- Anamorphic "Squeeze" Question - (1 Viewer)

[RyanDinan]

Chuck,
Well, from what you're telling me, your Malata is not squeezing, but scaling. Apparently, this x y scaling is better than the algorithm used for down-converting anamorphic material to 4x3 mode...
The resulting image may look better than 4x3 mode without the scaling enabled, but you're not getting any more lines of resolution than 4x3 mode. That's up to your TV. And if your TV is 4x3, you're getting 480 scanlines from top to bottom, which is NTSC standard. How many of those scanlines are used for actual image, is up to the aspect ratio of the film you're watching. 1.78:1 will give you 360 lines used for the actual image (120 lines used for the black bars). 1.85:1 will give you about 346 lines. 2.35:1 will give you 272 lines.
If your set was capable of actually squeezing the scanlines together, you'd get a full 480 lines for 1.78:1, 460 lines for 1.85:1, and 364 lines for 2.35:1 movies. As you can see, this is a resolution increase of 33% - which isn't small. This is why people complain if a movie isnt mastered anamorphically.
That scaling feature of your Malata is supposed to be used for non-anamorphic movies - The player would scale the image (interpolate extra lines) to display correctly when in 16x9 mode. That is a very nice feature, also found on the Panasonic RP91.
-Ryan Dinan
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Chuck Blair]

Ryan,
No, I'm not saying it is scaling, it is squeezing. I'm only saying that I have to go into what is called the "x-y scaling" menu of the Malata to do it. The scaling feature produces a squeezed image coming out of the Malata when set to 16:9.

 

[RyanDinan]

No, I'm not saying it is scaling, it is squeezing. I'm only saying that I have to go into what is called the "x-y scaling" menu of the Malata to do it. The scaling feature produces a squeezed image coming out of the Malata when set to 16:9.

Chuck,
The x-y scaling feature does just that - it scales the image. This is not the same as squeezing. It is not, and cannot physically squeeze the scanlines, and therefore, cannot preserve vertical resolution. In order to gain the added resolution from an anamorphic DVD, the TV must squeeze the image - The actual scanlines drawn by the CRT's must be drawn closer together. It's the same thing as using your computer monitor's vertical resize control to squeeze the picture. The same amount of scanlines are being drawn, but just in a vertically narrower space. If a TV has a 16x9 mode, all scanlines are drawn in a 16x9 area of the CRT. This means more lines of resolution for the actual image, since no black bars have to be matted above and below the image to make it fit. NO DVD PLAYER can squeeze the image. Period. It just doesn't work that way. If your TV DOES NOT have a 16x9 mode, then all 480 scanlines are going to be drawn in a 4x3 aspect. The DVD player does not, and cannot control where your TV draws the scanlines.
So, if a movie is transferred anamorphically, and you display it on a 4x3 TV, the DVD player has to throw out lines of resolution in order for the image to appear correctly proportioned.
Your DVD player (Malata) can do this either by scaling, which probably uses a tapping method, or, by using it's 4x3-mode down-conversion algorithm (which obviously, isn't as good, if you can see differences).
You are not gaining ANY extra vertical resolution offered by an anamorphic transfer by using the scaling feature of your DVD player. It may very well look better than the 4x3 mode, but that's only because the scaling feature uses better meathods of down-converting the anamorphic image. Trust me on this.
-Ryan Dinan
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Chuck Blair]

Ryan
I've made my points, what you don't seem to be hearing is that the image being produced by my 4:3 TV using the Malata is every bit as good as a 16:9 TV when it comes to displaying anamorphic DVDs. The TV acts exactly as if it were a 16:9 TV in the way the image is being displayed, whether the disc is anamorphic or not. Everything else is semantics or irrelevant. That's the point I've been trying to make. Nothing else, because nothing else matters here other than the end result. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck as far as I'm concerned. I'm not trying to win any brownie points here, or in fact even trying to prove anything. I just want people who are interested in purchasing a Malata to know what it is capable of, which is producing an anamorphic quality image with anamorphic discs on a 4:3 TV that doesn't have it's own 16:9 mode. I don't however feel that the Malata is the best player in the marketplace, except in two ways: the playing of PAL DVDs on an NTSC TV, or used with a standard 4:3 TV that doesn't have it's own 16:9 mode. In either of these two cases, the Malata should be the first choice. Other than that, it should be one choice among many, and is not going to be the best player in the marketplace if money is no object. And trust me on one other point, if you could see a comparison, for example, between the non-anamorphic Region 1 DVD of Vertigo and the region 2 anamorphic Vertigo, you would not doubt that the image is roughly improved 33% when using the Malata. The anamorphic picture leaps off the screen. It's a real eye opener. Vertigo is but one of a couple dozen titles I have that I've compared using the non-anamorphic disc to the anamorphic disc, and the difference is substantial, even with transfers that are of similar quality other than one being 16:9 enhanced (such as the two available NTSC versions of The Black Robe or The Crow).
One last note that perhaps you can explain to me more clearly; namely, how does a player (the Malata) downconvert an anamorphic disc when set up for 16:9 mode? Isn't it true that in 16:9 mode the anamorphic image is not being downconverted and is going into the TV with the full 4 lines of resolution instead of 3 of 4 lines? I don't understand how it is possible for the Malata to scale an anamorphic image in 16:9 mode as opposed to scaling it. Isn't the scaling of the anamorphic image more improbable than the squeezing of the image within the player itself given the way all DVD players handle anamorphic images when set up to output as 16:9?

 

[RyanDinan]

quote: I've made my points, what you don't seem to be hearing is that the image being produced by my 4:3 TV using the Malata is every bit as good as a 16:9 TV when it comes to displaying anamorphic DVDs. [/quote]

Chuck,
As I stated before, I'm not ignoring the fact that the image appears better to you on your 4x3 TV when using the Malata's scaling feature, instead of using the players 4x3 mode down-conversion. However, I do not believe that the image you are seeing is "just as good" as an anamorphic image displayed on a 16x9 TV, or a 4x3 set with a 16x9 squeeze. That just goes against logic...
First of all, you're losing lines of resolution, and second, you're digitally scaling the image to appear correctly in a 4x3 aspect. If you had a TV set capable of squeezing the lines, you would keep all your lines of resolution, and you would not be processing the video in any way. Have you done a side-by-side comparison? If so, which 16x9 TV did you use, and was it calibrated?


quote: One last note that perhaps you can explain to me more clearly; namely, how does a player (the Malata) downconvert an anamorphic disc when set up for 16:9 mode? Isn't it true that in 16:9 mode the anamorphic image is not being downconverted and is going into the TV with the full 4 lines of resolution instead of 3 of 4 lines? I don't understand how it is possible for the Malata to scale an anamorphic image in 16:9 mode as opposed to scaling it. Isn't the scaling of the anamorphic image more improbable than the squeezing of the image within the player itself given the way all DVD players handle anamorphic images when set up to output as 16:9? [/quote]

When a DVD player is set up for a 16x9 TV, this instructs the DVD player to output the video on the disc "as-is". If the DVD is anamorphic, it passes that. If the video is letterboxed, it passes that. HOWEVER - Your Malata has a scaling feature built in, that is supposed to be used when you want to watch a non-anamorphic letterboxed DVD on a 16x9 TV set. This feature allows you to interpolate MORE lines of vertical resolution, in order to correct for the squeezing of the non-anamorphic image. If you didn't have this feature, the non-anamorphic image would appear vertically squished. In essence, this scaling feature allows you to adjust the vertical size.
You're using this feature on anamorphic discs. You are decreasing the vertical size in order to make the video appear correctly on your 4x3 TV. What you call "squeezing", we call "scaling". True squeezing doesn't throw out lines of resolution, because it's done by the TV. TV's only have so many scanlines to work with. 4x3 and 16x9 sets both use 480 scanlines for DVD, since it must conform to the NTSC format. The difference is that 16x9 sets draw their scanlines closer together vertically, to form a 16x9 aspect. Anamorphic DVD's are meant to be displayed in a 16x9 aspect, and thus, does not need to waste as many lines of resolution on black bars.

Here's some pictures:

Link Removed>
Notice how the 480 scanlines include the black bars? The image in the middle is drawn by 360 of the 480 lines. This is the most you'll get on a 4x3 TV. Period. A DVD player will not increase this.

Link Removed
This is how an anamorphic image looks on a DVD. 480 lines are still used, but notice how none are used on black bars? The image looks distorted when displayed in a 4x3 aspect like this. DVD players must throw out lines of resolution in order for this type of image to appear correctly on a 4x3 set. Basically, it makes the image letterboxed, like the above picture - and only 360 lines are used for the image. However, when displayed on a 16x9 TV, or a 4x3 TV that can squeeze its scanlines together, the image appears like the following:

http://members.socket.net/~ryandinan/crosse~2.gif


[SIZE=1[Edited last by RyanDinan on September 30, 2001 at 12:39 PM][Edited last by RyanDinan on September 30, 2001 at 12:41 PM][/SIZE]

[Edited last by RyanDinan on September 30, 2001 at 12:45 PM]

 

[Chuck Blair]

Ryan,
Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I'm now even more amazed by the capabilities of the Malata if it is able to produce an image as stunning as it does without being able to squeeze, and only does it with anamorphic titles--with non-anamorphic titles it looks no better than my Pioneer Elite DV37, and in some ways worse. But maybe this has more to do with my Elite Video BVP4 Plus video processor than the Malata. Since my roommate is out of town right now, maybe I'll get ambitious and hook the Malata up to her 32" Sony 4:3 set and see if the Malata does the same thing without benefit of the BVP4 Plus.
PS: Unfortunately on my computer your pictures are not displaying.
PPS: Anyone, do the Avia or Video Essentials test discs (or any other test disc) have anamorphic material and a way to test it for the number of lines of resolution being created? Maybe there is a way to end all further discussion of this matter with hard evidence.
[Edited last by Chuck Blair on September 30, 2001 at 02:16 PM]

 

[Jason Blaydes]

this is a great thread and i understand what everyone is trying to say here, but it doesn't seem like we are getting to the point.
so here are straight forward questions... that do not need to be read into.
1) if the dvd player is in 16x9 mode with an anamorphic dvd on a 4:3 tv... then it's outputting 480 scanlines just stretched, correct?
2) if i manually setup the "squeeze" ( like this ) on my 4:3 tv, then it's the same quality as if i were watching it on a 16:9 tv, correct?
ps - here are links to those pics that Ryan was trying to post.
Link Removed
Link Removed
[changed link to keep the page width ok]
[Edited last by Mike Voigt on September 30, 2001 at 04:02 PM]

 

[RyanDinan]

Jason,
Thanks for posting the links to those graphics
You are correct on both questions -
On some 4x3 sets, you can manually adjust the vertical size and geometry to give you essentially a 16x9 TV. All the scanlines are there - just in a vertically narrower space. You can do the same thing with your computer monitor - and most make it very easy to do, with the front panel digital controls. In fact, if you have a DVDROM on your computer, you can adjust the vertical screen size to create a 1.78:1 (16x9) aspect, and display DVD's using more scanlines as well. Just make sure you turn OFF "keep aspect ratio" on your software DVD player options. This will basically force anamorphic output, and not throw away any resolution.
-Ryan Dinan
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Jason Blaydes]

ok sweet... thanks for the reply Ryan.
now to the more difficult stuff. so if i had the malata and i had it outputting in progressive mode at 16:9 with an anamorphic dvd in my 4:3 i'm gonna get full quality just a stretched image... we've established this much.
so can anyone explain what happens to this process when you use the scaling feature the malata has. once i start scaling the image down to a 16:9 size... is it keeping the 480 lines? and if it is not... why?... can someone explain what happens here?
i'm extremely new to this, so very naively it seems to me that it would still be outputting at 480 lines and that by adjusting the picture to a 16:9 mode that it would bring these scanlines closer together.

 

[Neil Weinstock]

Correct on both counts, as Ryan said.
I for one, however, would never use that type of squeeze trick on my TV. Not because it won't work, but 5 minutes of setup before and after, with the possibility for severe screwups if you rush a little too much... well, not for me.
Reading Chuck's comments about the Malata make me very curious to do an A-B comparison of it's downconversion vs. some of the other players.
I *so* wish Secrets would address this issue, as they're about the only ones I'd trust to do it right. *sigh*

 

[Neil Weinstock]

Huh, didn't see Jason's last post when I made my above reply. Weird.
Anyway, regarding this question:

i'm extremely new to this, so very naively it seems to me that it would still be outputting at 480 lines and that by adjusting the picture to a 16:9 mode that it would bring these scanlines closer together.

No, it cannot bring the scanlines closer together, only the TV can do that (and in our situation it cannot, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.) For us, 480p will always fill the full vertical extent of the screen (barring the use of a squeeze trick or somesuch). To display widescreen images the DVD player *must* shrink the image to a smaller number of scanlines in the middle of the screen and then pad the top and bottom.

 

[Pierre Gagne]

Very interesting discussion here. I too would be interested in gaining additionnal resolution on my RPTV 50 inch via component output. My TV doesn’t do the squeeze trick (or it would be inconvenient for non anamorphic or cable signals). My understanding of what the Malata, and possibly the RP91 Panasonic DVD player, do is it can resize a picture to various degrees. Now, if I bypass the downconversion process of the machine by selecting 16X9 I get a fullscreen picture (from a 1.85 source) with 480 lines of resolution on my TV. But I’ll also get a difformed picture as it will be stretched vertically. The Malata (and Panasonic) could compensate this by reducing the picture (by going through some settings on the player), therefore producing a picture with the correct shape.
My question is do I still keep the total lines of resolution ? If not, how come ? Neil seems to be suggesting that the Malata does some kind of downconversion when it scales down the picture (if I understand is topic correctly). Is he right ? I thought that the "scaling" process was more like a squezzing/lifting feature that permits both horizontal and/or vertical variations of the picture as recorded on the disc (without going through any downconversion).
Thanks in advance for those who can shed some light on this ?
Pierre
Chuck,
Have you experienced DTS droupouts with the Malata. And can you tell if the player has the "blacker than black" feature.
Thanks.

 

[Pierre Gagne]

Very interesting discussion here. I too would be interested in gaining additionnal resolution on my RPTV 50 inch via component output. My TV doesn’t do the squeeze trick (or it would be inconvenient for non anamorphic or cable signals). My understanding of what the Malata and possibly the RP91 Panasonic DVD players do is they can resize a picture to various degrees. Now, if I bypass the downconversion process of the machine by selecting 16X9 I get a fullscreen picture (from a 1.85 source) with 460 lines of resolution on my TV. But I’ll also get a difformed picture as it will be stretched vertically. The Malata (and Panasonic) could compensate this by reducing the picture (by going through some settings on the player), therefore producing a picture with the correct shape.
My question is do I still keep the total lines of resolution ? If not, how come ? Neil seems to be suggesting that the Malata does some kind of downconversion when it scales down the picture (if I understand is topic correctly). Is he right ? I thought that the "scaling" process was more like a squezzing/lifting feature that permits both horizontal and/or vertical variations of the picture as recorded on the disc (without going through any downconversion).
Thanks in advance for those who can shed some light on this ?
Pierre
Chuck,
Have you experienced DTS droupouts with the Malata. And can you tell if the player has the "blacker than black" feature.
Thanks.

 

[Jason Blaydes]

awsome... explained perfectly Neil. thanks a million
Pierre, that's the same thing i was wondering, but i think Neil is suggesting that once you start the custon x-y scaling that it will downconvert the image.
[Edited last by Jason Blaydes on October 01, 2001 at 04:16 PM]

 

[Chuck Blair]

No DTS dropouts using Onkyo 595 receiver (do not use the DTS decoder in the Malata).
Editing my post since I forgot to respond to the blacker than black question in my first go around (too busy at work). I haven't played with the Malata to see how it works, but supposedly you can set the Malata to display blacker than black using the player's brightness control, but I am only going off what others have posted.
Of further note: As far as the perceived image quality of anamorphic DVDs on my system, I have a feeling what's going on is similar to what others have reported with the Panasonic RP91 (Robert George in his review, I believe) in saying that non-anamorphic DVDs acheive about 90% of the quality of anamorphic DVDs with this player. I am guessing the Malata does something similar (some sort of pseudo-squeeze capability), only in the case of the Malata it is with scaling anamophic DVDs on non-16:9 TVs set up the way I have described previously. Then, adding the resolution boost of close to 10% I get from my video processor (see my previous post in this thread), I get an image that appears to be of a quality on par with what I have seen with anamorphic DVDs on 16:9 sets. But I don't see this sort of improvement with non-anamorphic transfers, though they still look very good with the Malata. There is also an improvement in image quality playing anamorphic discs when the Malata is set up for a 4:3 TV (as compared to my Pioneer Elite DV37), but setting it up for a 16:9 TV yields even better results.
[Edited last by Chuck Blair on October 01, 2001 at 09:14 PM]