Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Mulan - Family Friendly Widescreen Aspect Ratio 1.66:1 - Enhanced???

Reply
Thread Tools

Mulan - Family Friendly Widescreen Aspect Ratio 1.66:1 - Enhanced???

 
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2004
X-No-archive: yes

"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:06:46 -0800, "Richard C."
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:03:29 +1100, "ChrisK" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have a look at:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm
>>>>
>>>>This explains that the CAPS system used by recent Disney films has a
>>>>native
>>>>AR of 1.66:1 and so if the film is cropped to 1.85:1, then you are
>>>>actually
>>>>losing a little off the top and bottom of the frame...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Shinner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9592A50A76822shinnerearthlinknet@207.6 9.189.191...
>>>>> "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> news:fbqx2n16sfx8.wm3ul732do07$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>
>>>>> > The aspect ratio the film was animated in was 1.66:1. That aspect
>>>>> > ratio was cropped to 1.85:1 for the original theatrical exhibition.
>>>>> > So what you see on the new DVD is the complete animated frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the same apply to Aladdin? I seem to remember 1.66:1 on that
>>>>> recent
>>>>> release too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's fine with me. Better than having a tiny picture inside a huge,
>>> big black box. They should crop all 1.66:1 films to an anamorphic
>>> 1.85:1 in my opinion.
>>>
>>> - Rutger

>>=========================
>>But that is not what they did.
>>It is still 1.66:1 and is anamorphic.
>>

>
> Not on the DVD. The anamorphic picture is cropped to 1.85.1.
>
> - Rutgar


============================
No...it is not!
It is 1.66:1 within a 1.77777777:1 (16:9) frame.
Do you understand what anamorphic enhancement means?
===========================


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2004
Rutgar wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:12:49 GMT, jayembee
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Rutgar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> "Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Does the same apply to Aladdin? I seem to remember 1.66:1 on
>>>>>>> that recent release too.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine with me. Better than having a tiny picture inside a
>>>>> huge, big black box. They should crop all 1.66:1 films to an
>>>>> anamorphic
>>>>> 1.85:1 in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> But that is not what they did.
>>>> It is still 1.66:1 and is anamorphic.
>>>
>>> Not on the DVD. The anamorphic picture is cropped to 1.85.1.

>>
>> Not on the DVD. I just checked it right this instant. ALADDIN (and
>> MULAN -- I checked that, too) is anamorphically-enhanced 1.66:1.
>>
>> If it was 1.85:1, there'd be slight black bars on the top and bottom.
>> But on ALADDIN, they're on the sides. Which tells you that the image
>> isn't as wide as the widescreen TV frame (1.78:1).
>>
>> -- jayembee

>
> Hmm, I'll have to double check. I have a Front Projector, and I
> didn't notice any black bars on the sides. But it's possible that
> they're so small, that they're lost on the shadow masking of the sides
> of the screen.


You can check if you want, but trust us, it's true.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2004
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:08:56 -0800, "Richard C."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:06:46 -0800, "Richard C."
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>>"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:03:29 +1100, "ChrisK" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Have a look at:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>This explains that the CAPS system used by recent Disney films has a
>>>>>native
>>>>>AR of 1.66:1 and so if the film is cropped to 1.85:1, then you are
>>>>>actually
>>>>>losing a little off the top and bottom of the frame...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Shinner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news:Xns9592A50A76822shinnerearthlinknet@207. 69.189.191...
>>>>>> "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>> news:fbqx2n16sfx8.wm3ul732do07$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The aspect ratio the film was animated in was 1.66:1. That aspect
>>>>>> > ratio was cropped to 1.85:1 for the original theatrical exhibition.
>>>>>> > So what you see on the new DVD is the complete animated frame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the same apply to Aladdin? I seem to remember 1.66:1 on that
>>>>>> recent
>>>>>> release too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's fine with me. Better than having a tiny picture inside a huge,
>>>> big black box. They should crop all 1.66:1 films to an anamorphic
>>>> 1.85:1 in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> - Rutger
>>>=========================
>>>But that is not what they did.
>>>It is still 1.66:1 and is anamorphic.
>>>

>>
>> Not on the DVD. The anamorphic picture is cropped to 1.85.1.
>>
>> - Rutgar

>
>============================
>No...it is not!
>It is 1.66:1 within a 1.77777777:1 (16:9) frame.
>Do you understand what anamorphic enhancement means?
>===========================
>


More than you, dickhead.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2004
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:41:56 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Rutgar wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:12:49 GMT, jayembee
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Rutgar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Richard C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the same apply to Aladdin? I seem to remember 1.66:1 on
>>>>>>>> that recent release too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine with me. Better than having a tiny picture inside a
>>>>>> huge, big black box. They should crop all 1.66:1 films to an
>>>>>> anamorphic
>>>>>> 1.85:1 in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is not what they did.
>>>>> It is still 1.66:1 and is anamorphic.
>>>>
>>>> Not on the DVD. The anamorphic picture is cropped to 1.85.1.
>>>
>>> Not on the DVD. I just checked it right this instant. ALADDIN (and
>>> MULAN -- I checked that, too) is anamorphically-enhanced 1.66:1.
>>>
>>> If it was 1.85:1, there'd be slight black bars on the top and bottom.
>>> But on ALADDIN, they're on the sides. Which tells you that the image
>>> isn't as wide as the widescreen TV frame (1.78:1).
>>>
>>> -- jayembee

>>
>> Hmm, I'll have to double check. I have a Front Projector, and I
>> didn't notice any black bars on the sides. But it's possible that
>> they're so small, that they're lost on the shadow masking of the sides
>> of the screen.

>
>You can check if you want, but trust us, it's true.



Well, on both my Front Projector, and my RPTV, there are NO black
bars, when viewing Mulan. Looks like it's cropped to 1.77:1 to me.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2004
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:53:26 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>You can check if you want, but trust us, it's true.

>
>
> Well, on both my Front Projector, and my RPTV, there are NO black
> bars, when viewing Mulan. Looks like it's cropped to 1.77:1 to me.


You're forgetting about overscan. A 1.85:1 image probably doesn't have
black bars on your TVs either. Either eliminate the overscan or check the
disc on something without overscan, like a computer monitor.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2004
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:53:26 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>>You can check if you want, but trust us, it's true.

>>
>>
>> Well, on both my Front Projector, and my RPTV, there are NO black
>> bars, when viewing Mulan. Looks like it's cropped to 1.77:1 to me.

>
>You're forgetting about overscan. A 1.85:1 image probably doesn't have
>black bars on your TVs either. Either eliminate the overscan or check the
>disc on something without overscan, like a computer monitor.
>
>-Jay


That's possible. But black bars beyond the viewing picture of both my
TV's are just like the proverbial "Tree Falling in the Forest". If I
can't see it, it isn't there.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2004
X-No-archive: yes

"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:08:56 -0800, "Richard C."
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:06:46 -0800, "Richard C."
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>X-No-archive: yes
>>>>
>>>>"Rutgar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:03:29 +1100, "ChrisK" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Have a look at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This explains that the CAPS system used by recent Disney films has a
>>>>>>native
>>>>>>AR of 1.66:1 and so if the film is cropped to 1.85:1, then you are
>>>>>>actually
>>>>>>losing a little off the top and bottom of the frame...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Shinner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:Xns9592A50A76822shinnerearthlinknet@207 .69.189.191...
>>>>>>> "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:fbqx2n16sfx8.wm3ul732do07$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > The aspect ratio the film was animated in was 1.66:1. That aspect
>>>>>>> > ratio was cropped to 1.85:1 for the original theatrical
>>>>>>> > exhibition.
>>>>>>> > So what you see on the new DVD is the complete animated frame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the same apply to Aladdin? I seem to remember 1.66:1 on that
>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>> release too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine with me. Better than having a tiny picture inside a huge,
>>>>> big black box. They should crop all 1.66:1 films to an anamorphic
>>>>> 1.85:1 in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rutger
>>>>=========================
>>>>But that is not what they did.
>>>>It is still 1.66:1 and is anamorphic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not on the DVD. The anamorphic picture is cropped to 1.85.1.
>>>
>>> - Rutgar

>>
>>============================
>>No...it is not!
>>It is 1.66:1 within a 1.77777777:1 (16:9) frame.
>>Do you understand what anamorphic enhancement means?
>>===========================
>>

>
> More than you, dickhead.


=============================
Obviously not, if you think it means the picture is cropped.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2004
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:20:03 GMT, Rutgar wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>You're forgetting about overscan. A 1.85:1 image probably doesn't have
>>black bars on your TVs either. Either eliminate the overscan or check the
>>disc on something without overscan, like a computer monitor.
>>

>
> That's possible. But black bars beyond the viewing picture of both my
> TV's are just like the proverbial "Tree Falling in the Forest". If I
> can't see it, it isn't there.


The point is what you are seeing, which is an uncropped 1.66:1 image.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2004
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:30:42 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:20:03 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>You're forgetting about overscan. A 1.85:1 image probably doesn't have
>>>black bars on your TVs either. Either eliminate the overscan or check the
>>>disc on something without overscan, like a computer monitor.
>>>

>>
>> That's possible. But black bars beyond the viewing picture of both my
>> TV's are just like the proverbial "Tree Falling in the Forest". If I
>> can't see it, it isn't there.

>
>The point is what you are seeing, which is an uncropped 1.66:1 image.
>
>-Jay



No, the point is: I don't care if it's 1.85.1, 1.77.1, or 1.66.1. As
long as it's anamorphic, the three aspect ratios are indistinguishable
from each other on my two 16x8 TV's. Now, that might be due to
overscan, but that doesn't matter to me. And, I don't watch movies
on my PC.

Now 1.33:1, and 2.35:1 are another story.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2004
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:56:55 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:30:42 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>The point is what you are seeing, which is an uncropped 1.66:1 image.

>
> No, the point is: I don't care if it's 1.85.1, 1.77.1, or 1.66.1.


As long as you don't care which it actually is, then you shouldn't mind
admitting that you were wrong about it being cropped.

-Jay
 
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
How to keep aspect ratio of image inside an ImageButton control? Arthur Hsu ASP .Net 5 12-08-2004 12:51 AM
Newbie: Image button aspect ratio =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgV2hpdGNodXJjaC1CZW5uZXR0?= ASP .Net 5 11-07-2004 11:32 PM
Mulan Box set Dragon DVD Video 0 11-07-2004 05:06 PM
Re: Brother Bear DVD: "Family Friendly" Aspect Ratio. Brandon Wolgast DVD Video 0 04-04-2004 10:38 PM
FA: Mulan OOP Vesuvius \(was Columbia Ho\) DVD Video 1 09-07-2003 06:00 PM



Advertisments