Originally posted by: Mielr
Ahh, thanks for correcting me. I wasn't sure about that when I posted it, but it seemed logical to me since so many Laserdisc transfers are non-anamorphic.
Originally posted by: zombie84
Regarding the previous discussion of anamorphic 16x9--that just refers to stretching an image to fit a certain aspect ratio. Although it is true that there is no stretching in a 16x9 image on a 16x9 screen, because it fills it exactly it would not be considered letterboxed since there is no letterboxing--in that sense its not really anamorphic either since there is no re-sizing but its a better way to describe filling a screen of the same size without any loss. As I said, letterboxing is always necessary since tvs are fixed size and films come in all sorts of shapes--in theaters, the projectionist has to letterbox films too, even though 35mm prints are anamorphic; thats how the same size screen fits a 1.85 film and a 2.35 film without changing the screen, there are drawn curtains that mask the shape of the screen to fit the images, even though the silver screen is "widescreen" and "anamorphic."
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Laserdisc was not capable of this and that's why non-remastered DVDs have black bars encoded into the actual movie images.
Actually - anamorphic laserdiscs did exist. Only a few titles were produced and I think they were only sold in Japan, but they were made .
Laserdisc was not capable of this and that's why non-remastered DVDs have black bars encoded into the actual movie images.
Actually - anamorphic laserdiscs did exist. Only a few titles were produced and I think they were only sold in Japan, but they were made .
Ahh, thanks for correcting me. I wasn't sure about that when I posted it, but it seemed logical to me since so many Laserdisc transfers are non-anamorphic.
Originally posted by: zombie84
Regarding the previous discussion of anamorphic 16x9--that just refers to stretching an image to fit a certain aspect ratio. Although it is true that there is no stretching in a 16x9 image on a 16x9 screen, because it fills it exactly it would not be considered letterboxed since there is no letterboxing--in that sense its not really anamorphic either since there is no re-sizing but its a better way to describe filling a screen of the same size without any loss. As I said, letterboxing is always necessary since tvs are fixed size and films come in all sorts of shapes--in theaters, the projectionist has to letterbox films too, even though 35mm prints are anamorphic; thats how the same size screen fits a 1.85 film and a 2.35 film without changing the screen, there are drawn curtains that mask the shape of the screen to fit the images, even though the silver screen is "widescreen" and "anamorphic."
Hmm, if I were going to describe non-letterboxed, non-anamorphic images without loss, I'd simply call them full-screen+original-aspect-ratio since the term anamorphic has a very precise physical meaning and should only be applied to an image that is stretched at some point along the line.