Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > MGM - another P&S irritation

Reply
Thread Tools

MGM - another P&S irritation

 
 
karlpov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
backlist. I must admit, though, that I was disappointed when a recent
run of B-listers, including a favorite of mine, Remo Williams (also
Eve of Destruction, as I recall), were issued P&S only. Now I see that
another one I've been waiting for, the Sherlock Holmes comedy Without
a Clue, will be going that way too. What are these doofuses thinking
of? I don't get it. I'm exceptionally tolerant for P&S by the
standards of this group, but I sure don't like for it to be the only
choice on DVD.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
"karlpov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
> nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
> backlist. I must admit, though, that I was disappointed when a recent
> run of B-listers, including a favorite of mine, Remo Williams (also
> Eve of Destruction, as I recall), were issued P&S only. Now I see that
> another one I've been waiting for, the Sherlock Holmes comedy Without
> a Clue, will be going that way too. What are these doofuses thinking
> of? I don't get it.


They're thinking that it's cheaper and easier to recycle an old VHS or
laserdisc master than to spend money on a fresh anamorphic transfer.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
"karlpov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

: MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
: nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
: backlist.

=====================
Except that all their 1.66:1 releases are NON-anamorphic.
With a WS set, there is no way to properly use one of those.
=====================



 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Rongsted
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
"Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"karlpov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>: MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
>: nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
>: backlist.
>
>=====================
>Except that all their 1.66:1 releases are NON-anamorphic.
>With a WS set, there is no way to properly use one of those.


A 1.66:1 movie is not wide enough to encode as anamorphic. A widescreen
tv is 1.78:1. Thus you would have to have black bars at the sides (left
and right). On a 4:3 tv that would give you black bars on all sides!

Imagine all the idiots that want P&S getting a movie framed like that -
that would be fun

Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003

"Peter Rongsted" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
: "Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >"karlpov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
: >
: >: MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
: >: nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
: >: backlist.
: >
: >=====================
: >Except that all their 1.66:1 releases are NON-anamorphic.
: >With a WS set, there is no way to properly use one of those.
:
: A 1.66:1 movie is not wide enough to encode as anamorphic. A widescreen
: tv is 1.78:1. Thus you would have to have black bars at the sides (left
: and right). On a 4:3 tv that would give you black bars on all sides!

=====================
LOTS of 1.66:1 movies have been encoded as anamorphic.
If you had a widescreen set, you would know what the problem is.
With a non-anamorphic 1.6:1, you lose about 18% of the picture when you "zoom".
If it is anamorphic, it displays as you describe above on a 16:9 screen....which is
appropriate.
It makes no difference on a 4:3 screen.
I refuse to buy anymore 1.66:1 that are not anamorphic.
Giant was my last.
=======================
:
: Imagine all the idiots that want P&S getting a movie framed like that -
: that would be fun
:
===========================
As I said........non-anamorphic 1.66 movies suck!


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Howells
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003

"Peter Rongsted" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> A 1.66:1 movie is not wide enough to encode as anamorphic.


And yet quite a few are so encoded, such as the US releases of Curse Of The
Demon/Night Of The Demon, The 4th Man, and several of the Sellers Collection
(including I'm Alright Jack & Two Way Stretch). In the UK Rear Window is
1.66:1 anamorphic. I've got 20 such disks altogether.

> .. A widescreen
> tv is 1.78:1. Thus you would have to have black bars at the sides (left
> and right). On a 4:3 tv that would give you black bars on all sides!


Yes, but 1.66/1.78 is 93.2%, so less than 7% of the width is the black bars
at the sides, and on most TV's they will never be seen due to overscan, so
the picture appears to be just another letterboxed film on most 4:3 TVs.

John Howells


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
"Peter Rongsted" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> A 1.66:1 movie is not wide enough to encode as anamorphic. A

widescreen
> tv is 1.78:1. Thus you would have to have black bars at the sides

(left
> and right). On a 4:3 tv that would give you black bars on all sides!


The side bars on a 1.66:1 windowboxed disc are so small that they will
be cut off by overscan on the majority of televisions anyway. There are
plenty of studios that do routinely present 1.66:1 movies with
anamorphic enhancement, including Anchor Bay and Buena Vista.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank Malczewski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Richard C. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "karlpov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> : MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
> : nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
> : backlist.
>
> =====================
> Except that all their 1.66:1 releases are NON-anamorphic.
> With a WS set, there is no way to properly use one of those.
> =====================


Think there's a few 1.85:1 titles upcoming that may also end up being
non-anamorphic. (Although when it's a few months out, details tend to
be somewhat conflicting.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
"Frank Malczewski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1g6e6os.9421jm1k4x2m8N%(E-Mail Removed)...
: Richard C. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: > "karlpov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: >
: > : MGM is one of my favorite DVD producers, since the discs are usually
: > : nice transfers, low priced, and with a great deal of attention to
: > : backlist.
: >
: > =====================
: > Except that all their 1.66:1 releases are NON-anamorphic.
: > With a WS set, there is no way to properly use one of those.
: > =====================
:
: Think there's a few 1.85:1 titles upcoming that may also end up being
: non-anamorphic. (Although when it's a few months out, details tend to
: be somewhat conflicting.)

=========================
Studios that release non-anamorphic versions of any 1.66 and up movie are insane.
I will no longer buy them no matter how much I want the movie.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Waterperson77
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
>
>A 1.66:1 movie is not wide enough to encode as anamorphic. A widescreen
>tv is 1.78:1. Thus you would have to have black bars at the sides (left
>and right). On a 4:3 tv that would give you black bars on all sides!
>


so what? On wideescreen HDTV sets, Enterprise was shown with black bars on all
four sides every week.

And the analog 4:3 viewers only had bars on two sides.

while widescreen HDTV owners had bars on all four sides of the very same show.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
two column irritation aljones HTML 21 04-04-2007 03:38 AM
OT: Thursday Irritation CBIC MCSE 6 09-29-2006 06:55 PM
Irritation larry Computer Support 1 09-09-2005 07:14 PM
Minor irritation: Can't delete the IE Links folder edgy Computer Support 4 10-29-2004 11:07 AM
debugger restarted stops in javascript, minor irritation foldface@yahoo.co.uk ASP .Net 0 06-11-2004 02:26 PM



Advertisments