emachine12

Why are you being so mean to me? I did see imports that are 16:9 natively.

A Man Apart Region 3 Thailand was not encoded to downconvert to 4:3. It was encoded on the disc at the 16:9 ratio and only appears in the proper dimensions when viewed on a 16:9 TV or your TV squeezes the image.

I know because I have this disc.

StephenX

Correct, basically what Josh said. I am referring to movies on BD, television or full-frame programs are a different story. They are NATIVELY 4x3 (unless its HDTV, in which case the earlier example applies), so therefore the program would be shown in its native aspect ratio, which is 4x3. However, since most of us using a BD player use an HDTV, the image is boxed in a 4x3 area with black bars on the left and right sides to preserve the original aspect ratio of the program.

Essentially, our point was that the difference between a DVD and BD is that DVD is natively 4x3, while BD is natively 16x9. Enhancements and adjustments can be made to both, I was merely pointing out their respective differences in regards to native aspect ratios.

In regards to the previous comment about how your A Man Apart DVD looks, it was NOT encoded on the disc at 16:9, this is the point we are trying to make. It was 'enhanced for 16:9 televisions,' meaning that when the DVD is shown on a 16:9 TV, the player will 'fill up the screen' with the image. HOWEVER, it still maintains its original aspect ratio of (im guessing, here, an example) of 2:35:1. Basically, it is encoded in its original apsect ratio no matter what, so unless you zoom on your 4x3 tv, it still shows that movie in its OAR, albeit VERY small on that TV. All 'anamorphic' means is that when that EXACT same DVD is shown on an HDTV, the picture is modified (anamorphed, if you will) to fill up that TV more, even upconverting it to make the picture better. There is no such thing as a DVD having a native resolution for 16:9 because the technology itself (of an actual DVD) is ten years old, and much older than the widespread use of HDTV's. There was no need for the existence of 16:9 native resolution because so few people would see it as such. Hence the reason that now, BD is being pushed: HDTV's are everywhere, so it makes more sense to have media that is MADE for that HDTV.

To emachine, I hope this helps.

To others, I know the technical jargon isn't the best in my post, but I am trying to J6P it a little so its a little easier to understand.

caligulathegod

My error. I assumed they could encode at 1438 (or whatever) by 1080 and flag the player to generate pillarbox bars.

emachine12

Actually, A Man Apart works like this and I know its not my DVD player because I tiried it on a Malata...

16x9 television, its 2.35:1 proper aspect. Everything looks good, no one is looks tall and skinny.

4x3 televison, its 1.851:1 improper aspect. Everything looks off, people are tall & skinny, and circles look like ovals.

If you use the squeeze mode on a 4x3 TV then the 1.85 aspect gets squished to 2.20. Better but circles are still off by a smidge. Might just be the TV's squeze mode in this case.

So essentially, it was intended to be presented only a 16x9 televison and is in essence a non-anamorphic image intended to be viewed on a 16x9 display only.

emachine12

Oh by the way, just tested it:

Casablanca HD DVD does not have the side bars encoded into the frame. When you watch it on a 4x3 TV, it completely fills the screen. The bars only appear when you watch it on a 16:9 TV so the TV makes the bars.

StephenX

EXACTLY! Casablanca, as most pre-50's-ish films are, 4x3 natively. Therefore, a 4x3 TV will be filled up, a 16:9 will not. Right on that.

However, you still do not understand what anamorphic means. Anamorphic means the 16:9 image will be upscaled to fit a 16:9 TV correctly (as it does). Non-anamorphic has NOTHING to do with aspect ratios, but with what the image does on a TV. If it was not anamorphic (and you claim it isn't), it would STILL be in the proper aspect ratio, but would have black bars on the side, and top and bottom (as the top and bottom are encoded into the 4x3 image, therefore not truly anamorphic). True Lies is a PRIME example of a movie presented in its original aspect ratio on the DVD but NOT anamorphic, so the bars are on all sides.

I have not seen A Man Apart, nor have I seen what setup you have, or the settings on your player, so I cannot comment further. I've tried my best to explain everything. If it still does not make sense, perhaps someone else can try.

Mr. Salty

I have not in any way been "mean" to you. I have, however, pointed out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. If you'd like, you can continue being hard-headed about this, or you can look at the fact that everyone else who has responded to you has told you that you're wrong, then try to learn something.

Again, no you have not. DVD cannot, by design, be 16:9 natively. It is 4:3 by design, but can be enhanced for 16:9 displays.

I suspect the problem is that you have/had your DVD player set to output a 16:9 image. In your player's setup menu, there is a setting for the type of display you have. If you set that to 4:3, the image would appear correct on any standard 4:3 TV, regardless of whether the TV can "squeeze" or not.

I would guess that this means the squeeze mode on your TV isn't squeezing enough. If you turn the squeeze mode off and set your player to output a 4:3 image, I think you'll see that the image looks the way it should.

emachine12

That is exactly what I am talking about. I have the player set up properly. A Man Apart is the only disc that does this. Any other disc works fine. I even popped it into the XBox 360 which converts PAL to NTSC and still the same problem.

So you do have a 4x3 image that is designed to be viewed properly on a 16:9 television. That means the DVD encoders for the Thai release did not use a properly proportoned master. More than likely, they simply did a "legal" copy of the US DVD at PAL resolution but did not account for 4x3 image. Since this is a bargain bin release by Thai standards, that is more than likely the case.

And I did learn somethings from a lot of people but you are the one who is being hard headed.

By the way, encoding "errors" also happen on high-def. How else do you account for the streched look on many HD channels like Cartoon Network HD. If you set the TV to squeeze the image, it looks fine. So you could have some titles like, I don't know P2 HD DVD, where the trailer for Never Back Down is encoded this way. The 2.35:1 non-anamorphic trailer was stretched to fill the 16:9 frame so you get short and squished images.

But to wit, Mr. Salty, I'll take your word for it and just assume I am wrong. Thanks.

StephenX

Salty is probably irritated, and rightly so, because this kind of information would have been super helpful a lot sooner. Add to the fact that you said this was the only disc you had that did this, yet based your entire argument off of it. Essentially, a waste of time for everyone. Thai bootlegs are not the best representation of correct aspect ratios. If you know this, and I'm sure you do, you probably should not have used this as your main arguing point.

And HD broadcast aren't encoded on a disc, they are just that: broadcast. This has nothing to do with encodes at all. We are talking about HD discs and DVD's, not cartoons on your HD cable box. Standard broadcast is sometimes stretched in an HD broadcast because the stations understand the (many, many, uneducated) recipients of the broadcast believe the entire screen should be filled. So, we can not use that as an example.

Please, just stop acting so stubborn about knowing what you are talking about. It is one thing to question us and learn, but you are just simply making stuff up and pretending to know what you're talking about for the sake of argument with Salty. I'm trying to be patient and hopefully show you what everyone was talking about, but this 'have to get the last word in' stuff is getting tiresome.

That being said, your questions have been more than answered, so the thread has served its purpose, I believe. I am Legend is in OAR on the BD, it won't change, it will always be that way, and it HAS always been that way.

emachine12

Sorry for wasting your time guys.

-Leaves the record store just because he asked for Lionel Richie's I Called To Say I Love You-

StephenX

Apology accepted.

Josh Z

I don't know what you're doing, but that's not at all correct.

The Casablanca HD DVD is encoded as a 16:9 image at 1920x1080 resolution with pillarbox bars permanently part of the sides. You must have set either your HD DVD player or your TV to zoom the image.

Josh Z

I fear that this will only inflame the argument, but that's not technically correct.

DVD as a format is neither 4:3 or 16:9. DVD pixels are not square. A DVD can be either 4:3 or 16:9 depending on how the disc is encoded. An anamorphically enhanced DVD is natively 16:9. A non-anamorphic DVD is natively 4:3. The format's designers planned for 16:9 televisions from the beginning. Some of the earliest DVD releases such as Blade Runner were anamophic 16:9

StephenX

I was under the impression that there is no such thing as two different 'native' aspect ratios for DVD, but only one that can be anamorphically enhanced, but still only a single AR, not two.

I could be wrong, but I did forget about Blade Runner either way. Oh well.

Josh Z

NTSC DVDs have a resolution of 720x480, which would equate to an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 if the pixels were square. But DVD pixels are not square. Depending on whether the disc is flagged as 4:3 or 16:9, they can be stretched either horizontally or vertically. A 4:3 DVD image has the same 720x480 resolution as a 16:9 DVD image.

Anamorphic DVDs are considered native 16:9. If you watch one on a 4:3 TV but don't tell your DVD player that, you'll see the whole image resolution, and it will appear stretched. When you tell the DVD player that you have a 4:3 TV, it simply throws out 25% of the vertical resolution in order to bring the picture back to its correct geometry, and then adds letterbox bars above and below.