LOTR DVD issues (merged thread) (1 Viewer)

[JamieD]

Unless I'm wrong, I think he wants the fullscreen version, which is oh so very bad. Either that, or I'm confused as well.

 

[Bernhard]

I have the feeling he means the anamorphic squeeze function seen on most projectors and some 4:3 TV models. But you have to use this on every anamorphic DVD given that the DVD player is set to 16:9 output.
Either this is Jeff's first anamorphic DVD or I am also missing something here...

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Jeff please expand on your post. I have a 4:3 projector that has a 16:9 or cinema mode. I always watch widescreen DVDs in the 16:9 mode - otherwise I would be defeating the purpose of using a progressive scan DVD player.

 

[Jeff Holton]

I guess maybe this is my first anamorphic DVD... I always get a little confused about the different "versions" of widescreen there are.

I guess my other DVDs are just widescreen, and not anamorphic widescreen.

 

[MichaelG]

I had no problems with audio or video, but I did have to turn my sub down as well because it was too much.

 

[Espen Braathen]

Micael Reuben wrote:
"Did your survey of THX products include any Lexicon processors? If not, then with all due respect, I doubt its comprehensiveness."
Nope, no Lexicon. However all popular THX certifed receivers/amps from Pioneer, Denon and Onkyo was found to behave in the way that I describe. So did the Anthem and Integra Research processors.
The only non-thx models which behaves in the same way as far as I know is the lower end models from Denon, afaik these also let you calibrate to the 75 dB SPL @ -30 dBFS setting with a marked REF postion at the volume knob - something most non THX producs does not accomodate. I guess Denon has decided to use the same prodecure across their range; THX or not.
"If you can direct me to a source where THX specifies this sort of adjustment to dialnorm, please do."
Sure. Tomlinson Holman of THX fame did mention this compensation in a recent article in Surround Professional (may or june issue as I recall), I belive the feature was called "Scaling the experience". Here he describes the "compensation", (however he states that it's only 2 dB - which is not correct).
"But the more likely explanation is that certain receiver manufacturers have decided to include an extra feature to compensate for dialnorm."
Most seem to do. Lexicon is the only exception to the rule I have heard of. If there's other please name them...
Alas, the +4 dB compensation might only be a suggested option from THX, and not a absolute requirement. Since most discs have the -4 dB offset the automatic +4 dB correction is a good thing IMO. [Afaik I have never seen the actuall THX specs.]
And BTW; The interview with Andy Clark about the latest Lexicon MC-12 v1.1 software upgrade now states:
http://www.smr-group.co.uk/articles/v110qa1.html
"We also implemented a change, which reduced the output level drop that occurred when switching from DTS to Dolby Digital input sources. The end result should facilitate easier comparisons between the formats, and reduce the need to adjust volume levels when changing input sources and listening modes."
To me it sounds like Lexicon finally has implemented the "+4 dB compensation". Anyway, it's the only sensible thing to do...
Espen Braathen

 

[Ed Faver]

I have had no problems with my copy, but this is a reason to watch it again tonight and check it carefully.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm sure you have to have more than 1 anamorphic disc in your collection. People with standard TVs need to tell their players they have standard TVs so the player can downconvert
Anamorphic widescreen for Dummies
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...c/welcome.html

 

[Michael Reuben]

To me it sounds like Lexicon finally has implemented the "+4 dB compensation". Anyway, it's the only sensible thing to do...

To me, the sensible thing to do would be to allow the user to defeat dialnorm altogether, especially since many DVD producers are not using it as it was intended (Columbia Tristar is a major offender in this area). I realize, however, that Dolby Labs would frown on such an option. AFAIK, the only receiver manufacturer ever to implement it was Denon, and that was only on certain older models.

I will look for the Tom Holman article you mentioned, but I would prefer to see something in the way of official specifications from THX. Searches at the THX website were unrevealing.

It's not clear what Andy Clark at Lexicon is referring to in the quotation you reproduced. In context, he was responding to a question about the implementaiton of DTS:Neo, DPL2 and Logic 7; so his answer may relate to the handling of 2-channel source. We need someone with an MC-12 and the new software to tell us for certain.

M.

 

[Scott Bourden]

Hello,
A short while ago, I was sent two pictures of an identical scene from the Lord of the Rings DVD. It was a comparison of the P&S vs the OAR ratio.
Am I the only one noticing the feet being chopped off? Was this an error on the part of the person taking the screen caps, a editing issue, or is this normal on the OAR releases?
I felt it needed a new thread, as it didn't fit in the other LoTR one's, and well, it's most likely just stupid confusion on my part, and I'd really appreciate somebody explaining it to me.
Copy and paste links into a new window:
Full Frame http://www.joako.com/upload/files/lotr1.jpg
OAR http://www.joako.com/upload/files/lotr2.jpg
(thanks to Stiler for providing the original image's)

 

[Jeremy Allin]

LOTR was filmed in Super 35 which exposes more of negative. When the film is P&Sed, you lose some information off the sides but gain some room at the top and bottom of the frame.
Visit the following link. It has some great screen caps and explanations.
http://www.twowiresthin.com/aspect/

 

[Scott Bourden]

Thanks a lot for that link, turns out I was an idiot after all :b

Learn something new everyday.

 

[Francois Caron]

Scott, you're nowhere close to being an idiot. The problem with the Super-35 format is that it suffers a bit from a multiple-personality disorder. One minute it's 1.33:1, then it's 2.35:1, then it's 1.85:1. Even the filmmakers themselves aren't always quite sure what to do with it, but it is a format that offers the most flexibility when placed in the hands of experts.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The problem with the Super-35 format is that it suffers a bit from a multiple-personality disorder. One minute it's 1.33:1, then it's 2.35:1, then it's 1.85:1. Even the filmmakers themselves aren't always quite sure what to do with it, but it is a format that offers the most flexibility when placed in the hands of experts.

All of this applies equally to standard 35.

DJ

 

[Johnny G]

IT MAKES IS MORE PUZZLING WHEN YOU'RE NOT COMPARING THE SAME FRAME

 

[KyleK]

Ah, yes. You can tell by looking at the fire. Good eyes.

 

[Stephen C]

I have a Panasonic A-120, got a widescreen LOTR from Blockbuster, and right after the layer change I get artifacts so bad it's unwatchable. Seems to go on for a few chapters, but once I skip past them, it's OK.

I'll exchange the disc, and if I have the same problems, well, I now have an excuse to get the progressive scan player . . . .

 

[todbnla]

Just curious;
You guys posting problems with Panny A-120's are they A-120U's or just the A-120?
I have a A-120U and it has seen a LOT of service with NO problems.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Just to mention, I was at a store and they had LOTR on a widescreen TV. The image was squished to fit the screen. I told the guy working there, and he went "That's because it's in widescreen." (I'm just 16, he probably thought I didn't know what I was talking about...) I said widescreen doesn't mean that it's composition is squished. I said that he was playing a full-frame version and then the image was not being presented right. He told me I was wrong, the movie ended, and he started it over and bam "this film is presented..." and he mentioned that it was a mistake, and that someone must have bought the wrong version to showcase... :frowning: My mom complained that the picture was hard to watch.

 

[Scott Bourden]

Johhny, good eye, I didn't notice that when I was looking the pictures over (and no, I didn't take the screen cap)