DVD Talk Forum - Super Size Me: "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" Yes? No?

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)

- DVD Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk-3/)

- - Super Size Me: "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" Yes? No? (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk/388044-super-size-me-enhanced-widescreen-tvs-yes-no.html)

Quote:

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

So some kinds of movies deserve a quality transfer while others do not?

Strange logic.

Quote:

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

I have no idea. I do know that information I've found indicates that the camera used for the film cannot properly shoot anamorphic widescreen.

I do not have this dvd. I'm simply sharing information about the lack of advantage in giving the film an anamorphic transfer.

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

Well, at least I understand where you're coming from now. :) Thanks for clarifying that.

Seeing as how an anamorphic transfer has lines removed from it for nonanamorphic tvs, and looks generally fine, I think it's possible that "interpolating" extra info would be a potential compromise to maintain an industry standard. My technical knowledge of how DVD video is transferred is fairly superficial though, so I could certainly be wrong about that.

However, I have a hard time believing that the digital video camera they used was only able to shoot 360 lines of resolution. That's what low end CCTV cameras do today (heck, for the last few years). While they only had a budget of $60,000, the guy had done previous work for TV. It's certainly possible they had a camera that limited, I just think it's more likely a mistake or miscommunication was made when transfering the film to DVD.

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Matthew is right; The capability of the camera is of no concern. All that matters is the original intended aspect ration which was 1.78:1. It is just puzzling why it is just letterboxed and not anamorphic when that adds nothing to the production cost or bit budget on the disc.

Quote:

Originally posted by DonnachaOne
"Scamazon"?

:rolleyes:

It's a joke man... ease up. Or maybe I'll bother you with some more fun ones: Worst Buy, Circuit Shi**y, Scamchargers, etc. ;)