logo Sign In

Has technology accelerated that much? — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Thank you for the info, Vigo, but that's not what my question was.

I'm just wondering if there are widescreen dvd's out there that were mastered from actual film elements but for some reason were presented on dvd 4:3 letterbox instead of anamorphically.

I understand how my question could easily have been misinterpreted, I was just trying to be as specific as I could by saying any movies that are 1.78:1 or wider.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei

I'm just wondering if there are widescreen dvd's out there that were mastered from actual film elements but for some reason were presented on dvd 4:3 letterbox instead of anamorphically.


Well, if you think about it, every 35mm movie transferred to video is mastered from 35mm elements. You probably mean if any new non-anamorphic transfer was specifically made for DVD for widescreen movies.

The answer is: no. Every non-anamorphic transfer is either a non-widescreen movie, or the DVD was mastered using an old laserdisc/video master.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: VigoThe answer is: no. Every non-anamorphic transfer is either a non-widescreen movie, or the DVD was mastered using an old laserdisc/video master.


thank you

I was actually thinking of wierd situations like Artisan's first dvd release of "Frank Herbert's Dune" (the U.S. broadcast edit), back in 2001. It's presented 4:3 letterboxed (1.77:1), just as it was when it aired on scifi channel in December of 2000. Artisan must've simply used the same master used for the broadcast to make their dvd and not had any actual film source with which to make an anamorphic transfer. When it came time to do the Director's Cut in 2003, they did have the actual elements and thus made the dvd 16:9 enhanced.
Author
Time
Post link
There was a period after the advent of DVD and before the explosion of widescreen displays where movies were authored non-anamorphically in letterbox for DVD. Tons of widescreen and panavision films were issued on DVD in letterbox, before anamorphic became standard.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
There was a period after the advent of DVD and before the explosion of widescreen displays where movies were authored non-anamorphically in letterbox for DVD. Tons of widescreen and panavision films were issued on DVD in letterbox, before anamorphic became standard.


This is also part of what I was wondering. So you're saying some early widescreen dvd's were non-anamorphic simply because they were authored that way, even though an anamorphic transfer could've just as easily been made? Why wouldn't they make them "forward compatible?" Aren't all dvd players ever made capable of outputting to both 4:3 and 16:9?
Author
Time
Post link
Not all DVD players have such an option. The earliest ones do not ... just as the earliest DVDs were not anamorphic.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Not all DVD players have such an option. The earliest ones do not ... just as the earliest DVDs were not anamorphic.


I see....

That's another thing I've always wondered.

Still, that wasn't much thought on the studio's part. I mean, those non-16:9 players could still at least downconvert the anamorphic video to 4:3, right?!

Guess it's just another excuse to sell us a better dvd years later that actually is enhanced for widescreen tv, but like I said, it's becoming harder and harder to find a widescreen movie that's only been released on non-anamorphic dvd. James Cameron's "The Abyss" is still in that club, I believe, so the OOT isn't entirely alone.
Author
Time
Post link
I have no intention of getting rid of my first DVD player till it dies. It's a combo player that also plays laser discs, and I have an extensive collection of those - - only about 20% of which have I replaced with DVDs, and perhaps will replace only 10% more. Once that player dies, a good part of my film collection dies with it.


(You can just imagine how fast I'm going to dump my extensive DVD collection to replace titles in Hi-Def - - - i.e., on a cold day in hell.)
Author
Time
Post link
Obi, is your combo player also one of the aforementioned 4:3-only models?
Author
Time
Post link
Fang Zei, it's not true that all non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs were made from old transfers. For instance, the 1999 "Yellow Submarine" DVD was non-anamorphic widescreen and it was made from a newly-restored print of the film, which had never been used for any previous video release.

I know that one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are others.

Author
Time
Post link
Vigo, Obi and Mielr, thanks for the input.

I don't have much more to add myself without turning this into yet another speculation thread.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
Fang Zei, it's not true that all non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs were made from old transfers. For instance, the 1999 "Yellow Submarine" DVD was non-anamorphic widescreen and it was made from a newly-restored print of the film, which had never been used for any previous video release.

I know that one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are others.


Yellow Submarine is 1.66:1 and as I already pointed out, this format has been dealt with differently from DVD to DVD release, because it is a "nearly-widescreen" format. The others you are thinking of are probably the same cases. Clockwork Orange for instance is a new, non-anamorphic transfer exclusively made for DVD, and it is a 1.66:1 movie like Yellow Submarine.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Not all DVD players have such an option. The earliest ones do not ... just as the earliest DVDs were not anamorphic.


If that´s true, this must be VERY early players from end of 1996 to middle of 1997. And no, some of the earliest DVD´s were already anamorphic (Blade Runner). The digital sat reciever we have from 1998 also supports this feature, and my first Philips DVD player from 1999 supports it, too. I mean, it is no technical challenge to remove video lines.
Author
Time
Post link
I guess you are wrong, let´s consider the first DVD player manufactured, the Toshiba SD-3000

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/1996_09/pr2603.htm


The SD-3000 fully complies with the unified DVD standard, which Toshiba took the lead in setting.

Every DVD Player HAS to support downconverting anamorphic to letterbox.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/1996_09/e2603/doc03.htm


# Multi-aspect feature
DVD supports Squeeze system whereby full-spec information of wide-aspect images is compressed to 4:3 images and stored on a disc. With a wide-screen TV, squeezed images are returned to 16:9 wide-aspect images in Full mode for reproduction of high-quality images. With a 4:3 TV, squeezed images are reproduced in Letter-box format or Pan & Scan. With Letter-box, wide-aspect images are displayed on a 4:3 screen with black margins at top and bottom of the image, and with Pan & Scan, some portions of wide-aspect images are deleted to fit a 4:3 format.


http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/1996_09/imgdat/img2615.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Downconverting's not the issue with older units (like mine) ... it's upconverting. I don't know that it can properly display anamorphically .... I've never seen a control option to switch it from one to the other ... though I also haven't looked too hard, since I don't have a widescreen display. Hmmm, I'll have to dig out the manual.

But, yeah, being a laserdisc/DVD combo, rest assured it was one of the first units ever manufactured.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Downconverting's not the issue with older units (like mine) ... it's upconverting.

Upconverting to what? The only upconverting DVD Players do nowadays is to progressive scan.


I don't know that it can properly display anamorphically .... I've never seen a control option to switch it from one to the other ... though I also haven't looked too hard, since I don't have a widescreen display. Hmmm, I'll have to dig out the manual.


If the picture has the correct aspect ratio on your 4:3 TV, apparently your DVD Player is set correctly to Letterbox mode.


But, yeah, being a laserdisc/DVD combo, rest assured it was one of the first units ever manufactured.


Yup, I think the last combo players were made in 1999.
Author
Time
Post link
My ps2 is the 39001 model and I have a standard 4:3 television. A while back, just for kicks, I tried first setting the ps2 itself to 16:9 and then playing an anamorphic dvd, the 2004 ANH disc if you must know. The picture looked exactly the same, proper aspect ratio and everything. Then I tried going into the dvd display setup and changing the aspect that way. I couldn't change it to anything besides 4:3!

Does the ps2 just automatically detect what kind of television it's hooked up to and not let you change the setting? I didn't think something like that was possible.
Author
Time
Post link
Ah, what are you using as a connection between your PS2 and your TV? Composite? I doubt if your PS2 will output an anamorphic picture via a composite connection....I think it needs to be component....I'm probably wrong though.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
you are. I've hooked my ps2 up to a 16x9 tv with composite & it will properly display in 16x9 mode. What it won't do is progressive scan. That has to be component.

EDIT: as for FZ's question, i don't know. I've messed around with the apsect ratio settings on my ps2 while hooked up to a 4:3 tv & i've noticed it doesn't always do what i'd expect when it's put on the "incorrect" setting. Don't know why though. I've never had any trouble getting it to display properly on 4:3 or 16:9 tvs. so i've never really cared. Oh, & just FYI, i had one of the launch models for a long timel. It was fried by lightning 6 months ago & i've since replaced it with one of the slim units. Both performed identically.
Author
Time
Post link
The tv is a regular 4:3 crt, not projection or anything like that. It has both component and composite inputs and I have both cables for the ps2, but I can't remember now if it was still connected via regular composite when I did that test or not. Next time I'm back at home (where the tv is) I'll have to try it again with both cables.

by the way, canofhumdingers, I heard somewhere that the newer slimline model outputs progressive dvd but the older models can't at all. Is this true?
Author
Time
Post link
i dunno, I got my slimline & my 16x9 tv at the same time courtesy of the same lightning strike... I guess when i said they performed the same, i was only referring to trying the various settings on a standard 4:3 tv. I never had a chance to try out my old "big" PS2 on a 16x9 tv.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vbangle
Ah, what are you using as a connection between your PS2 and your TV? Composite? I doubt if your PS2 will output an anamorphic picture via a composite connection....I think it needs to be component....I'm probably wrong though.


Anamorphic output does not change resolution. It is still 720x480 NTSC. You can even watch the anamorphic, unsqueezed picture on a 4:3 TV if you set up your player to 16:9. Therefore, it doesn´t matter what kind of video connection you use.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: vbangle
Ah, what are you using as a connection between your PS2 and your TV? Composite? I doubt if your PS2 will output an anamorphic picture via a composite connection....I think it needs to be component....I'm probably wrong though.


Anamorphic output does not change resolution. It is still 720x480 NTSC. You can even watch the anamorphic, unsqueezed picture on a 4:3 TV if you set up your player to 16:9. Therefore, it doesn´t matter what kind of video connection you use.

Ah.

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
ok, so I've got a few random questions:

1. People keep saying that Lucas had all of the film copies of the originals recalled and destroyed. Did Lucas himself ever say that or is it merely speculation that turned into rumor?

2. For the YCM restoration, existing positive elements had to be used to replace pieces of neg that had been severely damaged beyond any hope of restoration. Just where did those positive elements come from and what exact form were they in (35mm? 70mm? etc)? Also, what form is the original negative in?

3. If certain bits and pieces of what we're seeing in the 2004 dvd are from a positive and not the original negative, what hope does this give us for possibly seeing an OOT release that is mastered from a positive?

While I'm at it, I'm going to throw in a quote from Kevin Burns at one of the press junkets for the 2004 dvd. Burns was responsible for the "Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy" documentary. Anyway, here's the quote:

"just a brief mention at the end (of the documentary)...we certainly acknowledged the special editions and how George went back....you really see it was a series of compromises in making the first movie...things he saw in his head that he couldn't realize given the budget and limited amount of time....the special edition and the dvd comes closest because-again-the artist's work is never finished....as the technology runs apace, and GL has invented most of the technology that has been responsible for these SE's....the technology has come close to but still not matched his vision for what he wanted the planets and the spaceships and the battle scenes to look like...it was important for us to put audiences back in that theater seat in 1977....we did get papal dispensation to use footage from the pre-SE release...you see the opening title sequence as it looked in 1977....that was exciting for us because it does bring you back..."

and this is what I really wanted to highlight:

"I will say what was shocking-and this speaks to the whole issue of the restoration- those brief scenes that we used from the pre-SE, in our mind's eye they looked a lot better than they do when you go back and revisit them and you do see how the qualityof the print, the quality of the negative really doesn't hold up the way you think it might....so you kind of understand why things have been revised and digitally restored."

Has there been any speculation on where Burns was getting the footage from? Was it a print, a negative or something else entirely?

Since the doc itself is 16:9 enhanced, has anyone been able to figure out whether or not it's from the same master tapes used to make the GOUT?

Most importantly, do you think that when Burns says "quality" that he simply means the age of the special effects and not the actual quality of the print/negative itself? LFL's official statement was that they are in "bad condition." Is anyone willing to bet it's nothing that couldn't be restored with today's technology?