Should I be afraid to buy non-anamorphic titles? (1 Viewer)

[Mark_vdH]

You might want to think about all region player as most of those films are available anamorphic (i.e. 16:9) in Region 2 (Europe)
12 Angry Men
Graduate (reference 16:9 transfer packed with x's)
Great Escape (16:9 SE imminent)
Manchurian Candidate
Planet of the Apes (16:9)
Psycho (16:9)
Some Like It Hot (16:9)
To Kill A Mockingbird
Vertigo (16:9)
Wild Bunch (16:9 flipper)
Witness for the Prosecution

I have the R2 versions of 12 Angry Men and To Kill A Mockingbird, and these are definately non-anamorphic. I don't believe that Manchurian Candidate-R2 is anamorphic either, although I don't have it myself.
I won't buy NTSC non-anamorphic discs anymore, and PAL non-anamorphic dicss are just good enough on my telly. If I want a movie that's not available with 16:9 enhancement, I'd buy the PAL version.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I used to take a hardline against non-anamorphic titles. Since I've essentially completed my collection of existing titles, I've relaxed that restriction for several titles. However, I will say this: Even the best of examples (Armaggeddon and The Abyss) look good, but you know it would look even better if it were anamorphic. It is true that some anamorphic releases look worse than those titles, but those titles will always be hampered.

My current take is to pick up the non-anamorphic titles if it seems likely that a reissue is not in the titles future. But if you're thinking of picking up something like Titanic, I would buy some of the other titles on your list until you've run out. Then go back and pick up those non-anamorphic titles if you have to have them.

 

[Seth Paxton]

With any decent scaling device (ie, not many TV models) a film with a transfer as sharp as The Abyss will scale up nicely and DOES look better than crappy anamorphic titles like Outland.

But it's all dependent on the equipment at that point, and one reason to have a nicer DVD player or display setup. I wouldn't let non-enhancement hold you back unless an enhanced version is just around the corner.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Since the DVD player actually positions the subtitles, I'm hoping that, when I get a new player, it will be smart enough to put the subtitles where I'll be able to see them, even when zooming in on a non-anamorphic DVD.

They are.

And if they use the theatrical burned in subtitles they will be on the picture where they should be. After all, at the theater the subtitles have no where else to be but on the frame. The masking means there is no "black bar" area.

 

[Scott_MacD]

Kevin, my take on the anamorphic/non-anamorphic situation is this..

If there is no likelihood of a particular movie being retransfered anytime soon, and it's a movie you particularly want to see, then pick up the non-anamorphic version. Read some reviews on the title to get opinions on the picture quality, or ask here.

Oh, and I keep forgetting that The Abyss isn't anamorphic. (don't miss out..)

 

[Ted Todorov]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the DVD player actually positions the subtitles, I'm hoping that, when I get a new player, it will be smart enough to put the subtitles where I'll be able to see them, even when zooming in on a non-anamorphic DVD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are.

Are you sure? I really don't see how -- on a non-anamorphic DVD the black bars are part of the picture. How does the player know where picture ends and black bar begins?
To give you one example: Criterion's non-anamorphic Yojimbo the subtitles are on the bottom black bar. The only way to zoom it in and be able to see the subtitles on a 16:9 screen, is to shift the picture to the top of the screen, creating a big (enough) black bar at the bottom to fit the subtitles. My Malata does that nicely, while my TV's shift and zoom features didn't do the job. But the subtitles don't somehow magically get shifted from the black bar to the picture because your TV is 16:9...
Ted

 

[DaViD Boulet]

With any decent scaling device (ie, not many TV models) a film with a transfer as sharp as The Abyss will scale up nicely and DOES look better than crappy anamorphic titles like Outland.

Sure, a well scaled *good* 4x3 transfer may look better than a *bad* 16x9 transfer. But that's not the point.

The point is that the same transfer will look better in 16x9 than in 4x3 lbxed. Abyss and Titanic would look *stunning* in 16x9 whereas they only look GOOD right now.

BTW, "Outland" is not 16x9 anamorphic. It's labeled improperly on the disc cover. It's about as BAD as a 4x3 lbxed transfer can get...loads of aliasing and video noise.

-dave

 

[John Berggren]

I personally will only buy anamorphic DVDs from now on as I don't want to have to replace based on that feature alone.

 

[Brian McHale]

Are you sure? I really don't see how -- on a non-anamorphic DVD the black bars are part of the picture. How does the player know where picture ends and black bar begins?

I don't know this first hand, but I do know it's technically feasible. When a disc has switchable subtitles, it is the DVD player that actually places the subtitles in the picture. If the DVD player is also doing the zooming (scaling) on a non-anamorphic DVD, it should be smart enough to place the subtitles in the viewable area.

 

[Mark_vdH]

And if they use the theatrical burned in subtitles they will be on the picture where they should be. After all, at the theater the subtitles have no where else to be but on the frame. The masking means there is no "black bar" area.

Maybe it's just one exception, but I have one DVD with burned in subs, that are in the "black bar area":
FoxLorber's Ran
Well, the picture quality is so bad, so maybe they transfered it from a VHS tape.

 

[Jon Robertson]

I have non-anamorphic discs a-plenty, and I love the films so much, it doesn't really matter to me.

Occasionally, anamorphic re-releases will come around the corner - I'm thinking of Mona Lisa in the UK, for instance, with all the same extras as the Criterion and a few more thrown in for good measure - but occasionally, these aren't as good.

For example, Vertigo has a noticeably inferior transfer on the R2 disc, despite being anamorphic PAL. It's grainier, the colours are slightly washed out and there's more print damage splashed throughout the film. The R1 has a more velvety, rich look that is correct and that I prefer, despite being non-anamorphic NTSC.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I've seen a few non-anamorphic titles which look fantastic.
Some Like It Hot is actually a pretty good transfer (Excellent contrast and detail) despite a few print damage issues. (I could see some safety film decomposition near the beginning... :frowning: )
On the other hand....the original MGM version of 2001 looks awful.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

After I set up an HPTC, non-anamorphic titles became a non-issue with me (I have one of the HDTV sets with the FULL mode lock problem). Whatever slight loss of resolution there is is not worth getting worked up over, and is certainly not worth re-buying titles over.

It is puzzling that there are so many enthusiasts who lavish praise on the old laserdisc format, but consider non-anamorphic DVD beneath contempt, even though in my experience the latter absolutely blows the former away in image quality (at least when using mid-ranged Pioneer players like the D504). I suppose we all have to have our causes...

RD

 

[Jon Robertson]

Agreed on the irony of LD vs. non-anamorphic, Robert.