Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
And why would an 8x8 compression artifact of a visual glitch be any bigger or smaller than any other 8x8 block of visual information? Everything is being enlarged when you zoom in - errors and all.
Laserschwert is right about this, MBJ. The macro blocks will be bigger relative to the picture. The compression artifacts will not be bigger than any other 8x8 blocks, but all the blocks will be bigger.
Divide a 4:3, 720x480 frame into 8x8 blocks. That's the size of the macro blocks on your letterboxed version. Divide the picture only (mostly), 720x480 frame into 8x8 blocks. That's the macro block size of your anamorphic version.
However, there should be enough space on the disc to minimise any macro noise. It will only have 2 audio tracks, simple menus and a 2hr movie, for a DL disc that is nothing. Also, you have more disc space because there is less movement in the image. This allows more bitrate, again reducing the presence of macro noise.
Originally posted by: BentMyWookie
It's obvious that not many people on this board have a widescreen TV as there display device because of all the crap that’s spouted off.
I'm worried that this influenced your decision to drop the 16x9 version, do you have a widescreen TV/display yourself?
I know that 4x3 screens are the norm in the US and only really HT enthusiasts seem to have them
However here in the UK the majority of people now have 16x9 sets (4x3 was ditched a few years back, you never see them in shops, only portable versions really)
In real life 4x3 letterbox would be the worst possible solution for viewing on these screens, the satellite channel TCM broadcasts their films this way as a sort of "mock widescreen" and you end up with a tiny rectangle (the film) in a black square (4x3) in the centre of the screen.
On my set (Toshiba (one of the best TV brands in the UK, along with Panasonic) you have to "stretch" the picture to 16x9 ratio then zoom in again.
Practically, a 2.35.1 anamorphic DVD will not fill the whole of a 16x9 display, but you will get thinner black bars and no loss in picture quality than you would if it was non anamorphic AND certainly MUCH BETTER quality then if you stretched out a 4x3 letterbox picture using the TV settings.
Here's an example of what I mean -- bentmywookie, you don't understand the argument. The 'fake' 16x9 that is broadcast by tv channels is not the same as a letterboxed DVD. To see what it looks like, find an old DVD that is 1.85:1 and not 16x9 enhanced. Put it in your dvd player and change the TV display settings to 'zoom'. This zooms-in on a 16x9 segment of the 4:3 image and stretches it. The black bars are the same size as the ones that are encoded onto a widescreen dvd. There is loss in picture quality if it is anamorphic, because you are creating resolution that isn't there in the first place, when you transfer from LD. Keep in mind that this is different to commercial DVD's which are created from film!
btw, I think you are using the wrong settings on your TV. You are describing the effect of stretching a letterboxed movie horizontally to fill a 16x9 frame (giving larger black bars). Your setting would give the wrong aspect ratio, and everything would look stretched. This is not the setting to use. The TV will have another display setting, called 'zoom' (or similar), which is designed for viewing LB properly on a widescreen TV. That's unless the TV station is broadcasting a "14:9" picture (a wierd hybrid ratio that some channels use to fill more of the screen). In which case you're better off leaving it, but nevertheless, it is different to what we are talking about.
And like I said, I own a 16:9 TV and would prefer the LB dvd. There is no-one here who is "spouting off crap", except those who don't know how to use their TV properly, and those who are programmed to automatically think that anamorphic=better. 
