Anamorphic vs. Non-Anamorphic DVD
03-23-04, 11:44 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Everett,Washington
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anamorphic vs. Non-Anamorphic DVD
Not sure if this is the right place or not.
Ive been reviewing my non anamorphic titles and also reviewing The Digital Bits Anamorphic guide and I have one question.
Why does everyone want 2:35 Anamorphic instead of 1:85 Anomorphic? From what Ive seen on their guide only the 1:85 Anomorphic titles fill the entire 16x9 screen or am I wrong?
Ive been reviewing my non anamorphic titles and also reviewing The Digital Bits Anamorphic guide and I have one question.
Why does everyone want 2:35 Anamorphic instead of 1:85 Anomorphic? From what Ive seen on their guide only the 1:85 Anomorphic titles fill the entire 16x9 screen or am I wrong?
03-23-04, 12:08 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 3,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a matter of which is more common, it's just a matter of choice for the director of the film.
In fact, with the growing number of widescreen TV broadcasts and such, the more common ratio will probably be 1.78:1 which is the same as 16x9. 1.85:1 is close to that. My Sony Flatscreen has 16x9 enhanced mode which defaults to basically 1.85, which means that any 1.78 source is slightly over squeezed, but it's hardly noticable.
In fact, with the growing number of widescreen TV broadcasts and such, the more common ratio will probably be 1.78:1 which is the same as 16x9. 1.85:1 is close to that. My Sony Flatscreen has 16x9 enhanced mode which defaults to basically 1.85, which means that any 1.78 source is slightly over squeezed, but it's hardly noticable.
03-23-04, 12:42 PM
#5
DVD Talk Gold Edition
mike01...
Was your question originally about anamorphic titles and different aspect rations, or did you ask about the difference between anamorphic and non-anamorphic titles?
Was your question originally about anamorphic titles and different aspect rations, or did you ask about the difference between anamorphic and non-anamorphic titles?
Last edited by RockyMtnBri; 03-23-04 at 01:24 PM.
03-23-04, 12:50 PM
#6
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Anamorphic vs. Non-Anamorphic DVD
Originally posted by mike01
Why does everyone want 2:35 Anamorphic instead of 1:85 Anomorphic? From what Ive seen on their guide only the 1:85 Anomorphic titles fill the entire 16x9 screen or am I wrong?
Why does everyone want 2:35 Anamorphic instead of 1:85 Anomorphic? From what Ive seen on their guide only the 1:85 Anomorphic titles fill the entire 16x9 screen or am I wrong?
Anamorphic enhancement increases the resolution of the picture by one-third by using what would be used for black bars to hold picture information. 1.85:1 happens to just about fill a 16:9 TV, while 2.35:1 still leaves some black, but in both cases the picture has a third more lines of resolution.
There are also plenty of 4:3 TVs with anamorphic modes that will allow you to see the additonal resolution, even though you still have black bars.
why is 2:35 so much more common then?
I for one am thankful that DVD allows me to see the full 2.35:1 image I saw in theaters without it being panned and scanned or reframed to fit my TV.
Last edited by Mr. Salty; 03-23-04 at 12:54 PM.
03-23-04, 02:35 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Most directors believe that 2.35:1 really opens up a movie - James Cameron has stated on more than one occasion he wishes he would have shot Aliens 2.35:1
I think 1.85:1 is fine for comedies and most dramas, but I think big, epic movies (sci-fi blockbusters, westerns, etc.) always look better shot 2.35:1 - just gives more "scope" to the picture. Character studies, on the other hand, work much better in 1.85:1.
I think 1.85:1 is fine for comedies and most dramas, but I think big, epic movies (sci-fi blockbusters, westerns, etc.) always look better shot 2.35:1 - just gives more "scope" to the picture. Character studies, on the other hand, work much better in 1.85:1.
