Anamorphic DVDs On 4:3 TVs (1 Viewer)

[Dave F]

A side benefit is that an anamorphic presentation may require a new transfer, which can result in a better picture for everyone.

-Dave

 

[David Von Pein]

If it's a 4:3 TV with a 16:9 "squeeze" feature, then the anamorphic disc will obviously display more resolution (33% more, to be precise).

OK...thanks.
But let me throw another question into the mix here. .....
Can someone tell me if a Dolby Digital receiver is REQUIRED in order to take advantage of the extra resolution exhibited on a 16:9 TV?
Once again, my ignorance is showing here (sorry :frowning.
Is a DD receiver JUST to process SOUND? Or are there VIDEO advantages to a DD receiver too?
In short, I want to know ..... If I have a 4:3 TV (with anamorphic squeeze mode), a Panasonic RV26 DVD Player (mid-level player I'd say), and ONLY a Pro-Logic Receiver....will my anamorphically-enhanced DVD discs have the 33% improved resolution when I play them?
Thanks very much, you guys, for any help.
(BTW....I'm thinking of getting a Toshiba 50H72 (4:3) television. Anybody that would care to chime in with his/her reviews of this particular TV monitor, please do so.)

 

[Dan Rudolph]

There are video advantages to a receiver if you have multiple devices to hook up and not enough inputs. It doesn't do anything to the video though.

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks very much, Dan!
So, you're saying (even with ONLY a Pro-Logic receiver), that my anamorphic DVDs with still have the 33% improved picture resolution on a 4x3 TV with "squeeze" mode? Correct?
In other words, the TV is doing most (all) of the work here (to perform the necessary "squeeze")? And the "middle man" (the receiver) adds nothing when converting the video signal.
Do I have it straight? Or am I ready for the rubber room?

 

[Damin J Toell]

In short, I want to know ..... If I have a 4:3 TV (with anamorphic squeeze mode), a Panasonic RV26 DVD Player (mid-level player I'd say), and ONLY a Pro-Logic Receiver....will my anamorphically-enhanced DVD discs have the 33% improved resolution when I play them?

Well, I believe the level of improved horizontal resolution is actually 20%, but yes.

DJ

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Gods of HTF!!
I'm feeling better now!
Wasn't sure about the VIDEO portion of a DD receiver.
You guys are great (& fast) on the trigger, re. any & all HT matters on this website.
It's a privilege to be here amongst you Home Theater enthusiasts.

 

[John Stockton]

Can someone explain a little more about the 4:3 displays with 16:9 squeeze feature. Do these displays unsqueeze the image so that everything looks normal when playing anamorphic discs??

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Yes they do, basically, the electron guns in side, instead of painting the entire tube only paint the 16:9 area with the unsquished image

 

[Doug Bull]

"Do these displays unsqueeze the image so that everything looks normal when playing Anamorphic Discs?"

Yes, but you will still get the black bars on the top and the bottom of the TV Screen, but you will not lose any of the added resolution and believe me the picture will look a whopping 30% better.

Some 4:3 sets can have a simple mod done to them, in order to be able to sqeeze the stunning Anamorphic image to it's correct dimensions and thereby enabling you to take full advantage of the increased resolution.
I had a 4:3 JVC TV when DVDs first hit the market and I had a local TV Repair guy make the mod for me.($90)
He installed an adjustable switch to the side of the set, which enabled the image to be adjusted between 4:3 and 16:9.
It worked a treat.

Anybody who watches Widescreen DVDs on a non adjustable 4:3 TV are missing out on fabulous picture quality.

 

[John Stockton]

Yes, but you will still get the black bars on the top and the bottom of the TV Screen, but you will not lose any of the added resolution and believe me the picture will look a whopping 30% better.

OK now I am confused. If there are black bars on the top and bottom then how can you get the entire resolution afforded by an anamorphic disc.

 

[David Von Pein]

Anybody who watches Widescreen DVDs on a non adjustable 4:3 TV are missing out on fabulous picture quality.

Thanks Doug!
Glad to hear that said!
And now I can't wait until my new Toshiba 4:3 (with squeeze ) arrives!
It'll be an HD-ready TV, but to be honest I really don't care very much about the "HD" part of it all. I'll like it most for that anamorphic squeeze function, plus an overall larger picture.
Anybody else feel this way when it comes to HD? That is, thinking that just maybe you'll actually be somewhat disappointed when you watch your DVDs, which you paid your hard-earned cash on. Because our current DVDs are not HD, but a lot of the regular broadcast TV we are watching on our new HD sets IS in HD....it just got me to thinking of whether, when popping in a DVD, it might not look as impressive as simply the nightly newscast, or Friends, etc.
For me, watching a DVD movie is kind of a "special" deal. Something to build up to, and really look forward to.
I think I'd like my DVD collection to look much BETTER when I view them than The Discovery Channel or other regular HD programming.
This is why I really don't care if I get broadcast HDTV any time soon. But having a HDTV still will be nice when HD-DVD arrives in xxx years!

 

[David Von Pein]

OK now I am confused. If there are black bars on the top and bottom then how can you get the entire resolution afforded by an anamorphic disc.

I was kind of confused about that too, John.
But (I'm assuming) that the newer 4:3 TVs know what they're doing internally....and can somehow manage to keep ALL the resolution inside the picture area, while STILL being able to create the black bars.
Obviously, those bars HAVE still got to remain there while watching a widescreen DVD on a 4:3 set. Otherwise, the picture would be stretched all to hell.
The TV creates the bars in some kind of auxiliary manner, rather than using up picture resolution.
If I'm nuts on this, somebody please straighten me out.

 

[JohnnyHK]

David, why would you get a 4x3 HD set? That just seems so wrong. And you don't want to get HD because you think you might not appreciate your DVDs as much? Dude, you've got an interesting way of looking at things! Trust me, DVDs still look great even after watching HD.

 

[David Von Pein]

David, why would you get a 4x3 HD set? That just seems so wrong. And you don't want to get HD because you think you might not appreciate your DVDs as much? Dude, you've got an interesting way of looking at things!

Yeah, I knew I'd be looked at kinda funny after those comments. But, yes, right now that's how I feel about it. DVD watching (I think) should be the "ultimate" viewing experience.
Down the road, no doubt, HD-DVD movie viewing will be the ultimate. And after that, in 2099, we'll have "Live Movies" performed in our homes for us, with no DVD Players needed at all!
As for my choice of a 4:3 TV.....I right now (maybe I'll change my tune some year) would MUCH prefer a 4:3 shaped television. This is due to the fact that my 4:3 picture size will actually DECREASE if I'd gone with a WS HDTV. Plus there's the gray bars on the sides, which I could really live without. And there's the fact that about 75% of my viewing is in 4:3 form. So, for me, a nice large 4:3 set, with 16:9 mode, is the best of all possible universes! A nice big-a** image for 1.33:1 programs, plus the added benefit of 16:9 anamorphic enhancement for DVDs.
Plus: When I went to look at TVs at Best Buy, the Widescreen units just seemed kind of...well...squished.
Don't get me wrong....I'm not a member of the "Dark Side", who prefers P&S'ing (yuck). I'm a Widescreen dude all the way! I'd just rather have the WS image on a 4:3 set. (I'm used to the black bars; they don't bother me).

 

[Doug Bull]

To try and make it simple.

With either a non Anamorphic Letterbox disc or an Anamorphic Widescreen disc played in letterbox on a non convertible 4:3 TV, some 30% of the available scanning lines are used up within the visable black bars and therefore are wasted, creating a low resolution letterbox image.

On Widescreen TVs or 4:3 TVs with the ability to squezze the image, as mentioned in an earlier post from Jeff Kleist, it's the TVs electron guns that do the squeeze and therefore are able to take the full amount of available scanning lines and place them all within the visable picture image area only.
No scanning lines are used or wasted to create the black bars in this instance.

A good test to see what you maybe missing, is to play an Anamorphic Widescreen DVD, switch the DVD Player to 16:9 or Anamorphic ( Depending on what your DVD Player calls it) mode and you will see a much sharper more detailed image on your 4:3 TV or Projector.
Everybody will look tall and thin, but you really should be able to detect the big difference in picture quality.(strange as it may seem, some people actually view their DVDs this way, on 4:3 TVs, just to see the improved resolution- They say they get used to it- hmm!)

Now imagine that brilliant improved resolution with everybody returned to their correct shape and you will have some kind of idea just what you are missing out by not having a 16:9 TV or a 4:3 TV that will do the squeeze correction for you.

Believe me the difference is amazing.
I made a pledge early on never to buy a non Anamorphic Widescreen disc and I have kept to that pledge.

 

[MarkHastings]

To those who talk about an anamorphic signal being 'squeezed' on a 4x3 tv and getting more resolution: How is that possible? Pixels are pixels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the pixels stay the same size (on the tv) when the video is squeezed? Or do the pixels actually shrink in size? Isn't that almost impossible?
Example, if a tv signal is 720x480 (i.e. 345,600 pixels) and you 'squeeze' the 720x480 video into a 16x9 ratio...how can your resolution be any different when your only working with a 720x360 (16x9) area of the tv?
True, the anamorphic signal is pumping out 345,600 pixels, but your tv can only display 259,200 of those pixels due to the fact that you're only viewing the image in a 720x360 area of the screen.
Or is it true that certain tvs are like computer monitors and can change their resolution? i.e. Actually shrink the pixels. In which the 'squueze' would give you more resolution, but you'd need a certain tv to do that? right?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, for one thing, you aren't getting anamorphic downconversion artifacts, and as with anything, the more you start out with the better it looks in the end.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Example, if a tv signal is 720x480 (i.e. 345,600 pixels) and you 'squeeze' the 720x480 video into a 16x9 ratio...how can your resolution be any different when your only working with a 720x360 (16x9) area of the tv?

Because it's using 480 pixels instead of 360. By definition, that's better resolution. You're getting 480 pixels of vertical info rather than 360 and 120 of blackness.

 

[Bill Buklis]

Actually it's not that the TVs resolution changes when it "squeezes" to 16:9 mode. It's that the TV shrinks the display area.

Here's a good analogy. Think of your computer monitor as a 4:3 TV. You display an anamorphic DVD. The picture is displayed 4:3 causing everyone to look tall and skinny. Now adjust the vertical size of your monitor. Shrink it down so that the image now forms a 16:9 shape. Notice that you now have black/blank areas at the top and bottom. This is what a 4:3 television is doing when it squeezes down to 16:9 mode.

What you get are blank areas at the top and bottom of the monitor. These are not black bars (although they look black). These are NON-picture areas. No image is displayed in this area at all. The TV is not wasting scanning lines drawing black bars. It's not drawing them period. That's why you get the benefit of the increased resolution on a 4:3 TV (squeezed).

 

[MarkHastings]

Bill,

I understand your analogy with the computer monitor...I just didn't think tv's could do that.