Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Confused with playback of Anamorphic


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
18 replies to this topic

#1 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 08 2003 - 06:56 PM

Who me confused? Alrighty..from what i understand, Anamorphic DVD are 'supposed' to eliminate the black bars on top and bottom correct?

I'm viewing 'American Beauty', which is labeled 2:35:1 Anamorphic, and i'm seeing black top and bottom on my Mitsu WS6511 in 480i standard fed from my older DVD player. I can place the RPTV in 480i zoom, which eliminates the vertical bars, but cuts off a bit of the picture L&R.

Am i wrong in my assessment of what a Anamorphic DVD is, or is it perhaps because i have an old interlaced player?

#2 of 19 OFFLINE   DavidES

DavidES

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 116 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 23 2003

Posted September 08 2003 - 07:24 PM

Anamorphic (squeeze) uses all of the 720x480 pixels, which is BTW 1.33:1 ratio, available in the dvd format to encode all the vertical film info available. It's also used in the film process to "squeeze" the widescreen aspect ratio onto a 35mm film frame, which is 1.33:1 ratio, without wasting any vertical space of frame.

The black bars are used to correct picture for transmitted aspect ratio. The dvd format and standard tv are 1.33:1 meaning 1.33 units wide to 1 unit tall which BTW is Academy Ratio.

Movies are filmed in various formats ranging from 1.33:1 to 2.55:1. In order to view all formats with the same height we have to vary the width. For example a 27" diagonal SDTV is approximately 16" high and 22" wide. In order to view a 2.55:1 ratio with the same 16" height and no letterboxing, I would need a 40.8" wide tv. (16 x 2.55). Since our tvs don't vary their widths or heights on demand, we have to alter the signal instead.

Hope this helps
David S.

#3 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 08 2003 - 07:37 PM

ive done my reading on anamorphic like i said, but just a bit confused..for years i've been wanting a 16x9 TV to eliminate the letterbox viewed on a 4x3, and now that i bought one, I'm still getting the letterbox unless i 'artificially' zoom the image. I can only hope i'm doing something wrong here..

#4 of 19 OFFLINE   DavidES

DavidES

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 116 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 23 2003

Posted September 08 2003 - 07:50 PM

Sorry I couldn't get my post finished. Dang server.

Everything is working like it should. My other post should explain a bit better what I meant since I edited it.

Forgot to add that 16x9 (1.78:1 ratio) tvs will have letterboxing for ratios greater than 1.78:1 because the tv isn't wide enough.

Maybe a better way to think of the letterbox is anamorphic in the vertical direction (sort of). We have to squeeze vertically in order to fit the horizontal in.
David S.

#5 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 08 2003 - 08:08 PM

*sighs*

thanks for the info david..much appreciated

#6 of 19 OFFLINE   DavidES

DavidES

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 116 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 23 2003

Posted September 08 2003 - 09:11 PM

John, Did what I post make any sense to you or help to clear up your questions?

If so I was happy to help.
David S.

#7 of 19 OFFLINE   Cees Alons

Cees Alons

    Executive Producer



  • 18,689 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 1997
  • Real Name:Cees Alons

Posted September 08 2003 - 09:27 PM

John,

"Anamorphic" greatly enhances the (vertical) resolution of the image, but does not change its format (hence not the height/width ratio).

As long as different movies exist with different h/w ratios, you will either have to cut off parts of the image on some or accept black bars, if you want to see the whole movie you payed for. That is, until they invent a rubber TV-monitor that can adjust to the various ratios. Posted Image

A widescreen TV set certainly helps, because most (but certainly not all) movies are wider than 4:3 and many modern films are indeed 16x9, which is what a widescreen TV set has.

Some people help their eyes by constructing black masks that can be fixed to the TV-set by velcro strips (or the like) and thus be adjustable. It's said to really enhance the subjective quality of the image and the viewing pleasure.

Other people switch to front-projection and buy expensive masking systems. Look on this forum for all sorts of solutions.

(Of course, one could also simply accept it. Posted Image )

Cees

#8 of 19 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted September 08 2003 - 11:52 PM

And all of this is covered in the HTF Beginner's Primer and FAQ (link in my signature). E.g.:

If I buy a 16x9 wide screen TV, will I get rid of the black bars forever?

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#9 of 19 OFFLINE   Allan Jayne

Allan Jayne

    Screenwriter



  • 2,406 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted September 08 2003 - 11:54 PM

"Anamorphic" for DVD is NOT supposed to reduce or eliminate the black bars!

"Anamorphic" puts more of the picture carrying (active) scan lines in the picture area and fewer in what would be the black bars on a 4:3 TV.

Except for calibration differences on the TV, the "anamorphic" picture should be of the same dimensions and shape as a "non-anamorphic" picture of the same program in the same wide screen or not wide screen edition (if it existed) after everything is adjusted properly.

The current DVD standard has only one "anamorphic" format, which is optimized for a 16:9 area on the screen.

Video hints:
http://members.aol.c...ynejr/video.htm
.

#10 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 09 2003 - 03:59 AM

thanks all..i appreciate your posts! It figures i missed the Primer mentioned above (thanks michael) - i think i must have read every anamorphic reference out there, but missed that one - really cleared it up for me. Thanks all!

#11 of 19 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted September 09 2003 - 04:01 AM

Some clarification: 16:9-encoded DVDs ("anamorphic" is a misnomer) possess the same amount of picture resolution as 4:3-encoded DVDs. There is no squeezing or unsqueezing going on. One simply outputs a 16:9 image at full resolution while the other outputs a 4:3 image with the same amount of resolution.

And to reiterate: Films are shot in several different height/width aspect ratios while consumer displays come in just two. Simple geometry. Ask yourself this: How can either of the two TV/monitor aspect ratios (1.33:1 and 1.78:1) possibly accommodate perfectly all film aspect ratios (anywhere from 1.33:1 to 2.76:1 and even wider)?

#12 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:30 AM

i popped in Saving Private Ryan, which according to the cover, is 1.85:1. It fills up my entire screen with no banding whatsoever. If my 16x9 displays 1.78:1 'natively' persay, shouldn't there be banding while viewing a 1.85, as there is with 2.35, etc?

#13 of 19 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:32 AM

The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is so small that it's usually hidden by the TV's overscan.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#14 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:37 AM

aha! things might finally be making way through my thick skull - thx. You'd think the format in which movies are shot would be standardized to alleviate all this.

#15 of 19 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:43 AM

Quote:
You'd think the format in which movies are shot would be standardized to alleviate all this.

The format was largely standardized until the early 50s. The experimentation with different screen shapes and different filming techniques may have been prompted by competition from TV, but it led to great creativity and experimentation. We wouldn't be where we are today without that.

Movies today have largely standardized on two shapes, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. It's really not that complicated.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#16 of 19 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer



  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:46 AM

Well John one of the reasons (not the only one) that Cinemascope, VistaVision and other widescreen formats came into existence was to provide a theatre experience that you could not get on TV.

By now, filmmakers choose their format based on how they want the film to look from an artistic perspective, as well as a financial one.
¡Time is not my master!

#17 of 19 OFFLINE   John G

John G

    Agent



  • 40 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2000

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:54 AM

Will/does HD give filmakers the flexibility to shoot in different ratios as well?

#18 of 19 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted September 09 2003 - 09:59 AM

Quote:
Will/does HD give filmakers the flexibility to shoot in different ratios as well?

Sure. Look at ST: Attack of the Clones and the last two Spy Kids films.

Bear in mind that even movies shot digitally still have to be displayed on film in most venues. So even when filmmakers shoot digitally, they still have to think about a final product that will be compatible with existing technololgy for theatrical projection.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#19 of 19 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer



  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted September 09 2003 - 10:21 AM

Oops, looks like you posted while I was typing Michael. :b
¡Time is not my master!





Forum Nav Content I Follow