Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Archives › Archived Threads 2001-2004 › My DVD player dispays 2:35 as 1:85
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My DVD player dispays 2:35 as 1:85 - Page 2

post #31 of 42
10/11/02 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Could you explain the comment Mr. Chung made about the differnce between these two modes as he explained it in the post after yours.

I'm afraid I'll have to let Chung speak for himself. I'm not entirely sure I follow him.

Quote:
Isn't it a fact that by expanding it, you are actually changing the geometry height-wise?

No, you're not changing the geometry, because Theaterwide 2 expands the image equally in both the horizontal and vertical directions. It's true that some of the image displayed at the top and bottom of the 4:3 center of the screen will no longer be visible -- but that's why Theaterwide 2 is used for letterboxed presentations, where that "lost" image is just black letterbox bars. Remember: Letterbox bars are not part of the original aspect ratio; they're just something added to preserve the OAR on video. Obviously, Theaterwide 2 would not be appropriate for material whose native a/r is 4:3 (e.g., Citizen Kane).

Quote:
But isn't this a preference?

Of course. You could just as easily choose to display letterboxed material that lacks anamorphic enhancement in Toshiba's "normal" mode -- i.e., a letterboxed image in the 4:3 center of your TV screen. But if you expand it using Theaterwide 2, you crop off the letterbox bars and fill the screen from left to right. It will be a bigger image, but it may also look more washed out because you're simply making it bigger, not adding more resolution.

M.
Reply
post #32 of 42
10/11/02 at 2:11pm
Rich, while the trailer might be in 2.35, this does not mean that the trailer is in anamorphic. Here is an example:

1.Anamorphic 2.35:1 displayed on a 4:3 tv (= is black bars, P is picture information)

====================
====================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
====================
====================

2.Anamorphic 2.35:1 diplayed on a 16:9 tv

===========================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
===========================

3.Non-anamophic 2.35:1 displayed on a 4:3 TV

====================
====================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
====================
====================

4. Non-anamorphic 2.35:1 displayed on a 16:9 tv

===========================
===========================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
===========================
===========================

5. Anamophic 1.85 on a 4:3 tv

====================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
====================

6. Anamorphic 1.85 on a 16:9 tv

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

7. Non-anamorphic 1.85 on a 4:3 tv

====================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
====================

8 Non-anamorphic 1.85 on a 16:9 tv

===========================
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
===========================

Hope this comes through clear.
Reply
post #33 of 42
10/11/02 at 3:21pm
Note that Chung's examples all assume that the 16:9 TV is in "FULL" mode (which, as noted, is not the right mode for non-anamorphic material).

Unless I'm missing something.

M.
Reply
post #34 of 42
10/11/02 at 3:30pm
nope, michael, you are correct
Reply
post #35 of 42
10/11/02 at 4:26pm
could the orignal poster post the titles he's watching? I've seen numerous disks labeled as 2.35 but are infact 1:85.

Blade 2 comes to mind.
Reply
post #36 of 42
10/12/02 at 12:18pm
Thread Starter 
John, Examples would be "Panic Room" and "Pearl Harbor".
Reply
post #37 of 42
10/12/02 at 12:25pm
Thread Starter 
Chung, that was quite a display, it must have taken you quite a bit of time. Thank you. Can you please explain to me the difference in your example of 1:85 x 16:9 x Non-Anamorphic(8) and 1:85 X 16:9 X Anamorphic(6). How can your 2 examples actually be 1:85 when they are of different shapes or aspect ratios? Why should they not be the same shape ,(8)? What make the anamorphic display higher from top to bottom?
Reply
post #38 of 42
10/12/02 at 1:06pm
He's showing you the effect of FULL mode on different types of material. Displaying the correct aspect ratio on a 16:9 TV requires that both the player and the TV be correctly set for the way the material was recorded.

An anamorphically enhanced 1.85:1 image is supposed to be stretched horizontally and, when stretched to the correct degree, will be 1.85:1. A non-anamorphic 1.85:1 image should not be stretched horizontally and will therefore be a different AR (and not the right one) in FULL mode.

M.
Reply
post #39 of 42
10/12/02 at 2:38pm
Thread Starter 
You know how there are explanations for the letterbox not having as much resolution as anamorphic? You know, they say the letterbox image uses the black bar area for some of the picture info. Is this the reason a 1:85 pic in anamorphic is taller than the same in letterbox. Because that extra 20 or 30% of picture info is in the additional picture height? I just thought of this. I thought there was just more resolution for the same area in anamorphic.
Reply
post #40 of 42
10/12/02 at 8:34pm
Rich,

Now you've got it.

In 480p or 480i, a tv uses 480 scanlines from top to bottom to display a picture.
The lines are longer on a widescreen set.

Using a 1:85 movie as an example, the anamorphic disc will use all 480 lines to display picture information, resulting in a vertically stretched image on a 4/3 tv because it's scanlines are too short, but a properly proportioned picture on a widescreen set with it's longer scanlines.

The nonanamorphic disc will only use the center scanlines (about 360 of them) to display picture information and will waste the other 120 or so on the black bars. The fact that the anamorphic disc is using the maximum number of scanlines to produce the picture is why you get better resolution if you have a widescreen set.

In 4/3 mode, your player is automatically discarding every 4th scanline on an anamorphic disc so it won't be vertically stretched on a 4/3 tv. This is called anamorphic downconversion. Of course, the player also does some smoothing out of the downconversion to keep the picture from looking too jagged, but the discard of a quarter of the scanlines is taking place and inevitably some resolution is lost. 16/9 mode on the player just turns off the downconversion.


So the 4/3 vs 16/9 mode on the dvd player is simply turning anamorphic downconversion on and off.

The player is capable of detecting whether or not a disc is anamorphic, and automatically does not do the downconversion if the disc is not anamorphic.

So if your used to using a dvd player in 4/3 mode on a 4/3 tv, you may never have been aware of the difference between anamorphic and nonanamorphic dvds, though theoretically and in practice with this scenario a nonamorphic disc will actually look better.

As little as 2 or 3 years ago, when 16/9 sets were much scarcer than they are today there used to be a large contingent of folks heavily invested in high end 4/3 projectors and such who preferred nonanamorphic dvds and argued for dual releases of anamorphic and nonanamorphic versions of movies.
Reply
post #41 of 42
10/12/02 at 10:39pm
Rich:

There IS more resolution, but that resolution needs to come from somewhere. It just sticks it in a normal 4:3 frame, and if played on a non 16:9 compliant TV everyone will look tall/thin. One of the key's for the 16:9 aspect ratio is the ease of providing this increased resolution within the frame, as well as easily providing down conversion for play-back for a "16:9 Enchanced" disc on a 4:3 set. All you need to do is remove every fourth line (though, thankfully most players actually do a more advanced algorithim than this, now!) from the enchanced frame it and will look correct on a 4:3 TV.

To some up, the only non distorted widescreen modes in progressive mode are TW2 and Full.

TW2 is for non-anamorphic discs. (The trailer for Panic Room.)

Full is for anamorphic. (The actual feature for Panic Room.)

4:3 material depends on what player you have and how the new Toshibas handle it (I leave mine in Full and let the player (also Toshiba) handle it; but the X81 series of sets have geometry problems in 4:3 progressive mode.)
Reply
post #42 of 42
3/25/03 at 6:45pm
Just wanted to resurrect this most fascinating thread.

Lots of useful information in here, if you're patient enough to scour all of it.

Anybody currently screaming at their TVs: "Why the Hell doesn't this ratio look right??!!!!", should have a gander at this thread.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Archived Threads 2001-2004
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Archives › Archived Threads 2001-2004 › My DVD player dispays 2:35 as 1:85