Originally posted by: THX
Originally posted by: Shark2k
THX mentioned that letterbox is better for people with SD televisions. Actually, I said it was better for people with 4:3 TVs, which is not the same thing as SD. In your above post, you are generally confusing SD with 4:3 and HD with 16:9. You are right that eventually HD will become standard, but at that point neither a letterboxed nor an anamorphic SD DVD will exploit the potential of the TV. Which is why I said:
Originally posted by: THX
The anamorphic transfer will only appear sharper to those with 16:9 displays. The saturation and black level have nothing to do with anamorphic vs letterbox, they are to do with the quality of the transfer itself. The fact is that for the vast majority of people (those who have 4:3 TVs), a letterboxed transfer is actually better. For the majority of the rest (those who have sub 50" 16:9 displays) a letterbox transfer is perfectly acceptable (see CO's statements above). For the tiny minority (those who have projectors or huge 16:9 sets), there will be a noticeable difference. Now, any kind of SD DVD (anamorphic or letterbox) isn't going to look good on HD gear. By the time most people switch to 16:9, HD will be in full force, so for an SD release, letterbox seems like an acceptable choice for now.
But should the OUT be fully restored and newly transferred to HD? Yes.
THX mentioned that letterbox is better for people with SD televisions. Actually, I said it was better for people with 4:3 TVs, which is not the same thing as SD. In your above post, you are generally confusing SD with 4:3 and HD with 16:9. You are right that eventually HD will become standard, but at that point neither a letterboxed nor an anamorphic SD DVD will exploit the potential of the TV. Which is why I said:
Originally posted by: THX
The anamorphic transfer will only appear sharper to those with 16:9 displays. The saturation and black level have nothing to do with anamorphic vs letterbox, they are to do with the quality of the transfer itself. The fact is that for the vast majority of people (those who have 4:3 TVs), a letterboxed transfer is actually better. For the majority of the rest (those who have sub 50" 16:9 displays) a letterbox transfer is perfectly acceptable (see CO's statements above). For the tiny minority (those who have projectors or huge 16:9 sets), there will be a noticeable difference. Now, any kind of SD DVD (anamorphic or letterbox) isn't going to look good on HD gear. By the time most people switch to 16:9, HD will be in full force, so for an SD release, letterbox seems like an acceptable choice for now.
But should the OUT be fully restored and newly transferred to HD? Yes.
I'm not confusing SD with 4:3 & HD with 16:9, I actually know the difference. The reason I refer to 16:9 as HD is because, first off, any TV that you get that is 16:9 is a HDTV. I searched and couldn't find any SDTV that was a 16:9 display. I know that at one point you could buy HDTVs that were 4:3, but I can't seem to find those online anymore. Also, the aspect ratio that is used by High Definition video is 1.78:1 (16:9). Now, even though I said all that, I know that SD tv can be display in widescreen, which would have to be letterboxed, but SDTVs are for the most part, if not always, 4:3 aspect ratio.
So, the only reason I replied is just to let you know that I do understand the difference, I was just be lazy and saying it in a way I understand, albeit not entirely correct on the SDTV part. I should have used 4:3 & 16:9 instead of SD & HD, respectively, but I didn't. Hopefully people that read that post will read the posts after and read what you said and what I said so that they understand. Sorry for being lazy. Sorry for also going off the topic.
-Shark2k