical compression. Is it 4:2:0
also? or is someone planning ahead and forcing 4:2:2 into the picture (so to
speak) Is the bit rate so valuable that 4:2:0 pays off in overall picture
quality and therefore we let vertical resolution slide???

Hmmm, I wonder?

Ron Martin
Universal Studios
ron at dvcc.com



Mikael Reichel wrote:

> Viewing is effectively progressive from telecine to computer monitor even
though the DVD/MPEG path is interlaced. The frame to field process actually
keep it progressive and should theoretically not influence the outcome, with
a few possible quality considerations.
>


---
Thanks to Kodak for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG.  Contact rob at alegria.com
1008 subscribers in 39 countries on Tue Aug 11 16:01:31 PDT 1998 
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/

---
Thanks to Kodak for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG.  Contact rob at alegria.com
1008 subscribers in 39 countries on Tue Aug 11 16:24:52 PDT 1998 
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/