Comparisons between 16x9 Enhanced vs non Enhanced

Discussion in 'DVD' started by MikeEckman, Oct 24, 2003.

  1. MikeEckman

    MikeEckman Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this a couple years ago on here, and never took it offline, so I thought I'd repost it for those of you out there who still havent seen the benefits of 16x9 (Anamorphic) enhancement on DVDs.

    http://www.metalreviewcentre.com/16x9.htm

    Basically, I took the Fifth Element Superbit and played it on my Sony 32FS13 WEGA television with 16x9 compression turned on, and then took a picture of it, and then played the exact same scene with it off and took a picture.

    With a digital television, it is harder to see the scanlines, so therefore it may be harder to notice the increased resolution, but with my TV, you can very clearly see the scanlines, and you can see how much more information and how more detailed a DVD is with anamorphic enhancement!

    Hope this is useful to at least someone.
     
  2. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    It's not that the 16:9-encoded DVD has more resolution per se but that, with a 16:9 mode on the TV, the DVD player can output a 16:9 image from a 16:9-encoded DVD without having to discard every third line of resolution in order to paint the letterboxing bands.

    And on a 4:3-encoded DVD that's letterboxed, a third of the active picture area is taken up by the letterboxing bands on the DVD itself.

    There's still a lingering misunderstanding that 16:9-encoded (i.e., "anamorphic") DVDs somehow contain more resolution.
     
  3. Robert Dunnill

    Robert Dunnill Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. Robert Dunnill

    Robert Dunnill Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  5. MikeEckman

    MikeEckman Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    My site was intended for novices who just wanted to see some side-by-side comparisions. Of course when youre technical like most of the people on this board, you will interpret these explanations all differently.

    The point was just to have a nice convenient way to SHOW the difference.
     
  6. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Robert, correct: A letterboxed-only, 4:3-encoded DVD, while blessed with 480 lines of resolution has less "effective" resolution in the active picture area than a 16:9-encoded transfer of the same widescreen film displayed in a 16:9 window.
     
  7. chris_clem

    chris_clem Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mike:

    Thanks![​IMG] I've been meaning to ask an anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic question here but I have been putting it off. Since I read your page, I no longer have to. Also, thanks for not using overly complicated terms on your explanation. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page