My Panasonic Blu-ray players and PS3 are cropping the sides of 4:3 DVDs (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

Glad to hear you found the culprit. Strange that the PS3 is doing the same thing which is why I thought the display was doing the cropping. I have 2 Sony Blu-ray players and neither of them crop 1.33:1 DVDs.

 

[EddieLarkin]

So the fact the DVD of Maltese Falcon is 1.33 and the BD is 1.37 is totally lost on you... Done here.

It isn't lost on me, it's lost on you. The Maltese Falcon is indeed 1.33:1 on DVD, but your previous post suggests it is actually 1.37:1 and is being cropped down to 1.33:1 by the player .Which is not true at all. The image is pre-cropped to 4:3 by the disc producers because 4:3 is the only format DVD supports. My panasonic players and PS3 are then cropping it again to 1.29:1.

 

[schan1269]

So, you are unaware that most DVD are made dual digital format. One P&S and the other 16:9...oh, wait...16:9 DVDs don't exist...

 

[EddieLarkin]

16:9 DVDs do not exist. All DVDs are 4:3, including widescreen films, which are squashed into their correct AR by the player. This is what Anamorphic Widescreen is. I explained this only two posts ago.

 

[schan1269]

16:9 DVDs do not exist. All DVDs are 4:3, including widescreen films, which are squashed into their correct AR by the player. This is what Anamorphic Widescreen is. I explained this only two posts ago.

16:9 is the native size of DVD. You have it backwards, hence...your entire problem On this link, scroll down to Spartacus and look at what happens in letterbox and anamorphic letterbox. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm BD players are not equipped for the choice between anamorphic and standard letterbox for DVD.

 

[EddieLarkin]

That link supports my argument, not yours.

 

[schan1269]

What argument is that? It can't be "16:9 doesn't exist on DVD". It also shows you what anamorphic letterbox does(which is what most BD are defaulted to) and what standard letterbox (which very few BD players can do, but all DVD players can do) look like.

 

[schan1269]

Let me paraphrase your entire argument here... "BD players suck for showing 4:3 DVD and Panasonic players are garbage". My response... "Buy a DVD player capable of standard letterbox....problem solved."

 

[Al.Anderson]

I coming in cold, I didn't know anything about the native resolution of DVDs, but Wikipedia seems to support Sam's explanation. On the other hand, while Sam's work-around is a good one, I don't think it negates that fact that BR players not decoding DVDs correctly sucks. I'd be ticked too if I played a lot of 4:3 content. (Admitedly, after being righeously indignant I go buy a good DVD player.)

 

[schan1269]

Here is, to me, know the most amusing part of the OP's original post... "and an old DVD player (that connects via HDMI)" Wow, I didn't know anything with an HDMI connection could be considered old yet...

 

[Mark-P]

This thread has gotten ridiculous, mainly because Sam and Nick are arguing over semantics. Technically DVD is neither 16X9 nor 4X3. Native DVD resolution is 480 pixels by 720 pixels, which is (do the math) 1.5:1 (square pixels). If the material is flagged as 4X3 the pixels are squeezed. If the material is flagged as 16X9, the pixels are stretched. Same resolution (345,600 pixels) for both formats. And Sam you are also wrong about BD players. They decode DVDs exactly the same way. The only difference is that they can upscale the image to a higher resolution, which by the way some stand-alone DVD players can do as well. And finally Sam there is one statement you made that is blatantly false.

Research aspect ratios. You'll find the original DVD for 1.37 movies was adjusted to 1.33...by the player. When you set your DVD player for 16:9 it re-sets the image to the correct 1.37...instead of a cropped 1.33.

Only Blu-rays have presented movies in 1.37:1. Pretty much every DVD manufactured to date has been 1.33:1 (or less)

 

[schan1269]

So... The Darjeeling Limited really isn't 2.40:1 non-anamorphic... And Fassbinder's "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul" or "Fear Eats the Soul" isn't 1.37:1 Noted. Egad...I spelled Fassbinder wrong...

 

[Mark-P]

Fassbender's "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul" or "Fear Eats the Soul" isn't 1.37:1

Here you go: Screencaps at the Beev. While the captures from both releases measure 1.33:1 exactly. The Criterion has tiny black bars on the sides bringing the AR to about 1.312:1 and the EMS region 2 release has about 2 pixels of black bar at the top bringing the AR to about 1.338:1. Neither comes close to 1.37:1.

The Darjeeling Limited really isn't 2.40:1 non-anamorphic...

Nobody is talking about widescreen movies in this thread.

 

[schan1269]

I never checked "the ratio" used by DVDBeaver. On my screen(I measured it) set for 1080P(Acer laptop) I come up with 740x280...which isn't correct. So I have to fix that stretch. The point I made still stands, cause I did try Darjeeling(yeah I know it isn't 1:33/7) via the Pioneer DV420V and the Panasonic BD35. The BD35 cropped the edges. The DV420V does not. I've noticed cropping on the sides of BD players from back when Sharp was relevant and Toshiba still had a fighting chance(yeah, that long ago). I asked a Sharp tech(a real one...not a talking head reading from a script) back in '07/'08 about it. His answer was...(and no I don't remember what he said specifically) "BD players make great scalers. However they miss the boat when it comes to properly rendering scale from 480P. We had to make allowances..." And, at the time, yacking with a Pioneer rep when their first HDMI DVD player hit the market... "BD players are great for the casual watcher, but the person who is serious about DVD needs a proper scaling DVD player."

 

[Mark-P]

I am so glad I chose Sony over Panasonic when purchasing my Blu-ray players! I would really be pissed off if my BD player was cropping the image in any way.

 

[Jim Mcc]

My 2 Panasonics don't do it. I have the BD65 and 220.