What is the purpose of anamorphic 1.66:1? (1 Viewer)

[Bart]

I understand why widescreen movies are anamorphically enhanced on DVD, but is there any advantage to an anamorphic transfer for a 1.66:1 transfer? A movie with this aspect ratio will actually have black bars on the sides of the image on the DVD because it is not as wide as a 16:9 (1.78) image (you don't see the black bars on a 4:3 TV due to overscan, but on a PC or widescreen TV they should be visible). I guess my question is, is there any significant gain in picture resolution by the anamorphic transfer is this case (with small bars on the sides) verses a letterbox one (with small bars on the top and bottom)?

I'm guessing a 1.66:1 aspect ratio letterboxed would wreck havoc on a 16:9 display since if you watched it in letterbox mode it would be windowboxed and if you watched it in zoom mode, the TV would chop off some of the top and bottom (unless widescreen TVs have a 1.66:1 zoom mode I don't know about). I think maybe there are a few questions buried in this post. Basically I'm just looking for clarification on this issue. Any help you guys could provide would be appreciated. Thanks.

Bart

 

[LukeB]

Yes, you do have higher resolution with a 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen than a 1.66:1 letterboxed, and it will look better on a 16x9 display encoded that way than as letterboxed. It's not a great difference in resolution, but it still makes sense.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

There is still a substantial resolution gain to be had with enhancement of 1.66:1 transfers, but it is only about half of that gained with ARs of 1.78:1 or greater.

The scaling issue is usually addressed on newer TVs, but it was a real problem on older sets like mine (and stayed that way until I put together a home theater PC).

 

[Deane Johnson]

There's one advantage. They get one additional sale. Me.

 

[Bart]

Robert, what scaling issues were you talking about? Do you mean you had problems with letterboxed 1.66:1 DVDs? Also, can you see the black bars on the sides when you watch an anamorphic 1.66:1 DVD on a widescreen display? Thanks.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Bart: yes, you see the side bars on a properly calibrated 16x9 set. It's mainly a convience issue for 16x9 TV owners. I personally prefer the non-anamorphic transfers but it's not really a huge issue unless you're one of the ones inconvienced.

 

[PhilipG]

If your w/s set doesn't have a 14:9 zoom mode, then to avoid cropping the picture your display will look like the "non-anamorphic" part of my sig.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

Robert, what scaling issues were you talking about? Do you mean you had problems with letterboxed 1.66:1 DVDs? Also, can you see the black bars on the sides when you watch an anamorphic 1.66:1 DVD on a widescreen display? Thanks.

Yes, I was an early adopter of 16x9, and my set has the "full-mode lock" issue. Image quality is gorgeous when the progressive inputs are used, but atrocious with the interlaced ones (mediocre line doubler). Problem is, 4:3 letterboxed requires scaling to display properly on such sets, and in those days, scalers were boutique items.

On my set, 1.66:1 does indeed display with black "pillarboxing" bars on the sides, whether it is laserdisc, 4:3 DVD, or 16x9-enhanced DVD (I use a home theater PC to format images into 1.78:1 prior to sending them to the display).

RD

 

[Robert Dunnill]

FYI if a home theater PC is used, non-enhanced 1.66:1 will look the same as enhanced will, apart from any deterioration due to the drop in effective resolution.

Gotta love that TheaterTek!

 

[Wyatt_Y]

Grrrrr...... non-anamorphic 1.66:1 is a major PITA!!!!

Unless you have some method to perform a variable zoom, the only way to see the whole picture is in 4:3 letterbox mode. 16:9 zoom cuts off the top and bottom - not a lot but noticable.

I'd love to have an anamorphic 'Nightmare Before Christmas' and gladly take black sidebars!!!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Aside from the "convenience factor" for those owning 16x9 sets, as other posters have mentioned you *do* get a resoluiton increase pillarboxing a 1.66:1 image in a 16x9 frame vs "letterboxing" it in a 4x3 frame. That's because 1.66:1 is closer in shape to 1.78:1 than 1.33:1, so less space is wasted on "vertical bars" in 16x9 than is wasted on "horizontal bars" in 4x3.

It makes a visible improvement...espeically once you step up to a larger RP set or front-projection screen.

For some strange reason, Warner and MGM are the only two studios who don't "get it" with 16x9 1.66:1 mastering.

-dave

 

[Aaryn Chan]

1.66 is almost 1.33 why didn't they stick with 1.33 or jump to 1.85?

And do you dislike the DVDs (some) being 1.77 instead of 1.85?

 

[Andy_G]

I doubt that there are many movies that would lose much in the slight crop from 1.66 to 1.78.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

1.66 is almost 1.33 why didn't they stick with 1.33 or jump to 1.85?

The cost of having to change theatrical screens?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

In a non-anamorphic NTSC transfer with no adjustment for overscan, a 1.66:1 image will be 720 x 384, or 276,480 pixels.

In an anamorphic NTSC windowboxed transfer, a 1.66:1 image will be 676 x 480 pixels, or 324,480 pixels.

The anamorphic transfer will have an additional 48,000 pixels.

The non-anamorphic transfer will have ~85.2071005917159763% the resolution of the anamorphic transfer.

However, if your television doesn't do the squeeze, the anamorphic transfer will be effectively 676 x 405, or 273,780 pixels.

The anamorphic transfer will effectively have 2,700 less pixels.

To be honest, however, 2,700 pixels is neligible when your dealing with a 345,600 pixel format.

So basically, it doesn't mean a shit bit of difference to the average 4x3 tv user, but it means quite a good deal to the average 16x9/HTPC user.

 

[John Alderson]

Thanks for the numbers Adam. I crunched them for 1.66 transfers once, and came up with the same results. I didn't want to have to figure it all out again

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I doubt that there are many movies that would lose much in the slight crop from 1.66 to 1.78.

Subtitled 1.66:1 4x3 lbxed movies are almost impossible to watch on my 16x9 display. Babettes Feast is a travesty...either no one can read the subtitles or if I "pan" the image up to read the subtitles then all the heads are cut-off.

Even without panning often heads are cut off when "zooming" a 1.66:1 4x3 lbxed image on a 16x9 display.

I wish 16x9 display manufacturers would incorporate a dedicated 1.66:1 zoom featue just for this purpose...but few U.S. sets do.

Of course, MGM and WB should get with the program and properly 16x9 encode their 1.66:1 titles and make the matter moot!

dave

 

[Andy_G]

David,

What I meant was that most “flat” widescreen films should be mastered at 1.78:1 (with 16x9 enhancement).

Granted, some movies were framed with 1.66:1 in mind. However, my contention is that cropping most of these movies slightly (to 1.78:1) in the telecine phase would not be a disaster (See Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger as examples).

 

[PhilipG]

I doubt that there are many movies that would lose much in the slight crop from 1.66 to 1.78.

Not many, but it certainly matters for some, e.g. Warner's Horror of Dracula.

 

[Vincent_P]

1.66:1 is actually exactly 25% wider than 1.33:1. That's a big difference.

Vincent