Anamorphic transfers?

[Stuart N]

The labelling of DVD's concerning anamorphic transfer seems to be at best chaotic in the UK. Looking at many of my DVD's there seems no general agreement of wording and better yet some companies chose not to mention that the DVD is significantly an anamorphic transfer even when it is (it probably happened the other way round as well!)

I've decided not to buy anymore DVD that aren't anamorphic that could/should be. Most non-anamorphic DVD of pre-1950 films have little more to offer then their video counterpart. What a waste of money! Can anyone confirm if these R2 DVD's are anamorphic (as it's not stated but I believe they are?)
Cat on a hot tin roof DO56617
Rebel without a cause D014069
Thelma & Louise 15918DVDZ1

Perhaps there is a good online source for this R2 info, as I am greatly confused about many other R2 DVD's and whether they are anamorphic eg:
Interview with a Vampire DO13176
Dolores Claiborne DOC2548
Private Benjamin DO11075

[MikeToone]

Originally posted by Stuart N
Most non-anamorphic DVD of pre-1950 films have little more to offer then their video counterpart.


Obviuosly you have not seen:

Wizard Of Oz
Third Man - Criterion
All about Eve
The Red Shoes - Criterion
Black Narcissus - Criterion
Strangers on a Train
Notorious

[Stuart N]

Originally posted by MikeToone



Obviuosly you have not seen:

Wizard Of Oz
Third Man - Criterion
All about Eve
The Red Shoes - Criterion
Black Narcissus - Criterion
Strangers on a Train
Notorious

Nope, you're right I haven't seen any of these non-anamorphic DVD's. I am in no rush to buy any DVD's, and will wait and see whether relevant titles I want that have been released non-anamorphically using excellent prints will eventually get an anamorphic transfer with a comparably good print.

I've heard what a good job Criterion do with DVD's but I'm still put of spending money on a film like 'Picnic at hanging rock' as it is not anamorphic. Also I can't think you mean R1 Fox's 'All about eve' as the reviews I've seen have described the DVD as almost the worst transfer using a terrible print for such an eminent film?

[Narshty]

I'd certainly get Picnic at Hanging Rock - the transfer is director-approved and is absolutely sensational even if it's not anamorphic.

[kanedaa]

Try using Rewind/DVDCompare (http://www.dvdcompare.org.uk/) - there is a link on the bottom of the Forums front page (where you agree to T&Cs) - think its referred to as rewind which isn't very self-explanatory i guess!

Just had a peek myself, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof R2 is anamorphic, as are Rebel without a Cause, Thelma and Louise and Interview with a Vampire.

Using DVD Reviews Database (http://www.dvd-basen.dk/uk/home.php3) - which is another great site - this time that finds reviews for DVDs I found that the only review for Private Benjamin online told us didly squat, while reviews of Dolores clairborn also suggest it is Anamorphic.

dave.

[Mike]

"Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" is an absolutely stunning anamorphic transfer. I've never seen the film look as good as this before.

[MikeToone]

Originally posted by Stuart N


Also I can't think you mean R1 Fox's 'All about eve' as the reviews I've seen have described the DVD as almost the worst transfer using a terrible print for such an eminent film?

Correct it's the R4.

I also bought the R4 of How Green Was My Valley, which again is a fairly good transfer.

[hitch_fan]

Why would you want to buy anamorphic DVD's of pre-1950 movies?:confused: 99,9% of these films have an OAR of 1.37:1 so anamorphically enhancing them would not give you a better picture. In fact the picture quality would be worse.

[Stuart N]

Originally posted by hitch_fan
Why would you want to buy anamorphic DVD's of pre-1950 movies?:confused: 99,9% of these films have an OAR of 1.37:1 so anamorphically enhancing them would not give you a better picture. In fact the picture quality would be worse.

Ofcourse I meant to write post not pre- 1950 :nuts: movies but hey sorry my brain made a mistake :p

[Michael Brooke]

<B>Most non-anamorphic DVD of post-1950 films have little more to offer then their video counterpart. What a waste of money! </B>

Au contraire, I've seen plenty of astonishingly good non-anamorphic transfers whose quality was light years ahead of VHS. Titles like the R1 <I>Mimic</I> and <I>Straw Dogs</I> forced me to check my TV's settings just to make sure they genuinely weren't anamorphic, and many of Criterion's non-anamorphic transfers are similarly impressive (even before you take into account the extras on a title like <I>Brazil</I>).

I think people can be a little hung-up over this issue for no good reason - true, a good anamorphic transfer will be obviously superior to a non-anamorphic one, but if the alternative to a good non-anamorphic transfer is nothing at all (or an inferior package on the extras front), I'll probably go for that.

Take <I>Psycho</I>, for instance - the R1 is non-anamorphic but has tons of extras, while the R2 is anamorphic but relatively extra-free. Given that the film was shot in grainy black-and-white on a lowish budget, I wasn't convinced that anamorphic enhancement would make that big a difference, so I went for the R1 - and by all accounts there is indeed relatively little difference between the two discs on the picture quality front.

[gZa]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
Take <I>Psycho</I>, for instance - the R1 is non-anamorphic but has tons of extras, while the R2 is anamorphic but relatively extra-free. Given that the film was shot in grainy black-and-white on a lowish budget, I wasn't convinced that anamorphic enhancement would make that big a difference, so I went for the R1 - and by all accounts there is indeed relatively little difference between the two discs on the picture quality front. Well that's fine and dandy on your big ass 4:3 TV but <I>us</I> 16:9 people get forced to compromise the picture by using the damn zoom feature!

[DeadKenny]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
.. and many of Criterion's non-anamorphic transfers are similarly impressive (even before you take into account the extras on a title like <I>Brazil</I>)

I disagree about Brazil. Absolutely stunning set of discs in terms of extras, but the non-anamorphic transfer is a major let-down.

But as I've said before it's down to how the TV handles non-anamorphic which I think is the real problem. Some people are never going to notice and some will experience annoyances that are nearly unbearable (especially with 50Hz widescreen sets)

Watching the full-length directors cut of Brazil on BBC2 (on SkyDigital) in georgeous 1.85:1 anamorphic PAL really ****** me off about my non-anamorphic criterion. It was far superior (more so even than the criterion when watched on a 100Hz Sony WEGA which does help a lot but seems a little blurred & grainy).

If an anamorphic R2 of the same version comes out I may even buy that and keep the criterion just for the extras.

Thing is, for 4:3 owners, it's far less of an issue ;). It is after all, more accurately known as 16:9 enhancement.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>Thing is, for 4:3 owners, it's far less of an issue. It is after all, more accurately known as 16:9 enhancement.</B>

Well, my set takes full advantage of anamorphic enhancement where available, so I benefit from all the extra detail - but the reason I went back to 4:3 was because of increasing dissatisfaction with the compromises that widescreen sets forced on me.

I completely agree with you that it's far less of an issue with a 4:3 set - but surely that's an indictment of the lack of flexibility offered by widescreen sets?

With my setup, I can stick literally any DVD into my player and get exactly what I'm supposed to get (at the highest quality permitted by the disc in question) without having to expend the slightest amount of mental effort - so why are people being brainwashed into assuming that widescreen sets are "better", whereas in actual fact they're demonstrably worse, at least in terms of the hassle they entail in order to get a watchable picture off material that doesn't perfectly fit the 16:9 shape?

[Baz]

I disagree with you and Im not being brainwashed at all.

Id rather have to zoom non anamorphic DVD's than have to put up with 40% of the screen being black. What size 4:3 TV do you need to have to get a widescreen picture to look anything other than like a 21" portable? And further to the point how much does one cost?

Ill stick to my 16:9 and not bother with non anamorphic DVD's, well I'll try to avoid them but some non anamorphic films are still must haves.

[Mr Nice]

In answer to your question, rhetorical as you may have thought it, it would take a 23" 4:3 set to produce the same size widescreen as a 21" widescreen set. However, it would take a 26" widescreen set to produce the same 4:3 image as a 21" 4:3 set. This is because the squarer the tube, the more area for the same diagonal measurement. More precisely, by diagnal ratios, since this is how TV's are measured:

A widescreen set has a 4:3 image of 0.82 of its size.
A 4:3 set has a widescreen image of 0.92 of its size.

Hence it is rediculous that the 40" widescreen rear projection tosh is more expensive then the 43" 4:3 rear projection tosh. And this pricing anomoly is often true for normal CRT's as well.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>I disagree with you and Im not being brainwashed at all. </B>

Much like the hype over digital TV (promising "perfect pictures"), it's pretty clear that widescreen sets aren't all they're cracked up to be. I loved mine for the first few weeks that I had it, but I became increasingly frustrated with it as its limitations became clearer - limitations that are usually buried under tidal waves of "16:9 good 4:3 bad" misinformation.

<B>What size 4:3 TV do you need to have to get a widescreen picture to look anything other than like a 21" portable? And further to the point how much does one cost? </B>

A large 4:3 set shouldn't cost any more than its widescreen equivalent (in terms of 16:9 picture area) - for instance, I was shopping around for a good 32" widescreen but discovered I could buy a 43" RPTV for roughly the same amount of money!

This is a fair point, though - while I firmly and fervently believe that a large 4:3 set with 16:9 mode offers you the best all-round deal, I concede that if space is at a premium, a 28-36" widescreen is probably worth considering, provided you don't expect the same degree of all-round versatility.

<B>Ill stick to my 16:9 and not bother with non anamorphic DVD's, well I'll try to avoid them but some non anamorphic films are still must haves.</B>

A compromise all too many widescreen owners find themselves compelled to make - but why should they? There are loads of non-anamorphic widescreen titles out there that aren't going to get an anamorphic reissue any time soon (my collection is full of them), so why limit yourself like this?

[Phill]

A non-anamorphic image, zoomed up on a widescreen TV, is the same quality as a non-anamorphic image on a larger 4:3 TV. So really there is no compromise there. What it all boils down to is the aspect ratio of the films you like to watch.

If you're a big fan of the latest holywood blockbuster the wide is better because they make 'em wide over there. On the other hand if you're into porn and bizarre TV series made by some danish pervert......

One instance when I was glad of my widescreen zoom functions was when I got my canadian copy of Shallow Grave which is in fullscreen, filmed in soft matte. I just zoomed it up, and cut the crap off the top and bottom of the image. Can't do that on your fancy 4:3 RPTV, can ya? Mind you, that's one DVD out of my collection, so hardly a reason to buy a new TV.

Phill

[Narshty]

There a couple of reasons I prefer widescreen to 4:3 sets.

As stated above, cropping full-frame material to it's original aspect ratio, and sorting out dodgy framing, is very satisfying.

Many a Kubrick film and low-profile DVD release (Black Christmas, Piranha) has had the framing dramatically improved this way for me.

Secondly, call me stupid, but I like the fact that, up to about 1.85:1, films get wider instead of shorter. It's a silly thing to get pleased about, but widescreen films are genuinely wider, and not just in proportional terms.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>Secondly, call me stupid, but I like the fact that, up to about 1.85:1, films get wider instead of shorter. It's a silly thing to get pleased about, but widescreen films are genuinely wider, and not just in proportional terms.</B>

I know what you mean - I was excited about my widescreen set for exactly the same reason! It was only after a few months that its limitations and frustrations became apparent.

Just to give a good example, Fox Lorber's <I>Ran</I> is practically impossible to watch on a widescreen set without:

(a) shrinking the picture so that it's surrounded by vast black bars on three sides;
(b) zooming the picture and having to choose between chopping off a chunk of the top or losing the bottom line of the subtitles;
(c) squeezing and zooming the picture so that you get it all on screen, but distorted.

True, the fault is very much with the disc - they've stuck a 1.85:1 picture plus subtitles in a 4:3 frame, pushing the image to the top of the screen - but this proves my point: as long as discs like that exist, I'd prefer to be able to watch them comfortably!

[gZa]

Ok, but I've found that non-anamorphic 1.85:1 films that have subs in the bottom of the screen are few and far between (easily in the minority!) You mentioned Ran, which is a **** poor DVD anyway, only other one I've come across was The Story of Ricky (rectified by watching the dub... :eek: :p :o)
However non-anamorphic 2.35:1 with subs in the bottom can easily be rectified by shunting the screen up in Zoom mode.

I'm afraid messing about with a WSTV screen sizes etc. 'tis a necessary evil. (and one I frankly get off on :o ;))

[Michael Brooke]

Bear in mind, though, that one person's "minority" may be another's preferred viewing!

I have tons of subtitled films on both tape and DVD, and I could reel off loads of examples of films where the subtitles are both vital for comprehension and non-widescreen friendly! For the record, APPRIA40WR was the person who turned me off widescreen in favour of 4:3, and he's in a similar position.

[gZa]

Yeah I got load on VHS aswell and they do tend to cause the biggest problems (ala pre-1995, most retail and broadcast foreign films were all pushed to the top with subs in the bottom border) but hell I just watch all those on my old 26" 4:3 TV! :p :rolleyes: