Is Anamorphic Bad?

[Yonathan Gal]

That got your attention. ure, it;s great, but I don't really know that much about it. For examle, if an ancient title is given an anamorphic treatment and is given a new ransfer, then that's what makes it anamorphic, right?

My friend was telling me today that some people actually like those bad patche son old films like flciks and old marks, he says that some people love that about watching old films, it's that cosy feel they've got to them... He, for one, likes it like that... Now what do you guys think fo that.. If I'm even right in thinking that's what anamorphic is of course :) Please, let's have your opinions....

[carryonline]

Anamorphic is all about the way a video picture is compressed for viewing on television (widescreen of course). It's nothing to do with scratches/marks on the print. Possibly the best description I can think of is over at www.dvdweb.co.uk

Andy

[Roberto]

Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
My friend was telling me today that some people actually like those bad patche son old films like flciks and old marks, he says that some people love that about watching old films, it's that cosy feel they've got to them... He, for one, likes it like that... He's a freakn' wacko, lay off the crack

[Michael Brooke]

Just to elaborate, anamorphic enhancement is a very efficient way of cramming as much picture detail as is humanly possible onto a DVD - offering up to a third more information than a non-anamorphic transfer depending on the individual film (though it very much depends on the individual film - I've seen outstanding non-anamorphic transfers and lousy anamorphic ones!).

It has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the original print, though - spots and scratches are caused by dirt or damage on the original print (if they're black) or negative (if they're white). They can only be got rid of by cleaning the print or digitally touching up each individual blemish, which is a slow, expensive process (though the results can be spectacular, as <I>North By Northwest</I> proves).

Also note that anamorphic enhancement is totally unnecessary with material shot in 4:3 (i.e. virtually all films made before the mid-1950s and virtually all TV made before the late 1990s as well as many other examples) - indeed, it's actively damaging, as it <U>reduces</U> the picture detail by adding pointless black bars at the sides! I'm also unconvinced that 1.66:1 pictures need anamorphic enhancement - on my set, I have to choose between a bigger picture (non-anamorphic) or <U>slightly</U> more detail but a smaller picture (anamorphic), so for me it's swings and roundabouts.

[Yonathan Gal]

Erm, right. OK, Thanks for that. So forget that, and let's talk about things like North by Northwest and when they clean the images up. Does everyone like that? I guess I orefer cleaned up, but I can see my mate's point definately.

[Michael Brooke]

I much prefer a print as blemish-free as possible, but with the caveat that too much cleaning-up creates problems of its own!

The most notorious current example is the R1 <I>Citizen Kane</I>, an absolutely gobsmacking transfer 99.9% of the time, but with one shot where overzealous digital cleaning has mistaken droplets of water on a window pane for dust spots, and has wiped them off as a result, thus spoiling the image.

And of course it's important to bear in mind that some shots are <U>deliberately</U> poor quality, and that should also be respected. <I>Citizen Kane's</I> "News on the March" newsreel is a case in point - the restorers deliberately didn't do any restoration on this sequence - and more recently the films of the Canadian director Guy Maddin are designed to look as though they've been gathering dust on a shelf for sixty years, despite being made in the last decade. In fact, the lab messed up a sequence of his film <I>Archangel</I>, and Maddin couldn't have been happier!

[gZa]

"What as opposed to good?" - Mr White :rolleyes:

[Michael Mackenzie]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I absolutely loathe print clean-up of any type. This is why I hate all-digital transfers like Toy Story and Final Fantasy. They look so static and artificial -- like a made-for-TV movie rather than something cinematic.

I have to say I applaud Criterion for leaving their tranfer of The Rock alone as much as possible.

[Yonathan Gal]

What do you guys think the best Criterion disc is, excluding Brazil?I was gonna go get the Long Good Friay, but it hardly looks impressive, and i've never seen a criterion disk before :( Just two trailers, non anamorphic and mono sound or summin, which is hardly great????

[daveyboy19]

On old films, cleaned up to a point, but i like those white and black spots you see at the cinema so keep them.

[TimJBart]

Originally posted by daveyboy19
On old films, cleaned up to a point, but i like those white and black spots you see at the cinema so keep them.

u mean the cigarette burns? I CANT STAND THEM!!! why cant all films just have a nice clean image?

btw, when an image is touched up, are all those little dust flicks taken out on computer and covered over?

[smiddyboy]

Originally posted by Whiggles
I know I'm in the minority here, but I absolutely loathe print clean-up of any type. This is why I hate all-digital transfers like Toy Story and Final Fantasy. They look so static and artificial -- like a made-for-TV movie rather than something cinematic.

I have to say I applaud Criterion for leaving their tranfer of The Rock alone as much as possible.

I take it you are one of these guys that would rather hear the pops and scratches on an old LP rather than listen to crystal clear CD sound.
When the prints get cleaned-up you often hear that it is now how the director meant the film to be seen, and surely that's the point, to see the film how it was imagined by the film-maker.

[Michael Mackenzie]

No, I like crystal clear sound. I like crystal clear picture too, but I like the odd little nick or scratch now and then. It's all about atmosphere! The cinema wouldn't be the same without them!