From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Sep 02 2006 - 17:37:41 PDT
--- Ken Bawcom <email suppressed> wrote:
> I won't watch a scope film in 4x3, for that very
> reason. I do know
> about super 35, and the various aspect ratios that
> can be derived. They
> do show more on top and bottom, than the
> cinematographer intended, when
> shown in 4x3, instead of cropping the sides. But, we
> were discussing
> anamorphic DVDs, and I was trying to keep it simple.
> ;)
Unless of course it was a Super35 film with a 4:3
aspect ratio to start with, although I can't imagine
that having been done much at all, even for television
programmes, maybe I am wrong tho.
> My point is that you can see accurate aspect ratios
> of 2.35:1, and
> 1.85:1 films, on anamorphic DVDs. So, I wasn't sure
> what was meant by
> anamorphic DVDs not supporting those aspect ratios,
> but only 16x9. It
I meant that the DVD's do not support those other
aspect ratios. The only aspect ratios the DVD's
support are 4:3 and Anamorphic 16:9. Any other aspect
ratio has to be created by letterboxing or
pillarboxing, they are not supported by the DVD
player.
> would probably be too complicated to have electronic
> reproduction using
> a host of aspect ratios, unsqueezing them at
> different rates, in
> consumer equipment, and thus it is not used that way
> on DVDs.
No, that's my point, it would be really, really, easy
for them to support any aspect ratio anamorphically by
just passing different numbers to the desqueeze
algorythm in the DVD player. The algorythm that is in
your DVD player now could do it, it's just that there
is no way to pass it a value to unsqueeze by.
If there was a way to pass the values to the dvd
player you could store scope films on the disc so they
use all the pixels allowed on the disc, and unsqueeze
them to their correct aspect ratio for showing on the
display device.
This is why it upsets me, because it would be easy to
do. They must be not doing this for a different
reason, not because it isn't easy.
love
Freya
> Ken B.
>
> Quoting Ed Inman <email suppressed>:
>
> > It is sometimes just the opposite. Projecting a
> 35mm "flat" film at
> > 1.85:1 wastes much of the frame on top and bottom.
> So rather than
> > seeing less on each side with the DVD you may
> actually often be
> > seeing more on the top and bottom than you would
> typically see in a
> > theater.
> >
> > Scope films are a totally different ballgame. They
> use the full frame
> > more efficiently by squeezing twice the picture
> into the same space,
> > which then is "unsqueezed" during projection using
> an anamorphic
> > lens. As such, you literally lose half of the
> picture if you "pan &
> > scan" a scope film for a full frame DVD.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ken Bawcom <email suppressed>
> >
> >> I do think that for many films shot in 1.85:1,
> they DO make them fill
> >> the 16x9 screen, thus losing a bit from both
> sides, probably because
> >> they think the general public will prefer it. But
> that is not
> >> necessary, just a decision by those producing the
> disc.
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> "Those who would give up essential liberty
> to purchase a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty, nor safety."
> Benjamin Franklin 1775
>
> "I know that the hypnotized never lie... Do ya?"
> Pete Townshend 1971
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.