Originally posted by: borisOriginally posted by: Karyudo
Actually, you are both wrong: Anamorphic DVDs have 33% more resolution We can do this mathematically if you like:
The claim was:
But with 33% LESS RESOLUTION than all of your anamorphic DVDs
Anamorphic NTSC is 365 lines, 1/3rd of that is 122, 365-132 is 233 lines... hmm, no the PAL disc has 326 lines, thus the statement must be wrong.
But then again, since you're comparing PAL->Anamorphic PAL, here goes:
326 lines for non-anamorphic PAL. 1/3rd of that is 109 lines. 326+109 = 435 lines... so you could say that when compared to non-anamorphic PAL that anamorphic PAL has 33% MORE lines... but that wasn't the claim. The claim was that it has 33% LESS lines then anamorphic PAL. His claim can be rewritten such: "non anamorphic disc = 2/3rds resolution of anamorphic DVD's". But 2*(432/3) = 288, far less then the 326 lines that the PAL disc has.
His claim was completely wrong. Especially considering it has only 11% less lines then anamorphic NTSC. And here's the proof for that. Anamorphic NTSC disc has 365 lines... 365 * 0.89 = 324.85, the PAL disc has 326 lines, Ergo it's 11% less then the anamorphic NTSC SSE 2004 DVD. Alternatively:
326/365 = 0.893 (approx).
So, all that obfuscating math and prose just to show that I was right: anamorphic discs have 33% more resolution than non-anamorphic discs of the same format (the only reasonable way to compare).
Now, here's an interesting note, some of my anamorphic discs don't go all the way to the side of the picture. My OUT PAL Discs do. SOOO... if you were to compare to say an anamorphic NTSC disc which has 9 horizontal black lines to the left and right of the picture, then the total number of pixels would be (720-9*2)*363... or 254826 pixels. The PAL DVD has 720*326 pixels (234720 pixels).... 234720/254826 = 0.92. So this statement would be true:
The OUT DVD's have 8% LESS RESOLUTION than some of my anamorphic DVDsSome of my NTSC discs have even more missing picture then just 9 lines on each side.
