Joined
·
183 Posts
a lot of the movies are 2.35:1, so they're not 1080 anything. Why don't they call it 1920 wide (progressive or interlace) instead of 1080p/1080i?
AVSForum Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson Click here for details.
Enter to be our Home Theater of the Month Click here for details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheldonison /forum/post/12873238
a lot of the movies are 2.35:1, so they're not 1080 anything. Why don't they call it 1920 wide (progressive or interlace) instead of 1080p/1080i?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadly25 /forum/post/12873434
My questions is, why don't they make anamorphic discs for Blu-ray? Make one just like you did with 16x9 anamorphic DVD's. This way you are using the full disc for the image. This would yield the best image quality for watching 2.35 movies. Perhaps it will come one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/12873636
Why are TV's measured diagonally instead of horizontally or vertically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/12873690
Glad you asked that question.Horizontal measuring gives a larger number than either vertical or horizontal and in the early days of TV that was important with small tubes. Of course this messes up comparing SD to HD sizes because of the aspect ratio difference.![]()
![]()
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/12873739
Thanks.![]()
Also, I have a standard definition TV that is widescreen too![]()
PS: I think encoding black bars is not very good. Hopefully when higher res HDTVs become more common they'll increase the image resolutions (and other things) possible on HD media. Perhaps even now they could store a higher res than 1920x1080 on HD media to encourage people to buy the higher res screens. Perhaps they should be encoding 2.35:1 movies at 2538x1080 or something ready for future displays (and 1.78:1 movies at higher res to, and downsampling in the player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12873809
Having anamorphic 2.35 HD movies is worthless unless we have 2.35 HDTV's and that isn't going to happen any time soon because 2.35 is only used for movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/12873809
Having anamorphic 2.35 HD movies is worthless unless we have 2.35 HDTV's and that isn't going to happen any time soon because 2.35 is only used for movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramimac /forum/post/12873821
A friend of mine and myself have acualy had this discussion...
they should have built the new tv standard to the largest movie format instead of an arbatrary 16x9 format or... they should develop a pan and scan 16x9 like they did for 4x3..
Quote:
Originally Posted by William /forum/post/12873836
Plenty of people do have 2.35 constant height setups.If it was offered then CE manufacturers would have an extra reason to sell them![]()
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/12873539
I can see it definitely giving you better quality if you are watching on a screen of a higher resolution than 1920x1080, but if you are watching the full image on a 1920x1080 fixed, square pixel display, would encoding it anamorphic actually give you a better picture or worse?