Originally posted by: canofhumdingers
this may come as a shocker to some of you guys asking about the "letterboxed" bluray stuff.... any movie you have on standard dvd that is anamorphic, but wider than 16x9, is also letterboxed. it's just not letterboxed AS MUCH as a non anamorphic dvd... So, the bluray stuff being "letterboxed" is really no different than the way they do standard anamorphic dvds....
Exactly what I said before. The only 100% anamorphic image is a film with an aspect ratio of 16x9 (which I believe is 1.78). As it drifts away from this, letterboxing becomes necessary, whether it is getting narrower (ie 1.66 will have slight side letterboxing, 1.54 will have even more) or if its getting wider (ie 1.85 will have slight top/bottom letterboxing, 2:35 will have more). Its just logically impossible to do it any other way since a widescreen television has a fixed aspect ratio and films come in all sorts of tiny variances. 16x9 was chosen because it was considered the best medium since it is between the American and European academy standards (1.66 vs 1.85), thus is was the best overall choice to minimise letterboxing effect. Personally they should have just gone with the american standard since wider is being more and more accepted.
To get back on topic in regards to movies wider than 16:9, since it's being shot in 35mm either way aren't we not really "losing" any lines of resolution unless the movie was shot in 70mm?
this may come as a shocker to some of you guys asking about the "letterboxed" bluray stuff.... any movie you have on standard dvd that is anamorphic, but wider than 16x9, is also letterboxed. it's just not letterboxed AS MUCH as a non anamorphic dvd... So, the bluray stuff being "letterboxed" is really no different than the way they do standard anamorphic dvds....
Exactly what I said before. The only 100% anamorphic image is a film with an aspect ratio of 16x9 (which I believe is 1.78). As it drifts away from this, letterboxing becomes necessary, whether it is getting narrower (ie 1.66 will have slight side letterboxing, 1.54 will have even more) or if its getting wider (ie 1.85 will have slight top/bottom letterboxing, 2:35 will have more). Its just logically impossible to do it any other way since a widescreen television has a fixed aspect ratio and films come in all sorts of tiny variances. 16x9 was chosen because it was considered the best medium since it is between the American and European academy standards (1.66 vs 1.85), thus is was the best overall choice to minimise letterboxing effect. Personally they should have just gone with the american standard since wider is being more and more accepted.
To get back on topic in regards to movies wider than 16:9, since it's being shot in 35mm either way aren't we not really "losing" any lines of resolution unless the movie was shot in 70mm?
I'm not sure if I understand what your asking. Are you suggesting that a totally true-anamorphc HD image would be equal to the 35mm original? HD is about equal to 16mm in resolution (though IMO its actually not as good), but without the aesthetic advantages of 16mm; there seems to be a myth that HD is better or equal to 35mm film but its a total fabrication of marketing, as 35mm is roughly four times the resolution of HD, to say nothing of the technical limits and aesthetic flaws of video.