Originally posted by: ZombieFlanders
As an example, let's use TR47's Collection. If I put the TR47s in the RP91 (or your friend's JVC, or my HTPC, etc.) set to output 16:9, the player notices that the image is non-anamorphic, however, it is letterboxed within the 16:9 frame. The RP91 (JVC, HTPC...) zoom (or resize in the case of the HTPC) the image to fill that 16:9 frame and get rid of the black bars outside of that frame*, run a sharpening and probably a noise reduction algorithm to enhance the image, and voila! A non-anamorphic, letterboxed DVD is presented in 16:9. Yes and that is exactly what I said, you have lines outputted where there were no lines before.
So, that's what's happening. Remember, no information is added in an anamorphic transfer!
Yes, I know that already. I realy don't know what the disagreement is. As an example, let's use TR47's Collection. If I put the TR47s in the RP91 (or your friend's JVC, or my HTPC, etc.) set to output 16:9, the player notices that the image is non-anamorphic, however, it is letterboxed within the 16:9 frame. The RP91 (JVC, HTPC...) zoom (or resize in the case of the HTPC) the image to fill that 16:9 frame and get rid of the black bars outside of that frame*, run a sharpening and probably a noise reduction algorithm to enhance the image, and voila! A non-anamorphic, letterboxed DVD is presented in 16:9. Yes and that is exactly what I said, you have lines outputted where there were no lines before.
Originally posted by: ZombieFlanders
However, it isn't the same as an anamorphic transfer, since it's adding information that wasn't there before
You don't say. That what I said, it turns a non anamorphic picture into anamorphic by interpolating the lines (I never said it did a *good* job of interpolation, it may well just duplicate the line above or below rather then blend them - it doesn't matter). And I know it's fibbing and that's why I called it an abuse. But it'll yield much the same result as playing a Star Wars bootlegged DVD that was interpolated to "anamorphic" in the first place, yes? That was what my original argument was. In both cases you are adding information that's not there originally, in one case you're doing it to the source and therefore permanently corrupting it and in the other you're just doing it on-the-fly leaving the source happy being non-anamorphic.Originally posted by: ZombieFlandersHowever, it isn't the same as an anamorphic transfer, since it's adding information that wasn't there before
So, that's what's happening. Remember, no information is added in an anamorphic transfer!