Quote
Originally posted by: DanielBQuoteIt's good because the aspect ratio (1.66:1) cannot be presented through anamorphic encoding. Your TV (or computer) will remove the top and bottom of the picture and leave you with a 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio. You have to think of 1.66:1 as full-frame, or being close to it anyway.
Originally posted by: bad_karma24QuoteWhy is that good? I'd take anamorphic enhancement over non-enhanced material (unless it's fullframe)
Originally posted by: DanielBQuoteNot entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
If it was anamorphic you'd have to choose between watching it anamorphic, but cropped to 1.78:1 - or watching it non-anamorphic with those awful digital jaggies you get from removing every fifth line. The increase in resolution is not enough to justify that. -and I might add that PC's will force you to watch only the 16:9 area, since the players consider everything outside of this to be useless information they can just repleace with solid black boarders.
Uh... no. Watch the Lion King. It's 1.66 and anamorphically enhanced, as is the new Dr. Strangelove. They simply box off the left and right sides. But because of overscan it's not even noticeable anyway. I always zoom my 1.66 DVDs in (like Barry Lyndon), because you're not really losing much. Even 1.85:1 gets cut off a bit.