AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In response to complaints in another post, Here it is........


"I know [Fill In The Blank] is already out on DVD, but it's not anamorphic, so I won't buy it."


My only comment is that a good letterbox transfer from a good source is better than a bad anamorphic transfer from a s*** source.


OK everyone, flame suits on and adjusted?

HAVE AT IT!!!!!


:D :D :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by marthalamew0
What a horrible thing to say. You are a horrible person.
So Soon?!?!?!

Thank You!

I Think?

:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ThomC



My only comment is that a good letterbox transfer from a good source is better than a bad anamorphic transfer from a s*** source.

Before we get too far, can you give an example of this theory of yours? The problem as I've seen it is that too many "letterbox transfers" are simple bad laserdisc conversions. More often than not, they were quick and dirty releases from when DVD players first hit mainstream and studios were rushed to get product on the shelves.


Here is a quote from the Digital Bits The Ultimate Guide to Anamorphic Widescreen DVD Anybody with an interest in anamorphic DVD's and digital tv's must read this article!

"The bottom line is this - doing a new anamorphic transfer is almost always going to result in better quality, even if you still only have a Standard TV. The reason for this, is that today's telecine processes are fully digital. The state-of-the-art in film transfer technology is much better today that it was even a few years ago, especially with high-definition transfers being done more and more. When a studio simply re-uses an "off the shelf" laserdisc master (done even just a few years ago), you're going to see unnecessary edge-enhancement and all kinds of other NTSC and analog artifacts in the video. A new digital transfer will be clean and crisp, with vibrant and correctly timed color. It may even have been digitally cleaned, with little spots of print damage, hair and dust actually having been digitally erased from the image altogether."


I guess what I'm curious is if can you provide us with a title where the new anamorphic transfer was actually worse than a previous LBX transfer?


:confused: :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by srgilbert
Before we get too far, can you give an example of this theory of yours? The problem as I've seen it is that too many "letterbox transfers" are simple bad laserdisc conversions. More often than not, they were quick and dirty releases from when DVD players first hit mainstream and studios were rushed to get product on the shelves.


I guess what I'm curious is if can you provide us with a title where the new anamorphic transfer was actually worse than a previous LBX transfer?


:confused: :)
Sorry for the confusion.

No I don't have a 'Good LBX' vs 'Bad Anamorph' example.

But hear me out on this.


What I am trying to say is that being anamorphic ALONE does not make a title better.

The source material is first and formost the single most important part of the equation.

This includes the oft forgotten audio portion (anamorphic doesn't help here).


Cleanup, color correction, etc, etc are next in line of importance. This is one spot that being anamorphic or not may be decided.


Next in importance (for DVD purposes) is authoring and encoding. The decision on how much non-picture information will go on a disk has a major impact on PQ. Picture compression is as big an offender to digital PQ you can come across.


These are all issues that are just as important as whether or not a DVD is anamorphic or not.


As an example of what I am talking about compare almost any Criterion release to it's non-Criterion counterpart. (Say, Armegeddon {LBX}). Also look at the number of complaints with PQ issues about many anamorphic titles (Most recently, Licence To Kill). I would rather have that title LBX without the white line down the side, than anamorphic with the line.


Careful quality control the whole way through is more important than any single process.


Hope this explains my point of view better. And by the way, I am a big fan of anamorphic , I just am more concerned that the whole job is done right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Unfortunately for me, even the best letterbox transfer still looks like crap when I have to zoom or stretch it to fill my 54x96 screen. Watching them at 1x size results in them being windowboxed AND letterboxed into a small strip in the middle of the screen which is most unsatisfying. Even a bad anamorphic transfer is at least free of scaling artifacts. Maybe if I had a teranex or some other kilobuck scaler it wouldn't be such a problem - as it is the few non-anamorphic dvd's I have are relegated to the 32" direct-view set upstairs.

This is also why my laserdisc collection went the way of my cassette tapes and oil-bath popcorn popper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by cpurvis
Unfortunately for me, even the best letterbox transfer still looks like crap when I have to zoom or stretch it to fill my 54x96 screen. Watching them at 1x size results in them being windowboxed AND letterboxed into a small strip in the middle of the screen which is most unsatisfying. Even a bad anamorphic transfer is at least free of scaling artifacts. Maybe if I had a teranex or some other kilobuck scaler it wouldn't be such a problem - as it is the few non-anamorphic dvd's I have are relegated to the 32" direct-view set upstairs.

This is also why my laserdisc collection went the way of my cassette tapes and oil-bath popcorn popper.
So you'd rather have The Grinch in anamorphic, even if they didn't fix that he's brown? (as he is on the current release) :confused:

(I know, The Grinch is fullscreen, but you get the idea.)


You are probably better served by reducing your image/screen size, than by limiting your choice in content. (Flame suit on/Gas Mask attached!) :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Thom, you don't mention what you are viewing your movies on. Obviously, if it's a non-digital, 4:3 monitor*, anamorphic is pretty much a moot point. I guess my view on the topic is that any DVD that has come out in say, the last 12-18 months that isn't anamorphic is just shortsighted! From what I've read, any "good" LBX transfer could have been made anamorphic for practically the same cost when it was first produced. I do agree that a poorly produced AM DVD is a bad thing! It seems unlikely these days that a studio with the interest to produce a quality DVD transfer would be shortsighted enough to not make it anamorphic.






*like poor me and my old 27" tube, soon to be replaced with a 42" plasma! I'm just planning for the future....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
Non-digital 4:3 monitors can also take advantage of anamorphic material if they can do a vertical raster squeeze. I have a 4:3 Sony PVM 2950Q (27")monitor which has a 16:9 mode that does this. This allows me to keep my DVD player in 16:9 mode all the time. Quite a few new non-digital 4:3 sets (such as some Sony Vegas) do the 16:9 squeeze now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by srgilbert
Thom, you don't mention what you are viewing your movies on. Obviously, if it's a non-digital, 4:3 monitor*, anamorphic is pretty much a moot point.
SONY KF-60DX100 16:9 60" LCD Rear Projector (Sony Grand Wega)

Plenty big, widescreen, very carefully setup.
Quote:
I guess my view on the topic is that any DVD that has come out in say, the last 12-18 months that isn't anamorphic is just shortsighted!
I absolutely agree. As long as the rest of the job is done properly first!
Quote:
From what I've read, any "good" LBX transfer could have been made anamorphic for practically the same cost when it was first produced.
True
Quote:
I do agree that a poorly produced AM DVD is a bad thing! It seems unlikely these days that a studio with the interest to produce a quality DVD transfer would be shortsighted enough to not make it anamorphic.
You'd be surprised
Quote:
*like poor me and my old 27" tube, soon to be replaced with a 42" plasma! I'm just planning for the future....
Wise :cool:



PS - I work in the music business and we are currently going through these same types of things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,570 Posts
Hey, Thom, I understand what you're saying. I think the responses are based on the notion that if the studios would do their job decently the point would be moot; we would be getting transfers that are anamorphic AND good on all the other technical fronts, not needing to choose. And as time goes on and they get better at it I think this is happening. It's like when CDs came out, it took about four years for them to quit using masters created for vinyl and learn how to master properly for CD. Most of the time.


Fred
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top