|
|
 |
|
05-08-2003, 06:18 PM
|
#1 of 52 
|
|
Member
Location: Indiana; USA
Join Date: Feb 2002
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 5,569
|
Full-Frame Vs. Anamorphic: The Same Quality?
Can someone clear this up for me? .......
Is a DVD Full-Frame transfer exactly the same in PQ as a Widescreen Anamorphic transfer?
Or is their something inherent in the "Anamorphic" process that steps its video quality up still higher than a Full-Frame/Full-Screen DVD transfer?
Thanks for any info.
 |
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 06:57 PM
|
#2 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 1999
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 9,593
|
Well, PQ is an interesting concept. They are the same number of pixels, so the same resolution. However, if it was a widescreen film, the full frame transfer is likely missing picture information.
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 07:05 PM
|
#3 of 52
|
|
Michael Reuben
Administrator
Location: New York City, Bear Stearns was here
Join Date: Feb 1998
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 19,405
|
As Vince says, it's the same number of pixels, but you're comparing apples to oranges. An anamorphically enhanced image will be wider than a 4:3 image; so while they may have the same number of pixels, they won't be the same image.
M.
"Most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything." -- Chinatown
"What kind of movies would there be if everyone in them had to do what we thought they should do?" -- Roger Ebert
HTF Beginner's Primer and FAQ
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 07:35 PM
|
#4 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 2,202
|
For 1.85 aspect ratios, yes, pan and scan or full frame is the same resolution, as long as you're watching the 1.85 image on a widescreen set.
For 2.35 aspect ratios, no -- a pan and scan transfer is higher resolution, though of course you're missing a large part of the picture on the sides.
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 07:40 PM
|
#5 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 5,015
|
Quote:
|
For 2.35 aspect ratios, no -- a pan and scan transfer is higher resolution, though of course you're missing a large part of the picture on the sides.
|
Not true if the TV is widescreen or does the "squeeze." The scan lines in the black bars are moved into the picture.
480 lines can be in a 1:33 or 2:35 or 1:85 or any other aspect ratio. |
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 07:48 PM
|
#6 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 2,202
|
Really? I'll be damned. Learn something new every day, don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 08:04 PM
|
#7 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 1999
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 9,593
|
Quote:
Not true if the TV is widescreen or does the "squeeze." The scan lines in the black bars are moved into the picture.
480 lines can be in a 1:33 or 2:35 or 1:85 or any other aspect ratio. |
This is false. In DVD supports only 2 ratios that use all pixels of the 720x480: 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9. A 2.35 film will have some lines with back bars hard encoded into the video signal. DVD does not support 2.35:1 using the full 720x480 without black bars in the video signal, regardless of "squeeze mode" or not.
Long story short, 2.35:1 is just slightly letterboxed inside the 16x9 image, using black bars in the video signal to accomplish this. So the 2.35:1 would have "less resolution" as it would use less pixels for picture area. The original reply was correct.
-Vince
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 08:05 PM
|
#8 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 8,511
|
Quote:
Not true if the TV is widescreen or does the "squeeze." The scan lines in the black bars are moved into the picture.
480 lines can be in a 1:33 or 2:35 or 1:85 or any other aspect ratio.
|
The original poster was correct. 2.35:1 picture wastes picture real estate on the black bars. Only 16:9 and 1.33:1 films fill the entire native 720x480 frame with picture data. There is no such thing, with standard DVDs anyway, as 2.35:1 anamorphic enhancement.
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 08:47 PM
|
#9 of 52
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 2,202
|
Quote:
|
The original reply was correct.
|
Quote:
|
The original poster was correct.
|
Neener, neener, neener! 
I did do comparisons of my P&S and widescreen copies (set for 16x9 so the picture is squeezed) of Fellowship of the Ring on my standard TV, and the resolution is noticably better on the P&S, sad to say. When I look at the widescreen, I think, "Damn, I wish that had the resolution of the P&S," and when I look at the P&S I think, "Damn, I wish that didn't have the screwed-up framing." Can't win. |
|
|
|
|
05-08-2003, 08:58 PM
|
#10 of 52
|
|
Member
Location: W. Des Moines, IA
Join Date: Dec 2000
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Local Date: 09-08-2008
Posts: 2,362
|
Wouldn't a 2.35:1 picture on a widescreen display still offer better resolution than the 4:3 full screen picture on a 4:3 TV? The anamorphic process on a true 16:9 display puts more vertical resolution in the given space. The horizontal resolution would be the same on both, right?
|
|
|
| |
