Full-Frame Vs. Anamorphic: The Same Quality?

Discussion in 'DVD' started by David Von Pein, May 8, 2003.

  1. David Von Pein

    David Von Pein Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,748
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  4. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
    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.
     
  5. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,540
    Likes Received:
    177
     
  6. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
    Really? I'll be damned. Learn something new every day, don't you?
     
  7. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0


    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
     
  8. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    17,603
    Likes Received:
    2,112
    Location:
    Albany, NY
     
  9. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
     
  10. ChrisMatson

    ChrisMatson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  11. Aaron Cohen

    Aaron Cohen Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,540
    Likes Received:
    177
    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.
     
  13. Dan Rudolph

    Dan Rudolph Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. David Von Pein

    David Von Pein Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,748
    Likes Received:
    10
     
  15. Dave Molinarolo

    Dave Molinarolo Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  17. Randy A Salas

    Randy A Salas Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    1
    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?
     
  18. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  19. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0


    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
     
  20. David Von Pein

    David Von Pein Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,748
    Likes Received:
    10
     

Share This Page