Blade

Just rented this from Blockbuster and watched it.

Does anyone else have a problem with the 16:9 enhancement on this title? It looks like it's about 1.85:1 in terms of aspect ratio, but it doesn't seem to be enhanced for widescreen TVs.

The odder thing, though, was that the interviews in the bonus section were 16:9 enhanced.

I haven't seen any reviews of this title yet, so I was wondering if anyone else had any problems.

FYI, otherwise, the video quality seems very good (a couple odd things popped up, but it seemed more like a problem with the source) and the audio is great (for a documentary). Extras were ok if a little light, though the commentary is the standout (only half way through it, but very entertaining). No English subs, just Spanish...not sure about CC.

sdk

Mine was not enhaced for 16:9

steebo777

Per IMDB, it is 1.78:1.

Per Scamazon, it is 1.85:1.

Per DDD, it is 1.33:1.

Matthew Chmiel

Wait, so the R1 release is not enhanced for 16:9?

The R4 edition is enhanced for 16:9 through.

Hmmmm.

P.S. The film's aspect ratio is 1.78:1 (it was shot on DV).

Walter Neff

Geez, in 2004 someone's still releasing non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs? Ridiculous.

THX7966

The movie is not anamorphic, but the extras are. Go figure.

Qui Gon Jim

Not to sound like a tool, but non-anamorphic = no sale. What company in this day would not release it anamorphic?

steebo777

Per Scamazon, Studio: Hart Sharp Video Llc.

Matthew Chmiel

Wow, what bullshit.

The film was shot in digital video! How hard is it to transfer the original digital video transfer over to an anamorphic DVD transfer?

Lazy studio.

GeoffK

The DVD is 'Letterboxed'

Amazing it wasnt enhanced for 16x9 tvs

Daniel L

Hey, I understand. I do the exact same thing. Non-anamorphic transfers look like shit on my TV, I hate watching them so I don't. I'll easily pass on a dvd if it's not enhanced.

hogfat

But, was the film actually shot 16:9?

Apparently, it was taped with a Sony DSR-PD150, which is native 4:3. What would be the point of anamorphic video from that source?

Matthew Chmiel

Don't most Sony digital video cameras have a setting in which you can shoot in 16:9? I've played around with quite a few Sony cameras (miniDV and DV) that could let you shoot in either 4:3 or 16:9. Hell, even some of the lower-end Sony models I've seen could let you shoot in 16:9.

DonnachaOne

"Scamazon"?

hogfat

If the ccd is native 4:3, then the 16:9 mode will simply mask off 25% of the vertical pixels and resize the masked image.

Matthew Chmiel

Yes, I know that; but if they used the 16:9 mode (and not 4:3), then it would be a lot easier to make a direct digital transfer. Similar to Paramount and Jackass: The Movie (where a good portion of the film was shot using Sony MiniDV cameras in 16:9 mode; e.g. the scenes with Bam and his family).

hogfat

But why would they shoot that way? It definitely does nothing for image quality and prevents any chance at fixing framing errors -- my question remains whether 16:9 would be appropriate. If the movie was not filmed 16:9, then the direct digital transfer is 4:3 black masked and anamorphic presentation becomes the troublesome option.

NitroJMS

It's a documentary about social issues. This title really doesn't need reference quality video, so why the fuss?

atari2600

am i allowed to ask this here: is it worth a blind buy?

Blade

He said in the DVDTalk interview that he really wanted this to feel like a movie rather than TV footage. I imagine that's why he went with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

It is letterboxed, regardless of how it was shot, just not enhanced for widescreen TVs. Which just means that it doesn't have as many lines of resolution as it could have.

However, like I said, the picture looks fine as is. Just odd, and since I just purchased my first 16:9 capable display, it stuck out more than it would on a standard 4:3 TV.

atari2600...I question it's replay value. While it's a documentary of a usually funny journey, it's also something of a message piece at the end of it all, and I don't see how you'd need to rewatch it once you'd seen it once. If you rent, I would definitely recommend that, as it was pretty funny and interesting. The commentary is also very good if you're into that kind of thing. I don't think I'd be willing to pay $18/$20 for it myself though. Might want to wait for a price drop.

hogfat

My point is that it has maximum possible vertical resolution when presented non-anamorphic (were it anamorphic, the extra lines wouldn't "exist") -- and resolution would be higher if not widescreen.

Blade

Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but are you possibly confusing the way the movie was shot with how it was transferred to DVD?

Because an anamorphic DVD transfer uses the area above and below a widescreen image to store extra video resolution that 16:9 TVs can use to display a higher resolution image than a standard 4:3 TV.

Matthew Chmiel

The film's OAR is 1.78:1. Every theater projected it that way, let it be during it's theatrical run or it's festival run. It's as simple as that. And since it's OAR is a widescreen ratio, it should be enhanced for widescreen televisions.

This is not an Elephant debate where the film was shot in 1.33:1; but was misprojected during it's theatrical run at 1.85:1 in most cinemas (whereas at any festival it was presented at, it was in 1.33:1)... this is a case where the film's preferred OAR by Mr. Morgan Spurlock himself is 1.78:1; and the DVD should be anamorphic.

And why are the extras on the DVD anamorphic, but not the film itself is an even bigger question.

hogfat

If the dvd were anamorphic, then it would use all (or most) 480 vertical lines to store picture information. Since it is not, it presumably uses somewhere around 360 for picture information and leaves the rest to simply be black. While using the rest of the vertical pixels for picture might seem like a good idea, the documentary's dv beginnings very possibly indicates that the 360 vertical lines are all that were recorded. Therefore, (other than the cg parts) making the disc anamorphic would require interpolating the 120 lines much in the same way that a dvd player or widescreen tv's zoom functions.

Bottom line: if there is no more vertical information in the source than what is presented, why make it up?

Matthew Chmiel

Then why are the special features, some of them shot with the same camera used for the film, in anamorphic widescreen?