Is there HD video that genuinely originates in 2.35:1, anamorphic or not?

[turk690]

Some features shot on film are presented in a 2.35:1 AR when released on video (16:9 with black bars top and bottom). I suppose this arrangement genuinely reflects the AR of the original film. But some recent concert videos are the same, a 16:9 DAR with the black bars top and bottom. An example is Adele at Royal Albert Hall. It's obvious it wasn't originally shot with film but with HD video, and indeed on the BD playback the player reports the framerate as 60p. Are there already professional HD video that shoots genuine 2.35:1, anamorphic or otherwise? If not, then why matte a 16:9 display to make it appear as if it were originally 2.35:1? Why not leave a 16:9 display full-bodied??

[poisondeathray]

Yes, digital cinema cameras can shoot 2.35:1

e.g. red epic can be configured to shoot 5120 x 2134 (actual 2.39 AR)

and indeed on the BD playback the player reports the framerate as 60p

You sure about that? That would be Letterboxxed 1280x720p60 ?

[poisondeathray]

1080i according to this - your blu-ray player is just reporting the signal
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Adele-Live-at-the-Royal-Albert-Hall-Blu-ray/32356/

Video
Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Video resolution: 1080i
Aspect ratio: 2.33:1
Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1

[Cornucopia]

What's hanging you up is probably the term "HD Video".
Likely, the cameras that recorded that Adele concert were "Electronic Cinema" cameras (like Red One, Arri Alexa, Thompson Viper, Sony Cinealta...). They have a WIDE range of AR/resolutions and framerates with which they can operate. This CAN include 2.35:1.

However, there is NO SUCH THING as 1080p60 Blu-ray. It's NOT in the specs. There IS 720p60 (or more correctly, 720p59.94), or 1080i59.94. With that in mind, ANY decent HD Video (or eCinema) camera could have been set for that spec and just had it's screen masked (letterboxed) to give it a certain AR look. Seems a waste of resolution, but ultimately it's an "artistic" decision.

Scott

edit: Dangit, pdr! you got the jump on me. Note that Blu-ray ONLY supports 16:9 DAR (for HD video; both 4:3 and 16:9 still supported for SD video for bkwd compatibility with DVD). So there'd HAVE to be some letterboxing.

[poisondeathray]

Seems a waste of resolution, but ultimately it's an "artistic" decision.

I see a lot of "Indy" features doing this, I guess the motivation is that some think it looks more "cinematic." Places like vimeo can display it non-letterboxed. But in my opinion, I don't see a concert being that "cinematic"

[Cornucopia]

I agree, though what I saw (preview) of the U2 3D feature WAS "cinematic" with a capital C, even though it was shot/shown as 1.85:1.

Scott

[edDV]

Some features shot on film are presented in a 2.35:1 AR when released on video (16:9 with black bars top and bottom). I suppose this arrangement genuinely reflects the AR of the original film. But some recent concert videos are the same, a 16:9 DAR with the black bars top and bottom. An example is Adele at Royal Albert Hall. It's obvious it wasn't originally shot with film but with HD video, and indeed on the BD playback the player reports the framerate as 60p. Are there already professional HD video that shoots genuine 2.35:1, anamorphic or otherwise? If not, then why matte a 16:9 display to make it appear as if it were originally 2.35:1? Why not leave a 16:9 display full-bodied??

Not enough info on basic Google search. The credits should give more clues about production methods.

North American Blu-ray.com review says this

Adele Live at The Royal Albert Hall is presented on Blu-ray courtesy of Columbia Records with an AVC encoded 1080i transfer in 1.78:1. This is a surprisingly shoddy looking transfer from Columbia, which usually do excellently sharp and detailed high definition concert releases. While close-ups exhibit a fair amount of fine detail, other parts of this video presentation are pretty ragged, including dark shots of the audience which swarm with grain which gets to the level of digital noise, and a lot of very noticeable banding when the cameras are facing the battery of upstage lights which backlight the artist and her band. Colors are generally excellent, with bold and bright saturation, and black levels are above average, though there's still noticeable crush upstage and around the edges of the darkened stage quite a bit of the time.

First, 1080i playback is often displayed as 1080 60p on Blu-ray players. Blu-ray.com says aspect ratio is 1.78 to 1 (16:9).

It seems unlikely to me that a high profile UK concert would be shot 1080 60i. More likely it was shot 24p (video or film) then hard telecined to 60i for North American release.

It is unlikely the cameras were shooting anamorphic whether film or video. Blu-Ray discs are usually mastered square pixel although 1440x1080 is allowed for legacy* reasons.


* A large library of older 1440x1080 HDCAM transfers exists plus 1440x1080 50i is often used for DVB broadcast.

[intracube]

Found a shot of the production equipment:
http://www.jandsvista.com/archive-1945/foh-for-adele-at-the-royal-albert-hall/

The camera looks like an Arri - maybe an Arri Alexa:

EDIT: Yep, it's an Alexa.

[turk690]

With that in mind, ANY decent HD Video (or eCinema) camera could have been set for that spec and just had it's screen masked (letterboxed) to give it a certain AR look. Seems a waste of resolution, but ultimately it's an "artistic" decision.

This is ultimately what gets my goat. If the wretched show was originally shot with 16:9 square pixels HD video then it should be released as such. IMHO, letterboxing it to give a 2.35:1 effect is hardly "artistic"; "vain", stupid", "wasteful" are better adjectives to be used here. I want my precious pixels back. Projected on a 120" screen especially makes it horrid. I could put up with video that genuinely originated with a Panavision film camera, but not this. This becomes nothing more than like in 4:3 days of yore, where some people involved somewhere in the chain of making the video decides to make it 'widescreen' by putting the hateful black bars on the 4:3 pix, then after flagging it as 4:3 on the DVD, your 16:9 LCD presents you with a humongous black surround on the pix. We are in 16:9 land for the most part today. Does letterboxing it further appear "artistic"? I mean, "Avatar" was shot and displayed true blue 16:9 from beginning to end and James Cameron did not need help from those two hateful black bars when the lot was released on blu-ray. And if they were truly "artistic", the XL people who are the progenitors of the Adele Albert Hall show should be dying to talk about why they put those black bars there, no? Lastly, specs for this particular blu-ray say it's 16:9 (1.78:1). That's not entirely true; they should have said 2.35:1, or matted 16:9 or somesuch. Can this be categorized as misleading info? Can one get back at them??

[manono]

We are in 16:9 land for the most part today.

TVs, maybe, not the content. There are almost no movies shot as 1.78:1. Way more are meant to be shown as 2.39:1. If you don't like it then mask out the black bars on your projection screen, as they do in movie theaters. Me, I think you're spewing nonsense. You don't watch classic films because they'll show black bars on the sides?

[poisondeathray]

Lastly, specs for this particular blu-ray say it's 16:9 (1.78:1). That's not entirely true; they should have said 2.35:1, or matted 16:9 or somesuch. Can this be categorized as misleading info? Can one get back at them??

The website says "AVC encoded 1080i transfer in 1.78:1", but the OAR is 2.39:1 . Well that's misleading because all blu-ray will be 1.78:1 in terms of encoding.

Aspect ratio: 2.33:1
Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1

What does it say on the box ?

[turk690]

What does it say on the box ?

Nothing about the AR is mentioned anywhere on the disc or box. From different sources on web I initially thought it was 16:9 AR, DAR, OAR. Though I get it the progenitors of this (and all other concert BDs of the same technical ilk) most likely want to shove the "artistic", "cinematic", "Panavision-ish" allure of the 2.39:1 OAR by being rabid gluttons for those sexy (to them) black bars, is there a technical reason for deliberately masking the top and bottom of something that was most likely shot in genuine 16:9 AR?? If not, and this show was shot by the Arri alexa, why was this camera not programmed to shoot in 16:9 with a view that the proceedings are ultimately going to end up on blu-ray, and so spare all of us the black bars? Is 16:9 OAR not wide enough for a concert? It's not as if it was a Lawrence of Arabia-ish cinematic sweep; it's a show with many intimate moments.

[intracube]

Some features shot on film are presented in a 2.35:1 AR when released on video (16:9 with black bars top and bottom). I suppose this arrangement genuinely reflects the AR of the original film.

Not as often as you might think...

As Scott has said, productions/films choose 2.39:1 for 'artistic' reasons. Whether the format is suitable for a music concert like this...

Personally, I think the ultra wide (or ultra short) formats are overrated - even for feature films, but I'll avoid dragging out the soap box and spewing forth my opinions about Ben Hur, anamorphic lenses, etc.

turk690; FWIW, I agree with you regarding the format for the concert (though not some of the other points you've made). For much of the time, the camera is focused on Adele (single person shot). IMO 2.39:1 cuts across the areas of interest too much - often clipping the top of her head and chopping off her body, while showing dead space at the sides. 16:9, or even 4:3 (yes, 4:3) would frame these shots much better. In still photography or paintings these sorts of shots would traditionally be framed portrait.

[edDV]

North American Blu-ray.com review says this

Adele Live at The Royal Albert Hall is presented on Blu-ray courtesy of Columbia Records with an AVC encoded 1080i transfer in 1.78:1. This is a surprisingly shoddy looking transfer from Columbia, which usually do excellently sharp and detailed high definition concert releases. While close-ups exhibit a fair amount of fine detail, other parts of this video presentation are pretty ragged, including dark shots of the audience which swarm with grain which gets to the level of digital noise, and a lot of very noticeable banding when the cameras are facing the battery of upstage lights which backlight the artist and her band. Colors are generally excellent, with bold and bright saturation, and black levels are above average, though there's still noticeable crush upstage and around the edges of the darkened stage quite a bit of the time.

I think there are more issues with this production. When an arena/hall concert is "filmed" with normal stage lighting the result is automatically inferior, contrasty, noisy for film or video. The first thing the "film" companies do (also PBS or ESPN Sports) is flood the set with enormous Klieg lights the purpose being to raise black level to reduce dynamic range (they will say raise f stop). Low f stop is impossible to keep in focus.

In a normal concert/event the human eye can deal with enourmous dynamic range from black to white. The brain plays a part by selective perception (i.e. ignore the extremes). Thus good stage lighting can direct the eye.

This doesn't work for film or video. In the past film had much wider dynamic range from noisy black to extreme clipped whites but high end video cameras are closing the gap. Neither can handle normal arena lighting without crushed blacks and blown out whites.

Film and video people come with massive flood lights. If you want a good DVD or Blu-ray, the audience must deal with near daylight for that performance. That is why "film day" often gets ticket discounts.

If the event masters want to just sneek in some film/video cameras with normal lighting, they get this kind of result. A good Blu-ray demands high light levels.

The same applies to wedding videos. Candles are killer. Video result is noisy crap.

[intracube]

I think there are more issues with this production. When an arena/hall concert is "filmed" with normal stage lighting the result is automatically inferior, contrasty, noisy for film or video. The first thing the "film" companies do (also PBS or ESPN Sports) is flood the set with enormous Kleig lights the purpose being to raise black level to reduce dynamic range (they will say raise f stop).

Also, more lighting = lower camera ISO = less noise

It'd be interesting to know what ISO they were running at...

[Cornucopia]

@intracube,
Be careful with a term such as ISO. While it's sometimes used to refer to gain/sensitivity in VideoCams/eCinema, it really only has basis in film cameras. Most VC/eC's are quite variable with sensitivity, enough to the point where as long as you set them right, they still avoid needing a GAIN BOOST (which DOES add noise).

If I couldn't "stage" an extra, "faux" concert for shooting, here's how I would capture a live concert:

1. Fill lights to raise the shadow levels (but NOT the highlights level), just a bit to not be noticeable to the concertgoers.
2. Use a multicam HDR rig (similar to a 3D mirror rig, but without the interaxial difference and WITH bracketed exposure) for HIGH LATITUDE
3. Use UD cameras (like red Epic), where you can downsample and "combine pixels" if need be for ANY AR, without a noticeable loss of resolution in the FINAL (distribution - HD/2k/4k) master.
4. Accumulate takes from multiple concert event dates.

@turk690,
I know you don't like it, but lots of folks don't mind letteboxing or pillarboxing at all as long as it's appropriate to the artistic vision of the shot. That's subjective, of course, but heck - they're the ones making the dang recording, putting up the front money to get it done, so they can make that decision, right? Your Adele example was an unfortunately extreme example of how that sometimes goes wrong, but it doesn't always go wrong...(LotR, SoundofMusic, Oklahoma, How the West was Won - make REAL GOOD use of the space)

Scott