logo Sign In

Letterboxed Widescreen vs. Anamorphic Widescreen Discussion — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
It's enough to make you break down in tears. When did Lucas completely lose his mind? Maybe it happened slowly after he divorced his wife. He said something like, "The other version is on VHS and laserdisc, if anybody wants it." Is he nuts? Has he ever gone to this site? VHS and laserdisc are really crummy representations of cinema changing movies. I just can't believe it.

On a happier note, if someone were to purchase 16mm prints of the original trilogy, actually take it to a film lab and digitally restore it, and then release it to us in anamorphic widescreen on a DVD, that would be the neatest thing.

One of us ought to do that.

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
Post link
"if someone were to purchase 16mm prints of the original trilogy, actually take it to a film lab and digitally restore it, and then release it to us in anamorphic widescreen on a DVD, that would be the neatest thing.

One of us ought to do that. "

It's been discussed, but you've no idea how expensive and time-consuming it is. BIG time!

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
When Lucas denied those film fests the ability to present Star Wars in a historical context, that was the last straw with me.
Spielberg at least showed some common sense with the DVD release of E.T.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"if someone were to purchase 16mm prints of the original trilogy, actually take it to a film lab and digitally restore it, and then release it to us in anamorphic widescreen on a DVD, that would be the neatest thing.

One of us ought to do that. "

It's been discussed, but you've no idea how expensive and time-consuming it is. BIG time!


If only Kevin Smith would help us out on that.


D.O.

¤ The Dark One In Costume ¤

...at last we shall have revenge...
Author
Time
Post link
I don't know about that. I think LFL would be seriously beating down some doors to find out who did the transfer, and I don't think Kevin wants that kind of heat.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: skyman8081
Well, Moth3r is better off with an Anamorphic NTSC transfar, as his source are the PAL LD's, which will look sharper and will look better as Anamorphic. In theory, yes, making an anamorphic NTSC DVD from the PAL laserdiscs would only require upsampling of about 11%, instead of the 33% required when going from the NTSC laserdiscs.

But that's not what I'm doing; I'm making a PAL DVD because I'm chosing PAL's 4% speedup over NTSC's motion judder.

Originally posted by: ApolloOne
And what about the vast majority of viewers, the folks who have 4:3 televisions? The first question should have been what about the vast majority of viewers who have NTSC TVs, they won't be able to watch my DVD at all! My answer would be: ask Cowclops, MeBeJedi, Zion et al. But to address the point about 4:3 televisions, most people here who have DVD players also have 16:9 sets. (The only exception I can think of is my parents!) Argos sell twice as many widescreen TVs as standard Tvs.

Originally posted by: ApolloOne
As a DVD creator, an inviolable rule I have to obey is "bother the fewest." In a commercial world, that certainly makes sense. However, I will not be selling my DVDs so I have no qualms about who I bother.

Originally posted by: ApolloOne
Having said that, if you want to make a DVD that works best for your situation, Moth3r, then I don't think anyone would begrudge you that.
I admit that I'm selfish. This DVD is purely for myself. In fact, the only reason I'm making it available to others is for the ego trip!

Originally posted by: The Dark One
First off, before I start blabbering on...I'm in "NTSC land" (although I do have region-free PAL-compatible DVD players for my viewing pleasure) and this is the info on my set: Sony KP-43HT20 43" Rear Projection HDTV Monitor
I see there are no 576i or 576p modes on that display - how do you watch PAL stuff? I assume your player converts to NTSC?

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
... you lose resolution again when your DVD player removes 1 of every 4 lines to get the once-anamorphic picture to fit on your smaller TV screen.
Only if your 4:3 TV does not have a 16:9 mode!

--

There is one reason I've found for not going anamorphic - I've noticed at least two locations where my capture exhibits interlacing artefacts, and I believe it's a problem with stray fields on the laserdisc. This problem will in theory be more noticeable on an anamorphic transfer; really I should fix it before resizing, however, I'm going to go ahead and produce a test screener version and see if it is noticeable or not when watched on screen (it only occurs on a small number of frames).

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
"Only if your 4:3 TV does not have a 16:9 mode!"

Well, I do keep mentioning 4x3, but there are newer tvs with that mode. I wonder how many people actually bother to use it, though. I know my neighbor doesn't, even after I showed him how much it improves the picture.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Well, I do keep mentioning 4x3, but there are newer tvs with that mode. I wonder how many people actually bother to use it, though. I know my neighbor doesn't, even after I showed him how much it improves the picture.

On most PAL 4:3 tvs with 16:9 mode the 16:9 setting can automatically be selected for anamorphic dvds if the dvd player is connected via the scart.

Although I don't think this is possible on ntsc tvs/players as the scart connector is a european (PAL?) standard.


PAL = "Pay for Added Luxury"

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Moth3r
Originally posted by: ApolloOne
And what about the vast majority of viewers, the folks who have 4:3 televisions?
The first question should have been what about the vast majority of viewers who have NTSC TVs, they won't be able to watch my DVD at all! My answer would be: ask Cowclops, MeBeJedi, Zion et al. But to address the point about 4:3 televisions, most people here who have DVD players also have 16:9 sets.

There seems to be more hindering our communication than just a common language. When I posted the above statement, I did not know you were in the UK. Maybe you just assumed I knew you were coming from a UK PAL perspective, just as I assumed you knew I was coming from an US NTSC perspective. The only time you mentioned PAL was in referring the source laserdiscs, but such a source is not mutually exclusive with the creation of an NTSC DVD. Yes, of course a large percentage of viewers over there have 16x9 sets. I've freelanced over here with some UK TV folks and we've had many discussions about our respective home theatre standards.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ApolloOne
As a DVD creator, an inviolable rule I have to obey is "bother the fewest.".
And what about the vast majority of viewers, the folks who have 4:3 televisions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first question should have been what about the vast majority of viewers who have NTSC TVs, they won't be able to watch my DVD at all! My answer would be: ask Cowclops, MeBeJedi, Zion et al. But to address the point about 4:3 televisions, most people here who have DVD players also have 16:9 sets.


I trully can't understand this whole arguement! I mean, it has been made crystal clear in a thousand previous posts, that each format (NTSC or PAL, anamorphic or not) has it's advantages and disadvantages. Which advantages or disadvantages are these, is the topic of discussion in this thread.
Besides that, it is each one's choice to make about about how he wants to view the movies that he likes, by buying the apropriate hardware.
And what better thing to be going on, than having people working on a variety of formats, so one can choose which one fits him the most. In that case, I must say it is a relief to see moth3r work on an PAL project, since all projects made public so far are NTSC. Furthermore, I am happy to see that on the subject of anamorphic or not, there is a variety of choices...
So I think that there is no point in trying to persuade people to work on a project that would suit us. After all, there are others that might prefer it in a way that we don't.
And now, for your feature presentation:
The Classic Re-re-re-release of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back.
In this version the word "WOOKIE" has been changed to "HAIR CHALLENGED ANIMAL" and the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Metallaxis
So I think that there is no point in trying to persuade people to work on a project that would suit us. After all, there are others that might prefer it in a way that we don't.

I agree 110%. Perhaps when discussing projects we're working on, we should put disclaimers at the beginning saying "This project is being made the way I want it, and to hell with what the rest of you think."
I kinda like the projects that just appear out of the ether, finished, with no solicitation of opinions during the creative process. Somehow, they're more pure that way.

Author
Time
Post link
I use a monitor intended for a Commodore 64 or similar type of computer, actually I use it for my DVD player and my Apple //e, it's NTSC 4:3.

My DVD player can play PAL DVDs, though there is some pixellation, suggesting it uses a rather stupid scaling algorithm. Tested it with a couple "Winx Club" DVDs I imported from Italy.

Moll.

"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJediDon't worry. DVD terminology can be difficult to understand. In fact, technically speaking, "anamorphic" DVDs are actually the opposite of what "anamorphic" really means, but it's not a terrible important distinction.

Well, this is of course trivial, but I thought that you guys would like to know. Anamorphic, technically speaking, has the exact meaning it should.
"Ana-" in greek, gives the meaning of something being changed , like re- does in English (re-master, re-place). "Morphi", on the other hand, means "shape", "form".
So anamorphic, really means reformed, and in the way we use it in our terminology regarding the OT restoration from LD's, reforming is exactly what happens during the process of making an anamorphic transfer
After all, anamorphic lenses are actually distortion lenses...
And now, for your feature presentation:
The Classic Re-re-re-release of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back.
In this version the word "WOOKIE" has been changed to "HAIR CHALLENGED ANIMAL" and the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks.
Author
Time
Post link
- so should we refer to a 4:3 letterboxed DVD as "isomorphic" then?

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
"So anamorphic, really means reformed, and in the way we use it in our terminology regarding the OT restoration from LD's, reforming is exactly what happens during the process of making an anamorphic transfer
After all, anamorphic lenses are actually distortion lenses... "

But in film terms, an anamorphic transfer is where the picture is shrunk (visually compressed?) into a smaller frame. When applied to DVDs, it is incorrect usage of the established terminology.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Moth3r
- so should we refer to a 4:3 letterboxed DVD as "isomorphic" then?

No, 4:3 discs are anamorphic, too! At least in the strictest sense of the term they are. Clearly not in popular terms...
Do the math: 720 x 480 is 3:2, so it doesn't match either 4:3 or 16:9. PAL's the same: at 720 x 576, you're looking at 5:4.

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
But in film terms, an anamorphic transfer is where the picture is shrunk (visually compressed?) into a smaller frame. When applied to DVDs, it is incorrect usage of the established terminology.


What's not the same? The picture for 16:9 DVDs is shrunk / visually compressed into a smaller frame, too, just like its film counterpart. It's not what we're doing, exactly, because we're starting with stuff that's too small and stretching it vertically to fill the space, but this is just a very special case. Usually, working from an HD master, there's more than enough resolution and the visual compression / shrinking is obvious.
Author
Time
Post link
What's not the same? The picture for 16:9 DVDs is shrunk / visually compressed into a smaller frame, too, just like its film counterpart. It's not what we're doing, exactly, because we're starting with stuff that's too small and stretching it vertically to fill the space, but this is just a very special case. Usually, working from an HD master, there's more than enough resolution and the visual compression / shrinking is obvious."

This is incorrect. The picture for a 16:9 transfer on DVD is stretched out vertically. A film that is anamorphically transferred is squeezed into a smaller frame by use of optics. In both cases, the aspect ratio is changed. The process that you are referring to maintains the aspect ratio.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
A 16:9 DVD is also known as 16:9FHA (Or Full Height Anamorphic)

In terms of Pal resolutions, a 16:9 image is 1024x576 when unsquashed. This is then squeezed to 720x576 when encoded / rendered and flagged as 16:9 so that the image is streched horizontally for 16:9 TVs and squashed vertically for 4:3 TVs.

A DVD Image is never stretched vertically, but horizontally.

An Anamorphic lense distorts the horizontal image so that you can fit a rectangle into a square (roughly speaking), so that you can make full use of the frame. In the same way anamorphic video when put onto digi-beta or whatever is squashed horizontally so that the hight remains constant, with as much detail as possible, but the width is squeezed to fit the new frame.

Film and DVD Anamorphic do the same thing, hence the same name.

DVD-Boy

Save London’s Curzon Soho Cinema

Author
Time
Post link
"A DVD Image is never stretched vertically, but horizontally."

I was referring to how it was stored on the DVD. In video playback, it is presented stretched horizontally.

"Film and DVD Anamorphic do the same thing, hence the same name."

Not really, but again, it's a fine distinction. Anamorphic film and DVDs may look similar, but they are achieved using very different methods.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
I'm sorry MeBeJedi, perhaps it's been a long day but I'm just not getting the distinction, unless we're talking analogue and digital.

Quoting from Widescreen.org about Anamorphic (In the film sense):

When it comes to movie theatres, anamorphic movies are compressed horizontally. This allows a wide image (up to 2.40:1) to be stored on a standard (1.33:1) frame; however, when you view a raw anamorphic image that has not been expanded horizontally, people look thin and anorexic and circles look like tall ovals. Such a movie is then projected onto the movie screen with a special lens that expands the movie out to its original width on the screen.

So the image is squashed horizontally using a special lense to go from widescreen to regular. When projected it is then unsquashed using another special lense from regular back out to wide. Am I correct in thinking because this is done optically, information is not lost??

Now, Anamorphic DVD:

When it comes to DVDs, anamorphic DVDs are specially encoded to include more visual information than standard DVDs.

Between a 4:3 Letterboxed Movie, and a 16:9 FHA Movie yes this is true.

When an anamorphic DVD is played on a standard 4:3 TV, every fourth line of this extra resolution is ignored.


No problems, but let's ignore 4:3 Letterboxing from now on...

When an anamorphic DVD is played on a regular TV and your DVD player is set for a 16:9 TV, that extra information is restored; however, because that image is meant to be stretched by a 16:9 TV, the result will be that people look thin and anorexic and circles look like tall ovals. Now you can see where these DVDs get the term "anamorphic DVDs".


Ok, so both film and DVD horizontally squash the picture so as to make the most of the regular frame - the only difference with film is that the image can be anamorphically squashed all the way to 2.40:1, whereas DVD is limited to 1.78:1 only.

Both of these share the term "anamorphic" because if you look at the raw image (before horizontal expansion), people will look anorexic, circles will look like tall ovals, and squares will look like tall rectangles.


... there's no 'but'... They both share the same term because the both squash the image horizontally to store a wide-image in a regular-frame. Is film a lossless process, but DVD the information is lost?

Please, someone put me out of my misery, what is the difference?????

Save London’s Curzon Soho Cinema

Author
Time
Post link
I don't know about the anamorphic debate, but the reason I will always watch the trilogy in NTSC is not necessarily because I live in America. I have a PAL copy of the widescreen Star Wars as well. I cannot stand PAL because the sound is sped up along with the video. This is a problem if you were born with something called "perfect pitch" like I was. It means that you automically identify pitch names. So I am immensely distracted by the Star Wars theme playing in B Major rather than B flat Major. It's not so much the voices, but every time a musical cue comes in, I'm busy noticing that it's not in the original key. I can't help it, and it throws the whole thing off for me.

Not many people have my problem (so I don't know how many people know what I'm talking about), but I just wanted to state my personal situation. I would much rather have a motion-judder with the correct running time and the correct audio track

Trooperman

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
Post link
"So the image is squashed horizontally using a special lense to go from widescreen to regular. When projected it is then unsquashed using another special lense from regular back out to wide. Am I correct in thinking because this is done optically, information is not lost??"

For the most part, yes.

"... there's no 'but'... They both share the same term because the both squash the image horizontally to store a wide-image in a regular-frame. Is film a lossless process, but DVD the information is lost?"

The problem is, you keep thinking that the "video" is squeezed horizontally, and it's not. You can't "squash" the pixels - you can only stretch them. The width of the video as it is stored on the DVD is the width of the video. If you were to "squeeze" the video to fit it into the space on the DVD, you would have to lose lines of video (or they would be combined with their neighbors.) The pixels themselves remain the same size regardless, so to answer your question: yes, anamorphic does not lose resolution when squeezed, because film has a tremendously higher resolution (i.e. smaller "pixels", if you will), than video, which is only 720x480.

What DVD does to get around this is increase the vertical resolution. Since the pixels can't change shape, you add more pixels to the other dimension. Therefore, for a 4x3 image, one of every four lines are ignored, so that the vertical image is in the correct aspect ratio of the horizontal image. However, when the image is displayed on a 16x9 set, all of the vertical lines are displayed, and the horizontal pixels are wider to make the correct aspect ratio.

Point being, nothing is squeezed into a frame in a DVD transfer. It's quite the opposite, since more vertical lines of visual information are added, which is why anamorphic transfers take up more space than letterbox transfers.

Film, on the other hand, takes the same image and does squeeze it into a smaller frame.

Film squeezes the same picture information horizontally, and DVD adds picture information vertically.Thus, while both appear to make people tall and skinny, it is for very different reasons.

Whew, I hope that helped.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: DVD-BOY
So the image is squashed horizontally using a special lense to go from widescreen to regular. When projected it is then unsquashed using another special lense from regular back out to wide. Am I correct in thinking because this is done optically, information is not lost??

I suppose I could put forth a really anal argument that since, in the anamorphic process, a lot more image is being squeezed onto the same number of silver halide crystals than would a 1:33 image, some light information is lost.

But I won't.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ApolloOne
Originally posted by: DVD-BOY
So the image is squashed horizontally using a special lense to go from widescreen to regular. When projected it is then unsquashed using another special lense from regular back out to wide. Am I correct in thinking because this is done optically, information is not lost??

I suppose I could put forth a really anal argument that since, in the anamorphic process, a lot more image is being squeezed onto the same number of silver halide crystals than would a 1:33 image, some light information is lost.

But I won't.


I assume you are aware that when we are speaking in terms of optical resolution beeing printed on film (even with film of small format, used in everyday cameras), we are talking about "Gigapixels" of resolution. So it makes no sense at all to mention the information lost during optical anamorphic transfer, since a resolution of 720x480 = 0,35Megapixels is concidered enough for the DVD format.
That would be the reason I wouldn't put the arguement, and I suppose you have a similar reason
And now, for your feature presentation:
The Classic Re-re-re-release of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back.
In this version the word "WOOKIE" has been changed to "HAIR CHALLENGED ANIMAL" and the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks.