Edge compression effects

I’m working up a Blu-ray vs DVD comparison for the 2005 version of Pride & Prejudice and noticed something interesting. [Update: the comparison is here.]

Virtually all widescreen Blu-ray discs have, in my experience, conformed to a convention where the picture uses the entire left/right width of the frame. In other words, the left edge of the picture starts in the left-most vertical  row of pixels, and then stretches across all the way to the other side. DVDs sometimes had this, but many actually had narrow black bars down the left and right side of the picture.

Why did they have this with DVDs?

My guess is that this was to allow more of the picture to be seen. When DVDs were introduced, virtually all displays were CRT, and virtually all had significant overscan.

The picture geometry in CRTs was never fixed. It could vary over time as the picture tube aged. I still remember visiting my grandmother as a child on Sunday evenings, tuning in ‘Lost in Space‘, and noticing that all the characters had short legs.

Sometimes enormous amounts of the picture was lost from the edges.

By the time Blu-ray was appearing, panel TVs were becoming the norm, and many of these had the ability to banish overscan completely. In any case, the overscan they did impose was relatively modest: typically 2% or so. They could do this because the geometry of panel TVs doesn’t waver over time, being digitally mapped onto a fixed grid of display elements.

So back to Pride & Prejudice. Oddly, this movie uses only 1914 pixels of the picture width, with four pixels of black on the left, and two on the right. One consequence of this is the picture shown here, above right. This is from one frame of this disc (a similar effect is apparent on all the frames I checked). I’ve blown this up to 300% of original size to make it easier to see. Basically, there is kind of a negative ghost at the edge of the picture.

It looks a bit like edge enhancement, but I doubt that it is. There isn’t any other apparent edge enhancement in the movie (that I’ve seen so far). I suspect it’s an artefact of the compression system, but I’m not sure why. This movie has a very healthy average bitrate of 30.6Mbps using the VC1 codec. While the black bar seems to have interfered with the two pixels of the picture to its immediate right, the reverse has also been true. It isn’t obvious from the picture, but the right-most column of black pixels is actually a little lighter than the three to its left (they are all at ‘zero’ luminance).

Posted in Blu-ray, Codecs, Compression, Video | 1 Comment

Long delayed Blu-ray reviews

I’ve allowed my Web uploading of Blu-ray reviews to lapse for a few months, but that is now corrected. So, if you’re interested in my thoughts as published in Sound and Image, Australian HI-FI or Australian Smart Home Ideas, here they are:

For a number of those I already had Blu-ray vs DVD comparisons up, so all that has been added for them is the text of the reviews.

Meanwhile, a faithful reader might be interested in receiving on Blu-ray the 3 disc ‘Underbelly‘ Series 1. Test discs, no slicks, but the full deal on the discs themselves. First in comments to ask … so long as you aren’t in Victoria. Sorry, but apparently these remain prohibited in that State.

Posted in Blu-ray, Disc details, Giveaway | 3 Comments

You’re Not Even Reading This

Today I received from local disc distributor, Eagle Entertainment, its latest Blu-ray: Evil Angel, a horror thriller starring Ving Rhames (Marsellus Wallace from Pulp Fiction). The company distributes lesser known and independent films on DVD and, increasingly, Blu-ray.

As is my wont, I extracted the various statistics from the disc, and in doing so happened to notice the opening credits. These consist of several minutes of a very attractive young lady starting in the sheerest of nightwear, caressing herself as she gradually sheds it. In various corners of the screen opening credits on the major contributors to the movie are presented in an elaborate script.

But the movie makers seem not to be taking themselves too seriously. Here is a frame roughly 2:55 into this:

If I’ve made this a touch too small, the text says: ‘You’re Not Even Reading This’.

Posted in Blu-ray | Leave a comment

Apologetically region coded Blu-ray

I’ve just noticed over at the ‘NEW Unofficial Blu-ray Audio and Video Specifications Thread’ on the AVS Forums a remark about the region coding screen of a new Blu-ray disc. It apologises for its existence!

Posted in Blu-ray, Region Coding | 6 Comments

Another TV arrives

An email I sent this morning to a certain large company:

Well, DHL turned up today with a large carton almost held together by just two pieces of sticky tape.

The DHL guy said that his boss back at the depot told him that this was the last item in this condition they’d attempt to deliver, for fear of being blamed for causing the damage.

The driver kindly reminded me that I didn’t need to accept delivery, but I’m game. The two of us managed to get it down to my storage area by holding the carton together with brute force. It barely stood upright. The driver noted that there was a post-it note on the box suggesting that there was no remote control or stand screws, but it was half covered with stick tape, and it had just come from your offices, so I thought that this must have been rectified.

I’ve taken the top off the box, and found that now the TV won’t stand up at all, so wrecked is the polystyrene foam. This may have been caused by the fact that the pedestal was still attached to the stand, so it couldn’t fit in its proper slot and instead was wedged in behind the TV.

I can’t see the aforementioned screws in the box, and the design is such that the screws are required to put the TV on its stand.

Oh, and there’s no remote control.

Would you like to arrange for this TV to be picked up and taken away ASAP. I will attempt to strap it up (since I for one think fine electronic products deserve to be looked after), but I cannot guarantee that it will get to you intact, or even that DHL will consent to take it.

I’d rather not try to review it, because if there are any deficiencies in performance, I wouldn’t know if that is to do with the TV as a TV, or due to some invisible damage.

Please send another — in a new box — if you want it reviewed.

Could you advise me of pickup arrangements. I’ll be in all day, and the TV is cluttering up my limited storage space.

This follows another TV from the same company delivered about three weeks ago which was in slightly less bad condition. I complained then too, but did the review anyway.

Posted in Testing | Leave a comment

Finding solutions

One of the fun bits of this job is inventing protocols to unambiguously determine different aspects of performance. While this is now largely a thing of the past (since most Blu-ray players now feature full audio decoding for all codecs), working out whether a player really did decode DTS-HD Master Audio was difficult to begin with. When I did work out a solution, I recorded the procedure in an email. This is it, slightly edited for clarity:

Confirming the ability of different players to decode DTS-HD Master Audio has always been pretty difficult since, as you know, a player that won’t decode DTS-HD Master Audio instead decodes its standard DTS core. I’m not sure about you, but I wouldn’t like to judge this just by listening to a track fed via bitstream and decoded by the receiver, and then by the player and converted to PCM. Such subjective assessments can easily lead one astray.

So for the past few months I’ve been trying to get ahold of a disc which might prove more definitive. Finally, during the week, I received the ‘2008 High Definition Audio Demonstration Disc‘ in Blu-ray from DTS. This has a number of tracks which help me work out decoding capabilities.

First I play them back using bitstream output and examined the signal information reported by a Yamaha receiver. This confirms that the tracks were appropriately labelled on the disc. Then I switched the player to PCM output.

If  the 7.1 channel DTS-HD tracks with either 48 or 96kHz sampling are all decoded to 5.1 channels at 48kHz, I can conclude that the unit is only decoding the standard DTS core rather than the full Master Audio code.

Likewise, if the the 96kHz 5.0 channel tracks are decoded to 48kHz 5.0 channel PCM.

Meanwhile, I have a spare copy of The Fifth Element on Blu-ray. This is the Madman Entertainment’s version. The video encoding is identical to the previous Sony version released in Australia, but it has some extras. No box or slick. First to ask for it in comments can have it – postage to Australia only.

Posted in Audio, Blu-ray, Codecs, Giveaway, Testing | 2 Comments

Co-incidences

An hour or so ago I was reading a piece online in The Wall Street Journal about Google, in which the phrase ‘sticky wicket’ was used. This derives from cricket, of course, and on a whim I researched the author, only to find that he was born in Philadelphia. Why would an American use a cricketing reference in an article published in a US newsapaper, presumably mostly read by Americans?

And just now, I’ve read a Blog entry on Watts Up With That, entitled ‘BREAKING: New paper makes a hockey sticky wicket of Mann et al 98/99/08‘. Also based in the US, Anthony Watts, the Blog owner, took the trouble to define ‘sticky wicket’ for his readers.

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

Yamaha now properly supports 1.0 sound

Last year I whinged a bit about Yamaha because if would not handle 1.0 audio properly. Its receivers insisted on turning it into 2.0, apparently because Japanese TV had a disconcerting habit of switching between 2.0 and 1.0 for advertisements and whatever, resulting in a disconcerting experience for viewers.

I’ve just been looking at a new Yamaha receiver, which is due for release here very soon. The RX-V767, I’m happy to report, now outputs 1.0 sound from the centre channel speaker alone. Just select the ‘Straight’ processing — or, rather, non-processing — sound mode.

Posted in Audio | 1 Comment

The Godfather: Part II disc replacements

A while back I wrote about problems with The Godfather: Part II Blu-ray. Basically, it had stopped working at around 1:41:30 into the movie. The picture froze, and several minutes beyond that point were unplayable. I could jump past those minutes, but that middle bit was missing.

Paramount have now advised:

What happened was there was a fault with an overseas production. As soon as we spotted it we isolated the stock and replaced it. Destroying the old stock. Some stock did get to the shelves. Retailers have been told so they should replace the old faulty discs with new ones. Those sent directly to us we also replace (we have had five so far) with our apologies.

That’s good form by Paramount in my opinion. What’s surprising is how few physical problems there appear to have been in Blu-ray production. Indeed, for the most part the discs seem to be incredibly robust. I’ve only had one so far with a physical scratch, despite some discs coming loose and sliding around in their boxes in the postal system. The scratched disc was from a retail shop.

I’m just posting mine off today. If you have this Blu-ray disc, check if it has the problem by  jumping to 1:41:00 and wait to see what happens. You will know within a minute or two.

The return address is:

Paramount Home Entertainment Australia
Level 21. Tower A
821 Pacific Highway Chatswood NSW 2067
Marked: Godfather 2 Return

I’ve been told to ‘remind people to include their address’. Sounds like Paramount has been tearing its hair out about a couple of those returned discs!

Update (25 August 2010): Replacement disc arrived today.

Posted in Blu-ray | 2 Comments

Chrome

I’m bit of a conservative these days when it comes to software. Add to that my sometimes background in doing computer articles, which prompted me to keep my installation pretty much bog standard, and I’ve persisted with some software for a very long time.

For example, for freeform documents and occasional vector graphics, I still use Micrografx Designer 6.0a for Windows 95, which I purchased in 1996. Fourteen year old software, and it works fine (except that it can’t do automatic page rotations when printing). More than fine, really, because it is ridiculously fast since it was designed to work x486 computers running at a few hundred MHz.

I’ve skipped the whole Vista thing, sticking with XP, although I’m open now to going to Windows 7.

And until now, I’ve resisted the blandishments of the web browsers competing with Internet Explorer. But lately I’ve been getting a little sick of how slow it sometimes is, especially just to open a new tab. Yesterday it was slowing down everything on my desktop (I think), and it took many minutes to actually close down itself once I decided to do that.

Frustrated, I installed Google Chrome. My goodness gracious me, talk about fast! Not just in doing its own stuff, but in presenting web pages. What does IE do with them? Insert a thousand cycle loop between the display of each character?

Truth is, the speed boost seems to be rather more than when I switched from 1.5Mbps to ~8Mbps ADSL a few months ago.

Posted in Computer | 6 Comments