View Poll Results: Which is better?
16x9 (anamorphic) and single layered...
26
89.66%
NON-anamorphic and dual-layered...
0
0%
Neither...PQ ends up the same...
3
10.34%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll
Which is better...16x9 or dual layered?
03-27-04 | 10:46 AM
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Indianapolis
Just because a non-animorphic disc is dual layered does NOT mean that it has the same PQ as an animorphic disc. How many layers a disc has and it being animorphic have nothing to do with one another.
03-27-04 | 10:50 AM
#4
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It depends on the length of the film, the number of audio tracks, and the amount of supplements.
A bare-bones disc that contains only a single DD track that's an hour and a half long can be encoded at a very high bitrate on even a single layered disc.
The only thing that a dual-layer disc adds to a film is more disc space for data. So there's really no "competition" between 16:9 anamorphic and single or dual-layered discs.
Anamorphic transfers don't take up more room on a disc than non-anamorphic transfers do (well, due to the easy compression of the non-anamorphic black bars, the non-anamorphic may compress better, but that's a minor point). So it's really up to the lenght of the film.
A good non-anamorphic transfer is always better than a flawed anamorphic transfer - it's the image quality that's desired, not enhancement for widescreen televisions, but of course what we all really want is a great looking anamorphic transfer.
The only consideration about whether a disc should be single or dual layered has to do with the amount of data needed to fit on the disc. It's like when you buy a computer - if you have 80Gb of data than a 40Gb hard drive isn't going to suit you - it doesn't matter what that data contains - it just won't work.
So the vote is specious - I doubt anyone would want to see the horrible compression artifacts needed to put a 3-hour film on a single layer, even if that transfer was encoded for 16:9.
Remember, the resolution of the overall frame is THE SAME with both an anamorphic and non-anamorphic transfer - both images contain the same amount of pixel data - the difference is that in a non-anamorphic transfer, the black bars you see are part of the image, whereas in an anamorphic transfer the entire frame is used to hold image data and the black bars are generated by your DVD player. That's why they contain more relevant image data and higher resolution.
A bare-bones disc that contains only a single DD track that's an hour and a half long can be encoded at a very high bitrate on even a single layered disc.
The only thing that a dual-layer disc adds to a film is more disc space for data. So there's really no "competition" between 16:9 anamorphic and single or dual-layered discs.
Anamorphic transfers don't take up more room on a disc than non-anamorphic transfers do (well, due to the easy compression of the non-anamorphic black bars, the non-anamorphic may compress better, but that's a minor point). So it's really up to the lenght of the film.
A good non-anamorphic transfer is always better than a flawed anamorphic transfer - it's the image quality that's desired, not enhancement for widescreen televisions, but of course what we all really want is a great looking anamorphic transfer.
The only consideration about whether a disc should be single or dual layered has to do with the amount of data needed to fit on the disc. It's like when you buy a computer - if you have 80Gb of data than a 40Gb hard drive isn't going to suit you - it doesn't matter what that data contains - it just won't work.
So the vote is specious - I doubt anyone would want to see the horrible compression artifacts needed to put a 3-hour film on a single layer, even if that transfer was encoded for 16:9.
Remember, the resolution of the overall frame is THE SAME with both an anamorphic and non-anamorphic transfer - both images contain the same amount of pixel data - the difference is that in a non-anamorphic transfer, the black bars you see are part of the image, whereas in an anamorphic transfer the entire frame is used to hold image data and the black bars are generated by your DVD player. That's why they contain more relevant image data and higher resolution.
03-27-04 | 11:38 AM
#5
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: So. Illinois
Originally posted by jough
It depends on the length of the film, the number of audio tracks, and the amount of supplements.
A bare-bones disc that contains only a single DD track that's an hour and a half long can be encoded at a very high bitrate on even a single layered disc.
The only thing that a dual-layer disc adds to a film is more disc space for data. So there's really no "competition" between 16:9 anamorphic and single or dual-layered discs.
Anamorphic transfers don't take up more room on a disc than non-anamorphic transfers do (well, due to the easy compression of the non-anamorphic black bars, the non-anamorphic may compress better, but that's a minor point). So it's really up to the lenght of the film.
A good non-anamorphic transfer is always better than a flawed anamorphic transfer - it's the image quality that's desired, not enhancement for widescreen televisions, but of course what we all really want is a great looking anamorphic transfer.
The only consideration about whether a disc should be single or dual layered has to do with the amount of data needed to fit on the disc. It's like when you buy a computer - if you have 80Gb of data than a 40Gb hard drive isn't going to suit you - it doesn't matter what that data contains - it just won't work.
So the vote is specious - I doubt anyone would want to see the horrible compression artifacts needed to put a 3-hour film on a single layer, even if that transfer was encoded for 16:9.
Remember, the resolution of the overall frame is THE SAME with both an anamorphic and non-anamorphic transfer - both images contain the same amount of pixel data - the difference is that in a non-anamorphic transfer, the black bars you see are part of the image, whereas in an anamorphic transfer the entire frame is used to hold image data and the black bars are generated by your DVD player. That's why they contain more relevant image data and higher resolution.
It depends on the length of the film, the number of audio tracks, and the amount of supplements.
A bare-bones disc that contains only a single DD track that's an hour and a half long can be encoded at a very high bitrate on even a single layered disc.
The only thing that a dual-layer disc adds to a film is more disc space for data. So there's really no "competition" between 16:9 anamorphic and single or dual-layered discs.
Anamorphic transfers don't take up more room on a disc than non-anamorphic transfers do (well, due to the easy compression of the non-anamorphic black bars, the non-anamorphic may compress better, but that's a minor point). So it's really up to the lenght of the film.
A good non-anamorphic transfer is always better than a flawed anamorphic transfer - it's the image quality that's desired, not enhancement for widescreen televisions, but of course what we all really want is a great looking anamorphic transfer.
The only consideration about whether a disc should be single or dual layered has to do with the amount of data needed to fit on the disc. It's like when you buy a computer - if you have 80Gb of data than a 40Gb hard drive isn't going to suit you - it doesn't matter what that data contains - it just won't work.
So the vote is specious - I doubt anyone would want to see the horrible compression artifacts needed to put a 3-hour film on a single layer, even if that transfer was encoded for 16:9.
Remember, the resolution of the overall frame is THE SAME with both an anamorphic and non-anamorphic transfer - both images contain the same amount of pixel data - the difference is that in a non-anamorphic transfer, the black bars you see are part of the image, whereas in an anamorphic transfer the entire frame is used to hold image data and the black bars are generated by your DVD player. That's why they contain more relevant image data and higher resolution.
03-27-04 | 03:47 PM
#10
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Phoenix
Originally posted by jough
Remember, the resolution of the overall frame is THE SAME with both an anamorphic and non-anamorphic transfer - both images contain the same amount of pixel data -
Remember, the resolution of the overall frame is THE SAME with both an anamorphic and non-anamorphic transfer - both images contain the same amount of pixel data -
03-27-04 | 04:33 PM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: on the warhead of a Topol-M ready for a long journey
Neither of these. Both the single-layered releases and non-anamorphic ones (what an interesting comparison) should be dead and buried. We are in the XXI, folks!
03-28-04 | 05:56 PM
#13
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: London
Originally posted by Dammit
Actually, unless I'm mistaken, non-anamorphic is 640x480 versus 720x480 for an anamorphic. Of course this means nothing to people that don't have widescreen TVs though. On a 4:3 set, the 720x480 anamorphic dvd will be displayed as 640x480 with bigger bars.
Actually, unless I'm mistaken, non-anamorphic is 640x480 versus 720x480 for an anamorphic. Of course this means nothing to people that don't have widescreen TVs though. On a 4:3 set, the 720x480 anamorphic dvd will be displayed as 640x480 with bigger bars.
4:3 = 768(720)x576
16:9 = 1024x576 squashed to 720x576
Those are the values you use for design work - for 4:3 you design to 768px and squash to 720 because your monitor has square pixels while a PAL TV has horizontal rectangles!
NTSC is 540 - 480 height as their pixels are rectangles the other way. I believe 16:9 is something like 960x540 squashed to 720x480.
Matt
