Watching widescreen, letterboxed DVDs on a widescreen HDTV?

[Penarin]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes:

I just got my first HDTV (34" widescreen sony XBR970) and upconverting DVD player (Oppo 971). Over the years I've always been very careful to buy only widescreen DVDs. But I guess that wasn't good enough, as apparently it needs to say "anamorphic widescreen" and not "widescreen / letterboxed." Because I am having problems with some of my favorite movies displaying oddly on the big Sony. Like:

The War Wagon
Letterboxed, widescreen, 2.35:1

A Fistful of Dollars
Letterboxed, 2.35:1

Goodfellas (non- special edition)
Letterboxed, 1.85:1

These movies show up with really thick black bars on the top and bottom, or bars on all sides. Or they looked squished or distorted. I've tried various "screen type / zoom" settings on the TV and DVD player, and I'm not having much luck.

Is that just how its going to be on a widescreen TV with letterboxed DVDs? I really don't want to go on a movie buying spree, and some titles are only available letterboxed.

I have had some luck getting these movies to display somewhat properly at 420p, but I'd like to use the Oppo's 720p / 1080i modes...

All of my other (non letterboxed) DVDs look perfect.

~ Help ~

[Greybeard191]

those movies are letterboxed, not anamorphic.

On my Panny AE900U/Oppo 971H, using DVI/HDMI, with the Oppo set at wide/squeeze (which is recommended I think) this type of movie shows up with bars on all sides. I seem to get the best picture quality that way, but the image is obviously smaller. At the least the picture is proportioned correctly.

I don't have many non-anamorphic widescreens, so I need to do more playing around with the component out of the Oppo and letting the Panny do the scaling... as the Panny component input has more aspect options.

GB

[Vcook]

output it at 480 and set the tv to zoom.

[Re-Animator]

Set the Oppo to "wide/squeeze" and use the Oppo's zoom to 1.5. You lose some resolution, but the bars go away.

[FredProgGH]

Or even better, replace those crap lo-res DVDs with decent new versions. You can stretch and zoom those things until hell freezes over- they're still gonna look terrible.

[Dave Mack]

yes, get the new versions.

[mrhan]

The War Wagon
Letterboxed, widescreen, 2.35:1

A Fistful of Dollars
Letterboxed, 2.35:1

Goodfellas (non- special edition)
Letterboxed, 1.85:1

These movies show up with really thick black bars on the top and bottom, or bars on all sides.

You say some have bars on the top and bottom only; those are probably anamorphic 2.35:1. They will always have the bars.

[Penarin]

Well, I can and probably will get the new version of Goodfellas, but I do have alot of older movies, especially westerns, that are only available letterboxed. For now, that is. I'm sure they'll get released in Super Ultra Special Editions at some point.

FWIW, setting the DVI output to 480p and the TV to zoom, like Vcook said, seems to work just fine. At least for my particular TV / DVD player combo.

[wmcclain]

Well, I can and probably will get the new version of Goodfellas, but I do have alot of older movies, especially westerns, that are only available letterboxed. For now, that is. I'm sure they'll get released in Super Ultra Special Editions at some point.


I keep a small list. As far as I know, these have never been released in anamorphic editions:

A Clockwork Orange
High Plains Drifter
Psycho
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Streets of Fire
Emma (Paltrow)
Impromptu
Ladyhawke
1941
Purple Noon
Waterloo
Armageddon

-Bill

[watchformore]

Be aware that the terminology used on DVD cases is not consistent. For example, letterboxed does not always mean non-anamorphic, especially with regard to 2.35:1 aspect ratios.

[Steve Scherrer]

It is my understanding that "letterbox" always means that the entire black bar is encoded in the frame. Anamorphic widescreen or "enhanced for widescreen televisions" are the code words for anamorphic.

And just to be clear, even with an anamorphic dvd, you are still going to get some black bars on the top and bottom of your tv, since your tv's aspect ratio (1.78:1) does not match the aspect ration of the movie if the movie is 2.35:1 (or anything other than 1.78:1). You probably already know this, but it is surprising to me how many people don't.

[mrhan]

I keep a small list. As far as I know, these have never been released in anamorphic editions:

A Clockwork Orange
High Plains Drifter
Psycho
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Streets of Fire
Emma (Paltrow)
Impromptu
Ladyhawke
1941
Purple Noon (Plein soleil)

Waterloo
Armageddon

-Bill


Outside of region 1 most of those titles are anamorphic but isn't A Clockwork Orange already in it's OAR?

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/

[wmcclain]

Outside of region 1 most of those titles are anamorphic but isn't A Clockwork Orange already in it's OAR?


Mysteriously, the IMDB shows two aspect ratios for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/technical

The DVDs are 1.66:1, non-anamorphic:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/dvd

-Bill

[khyron]

Mysteriously, the IMDB shows two aspect ratios for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/technical

The DVDs are 1.66:1, non-anamorphic:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/dvd

-Bill

Kubrick shot most of his movies (not all) with an open matte, therefore watching them on a DVD requires no morphing because the 4:3 aspect of the video is nearly identical to the rather "square" OAR of the movie.

[magoo2004]

[QUOTE=FredProgGH]Or even better, replace those crap lo-res DVDs with decent new versions. QUOTE]

Never. At thirty dollars a pop, when some of us are already getting 1080i or 720p. Blue Ray and HD disks are no more than "hype" for many of us, who are not going replace hundreds of standard DVD disks.

[wmcclain]

[QUOTE=FredProgGH]Or even better, replace those crap lo-res DVDs with decent new versions. QUOTE]

Never. At thirty dollars a pop, when some of us are already getting 1080i or 720p. Blue Ray and HD disks are no more than "hype" for many of us, who are not going replace hundreds of standard DVD disks.

I suspect he meant anamorphic upgrades, as for:

Predator
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Room With a View
Brigadoon
Last of the Mohicans

It hurts to say it, but the "special editions" are sometimes worth having if they upgrade letterboxed to anamorphic.

-Bill

[wmcclain]

Kubrick shot most of his movies (not all) with an open matte, therefore watching them on a DVD requires no morphing because the 4:3 aspect of the video is nearly identical to the rather "square" OAR of the movie.

It loses vertical resolution. Not as much as on wider formats, but we have none to spare on SD-DVD.

-Bill

[Josh Z]

It is my understanding that "letterbox" always means that the entire black bar is encoded in the frame. Anamorphic widescreen or "enhanced for widescreen televisions" are the code words for anamorphic.

The point is that the usage of this terminology is not always consistent on DVD packaging.

Also, technically "letterboxed" just means that there are black bars above and below the image, which can still happen even on an anamorphic disc. For example, a 2.35:1 movie is both letterboxed and anamorphic.

In internet jargon, "letterboxed" has come to be synonymous with "non-anamorphic", but that isn't the correct usage of the term.

[Josh Z]

Kubrick shot most of his movies (not all) with an open matte, therefore watching them on a DVD requires no morphing because the 4:3 aspect of the video is nearly identical to the rather "square" OAR of the movie.

The OAR is the aspect ratio that the movies were composed for and projected at theatrically, not the ratio of the exposed camera negative. 90% or more of all movies are photographed in processes that require matting to achieve their OAR.

I went into more detail to dispel the notion about Kubrick and 4:3 transfers in my HD DVD review of Full Metal Jacket:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=24110

[FredProgGH]

[QUOTE=magoo2004]

I suspect he meant anamorphic upgrades, as for:

Predator
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Room With a View
Brigadoon
Last of the Mohicans

It hurts to say it, but the "special editions" are sometimes worth having if they upgrade letterboxed to anamorphic.

-Bill
Yeah, basically I mean ditch the non-anamorphic disks and upgrade- whether to an anamorphic DVD or HD disk is obviously an individual choice! Although having started to get used to HD broadcasts and HD-DVD I'm finding 80% of standard DVD releases hard to watch now. But that's another thread :D But watching almost any non-anamorphic DVD is hardly better than VHS...

[Morpheo]

IIRC Abyss has always been non anamorphic as well. But I'm not sure about the latest version (single-disc I guess ?...). Anyone can confirm that ? It looked great on my old 4:3 CRT, but now I won't even try to watch the [cough] "special edition" again...

[wmcclain]

IIRC Abyss has always been non anamorphic as well. But I'm not sure about the latest version (single-disc I guess ?...). Anyone can confirm that ? It looked great on my old 4:3 CRT, but now I won't even try to watch the [cough] "special edition" again...

Check here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/dvd

Nothing very "special" in sight.

-Bill

[Josh Z]

All Region 1 copies of The Abyss are non-anamorphic, despite misleading claims to the contrary on the packaging.

Anamorphic copies are available in other countries.

[tlogan6797]

The point is that the usage of this terminology is not always consistent on DVD packaging.

One thing IS consistent...."fullscreen" ALWAYS means 4:3. And "enhanced for 16:9" is usually a pretty bad zoomed and pan & scan of the anamorphic, or worse, the 4:3. But the black bars are gone! Which to the un-initiated is a good thing! ;-)

Tom

[Morpheo]

isn't 'enhanced for 16:9 TVs' supposed to mean it's anamorphic ? ...and I'm not "un-initiated"... :p

...I hope the fullscreen appellation will disappear one day, because on a 16:9 TV, fullscreen is widescreen... Instead of 'full screen', they should say Pan & Scan, or better yet: as opposed to 'enhanced for 16:9 TVs', P&S discs should have the mention 'butchered for 4:3 TVs' !

[tlogan6797]

isn't 'enhanced for 16:9 TVs' supposed to mean it's anamorphic ?

At least for the ones I've seen (quite by accident, mind you, and I have a 16:9 HD TV), the picture takes up the entire screen with no black bars. SOMETHING is zoomed or cropped. Either way, it's not OAR, so the question of anamorphic or letterboxed is moot.

Tom

[MichaelJHuman]

Interesting thread. I have had no issues.

Its a shame they ever released any movies without the anamorphic process.

Its my understanding though, that most players will "do the right thing." I have a Toshiba Tivo/DVD player/recorder. No matter what DVD's I play on it, it seems to display them correctly on my Panasonic plasma display. I assume if its anamorphic, the image is automatically stretched and scaled. If something looks stretched, it usually because I have the aspect ration set incorrectly.

I believe 16:9 is roughly comparable to 1.77:1. I think most movies are 2.35:1, 1.85:1 or 1.66:1. In my experience few films exactly hit the 1.77:1 mark and even with a widescreen display require black bars.

[Morpheo]

At least for the ones I've seen (quite by accident, mind you, and I have a 16:9 HD TV), the picture takes up the entire screen with no black bars. SOMETHING is zoomed or cropped.

I'm confused...

1.85:1, 16:9 enhanced movies takes up the entire screeen, while 2:35:1, 16:9 enhanced movies always have the 2 small black bars on top and bottom, right ? The "enhancement" only means the 4:3 source will be expanded to 16:9 on ws TVs. As for the aspect ratio, black bars are obvisouly inevitable on 2.35:1 movies... Are you saying you've seen a supposedly 2.35:1 image takes up the entire 16:9 screen ?

[tlogan6797]

Are you saying you've seen a supposedly 2.35:1 image takes up the entire 16:9 screen ?

Yes, it takes up the entire screen and that's the problem. When I've picked up the "enhanced for 16:9," version, I don't know if it was a 2:35 zoomed in a little or a 4:3 zoomed in a lot or worse, a pan and scan. It usually just says "enhanced for 16:9."

I think the problem is that people buy a wide screen TV and expct the picture to use up the entire space, so some releases are designed to do that, however bad it might actually be. Which I guess is only slightly better than just setting the TV mode to "wide" and have all the people at the edges of the screen look really fat until they move to the center of the screen.

So anyway, I specifically look for that wording now in order to avoid it.

Tom

[Morpheo]

Yes, it takes up the entire screen and that's the problem. When I've picked up the "enhanced for 16:9," version, I don't know if it was a 2:35 zoomed in a little or a 4:3 zoomed in a lot or worse, a pan and scan. It usually just says "enhanced for 16:9."

I think the problem is that people buy a wide screen TV and expct the picture to use up the entire space, so some releases are designed to do that, however bad it might actually be.

Those are probably the same people who thought their 4:3TV was broken when they watched a letterbox movie.... :rolleyes: Out of curiosity, which movie(s) was it (fortunately all my 2.35 movies are "properly" enhanced for 16:9 TVs...) ?

[Mac The Knife]

The films in my library that drive me nuts are the european films that are ~1.66:1 and non-anamorph. I can't find a zoom mode setting that I like for any of these films.

[Morpheo]

I also buy french films and thanks to awful distributors, information on the packaging is very often incorrect, and I mean v-e-r-y often. Old movies or new ones, there's no difference, non anamorphic transfers (and yet the box says 16:9 enhanced), (very) bad image quality, supposedly 5.1 mixes that are in fact stereo (and I don't mean Dolby Surround Stereo here, but an actual stereo signal), and the list goes on. It's laughable, really. My latest example to date, Le Roi Danse/The King Is Dancing ; horrible.

[smithb]

Yes, it takes up the entire screen and that's the problem. When I've picked up the "enhanced for 16:9," version, I don't know if it was a 2:35 zoomed in a little or a 4:3 zoomed in a lot or worse, a pan and scan. It usually just says "enhanced for 16:9."

I think the problem is that people buy a wide screen TV and expct the picture to use up the entire space, so some releases are designed to do that, however bad it might actually be. Which I guess is only slightly better than just setting the TV mode to "wide" and have all the people at the edges of the screen look really fat until they move to the center of the screen.

So anyway, I specifically look for that wording now in order to avoid it.

Tom

If you are avoiding "enhanced for 16:9" DVDs then there are other things going on that might be related to your settings or just a misunderstanding of the concepts.

Enhanced for 16:9 just means it is anamorphic which is a good thing. If it takes up the whole screen then it just means it is either 1.78 or 1.85 (TV compensating for overscan). If 1.78 then it is possible it has been cropped but rarely will a 2.35 be cropped to 1.78 and a 1.85 cropped to 1.78 would hardly be noticeable. A 4x3 cropped to 1.78 is extremely rare.

I'd rather have anything enhanced for 16:9 then a non-anamorphic version except for maybe a few very extreme examples.

[Josh Z]

Yes, it takes up the entire screen and that's the problem. When I've picked up the "enhanced for 16:9," version, I don't know if it was a 2:35 zoomed in a little or a 4:3 zoomed in a lot or worse, a pan and scan. It usually just says "enhanced for 16:9."

"Enhanced for 16:9" does not mean that the picture has been cropped. It just means that the disc has been anamorphically enhanced to benefit from the added resolution of a 16:9 TV. It can still be presented at an aspect ratio greater than 16:9 using letterbox bars.

Theatrical movies come in two different aspect ratios, some are 1.85:1 (which should fill or nearly fill a 16:9 TV) or 2.35:1 (which will require letterbox bars). The number of 2.35:1 movies that have been cropped from their OAR to fill a 16:9 TV can be counted on one hand. The vast majority of "widescreen" DVDs are presented in the movie's OAR.

[Morpheo]

The number of 2.35:1 movies that have been cropped from their OAR to fill a 16:9 TV can be counted on one hand.

I didn't even know they existed ! Examples ? Just curious...

[tlogan6797]

It just means that the disc has been anamorphically enhanced to benefit from the added resolution of a 16:9 TV.

OK, now I'm confused.
If I understand my TV correctly, the only added resolution is 1080i. Are you saying that "enhanced for 16:9" has 1080 lines? Wouldn't that be an HD or BluRay disk?

It can still be presented at an aspect ratio greater than 16:9 using letterbox bars.

I haven't been able to get it to do that. I guess it doesn't mean that it can't be, I just haven't figured it out. In which case it's too much trouble to go to, so it's easier just to pick "widescreen" versions.

The vast majority of "widescreen" DVDs are presented in the movie's OAR.

Exactly and my point has been that there is a difference between "widescreen" and "enhanced for 16:9" so I'm just careful to look for "widescreen."

Again, maybe I AM mis-informed, but I thought "letterbox" just meant that the black bars are encoded as part of the picture, as opposed to "anamorphic" in which the back bars are generated by the TV (or projector). In either case, the actual movie part of the picture is OAR.

The number of 2.35:1 movies that have been cropped from their OAR to fill a 16:9 TV can be counted on one hand.

So possibly I picked up one of these of handful the first time, realized I didn't like it and have been avoiding them ever since. If ther etruly is no difference, one of these days I'll try another and see if I can get it to work.

Tom

[Morpheo]

OK, now I'm confused.
If I understand my TV correctly, the only added resolution is 1080i. Are you saying that "enhanced for 16:9" has 1080 lines? Wouldn't that be an HD or BluRay disk?


enhanced for 16:9 ONLY means it's a 4:3 image that will expand to a 16:9 ratio on a widescreen TV. It has 480 lines.


I haven't been able to get it to do that. I guess it doesn't mean that it can't be, I just haven't figured it out. In which case it's too much trouble to go to, so it's easier just to pick "widescreen" versions.


What do you mean ? widescreen dvds are 99% 16:9 enhanced.



Exactly and my point has been that there is a difference between "widescreen" and "enhanced for 16:9" so I'm just careful to look for "widescreen."


Yes and the difference is just that when it's not enhanced, it's not anamorphic, thus it looks like sh..t on a 16:9 TV.


Again, maybe I AM mis-informed, but I thought "letterbox" just meant that the black bars are encoded as part of the picture, as opposed to "anamorphic" in which the back bars are generated by the TV (or projector). In either case, the actual movie part of the picture is OAR.


Again, an anamorphic image is a 4:3 image that will stretch to fit a 16:9 ratio. When viewing an anamorphic movie on a 4:3 screen, image will look squeezed. That's why we have the option "16:9 letterbox" on dvd player when we use a 4:3 TV. Just set the player to '16:9 TV' on a 4:3 screen, and you'll see the original, squeezed anamorphic image.

[mrhan]

I also buy french films and thanks to awful distributors, information on the packaging is very often incorrect, and I mean v-e-r-y often. Old movies or new ones, there's no difference, non anamorphic transfers (and yet the box says 16:9 enhanced), (very) bad image quality, supposedly 5.1 mixes that are in fact stereo (and I don't mean Dolby Surround Stereo here, but an actual stereo signal), and the list goes on. It's laughable, really. My latest example to date, Le Roi Danse/The King Is Dancing ; horrible.


You should try DVDBeaver and DVDCompare to see if the titles you are interested in are indeed anamorphic or not. When it comes to foreign discs I always make sure it's the one I want before ordering.

[mrhan]

I didn't even know they existed ! Examples ? Just curious...

Lord of War and Once Upon A Time in Mexico are two examples.

[tlogan6797]

Morpheo -

It appears we are talking in circles and probably need to agree to disagree.

When viewing an anamorphic movie on a 4:3 screen, image will look squeezed. That's why we have the option "16:9 letterbox" on dvd player when we use a 4:3 TV. Just set the player to '16:9 TV' on a 4:3 screen, and you'll see the original, squeezed anamorphic image.

Agreed.

Again, an anamorphic image is a 4:3 image that will stretch to fit a 16:9 ratio.

Stretch being the operative word here. If the image is anamorphic at OAR 2:35 and strectched to fill a 16:9 screen, something has to be different from the OAR. Either the top is filled and the sides are cut off (as the 2:35 is wider than the 16:9) or the sides are filled and the top and bottom has bars (as the 2:35 is shorter than the 16:9). I am failing to see how it can be any other way. If the image is the full height of the screen and the entire width is strectched only to the width of the screen, then the AR is off and objects will look slightly taller.

I just witnesed this at an Office Depot last night of all places (BTW - they had some pretty good prices on 42" plasma and LCDs!) I was looking at two side by side 42" TVs, one plasma and one lcd to see if I could really tell a difference. They were runing The Incredibles. One was letterboxed and one filled the entire screen. I couldn't figure out how that could be as they were both 42". I kept looking at the edges of the image to see if anything was cutoff. Couldn't find anything. Checked the top an bottom. Nope. Both images were complete. Couldn't figure it out. So I started looking for round objects in the picture and sure enough, in the image that filled the screen, round objects were oval.

So, the image is probably anamorphic and the letterboxed one was set to letterbox and the other was not. Should be a simple fix to the TV settings. So the question now is, is The Incredibles "enhanced for 16:9?" If so, what is the "enhancement?". Simply that it is anamorphic?

Just to confuse things further, being in Best Buy looking for gift DVDs, I now see a box labeled "widescreen" AND in small print "anamorphic 2:35, enhanced for 16:9"! If it is anamorphic, what exactly is the "enhancement"? Certainly the ability to stretch to fill the 16:9 is not an "enahancement" as the picture is wrong.

My concern has been with older releases that are simply labeled "enhanced for 16:9." My guess is that the addition of "anamorphic 2:35, enhanced for 16:9" is truly anamorphinc and the "enhanced" wording is simply for the people who don't know what OAR, widescreen and anamorphic is all about and want to know that their big new expensive TV is going to be filled with a picture so as not to "cheat" them out of any of the picture.

OK, I think I'm spent.
Tom

[Josh Z]

Stretch being the operative word here. If the image is anamorphic at OAR 2:35 and strectched to fill a 16:9 screen, something has to be different from the OAR.

Tom, you're confusing anamorphic enhancement with aspect ratio. Anamorphic enhancement is strictly a measure of the disc's technical resolution. It does not affect the aspect ratio of the content. See here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/welcome.html

[Josh Z]

I didn't even know they existed ! Examples ? Just curious...

Off the top of my head:

Lord of War (first pressings only, subsequent pressings reissued at 2.35:1)
Top Gun (original DVD release only, later Special Edition presented at 2.35:1)
Life as a House (per instructions from the director)
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (per instructions from the director)
The Recruit (per instructions from the director)
The World's Fastest Indian (per instructions from the director)
Star Trek VI (modified to 2.0:1 per instructions from the director)
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (modified to 2.0:1 per instructions from the director)
Apocalypse Now (modified to 2.0:1 per instructions from the cinematographer)

OK, so you need two hands. :)

[HD-DVDwonder]

Josh,

any idea why a filmmaker of a 2.35 film would want it to be 1.85 for the home video market? your last post is intriguing, I never knew such releases existed!

[Josh Z]

any idea why a filmmaker of a 2.35 film would want it to be 1.85 for the home video market? your last post is intriguing, I never knew such releases existed!

Some examples:

Star Trek VI and Austin Powers - Their respective directors both expressed dissatisfaction with the 2.35:1 framing, saying that they composed too tightly and needed to loosen the shots up a little.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico - This movie was actually originally composed for 1.85:1, but director Robert Rodriguez made a last minute decision to matte the theatrical release down to 2.35:1 because he thought it would be "cooler". The DVD reverts back to the original composition.

The Recruit and World's Fastest Indian - Roger Donaldson claims that he composed for dual ratios. He prefers 2.35:1 in theaters but doesn't like letterbox bars on home video. :rolleyes:

Apocalypse Now - This movie is the victim of Vitorio Storaro's misguided "Univisium" theory that all movies should be framed at a Golden Ratio of 2.0:1. The film was not originally shot with that intention in mind. It's something he's been imposing on many of his older movies regardless of their original photographic compositions.

Life as a House - This movie is actually cropped on the sides to 16:9. The exact reason isn't clearly understood, but director Irwin Winkler requested it. He's probably another black bar hater.

[Morpheo]

I just witnesed this at an Office Depot last night of all places (BTW - they had some pretty good prices on 42" plasma and LCDs!) I was looking at two side by side 42" TVs, one plasma and one lcd to see if I could really tell a difference. They were runing The Incredibles. One was letterboxed and one filled the entire screen. I couldn't figure out how that could be as they were both 42". I kept looking at the edges of the image to see if anything was cutoff. Couldn't find anything. Checked the top an bottom. Nope. Both images were complete. Couldn't figure it out. So I started looking for round objects in the picture and sure enough, in the image that filled the screen, round objects were oval.

So, the image is probably anamorphic and the letterboxed one was set to letterbox and the other was not. Should be a simple fix to the TV settings. So the question now is, is The Incredibles "enhanced for 16:9?" If so, what is the "enhancement?". Simply that it is anamorphic?


exactly. being anamorphic means more detail is stored on the 4:3 source (that's why it's squeezed when viewed at 4:3). When it's "expanded", then you look at a better picture (it's a non-issue for people who don't own a 16:9 TV, because the image is expanded and then it's letterboxed to fit their 4:3 tv -> but that's why they still look at the film correct AR)

in short:
widescreen refers to the aspect ratio (1.85:1/2.35:1/2.40:1/etc).
enhanced refers to the image quality.

so please, keep buying 16:9 enhanced movies ! ;)

[HD-DVDwonder]

Some examples:

Star Trek VI and Austin Powers - Their respective directors both expressed dissatisfaction with the 2.35:1 framing, saying that they composed too tightly and needed to loosen the shots up a little.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico - This movie was actually originally composed for 1.85:1, but director Robert Rodriguez made a last minute decision to matte the theatrical release down to 2.35:1 because he thought it would be "cooler". The DVD reverts back to the original composition.

The Recruit and World's Fastest Indian - Roger Donaldson claims that he composed for dual ratios. He prefers 2.35:1 in theaters but doesn't like letterbox bars on home video. :rolleyes:

Apocalypse Now - This movie is the victim of Vitorio Storaro's misguided "Univisium" theory that all movies should be framed at a Golden Ratio of 2.0:1. The film was not originally shot with that intention in mind. It's something he's been imposing on many of his older movies regardless of their original photographic compositions.

Life as a House - This movie is actually cropped on the sides to 16:9. The exact reason isn't clearly understood, but director Irwin Winkler requested it. He's probably another black bar hater.

hmm...its kinda funny actually to realize there are also black bar hating producers of content as well as consumers.

Tom: Enhanced for Widescreen TVs(16:9 tvs) simply means it's anamorphically enhanced. Some studios use the term "Anamorphic Widescreen" others - like Warner - use "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs". It's all the same, they give you a horizontally compressed 4:3 image and the display device stretches it to fill the 1.78:1 frame

[tlogan6797]

Tom, you're confusing anamorphic enhancement with aspect ratio. Anamorphic enhancement is strictly a measure of the disc's technical resolution. It does not affect the aspect ratio of the content. See here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/artic...ic/welcome.html


Not at all. According to the link, an anamorphic 2:35 will STILL create black bars on 16:9.

HOWEVER, here's where I WAS confused. I did not realize that 1:85 was close enough to 16:9 (1:78) that an anamorphic 1:85 could fill a 16:9 close enough that it really doesn't make a difference.

Additionally, as others here have shown as well, there WERE indeed early "enhanced for 16:9" transfers that were a mess and that's what I based my entire early statements on. Lord of War being one that I recall (an early rental from BB).

So, it appears safe to say that currently, releases labeled as "enhanced for 16:9" are probably anamorphic and may or may not produce black bars on 16:9 TV. I'd also venture to say that we all agree that "full frame" (unless it IS the OAR) just plain sucks.

Tom

[wormraper]

Not at all. According to the link, an anamorphic 2:35 will STILL create black bars on 16:9.

HOWEVER, here's where I WAS confused. I did not realize that 1:85 was close enough to 16:9 (1:78) that an anamorphic 1:85 could fill a 16:9 close enough that it really doesn't make a difference.

Additionally, as others here have shown as well, there WERE indeed early "enhanced for 16:9" transfers that were a mess and that's what I based my entire early statements on. Lord of War being one that I recall (an early rental from BB).

So, it appears safe to say that currently, releases labeled as "enhanced for 16:9" are probably anamorphic and may or may not produce black bars on 16:9 TV. I'd also venture to say that we all agree that "full frame" (unless it IS the OAR) just plain sucks.

Tom

Short and simple. Enhanced for widescreen or 16x9 tv's means animorphic, Animorphic has nothing to do with aspect ratios. It just means that the black bards are not coded into the video thus creating black bars on all 4 sides. You can have a video that is anamorphic and still have black bars on top and bottom depending on the AR (take Ben hur for example which was shot in 2.76:1 if memory serves me right).

[Penarin]

Wow, this gets complex and most of us here are probably heavy into AV.

The "regular consumer" talking to some kid at BB doesn't stand a chance :)

It would help if DVD labels were standardized.

[Brian Conrad]

I don't understand why anyone would create a letterboxed DVD these days. Players are all good enough to make an anamorphic file look good on a 4:3 (this was an early argument for making them letterboxed). I think the sad reality is that you often have newbie DVD authors or producers that really don't know what they are doing and try to impress the boss by ordering cheaper transfers that were less expensive because they were telecined letterboxed and not anamorphic or an HD version which they could compress themselves in anamorphic format. The latter is long term view which saves "the boss" money when someone wants to license the content for HD. But we all know how short sighted business people can be and the movie business isn't known for brilliant business people. :)

I once contacted a small distributor of art films because the DVD had the film in 4:3 but the director's extras showed clips in 16:9. Surprisingly the DVD producer replied in an email that the studio gave them the 4:3 movie content and the director the extras content.