I mentioned this in the Star Wars thread but it deserves a better explanation and a visual aid. This is a very important fact about DVD resolution (not related to HD; this applies to standard DVD).

Many of you have been forced to listen to me blather about "anamorphic" DVDs (term commonly used by Fox and Universal). Another term for the same type of DVD is "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" (term commonly used by Warner Brothers).

This applies to widescreen presentations which have been encoded at a higher resolution.

However, in order to see this increased resolution, you MUST have a display which is capable of showing it. A standard NTSC 4x3 set will NOT display the increased resolution.

For this demonstration, I had to find both a NON-anamorphic DVD and and anamorphic DVD of the same movie. I chose the movie OKLAHOMA! because it is one of the few films where I own both the old non-anamorphic and the new anamorphic disc.

I got these two screen captures using POWERDVD on my computer.

I have NOT altered, zoomed, or cropped these images to make my point! Both measure 536 pixels high in Powerdvd. I put them side-byside for comparison and downsized the pair to fit this forum. However, I kept the height between the two images identical (just as they play) so that this is a DIRECT COMPARISON OF NATIVE RESOLUTIONS.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7794/dvdcomp7hm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

The image on the left is the non-anamorphic DVD. It is a direct port of the Laser Disc transfer. It is a 4x3 transfer with the image letterboxed to fit a 4x3 screen.

The image on the right is the anamorphic DVD. It is a 16x9 transfer which must be viewed on a display capable of showing a 16x9 picture.

If you do not have a 16x9 capable display, the second image will be down sampled to fit into the lower resolution 4x3 screen. Lines of resolution are removed to make it fit. So, when viewed on a 4x3 screen, both DVDs will APPEAR IDENTICAL!

The old non-anamophic DVD will show at it's MAXIMUM 220,000 pixels. The new DVD will be downsampled from about 350,000 pixels to 220,000 pixels.

In order to compare images at their true "native" resolution, you must view them on an HDTV or suitable display. They cannot be compared on a 4x3 NTSC TV set.

Here's another way to look at.

This answers the question: What happens when I put my non-anamorphic DVD in my new 16x9 TV set.

The top picture shows the new anamorphic DVD on a 16x9 screen (the movie is in widescreen Todd-AO 2.20:1 so it has black bars on both types of TV).

The bottom picture shows the same 16x9 screen with the non-anamorphic disc (superimposed on a dimmed version of the new DVD). Notice it has bars at the side of the picture as well. The non-anamorphic DVD is 720 pixels wide. The anamorphic DVD is 960 pixels wide. These are the ACTUAL pixel measurements recorded by power DVD. The non-amamorphic transfer doesn't have enough pixels to fill the width of the screen.

In practice, you would fill the screen by ZOOMING on the non-anamorphic image. But that is like the cheap digital zoom on a camera. You are just blowing up the lower resolution image to fill the screen. At 960 pixels wide, the anamorphic DVD naturally fills the width of the screen.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/3306/comp26pe.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Great information!

Here's a somewhat different example. This compares the non-anamorphic, open matte presentation to the anamorphic widescreen presentation of the same movie. These aren't the ultra wide movies like Todd-AO or CinemaScope.

This example is 20,000,000 MILES TO EARTH. It has both versions on the disc.

Let me say again that I have not in any way changed the proportions of these screen captures. While shrunk to fit the forum, both images have been reduced by an identical percentage so that all proportions are as they actually appear when played at their native resolution. Tech data on images will follow:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9261/dvdcomp25rf.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Both images are the same height. The non-anamorphic picture is recorded by PowerDVD as 720x536 pixels. It creates a screen capture file size of 1131 KB.

The anamorphic widescreen picture is recorded by PowerDVD as 960X 536 pixels. It creates a file size of 1508 KB.

Amazing!!! ACTUAL FACTS in this forum. NO Opinions stated as fact, and not even a Trek Reference!

Thanks Brent!!


If I could just figure out how to upgrade the software on my TiVO..

I have an HD TV, but when I watch a DVD, I've been setting my aspect ratio to 4:3 zoom to fill the screen. I've known for some time that an anamorphic image will expand to fill the screen for higher resolution, but as yet I cannot find where to configure this on my DVD player. Any suggestions?

the only thing I can see as a problem here is that the frames aren't exact or close to exact on the actual timing, so there is no way to account for camera moves or zooms for the interior image and any cropping changes. But I find the outside dimensions to be interesting.

How does a "progressive scan" player fit into this?

I have an HD TV, but when I watch a DVD, I've been setting my aspect ratio to 4:3 zoom to fill the screen. I've known for some time that an anamorphic image will expand to fill the screen for higher resolution, but as yet I cannot find where to configure this on my DVD player. Any suggestions?

You shouldn't have to do anything to your DVD player - it's your HD monitor that needs to be adjusted. There are normally three settings - "Zoom", "Fill", and "Normal" (forgive the nomenclature). If your monitor is set to "Normal" the anamorphic DVD should fill the screen (or show black bars at the top and bottom if the movie is ultra-widescreen - "Batman Begins" for example). The same is true when you switch between an HD channel broadcasting true HD and an SD channel broadcasting 4x3 programming - the HD signal should fill the 16x9 screen while the 4x3 SD channel should show bars on the sides. The only time I use the Zoom or Fill features is when I'm watching a non-anamorphic 16x9 DVD or watching a letterboxed movie on an SD channel (TCM for example).

I mentioned this in the Star Wars thread but it deserves a better explanation and a visual aid. This is a very important fact about DVD resolution (not related to HD; this applies to standard DVD).

Many of you have been forced to listen to me blather about "anamorphic" DVDs (term commonly used by Fox and Universal). Another term for the same type of DVD is "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" (term commonly used by Warner Brothers).

This applies to widescreen presentations which have been encoded at a higher resolution.

However, in order to see this increased resolution, you MUST have a display which is capable of showing it. A standard NTSC 4x3 set will NOT display the increased resolution.

For this demonstration, I had to find both a NON-anamorphic DVD and and anamorphic DVD of the same movie. I chose the movie OKLAHOMA! because it is one of the few films where I own both the old non-anamorphic and the new anamorphic disc.

I got these two screen captures using POWERDVD on my computer.

I have NOT altered, zoomed, or cropped these images to make my point! Both measure 536 pixels high in Powerdvd. I put them side-byside for comparison and downsized the pair to fit this forum. However, I kept the height between the two images identical (just as they play) so that this is a DIRECT COMPARISON OF NATIVE RESOLUTIONS.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7794/dvdcomp7hm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

The image on the left is the non-anamorphic DVD. It is a direct port of the Laser Disc transfer. It is a 4x3 transfer with the image letterboxed to fit a 4x3 screen.

The image on the right is the anamorphic DVD. It is a 16x9 transfer which must be viewed on a display capable of showing a 16x9 picture.

If you do not have a 16x9 capable display, the second image will be down sampled to fit into the lower resolution 4x3 screen. Lines of resolution are removed to make it fit. So, when viewed on a 4x3 screen, both DVDs will APPEAR IDENTICAL!

The old non-anamophic DVD will show at it's MAXIMUM 220,000 pixels. The new DVD will be downsampled from about 350,000 pixels to 220,000 pixels.

In order to compare images at their true "native" resolution, you must view them on an HDTV or suitable display. They cannot be compared on a 4x3 NTSC TV set.
Hi Brent, i too have powerdvd on windowsXP. i have a question for you. Is there any way to play a DVD and copy it and keep it ? I also have windows media player where i rip music of my CDs and create new CDs. Can this be done with DVDs ? Can the DVD soundtrack audio be captured and saved as well ?
Thanks.

Here's a quick example of what to look for on the DVD package.

All of the examples on the LEFT are anamorphic widescreen.

Note the terms: anamorphic, Enhanced for Widescreen TV's and 16x9 transfer. Those will be found on anamorphic discs.

The two examples on the right are non-anamorphic widescreen. Note that they lack the above terminology. They say "Widescreen" and "Theatrical Release Format" but don't reference "anamorphic", "16x9" or "Enhanced".

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/7853/analabel11dd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

the only thing I can see as a problem here is that the frames aren't exact or close to exact on the actual timing, so there is no way to account for camera moves or zooms for the interior image and any cropping changes. But I find the outside dimensions to be interesting.

I couldn't match EXACT frames because the timing is not the same in the various transfers. For example, in OKLAHOMA! the old transfer predates the new transfer by many years so a frame taken at 4:28 on the old one doesn't match 4:28 on the new one.

But if you look at the 20,000,000 MILES TO EARTH example, you can see it's virtually the same shot just taken a second apart (note the expression on the face of the guy in the background...it's identical)

However, this isn't really intended to compare specific detail inside the image frame. In fact, the frames don't have to be close at all for what I want to demonstrate.

The main point is that the anamorphic image is a naturally larger image with more image information stored inside the picture. Again...THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT...I have not altered the proportions in ANY way for this comparison. In the 20MM to Earth example, the image is bigger because the anamorphic image is bigger. The camera didn't zoom it. I didn't zoom it.

The extraneous info was cropped from the top and bottom of the frame. Then the anamorphic transfer was made to fill the full widescreen by including extra picture information in the central portion of the image.

I have an HD TV, but when I watch a DVD, I've been setting my aspect ratio to 4:3 zoom to fill the screen. I've known for some time that an anamorphic image will expand to fill the screen for higher resolution, but as yet I cannot find where to configure this on my DVD player. Any suggestions?

I'm going to politely disagree with Zorro's answer.

Of the half dozen or so DVD players I bought (I have three in the living room...all plugged in!) all but one of them came set with a default to "4x3" TV. Perhaps Zorro has been luckier but I had to change the default setting in all but one player.

If you use the common 4x3 TV default in most DVD players (not all), you get no benefit from an enhanced DVD. Go to your players set up menu and look for display options or a setting for your type of TV. You might find things like: "4x3", "4x3 LETTERBOX" and "16x9"

Make sure your player is set to 16x9.

Then when you watch it, make sure your TV aspect ratio is properly set. Unfortunately, every brand has different terms for what they use. My Hitachi is easy...it actually has the widescreen aspect ratio labelled as "16x9"! But some sets might use a term like "Cinema Wide" so you might have to double check.

But make sure your player is set to 16x9.


BTW, this is a chance to answer: "Why do we have to set the aspect ratio in our DVD players?"

Well, if a DVD player is set to "16x9", it unlocks the extra resolution of the image and sends it streaming into the TV set. Great if you actually have a 16x9 set. But, if you are watching on a 4x3, that extra resolution has no place to go so everything gets squished. Everybody looks fat and dumpy because you are putting 5lbs of picture into a 3lb box!

Ooops. Sorry if I gave bad info. I bought a new Sony DVD player about a month before upgrading to an HD monitor and don't remember having to make any adjustments to the player when I went HD. I should have qualified that in my post.

Progressive Scanning is a term that describe the way the picture is "assembled" on your screen for viewing.

Most TVs in common use today display an interlaced picture. When the frames of the image are "drawn" on the screen, the frames "mix together". As you watch the picture, each new frame in the sequence, traces in alternate lines with the old frame it is replacing. So you get two slightly different pictures "interlaced" together.

With Progressive Scanning, each new frame displays in it's entirety without mixing with the previous frame. It is drawn separately on the screen. So, rather than interlacing, the frames are shown as a progression of one complete frame after another. You don't get two slightly different images together at the same time.

Note that, as with anamorphic DVDs...most older TVs and can't properly display a progressive image. This will change as we all make the digital switch and replace old equipment.

There is one fact that you're skipping over. All DVD images have the same number of pixels. They are all 480 X 720, which translates at an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 (2x3). With a non-anamorphic picture, the image is squeezed horizontally to 1.33:1 on both 4x3 and 9x16 screens. With anamorphic pictures, the image is squeezed vertically on 4x3 screens, and stretched horizontally on 9x16 screens. The reason widescreen looks better in anamorphic is because less of the picture is taken up by the black bars.

With anamorphic pictures, the image is squeezed vertically on 4x3 screens, and stretched horizontally on 9x16 screens. The reason widescreen looks better in anamorphic is because less of the picture is taken up by the black bars.

That statement begins with part the truth but I disagree with the remainder of the quote.

Yes, an anamorphic image IS SQUEEZED for display on a 4x3 set. Not that I'm thrilled with using "squeeze" as a technical term but we know what we mean.

But it is NOT STRETCHED for display on a 16x9 screen. That is where our disagreement starts.

Standard Definition DVD transfers come in two flavors: 4x3 transfers and 16x9(anamorphic) transfers.

If you look at the image I posted earlier of the DVD packages, note that the anamorphic DVDs often contain a specific reference to a 16x9 transfer. 16x9 is the native shape of the transfer. It does not require stretching. It is not "stretched horizontally on 9x16 screen". It must be squeezed down to fit a 4x3 but it shows naturally at 16x9.

This is why the industry differentiates a 16x9 transfer from a 4x3 transfer.

A example of this came up on another board recently where one of the guys who did a lot of screen captures noticed exactly what I have pointed out in this thread. He noticed that some of his screen caps were producing 1100kb files sizes and others were producing 1500kb files sizes. As was pointed out to him, the explantion is very straight forward. The frame of a 16x9 transfer contains more image information than the frame of a 4x3 transfer.

That is a fact that most people can test on a recent computer. You don't even need a 16x9 TV.

I URGE PEOPLE NOT TO TAKE MY WORD!!

Folks know what I think...so forget what I'm saying and test these things yourself. You can google terms like "anamorphic explained" or "enhanced for widescreen TV" and get a lot of info (a lot of pretty dry I'm afraid).

Better yet, if you can play DVDs on your computer, do your own comparisons. Are all DVDs equal? Capture some images yourself. Measure the size of the images. Measure the file sizes they create. I already know what you will discover.

I'm trying as much as possible to keep my personal opinion out of this (not always easy). That's why I've provided numbers generated from reading on my computer. You can disagree with me but you can verify those numbers on your own computer with your own DVDs.






"The reason widescreen looks better in anamorphic is because less of the picture is taken up by the black bars."

I must say that I have no idea what that statement means.

Are all DVDs equal?

I just found another example in my collection.

I own both the original NON-anamorphic (also called 4x3) and the new anamorphic (also called 16x9) transfers of LADY AND THE TRAMP.

This was the first feature length cartoon done in CinemaScope. It is the very wide, early 2.55:1 aspect ratio and displays with black bars on all TV sets.

As usual, I will provide technical specs after posting the picture. Both images display at the same height and are shown here at the same height EXACTLY proportional to the way they display on the computer (I put the unaltered images side-by-side and then reduce them together as one picture to fit on the forum)

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/875/dvdcomp3a4iq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


The image on the left is the original, non-anamorphic transfer. The frame reads 536 pixels tall by 720 pixels wide. The frame capture produces a file of 1131kb.

The image on the right is the recent, anamorphic transfer. The frame reads 536 pixels tall by 960 pixels wide. The frame capture produces a file of 1508kb.

Those are the raw numbers yielded when I hit the capture button. They are NOT numbers produced by altering anything. They are NOT arrived at by my attempting to count or manually measure the size. The computer program reads the DVD info in a small dialogue box and those are the numbers I post.

The extraneous info was cropped from the top and bottom of the frame. Then the anamorphic transfer was made to fill the full widescreen by including extra picture information in the central portion of the image.

This 'extraneous' info is picture in the case of 20000 miles to earth!
By cropping the picture top and bottom are they (the people who made the disc) interfering with the cinematoraphers work in exactly the same way as a pan and scan film treats the sides?
You should realy be watching this film with bars at the sides!

Jim

This 'extraneous' info is picture in the case of 20000 miles to earth!
By cropping the picture top and bottom are they (the people who made the disc) interfering with the cinematoraphers work in exactly the same way as a pan and scan film treats the sides?
You should realy be watching this film with bars at the sides!

Jim

NO! NO!

The extraneous information is just that...extraneous information**

20,000,000 MILES TO EARTH was released in 1957. By that time, virtually no movies saw theatrical releas in the United States at full frame Academy ratio.

The first major motion picture to use 1.85 aspect ratio by matting a full frame was IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE in 1953. By 1954 it was quickly becoming the standard and by '55, the full frame was almost dead.

Matting the full frame is the way such non-scope pictures are made. Columbia pictures most certainly did NOT release 20,000,000 Miles to Earth in full frame and the cinematographer was well aware of that fact.

Ray Harryhausen himself stated that he composed his effects with the knowledge that the image would be matted for theatrical use and shown open matte on TV.

The director, cinematographer and Ray Harryhausen were 100% aware that 20,000,000 MILES TO EARTH would be matted for theatrical release. The DVD presents the proper theatrical presentation.


**Look at the example again and tell me that the info matted out is not extraneous. It ads absolutely nothing to the scene. It's empty because it was never intended to be seen theatrically.

This 'extraneous' info is picture in the case of 20000 miles to earth!
By cropping the picture top and bottom are they (the people who made the disc) interfering with the cinematographers work in exactly the same way as a pan and scan film treats the sides?Actually, no.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, most movies shot in standard, non-anamorphic 35mm have used a "masked" widescreen format. Each shot is intentionally composed so that a bit of the top and bottom of the frame can be chopped off (thereby producing a wider image) without losing any essential picture information. Films made this way are shown in theaters with a projection mask that crops the image top and bottom, usually to an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. So, somewhat ironically, when these movies are shown full frame on TV in the standard 4x3 ratio, you're actually seeing a bit of extra image that the director and cinematographer didn't want you to see! This can have unintended humorous consequences, as when a boom mike or the area above a set becomes visible. Remember the opening scene of Bonnie and Clyde, in which Faye Dunaway is apparently nude? In the full-screen version, a couple of shots clearly show Ms. Dunaway's modern (1967) bikini-style undies at the bottom of the frame! Kind of spoils the illusion.

I knew this thread would get around to naked women sooner or later . . .

EDIT: Apparently Brent and I just said basically the same thing. But who do you think said it BETTER? :hat:

But who do you think said it BETTER? :hat:

The first one to bring up naked women always gets my vote :thumbsup:

Brent,

You are making the erroneous assumption that your computer is displaying the video unchanged. The following images from PLANET OF THE APES were captured with PowerDVD using the "Original Video Source Size."

From the original non-anamorphic release:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/bebruns/74238f5e.jpg

From the new anamorphic release:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/bebruns/POTA2.jpg

They are both the same size, 480 x 720. The only difference is how the image is recorded.

If you crop out the black bars, in non-anamorphic you get an image about 278 x 720:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/bebruns/POTA3.jpg

The cropped anamorphic image is 367 x 720:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/bebruns/POTA4.jpg

Therefore the actual image in non-anamorphic has only about 75% of the resolution of the anamorphic. That is where the difference comes from.

Therefore the actual image in non-anamorphic has only about 75% of the resolution of the anamorphic. That is where the difference comes from.

You are going to a lot of trouble to make a distinction without a difference.

So what your saying is that the anamorphic image has higher resolution than the non-anamorphic image.

On the other hand, what I'm saying is that the anamorphic image image has higher resolution than the non-anamorphic image.

If you are trying to make a point other than the point I'm trying to make, I'm not getting it.

Since we both agree that the anamorphic image has higher resolution, I don't see this as an issue worth the complication. I appreciate that you've gone to the trouble of posting distorted images that are not presented in the way that anybody actually watches TV. I posted images intended to be used for direct comparison as they show the undistorted pictures as they are actually seen.

And yet, we've essentially come to the same conclusion: anamorphic is higer resolution.

That's all that people have to know.

They can say that anamorphic is higher resolution because of your reasoning or they can say that anamorphic is higher resolution because of my reasoning.

Since we've come to the same conclusion, I'm not sure that that the average reader will be particularly interested in how that conclusion was reached.

Hmmm...I think I've had too long a day and I'm starting to sounder even ruder and snarkier than usual and I must apologize for that.

Let me emphasize that, WHATEVER the technical specs may reveal or however they are presented, there is agreement among videophiles that anamorphic is better.

I think that's the important thing that people should understand when they buy DVDs.

I don't want the procedural debate to detract from that.

If folks are more swayed by BEBruns reasoning than my reasoning than my reasoning, that's Ok because I think we both agree that anamorphic is the way to go. Even if I took a few cheap shots (which I shouldn't have done), the main point is not in dispute.

Why is the image in the non-anamorphic example from POTA "stretched"?

Brent,

I didn't take offense at your comments. You're right, we both agree on the same point, I just thought there were some misleading facts in your postings. I was just being a little anal-retentive.

Zorro,

This is the point I was trying to make. All DVD images are 2x3 (1.5:1), whether anamorphic or not. Non-widescreen transfers (3x4 or 1.33:1) are stretched horizontally while widescreen transfers (9x16 or 1.78:1) are squeezed.

Thanks fellas. I found it earlier today after I posted. It was buried in a menu, in a sub menu's menu. Which was in a menu. Anyway, I've got a Sony, and it indeed had to be switched from 4x3 to 16x9. With this done, the monitor aspect ratio is set to 16x9 standard and there you have it. There was a noticeable difference! BTW, my brother also has an HDTV, and another model Sony DVD player. I told him about this and he checked his setup while on the phone with me. He had never checked his before, but said that it was already on 16x9. So clearly, different players can come with either as the default.

Columbia pictures most certainly did NOT release 20,000,000 Miles to Earth in full frame and the cinematographer was well aware of that fact.

The director, cinematographer and Ray Harryhausen were 100% aware that 20,000,000 MILES TO EARTH would be matted for theatrical release. The DVD presents the proper theatrical presentation.


**Look at the example again and tell me that the info matted out is not extraneous. It ads absolutely nothing to the scene. It's empty because it was never intended to be seen theatrically.

They would have had the option of having the film printed in the aspect ratio they wanted (matted). The film itself eould have been printed with 'fatter' black bars to give the exibitor a clear indication of the aspect ratio. If this was not done then the projection system and projectionists have the final say.

Even today some theatres have a variety of moving metal masks and even different projection leses depending of the shape of the frame on the film. The projectionist still recieves some cans (usualy rusty if the film is old) with little to no information on the outside other than the title. Only by looking at the film physicaly while checking for 'cigarette burns' or assembling the film will the projectionist make a descision about the format of the picture.

Where I used to work we used to regularly show early silent films (sometimes with real musicians playing). We were able to adjust the masking to even show full frame silent films i.e. to show the area where the soundtrack usualy is! And also show the bottom and the top of the frame that is usualy maked off to show the audience the full picture. (much taller on a silent film and also usualy fully used).
If a film came in full frame it would be shown full frame (the audience were insistant on it).

Your 'adds nothing to the scene' is the pan and scan argument again.

Your 'aware that it would be matted' may be the cinematographers understanding, but was clearly not the case at the distributor as they have a version that is still not matted.

Some people want to see all the picture.

Jim

BEBruns, I think what initially got my cool a little off track were technical aspects of the argument that I didn't really disagree with. With my early postings in the thread, I aimed at the person who didn't really have a concept of anamorphic so I posted the most easily and directly viewed examples of what folks could expect to see displayed.

Jim (portland182), you just aren't recognizing the reality of the situation. This film simply was not intended to by shown full frame. It just wasn't. In 1957 neither Columbia Studios or any other major studio in the US. intended films to be shown theatrically full frame. If we are to take your argument as valid, there were be very, very few widescreen films. As you do say correctly, projectionists have a steel mask that can properly matte the film (I've seen the mask myself). Studios published "books" indicating the intended aspect ratio (I've seen a Universal book which, quite interestingly, showed THIS ISLAND EARTH ro be projected at 2.00:1...strange).

While prints COULD be matted, more often than not, they weren't. The projectionist didn't have "the final say" just because he couldn't find the aspect ratio information. The projectionist was expected to matte the film appropriately...it's part of the job.

This is another type of argument where we have to be PRACTICAL. We must take into account the REALITY of what we know to be true. We know that, in 1957, virtually no studio films were made for projection at Academy ratio in the United States. We know that. it is a fact. You are arguing that the distributor, with an unmatted print, wouldn't understand be aware of the intended matting. That's just not a realistic assumption.

The projectionist was expected to matte the film appropriately...it's part of the job.


Yes!

However in the absense of any guiding information at all, the projectionist has to make a best guess. This is practical.

We had VERY specific instructions to show the film as it is printed. If the studio did not print it 'wide' then it would be shown 1.1.33 (or so).

You are right when you say many films are/were not printed correctly. A good modern(ish)example is 'Coma'. It is printed as 1:1.33 (standard) all the way through the print apart from a section for less that a minute that is printed "wider" at 1:1.66 (wide).(or 1.1.85 USA wide)

Only someone who has shown this film more than once (not allways the case) or who had some kind of damage in that minute section, when checking the film would spot that it is 'supposed' to be 'wide'.

Anamorphic wide (1:2.35 or so) is easy to spot in film form as the frames usualy have especialy thin spaces between frames. (You can't always tell from the picture unless you can find a person.)

Moving away from 35mm for a moment.
This is further muddied by 16mm prints being made semi squeezed. A good example is '1941' which was released in a 'semi squeezed format'.
When projected amamorphicaly every one is way too fat. When projected 'straight' the print looked squeezed i.e. the ferris wheel was not round but too thin and too tall.

Another practical point...
Films are made to be slightly 'overscanned' when projected.

The metal mask does a crude job of blocking the light at the edges of the frame. This is because the mask is out of the plane of focus. This leaves the edges of the image soft. The image is then furher cropped by the use of 'tabs'. Tabs are moveable (usualy motorised) areas of matt black material that move to cover the edges of the screen (usualy left and right only, but I have seen top and bottom tabs too).

If the neg cutter has done a less than perfect job, you can get a flash of white at the top or bottom of the frame on every cut.
Usualy the masking plate in the projector is set smaller than the image on the film. This then gives 'racking lattiude'. You can rack (physicaly move the film frames up or down within the gate) the disturbing flashes out of sight of the viewer and still fill the frame with image. This means you are seeing the film shifted up or down of center but will be unaware of it.

Racking is also there to compensate for out of rack joins. Eack 35mm frame has 4 sprocket holes. every repair join (or from leader to film) can be potentialy 1 to 3 sprockets out.
An attentive projectionist will spot this and rerack quickly, and fix the offending join before a repeat show.

If a film is printed 'wide' then a differnent lens as well as masking and tabs would be used. This means that the racking lattiude is small, say 5 to 10%

If the film is printed standard but intended to be shown wide (as in you example) then the racking lattitude is nearly as 'tall' as the actual image say 25 to 30%. The effect is akin to viewing TOS Trek on a 16x9 TV in 'cinema' mode. You cut off a lot of picture. You can rack the picture so people have no foreheads or so they have large ceilings without running out of picture to rack. This is all avoidable by printing the film correctly.

This means that when projected you very rarely see 'the whole picture'.
Tabs, masking, racking, and lens choice mean that you almost certainly never get to see all the image in a theatre. That's why DVDs are such an important thing to get right.

(This is simplified though. Look here...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
and here
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm


I still want to see all the picture.

Jim

Here's what Ray Harryhausen himself said:


dOc: Now, when you were shooting your effects for your later films, were those still shot in Academy ratio?

Harryhausen: We shot them in full aperture for television, and 1.85 for showings in the cinemas.

dOc: So you'd film it twice?

Harryhausen: No, we would just allow the headroom so when it went on television the heads wouldn't be cut off. Sometimes half the picture is cut off when they show it on 1.85. It cuts down the size of the picture.

dOc: But they were primarily meant to be shown widescreen?

Harryhausen: Yes, during the widescreen period, and you also had to keep the Academy aperture open for showings on television.





They were meant to be shown widescreen and the academy ratio was kept open (unmatted) for showings on television.

I don't think it could be any clearer.

Is there any ambiguity in that?

This is not a complicated issue at all. I'm quite surprised it's even a matter of discussion anymore. The recognition that virtually no studio films were shown at 1.37 by the mid -1950's is common knowledge.



BTW, did you read the link that you posted? It clearly says that Columbia went to 1.85 cropping.

Some us still want to see the picture the way the director intended it to be seen.

Whatever your personal preference may be, can you at least admit that the films were shown matted theatrically to 1.85 as properly presented on disc.

Wow this post is so filled with information its giving me a headache...I will say however it has been quite educational so far...

Wow this post is so filled with information its giving me a headache....

Honestly, I was afraid this might happen.

My first intent was really just to show some direct commparisons of how images would actually look on the screen. I hoped things wouldn't get too techincial but it happens. I'm guilty of it myself. Threads drift and we start trading mumbo-jumbo.

I just hope that the original point about the concept of anamorphic or widescreen enhanced discs doesn't get lost because it's important. BTW, new anamorphic versions of THE TOWERING INFERNO and POSEIDON AVENTURE were just released last Tuesday to replace the old discs. The improvement is staggerring.

But, ya' know, I'm most dissappointed in the aspect ratio discussion. The understanding of how films have been matted for 50 years has been common knowledge since the Eisenhower administration. We shouldn't waste time revisting it now.

Brent - very clear and informative. Thanks. Just as an aside, my brother-in-law is the programmer at the same PBS affiliate I work for. They purchased an HD set before we did. Every time we would visit their house, I noticed that they would watch the SD 4x3 channels "stretched". I never said anything about it because I figured that was their preference. As I mentioned earlier, I almost never adjust our HD monitor out of it's "Normal" mode. If we are watching an HD channel, we obviously get full 16x9 HD (well, usually) filling the screen. If we then switch to an SD channel broadcasting 4x3 programming, we get the black or grey bars on the sides - 4x3 as it should be. We often babysit our in-law's 4 year-old son and he likes to watch several different channels that broadcast 4x3 SD programming. Whenever my brother-in-law comes to pick his son up he immediately grabs our remote and tries to show me how to "stretch" the 4x3 picture to fill the screen. I have explained to him repeatedly that I have no desire to do that - and he just looks at me with this blank expression on his face. It just tickles me. Has anyone noticed certain "HD" movie channels that broadcast obviously "Full Screen" versions of movies that have been artificially "stretched"? That practice drives me absolutely nuts!

Zorro, the GOOD NEWS about all of this stuff is that it will eventually just go away :).

Right now, we are in a lengthy transitional period where folks are finding themselves "forced" to make technical decisions about equipment and viewing: anamorphic, HDMI, DVD player and TV setups, aspect ratios and so on.

In the not too distant future, these won't be issues. I just saw a statistic yesterday that, by the end of THIS YEAR, 25% of all households will have an HDTV in the house.

Shortly, 4x3 sets will no longer be sold. All consumer TVs will be 16x9 digital sets with HDMI interfaces and built in ATSC tuners. People will still have many choices of type (LCD, Plasma, DLP) but there won't be compatibility issues. People will buy new sets and they will be compatible with all standard equipment.

Likewise, people will buy DVD or some form of HD disc players and they will come factory defaulted to 16x9 displays so nobody will have to fiddle with set ups.

Even the whole concet of "anamorphic" will dissappear. Non-anamorphic discs are essentially 4x3 transfers. The new disc formats (Blu-ray, HD-DVD) are natively 16x9. They don't have a 4x3 equivalent. All discs will have 16x9 transfers (they can still show a 4x3 aspect ratio picture but it would be pillar-boxed in a 16x9 frame).

There will still be the old aspect ratio problems because some companies will certainly crop old TV shows and movie for 16x9. But cropping for TV is an old issue that has always been with us.

But we won't have to worry about technical details. In 2010 (not far away now) Grandma can buy the TV of her choice, the disc player of her choice, take it home and plug it into your cable and everything should work right out of the box.

Hi Brent

I seem to be annoying you. I assure you this is not my intent.





dOc: But they were primarily meant to be shown widescreen?

Harryhausen: Yes, during the widescreen period, and you also had to keep the Academy aperture open for showings on television.


They were meant to be shown widescreen and the academy ratio was kept open (unmatted) for showings on television.

I don't think it could be any clearer.

Is there any ambiguity in that?


Are you watching this film in the cinema or a television (or similar computer based device)? :)

I think we can agree that this particular film was designed to be watched in 2 diferent ways, 1 of which is 4x3.
We now have fantasticaly advanced equipment in our living rooms, is it too much to ask that we have a choice in how we view films?


This is not a complicated issue at all. I'm quite surprised it's even a matter of discussion anymore.
Some us still want to see the picture the way the director intended it to be seen.

Whatever your personal preference may be, can you at least admit that the films were shown matted theatrically to 1.85 as properly presented on disc.


Yes. Films were shown matted to 1.85 after 1953/1957 (depending on the cinema chain or distributor, maybe later). This does not make it "correct".
Once the lenses were installed for 1.85 all films tended to be shown using it ever since.
This is not a good thing. (oh no, he's going back to the original point he was trying to make!)
A good example of this is 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' (1951). If you have seen this in cinema since the original release, you will have seen it in 1.85.
This and every film before it were not designed to be seen this way. They very carefuly use the whole of the frame.

Diectors intention...
As Harryhausen points out he intended it to be seen on TV too.


This is not a complicated issue at all. I'm quite surprised it's even a matter of discussion anymore.


This is why I am bringing this up (surprise!)...

The people who make DVDs will shortly be making them exclusively for use with 16x9 TVs. They will only be available in the style of '20,000 Miles To Earth' (i.e. cutting the top and bottom off, and as Harryhausen says sometimes that's half the picture), as thats the TV that everyone will have.
People like you (and me!) will then be grumbling about the lack of 'matchboxed' (4x3 with top and side bars) DVDs for those who want the 'other' shape of picture.

Thats all I was originaly trying to say.
Customer choice rules!

Jim