Full-Frame Vs. Anamorphic: The Same Quality? (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

Can someone clear this up for me? .......

Is a DVD Full-Frame transfer exactly the same in PQ as a Widescreen Anamorphic transfer?

Or is their something inherent in the "Anamorphic" process that steps its video quality up still higher than a Full-Frame/Full-Screen DVD transfer?

Thanks for any info.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Well, PQ is an interesting concept. They are the same number of pixels, so the same resolution. However, if it was a widescreen film, the full frame transfer is likely missing picture information.

 

[Michael Reuben]

As Vince says, it's the same number of pixels, but you're comparing apples to oranges. An anamorphically enhanced image will be wider than a 4:3 image; so while they may have the same number of pixels, they won't be the same image.

M.

 

[Brian W.]

For 1.85 aspect ratios, yes, pan and scan or full frame is the same resolution, as long as you're watching the 1.85 image on a widescreen set.

For 2.35 aspect ratios, no -- a pan and scan transfer is higher resolution, though of course you're missing a large part of the picture on the sides.

 

[Dave H]

For 2.35 aspect ratios, no -- a pan and scan transfer is higher resolution, though of course you're missing a large part of the picture on the sides.

Not true if the TV is widescreen or does the "squeeze." The scan lines in the black bars are moved into the picture.

480 lines can be in a 1:33 or 2:35 or 1:85 or any other aspect ratio.

 

[Brian W.]

Really? I'll be damned. Learn something new every day, don't you?

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

This is false. In DVD supports only 2 ratios that use all pixels of the 720x480: 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9. A 2.35 film will have some lines with back bars hard encoded into the video signal. DVD does not support 2.35:1 using the full 720x480 without black bars in the video signal, regardless of "squeeze mode" or not.

Long story short, 2.35:1 is just slightly letterboxed inside the 16x9 image, using black bars in the video signal to accomplish this. So the 2.35:1 would have "less resolution" as it would use less pixels for picture area. The original reply was correct.

-Vince

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Not true if the TV is widescreen or does the "squeeze." The scan lines in the black bars are moved into the picture.

480 lines can be in a 1:33 or 2:35 or 1:85 or any other aspect ratio.

The original poster was correct. 2.35:1 picture wastes picture real estate on the black bars. Only 16:9 and 1.33:1 films fill the entire native 720x480 frame with picture data. There is no such thing, with standard DVDs anyway, as 2.35:1 anamorphic enhancement.

 

[Brian W.]

The original poster was correct.

Neener, neener, neener!

I did do comparisons of my P&S and widescreen copies (set for 16x9 so the picture is squeezed) of Fellowship of the Ring on my standard TV, and the resolution is noticably better on the P&S, sad to say. When I look at the widescreen, I think, "Damn, I wish that had the resolution of the P&S," and when I look at the P&S I think, "Damn, I wish that didn't have the screwed-up framing." Can't win.

 

[ChrisMatson]

Wouldn't a 2.35:1 picture on a widescreen display still offer better resolution than the 4:3 full screen picture on a 4:3 TV? The anamorphic process on a true 16:9 display puts more vertical resolution in the given space. The horizontal resolution would be the same on both, right?

 

[Aaron Cohen]

Also, as shown on the Die Hard 5 Star collection dvd, wouldn't the blowing up of a 2.35:1 image to 4:3 make the image appear a bit worse looking showing more grain etc. because of the blowup? I'm not an expert by any means so I'm just speaking off the top of my head with my thoughts here.

 

[Dave H]

Vince,

Does it have to be that way with 2:35 anamorphic? I mean, from a technological perspective, couldn't they have done something differently with the encoding? I guess not and it's not a huge deal since very little resolution is being lost. Of course, the display and DVD would have needed to be programmed differently. I never knew a thin black bar was made there for this.

Brian,

You are certainly right about learning something every day LOL. This is news to me.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Dave H, they could have, but that would have required reworking the MPEG-2 codec, which currently only supports the two ARs. Apparently, they didn't think it was worth the trouble (and additional hardware cost for players) for a relatively small resolution increase in resolution that few people would be able to appreciate.

 

[David Von Pein]

As Vince says, it's the same number of pixels, but you're comparing apples to oranges. An anamorphically enhanced image will be wider than a 4:3 image; so while they may have the same number of pixels, they won't be the same image.

Well, duh!
I know that.
I was concerned about "image clarity" on FF vs. Anam. WS.

 

[Dave Molinarolo]

Really? I'll be damned. Learn something new every day, don't you?

Which logic I use when people ask me, "What do know?". I answer "One more thing than I knew yesterday."

 

[Michael Reuben]

I was concerned about "image clarity" on FF vs. Anam. WS.

How can you do a meaningful comparison of "image clarity" if the two images you're comparing aren't the same? A lot of things affect the final product besides the number of pixels.

M.

 

[Randy A Salas]

But if you have a 4:3 TV that does the anamorphic squeeze, wouldn't the anamorphic picture be higher quality? Yes, it has the same number of lines of resolution as a full-screen image, but the lines are closer together in a smaller vertical space. (The scan lines actually seem to disappear on my Sony.)

Isn't that higher resolution?

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Randy,

Your observation is valid- but opens an interesting debate. Since resolution is pixels in a given amount of space- what you said is true: a set with sqeeze would display higher resolution (more pixels in less space).

However, the using the same rules that an anamorphic image displayed on a 16:9 set would have less resolution than the 4:3 (as the 4:3 would be same number of pixels displayed over less space).

So, it kind of depends on how you choose to arrange those pixels. When trying to compare the concept of resolution of two different images of different shapes- you open a can of worms as the issue of resolution becomes less important than perception and image content.

-Vince

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Could have-- they would have had to decide, when designing the format to encode full 720x480 for all video, no matter the aspect- and then instruct the player how to output-- but compatibility with monitors (the ability to know how to arrange the pixels) would have been required as well. In addition, players would have had to be designed to properly reformat for 4:3 (like it does for current anamorphic material).

Instead they simply decided to go with the two display standard: "current" 4:3 and future 16:9.

I'm glad to have a video format that understands and supports anamorphic in the first place! Try explaining this concept to your grandma (or heck, even some of your friends), and you realize it's surprising that electronic companies allowed the door to open for anamorphic to exist in the first place.

-Vince

 

[David Von Pein]

How can you do a meaningful comparison of "image clarity" if the two images you're comparing aren't the same? A lot of things affect the final product besides the number of pixels.

Gee, I didn't think this seemingly simple Q would stir the pot so much.

WHY isn't it possible to say whether one looks as good (clarity-wise) as the other?

Just wanted to know (technically-speaking): Does a FF transfer generally match the quality, resolution-wise, of a WS anamorphic transfer?

I'm not speaking of ratio. I realize I'm missing some image on a P&S DVD. I was just asking about the crispness/clarity/PQ of the picture that's on the screen, regardless of ratio.

In other words ..... If someone were to say to you or me: "This Full-Frame version of Film XYZ will look just as crisp & clear as the Widescreen Anamorphic copy of the same film" .... would this person be off his/her rocker. Or would this individual's statement be pretty much accurate?