Please 16x9-encode 1.66:1 titles

Discussion in 'DVD' started by DaViD Boulet, Jul 14, 2003.

  1. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    4x3 viewers never see the "side bars" due to overscan on their set and 16x9 viewers aren't forced to either crop the image to 1.78:1 with their "zoom" or watch it framed on all 4-sides with matting.

    Resolution increases are significant.

    Warner...MGM...please get the picture. Every other main-line studio is now properly 16x9-encoding their 1.66:1 movies with great success and both casual and videophile viewers benefit in the process.
     
  2. Brian McHale

    Brian McHale Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 1999
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    12
    Real Name:
    Brian McHale
    I certainly agree. It wouldn't be so bad if WS TV manufacturers would give us a zoom mode designed for non-anamorphic 1.66:1 discs, but they don't.
     
  3. Bryan Tuck

    Bryan Tuck Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    226
    Real Name:
    Bryan Tuck
    I agree wholeheartedly. There is absolutely no reason not to anamorphically enhance 1.66:1 films. Even if the windowboxing is visible, it would be the narrowest of slivers, and wouldn't matter at all. And 16:9 TV-owners wouldn't have to zoom it and lose some of the picture.

    Please consider this, WB and MGM. As David pointed out, you are the only studios who don't do this. Please start anamorphically enhancing 1.66:1 films. Many of your customers will thank you if you do.
     
  4. Reagan

    Reagan Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    4
    Real Name:
    Reagan
    Yes, this is needed.

    -Reagan
     
  5. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    A few other studios will not do 1.66:1 period. Columbia should have used the ratio for a few titles, but opted for either 1.33:1 or the grossly overmatted 1.85:1 for some.

    16x9 enhancing is important, but please...a 4x3 1.66:1 transfer is a lot better than an overmatted 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 transfer of the same film that's 16x9 enhanced.
     
  6. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    30,398
    Likes Received:
    5,660
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Patrick,
    Do you have a 16x9 television? If not, then perhaps you show some empathy for those of us that do have such a television.




    Crawdaddy
     
  7. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
     
  8. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're basically talking to MGM and WB here, I think.

    The fact that WB is so resistant to it suprises me, as they seem to be working very hard to improve DVD quality.

    MGM is another matter. We're talking about a studio that still routinely releases "Full screen" DVDs and non-anamorphic DVDs for some older scope films. They have a long way to go to catch up to everyone else as it is. Of course I'd like to see them to anamorphic 1.66:1 titles, but that would only be a drop in the bucket.
     

Share This Page