How big a TV do you need to really notice the Anamorphic enhancement?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Paul_D, Sep 9, 2001.

  1. Paul_D

    Paul_D Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    My 25" 4:3 TV can perform the anamorphic squeeze, and although I can notice a slight improvement (the scan lines disappear), I wouldn't say the improvement enhances the experience for me. Hoiw big a TV do you need for it to make a BIG difference.
    My main TV is 42" 4:3, but it can't perform the anamorphic squeeze, so I can't test it on that size.
     
  2. gregstaten

    gregstaten Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 1997
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    3
    This isn't a simple question to answer as there are a lot of variables.
    First off, if you have a 16x9 set, then the benefit is apparent regardless of size. For example, I can certainly tell the difference on my portable player and I can also tell the difference on the 19" 16x9 pro monitor at work.
    It also depends upon the quality of the set. Again, at work I have a Sony 13" PVM 4x3 monitor. When I switch to 16x9 the difference is readily apparent. But I've also seen sets that can't really resolve the differences. For example, when I visited my father a few years ago, I remember noting that their living room set couldn't resolve much beyond VHS resolution (literally).
    Finally, you have to look at the quality of the downsampler in your DVD player. If the downsampler is adding artifacts to the downsampled image then the difference between 4x3 letterbox and 16x9 true will be more apparent.
    So, this comes down to the classic "your mileage may vary."
    -greg
     
  3. Joe D

    Joe D Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 1999
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have a 25" TV and a year ago I was tweaking with my TV, I did the squeeze trick on it and I must say I was pretty underwhelmed. I guess after a few movies I noticed the colors on movies were a lot better. Then, I noticed the image was more 3-Dimensional. Say I've been using the squeeze trick for a year now and I attemped to watch The Insider without the trick, the image lacked the life that the 16x9 version had.
    So, with a 25" there's a difference, but it's not apparent right away.
    ------------------
    Joe Dahlen
    "Take hold of the flame, you've got nothing to lose, but everything to gain."
     
  4. Matt Stone

    Matt Stone Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2000
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmmm...I can notice great improvement on my 27" Wega...so maybe it is the TV. And are you preforming a hacked-ass, bust into the service menu trick, or does your TV have native functionality for Anamorphic Squeeze. I only ask, becuase when I used to perform the "trick" on my old 27" Mits, I noticed little to no difference, and sometimes the picture looked worse...but with the feature on the Wega it looks great.
     
  5. Steve Felix

    Steve Felix Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2001
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see a vast improvment doing the squeeze on my 32", and I'm using the service menu.
    edit: The geometry gets messed up (sides of the picture curve) and I can't figure out how to adjust it, but it's worth it.
    ------------------
    "We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!"
    [Edited last by Steve Felix on September 09, 2001 at 02:19 PM]
     
  6. Richard Kim

    Richard Kim Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    I noticed a big difference on my 27" VVega, the image looks alot crisper, and I notice the tiny details in fabric and clothing of the characters, which would look fuzzy in 4:3 mode.
     
  7. Sanjay Gupta

    Sanjay Gupta Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Sanjay Gupta
    Before I got my 32" Widescreen (16:9) TV I used to have a 29" Sony TV with the Anamorphic squeeze feature. Well, atleast to me there was a world of a difference between an anamorphic and a non-anamorphic dvd even on the 29". I don't remember even one person not noticing the difference when I showed them a DVD with both options.
    Sanjay
    Member since 1997
    [Edited last by Sanjay Gupta on September 12, 2001 at 02:12 PM]
     
  8. Kenneth English

    Kenneth English Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 1999
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    0
    I definitely notice the difference on my 32" WEGA in anamorphic mode. I think it depends a lot on the TV itself and not necessarily just on the fact that the movie is anamorphically-enhanced.
     
  9. Jim Robbins

    Jim Robbins Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 1998
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see a big difference in a 2.35:1 on my Wega 27". I do beleive that anytime you increase the raster lines in a given area, the picture just looks better. PAL is a good example since the bandwidth is about the same, the 625 horizonal lines make a big difference in the smoothness of the image.
     
  10. Jason Merrick

    Jason Merrick Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2000
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Simi Valley, CA (Los Angeles)
    Real Name:
    Jason Merrick
    I can see a fairly big improvement on my 27" JVC when using the service menu squeeze trick. I just wish dvd's that are anamorphic 16:9 would also put the extras in amamorphic 16:9!
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Tom Oh

    Tom Oh Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 1999
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the life of me, I cannot tell the difference on my Panny 42" plasma. My dvd player is Sony 9000ES. I switch back and forth on 9000ES yet cannot find a difference between interlace and progressive. I looked at the scenes from 2001 and Saving Private Ryan as suggested by HTF members. Am I doing something wrong or is there little difference with certain TVs. I thought I remebered reading that some TVs line doubling is as good as DVD player's progreesive. Please help me to understand.
    ------------------
     
  12. Adam Tyner

    Adam Tyner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I upgraded from an analog 32" to a 36" VVega, the difference was almost night and day. Part of that, though, is probably because I have a Toshiba player, notorious for its downconversion artifacts...
    ------------------
    My DVD list | My personal site
     
  13. Roland Wandinger

    Roland Wandinger Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2000
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is much of a difference on my 91' wide screen. So much that I don't buy anymore non-anamorphic DVDs.
     
  14. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Woah Roland. That's a 91 FOOT widescreen TV is it? Or is this just a Spinal Tap moment? [​IMG]
    Either way it's bloody impressive.
    I really notice the difference between non-anamorphic and anamorphic on my 24" Sony Widescreen.
    Jason: I only own two titles with anamorphic extras that I know of: Spaced (UK TV series - one of the best DVD's I own for extras and everything) and Seven SE. I think Austin Powers The Spy Who Shagged Me may also be anamorphic for all extras. Fight Club may be but I've not watched the extras since I upgraded to widescreen.
    Theo
     
  15. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Those of you with small monitors...it also depends on how close you sit to your set. 16x9 discs let you get close because of less visible scan-line artifacts.
    quote: For the life of me, I cannot tell the difference on my Panny 42" plasma.[/quote]
    That's because your display probably has a really good scaler. Unlike most CRT-based displays which merely "zoom" or magnify a 4x3 lbxed image by blowing it up (thereby making the scan-lines more obvious), your set actually digitally resamples/scales the image to interpolate 4 scan-lines in place of every 3 scan-lines of the 16x9 picture area in the 4x3 lbxed signal. Essentially, your set is sythesising a 16x9 image.
    I have a CRT TV that behaves like your plamsa (ProScan 34" direct-view). I've always thought this means of dealing with 4x3 lbxed (digitally interpolating lines) looks a LOT better than the way most crt-displays just "zoom". I can still see an improvement with 16x9 discs...less aliasing on diagonals and by and large a slightly more "film-like" image...but many 4x3 lbxed images look good too.
    All things being equal, more resolution in the source signal is better. I'll bet if you sat a little closer to your plasma you'd begin to see more obvious differences between 4x3 lbxed and 16x9 images. I've noticed that with some 16x9 discs with really supurb transfers I can sit just 1.5-2 screen-widths away from the tube and I get an amazing picture. No matter how good I think a 4x3 lbxed transfer looks from the couch, it always degrades when I get that close.
    -dave
    [Edited last by DaViD Boulet on September 13, 2001 at 12:13 PM]
     
  16. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    rookie question: what exactly is this anamorphic squeeze feature? if anyone has info or links i would appreciate it!
    tia
    ------------------
    You step in the stream,
    But the water has moved on.
    This page is not here.
     
  17. Sean Patrick

    Sean Patrick Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 1999
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    0
    botttom line for smaller-tv owners like me that have tv's with 16:9 squeeze - you do notice a good leap in detail when compared to downconversion artifacts of even the better dvd players. However, we probably don't notice as many of the atrocities present in nonanamorphic transfers as those with bigger tv's.
     
  18. Jason Merrick

    Jason Merrick Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2000
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Simi Valley, CA (Los Angeles)
    Real Name:
    Jason Merrick
  19. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks jason! [​IMG]
    ------------------
    You step in the stream,
    But the water has moved on.
    This page is not here.
     
  20. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cheers. I saw Unbreakable at a preview screening and was totally torn on it. I think if the set had included a commentary (darn, maybe it does!) I might have bought it.
    Personally I felt the first three-quarters would have made a brilliant pilot for a mini-series, culminating in the final section some six eps later, if you see my point, and I felt it was a shame that they made a movie out of it. (Though I realise it was never envisaged in any other way, of course.)
    Theo
     

Share This Page