Anamorphic????

[Bumble]

Guys,

I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere but I have a question:

How can I tell the difference between a 16:9 Anamorphic and a 16:9 non-Anamorphic picture? As I understand it, on a widescreen TV, there'll be no top & bottom black bars on either picture, but what difference will the quality of the picture be and how can I look at a picture and say if it's Anamorphic or not?

Thanks guys,

[gZa]

Originally posted by Bumble
Guys,

I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere but I have a question:

How can I tell the difference between a 16:9 Anamorphic and a 16:9 non-Anamorphic picture? As I understand it, on a widescreen TV, there'll be no top & bottom black bars on either picture, but what difference will the quality of the picture be and how can I look at a picture and say if it's Anamorphic or not?

Thanks guys, Firstly put your WSTV (if you've got one) in 4:3 mode. Then look at the picture, is it vertically stretched!? If so then it anamorphic.

If the ratio of the film is 2.35:1 you'll have small top/bottom borders.

If it 1.77:1 you won't. Ok?

[ajm]

there is a wonderful article about it at :-

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

[Bumble]

Originally posted by Garry Cowell
Firstly put your WSTV (if you've got one) in 4:3 mode. Then look at the picture, is it vertically stretched!? If so then it anamorphic.

If the ratio of the film is 2.35:1 you'll have small top/bottom borders.

If it 1.77:1 you won't. Ok?

Yeah that's great, but when I look at a picture how can I tell the difference between anamorphic & non-anamorphic. If you have to go through the above to tell then the increased picture quality isn't as obvious as first I thought it might be. What I'm basically saying is in what way is the picture quality visibly improved?

[utero]

anamorphic basically takes a widescreen picture and enlarges it to fit the area of widescreen TV's with little or no loss of resolution. a 1.85/1.77/1.66 anamorphic transfer will normally fill a widescreen set where as a 2.35 anamorphic transfer will be still have black bars top and bottom. One way of telling the difference is the way gary described.

[gZa]

Originally posted by Bumble


Yeah that's great, but when I look at a picture how can I tell the difference between anamorphic & non-anamorphic. If you have to go through the above to tell then the increased picture quality isn't as obvious as first I thought it might be. What I'm basically saying is in what way is the picture quality visibly improved? The increased quality is ONLY noticable IF you have a WSTV (or a TV with a 16:9 option) because instead of having to 'blow up the image' (thus losing quality) to fit the WSTV!
The WSTV 'squashes the (anamorphic) image' (thus not losing quality).

[Rob]

If you look close enough at your TV, the individual horizontal lines will be more obvious on a NON-ANAMORPHIC picture, whereas they they are more seamless for ANAMORPHIC.

Whether individual eyes can see the difference is debatable, but when you consider that an anamorphic picture is made up of far more horizontal lines than a non-anamorphic picture (i.e. the former has far more lines compressed int the SAME SPACE) you can easily see that you're going to get a clearer picture, due to the increased resolution.

[Bumble]

Originally posted by utero
anamorphic basically takes a widescreen picture and enlarges it to fit the area of widescreen TV's with little or no loss of resolution. a 1.85/1.77/1.66 anamorphic transfer will normally fill a widescreen set where as a 2.35 anamorphic transfer will be still have black bars top and bottom. One way of telling the difference is the way gary described.

so a non-anamorphic transfer will have a reduced resolution to it? How is this evidenced? When I look at non-anamorphic transfer will the faint black lines in the resolution (not the bars at the top and bottom) be more apparant than on an Anamorphic transfer?

Guys, I probably didn't phrase the original question very well. I know what an anamorphic transfer is and how it's processed. What I'm yet to be convinced is that if I viewed two 16:9 pictures on my widescreen tv, one anamorphic, one non-anamorphic, how will I tell the difference? You mention picture degradation on the non-anamorphic transfer. How is this evidenced on the picture?

Sorry to be a pain guys.

[gZa]

Originally posted by Bumble
What I'm yet to be convinced is that if I viewed two 16:9 pictures on my widescreen tv, one anamorphic, one non-anamorphic, how will I tell the difference?Well for starters you'll have to **** about with the WSTVs ratio.

For an anamorphic image your WSTV would use all of its visible resolution (600lines) in WIDE or FULL mode.

For a non anamorphic image you'd have to ZOOM in on the image thus losing some scanlines and degrading image.Originally posted by Bumble
You mention picture degradation on the non-anamorphic transfer. How is this evidenced on the picture?

Sorry to be a pain guys. Well as I said you'd have to ZOOM thus making (roughly on a 1.85:1 ratio film) 400 scanlines of image appear to be 600. Thus degrading the picture.

[Tom Whitaker]

Well, you might struggle to know from looking at two films side by side. A good non-anamorphic picture can be better than a bad anamorphic one. But if you're looking at a non-anamorphic transfer, you'll always know that it could be looking better.

My non-anamorphic DVDs (Topsy Turvy and Casino R2) used to look great on my 4:3 telly, but especially the former looks a bit poo on my new WS.

[Ridcully]

Possibly of use, best description I've found on the net.

http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm

[Bapapapa]

so a non-anamorphic transfer will have a reduced resolution to it? How is this evidenced? When I look at non-anamorphic transfer will the faint black lines in the resolution (not the bars at the top and bottom) be more apparant than on an Anamorphic transfer?

Yes the lines will be bigger on a WS TV showing a non-anamorphic DVD, because the picture has to be ZOOMed in to fill the screen.

To be honest, unless you have a HUGE display >32", or sit real close to the TV you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference a lot of the time.

[Kit_Taylor]

Hmm, even on my 28 inch WS it's quite easy to tell the difference between anamorphic and non anamorphic. Non anamorphic = less detail, more jaggies, noticeable scanlines.

[Morpheus2000]

With the ever increasing number and popularity of Anamorphic DVD's, more people are asking questions about it, but few truly understand what Anamorphic means. Picture this: (pun intended!) a normal television (4:3) has approximately 480 horizontal lines of resolution from top to bottom. When viewing a movie with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, only 270 of those lines are used for the picture, the other 210 make up the black borders above and below the picture. The image on an anamorphically enhanced DVD is stretched vertically to use all 480 lines of resolution – yet without any internal processing within the television the actors would appear tall and thin. However, a widescreen television has the special circuitry required to squeeze all 480 lines into the space of 270 lines. The resulting effect is a higher resolution image, but still containing the correct proportions of height and width. (See the previous High Resolution Anamorphic Trickery for a way around this.)

Courtesy of http://www.moviesuk.fsnet.co.uk/anamorphic.htm

[Bapapapa]

Originally posted by Kit_Taylor
Hmm, even on my 28 inch WS it's quite easy to tell the difference between anamorphic and non anamorphic. Non anamorphic = less detail, more jaggies, noticeable scanlines.

But how close are you sitting?

[Kit_Taylor]

6 feet, and I'm slightly short sighted and have broken my glasses.

[LV426]

Of course, the ONE thing that no-one mentioned (just a quick scan through this thread - sorry if I missed it) is that the DVD player has to be set to "widescreen" (or whatever*) and NOT "letterbox" (or whatever*) or P&S (or whatever*). If it isn't set to "widescreen" (or whatever*), it will create a non-anamorphic signal even from an anamorphic disc.

Also - you can't rely on the packaging to tell you; each company uses different terms for anamorphic, and many actually get it wrong from time to time.

* "or whatever" means, whatever your DVD player manufacturer decided to call these when designing the player menu.

[Bapapapa]

Originally posted by Kit_Taylor
6 feet, and I'm slightly short sighted and have broken my glasses.

LOL!!

6 feet is rather close. Do you notice scan-lines on regular ZOOMed TV broadcasts as well, then?

[silverpenguin7]

Try watching a Toy Story film on a WSTV. They look amazing.

If you watch a non-anamorphic film you can really tell. The picture does not look anywhere near as sharp. Here is a good way to see the difference. Stick in a non-ana film with a good picture (Criterion Armageddon springs to mind). Watch it with the WSTV in '4:3' mode so you get the black bars at the sides of the picture. You will see how sharp the image is. Now 'zoom' it to fill the screen and you will see a drop in resolution.

[Bapapapa]

I'm not disputing the fact there is a difference, I'm just saying the difference is markedly less noticeable on a smaller display.

[silverpenguin7]

Originally posted by Bapapapa
I'm not disputing the fact there is a difference, I'm just saying the difference is markedly less noticeable on a smaller display.
Bap was that aimed at me? I didn't read all the posts above. If it was, sorry if I offended you. None was intended :)
You are right though, the difference is less noticable on a smaller display. But I do find its one of those things that you notice all the time once you know about it (or at least thats what happens with me). :rolleyes:

[feverpitch96]

Okay, since we're on the topic, sort of, what does anyone here know about how Sony's new (?) much-touted "V-Compression" circuitry works to supposedly deliver anamorphic-quality resolution within the widescreen space offered on a 4:3 TV?

[Bapapapa]

Originally posted by silverpenguin7

Bap was that aimed at me? I didn't read all the posts above. If it was, sorry if I offended you. None was intended :)


Wasn't aimed at anyone mate, don't worry. :D

[silverpenguin7]

Originally posted by Bapapapa


Wasn't aimed at anyone mate, don't worry. :D
:)

[Dave L]

Having read this thread and the Digital Bits article with great interest I am now going to ask a question which has been in the back of my mind for quite a while and that this discussion has added more concerns to.

I have a Sony Wega 32" widescreen TV and a Sony 725 DVD player. The DVD player is set to output to a 16x9 widescreen TV and I have many Anamorphic & non-Anamorphic DVD's.

The TV has 5 picture settings, 'Wide', 'Smart', 'Zoom', '4x3' & '14x9' regardless of which setting I select and regardless of Anamorphic or non-Anamorphic I never see any vertical black/grey bars at the edges of the picture as discribed on pages 15 & 16 of the Digital Bits artical. The artical states that these vertial bars are the result of watching a non-anamorphic picture on a 16x9 TV and are generated by the TV to fill the remaining space.

So, firstly is my TV actually dealing with the Anamorphic image at all and secondly is it 'zooming' the image automatically to fill the screen horizontally regardless of picture setting?

Just to add a little more confusion, the 'Zoom' picture mode on my TV appears to zoom the picture vertically and not horizontally as inferred by earlier posts on the topic and by the Digital Bits artical.

[soulsaver]

I take it you are comparing pal pictures? If you want to see a more visable difference , try it with a ntsc film. The picture quailty between an anamorphic and a non-anamorphic ntsc picture is much clearer to see.

[Bapapapa]

The TV has 5 picture settings, 'Wide', 'Smart', 'Zoom', '4x3' & '14x9' regardless of which setting I select and regardless of Anamorphic or non-Anamorphic

Wide for Anamorphic

Zoom for Non-Anamorphic

I never see any vertical black/grey bars at the edges of the picture as discribed on pages 15 & 16 of the Digital Bits artical. The artical states that these vertial bars are the result of watching a non-anamorphic picture on a 16x9 TV and are generated by the TV to fill the remaining space.


You should see bars at the side if you set your TV to 4:3 mode. With a Non-Anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD you'd see bars at the top too - hence the need to ZOOM the picture to fill the screen. With an anamorphic DVD it only needs to stretch the picture horizontally - hence the need to use the 'WIDE' mode.

[Bapapapa]

Originally posted by soulsaver
I take it you are comparing pal pictures? If you want to see a more visable difference , try it with a ntsc film. The picture quailty between an anamorphic and a non-anamorphic ntsc picture is much clearer to see.

Nope both NTSC & PAL.

Again the difference in resolution between the two is less apparent with a smaller display.

Are you lot sitting inches from your screens or what?

[soulsaver]

Dave you are right, on a sony zoom pulls the picture vertically, smart pulls the picture horizontally and cuts a bit of the top and bottom which is for 4.3 pictures to make them seem 16.9. You will only see vertical lines on 4.3 pictures(and 14.9 I do believe?).

If you set your tv to detect picture size it will select the correct ratio to use, for digital sources(your dvd player,ondigital etc etc) anyway.

[Dave L]

Originally posted by Bapapapa
You should see bars at the side if you set your TV to 4:3 mode. With a Non-Anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD you'd see bars at the top too - hence the need to ZOOM the picture to fill the screen. With an anamorphic DVD it only needs to stretch the picture horizontally - hence the need to use the 'WIDE' mode.

This is what is confusing me.
I do indeed get black bars left and right when the TV is set to '4x3' mode, but this happens with all feeds not just a non-Anamorphic DVD. The Digital Bits artcle specifiaclly says that a non-Anamorphic DVD image viewed on a 16x9 tv will generate the left & right vertical bars. Are they refering to a non-Anamorphic image viewed on a 16x9 TV set to 4x3 mode or are they just talking b*******?

[Bapapapa]

Dave, you should get bars at the sides in 4:3 mode no matter what the feed is. Video, cable, DVD, videogames - anything. What your TV is doing is emulating a 4:3 (square) picture hence the bars at the sides.

ZOOM mode will expand the picture horizontally & vertically - retaining the same proportions. ie. a circle will still look like a circle.

SMART will expand the picture a little less vertically and stretch the sides more than the middle. You lose less picture in the overscan, but it's slightly deformed. ie a circle will look oval - a little squashed.

WIDE will stretch the picture horizontally only. The vertical stretch is already carried out by the anamorphic coding. This is the only mode to use for Anamorphic DVDs.

4:3 doesn't do any stretching whatsoever.

[soulsaver]

About 6ft away with a 32 w/s, so differences in picture quailty do tend to stand out for me quite a bit.

Mother always told me that sitting too close to the tv would make me blind, and the old man always told me that too much w***ing would make me blind, Trying to prove them wrong on both accounts :D

[Bapapapa]

About 6ft away with a 32 w/s, so differences in picture quailty do tend to stand out for me quite a bit.

I'm not surprised!!

:eek:

It's exactly what I'm saying, the closer you sit or the bigger your display the more noticeable any flaws will be. I bet you see scanlines watching regular TV.