MGM - another P&S irritation

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by karlpov, Dec 22, 2003.

  1. karlpov

    karlpov Guest

    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.
    karlpov, Dec 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. karlpov

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "karlpov" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. karlpov

    Richard C. Guest

    "karlpov" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    : 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.
    =====================
    Richard C., Dec 22, 2003
    #3
  4. "Richard C." <> wrote:

    >"karlpov" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >: 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
    Peter Rongsted, Dec 22, 2003
    #4
  5. karlpov

    Richard C. Guest

    "Peter Rongsted" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    : "Richard C." <> wrote:
    :
    : >"karlpov" <> wrote in message
    : >news:...
    : >
    : >: 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!
    Richard C., Dec 22, 2003
    #5
  6. karlpov

    John Howells Guest

    "Peter Rongsted" <> 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
    John Howells, Dec 22, 2003
    #6
  7. karlpov

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Peter Rongsted" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 23, 2003
    #7
  8. Richard C. <> wrote:

    > "karlpov" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > : 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.)
    Frank Malczewski, Dec 23, 2003
    #8
  9. karlpov

    Richard C. Guest

    "Frank Malczewski" <> wrote in message
    news:1g6e6os.9421jm1k4x2m8N%...
    : Richard C. <> wrote:
    :
    : > "karlpov" <> wrote in message
    : > news:...
    : >
    : > : 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.
    Richard C., Dec 23, 2003
    #9
  10. >
    >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.
    Waterperson77, Dec 24, 2003
    #10
  11. and personally, I think that a windowboxed picture looks better aesthetically
    than a letterboxed picture does.

    so there.
    Waterperson77, Dec 26, 2003
    #11
  12. Waterperson77 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>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.


    And furthermore, in this case, most 4:3 TV's will not show any black bars on
    the side due to overscan. In fact, a 4:3 TV will crop off picture from the
    sides of a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 movie. I only noticed how significant the
    cropping can be after I was able to compare the output of my laptop DVD
    player to my TV. After adjusting the service menu settings I was able to
    minimize, but not totally eliminate, the loss of picture on all four sides.
    Jake Patterson, Dec 28, 2003
    #12
    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. edgy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,425
  2. larry

    Irritation

    larry, Sep 9, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    502
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Sep 9, 2005
  3. CBIC

    OT: Thursday Irritation

    CBIC, Sep 28, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    506
  4. Kenny

    Firefox irritation?

    Kenny, Jan 4, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    895
    catchme
    Jan 12, 2008
  5. Nig

    TradeMe irritation

    Nig, Sep 28, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    339
Loading...

Share This Page