logo Sign In

I just compared my 'Hoosiers' Anamorphic & Non-Anamorphic DVD's

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
99% of my movies are anamorphic, but I was able to find my original Hoosiers DVD I bought back in 1999 that is Non-Anamorphic, so I thought I would compare it to the Anamorphic 2005 Version I bought last year.

First off, I have a 50" Widescreen RCA High Definition Television, and since I bought it last year, I have refused to watch any non-anamorphic movies, but this is the first time I actually popped one in there to compare.

I have to say guys, there wasn't that much difference. Sure the anamorphic was more detailed and better, and I did have to use my 16 x 9 zoom to blow up the non-anamorphic image to make it look exactly like it does on the anamorphic DVD. But I kept switching disks, and going to exact scenes, and I gotta say it wasn't as obvious I have always thought it would be.

Sure, this is Hoosiers, remastered by MGM, so it isn't going to be the most spiffy DVD to begin with, but I started watching the non-anamorphic for about 15 minutes, and I really am being honest it didn't bother me one bit, and I didn't yell at the screen on the edge of my seat ready to pop in the anamorphic disk.

Is Lucas still a dick, yes. Do I want Anamorphic, YES!!!!!!!!!! But the non-anamorphic Hoosiers was taken from a Laserdisk master from 1986, and I have to say, it wasn't that jarring that I wouldn't watch it. And if the SW O-OT is off this quality, I wouldn't really complain.

I don't know guys, out of principle we shouldn't buy it, but I am really starting to reconsider....

Don't bombard me with hate emails guys, I am just trying to give you an honest opinion of a 20 year old movie that I have just compared Anamorphic vs Non-Anamorphic.

I still hate Lucas for being a prick to us anyway if you want to read my thread earlier tonight.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, that would be really nice to see.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
you're right. letterbox isn't too bad, but that is not the intention for the dvd format. What I am really protesting is that Lucas is attempting to destroy the originals by presenting them in an obsolete format in order to lean favor for his mutilated vison. Personally, I draw the line between liking and hating the SE's with Jedi Rocks. It sounds like Tina Turner on crystalmeth.
Author
Time
Post link
Good thing for LFL/THX that we now have the technology to make their discs look as good as they should have to begin with.

<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: jack Spencer Jr
Can you make some screencaps?



I'm sorry, but I just don't have the stuff on my computer to do this, and I hope I dont' lose credibility, cause I can understand anyone who is suspect of this post.

I have had a HighDef TV since Jan 05, and I have never really watched a non-anamorphic movie since, because it was insulting to put that crap on this great TV. The Hoosiers DVD is the only DVD I have to compare Non & Anamorphic.

But I did put in some of my early DVD buys that I haven't watched because they are non-anamorphic:

Crimson Tide (1995)
Romancing the Stone (1984)
True Lies (1994)
The Abyss (1989)
Home Alone (1990)
Breakdown (1997)
Patriot Games (1992)

All these movies are non-anamorphic and taken from laserdisk masters, and I have to say they were all pretty good, and if the O-OT was this quality, I really wouldn't complain.

Trust me, I put in my Lord of the Rings DVD's, and they are just stunning, but as I said, it wasn't like when you watch a VHS tape, or even my SW OT bootlegs, where you see in the first 5 seconds the quality drop. I never had a laserdisk player, so I can't tell you about that quality.

For anyone who has any non-anamorphics in you collection, whether it be a widescreen TV or not, put it in and then put in an anamorphic DVD from that time period. I tried to find older movies that are non-anamorphic, so it would be of that time of the 1993 laserdisk they are taking it from.

I know Lucas is a dick, and trust me, I have been enraged since finding about this shit he is pulling, but I am just being honest, I really think I am gonna buy them, cause there wasn't that HUGE of difference where I would say within seconds, "This is just shit quality!" All those Non-Anamorphic DVD's were actually pretty good I watched scenes from tonight. Not spectacular, but not worth the boycott of missing the movies I love.

I am sorry guys, but I have to say I have done a 180, but atleast it was from a comparison, so I am being honest with myself.

The only thing I can tell you guys to do is maybe rent a DVD from Blockbuster that is non-anamorphic and do the comparison yourself.

Lucas is fucking us, so might as well enjoy the movies we love, instead of seeing Hayden in ROTJ!
Author
Time
Post link
I don't know guys, out of principle we shouldn't buy it, but I am really starting to reconsider....

Then the Emperor has already won.

Can you make some screencaps?


Keep in mind you'd have to blow your screen caps up to 50" to make the same comparison that CO has done. Looking at screen caps on your 17" monitor isn't the same. It's also not a valid scientific test because CO can't control all the variables; telecine techniques, noise reduction, etc.

To me, non-anamorphic widescreen materials look pretty bad over fifty inches. (I'm looking at you, original release of Star Trek Generations.) But that's not the only issue at play here.

By asking for a new, anamorphic transfer, we're looking at a better payoff in the future. If Lucasfilm remasters the O-OT now -- and especially if it pays off for them -- there's a better chance we'll see it again in the HD age, either through video-on-demand or whichever HD disc format dominates. The digital master will be ready, they'll just have to dump it on a disc; it may not even be necessary for them to downrez or re-encode it. High definition is likely to remain a standard for decades, and a HD version of the O-OT will ensure that it remains available.

If, on the other hand, LFL does not create a HD master now, we will just have to fight this fight again in the HD age. Every excuse used by Lucasfilm now will have even more resonance in the future, as film elements continue to degrade and O-OT fans continue to be replaced by SE fans. If we fail then, the next generation of film viewers will have been acclimated to 1080p video, but the only O-OT available to them will be 480(i?). To put it simply, in 30 to 40 years, no one will watch the O-OT(1).

Tactical doctrine demands that we strike with our amassed forces where and when we have the initiative -- that's now, on this issue. Any wavering or doubt could have catastrophic consequences for years, if not decades, to come. So do not doubt. Do not waver. Remember what's at stake, and that you have allies in the film industry, in the press, and the new media. We owe it to them, and to our posterity, to see this thing through.

(1) Interesting side-note. If Lucas sticks to his comments about Star Wars (1977) being a workprint, it will enter the public domain in forty-one years.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
I heard "The Thing" by John Carpenter is another good one to compare because the first dvd edition is non anamorphic taken from a laserdisc master and the new dvd set is 16x9 enhanced from a restored print.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: (Scruffy)

Then the Emperor has already won.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trust me, I am not saying give up the fight. I called Lucasfilm to complain last night, and I emailed them this afternoon. By no means, I am saying, "This is great, enjoy it guys." I want Anamorphic more than anyone here. Everyone who has a widescreen TV is probably the most vocal about Anamorphic cause it effects our experience the most.

My whole point is I just put in a movie that is non-anamorphic, and I enjoyed it, and wasn't complaining. And I thought when I put in the anamorphic disk, it would stick out like VHS to DVD. I remember getting a DVD player, and then doing the comparsion to VHS tapes, and laughing at how noticeable the difference, and wondering how all those years I watched crap on VHS.

I didn't do that tonight with non-anamorphic. Was it worse quality, Of Course it was. Was it huge where it is gonna stop me from buying these movies, I don't think so.

Trust me guys, I know I am going to get alot of heat for this post and how I feel now, but I have to be honest.





Author
Time
Post link
Thanks for posting that CO. It's a relief to hear something like this. And I have been more angry than usual tonight. I need to lose the anger. It's not my business if George Lucas is a prick.
Author
Time
Post link
It all depends on the material too. I just recenlty got an LD of Something wicked This Way Comes in Leterbox LD and I zoomed it in. It ooks prett good compared to the DVD anamorphic I have. But When I zoom in some of my other LDs it can e pretty bad. My Ladyhawke DVD is non anamorphic and I have to zoom it in and it looks pretty bad in the first place, even worse zoomed in. So if the source is shit, you'll get shitis what I'm inclined to believe.
There's good in the Original Trilogy, and it's worth fighting for.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah. Hoosiers was a late generation LD, made in 1995 (possibly with the intention that it would be used on DVD when the format was finalized). The Star Wars LD predates that by several years. I don't know how much (if any) the state of the art changed in the interim, but I wouldn't use the later product to set a lower limit for the earlier product.

Also keep in mind the film elements of ANH and ESB were older at the time of telecine than Hoosier's were when it was scanned; with Lucas's admission that some of the ANH film stock was bad, there's more evidence that the SW laserdisc master was poorer than that of Hoosiers'. The greater image area of the latter may also serve to mask artifacts; any small error in the neg/print, transfer, or encoding will be proportionately larger on a 2.35:1 film than a 1.85:1 film (since we're holding horizontal resolution constant).

I'm just not confident that Hoosiers is the best predictor for the quality of the SW DVDs. If I'm only allowed one data point to predict a trend, I'd prefer it to be as close to SW as possible -- same aspect ratio, same photographic stock and techniques, same age when the transfer was made, same postprocessing, etc.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
I heard "The Thing" by John Carpenter is another good one to compare because the first dvd edition is non anamorphic taken from a laserdisc master and the new dvd set is 16x9 enhanced from a restored print.


yes, the first edition from 1999 was a 4/3 master, you guys in USA are more lucky than us in France; whe had the 1999 edition and then about a year ago we had the "new" edition. Well, not so new... it was only a repackaging of the old disc with new cover from the 16/9 zone 1 edition!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Scruffy
Yeah. Hoosiers was a late generation LD, made in 1995 (possibly with the intention that it would be used on DVD when the format was finalized). The Star Wars LD predates that by several years. I don't know how much (if any) the state of the art changed in the interim, but I wouldn't use the later product to set a lower limit for the earlier product.

Also keep in mind the film elements of ANH and ESB were older at the time of telecine than Hoosier's were when it was scanned; with Lucas's admission that some of the ANH film stock was bad, there's more evidence that the SW laserdisc master was poorer than that of Hoosiers'. The greater image area of the latter may also serve to mask artifacts; any small error in the neg/print, transfer, or encoding will be proportionately larger on a 2.35:1 film than a 1.85:1 film (since we're holding horizontal resolution constant).

I'm just not confident that Hoosiers is the best predictor for the quality of the SW DVDs. If I'm only allowed one data point to predict a trend, I'd prefer it to be as close to SW as possible -- same aspect ratio, same photographic stock and techniques, same age when the transfer was made, same postprocessing, etc.



I agree, and I am not saying since Hoosiers is pretty good, that Star Wars will be. I also put in Wargames, which is a non-anamorphic movie from 1983, and that was one of the first DVD's I bought in 1999. I have to say, again, it was a little grainy because I had to zoom to 16 x 9, but still not that bad.

I plopped in about 8 non-anamorphic movies last night that I know come from Laserdisk masters, and I was suprised none of them struck me as shitty quality where I was pulling my hair out. I am not happy about this non-anamorphic announcement at all, but I have to say this is the first time I have really watched movies on my Widescreen TV that are non-anamorphic, and I even think I overrated how bad they were, cause I was pleasantly suprised with every image on every DVD.

My whole point to this thread was, if I just walked into the room and saw all these movies on my TV, and someone told me they were Anamorphic, I probably would have believed them, it just wasn't that noticeable, as if I walked in on a VHS movie, then I would be able to tell the difference within seconds. Remember these aren't new movies that were released in the theater last year, so I don't expect perfection anyway.

Again, I am still pissed at Lucas for being a dick, but my love for these movies are so strong, I think I personaly will still enjoy them in the quality I think we are getting.
Author
Time
Post link
Is there anyone out there that can share a screen cap of any anamorphic vs. same movie in non-anamorphic? A picture can speak a 1000 words here.

But your post brings a big weight off my shoulders. They weren't lying when they said "it's not anamorphic, but it's still pretty good."

Originally posted by: CO I'm sorry, but I just don't have the stuff on my computer to do this, and I hope I dont' lose credibility, cause I can understand anyone who is suspect of this post.

Come on, CO! It's you! Like we would doubt you.

Originally posted by: ScruffyTo me, non-anamorphic widescreen materials look pretty bad over fifty inches. (I'm looking at you, original release of Star Trek Generations.)


I just watched that! I've only got like a 30 something TV but I thought it was pretty good. Better than laserdisc (which I also own).
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Is there anyone out there that can share a screen cap of any anamorphic vs. same movie in non-anamorphic? A picture can speak a 1000 words here.



here's some screecaps comparisons of the two region editions of The Thing

4/3:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr2cap1.jpg

16/9 anamorphic:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr1cap1.jpg


4/3:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr2cap2.jpg

16/9:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr1cap2.jpg


4/3:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr2cap3.jpg

16/9:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr1cap3.jpg


4/3:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr2cap4.jpg

16/9:
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/2/thingr1cap4.jpg


as you can see the anamorphic transfer has a sharper image the colours are more sturated and the black is really black, not kind of darkgreyish...

Author
Time
Post link
Yup...that's...er...quite amazing.

You may need to link us or gett better hosting.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
My problem with non anamorphic DVD's is that I have a CRT projector. Viewing one is not as simple as pressing a button on a remote control. There is a lot of tweeking involved once the projector is set up for anamorphic viewing.
Author
Time
Post link
i didn't made those, they are from Dvdactive.com.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: grifter
i didn't made those, they are from Dvdactive.com.



I can see that, but unfortuantly I can't see anything. Just a bunch of dot com pictures.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Originally posted by: grifter
i didn't made those, they are from Dvdactive.com.



I can see that, but unfortuantly I can't see anything. Just a bunch of dot com pictures.


http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/thing-collectors-edition-the2.html



Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
you're right. letterbox isn't too bad, but that is not the intention for the dvd format. What I am really protesting is that Lucas is attempting to destroy the originals by presenting them in an obsolete format in order to lean favor for his mutilated vison. Personally, I draw the line between liking and hating the SE's with Jedi Rocks. It sounds like Tina Turner on crystalmeth.
Same here. I've stated before that I'm not actually too bothered about having Star Wars as letterbox only, but it's the principle here. It's spiteful. These movies deserve respect.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: grifter
as you can see the anamorphic transfer has a sharper image the colours are more sturated and the black is really black, not kind of darkgreyish...


The anamorphic transfer will only appear sharper to those with 16:9 displays. The saturation and black level have nothing to do with anamorphic vs letterbox, they are to do with the quality of the transfer itself. The fact is that for the vast majority of people (those who have 4:3 TVs), a letterboxed transfer is actually better. For the majority of the rest (those who have sub 50" 16:9 displays) a letterbox transfer is perfectly acceptable (see CO's statements above). For the tiny minority (those who have projectors or huge 16:9 sets), there will be a noticeable difference. Now, any kind of SD DVD (anamorphic or letterbox) isn't going to look good on HD gear. By the time most people switch to 16:9, HD will be in full force, so for an SD release, letterbox seems like an acceptable choice for now.

But should the OUT be fully restored and newly transferred to HD? Yes.