Is there any reason at all for non-anamorphic DVDs to exist??

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by RichardH, Jan 29, 2002.

  1. RichardH

    RichardH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only thing I can think of is that the in-player conversion is not so great in most DVD players, so for conventional sets, a non-anamorphic DVD could look better than an anamorphic one that's converted by the DVD player.

    So, is there a reason for the nuisance known as "non-anamorphic"??
     
  2. RicP

    RicP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds to me like you just answered your own question. [​IMG]
     
  3. Dustin B

    Dustin B Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2001
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds like you did to me too.

    As much as I would like all my DVDs to be non anamorphic (while I have a non HD set and a so so interlaced player), I know I'll feel a lot stronger the other way as soon as I get a better display device and dvd player.
     
  4. Chris PC

    Chris PC Producer

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,975
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plus, technically, you can let the DVD player output at 16:9 and then use an "anamorphic squeeze" which is really just done in the analog domain of the TV's alignment. Haven't played with it much and its a pain cause you gotta go into your service mode and each DVD is different.

    The biggest pain is that TV's are NTSC and 4:3. Why didn't the industry get rid of that long ago?
     
  5. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, there are two other reasons.

    One, companys are too lazy or too cheap to produce an anamorphic transfer.

    Two, for a lot of movies, filmed in 1.33:1, doing an anamorphic transfer would result in a loss of resolution and would be a bad thing.
     
  6. Marc Rochkind

    Marc Rochkind Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, for a widescreen movie, anamorphic is the natural way to put the movie onto the DVD: Map the image onto the DVD's fixed-pixel resolution. To take the widescreen image, add black bars, and map the result onto the DVD is unnatural. And, there is no reason to do it, since all DVD players can handle the natural mapping for any size TV.
     
  7. Christian Dolan

    Christian Dolan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2001
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also think some of it has to with a rush to get product to market. We saw a lot of early DVDs that were recycled from LD masters, which I believe happened for a couple of reasons.

    1) Since the non-anamorphic master was already done and paid for, there was little compelling reason to do it again if the disc would sell anyway.

    2) There was also market research done that shows that few people had widescreen (or anamorphically capable) displays back then, so why, again, spend the extra time and money (this is similar to the reasoning used for certain DVDs that automatically default to DD 2.0 rather than 5.1: research indicated that most people didn't have 5.1 capability yet).

    -Christian
     
  8. Andy Kim

    Andy Kim Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2000
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it comes down to how much its going to cost the studio.

    If you read the chat transcript with Van Ling, he stated that Titanic was non-anamorphic not because of James Cameron but because it was going to take the studio more time and money to create.
     

Share This Page