Should it be compulsory to label discs anamorphic or not ?

[Shaun666]

Further to my River Wild post isn't it about time it was compulsory on all DVD's to say whether or not widescreen releases are anamorphic or not ?

[LV426]

Yes.

And it should also be mandatory to label all discs when they have been subjected to cuts - either by the BBFC, or by the studio, prior to BBFC submission - compared to the theatrical release in the same territory.

[Pete George]

The problem with putting 'anamorphic' on DVDs is that I suspect upwards of 90% of the population don't know what the word means. It's not a word which appears in most dictionaries, and I confess, it was not in my vocabulary until I started buying DVDs. 'Anamorphic' would sound to many people like the scientific gobbledegook they use on shampoo adverts.

Pete George

[01keith]

Yes! Yes! :rolleyes:

[Confucius]

More importantly it should be compulsory for widescreen releases to be anamorphic.

[Tony Keats]

In a perfect world, sure.....

The only other concern is that there are one or two discs around which claim to be "enhanced for 16:9 T.V's" which aren't anamorphic at all!!.

The majority of those discs are pretty embarrassing titles actually and I'm not even prepared to admit I own any of them in the first place. I certainly wouldn't dream of taking them back because I just haven't got the energy for a fruitless argument with some ill-informed cretin.

[pegasus]

YES, what's more they all should BE anamorphic, certainly in R2 where the proportion of 16:9 TV sets is higher (makes economical sense aside from artistical one).

For the cuts, I think it should mention any cut made compare to the originaly intended film, whatever region it was released in (they don't cut extra on the DVD compare to theatrical release of the same region anyway, more the opposite).

And the sound features, including subtitles should also be clearly advertised.

[Bamse]

Yes, it would be nice if it said on the cover if the film is cut or uncut, but your average Joe six-pack would look at a DVD box and after seeing it says cuts made, would just put it down again. Remember they use the words uncut and directors cut, as ways of selling films, so putting cut on it, would probably have the opposite effect.

[Paul Bennison]

Originally posted by Pete George
The problem with putting 'anamorphic' on DVDs is that I suspect upwards of 90% of the population don't know what the word means. It's not a word which appears in most dictionaries, and I confess, it was not in my vocabulary until I started buying DVDs. 'Anamorphic' would sound to many people like the scientific gobbledegook they use on shampoo adverts.

Pete George

Does that really matter though? Computer game boxes are choc full of the machine specs required - how many of the general public actually know what 'SVGA high colour 16 bit' (read from Half Life' box) is? :rolleyes:

I still stand around people in HMV who warn their friends about the way that on lots of DVDs picture is removed and black bars are added so that they fit widescreen TVs.

:brickwall :brickwall

[APPRIA40WR]

Should it be compulsory to label discs anamorphic or not ?

Bloody well should be!

[urruri]

yes yes yes

[Bamse]

Originally posted by Paul Bennison


Does that really matter though? Computer game boxes are choc full of the machine specs required - how many of the general public actually know what 'SVGA high colour 16 bit' (read from Half Life' box) is? :rolleyes:

I still stand around people in HMV who warn their friends about the way that on lots of DVDs picture is removed and black bars are added so that they fit widescreen TVs.

:brickwall :brickwall

I know exactly what you mean
:D :D :nuts:

[DeadKenny]

Absolutely yes. If anamorphic is too cryptic, a clear indication of 16:9 compatibility (i.e. anamorphic) using some sort of logo for us in the know that can only be used if it is truely anamorphic (far too many discs that say '16:9' but that could just mean 1.85:1 non-anamorphic, and what they heck is 'Regular' supposed to mean, hey ... WARNER!?).

Better still, it should be compulsory for all discs to be anamorphic (for those with 4:3 sets worried about 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 stuff, the distributors should just use the P&S feature that's built into the DVD spec and players - it doesn't need to P&S after all, it just needs to crop the edges off which will be small black bars on 4:3 sets).

[Mr Nice]

Dead Kenny, that is hypocrytical, since that does to 4:3 what not being anamorphic does to widescreen stuff: not use as much of the resolution as possible, and would be a fiddly pain for those with 4:3 tv's with 16:9 modes (exercise for the reader to work out why).

[Michael Brooke]

I can readily confirm that anamorphic 4:3 looks ridiculous on my set (Anchor Bay's extras are usually formatted that way, and the inevitable result is a small picture surrounded by massive black bars), and I also definitely prefer non-anamorphic 1.66:1 to the anamorphic variety, though in those cases there's less of an issue.

Some people seem obsessed with the term "anamorphic" as though it automatically makes everything wonderful - but it doesn't. It seems self-evident to me that 4:3 titles should always be non-anamorphic, as that offers the highest possible picture resolution (anamorphic "enhancement" would add black bars at the sides at the expense of detail on the image itself), and I think the jury's still out on 1.66:1 titles.

With regard to the latter, I bought the non-anamorphic R1 version of <I>The Nightmare Before Christmas</I>, and I'd make the same decision tomorrow - the picture is more than sharp enough, and on my 4:3 set it's noticeably bigger than the anamorphic R2 version would have been.

[RoboCop4]

I agree 100%. And it would be nice if everyone (Warners, Columbia/Universal, Momentum etc.) could standardise the format for indicating an anamorphic transfer. Some say '16:9', others use the phrase 'enhanced for widescreen TVs', and some just say 'anamorphic' (like Mr Average knows what <u>that</u> word means :rolleyes:.)

As for compulsory anamorphic transfers, as much as it would be great for me as a widescreen TV owner, I can see that it might ***** off non-WS TV users - in the same way that I get annoyed by the lack of Dolby 2.0 tracks on DVDs (which is the best format if you only have your player connected to a stereo hi-fi system, as DD 5.1 sounds muted/soft).

By the way, I don't see the point in having an enhanced 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio image - it wouldn't benefit anyone.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>By the way, I don't see the point in having an enhanced 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio image - it wouldn't benefit anyone.</B>

The sole advantage is that it forces widescreen tellies to display the image at the correct proportions, but the disadvantages are the lower resolution (hardly enhancement!) and incompatibility with 4:3 TVs. If your 4:3 set has a 16:9 option, as mine does, the end result looks bearable if you have a large screen, but is clearly unsatisfactory - especially since many markets (especially in the US) are still dominated by 4:3 users.

[feverpitch96]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
With regard to the latter, I bought the non-anamorphic R1 version of <I>The Nightmare Before Christmas</I>, and I'd make the same decision tomorrow - the picture is more than sharp enough, and on my 4:3 set it's noticeably bigger than the anamorphic R2 version would have been.

(raises hand timidly)
P-please Mr Brooke sir, how's that work then? On a 4:3 set of any size, how can a non-anamorphic image work out larger than an anamorphic one? And also, beggin' yer pardin sir, how can you have an anamorphic 4:3 image?

And I thought I was doing so well at all this stuff...
:rolleyes:

[Michael Brooke]

<B>P-please Mr Brooke sir, how's that work then? On a 4:3 set of any size, how can a non-anamorphic image work out larger than an anamorphic one? </B>

Very easily - since the set is 4:3-shaped, clearly 4:3 images will be the biggest. and logically the size should go in order: 4:3, 1.66:1, 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, with 2.35:1 being the smallest - but when you throw anamorphic enhancement into the equation things get more complicated.

If the TV has a 16:9 mode, this means that all anamorphic images will be presented in a 16:9 frame within the 4:3 screen. So while a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 picture will almost fill the 4:3 screen, an anamorphic 1.66:1 picture has to be shrunk so that it fits within the 16:9 image, resulting in a smaller picture, thicker black bars at the top and bottom and thin ones at the sides.

True, the smaller picture probably won't lose anything in terms of detail, and may even gain a fraction (though probably not enough to make any significant difference to anyone other than the seriously anal) - but I personally prefer the larger image.

<B>And also, beggin' yer pardin sir, how can you have an anamorphic 4:3 image?
</B>

What happens is that the 4:3 image has black bars added at the sizes to widen it to 16:9, and the result is then treated as a widescreen picture and squeezed. Unfortunately, the black bars are added at the expense of picture resolution, so there's absolutely no advantage to doing it.

[feverpitch96]

Thank you Mr B!


<B>And also, beggin' yer pardin sir, how can you have an anamorphic 4:3 image?
</B>

What happens is that the 4:3 image has black bars added at the sizes to widen it to 16:9, and the result is then treated as a widescreen picture and squeezed. Unfortunately, the black bars are added at the expense of picture resolution, so there's absolutely no advantage to doing it.

Are the side black bars added to ensure the original 4:3 image is not stretched horizontally?

[Michael Brooke]

<B>Are the side black bars added to ensure the original 4:3 image is not stretched horizontally?</B>

Yes - the only advantage is that this fixes the aspect ratio so that even a complete incompetent can't help but display the 4:3 picture correctly. But I think the disadvantages outweigh that.

Incidentally, Disney did something similar in the early 1990s on 35mm when they reissued <I>Fantasia</I> - I was managing a cinema at the time, and we were sent what was essentially a masked 1.85:1 print containing the original 1.33:1 image surrounded by a lot of blank space. Again, this was to force cinemas that couldn't show anything narrower than 1.85:1 to show the picture correctly - but with the same drawbacks: since our cinema could show 4:3 properly, we'd have much preferred a decent 4:3 print that used the entire picture area.

[DeadKenny]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
What happens is that the 4:3 image has black bars added at the sizes to widen it to 16:9, and the result is then treated as a widescreen picture and squeezed. Unfortunately, the black bars are added at the expense of picture resolution, so there's absolutely no advantage to doing it.

Except when it looks better to me, anamorphic on a 16:9 TV :D

As I've said before, it's more my problem with my Sony WEGA 50Hz TV. Okay 4:3 isn't so bad because there's no problems with gaps between scan-lines (unlike 1.66:1 which requires the use of 14:9 which doesn't even fit... 14:9 is 1.55:1, not 1.66, so you get a windowbox effect!). However, a flaw of the 16:9 50Hz WEGAs is that 4:3 and 14:9 modes have 'wonky' edges (if that's the best way to describe it).

Anamorphic 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 generally has nice straight edges to the black bars at the side. It's all to do with what happens when scan lines reach the edge of the TV, normally you don't see the uneven edges in Wide or Zoom mode due to overscan, but you do in 4:3 and 14:9 mode. Anamorphic 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 uses Wide mode with the bars being part of the source picture, and non-anamorphic just scans part of the screen distance and stops (and the geometry is pants at getting the edges straight). Fiddling around with the service mode sorts it out a bit, but it's a pain.

Basically, all anamorphic stuff I've seen on Film4 in 1.66:1 and a few 1.33:1/1.66:1 anamorphic DVDs have nice straight edges, non-anamorphic don't.

No idea how 100Hz sets fare with this edge issue.

And then there's the issue with any mode on the TV that doesn't use all available lines, which are 14:9, Zoom and Smart (Wide and 4:3 do use all available lines), and result in gaps between scan lines, but 100Hz TVs do things very differently (i.e. they use all the available lines even if the source resolution is lower)

In answer to Mr Nice, my point is that there is a feature of the DVD spec & player that allows it to zoom in and effectively show just the 4:3 frame (i.e. crops the bars but shows the whole picture - not cropping the picture). There is a loss of horizontal resolution compared to being non-anamorphic, but it's far less noticeable than non-anamorphic on Widescreen sets (because of the way TVs work, meaning virtical resolution loss is more noticeable). I believe Sky Digital works on the same principle. If you flick it into 4:3 mode instead of 16:9, then will output a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 image that has no bars on the side, so no problem for 4:3 owners (though I've never tried it to find out).

All that said, it's a minor issue with the straight edges and I can live with 4:3 non-anamorphic. I'm far less happy with 1.66:1 non-anamorphic (for the scan-line gap issue and the fact I have to use the service menu on the TV to change 14:9 mode to fit 1.66:1 so it isn't windowboxed!, but then I have to change it back for a few 1.55:1 films. If it was all anamorphic it would make my life easy. The service menu isn't a quick thing to fiddle with and not recommended for the average user because of the damage they can do). In my ideal world, we'd all be anamorphic, but until we've all got 16:9 TVs, it's not going to happen.

[Mr Nice]

So obviously the solution isn't to make narrow stuff anamorphic, but to have better quality widescreen tvs :D .
Seriously, computer moniters never have ragged edges with any resolution you throw at them, and have easily adjustable geometry controls for fine tuning, why can't widescreen tvs? And why are the geometry settings for the different modes tied together?(am I over generalising here or not? ). Again, decent moniters remember the geometry settings for each resolution separately. And it doesn't really make a lot of sense that they have a 14:9 mode but not a custom 15:9 mode. And I know that vertical resolution is more immediatly noticable due to the scan lines, but reducing horizontal resolution still degrades the picture.

[Michael Mackenzie]

In my opinion, the following should be compulsory on a DVD release:

- Indication of whether it's anamorphic or not (and so as not to confuse John Smith of Anywheresville, it should be standardized)
- The exact aspect ratio (1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 etc.)
- Whether it is edited or not. It should be the law, full stop, to inform customers that what they are buying is not the complete product
- On titles that have been modified from their original aspect ratio: This film has been truncated from its original version. It has been formatted to fit a 4:3 TV. You are missing x% of the original image. (Got that one from another DVD forum :rolleyes: )

[Michael Brooke]

<B>- Indication of whether it's anamorphic or not (and so as not to confuse John Smith of Anywheresville, it should be standardized) </B>

I've never seen anything wrong with the phrase "enhanced for widescreen TVs", which is totally comprehensible to anyone with half a brain.

<B>- Whether it is edited or not. It should be the law, full stop, to inform customers that what they are buying is not the complete product </B>

Before any workable legislation can be enacted, you're going to have to come up with a universally accepted definition of "edited" and "complete product" - and this isn't as easy as it looks.

For instance, which version of <I>The Shining</I> is "the complete product", bearing in mind that Stanley Kubrick personally edited both the 144-minute and 120-minute cuts? Peter Weir cut seven minutes out of <I>Picnic at Hanging Rock</I> for the DVD release - but since it was his film and he presumably knew what he was doing, can one seriously call the end result "incomplete"?

<B>- On titles that have been modified from their original aspect ratio: This film has been truncated from its original version. It has been formatted to fit a 4:3 TV. You are missing x% of the original image. (Got that one from another DVD forum )</B>

Again, how do you define the "original image"? What was actually captured on the negative, or what was shown in cinemas? Lots of films were shot in 4:3 but shown cropped in cinemas - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. And if the film was shot in 4:3 and shown cropped, do you say "You are <U>gaining</U> x% of the original image" - which, technically, you are? And, more to the point, how do you explain this to someone who doesn't know about aspect ratios without hopelessly confusing them?

[Michael Mackenzie]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I've never seen anything wrong with the phrase "enhanced for widescreen TVs", which is totally comprehensible to anyone with half a brain.

Forgive me, I should perhaps have been clearer. I agree with you, "enhanced for widescreen TVs" is probably the best definition on offer. I didn't mean that they should all say "anamorphic", I meant that some standard term should be adopted.

Before any workable legislation can be enacted, you're going to have to come up with a universally accepted definition of "edited" and "complete product" - and this isn't as easy as it looks.

For instance, which version of <I>The Shining</I> is "the complete product", bearing in mind that Stanley Kubrick personally edited both the 144-minute and 120-minute cuts? Peter Weir cut seven minutes out of <I>Picnic at Hanging Rock</I> for the DVD release - but since it was his film and he presumably knew what he was doing, can one seriously call the end result "incomplete"?

Yes, this one is basically just wishful thinking and is never going to happen. I think if something has been edited due to censorship laws, it ought to be published visibly.

Again, how do you define the "original image"? What was actually captured on the negative, or what was shown in cinemas? Lots of films were shot in 4:3 but shown cropped in cinemas - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. And if the film was shot in 4:3 and shown cropped, do you say "You are <U>gaining</U> x% of the original image" - which, technically, you are? And, more to the point, how do you explain this to someone who doesn't know about aspect ratios without hopelessly confusing them?

Point taken. In the case of open matte, I think the fact that you are gaining image, but the composition will most likely be messed up, should be displayed.

And, more to the point, how do you explain this to someone who doesn't know about aspect ratios without hopelessly confusing them?

Hehe, a lot of the information found on DVD packaging is confusing to the uninformed, but I think the knowledgeable iffionados would definitely welcome such a feature. That said, there is still a great deal of debate as to whether open matte is acceptable or not, or whether all films should be presented in their original theatrical aspect ratio.

[DeadKenny]

Originally posted by Whiggles
Point taken. In the case of open matte, I think the fact that you are gaining image, but the composition will most likely be messed up, should be displayed.

or in the case where the director's preferred format is 4:3 but was cropped at the cinema so in theory it's the cinema that's destroyed the composition not TV (as in Kubrick films, which I will admit are marked as such on the R1 Shining DVD (and other R1 Warner Kubrick's?) "This feature is presented in the full aspect ratio of the original camera negative, as Stanley Kubrick intended", but not on the R2/4s :confused: (who insist instead on still printing 'Regular' for the format, and worse still, why is 1.59:1 'regular', but 1.66:1 is 'widescreen' - just what is 'regular' supposed to mean? :confused: ).

In some cases, both the cinema and 4:3 versions have been approved by the director for both formats (as Scorsese did with Casino), which begs the question... which is the directors 'preferred' format if he/she prefers one when shown on TV and another when shown in the cinema? Though I wonder if Kubrick would have approved preferred versions for 16:9 TVs if he'd gotten used to them? ;)

[Michael Brooke]

There's a lovely bit on the <I>Basket Case</I> commentary where director Frank Henenlotter confesses that he didn't realise that the film had been cropped in cinemas until he started supervising the DVD transfer and was asked whether he wanted it reframed for widescreen - he just assumed that since he'd shot it in 4:3, cinemas would show it in 4:3.

This of course is part of the problem - because most cinemas can't show 4:3 any more, anything in that ratio gets cropped, regardless of whether or not the director intended the full 4:3 frame to be seen. But because people assume that the cinema ratio must be the "correct" one, this triggers off a huge number of conspiracy theories and finger-pointing at often totally innocent video/DVD companies who are genuinely trying to get it right.

So I totally disagree that "all films should be presented in their original theatrical aspect ratio" - because this frequently isn't the correct one! (And more frequently than you'd imagine, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, when the theatrical release was essentially a brief loss-leader for the video version, so the fact that the 4:3 picture was cropped didn't really matter too much as few would ever see it).