Originally posted by: ApolloOne
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.
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??
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
