Any "unofficially" supported noninterlaced MPEG-2

[miamicanes]

Now that cheap progressive DVD players are commonplace, manufacturers (particularly the Chinese ones) have almost certainly tried finding new ways to add features that won't add much to the cost, but make their players more attractive to consumers (the way VCD, SVCD, XVCD, MP3, etc all found their way into low-end DVD players).

That said, are there any de-facto MPEG-2- profiles that aren't DVD Forum-blessed or official, but happen to be supported by lots of players anyway as long as the bitrate doesn't exceed 8000kbit/second? At the very least, it seems like SOMEBODY has to make a player that will happily output 480p60 when fed a DVD+/-R with 60fps progressive 704x480 MPEG-2 on it...

[SaSi]

I think you have confused progressive scan with frame rate. An interlaced DVD Video for NTSC has a video stream encoded as 2 x 29.97 fields per second, where each frame is built out of two fields (the interlaced parts of the picture). The DVD player is outputing 2 x 29.97 "FIELDS" per second.

A progressive video is encoded as progressive (i.e. the MPEG-2 stream contains frames and not fields) and the DVD player is giving out 29.97 FPS of progressive frames.

There is no need for a special or non-endorsed profile for progressive video. Progressive DVDs exist and one can make one by re-encoding the MPEG-2 stream as a progressive one.

I have heard about some problems between progressive scan and Macrovision protection on DVDs. I am not sure exactly what the problem is, but if you re-encode and re-author an interlaced DVD you can (theoretically) make a progressive one within the current DVD Video standard.

[miamicanes]

The reason why I specified that it had to be a progressive-scan DVD player is simply because those are the only ones with the hardware to output 31.5khz 480p60 video in the first place.

I know that in theory a properly-encoded standard disc from film source can be reconstructed into progressive by following the flags, but it's not quite what I meant. Reconstituted progressive is still pre-filtered for interlaced display, so a good part of the vertical detail is already gone by the time it makes it onto the disc in the first place.

There's also the matter of fieldrate. At best, the repeat-flag trick only works for progressive source up to 29.97 frames/second. True 60 FRAME/second 480p can't be encoded using any of the currently-sanctioned formats.

I guess my point is that an average progressive-scan DVD player already has all the hardware, and 97% of the software it needs to render true 480p60 video using up to 8,000k/sec to do it. It just doesn't seem like it would be all that big of a deal for some manufacturer to tweak the firmware to let the player treat recordable DVDs as huge XVCDs, with 704 x 480 @ 60 frame/second and MP3 audio as one of the supported formats. Hell, even treating it like an ISO-9660/UDF filesystem, looking for files with names matching ##_XXXXXXXXXXX.MPG, and building a menu on the fly displaying "XXXX" as the name and"##" as the number would be nice (the way lots of players treat discs with MP3 files burned on a PC).

It would definitely cost money for the manufacturer to add, but but it would INSTANTLY make the manufacturer a cult favorite, put them on the cover of every video-oriented magazine, and give them something to rise above commodity status -- at least, until everyone else started doing it too.

[SaSi]

I am puzzled with what you say.

You state that "True 60 FRAME/second 480p can't be encoded using any of the currently-sanctioned formats".

I will agree with you on that one. 60 FPS video streams are beyond the MP@ML "recipee". I doubt that any DVD player or s/w player could playback such a stream. Or that any encoder exists to encode such streams.

However, progressive video is 25fps for PAL and 29.97fps for NTSC. Interlaced is 50 Fields per second for PAL and 60 fields per second for NTSC. Where two fields compose a Frame. Which again takes you to 25 and 29.97 fps.

I have converted a couple of long movies into progressive streams and re-authored the DVDs as progressive. I found a couple of stubborn players that won't play them, but most did. (don't take that as a research, I only tried these disks on 7-8 players).

After reading both your original post and your response a couple of times, I still, however, miss the point you want to make. I really want to understand because I am interested in "de-interlacing" movies. Are you refering to "normal" DVD compliant streams or any kind of extention to the DVD profile?

Regards

[miamicanes]

Hmmm. OK, let me try again.

For starters, I'll be frank and admit that true 60 frame/second progressive SOURCE material (created that way, not converted from something else) basically doesn't exist outside of maybe rendered 3Dstudio/Max animations. But then again, the main purpose of this is to show off the unique talents of such a hypothetical DVD player + HDTV, so computer-rendered eye candy is entirely appropriate as source material

So, suppose we've now got a 5-minute 3Dstudio/Max animation that we've rendered at 640 x 480 (or 704 x 480, or 720 x 480... whatever would make the hypothetical player happiest), 60 frames per second, into a nice .avi file. We also have a 5-minute soundtrack, already-encoded to 224 kbit/sec MPEG-2/layer 3 audio. We use TMPGEnc to convert the .avi file into 7999kbit/second (max) 2-pass VBR MPEG-2 and mux it with the soundtrack.

Still with me? We've now got a 5-minute MPEG-2 video consisting of 60 frame/second progressive 640 x 480 with multiplexed MP3 soundtrack.

A hypothetical DVD player like the one I'm referring to would be capable of playing back that MPEG-2 file as YPrPb 480p60 to any suitable TV. For the sake of simplicity and minimal-effort compatibility with existing disc-authoring tools, let's suppose the manufacturer of said DVD player specified that the disc should be mastered just like a big 4.7-gigabyte (but otherwise normal) XVCD, and listed 640 x 480 @ 60 as one of the explicitly supported profiles.

Hell, suppose they went a step further and added 640 x 540 @ 50 as a second. God forbid, maybe they even designated 1280 x 720 @ 60 as a third, but admitted that THAT particular player resampled it to 640 x 480 (hinting strongly that next year's player would happily play it in its full splendor). Perhaps even throwing in 640 x 540 @ 60 (intended for resampling and output as 1080i60 by some future player) just to be complete.

The point I'm trying to make is that 8000kbit/sec is easily enough to encode 480p60 and 540p50, and could probably make a valiant effort at 720p60 if the hypothetical DVD player's codec supported ultra long chains of B and P frames to take maximal advantage of frame-to-frame similarity.

From a hardware point of view, such a hypothetical player would need to support reading 8,000 bits/second from a disc, and the output of a 480p60 video signal -- both of which are entirely within the baseline capabilities of any progressive-scan DVD player.

From a software point of view, it would need to be capable of handling discs with XVCD file layout and structure. Again, something just about any player can do.

What ADDED capabilities would a current mainstream progressive-scan DVD player need? It would have to be willing to treat a DVD+/-R as a big 4.7-gig CD-R and recognize XVCD file layout. It would have to recognize 640 x 480 @ 60 w/mux'ed MP3 audio as a valid profile.

I might be wrong, but I don't see either capability as being much of a challenge. I suppose it's possible that the player's MPEG-2 decoder chip might not be capable of handling 640 x 480 @ 60 because it's not one of the official DVD profiles, but I suspect it's equally likely that said chip has capabilities FAR in excess of what any DVD player takes advantage of, simply because it's cheaper for chipmakers to create one single chip that does everything a MPEG decoder chip might need to do -- now, and next year -- and make millions of them, than to maintain one line of chips that ONLY support official MP@ML formats, and another for applications that need greater capabilities, and make both in smaller runs & risk having one's entire inventory rendered obsolete when the market takes its next step forward.

I think it's safe to say that if consumer progressive DVD players had upgradeable firmware, and programming info were even halfway available, such capabilities would have been hacked and grafted on months ago, and would now be well on their way towards becoming mainstream, expected features (like VCD playback is now). The only challenge is convincing manufacturers that it's worthwhile to have one of their programmers spend a few days tweaking the firmware to handle a disc format that's unofficial and not formally supported, but (thanks to recordable DVDs) could easily become a de-facto format, with or without the blessing or approval of the DVD Forum.

[BJ_M]

60fps movies up to just a short time ago were a patent issue (the patent recently ran out) , but since our company and 1 other are basicly the only source of camera's that can shoot in 60fps (on 65mm film that is) , there isnt much call for it in main stream cinema except the use in special effects and specialty films. as for animation - we do make films in anywhere from 24fps to 60fps (most at 30fps and many at 48fps) .. it is VERY expensive and time consuming to render out not only the extra frames , but creating them, as well as the fact that the renders are min. 2000x2000 and up 8000 ... just think about rendering out 3600 frames per minute at 4k resolution at 10bit color .

the market just not there for dvd players to play ~60fps P as the material would be scant -- though i could supply it .. I do have players that can and do play at these higher frame rates and in HD resolutions -- but they are way more than what people would (most of the time) pay for a home player. Also you have an issue of what are you going to view it on?

[miamicanes]

Well, viewing would be pretty easy... even the cheapest low-end HDTV can handle 480p60.

As far as source goes, I brought up the example of rendered animations as an example, but now that I think of it, Panasonic I'm pretty sure Panasonic has a prosumer-grade digital camcorder that's somewhere around $3,500 that natively records 480p60 as well.

I guess my point is, it's a capability that would cost practically nothing to add to already mid-end progressive-capable DVD players, would give manufacturers something to brag about at CES, and would ultimately create its own demand for content. Just to give another example, how many Americans have discs in VCD/SVCD/XVCD format? (I'd guess at least a third of the people who own and know how to use their cd recorder). How many want a player that can play them? (same number, maybe higher because their friends want players that can do it too) Now, the big question... how many of those people have ever actually gone out and paid for a prerecorded S/X/VCD in their life or own even one? (insert TEx representation of "limit of x divided by infinity as x approaches zero" ).

My point exactly. There's basically no commercially-available content, and no real demand for such content, but the feature itself is nevertheless popular, because people burn their own discs. Make 480p60 XDVDs work, and the content will appear... on Kazaa, if not Best Buy and Blockbuster.

[pauris]

I just think how DVD players can output progressive stream movies to TV if TV set accepts only field based stream?

[BJ_M]

Well, viewing would be pretty easy... even the cheapest low-end HDTV can handle 480p60.

As far as source goes, I brought up the example of rendered animations as an example, but now that I think of it, Panasonic I'm pretty sure Panasonic has a prosumer-grade digital camcorder that's somewhere around $3,500 that natively records 480p60 as well.

I guess my point is, it's a capability that would cost practically nothing to add to already mid-end progressive-capable DVD players, would give manufacturers something to brag about at CES, and would ultimately create its own demand for content. Just to give another example, how many Americans have discs in VCD/SVCD/XVCD format? (I'd guess at least a third of the people who own and know how to use their cd recorder). How many want a player that can play them? (same number, maybe higher because their friends want players that can do it too) Now, the big question... how many of those people have ever actually gone out and paid for a prerecorded S/X/VCD in their life or own even one? (insert TEx representation of "limit of x divided by infinity as x approaches zero" ;) ).

My point exactly. There's basically no commercially-available content, and no real demand for such content, but the feature itself is nevertheless popular, because people burn their own discs. Make 480p60 XDVDs work, and the content will appear... on Kazaa, if not Best Buy and Blockbuster.

films are shot primarly on film and with the cost of film and the cost of a 60p camera -- non are going to be shot that way for some time to come .. the panasonic 60p camera is not really 60p btw ..

studies have shown that less than 10% of dvd player owners in N. america play vcd / svcd , this figure is MUCH higher in asia (about 90%+ i seem to recall) ..

its just to expensive to render out even for cgi based films. i know what the costs are and you would be floored to learn how much it costs to render (and create) cgi per minute even at 24p much less 60p ..

films are created primarly for theatre in mind and dvd as a (less important) second isssue --but the main $$ is still on the screen , not on the tv (except for porn in which the reverse is true).

there IS a new film format being pushed which is 48fps which is interisting but meeting so far little success from owners (it is to compete with the d-cinema (which is also very slow to roll out) ..

did you know that almost 1/2 of all theatre chains are operating under bankrupcy protection or are close to it ? new display hardware is the last thing they want to hear ..

[miamicanes]

Actually, you reminded me of one very, very prime area for 480p quasi-HD-DVD: stuff that was produced for video in the first place. More precisely, porn.

Were players capable of treating DVDs like big XVCDs and spewing 480p60 to the TV commonplace, I'd give it 18 months, tops, before the porn industry jumped ALL OVER 480p60 prosumer camcorders and made it commonplace. Let's face it... to a large extent, porn is a commodity. There are occasional exceptions, but by and large, T&A #1 looks quite a bit like T&A #2. Unless, of course, the second set of T&A were depicted on silky-smooth, razor-sharp flawless 480p60 video...

It would have another benefit, too. Porn shot and edited as 480p60 could trivially be transcoded to 480i60. Given the number of editing gaffes I've seen insofar as things like titles and transitions for interlaced video go, having them shoot, edit, and master at 480p all the way to the final video (filtering and interlacing a copy from the final 480p master) could only help. Assuming the ad-hoc format could co-exist on the same disc as normal DVD (say, putting the "XDVD" folders alongside the .VOB and other files, with the player being smart enough to know that if it sees both, the user probably wants it to ignore the .VOB files and go for the XDVD folders instead), it would give producers an easy way to fill 9 gigs of storage space with 60 minutes of video to make copying their discs just a tiny bit harder.

OK, so maybe the DVD manufacturers of the world don't quite want to unite under the banner of hi-res porn to roll out a new quasi-DVD standard... but I think you get the idea. Build it in, and someone will find a way to use it.

[Nelson37]

To get back to the original question, are there ANY higher res, framerate, progressive or otherwise sets of video parameters that ARE fairly commonly supported among DVD players?

Perhaps another way to word this would be what will be next year's (or the year after) SVCD?

[BJ_M]

Actually, you reminded me of one very, very prime area for 480p quasi-HD-DVD: stuff that was produced for video in the first place. More precisely, porn.

Were players capable of treating DVDs like big XVCDs and spewing 480p60 to the TV commonplace, I'd give it 18 months, tops, before the porn industry jumped ALL OVER 480p60 prosumer camcorders and made it commonplace. Let's face it... to a large extent, porn is a commodity. There are occasional exceptions, but by and large, T&A #1 looks quite a bit like T&A #2. Unless, of course, the second set of T&A were depicted on silky-smooth, razor-sharp flawless 480p60 video...

It would have another benefit, too. Porn shot and edited as 480p60 could trivially be transcoded to 480i60. Given the number of editing gaffes I've seen insofar as things like titles and transitions for interlaced video go, having them shoot, edit, and master at 480p all the way to the final video (filtering and interlacing a copy from the final 480p master) could only help. Assuming the ad-hoc format could co-exist on the same disc as normal DVD (say, putting the "XDVD" folders alongside the .VOB and other files, with the player being smart enough to know that if it sees both, the user probably wants it to ignore the .VOB files and go for the XDVD folders instead), it would give producers an easy way to fill 9 gigs of storage space with 60 minutes of video to make copying their discs just a tiny bit harder.

OK, so maybe the DVD manufacturers of the world don't quite want to unite under the banner of hi-res porn to roll out a new quasi-DVD standard... but I think you get the idea. Build it in, and someone will find a way to use it.

porn is a huge bussness == it was the porn industry which first used multiangle on dvd as well as interactive dvd 's .. and hidden crap on thier disks . Its a monster industry .

[miamicanes]

New PR Slogan for the Porn industry: "We Bring High-Tech Home"


On a related note, are you sure the Panasonic camera isn't true 480p60? I remember reading about the upcoming camcorders a few months ago, and remember seeing Sony's savagely ridiculed for basically having a 60i interlaced CCD and simply de-interlacing it between capture and storage, but I got the impression that Panasonic's was the Real Thing, capable of 480i60 with traditional 3:2 pulldown, 480i60 with modified 3:2 pulldown to ensure that each progressive frame got its own pair of interlaced fields instead of splitting the penultimate one between two different ones (to avoid recompressing that particular frame twice relative to the other ones), and Real, Honest-to-God 480p60 -- though I remember getting the impression that there was a catch that was Annoying, but Not Fatal... but nevertheless the reviewer concluded with a statement that the Panasonic was far from ideal, but so far, it was the only one that supported real 480p60 and had no real competition below $36k.

[miamicanes]

Whoops. Minor mix-up. I just confirmed that the cheap (sub-$5,000) Panasonic 480p camcorder only does 24 and 30fps. They do have a bunch that can do real 480p/60fps, but they all still cost more than $30,000.

On the other hand, it does look like Panasonic's just about the only mainstream manufacturer that has gear capable of real 60fps progressive at any resolution. I've just about lost all respect for Sony -- it's obvious that they're not going to give up on interlaced without a fight, and it'll probably take losing the entire North American market to other manufacturers who are more than happy to sell 720p60 gear to make them realize interlaced video is a hundred year old kludge that never even should have seen the 21st century, let alone made it into ATSC...