spectrum21
05-08-2003, 11:26 AM
The new T2:extreme will be in 24fps and 1080p. Will any Progressive Scan DVD player display the 1080p on a HDTV set, or do you have to purchase a special Prog. Scan DVD Player??
 |
|
|||||||||||||
View Full Version : T2 Extreme and Progressive Scan
57U
05-08-2003, 11:52 AM
This enhancement cannot be seen on PS DVD players. They are only capable of 480P at best.
You need a fast computer, graphics card, DVD, etc.
See the following thread.
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4378&highlight=extreme
You need a fast computer, graphics card, DVD, etc.
See the following thread.
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4378&highlight=extreme
Lowpro
06-14-2003, 10:03 PM
My P4-2gig processor, 512 RDRAM, GeForce 3 Ti4600, and 16x DVD-ROM drive were not up to the challenge. Playback via both the included InterActual Player and WMP interface both yielded choppy playback. I even copied the .wmv files onto my hard drive, but that did not improve playback. Guess I'll have to wait till I upgrade my processor. That's not happening anytime soon.
akthor
06-15-2003, 04:53 PM
Wow! I guess I got no chance in hell of ever seeing it with a P3 700, 256MB RAM and a 64MB Geforce 3 card ;)
keith1229
06-15-2003, 05:22 PM
Think i could see it on my Commodore 64? i have an SVGA graphics card.
DoubleDAZ
06-15-2003, 05:49 PM
Hey, maybe I should try it on my Amiga 1000. :D
Lowpro
06-15-2003, 08:45 PM
I'd try it on my "Mr. Professor", but the best it will do is crunch multiplication tables.
*Wonders if I'm showing my age here. :-P*
*Wonders if I'm showing my age here. :-P*
pcoffman
06-15-2003, 10:00 PM
LOL:D :D
mikehbkwm
06-15-2003, 11:58 PM
nooo wayyyy itll run on my texas instrument computer.. the one where you slide in a cartridge....
57U
06-16-2003, 12:13 AM
Can't see a damn thing on my bamboo sliderule.
FullBandwidth
06-16-2003, 11:23 PM
Y'all a bunch of whiners. I put the disk in my ViewMaster and it looks great in 3D.
pcoffman
06-21-2003, 02:15 AM
Lowpro,
Hey you could try the GeForce FX-5800 which can be found for about $210 on price watch and that should fix your choppiness.
Hey you could try the GeForce FX-5800 which can be found for about $210 on price watch and that should fix your choppiness.
Lowpro
06-21-2003, 04:40 AM
For real? That would be most excellent! You are not pulling my leg are ya? :-)
pcoffman
06-21-2003, 09:56 PM
I work in web support and my friend that works with me is A+ certified and he said that should do the trick. I personally dont have that fast of a computer at home and I don't mess with it much at home since I have to be on the computer all day at work.
HiD-ho
06-21-2003, 11:22 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lowpro
[B]I'd try it on my "Mr. Professor", but the best it will do is crunch multiplication tables.
Lowpro, my abacus is choppy, too. But I am going to either Monster or fiber optic cables and that should help!;)
[B]I'd try it on my "Mr. Professor", but the best it will do is crunch multiplication tables.
Lowpro, my abacus is choppy, too. But I am going to either Monster or fiber optic cables and that should help!;)
akthor
06-22-2003, 01:03 PM
On a serious note on this new version of T2, does the picture fill the whole screen on a 16:9 HDTV or are there still black bars top and bottom?
mikehbkwm
06-23-2003, 11:05 AM
its in a 2.35:1 and no it will not fill the screen youll have black bars on top and bottom...... keep in mind its the directors choice on whether he films the movie in whatever format he chooses and i have noticed more and more movies are in a 2.35:1 format... but there are still alot that are 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 that fill the screen............
akthor
06-23-2003, 06:43 PM
F@cking BS man! Christ you watch silly comedies like "Just Married" and they fill the screen, then when you watch a classic like "The Matrix" or "T2", movies you want to see as big and beautiful as possible and you get the stinking Black bars! Why the hell are our 16:9 HDTV's the size and shape they are if the majority of the movies don't fill the screen? Why weren't they just made 1.85:1??
mikehbkwm
06-23-2003, 07:49 PM
Dude chill man. again its up to the director who films the movie what format its going to be in. i mean look at it this way, hollywood could release T2, The Matrix on DVD in a 1.85:1 format to fill the screen buttttttttttttttt they would be cutting off the edges of the movie so the aspect would look correct. I really dont have a problem with it having black bars on the top and bottom and to be totally honest with you I kinda dont like it when Im watching a movie now and its not filmed in a 2.35:1 format. The way I look at it is Im getting more of the picture........
clouser
08-14-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by mikehbkwm
Dude chill man. again its up to the director who films the movie what format its going to be in. i mean look at it this way, hollywood could release T2, The Matrix on DVD in a 1.85:1 format to fill the screen buttttttttttttttt they would be cutting off the edges of the movie so the aspect would look correct. I really dont have a problem with it having black bars on the top and bottom and to be totally honest with you I kinda dont like it when Im watching a movie now and its not filmed in a 2.35:1 format. The way I look at it is Im getting more of the picture........
This is disturbing if the trend is ot move to 2.35:1... Everyone says 16:9 is the future so what if SD looks like crap and u have to expand it from 4:3, don't use black bars or it will burn-in the TV... now the DVD's have black bars to kill the TV... they tell you not to have bars for more than 15% of TV use... so now we cant watch regular TV, cant watch DVD's...
Dude chill man. again its up to the director who films the movie what format its going to be in. i mean look at it this way, hollywood could release T2, The Matrix on DVD in a 1.85:1 format to fill the screen buttttttttttttttt they would be cutting off the edges of the movie so the aspect would look correct. I really dont have a problem with it having black bars on the top and bottom and to be totally honest with you I kinda dont like it when Im watching a movie now and its not filmed in a 2.35:1 format. The way I look at it is Im getting more of the picture........
This is disturbing if the trend is ot move to 2.35:1... Everyone says 16:9 is the future so what if SD looks like crap and u have to expand it from 4:3, don't use black bars or it will burn-in the TV... now the DVD's have black bars to kill the TV... they tell you not to have bars for more than 15% of TV use... so now we cant watch regular TV, cant watch DVD's...
57U
08-14-2003, 03:22 PM
You're just going to have to live with the fact that material to be presented on TV comes in many different aspect ratios including 1.1:1, 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.35:1, 2.70:1 and several others.
Most people with 4:3 TVs who rented VHS tapes never encountered any of this because everything was "changed" to 4:3, however, today the trend is to watch material in the Original Aspect Ratio (OAR) so that you see it as the director intended and don't miss anything...
PS. There is no "trend" to 2.35:1. About half of theatrical movies are simply shot this way.
Most people with 4:3 TVs who rented VHS tapes never encountered any of this because everything was "changed" to 4:3, however, today the trend is to watch material in the Original Aspect Ratio (OAR) so that you see it as the director intended and don't miss anything...
PS. There is no "trend" to 2.35:1. About half of theatrical movies are simply shot this way.
akthor
08-14-2003, 07:06 PM
exactly! Then our HDTV's should be shaped 2.35:1 and not 16:9!!:mad:
Lowpro
08-15-2003, 12:04 AM
Any matting required on your widescreen set for 2.35:1 material should be of absolutely no concern. I can testify to this fact. If after almost 4 years my 4:3 RPTV shows no sign of uneven phosphor wear this certainly should be the case with a widescreen set. I use my set 90% of this time for widescreen DVD and the rest for 4:3 analog broadcasts. It has not been a problem. (Have never used zoom modes by the way.) Just make sure to keep your contrast settings in check and enjoy!
akthor
08-16-2003, 02:20 PM
I'm not really concerned about burn in I am just pissed about paying $2300 for a 51" HDTV and not getting a 51" picture on the things I most want to see :mad: If I'd known about this ahead of time I would have gotten a larger HDTV so that even with the balck bars I woulda had a 51" picture ;)
DoubleDAZ
08-16-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by akthor
exactly! Then our HDTV's should be shaped 2.35:1 and not 16:9!!:mad:
Then what would you do with all the movies shot in 178:1 (16:9) or any of the other formats mentioned by 57U?
Movie theaters don't care because you never see to unused portion of the screen. Only when film is converted to DVD, etc., does the aspect ratio come into play and there sure isn't much one can do about it.
Unless you want them to reformat them ALL to 178:1 like they do for 4:3 sets and then we'd miss some of the original material. I'm sure I and a bunch of others would complain loudly about that. :)
exactly! Then our HDTV's should be shaped 2.35:1 and not 16:9!!:mad:
Then what would you do with all the movies shot in 178:1 (16:9) or any of the other formats mentioned by 57U?
Movie theaters don't care because you never see to unused portion of the screen. Only when film is converted to DVD, etc., does the aspect ratio come into play and there sure isn't much one can do about it.
Unless you want them to reformat them ALL to 178:1 like they do for 4:3 sets and then we'd miss some of the original material. I'm sure I and a bunch of others would complain loudly about that. :)
akthor
08-17-2003, 12:00 AM
Well as it stands the % of DVD's I have watched that are 2.35:1 ( and I average 16 or so a month in rentals and a couple purchases) is about 90%. And the few that aren't 2.35:1 are the comedies and such, the really great movies are all 2.35:1. So yes I would prefer if I could see 90% of my movies fill the screen insteads of vice versa as it is now.
57U
08-17-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by akthor ...the % of DVD's I have watched that are 2.35:1 is about 90%. Your viewing is certainly atypical. About 50% of the DVD movies out there are 1.85:1 and about 50% at 2.35:1, with the occasional movie with a different aspect ratio from the two mentioned. (I don't count the recent spate of 1.33:1 (4:3 "Fullscreen") movies since the've been pan & scanned and are typically also available in 1.85 or 2.35). For example, here's a random list of the HD movies shown on our Movie Channel - the split is very close to 50/50, with slightly more 1.85:1.
The HD standard is 16:9 (which fits a 1.85:1 movie well) and "most" movies are this standard. Also, the other aspect ratio we all watch a lot is 4.3:1, which would look really bad on a 2.35:1 TV... They made a good choice with 16:9 (1.78:1)
13 Ghosts 1.85
15 Minutes 2.35
40 Days and 40 Nights 1.85
AI 1.85
American Psycho 2.35
Band of Brothers 1.85
Black Hawk Down 2.35
Blade II 2.35
The Cell 2.35
Bridget Jones’ Diary 2.35
Cider House Rules 2.35
Chicken Run 1.85
Chocolat 1.85
Dancer In The Dark 2.35
Dracula 2000 2.35
Frailty 1.85
Frequency 2.35
Gladiator 2.35
Gosford Park 2.35
Hannibal 1.85
Hysterical Blindness 1.85
In The Bedroom 2.35
Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back 2.35
John Q 1.85
Kate & Leopold 1.85
Last Castle 2.35
Life As A House 2.00
Live From Baghdad 1.85
Lord of the Rings 1 2.35
The Man Who Wasn’t There 1.85
Legally Blonde 2.35
Ninth Gate 2.35
Normal 1.85
The Others 1.85
Path to War 1.85
Point of Origin 1.85
Rush Hour 2 2.35
Scary Movie 2.35
Scary Movie 2 1.85
Serendipity 1.85
Shipping News 2.35
Shrek 1.85
Spy Kids 1.85
Thirteen Days 1.85
Time Machine 2.35
Town & Country 1.85
Traffic 1.85
Training Day 2.35
Xchange 1.85
Wet Hot American Summer 1.85
What Lies Beneath 2.35
World Is Not Enough 2.35
The HD standard is 16:9 (which fits a 1.85:1 movie well) and "most" movies are this standard. Also, the other aspect ratio we all watch a lot is 4.3:1, which would look really bad on a 2.35:1 TV... They made a good choice with 16:9 (1.78:1)
13 Ghosts 1.85
15 Minutes 2.35
40 Days and 40 Nights 1.85
AI 1.85
American Psycho 2.35
Band of Brothers 1.85
Black Hawk Down 2.35
Blade II 2.35
The Cell 2.35
Bridget Jones’ Diary 2.35
Cider House Rules 2.35
Chicken Run 1.85
Chocolat 1.85
Dancer In The Dark 2.35
Dracula 2000 2.35
Frailty 1.85
Frequency 2.35
Gladiator 2.35
Gosford Park 2.35
Hannibal 1.85
Hysterical Blindness 1.85
In The Bedroom 2.35
Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back 2.35
John Q 1.85
Kate & Leopold 1.85
Last Castle 2.35
Life As A House 2.00
Live From Baghdad 1.85
Lord of the Rings 1 2.35
The Man Who Wasn’t There 1.85
Legally Blonde 2.35
Ninth Gate 2.35
Normal 1.85
The Others 1.85
Path to War 1.85
Point of Origin 1.85
Rush Hour 2 2.35
Scary Movie 2.35
Scary Movie 2 1.85
Serendipity 1.85
Shipping News 2.35
Shrek 1.85
Spy Kids 1.85
Thirteen Days 1.85
Time Machine 2.35
Town & Country 1.85
Traffic 1.85
Training Day 2.35
Xchange 1.85
Wet Hot American Summer 1.85
What Lies Beneath 2.35
World Is Not Enough 2.35
akthor
08-17-2003, 10:34 AM
As I said just about all of the big hit movies are 2.35
Black Hawk Down 2.35
Blade II 2.35
Gladiator 2.35
Lord of the Rings 1 2.35
Rush Hour 2 2.35
Training Day 2.35
World Is Not Enough 2.35
The only exceptions on your list are
Hannibal 1.85
Shrek 1.85
and of course Band of Brothers.
My viewing is not atypical either I pretty much only rent or buy good/hit movies I usually don't rent or buy a movie unless I have already seen it or read reviews on it or know something of it. I can usually tell by the previews and a movies performance at the box office whether it's a piece of crap or not. And when I can't find a new movie I go and rent and old one I have already seen that I haven't seen on my HDTV yet. So yes on your list there is about a 50% spread of both aspects but most of that list are movies I would not watch ever or have already seen and would never bother with again.
40 Days and 40 Nights 1.85
AI 1.85
Chicken Run 1.85
Chocolat 1.85
Frailty 1.85
John Q 1.85
Kate & Leopold 1.85
Live From Baghdad 1.85
The Others 1.85
Scary Movie 2 1.85
Serendipity 1.85
Spy Kids 1.85
Thirteen Days 1.85
What movies are 4.3:1? I have yet to rent of buy a movie that was not available in "Widescreen"
TV is 4.3:1 but we all have to watch it in a stretch mode of some sort to prevent burn in so how would this be any different if our sets were 2.35?
If you are someone that just watches any movie out there than yes you may get to see 50% 1.85 movies and hence see every square inch of your TV screen used to it's fullest potential. But I use my time and resources to mostly only watch movies that truly deserve to be watched and benefit from having basically you own movie theater in your house.
Who cares if Scary Movie 2 is 1.85 and fills the screen? What's the benefit? The experience of watching that movie is the same as on my son's 19" tv in his bedroom. I wouldn't even bother to turn on the surround sound for a movie like that , why bother to even play it on my HDTV???
How about seeing Gladiator, or The Matrix or LOTR utilize all of my screen (without stretching)? What is even worse is that I am sure all the great movies I saw this past year will all be 2.35:1 The Two Towers, Matrix Reloaded, T3, Bad Boys 2, etc.
Ok lets leave this argument aside for a moment, how about this. Why don't the TV manufacturers make some HDTV's in a 2.35:1 ratio for those of us whose primary use of our HDTV is to watch DVD movies as part of a HT? That is why I bought mine, I live in Maine we prolly won't see HDTV programming for 5 years or more.
Black Hawk Down 2.35
Blade II 2.35
Gladiator 2.35
Lord of the Rings 1 2.35
Rush Hour 2 2.35
Training Day 2.35
World Is Not Enough 2.35
The only exceptions on your list are
Hannibal 1.85
Shrek 1.85
and of course Band of Brothers.
My viewing is not atypical either I pretty much only rent or buy good/hit movies I usually don't rent or buy a movie unless I have already seen it or read reviews on it or know something of it. I can usually tell by the previews and a movies performance at the box office whether it's a piece of crap or not. And when I can't find a new movie I go and rent and old one I have already seen that I haven't seen on my HDTV yet. So yes on your list there is about a 50% spread of both aspects but most of that list are movies I would not watch ever or have already seen and would never bother with again.
40 Days and 40 Nights 1.85
AI 1.85
Chicken Run 1.85
Chocolat 1.85
Frailty 1.85
John Q 1.85
Kate & Leopold 1.85
Live From Baghdad 1.85
The Others 1.85
Scary Movie 2 1.85
Serendipity 1.85
Spy Kids 1.85
Thirteen Days 1.85
What movies are 4.3:1? I have yet to rent of buy a movie that was not available in "Widescreen"
TV is 4.3:1 but we all have to watch it in a stretch mode of some sort to prevent burn in so how would this be any different if our sets were 2.35?
If you are someone that just watches any movie out there than yes you may get to see 50% 1.85 movies and hence see every square inch of your TV screen used to it's fullest potential. But I use my time and resources to mostly only watch movies that truly deserve to be watched and benefit from having basically you own movie theater in your house.
Who cares if Scary Movie 2 is 1.85 and fills the screen? What's the benefit? The experience of watching that movie is the same as on my son's 19" tv in his bedroom. I wouldn't even bother to turn on the surround sound for a movie like that , why bother to even play it on my HDTV???
How about seeing Gladiator, or The Matrix or LOTR utilize all of my screen (without stretching)? What is even worse is that I am sure all the great movies I saw this past year will all be 2.35:1 The Two Towers, Matrix Reloaded, T3, Bad Boys 2, etc.
Ok lets leave this argument aside for a moment, how about this. Why don't the TV manufacturers make some HDTV's in a 2.35:1 ratio for those of us whose primary use of our HDTV is to watch DVD movies as part of a HT? That is why I bought mine, I live in Maine we prolly won't see HDTV programming for 5 years or more.
57U
08-17-2003, 11:22 AM
If you go to most rental stores, they will have movies in 4:3 (Fullscreen). Those movies, as I said, are also available in widescreen, which is my preferred format (OAR).
When the widescreen format was developed they chose a format that was "identical" to many theatrical movies. The stretch mode of this format is much less extreme than it would be for a 2.35:1 TV stetching a 4:3 TV image.
There are probably no 2.35:1 TVs because of cost, also I think there would be little demand - despite the fact that you might buy one.
Instead of saying your viewing habits were atypical, I should have said that each person's viewing habits vary. However, that doesn't negate the fact that about 50% of widescreen movies are 1.85:1, and that many people's tastes may be for those movies...
When the widescreen format was developed they chose a format that was "identical" to many theatrical movies. The stretch mode of this format is much less extreme than it would be for a 2.35:1 TV stetching a 4:3 TV image.
There are probably no 2.35:1 TVs because of cost, also I think there would be little demand - despite the fact that you might buy one.
Instead of saying your viewing habits were atypical, I should have said that each person's viewing habits vary. However, that doesn't negate the fact that about 50% of widescreen movies are 1.85:1, and that many people's tastes may be for those movies...
keving
08-18-2003, 11:50 AM
Hmmm... Having 2.35:1 TVs (or 47:20, whicever you prefer), would be kinda interesting. They'd be beasts, but then I'd get the full experience on movies shot in that format. Sure, there would be bars or stretching with 16:9 at that point, and the bars/stretching on 4:3 would get even worse (you could almost fit 2 4:3 images side by side!!), but I'm already used to watching stuff with bars/stretching. I just accept the fact that I'm going to have to deal it at certain times.
But man, a 2.35:1 TV would be sweet.
But man, a 2.35:1 TV would be sweet.
