Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Dvd

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Dvd (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Dvd

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-02-2002 11:12 PM

Some kind of standards steering committee (I can't remember which one) came up with the 16:9 ratio as an common denominator average factoring in narrow aspect ratios like the square-ish 4:3 shape of TV and wide "marine" formats like the 2.35:1 shape of 'scope.

Lots of people objected to it. Some wanted HDTV to take on the shape of a 2.35:1 screen, just like a commercial theater screen. Companies like Zenith patented moving shutter frame designs to imitate the masking of theater screens while working it into the cabinet construction.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Duvall
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-03-2002 07:28 AM

I believe Bobby is right about the standardization of the HD set ratio. 16x9 is a compromise for the various ratios out there so there will be the very least of black bars for letterbox.

This first image of course shows Shrek on my set. The set is running in progressive scan standard mode it stretches the anamorphic image to the 1.77:1 ratio. Close enough for me to 1.85:1

This next one is A Bug's Life and the anamorphic 2.35:1 image is slightly padded with black bars and that image is stretched over the viewing area.

Most of the anamorphic movies I have encountered have been pretty damn close to the original theatrical ratio as long as the image has not been butchered (cropped) to hell like Ben Hur.

As for 4:3 movies and regular TV, I watch those in one of two modes on my set. One mode is side letterboxed (bars on the sides) or in what Mitsubishi calls "Stretched" mode. The whole image is slightly distorted by stretching the far right and left sides of the image and then lessening the effect as it moves to the center of the screen. I only notice the effect when there are quick pans on the image of wide shots. For the most part, it feels as if the screen wraps around your head when it is in that mode.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 09-03-2002 06:17 PM

quote:
As for 4:3 movies and regular TV, I watch those in one of two modes on my set. One mode is side letterboxed (bars on the sides) or in what Mitsubishi calls "Stretched" mode. The whole image is slightly distorted by stretching the far right and left sides of the image and then lessening the effect as it moves to the center of the screen. I only notice the effect when there are quick pans on the image of wide shots. For the most part, it feels as if the screen wraps around your head when it is in that mode.

I've been contemplating the purchase of a new wide-screen set for some time, but when I walk into an electronics store and see those distorted, stretched images, it makes me insane and I walk out. Why would I spend thousands of dollars for a high-quality monitor to watch a distorted image? And standard NTSC 4:3 images seem to look especially bad on these high-end progressive scan sets. Guess I'll stick with my 20 year old 20" Sony for a few more years.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-03-2002 06:37 PM

Keep in mind that many electronics stores have their equipment improperly set up. I see this all the time. For a long time, a local Good Guys has used a non-anamorphic DVD with a widescreen set, stretching out the image. As though in this day and age they can't find an anamorphic one?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-03-2002 07:40 PM

The 16x9 thing also came about since it is 4x3 squared.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-03-2002 10:04 PM

I can't recall ever seeing anyone use a non-anamorphic, letterboxed DVD to demo on a widescreen set (although I'm sure people have zoomed into such discs as "Titanic," "The Hunt For Red October" or even Criterion's "Robocop").

But I can walk into just about any electronics store anywhere and see 4:3 ratio TV sets playing DVDs in anamorphic wide mode with the image all squeezed to hell. I think they pull that crap on purpose just to minimize black bars on super-wide films. Maybe they're paranoid many newbies to DVD won't buy a DVD player when seeing the black bars. Hmmm. Y'know, it is kind of scary, but there may actually be real market study cases showing DVD players with wide-mode improperly set on 4:3 TVs will sell more players. I just wonder how many people keep the DVD players they purchased improperly set in wide mode.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 09-03-2002 10:24 PM

The story of how the 16:9 aspect ratio was chosen for HDTV:
http://web-star.com/hdtv/aspectrathist.html

EBU work on defining scanned areas of film:
http://www.ebu.ch/pmc_scan.html
http://www.ebu.ch/tech_text_r102-1999.pdf

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 09-05-2002 12:45 AM

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression from my previous post -- I love DVD! As Evans said, it's a great home video format. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it. I just have a few gripes about the way the discs are put together sometimes.

Unlike Evans, though, I am fortunate enough to have very good theatres in my area, so I have yet to see a 35mm presentation bad enough to make me prefer the DVD.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09-05-2002 08:27 AM

Shifting the subject slightly, can anyone suggest some good but not-very-expensive DVD authoring software (for a PC running W2K)? I'm currently using MyDVD version 3.0, which came bundled with the burner, but it has two major drawbacks. Firstly, it will not let you put chapter stops in the middle of programme streams: you can only organise access to specific points through the menus. Secondly, there is a VBR limit of 8.0mbps that it'll encode, and even if you make sure your source file is under that you sometimes get 'data exceeds multiplexable bit rate' errors. This has to be a fault with MyDVD because it does this with MPEG-2 files rendered by two different programs.

I'd be very interested to find a package that overcomes these faults; and ideally one which can convert MPEG-2 files which aren't DVD-compliant (e.g. ones without GOP headers), or even different file formats.

| IP: Logged

John Lasher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 493
From: Newark, DE
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 09-05-2002 09:01 AM

Maybe someone here knows the answer to this, it has me stumped.
What is the purpose of 2.0 mono? If you have a movie that's in mono, shouldn't it just be 1.0? I know it's possible to do 1.0 mono as I have seen DVDs which had 1.0 mono (every mono WB DVD i've ever seen).

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09-05-2002 09:11 AM

Could this be where you have two discrete soundtracks of a mono mix, e.g. an English and a French dub of the same film, or the film soundtrack plus a commentary by the director? Or maybe it just means that the same mono track is duplicated in the left and right channels of a stereo mix.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-05-2002 09:52 AM

Quote:

quote:
What is the purpose of 2.0 mono?

I assume so if you only have a two channel stereo set-up or just plug in the l/r into your tv set, you'll get the sound out of both speakers. Not everyone will have a Dolby Pro-logic set-up to send this to the center channel.

| IP: Logged

Brad Haven
Master Film Handler

Posts: 300
From: fremantle, West Australia
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 09-05-2002 10:12 AM

GOOD is about the best word i dare to use with DVD, it must move up to high def quality as soon as possible. If you compare it to video it looks great, if you compare it to film it looks like crap.
Most people i know thought that buying a DVD player would make their 10-20 year old tv display a high quality image and were immediatly dissapointed.
I watch a fair amount of DVD at home and i am reasonably happy with it, although there are many things that could be improved on.

The debate over the black bars top/bottom or side/side on tv's is a little silly...dont look at them! you should be looking at the picture and in case you hadn't noticed that in the cinemas we have black bars on the sides and top/bottom of the screen
When browsing in the stores i often find widescreen tv's being displayed with a 4:3 image stretched to fit, i also like to evesdrop on salespeople pitching to punters, the amount of bullshit they spin to people is quite disgusting, the guy that sold me my widescreen tv didn't know what a component video lead was, i had to point it out to him on the rack right next to him!

I hope this doesn't sound too snobby, but i can bearly bring myself to watch a video these days, if it doesn't come out on DVD the same time as video i'll just wait for the DVD.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 09-05-2002 10:42 AM

More and more I hear VHS referred to as "video". "Do you want that on DVD or video?" When the heck did VHS become synonymous with "video"? It's as if DVD is something other than video.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09-05-2002 10:48 AM

It's just become a generic term used by people (i.e. the vast majority) who neither know nor care about the difference between the way these two technologies work. It's the same as using the term 'celluloid' as a synonym for 'motion picture film'. It's technically wrong, but everyone does it. If you were to say to friends over dinner 'I don't think video looks very good, I prefer watching films on polyester,' they'd wonder what planet you were from!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.