Anamorphic?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by DVDfanatico, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. DVDfanatico

    DVDfanatico Guest

    Can a DVD be 1:1.33 and be mastered in high definition or does it have to be
    2.35:1 ratio? Sorry if this is a stupid question ;-)

    -DVDfanatico
    DVDfanatico, Jan 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DVDfanatico

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "DVDfanatico" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Can a DVD be 1:1.33 and be mastered in high definition or does it have

    to be
    > 2.35:1 ratio? Sorry if this is a stupid question ;-)


    "High definition" and "anamorphic enhancement" are not the same thing. A
    DVD of any ratio can be mastered in high definition.

    A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place it
    in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    just be stupid and pointless.
    Joshua Zyber, Jan 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "DVDfanatico" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Can a DVD be 1:1.33 and be mastered in high definition or does it have to be
    : 2.35:1 ratio? Sorry if this is a stupid question ;-)
    :
    : -DVDfanatico

    =============================
    Of course a 1.33:1 can be mastered in high definition.
    That has nothing to do with the aspect ratio.
    Why was your subject "anamorphic"? That has nothing to do with your question.

    Anamorphic DVDs are mastered such that they show more resolution on 16:9 sets.
    No DVDs are actually HD.
    HD television is always transmitted in a 16:9 frame, but can contain an HD 1.33:1
    image within that frame.

    Does that help?
    ============================
    Richard C., Jan 27, 2004
    #3
  4. DVDfanatico

    BeStiff Guest


    >"High definition" and "anamorphic enhancement" are not the same thing. A
    >DVD of any ratio can be mastered in high definition.
    >
    >A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place it
    >in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    >just be stupid and pointless.


    Why would it be stupid and pointless? Wouldn't the fullscreen picture
    that appeared between the black bars at the sides be much clearer and
    sharper than if you played the same picture on your widescreen tv
    without 16 x 9 enhancement? I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.
    BeStiff, Jan 28, 2004
    #4
  5. DVDfanatico

    John Howells Guest

    "BeStiff" <wanderinNO$%&> wrote

    > >"High definition" and "anamorphic enhancement" are not the same thing. A
    > >DVD of any ratio can be mastered in high definition.
    > >
    > >A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place it
    > >in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    > >just be stupid and pointless.

    >
    > Why would it be stupid and pointless?


    Because it means that a 1.33:1 image on a 4:3 TV would then have black bars
    on all four sides, so that only 56% of the screen area would be used by the
    picture. Does that qualifie as stupid and pointless - exceedingly so?

    > Wouldn't the fullscreen picture
    > that appeared between the black bars at the sides be much clearer and
    > sharper than if you played the same picture on your widescreen tv
    > without 16 x 9 enhancement?


    No. It would be less so, as only 3/4 of the available resolution on DVD (or
    whatever other media may be used) would be available for the picture, as 1/4
    would be used by the black bars, whereas the whole resolution being
    available when a 1.33:1 picture is "pillar-boxed" in an anamorphic image.

    > I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    > Kane.


    Why on earth should they? Thank goodness they did not!

    > Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    > complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    > than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    > viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.


    We certainly should not complain, but that does not require that a 1.33:1
    picture be anamorphically enhanced. See the second option at
    http://www.amcro.co.uk/widescr.htm for the 16:9 viewer, noting that this
    does not require any anamorphic enhancement, as the TV can create the
    required black bars from a non-anamorphic image, and the image will appear
    full screen on a 4:3 TV.

    John Howells
    John Howells, Jan 28, 2004
    #5
  6. DVDfanatico

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "BeStiff" <wanderinNO$%&> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place

    it
    > >in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    > >just be stupid and pointless.

    >
    > Why would it be stupid and pointless? Wouldn't the fullscreen picture
    > that appeared between the black bars at the sides be much clearer and
    > sharper than if you played the same picture on your widescreen tv
    > without 16 x 9 enhancement?


    No. It would be less clear and less sharp, given that the movie would be
    window-boxed into the center of the frame, shrinking the image and
    needlessly wasting valuable bits of disc space and lines of resolution
    creating black back bars on the sides of the picture for no good reason.

    > I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    > Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    > complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    > than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    > viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.


    Your widescreen television can create the side-bars on its own. You
    don't have to master the disc at a lower resolution just to get
    side-bars.
    Joshua Zyber, Jan 28, 2004
    #6
  7. DVDfanatico

    Rich Clark Guest

    "BeStiff" <wanderinNO$%&> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > >"High definition" and "anamorphic enhancement" are not the same thing. A
    > >DVD of any ratio can be mastered in high definition.
    > >
    > >A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place it
    > >in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    > >just be stupid and pointless.

    >
    > Why would it be stupid and pointless? Wouldn't the fullscreen picture
    > that appeared between the black bars at the sides be much clearer and
    > sharper than if you played the same picture on your widescreen tv
    > without 16 x 9 enhancement? I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    > Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    > complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    > than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    > viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.


    You do not seem to understand what an anamorphic image is.

    The current transfer of Kane (and any other 4:3 source) is already at the
    maximum vertical resolution possible for conventional video.

    An anamorphic transfer is not really "enhanced" -- it is also at that same
    maximum vertical resolution. The difference is that it's geometrically
    "squeezed" horizontally into a 4:3 frame, still at maximum vertical
    resolution. If you have a widescreen TV the image is unsqueezed, thus
    filling the width of the screen.

    Non-anamorphic widescreen transfers are actually reduced in vertical
    resolution, so that they fit the 4:3 frame horizontally. To make them fill a
    widescreen TV you have to zoom the picture, reducing apparent resolution.

    RichC
    Rich Clark, Jan 28, 2004
    #7
  8. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "BeStiff" <wanderinNO$%&> wrote in message
    news:...
    :
    : >"High definition" and "anamorphic enhancement" are not the same thing. A
    : >DVD of any ratio can be mastered in high definition.
    : >
    : >A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place it
    : >in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    : >just be stupid and pointless.
    :
    : Why would it be stupid and pointless? Wouldn't the fullscreen picture
    : that appeared between the black bars at the sides be much clearer and
    : sharper than if you played the same picture on your widescreen tv
    : without 16 x 9 enhancement?

    =========================
    Not in any way.
    I am sure others will be more technical, but basically, it would look identical.
    ========================


    : I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    : Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    : complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    : than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    : viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.
    :
    ======================
    "We" don't.............
    Richard C., Jan 28, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    BeStiff <wanderinNO$%&> wrote:
    >
    >>"High definition" and "anamorphic enhancement" are not the same thing. A
    >>DVD of any ratio can be mastered in high definition.
    >>
    >>A 1.33:1 movie will not be anamorphically enhanced unless you place it
    >>in the middle of the 16:9 screen with bars on the sides, which would
    >>just be stupid and pointless.

    >
    >Why would it be stupid and pointless? Wouldn't the fullscreen picture
    >that appeared between the black bars at the sides be much clearer and
    >sharper than if you played the same picture on your widescreen tv
    >without 16 x 9 enhancement?


    No. DVDs have a fixed number of pixels: 720x480. If you anamorphically
    "enhanced" it, you'd use some of the 720 horizontal pixels on each side
    to create the black bars, leaving you with less resolution. Thus,
    you gain nothing (the vertical resolution doesn't change-- it's 480
    either way) and you lose something.

    >I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    >Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    >complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    >than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    >viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.


    Who does?


    --
    Aaron Brezenski
    Not speaking for my employer in any way.
    Aaron P Brezenski, Jan 28, 2004
    #9
  10. >> I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    >> Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    >> complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    >> than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    >> viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.

    >
    > Who does?



    Richard C.

    Max Christoffersen
    Max Christoffersen, Jan 30, 2004
    #10
  11. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC4117B5.5B6A%...
    : >> I wish they would have enhanced Citizen
    : >> Kane. Since we widescreeners are always poking fun at people who
    : >> complain about the bars at the top and bottom of their television,
    : >> than we should not complain about bars at the sides of our screen when
    : >> viewing older movies filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio.
    : >
    : > Who does?
    :
    :
    : Richard C.
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    =======================
    Prove it, oh great dipshit!

    I ALWAYS want OAR ..................I never complain about bars on the sides of
    1.33:1 movies.

    How is your autointercourse experimentation going?
    ===================
    Richard C., Jan 31, 2004
    #11
  12. Richard C. denies his own words with:

    > : > Who does?


    > : Richard C.
    > :
    > : Max Christoffersen

    ===========

    > Prove it, oh great dipshit!


    Easy: Read your own words below:


    > I ALWAYS want OAR ..................I never complain about bars on the sides
    > of 1.33:1 movies.


    Really?...


    >>> See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it <<<
    >>> would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as <
    >>> 1.85:1 appears to. Richard C June 24 2003 <<<



    Busted baby.

    You're a screen filler and complaing that a DVD isn't anamorphic which would
    then 'fill your screen'.

    Thanks for playing.


    Max Christoffersen
    Max Christoffersen, Feb 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Max Christoffersen, Feb 2, 2004
    #13
  14. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC450C6D.5F4F%...
    : Richard C. denies his own words with:
    :
    : > : > Who does?
    :
    : > : Richard C.
    : > :
    : > : Max Christoffersen
    : ===========
    :
    : > Prove it, oh great dipshit!
    :
    : Easy: Read your own words below:
    :
    :
    : > I ALWAYS want OAR ..................I never complain about bars on the sides
    : > of 1.33:1 movies.
    :
    : Really?...
    :
    :
    : >>> See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it <<<
    : >>> would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as <
    : >>> 1.85:1 appears to. Richard C June 24 2003 <<<
    :
    :
    : Busted baby.
    :
    : You're a screen filler and complaing that a DVD isn't anamorphic which would
    : then 'fill your screen'.
    :
    : Thanks for playing.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    =======================
    What an ASS!
    That has EVERYTHING to do with retaining the OAR of a film.
    Giant is 1.66:1. It is NOT anamorphic. Zooming it cuts off the top and bottom.
    ANY movie over 1.33:1 needs to be anamorphic to properly utilize the resolution of a
    16:9 set.
    It has NOTHING to do with altering the aspect ratio.
    You sure have a talent for obfuscation. Not to mention that you head is firmly
    implanted in your rectum!

    I DEMAND OAR! Always!
    You have not disproved that in any manner.
    ================================
    Richard C., Feb 3, 2004
    #14
  15. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC450CC9.5F50%...
    :
    : Stupidly Richard C. says:
    :
    : > Prove it, oh great dipshit! <
    :
    :
    : Here is the thread were you state *exactly* what is being said here:
    :
    : http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=6d8ab83d1f192ff1&rnu
    : m=1
    :
    : How quickly you forget..
    :
    : Can you spell B.U.S.T.E.D...?
    :
    :
    ============================
    Glad you posted that link.
    Now everyone can read the thread and see how you snipped and altered my post and how
    I (and others) pointed out your insanity.

    Thanks for playing!

    (you are the one who is BUSTED here, little man.
    ==============================
    Richard C., Feb 3, 2004
    #15
  16. Richard C. denies his own words with:

    > Glad you posted that link.
    > Now everyone can read the thread and see how you snipped and altered my post
    > and how I (and others) pointed out your insanity.
    >
    > Thanks for playing!
    >
    > (you are the one who is BUSTED here, little man.



    Not even close.

    You're a screen filler just as your own words say:

    >>> See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it <<<
    >>> would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as <
    >>> 1.85:1 appears to. Richard C June 24 2003 <<<



    Busted with your own 'fill the screen' words.

    You have OAR but you're still unsatisfied because it won't fill your screen.


    Max Christoffersen
    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004
    #16
  17. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC4646AD.6029%...
    : Richard C. denies his own words with:
    :
    : > Glad you posted that link.
    : > Now everyone can read the thread and see how you snipped and altered my post
    : > and how I (and others) pointed out your insanity.
    : >
    : > Thanks for playing!
    : >
    : > (you are the one who is BUSTED here, little man.
    :
    :
    : Not even close.
    :
    : You're a screen filler just as your own words say:
    :
    : >>> See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it <<<
    : >>> would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as <
    : >>> 1.85:1 appears to. Richard C June 24 2003 <<<
    :
    :
    : Busted with your own 'fill the screen' words.
    :
    : You have OAR but you're still unsatisfied because it won't fill your screen.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    ===========================
    Once again, folks...the link max posted before and then removed because it shows he
    is a fool:

    http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=6d8ab83d1f192ff1&rnum=1
    Richard C., Feb 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Richard C. tries to distance himself from his own screen filling words
    with:

    > : You're a screen filler just as your own words say:
    > :
    > : >>> See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it <<<
    > : >>> would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as <
    > : >>> 1.85:1 appears to. Richard C June 24 2003 <<<
    > :
    > :
    > : Busted with your own 'fill the screen' words.
    > :
    > : You have OAR but you're still unsatisfied because it won't fill your screen.
    > :
    > :
    > : Max Christoffersen
    > :
    > ===========================
    > Once again, folks...the link max posted before and then removed because it
    > shows he is a fool:
    >
    >

    http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=6d8ab83d1f192ff1&rnu
    m=>


    Which shows *categorically* you have OAR and you're *STILL WHINING* because
    it won't 'fill your screen'.


    Max Christoffersen
    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004
    #18
  19. DVDfanatico

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC466599.6171%...
    :
    : Which shows *categorically* you have OAR and you're *STILL WHINING* because
    : it won't 'fill your screen'.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    ===============================
    You are a tedious, beligerant fool, max.

    Everyone but you seems to know the benefits of "anamorphic" DVDs.......but that is
    not surprising.

    Signing off.........
    ===================================
    Richard C., Feb 3, 2004
    #19
  20. DVDfanatico

    Mike7883uk Guest

    >Everyone but you seems to know the benefits of "anamorphic" DVDs.......but
    >that is
    >not surprising.


    Without jumping into someone else's discussion, isn't it just a simple case,
    some people still can't accept OAR on TV's, where other myself included want
    the best presentation which 99.9% of the time is the OAR of the feature.

    I dont see the point of full Screen, put some do, if the film gets watched, I
    guess we can all be happy.

    Mike
    Mike7883uk, Feb 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richard  C.

    Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Richard C., Jun 23, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    2,106
    DRutsala
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. Aaron J. Bossig

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 23, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    965
    Bil Gonzalez
    Jun 24, 2003
  3. MarkZimmerman

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    MarkZimmerman, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    830
    MarkZimmerman
    Jun 24, 2003
  4. Brockhurst Pertwee

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    749
    Richard C.
    Jun 26, 2003
  5. Brockhurst Pertwee

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 26, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    760
    Brockhurst Pertwee
    Jun 26, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page