Showing posts with label Blu-ray/HD DVD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blu-ray/HD DVD. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Ripping Blu-ray Discs with Acrok Video Converter Ultimate for Mac

You can make a copy of a movie from Blu-ray disc by using Acrok Video Converter Ultimate for Mac. The copied file can be used with the streaming media server Plex. Here are the basics of ripping a Blu-ray on a Mac. (There is also a version of Acrok Video Converter Ultimate for Windows.)

You can click on the images to see larger versions:
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
(This step is optional.)
* * * * *
(This step is optional.)
* * * * *

Good luck!

P.S. The original, high-resolution video output format I use is excellent for use with Plex client apps that can support it. The Plex Media Server will automatically down-rez it for Plex apps that cannot handle video at such high resolution.

P.P.S. With appropriate modifications having to do with the differences between DVDs and Blu-rays, you can use this same procedure to rip DVDs.







Saturday, December 12, 2009

Revisiting 1080p24 ("24p") on Blu-ray

Not too long ago I posted 1080p24 ("24p") on Blu-ray to talk about how, for the first time on home video, a motion picture is rendered on Blu-ray disc just the way it was recorded on film: at 24 full video frames per second. Using "progressive" 1080p video, films on Blu-ray can be stunningly realistic when viewed on a 1080p HDTV connected to the Blu-ray player via HDMI. In contrast, I said, DVDs generally don't store progressive video, at the 24 frames per second used by motion picture film, or at any other frame rate.

Recently, an anonymous person added this comment to my post:

Dear Bonehead,

I stopped reading your article partway through because you obviously know NOTHING about the DVD standard. NTSC DVD's support both "30fps" (interlaced video) and 24fps (progressive scan video); in fact, most Hollywood DVD's use 24fps when the original source is film to save on disc space (by eliminating 6 fps of interpolated data), as the DVD player will do 2:3 pulldown as necessary when outputting to an interlaced display. Blu-ray just adds extra resolution to the image, not a "breakthru" in frame rates or progressive scanning. Bother to do your research before blathering on the internet like you are some sort of expert. I don't know everything, but I do know something about DVD's, as I work with encoding and authoring them everyday for my job.

Now, I can take being called names like "Bonehead" when my name-caller has any kind of a good point to make. In this case though, not only was the anonymous commenter rude, but he was just plain wrong, to boot. So here is my rejoinder:

Sorry, you who so impolitely called me "Bonehead," but I beg to differ:

On DVDs sold in the United States, film-derived video is recorded in such a way as to result in 480i output from a standard DVD player — that is, interlaced video with two fields per video frame, separated by a time interval of approx. 1/60 second between fields. The frame rate is thus approx. 30 frames per second.

The typical "progressive scan" DVD player (one that does no "upconversion") can derive 30 complete, non-interlaced frames per second from film-based video on an NTSC DVD and output those frames as 480p video on a component-video connection, into a TV whose component-video input can handle the bandwidth of 480p. It cannot, however, output progressive video at 24 fps. Only a Blu-ray player, using a Blu-ray disc, can do that.

To derive progressive output at 30 frames per second from film-based material, the progressive scan DVD player can simply take each video field and "double" the scan lines in it, to make up a full frame with 480 scan lines. This is the "line doubler" approach.

A smarter approach is to do "3:2 pulldown compensation," a.k.a. "2:3 pulldown compensation" or "inverse telecine." Ideally, this process faithfully recreates the 24 frames per second of the original film —— but then 6 of those 24 frames are repeated(!) to bring the video-output frame rate up to 30 frames per second. This is done because few if any of the TVs that were available when progressive scan DVD players were introduced were able to accept video at 24 frames per second.

On the DVD itself, the encoding is 480i. However, film-based material is usually — but not always — encoded in such a way that the video fields that need to be repeated (in "2:3 pulldown") to change the 24 frames per second of film into the 30 frames (or 60 fields) per second of NTSC video are flagged, with the DVD player being expected to use the flags to re-output the fields as necessary.

This use of flags to tell the player how to do 2:3 pulldown is called "soft telecine." In "hard telecine," the fields are actually repeated on the disc. Few progressive scan DVD players know how to compensate for "hard telecine." They typically do know how to compensate for "soft telecine" — but, unfortunately, many DVDs using that type of encoding have portions where the flags are missing or improperly used, resulting in imperfections in the output cadence until the flags get back in sync.

"Soft telecine" 480i DVDs record exactly 24 frames per second, or 48 fields per second. They accordingly bear a superficial resemblance to the "24p" recording of a film on Blu-ray, but the latter is truly recorded as progressive video at 24 frames per second, while the former records discrete fields of interlaced video at 48 fields per second.

In saying the above, I realize that I am in disagreement with the Wikipedia article on 24p.

The section "24p on DVD" states, "DVDs, however, are capable of storing the native 24p frames." This is possibly true. It also states, "Every Hollywood movie is laid to disc as a 24p ... stream." This is definitely not true.

True 24p is at best an optional way to encode DVDs that is rarely if ever used. It is not actually used for "every Hollywood movie." See this page at the website dedicated to the Handbrake video transcoder software, if you don't believe me about most or all film-based NTSC DVDs being either "soft" or "hard" telecined. Also see this page about the MPlayer and MEncoder software. The format discussed at "11.2.2.2. Telecined" is the one used on virtually every film-based NTSC DVD.

Still don't believe me? Let me refer you to perhaps the ultimate authority on DVDs, Jim Taylor, who wrote the book DVD Demystified and maintains the Official DVD FAQ. He says, in "What's a progressive DVD player?":


A progressive-scan DVD player converts the interlaced (480i or 576i) video from DVD into progressive (480p or 576p) format for connection to a progressive-scan display (31.5 kHz or higher) ... There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video.

OK, that's about the size of it, then. Virtually all NTSC DVDs in the United States that were sourced from film have telecined video encoded on them, which means interlaced, not progressive, video. Any more questions, Anonymous?

Friday, June 12, 2009

BD-Java Features of Blu-ray Discs and Players

Thinking about a Blu-ray player for your next home video purchase? Good choice, but keep in mind ...

Once you decide to go Blu-ray, you are confronted with a welter of confusing features that some players and discs offer, and others do not. For instance, if you look at this list of available Blu-ray Discs at Blu-rayStats.com (click on the image below to see the list)



you see a table listing all the Blu-ray Discs yet issued, some 1,552 as of this writing. There are columns labeled "BD Java," "Pic in Pic," "Bonus View," and "BD Live." What do these mean?

In plain language, these have to do with whether a Blu-ray player, playing a Blu-ray Disc as opposed to a DVD, can do certain things: provide interactive menus that "pop up" over disc content; handle "picture-in-picture" video and audio content that plays over top of "regular" disc content; and/or access additional disc content that resides on the Internet, not on the disc.

All of these are optional disc features that, in order to work, have to be supported by capabilities in the player. Not all players support all the features, and not all discs contain all the features. Many Blu-ray Discs have none of these features.

In general, the later the date a model of Blu-ray player was introduced, the more likely it is that all of these disc features are supported. However, some older players can have their onboard firmware updated to support disc features not originally supported at the time the model was introduced ... as long as those players have all the necessary hardware.

Here's a rundown on the features and the computer language which supports them:

BD-Java: All of these features utilize the BD-Java computer language that is geared especially to Blu-ray. BD-Java is also called BD-J, or Blu-ray Disc Java. Basically, it's a programming language that all Blu-ray players support, in some version. Blu-ray players are actually (in addition to being able to play Blu-ray Discs) a kind of computer that runs BD-Java, and Blu-ray discs optionally take advantage of that.

Blu-ray discs that take advantage of BD-Java and the features it supports have to be "authored in BD-Java," which means they possess a different file structure on the disc than they would if they were just "ordinary" Blu-ray Discs that are not authored in BD-Java. Disc "authoring" is, simply, how the various pieces of information that are recorded on the disc are put together by the creators of the disc. Blu-ray discs are authored using files. Much like files on your computer, these files exist in a folder hierarchy on the disc. Blu-ray players, needless to say, hide the file structure/folder hierarchy from user view.

On the Blu-rayStats.com page mentioned above, discs that are authored in BD-Java are shown with a "Yes" under BD Java.

Interactive "pop-up" menus: BD-Java disc authoring opens the door to several user capabilities. One is simply the ability for a disc to provide interactive "pop-up" menus. Blu-ray Discs that are not authored in BD-Java must get by with "dumb" menus like those on DVDs, which really aren't "smart" or interactive and can't pop up while the disc continues to play. But Java-authored Blu-ray Discs can have truly interactive pop-up menus that use the BD-Java computer language and file structure.

Here is an example of a pop-up menu:



Not all Java-authored discs provide pop-up menus. Just because a disc is authored in BD-Java does not mean pop-up menus exist on the disc.

Nice as interactive pop-up menus are, most or all Blu-ray Discs which use pop-up menus unfortunately do not allow a Blu-ray Disc player to automatically resume a movie from any arbitrary point in the middle of the movie where the movie was stopped. This is a feature we are used to on DVDs and DVD players, and Blu-ray players also support it on those Blu-ray Discs that don't have pop-up menus. But there is something about discs with BD-Java pop-up menus that prevents this feature from working.

Blu-ray profiles: Every Blu-ray player supports BD-Java — and thus, at a minimum, pop-up menus — but there are three different levels, or "profiles," at which BD-Java support may be included in a playes, depending on when the player model was introduced.

Profile 1.0: The first level of BD-Java support is called Profile 1.0. All Blu-ray players, however early they were introduced, support Profile 1.0 of BD-Java, which is what allows discs to have pop-up menus. (Again, not all discs in fact have interactive pop-up menus, but all players support them if they are in fact present on a disc.)

Profile 1.1: The second level of BD-Java support is Profile 1.1, which has also been dubbed "Bonus View" or "Final Standard Profile" (though it isn't actually final). Profile 1.1 does what Profile 1.0 does — mainly, pop-up menus — plus adding the ability to play a "picture in picture" (PIP) as a secondary audio-video stream from a Blu-ray Disc that is programmed to show one.

If you can see a small window of (say) video commentary on the TV screen, where a director or actor talks about a scene being shown in the background, you may be seeing Bonus View in action. Here is an example from a German Blu-ray title, Neues vom Wixxer:



Blu-ray Discs that offer Bonus View are shown on the Blu-rayStats.com page with a "Yes" in the Bonus View column. If you invoke the "Has Bonus View" filter, you will see just the releases with Bonus View — 106 as of this writing. You can play these releases on Profile 1.0 players, but you can't access the Bonus View content.

Keep in mind that some Blu-ray Discs have been issued with PIP implemented by means of a second whole copy of the movie that is recorded separately on the disc with an inset audio-video program over top of the main picture. This is not Bonus View.

Bonus View-compatible players need to have additional hardware, above and beyond that required for Profile 1.0 players: 256 MB of "local storage" — a.k.a. "persistent storage" — such as flash memory or a hard drive (none was required for Profile 1.0); plus secondary video and audio decoders. If a Profile 1.0 player lacks these extra items, it can't be upgraded to Profile 1.1 via a simple firmware upgrade.

Blu-ray Discs that offer picture-in-picture content are shown separately on the Blu-rayStats.com page with a "Yes" in the Pic in Pic column. If you employ the "Has Bonus View" filter on that page, you can see that all Bonus View discs are "Pic in Pic" discs. However, there are some "Pic in Pic" discs that don't Bonus View ... and some that don't even use BD-Java.

For example, the movie "Blow" is shown as "Pic in Pic," but not as either "BD-Java" or "Bonus View." These discs don't use BD-Java, and they implement PIP with a second whole copy of the movie.

The movie "The Contract" is shown as having "Pic in Pic" and "Bonus View," but not as having "BD Java." That makes questionable sense. To the best of my understanding, Bonus View requires BD-Java.

Profile 2.0: This is the third (and supposedly final) level of BD-Java support in Blu-ray players — for videos, that is; there is a Profile 3.0 in the works for BD-Audio use.

To the capabilities of Profile 1.1/Bonus View/Final Standard Profile and of Profile 1.0, Profile 2.0 adds an Internet connection via an Ethernet port and/or via a wireless 802.11 (WiFi) adapter. This connection allows players to honor certain Blu-ray Disc titles' ability to access online content. The bonus material on the disc is augmented with additional bonus material from the Internet. This Internet-based extra content is "live" — it can change — and so Profile 2.0 is called "BD-Live."

Players that support Profile 2.0/BD-Live add extra "persistent storage," above and beyond that needed for Profile 1.1, with a minimum of 1 GB of storage being present to hold downloaded content and the like.

All the features of Profile 1.1 and Profile 1.0 are supported by Profile 2.0.

Again, a great many Blu-ray Discs don't make use of Profile 2.0/BD-Live. The ones that do are listed in Blu-rayStats.com with a "Yes" under BD Live. As of this writing only 177 are shown, when you invoke the "Has BD Live" filter ... and if you also invoke "Has Bonus View," there are only (as of this moment) 51 Blu-ray Discs released in the U.S. that use both.

Because Profile 2.0/BD-Live requires additional hardware beyond Profile 1.1/Bonus View/Final Standard Profile, unless that hardware happened to be included on a Profile 1.1/Profile 1.0 player, that player cannot be upgraded to Profile 2.0 via a firmware upgrade.

Confusingly, some earlier players that don't support Profile 2.0 do have an Ethernet port. These are strictly for firmware updates and can't be used to access downloadable BD-Live content. Hence, there is no way to upgrade these players to Profile 2.0. (What could they have been thinking?)

Can You Upgrade Blu-ray Discs?

Blu-ray discs have to be authored in BD-Java by their creators and programmed to use interactive pop-up menus and/or Bonus View picture-in-picture content and/or BD-Live content, if those capabilities are to be supported by the disc. (In theory, a disc could be authored with BD-Java and have none of these features.)

Since Blu-ray Discs are read-only, there is no way to "upgrade" a disc to use these features — even if the disc is authored in BD-Java — once the disc is made and is in the customer's hands. Accordingly, a title that was released without BD-Live capability may wind up being re-released in the future with it. The customer who wants to take advantage of BD-Live would have to buy the title a second time, assuming it is ever re-released. (An exception: if a disc includes BD-Live capability in the first place, the online content that it can access can be changed or amplified over time.)

Bookmarks: There is another BD-Java capability that is of interest: the ability for the user to create "bookmarks" that allow any point in a movie that is bookmarked by the user to be returned to at will. A bookmark is sort of like a home-brew chapter stop that the user creates on the fly, usually by pressing a button on the remote, then uses to select where playback of a program moves to or begins the next time the disc is used. A bookmark is sometimes called a "personal scene selection."

I have been unable to discover whether bookmarks officially require any particular BD-Java profile, but they do require that the bookmark capability, which is programmed in BD-Java, be explicitly included on a particular Bu-ray Disc. Hence, only certain discs support bookmarks.

However, I do know that disc-based bookmarks are saved by the Blu-ray player on its "local storage" — which makes sense, since the disc itself is read-only. Since Profile 1.0 does not require the player to have local storage, I assume that bookmarks need a player with Profile 1.1 or Profile 2.0. However, since Profile 2.0 is basically nothing more than the addition of BD-Live online content to Profile 1.1, I assume that all you really need to use disc-based bookmarks is a player with Profile 1.1.

For discs that use "pop-up" menus and accordingly cannot automatically resume playing a stopped disc at the point at which is was stopped, creating and later returning to a bookmark can be something of a workaround to the no-resume-play problem.

Finally, some questions that you may be asking are these:

Why this nasty, arbitrary, incremental approach to advanced disc-and-player features in the Blu-ray world?

Why did the potentates of Blu-ray produce so may player models that can't be upgraded, though they knew from day one what the eventual capabilities of players (and discs) would be?

Why are there, even now, so few Blu-ray Disc releases that take advantage of (any or all of) interactive pop-up menus, Bonus View content, and BD-Live content?

I don't claim to know all the answers, but here are some semi-educated guesses. First of all, for whatever reason, Blu-ray's competitor format HD DVD made it to market, with players and discs, earlier than Blu-ray. Blu-ray was playing catch-up.

And it knew catching up was hopeless if it waited until BD-Java disc authoring and the full set of features it would one day support were mature, fully developed technologies.

So the viziers of Blu-ray rushed their product to market with whatever capabilities were ready to go.

Meanwhile, HD DVD was designed in a dissimilar way, with no full-scale equivalent to BD-Java. So HD DVD could be there "firstest with the mostest," with features like picture-in-picture built in from the get-go.

To add injury to insult, rushing Blu-ray to market meant that the first disc releases could not be on dual-layer discs, since the facilities for manufacturing those discs weren't ready. Hence, single-layer releases were the norm. That's since been corrected. Plus, the advanced video codecs "VC-1" and "AVC" weren't yet supported by disc-mastering facilities, so MPEG-2 (the codec used on DVDs) had to be used. That, too, is ancient history. But for a while, the fact that MPEG-2 doesn't compress video nearly as compactly as VC-1 and AVC (also called MPEG4/h.264) meant that it was hard to shoehorn a movie into a single-layer disc without over-compressing it, harming visual quality. There were a lot of complaints that Blu-ray Discs didn't look as good as HD DVDs.

All in all, it's a wonder the Blu-ray format survived at all. But it did, and today it's alone on the battlefield. HD DVD is dead.

Unfortunately, though, the contortions Blu-ray had to go through to avoid having to run up a white flag have left us with a legacy of confusing profiles and player-and-disc features to contend with, as we try to be smart Blu-ray consumers.




For more on the different Blu-ray profiles, see http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9808376-1.html. For information about the way content on Blu-ray Discs is organized, "The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ" at http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11392.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

The State of the Blu-ray Art

(The following contains several insets featuring some of the most attractive Blu-ray player models as of June 2009. Each inset provides basic information about the model, and is clickable. When you click on one of the insets, you will be taken to a CNET review of that model. To look at a list of all Blu-ray player models, listed in order by CNET Editors' rating, click here. This list does not include the Sony PlayStation 3 video game console, which doubles as an excellent Blu-ray player. That machine — to which the CNET Editors award 4 of 5 possible stars, and which is the Blu-ray player I myself own — is shown as one of the insets below.)

When I compiled Which Blu-ray Player for You? a year and a quarter ago, in March 2008, the world of home video was just getting used to the idea that one of the two competing high-def disc formats had abruptly emerged as the winner over the other, Blu-ray over HD DVD. Blu-ray as a commercial reality was not yet mature, truth to be told. One reason was the relative dearth of Blu-ray titles, along with their high prices compared with the established DVD format. A second reason was that Blu-ray players were generally super-expensive, and most of them lacked features and amenities that everyone knew were in the offing.

Much has changed today. Although Blu-ray players and discs still command a premium price over DVD, the price spread is a lot smaller than before. There are over 1,500 Blu-ray titles available in America as of January 2009, according to Wikipedia. And this page at Blu-rayStats.com currently shows (scroll down) a total of 1,538 "features" in release on Blu-ray, as well as giving a line item on each of them. (If you click on each title, you get all sorts of useful information about that release.)

Most new movies that come out on DVD are being released on Blu-ray on the same day, and studios are gradually releasing BDs (Blu-ray discs) of their popular titles from the past. For a list of upcoming Blu-ray releases, click here. For another list of Blu-ray releases that you can already buy, click here. (A trivia question: what was the first Blu-ray Disc release, and when did it happen? Answer: The Funny Guy Collection (Napoleon Dynamite, Office Space, Young Frankenstein), on May 12, 2006.)

Also, the latest Blu-ray players all have the full complement of features and amenities anyone could expect.

Still, the Blu-ray takeoff has not been as rapid as was the DVD takeoff some dozen years ago. One reason (see this story) is that "just 26.5 million households in 2007 had the required high-def TV set for Blu-ray." DVD had the advantage of being able to look pretty close to its best on just about any TV. (Note that you don't really require a high-def TV for Blu-ray; any lesser TV will work fine, just not give you all the vaunted video resolution and detail.)


I've been piping a high-def picture from my Sony PlayStation 3 game console/Blu-ray player into a Samsung 52" 1920x1080p "Full HD" LCD HDTV since late last year, and I can attest that until you've seen a movie in Blu-ray high-def, you haven't really seen the movie on home video.

With a state-of-the-art, "Full HD" 1080p TV and a Blu-ray player, you can see a picture that is 1,920 pixels across by 1,080 pixels down, with a widescreen 16:9 width-to-height ratio (the "aspect ratio"). Though DVD pictures can match that aspect ratio, they offer only 720 horizontal pixels by 480 vertical pixels, and their pixels have to be stretched horizontally to fill the wide screen — which robs the image of apparent detail."Full HD" 1080p on Blu-ray has fully six times the number of pixels as DVD, and thus six times the resolution.

Also, state-of-the-art Blu-ray allows movies to be shown at their native 24 frames per second, whereas DVDs are stuck with 60 fps. The latter might seem to be better, because the number is greater. But 24-fps movies have to be compromised to get 60 displayable TV frames per second out of them, by means of a technique called "3:2 pulldown." That's geek-speak for some of the information from a given film frame being repeated in different video frames. That happens in herky-jerky fashion, such that some of the frames of the "interlaced" 60-fps TV picture wind up coming from different — frequently, mismatched — film frames. Result: a mess.

DVD players try to disentangle this mess as best they can, with varying degrees of success. A Blu-ray disc being played at 24 fps into a state-of-the-art TV, using "progressive" and not interlaced frames, simply bypasses "3:2 pulldown compensation" entirely, since 3:2 pulldown wasn't done in the first place! You see a picture that is not only superbly detailed, but one that is super-clean and artifact free. It really is like being in a movie theater. (See 1080p24 ("24p") on Blu-ray for more on 24-fps video from Blu-ray.)

So, why wouldn't you want to invest in Blu-ray?

Well, the obvious reason remains price. We would all like to see cheaper players — and they're coming. When the computer chips and the fancy blue-laser assembly that make up the guts of the player are manufactured in sufficient volume, costs will drop. The same thing happened with DVD: prices were high until chips were cheaper. (The red laser used by DVDs was already cheap, since CDs had used red lasers since the early 1980s. And, by the way, all Blu-ray players also incorporate red lasers, to play DVDs!)

DVD players got cheaper faster because (as noted above) all TV households could use them to reasonably good advantage. True, few TVs were widescreen in 1997, when DVD hit stores, but most consumers had as yet no idea their old 4:3 TVs were becoming obsolete. Today, everyone knows digital HDTVs are the state of the art. Lots of people haven't upgraded yet, but they know it's only a matter of time until they do. When and as they do, a Blu-ray player will suddenly seem mandatory for the bulk of them.


Blu-ray disc prices? They're all over the map right now. If you click here, you can check out all of the BDs sold at Amazon.com, sorted supposedly by price, low to high. (The number of results is at this moment fully 3,960, but I assume this number is inflated by some X-factor that I can't guess.) I find that Amazon's price sorting leaves something to be desired, but clearly there are numerous Blu-ray titles available for under $20.00. Many are under $15.00, and quite a few are under $10.00! An example: you can get hot titles like The Dark Knight, complete with BD-Live interactivity and an iPod-compatible "digital" version of the movie, for $23.99 instead of the $35.99 list price.

What's BD-Live interactivity? Also known as Profile 2.0 of the BD-Java computer language resident in every Blu-ray player, it is what extends Blu-ray disc interactivity to be able to access Internet-based (not just disc-based) added content! Not all titles use it, but those that do possess it require players that themselves implement Profile 2.0, assuming you want to use all of the features of the latest discs and access all the added content. Virtually all of the player models introduced in 2009 support Profile 2.0 — so, be warned! Don't buy an older model of Blu-ray player unless the price is so low, you can't pass it up.

Many of the player models introduced in 2009 or late 2008 are able to stream online video content from sources like Amazon, Netflix, CinemaNow, Pandora, and that perennial favorite, YouTube. Most do this via a wired (Ethernet) or wireless (WiFi or 802.11) home network, but some omit WiFi (and in my opinion should be avoided). Players that support WiFi are often compatible with a speed-boosting "draft" version of that standard, 802.11n, while others support only the familiar-but-poky 802.11b/g.

Some of the latest player models support DTS-HD Master Audio Essential, an audio codec that differs from standard DTS-HD Master Audio in that it lacks decoding for a few legacy DTS DVD soundtracks formats such as DTS 96/24, ES, ES Matrix, and Neo:6. DTS-HD Master Audio in all its lossless, 7.1-channel glory is, needless to say, still supported. This is a cost-saving measure, since it is cheaper to build a player that lacks the chips to decode the legacy formats.

1080p24 ("24p") on Blu-ray

One of the best things about Blu-ray is that, for the first time on home video, a motion picture is rendered on disc just the way it was recorded on film. Both actual movie film and Blu-ray Discs that contain movies or TV shows shot of film record images at 24 frames per second. On a Blu-ray Disc, accordingly, film is transferred to video at a one-to-one ratio of film frames to video frames. When a Blu-ray Disc containing a movie or a TV show shot on film is output to an HDTV at, specifically, 1080p24 (a.k.a "24p") resolution, playback is notably smooth and free of distracting video artifacts.

On a DVD, film is transferred to video in a way that uses a different ratio of film frames to video frames. There are 30 video frames per second on a DVD, not the 24-fps rate of film. This frame-rate mismatch compromises a movie's ability to be displayed in a truly film-like fashion on a progressive-scan HDTV. DVD players do not support the 1080p24 output resolution because DVDs themselves do not.

The frame-rate mismatch makes no major difference when a DVD is played into a now-obsolete TV that uses a picture tube. But today's HDTVs don't use picture tubes, so the frame-rate mismatch causes the displayed picture to be slightly impaired. Blu-ray players and discs avoid the mismatch problem entirely.


Practical considerations:

In order to take advantage of the 24-fps frame rate of movies recorded on Blu-ray Discs, you need:
  • A Blu-ray player that supports 1080p24 output on HDMI
  • An HDTV that supports 1080p24 input on HDMI
  • An HDMI cable to connect the player to the HDTV
  • A Blu-ray Disc containing a movie or TV show shot on film
  • The right setup option(s) in the player and TV
(Ideally, the TV will automatically accept 1080p24 on HDMI and use it without anything special being done to its setup options. The same is typically true of a Blu-ray player when it is using its default "Auto" — for "automatic" — output resolution selection. Only in special cases would the player's automatic output setting need to be manually overridden.)


Background information:

The 30-fps method used to transfer films to DVD is used due to the fact that, in the United States, TV was originally standardized to provide 30 video frames each second, even though film uses 24 frames per second.

To avoid image flicker, in the NTSC television system that was used for decades until the recent digital television revolution, and is also used on DVDs sold in the U.S., each video frame is divided into two separate "fields" transmitted 1/60 second apart. Though they represent slightly different moments in time, the two fields of each video frame can be thought of as "interlaced" together, much as the fingers of two hands folded together are interlaced together into a single unit.

Today, the NTSC standard is being replaced in the "digital conversion." This conversion has actually been going on for several years, though today we are hearing a lot about the problems it will cause for consumers who are not ready for it when, on June 12, 2009, the plug is finally pulled on analog NTSC TV broadcasts. But all DVDs sold in the U.S. will continue to be recorded in a digital version of NTSC even after the digital conversion is done.

NTSC (which is analog video) and DVDs (on which NTSC-like video is recorded digitally) use two interlaced fields per video frame, whether the interlaced analog or digital video comes right from an NTSC video camera or is transferred to video from motion picture film. Each 1/30-sec. frame of interlaced video is made up of two fields, with each field taking 1/60 second.

Frames of NTSC or DVD video (and the two fields they are each subdivided into) are composed of numerous horizontal scan lines. These lines run across the screen from left to right, but since they are stacked on top of each other in the vertical direction to make a two-dimensional picture, they serve as a measure of the "vertical resolution" of the TV picture. In each NTSC frame there are 525 scan lines, though only 480 of them are visible on the TV screen (the others are in the so-called "vertical blanking interval" and don't show up on the screen). The vertical resolution of NTSC video (and of DVDs in the U.S.) is 480 lines.

The first field of each video frame contains that frame's even-numbered scan lines, starting at line 0 at the top of the screen: 0, 2, 4, etc. The second field contains the video frame's odd-numbered scan lines: 1, 3, 5, etc.

That is the way the original NTSC TV system's video signal, which is analog, not digital, is handled. For digital video such as is recorded on a DVD, the scan lines become pixel rows, and the blanking intervals are no longer needed, but the idea remains the same.

Thus, on a DVD sold in the U.S., there are video frames lasting 1/30 second each, with each frame containing two interlaced fields. Because the picture is recorded digitally, the scan lines are now rows of pixels: 480 pixel rows per video frame. The even-numbered pixel rows (0, 2, 4, etc.) are recorded as the first field of the video frame, while the odd-numbered pixel rows (1, 3, 5, etc.) are recorded as the other field of the same frame.

The scan lines or pixel rows of a single field of interlaced video are like an arrangement of slices of a scene viewed through a window, when the slices of the scene are separated by the partially opened slats of a venetian blind. For the second of the two fields in each video frame, the view and the slats simply exchange roles: the slats now contain picture information, while what was picture information becomes slats. This picture-slats alternation happens over and over again, with one alternation every 1/30 second.

Each field of normal, non-film-originated interlaced video records information from the video scene that occurs 1/60 second after the previous field, whether that field is in the same video frame or in the prior video frame. This delay between the two fields of a video frame (or between the first field of a new frame and the last field of the immediately prior frame) worked well with old, picture-tube based TVs, since those TVs would draw the two successive fields on the screen one after the other, at the exact same 60-fields-per-second rate at which the video camera captured them in the first place. Though the two fields were drawn on the TV screen one after another, 1/60 second apart, the fact that the glow of the phosphors on the picture tube's face decayed slowly, abetted by the "persistence of vision" of the human eye, made the two fields seem simultaneous.

When film at 24 frames per second is transferred to interlaced video at 60 fps, as for an analog NTSC broadcast or a standard digital DVD in the U.S., "2:3 pulldown" is used to match the disparate frame rates of film and video. But on a Blu-ray Disc, the same film is digitally recorded at its original 24 fps. A typical Blu-ray player today (but not the early Blu-ray player models from a few years ago when Blu-ray was first introduced) can play that recording into an up-to-date 1080p HDTV at 24 fps, using a digital HDMI connection between the Blu-ray player and the HDTV. The result is much better than even the best DVD can offer, even when the DVD is played on the same Blu-ray player and viewed on the very same TV.

With 2:3 pulldown for motion-picture film that is being transferred to video — a technique which is also called "3:2 pulldown" or "telecine" — film frames are scanned to make a new video field (not a video frame, a video field) every 1/60 second. (Find out more about telecine here; the word "telecine," by the way, is pronounced either with four syllables, or with three.)

After 2:3 pulldown, every group of five sequential video frames contains exactly three of those video frames whose fields both come from just one film frame. But two of the five video frames in a five-frame group contain fields that derive from two different film frames. These two (of every five) video frames can be called "dirty frames," since they do not come from a single, "clean" film frame.



In the illustration above, the first two of the five resulting video frames are "clean," coming entirely from film frames A and B, respectively. The fifth video frame is also "clean," since both of its fields come entirely from film frame D. But the third video frame has one field scanned from film frame B and one from film frame C, and so that video frame is "dirty." So is the fourth video frame, since it has one field from film frame C and one field from film frame D.

Film frames B and C (or C and D) may come from a single film camera shot and be only slightly different from one another — or even identical, if there is no motion in the scene. However, in a far worse case, they can cross an editing splice between two different film camera shots. If they do not cross a splice and are only slightly different, objects that are in motion from one film frame to the next film frame can develop edges that look serrated rather than smooth, when video frame 3 or video frame 4 in the illustration above is viewed on a progressive TV. If they come from different film shots and are accordingly grossly different, then when viewed on a progressive TV they can look a complete mess. They are not just "dirty," they are downright "filthy." Video frames that are "dirty," even "filthy," occur typically with 2:3 pulldown and can cause problems on progressive TV displays.

What does that name, "2:3 pulldown," actually mean? It means that the machine (called a "telecine") which scans the physical film and converts its frames into interlaced video for television transmission or DVD "pulls down" the film, using its sprocket holes, in a way that holds one frame of the film in place for 1/30 second, which is the time it takes to scan two 1/60-sec. video fields. Then it pulls the next film frame into position and holds it steady for the time it takes to scan not two but three 1/60-sec. video fields: 3/60, or 1/20, second. Then the next film frame generates two video fields, and then the next generates three fields ... and so on, and so on. That simple 2-3 alternation in the pulldown of the film in the telecine machine winds up creating a mixture or "clean" and "dirty" video frames like those in the illustration above.

Today's digital TVs are "progressive," not interlaced. They are designed to present each video frame intact, not divided into two alternating sets of interlaced scan lines. Progressive TVs can be thought of as using the scan lines in the picture all at once, 0, 1, 2, 3, etc., rather than using the even-numbered scan lines and then the odd-numbered scan lines.

The letter "p" is used to designate progressive scan. When we read that an HDTV is "1080p" (or "720p") the "p" stands for the fact that the TV uses a progressive, non-interlaced display. When we read that a certain TV or cable channel is "1080i," that means that its signal has the same 1,920-pixel by 1,080-pixel resolution as 1080p, but each video frame is transmitted as two interlaced fields, 1/60 second apart, not a progressive frame with all its scan lines used at once. (1080i is like NTSC video in that regard, in fact, except that NTSC, when digitized and recorded on DVD, is "480i" rather than 1080i. It has far fewer pixel rows/scan lines and much lower resolution.)

When video that has been recorded in interlaced fashion (first the even scan lines, then the odd) is shown on a progressive TV, it must first be "deinterlaced." For a 1080p HDTV, deinterlacing a received 1080i signal is a snap: just combine each pair of successive fields, transmitted 1/60 second apart, into a single frame, and show one frame every 1/30 second.

This results in a "1080i60" video input being displayed on the TV screen as "1080p30." The "30" designation after the "1080p" means that there are 30 progressive frames shown on screen each second, rather than 60 interlaced fields per second. Likewise, the designation "1080i60" for the input video signal means video with 60 interlaced fields per second, ostensibly intended for an interlaced display. (Sometimes these and similar designations contain an embedded slash: "1080p/30" or "1080i/60". And sometimes we see "1080p@30 Hz" or "1080i@60 Hz", indicating the screen "refresh rate" in cycles per second or Hertz.)

Typically in a 1080i60 video input stream, in each span of time that contains four film frames (4/24, or 1/6, second) there are five video frames that, after being deinterlaced, need to be flashed on a progressive HDTV's screen. The extra video frame magically appears because 2:3 pulldown is done, producing "dirty" video frames by creating two interlaced-video fields from some of the film frames and three interlaced-video fields from others. This is the same as what happens with 480i video, except it is done at an HDTV resolution.

The 2:3 pulldown cadence not only creates "dirty" frames when deinterlaced and displayed progressively, it also results in a somewhat herky-jerky rendition of the motion in the picture, called "telecine judder."


Films on Blu-ray discs avoid both "dirty" frames and telecine judder because a Blu-ray Disc is encoded at 1080p24, right on the disc. This means there are 24 full progressive-video frames recorded per second recorded on the disc, just as there are 24 film frames per second recorded on film. No 2:3 pulldown is done. (Often, by the way, the official designation "1080p24" is shortened to "24p".)

Provided that a Blu-ray player is capable of sending 1080p24 video direct to an HDTV, and provided that the TV is capable of accepting it and can put the received 1080p24 video right on screen without any sort of change being made to the picture content, there is no need for the player or TV to do 2:3 pulldown compensation (sometimes called "inverse telecine") at all. Nothing must be done to hide the serrated edges and other picture defects that are commonly associated with 2:3 pulldown's "dirty" frames, when they are used by a progressive display. Telecine judder disappears. Hence, Blu-ray Discs of a Hollywood feature film can be viewed with stunning, unprecedented fidelity to the original film.

Blu-ray players actually transmit 1080p24 video to the HDTV at 24 Hz, but the TV may use each field (say) three times in refreshing the screen at a refresh rate of 72 Hz. This can reduce visible flicker, which can fatigue the eyes. However, the actual content of the video changes at a rate of one field every 1/24 second. Since 72 Hz is a whole-number multiple of 24 Hz, there is no change to the picture content.

Some HDTVs using LCD panels now refresh the screen using a 120-Hz refresh rate, such that each frame of 1080p24 is used five times. (Likewise, each field of 1080i60 video input is deinterlaced, producing 1080p60, and then each frame of that is used twice to produce a 120-Hz refresh rate.)

Whatever the actual refresh rate, whether 72 Hz or 120 Hz, the video coming out of the Blu-ray player and being displayed on the screen is actually 1080p24. Its frames match those of the original film one-for-one.


That same film on DVD is recorded at 480i60, which means that each interlaced frame consists of two fields, each with 480 ÷ 2 = 240 rows of pixels. Each field takes 1/60 second, so the two fields of any given video frame take 1/30 second.

When 480i60 is shown on a progressive TV display, it must be deinterlaced. The simplest way is to use a "line doubler." A line doubler simply combines each pair of 480i60 fields into one whole frame and shows each whole frame twice, achieving in effect 480p60 video on the screen.

Line doublers work fine for 480i that derives from a video camera, but for 480i that derives from a film that has been subjected to 2:3 pulldown, line doublers make two of every five displayed video frames "dirty" ones. Even when these frames are not "filthy" — spanning splices between film camera shots — objects in motion tend to develop serrated edges. Fast motion results in edges with pronounced comblike "teeth." The result can be the picture artifact or defect known as visible "combing":



Combing artifacts are sometimes not-so-affectionately referred to as "jaggies." The problem shows up when line-doubler deinterlacing is done for progressive TV displays. For an interlaced display such as a CRT ("picture tube") there is no need for deinterlacing. Each field is drawn sequentially onto the phosphors of the picture tube, scan line by scan line, with each field appearing 1/60 sec. after the previous one. There is no visible combing.

With a progressive TV display, combing that results from deinterlacing can be reduced by having the TV do more sophisticated deinterlacing than a line doubler does. But it can often be eliminated entirely by a DVD player, before the TV even "sees" the video signal.

Digital 480i video on DVD can optionally be recorded using a "soft telecine" type of 2:3 pulldown. Recall that in 2:3 pulldown certain video fields are used twice, once in each of two successive video frames. "Soft telecine" is a way to use "flags" recorded on the DVD to say, in effect, "The video field you would normally expect to occur here is missing. Repeat the corresponding video field from the previous video frame instead."

A "progressive-scan DVD player" can change 480i on the disc to 480p for output to the TV (assuming the TV can accept the doubling of the rate at which the TV signal is input to it). Such a player can typically use the "soft telecine" flags, if they are present on a DVD, to eliminate "dirty" progressive frames in the deinterlaced output. The basic logic is simple: just ignore repeated fields entirely. However, the frame rate generally has to be padded out from 60 fields/30 frames per second to 60 progressive frames per second, so certain of these whole frames are repeated as necessary, instead of repeating fields as needed. This eliminates combing/jaggies, but it can result in a noticeable judder on screen.

There is one further problem with 2:3 pulldown on DVD. Some DVDs use a "hard telecine" instead of flags to accomplish 2:3 pulldown, such that repeated fields are actually encoded twice, and few DVD players are able to remove it. Likewise, many "soft telecine" DVDs are poorly encoded: the flags that tell when to repeat fields are missing or inserted in wrong places. This often happens near a chapter break, at which point even a sophisticated progressive-scan player can produce on-screen jaggies.

Blu-ray players, when they are used to play DVDs, have exactly the same problems with jaggies and judder as DVD player do. But when they are used to play Blu-Ray Discs made from movies or TV shows shot on film, playback is stunningly smooth and artifact free.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Getting My PlayStation 3 $150 Rebate, Continued

In Good Deal on Sony PlayStation 3 (Update) and Getting My PlayStation 3 $150 Rebate I talked about my purchase of a Sony PlayStation 3 game console/Blu-ray player. I took advantage of a Sony online offer of a $150 rebate on the $399 player for anyone who successfully applied for a new Sony PlayStation credit card prior to the expiration of the offer at midnight, December 31, 2008.

As I explained in the earlier posts, I had some trouble jumping through all the correct hoops to get the rebate. As can be told from the heavy volume of comments my earlier posts generated, a number of other people also had trouble jumping through all the right hoops in the right order and at the right time.

I ultimately managed to do the right things to get the Sony Rewards website, through which I bought the PS3, to grant me access to the form to be used to apply for the rebate. That was on December 19, 2008. Today (February 8, 2009) I finally got email indicating that my application for a rebate has been approved:



So I expect the $150 rebate to show up in my PlayStation Card account by the end of this week.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Monday, December 29, 2008

Aliasing on the PS3

I talked about the various video resolutions the Sony PlayStation 3 is capable of generating in PlayStation 3 Video Resolutions. I got several comments from posters who complained that certain PS3 games give them problems, video-wise. One of the problems appears to be that of "aliasing." The game Resistance 2 in particular was singled out, though my research indicates that many other PS3 games are affected.

In general, aliasing in digital video causes areas of the moving picture to shimmer or flicker. The affected areas are those with the most fine-grained video detail.

If you stop the motion and look at a still frame of the video, the shimmering will stop, but you will see a spurious pattern overlaying the fine detail in the image. This often called a moiré pattern. As you step from one still frame to the next, the moiré pattern will writhe. Played at normal speed, the writhing becomes a shimmering.


You can think of any still or moving image as being made up of various visual frequencies. The frequencies, which can be represented as sine waves, are overlaid or superimposed atop one another so as to make up a recognizable image. The finer the detail in any portion of the image, the more prevalent the higher frequencies are in that portion of the image.

But digital video doesn't understand continuous sine waves. It chops the image up into pixels. The pixel grid is 1920 x 1080 pixels for 1080i/p, 1280 x 720 for 720p, and 720 x 480 for 480i/p.

The crux of the aliasing problem has to do with the fact that the pixel grid, however coarse or fine, imposes a limit on the highest visual frequency that can be accurately rendered by that grid. Since a pair of adjacent pixels can be thought of as being able to (crudely) represent the positive and negative swings of one complete cycle of a sine wave, the highest frequency that can be represented without aliasing is one that is just less than one-half the pixel-grid frequency (which is a square-wave frequency, rather than a sine-wave frequency).

If the square-wave frequency puts 1920 pixels across the screen, then fewer than 1920 ÷ 2 = 960 sine wave cycles can be accurately represented in the horizontal direction. A similar logic applies to the vertical dimension, or to visual information that uses both dimensions at once.

This is all a fancy way of saying that for any given video resolution there is a maximum visual frequency that can be represented, if aliasing is to be avoided.

Think of using a digital camcorder to make a video of a picket fence as you ride by it in your car. If you are zoomed in on the fence, the visual frequency of the pickets as they move by is relatively low, and you will get no aliasing. But if you gradually zoom out, at some point you will start to see aliasing. This is the point at which the visual frequency of the moving pickets climbs to half that of the pixel grid of the camcorder. Any frequency above that threshold will produce aliasing.


The aliasing potential in digital video is compounded whenever digital video is re-rendered or scaled.

If the video's native resolution is, say, 720p, and it is scaled to 1080p, aliasing can creep in. After all, each 720p frame is itself an image with various frequencies of visual information in it. Among those frequencies are those representing the square-wave 720p pixel grid itself. The square-wave frequency of the 1080p pixel grid is less than twice that of the 720p grid. So, unless some sort of anti-aliasing technique is used, simply scaling up from 720p to 1080p may introduce aliasing.

By similar logic, scaling up from 480i/p to 780p can introduce aliasing.

Video scalers accordingly use sophisticated digital filters to offset the potential for aliasing. Video scaling takes place in the PS3 when a game that is nominally in 720p is output at 1080p. Grid is such a game.

If the PS3 is set up to output Grid at its native 720p into a native-1080p TV, the TV itself will scale the video up to 1080p. (This is what I do.) In this example, the user has the option to let the PS3 or the TV do the upscaling. Possibly, one of the two choices as to which device does the upscaling will introduce less aliasing than the other.

Another possibility is that aliasing can be reduced or eliminated by telling the 1080p TV to use a one-for-one pixel mapping for 1080p input. My New Samsung LN52A650 TV has a picture-size setting called "Just Scan" that does this. Ordinarily, the 16:9 setting for HDMI input on this TV enlarges the picture slightly so that its edges lie outside the frame of the screen; this is called "overscan." It is done because some TV broadcasts have visual "garbage" at the edges of the picture, particularly at the top edge. Overscan hides the garbage.

Hiding the picture's edges requires re-scaling the picture slightly, which can in theory introduce aliasing. If your TV has a way to defeat overscan and your PS3 games evidence aliasing, you might try defeating the overscan ("just scanning") as a way to reduce or eliminate aliasing.


But I gather that most PS3 game aliasing problems lie deeper than this. For example, a post in this GameSpot forum thread reads:

All sony exlcusives offer AA the problem comes with ports. Since ports are done from 360 to ps3 the developers do whatever they can to have similar looking games with decent performance meaning they put all their "hard" work ito the 360 versions and port it over and take out certain details such as AA in order to maintain decent performance. But yes ps3 does offer AA look at Racvthet and clank Uncharted Resistance Heavenly Sword Ninja Gaiden. The only game with aliasing problems that i know of thats sony exclusive is GT5.

My interpretation is that AA ("anti-aliasing") is being done for some PS3 games and not for others. Most or all of the games written (usually by Sony) for the PS3 are "anti-aliased" such that the PS3 can scale them to any of its supported output resolutions without aliasing creeping in. On the other hand, games that are written for other game consoles such as the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PS3 are not necessarily "anti-aliased."

I gather that the Xbox does not internally scale game video. (I don't really know this; anyone who knows more should feel free to correct me.) If the game is 720p, it is output at 720p.

The PS3's games can scale to higher resolutions than they were written for. I think, but don't really know, that this is something the game itself chooses to take advantage of, or not. For instance, I believe Grid does not scale itself from its native 720p to 1080p.

I believe — but again, I don't really know — that this game-internal upscaling capability may be separate from the PS3's usual method of upscaling video.

Whether or not the upscaling is game-internal or done externally to the game by the PS3, it seems that some PS3 ports from Xbox 360 and other platforms introduce aliasing during upscaling. The forum poster I quoted seems to think that there could have been "anti-aliasing" included in the game ports, but, due to the negative effects of anti-aliasing on game performance, there wasn't.

I am going to investigate this subject further and post about what I learn. For now, those who are irritated by aliasing in their PS3 games should be aware that it may be the unavoidable result of how the games were ported to the PS3. There may be nothing "wrong" that they can fix by using different settings on the PS3 or the TV.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

PlayStation 3 Video Resolutions

As I've been reporting recently in this PlayStation 3 series of posts, I have a new PS3 80GB that I am getting a lot of enjoyment out of. In My New Sony PlayStation 3, Part II (Installation and Setup) I talked about how I went about installing and setting up the PS3 to work with my new TV. But I glossed over the complex topic of how the PS3, in combination with the TV, chooses its video resolutions.

The PS3's list of video output resolutions includes, in ascending order of quality:
  • Standard (NTSC) — i.e., 480i
  • 480p
  • 720p
  • 1080i
  • 1080p

The first,
"Standard (NTSC)," is 480i. It's not available with an HDMI connection, which is the connection type I am using between my PS3 and My New Samsung LN52A650 TV, a brand new 52-inch 1080p flat-panel LCD HDTV. All five resolutions are available if you use a component video connection that carries three separate video signals (Y, Pb, Pr). If you are stuck with using either an S-video connection or an ordinary composite video connection, only 480i is available.


What These Resolutions Mean

The numbers 480, 720, and 1080 give the number of scan lines or pixel rows in each video frame — the more the better.

The "i" or "p" gives the type of scanning. The "i" suffix is for "interlaced scanning," while "p" is for "progressive scanning." In interlaced scanning, each video frame is divided into two fields, with just the odd-numbered pixel rows (rows 1, 3, 5, 7 etc.) in the first field that is sent across the connecting cable, and then just the even-numbered rows (rows 2, 4, 6, 8 etc.) in the second field. In progressive scanning, all pixel rows are sent at once, in their normal order. Progressive scanning is preferable. Interlaced scanning can cause picture flicker.

Each resolution offers a maximum number of pixels in each row. For 480i and 480p, which are standard-definition formats, it's often 720 pixels per row, but it can be 704, 640, or lower. Only when the number of pixels per 480i/480p row is 640 are the pixels square — assuming, that is, that they're destined for a screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The other 480i/480p pixels-per-line counts involve pixels that are not square on a 4:3 screen. (480i and 480p expect a 4:3 screen; stretched to fit a 16:9 screen, the pixels are never square. There would have to be fully 853 pixels per line to make them square.)

720p, 1080i, and 1080p are high-definition formats. For 720p, the pixels-per-line figure is 1,280. For 1080i and 1080p, it's 1,920. In all HD cases, the pixels are square. All HD resolutions are intended for a screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

1080p video, accordingly, might be fully specified as "1920 x 1080p" video. 1920 x 1080p video is sometimes called "Full HD." A Full HD television yields the best possible high-definition picture. I am using the expanded designation "1920 x 1080p" here in this post to show what "1080p" actually implies, but on the PS3's setup and menu screens you'll just see "1080p."

What we are talking about here are "content pixels," not "screen pixels": the number of pixels the PS3 will put in the content it sends to the TV. Actual TV screens may have a different number of pixels per row than the content from the PS3 that is being displayed on them. Some 1080p HDTVs have fewer than 1,920 pixels per row. They are not "Full HD." If they receive 1920 x 1080p content from the PS3, they will sacrifice resolution in the horizontal direction.


Frame and Field Rates

In addition to the various video resolutions, there are several possible frame rates (or, for interlaced scanning, field rates). 480i video usually has a field rate of 60 fields per second (though the rate is typically adjusted to 59.94 fields per second for broadcast purposes). 1080i also typically has 60 fields per second. (Notice that 60 fields per second is equivalent to 30 frames per second, as long as it is understood that the frames are being scanned using interlaced scanning. Again, progressive scanning does not use fields.)

720p video typically has 60 frames, not fields, per second.

1080p video is not used for broadcast purposes; only 1080i and 720p are true HDTV broadcast standards. On Blu-ray discs, 1080p video can be recorded, often with a frame rate of 24 fps — the same as motion-picture film.

Actually, I have found that on the limited number of Blu-ray discs I have had a chance to play so far, all of them being movie titles, the main movie is always recorded in 1080p/24, meaning that it uses
1920 x 1080 video, scanned progressively, at 24 frames per second. Bonus materials such as making-of documentaries and deleted footage typically use a lower resolution and/or a different frame/field rate.


What Resolution Is Actually Used by the PS3?

The answer to this question depends in part on whether the PS3 is playing a Blu-ray disc (BD), playing a DVD, or generating video in real time from a video game. Game video is the simplest to discuss. BD/DVD video adds extra wrinkles.

For video being generated in real time by a PS3 game, the PS3 will try to match the resolution and frame/field rate of the video-as-generated with a resolution and rate which it believes the TV can actually use.

The first step in this matching process comes during the initial setup of the PS3 — see My New Sony PlayStation 3, Part II (Installation and Setup). This part of the initial setup can be redone at any time by navigating to Settings —> Display Settings —> Video Output Settings from the home menu of the PS3 (see this discussion in the online PS3 User Guide).

You begin the process by designating which type of video connection you are using: HDMI (my type), component, S-Video, or composite. If you choose S-Video or composite video, you are restricted to using 480i output, period. If you choose component video, you can allow any or all of the five output resolutions listed above; you have to manually choose which ones to allow. If you choose HDMI, you can allow any and all output format(s) except 480i, and you can automatically or manually choose which ones to allow.

If you are configuring an HDMI connection automatically, the PS3 in effect asks the TV which formats it can use. It will internally put checkmarks by those the TV can use. If you are configuring HDMI video manually instead (or if you are configuring a component-video connection), then you will put check marks by the video resolutions you want the PS3 to allow as output. Your best bet is to check all those which you know your TV can use.


How do the Checkmarks Work?

Take, for example, the auto racing game Grid. It generates 720p output. My TV accepts 720p input, so my initial PS3 setup put a checkmark by 720p. When I play Grid, the Info button on my TV's remote brings up an overlay on the screen showing "1280 x 720 @ 60Hz." That means that the PS3 is using 720p video output, with 1,280 pixels per line, at 60 frames per second.


What Happens When the Program Source Doesn't Match a Checkmarked Output Format?

If I manually disable 720p video output from the PS3, Grid video has to be downconverted to the next lower resolution that is checkmarked. This is 480p, so the Info overlay on my TV screen shows "720 x 480 @ 60Hz." The PS3 output is 480p (otherwise I would see "720 x 480i @ 60Hz"). It has 720 pixels per line, and its frame rate is 60 fps.

Because of option settings I'm using on the PS3 and the TV, the picture actually looks about the same. It is not squeezed into a 4:3 box, but remains at the original widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio.

For HDMI connections, the 480p resolution cannot have its checkmark removed; the PS3 won't allow it. Otherwise, if you unchecked 720p, there would be no lower resolution to downconvert to.


What About Blu-ray Discs and DVDs?

Here's where we get into some confusing wrinkles.

First, DVDs. They contain 720 x 480i video at 60 interlaced fields per second. If you don't turn on BD/DVD "upscaling" (I'll discuss that in a minute) the PS3 will, or so I assume, output that 480i video as-is over any video connection but HDMI.

HDMI doesn't permit 480i output, so the PS3 "deinterlaces" 480i for HDMI to turn it into 480p. My TV's Info overlay shows "720 x 480 @ 60Hz."

If you have either HDMI or a composite video connection, you can turn on "BD/DVD upscaling." You do this by navigating to Settings —> Video Settings —> BD/DVD Upscaler and setting it to Normal. (Or, if it's already on, you can eliminate upscaling by turning it Off. You can also experiment with the Double Scale and Full Screen settings.)

The Normal setting causes the PS3 to upscale the 720 x 480i/60 video on the DVD to your highest checkmarked resolution (in my case, progressively scanned 1920 x 1080 @ 60Hz).

As for Blu-ray discs (BDs), the PS3 will likewise upscale all BD content to your highest checkmarked resolution, if necessary — as long as BD/DVD Upscaler is set to Normal. The output will use a 60 Hz frame (or field) rate.

If BD/DVD Upscaler is set to Off, no upscaling from BDs will occur.

But there is a third consideration, and it overrides all the others. If you navigate to Settings —> Video Settings —> BD 1080p 24 Hz Output (HDMI) and turn it On, the PS3 will detect 1080p BD video that was recorded at 24 Hz and output it directly at a resolution of 1080p 24 Hz (i.e., it will not be converted to a frame rate of 60 Hz).

This is so only for an HDMI connection; it does not work for the other types of connection. You should do it only when you know your TV can accept 1080p 24 Hz input. (If you are not sure whether your TV can handle 24 Hz 1080p input, set this option to Automatic; the PS3 will use 24 Hz output only if it determines the TV can handle it.)

If BD 1080p 24 Hz Output (HDMI) is On, it takes effect even if BD/DVD Upscaler is set to Off, and even if you do not have 1080p checkmarked in your list of available resolutions! If your TV cannot actually use 1080p 24 Hz input over HDMI, you should set this option to Automatic or Off.

But you want to use 1920 x 1080 24 Hz input whenever you can. This is because 24 fps is the frame rate of film, and whenever a movie is transferred to BD, it will be recorded at 1080p 24 Hz. If the PS3 has to convert it to 60 Hz, video quality can suffer, since 60 is not a multiple of 24. You may see unpleasant artifacts or extra judder in the picture that would never show up with direct 1080p 24 Hz output.

Good Deal on Sony PlayStation 3 (Update)

I talked about the $150 rebate you can get on a Sony PlayStation 3 in Good Deal on Sony PlayStation 3 and again in Getting My PlayStation 3 $150 Rebate. Now I'd like to try to clear up some of the confusion the rebate offer (and my coverage of it) has generated.

You qualify for the $150 rebate on either a PS3 80GB or a PS3 160GB if you:

  • apply for a new Sony PlayStation Card (which is a VISA card from Chase Bank) before 12/31/08
  • using the card, buy a PS3 from an authorized Sony retailer by 03/07/2009

Some of the confusion came from the fact that more than one entry point to the rebate offer exists. I have concentrated on two particular entry points in my posts; there may be others. One of these entry points (click here) is for the Sony Rewards website. I'll refer to that website as SR. The other (click here) is for the SonyStyle website. I'll refer to that one as SS. I'll talk more about the SS entry point later on.

The SR entry point is unique in that from it you can "apply now" for the PlayStation Card, and, if you get instant credit approval, return to the offer and click on "redeem now." That will take you to the SR site, where you can use your new card to buy a PS3 and get the $150 rebate right away. To use the new card (which you haven't yet received in the mail) you must print out the confirmation page you got upon receiving approval online, or at least write down the account number, expiration date, and CVV2 code of the card. With this information, you will be allowed by the SR site to buy a PS3 on the new card right away, and the $150 rebate is (supposedly) applied immediately to your purchase.

If you don't "redeem now," I gather you can "redeem later" by going back to the original SR entry point and belatedly clicking "redeem now." As long as you have the card account number, expiration date, and CVV2 code, you should be good to go.

I ran into a problem because I didn't "redeem now," nor did I retain the crucial info that would allow me to do so later. Days later, when the new card came in the mail, I went back to the SR site and bought my PS3 on that card. That by itself did not allow the $150 rebate to be applied immediately.

Instead, I had to wait about two weeks more for an e-mail to show up in my inbox which told me how to obtain the rebate. You can click here to see a similar set of instructions. I'll reproduce them here:

To claim your $150 rebate:

1. Register your new PlayStation Card at www.sony.com/playstationcard/register

2. Complete the Rebate Form, under Your Account

-- Rebate Name must include ‘PS-PS3 $150 Rebate’

3. Submit Rebate Form online

4. Print out and mail the completed Rebate Form with copy of your PS3 sales receipt to the address as indicated within 60 days from date of purchase


You can learn more about these instructions and dealing with the actual Rebate Form in Getting My PlayStation 3 $150 Rebate. When I posted that entry, I was going under the assumption that the same instructions/form might be used by anyone taking advantage of the rebate. But, no. You have to — (a) buy the PS3 — (b) at the SR site — (c) using the new PlayStation Card — to go this route.

As for the other entry point, the SS site, it does not offer a "redeem now" option, just an "apply now" link. That offer's fine print says:

PlayStation Card is issued by Chase Bank USA, NA, and is subject to credit approval. To qualify for this offer, you must apply for your new PlayStation Card by 12/31/08. In some instances an application may require additional processing, in which case instant approval will be unavailable. To qualify for the $150 card credit, you MUST purchase a PLAYSTATION 3 system with your new PlayStation Card ("PS3 Purchase") at an authorized Sony retailer such as Sony Style store and SonyStyle.com. Complete instructions will be sent upon your approval for the PlayStation Card via email. To receive card credit, your account must be opened by 01/31/2009 and PS3 Purchase must be made by 03/07/2009. Card credit will be posted to your PlayStation Card Statement within 8-12 weeks after PS3 Purchase. This promotional offer is available to new PlayStation Card accounts only and only one $150 card credit may be earned per PlayStation Card account. Existing PlayStation Card account holders or accounts are not eligible.


So you have until 12/31/08 to apply. You don't have to get approval by that date. If you "require additional processing" before approval is granted, and then get approved after 12/31/08, you're fine. Just create an account at SonyStyle.com prior to 1/31/09 and use your new card to buy a PS3 on that account at that site by 3/7/09. Need more information? "Complete instructions will be sent upon your approval for the PlayStation Card via email."

Notice that the same logic applies if you fail to get instant credit approval when you use the SR entry point. If approval and the card itself don't arrive until 2009, you can still get the rebate. You can do this at the SR site, as my own experience attests, or you can do it at the SS site.

A few more words to the wise:

  • Unless you go the instant "redeem now" route at the SR site, your rebate will be delayed until after the credit card bill comes due for the PS3 purchase itself. If you pay off that bill in timely fashion, the $150 rebate will offset future purchases on the PlayStation card, not the PS3 purchase per se.
  • Using either the SR site or the SS site to buy the PS3 will incur shipping/handling charges above and beyond the nominal price of the PS3.
  • If you have to wait until after your PS3 arrives before the instructions for the rebate show up in your e-mail, be aware that the Rebate Form you eventually fill out will probably want you to enter the 12-digit Universal Product Code (UPC) printed by the scanner bar code shown on the PS3 box. If you throw out the box, write down the UPC code. I failed to do that, so I had to "borrow" the UPC code shown on this web page: 711719801306. I later visited my local Best Buy and saw UPC 711719801504 on PS3 80GB boxes there. I don't know why there are multiple UPC codes, and I don't know whether failure to use the "right" UPC code will bollix up the rebate.