It just happens that I ordered that movie on DVD last week.

I just got a widescreen TV, and now I won't buy DVDs unless they're anamorphic widescreen versions (on the big screen, the anamorphic versions look so much better than the regular versions, it makes the regular ones look awful by comparison). I was about to get Princess Bride but it didn't say "anamorphic" or "enhanced for 16:9 TVs" on the box. So I assume it's standard letterbox instead of anamorphic widescreen. So I skipped it.

Sometimes, though, they'll make a movie in anamorphic mode but won't necessarily print it on the box. You wouldn't happen to know the difference, and be able to tell me if that's one of them, would you?

___________
Tony Fabris

"You have a dizzying intellect."

You're all probably big fans of Robin Hood: Men In Tights, too, aren't you?

What kind of TV did you get?

Umm... anamorphic? Never heard that term before. Widescreen? Letterbox? Heard of those. Never heard anamorphic, though. Sounds biological, not technological.

George

I underestimated the number of people who buy a car stereo like empeg to impress their friends with visuals. Where I live, these people buy old VW Golf GTIs or Opel Mantas and tune them to be acknowledged by their friends.

But it is good to hear that no one of the programmers at empeg wasted their time implementing visuals instead of concentrating to improve this great and innovative product.

Maybe my dislikeness for the visuals is because when I got my MK1 8 months ago, I was excited about new features to improve the comfort and functionality of this product (like a working radio, or improved music title selections) while people where discussing why visual XY behaved this or that way :-).

Anyway I like my empeg MK1 very much and I will defenitly buy the MK2 when I get my new car this fall .... but this time as a external unit to a Bose Sound System.

Umm... anamorphic? Never heard that term before. Widescreen? Letterbox? Heard of those. Never heard anamorphic, though. Sounds biological, not technological.

This is getting way off topic. I'm going to have to call the topic police. Wait a minute, I am the topic police. Ha. Well all right, then...

'Anamorphic' is a special method of making a DVD that allows owners of widescreen televisions (like HDTV sets) to view a letterboxed movie in its finest resolution. These DVDs usually have labeling on the back of the box indicating this. It will say either "Anamorphic" or "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" or "Enhanced for 16:9 TVs" in fine print somewhere on the box.

About half of all the DVDs out there are mastered this way. Although sometimes the box is labeled incorrectly, which is why I wanted to ask an owner of the Princess Bride DVD whether or not this was really the case.

An anamorphic movie, although it's enhanced for widescreen TVs, works fine on a regular TV as well. The anamorphic mode only kicks in when you program your DVD player to "16:9" mode- in effect telling the player that you've got a widescreen TV. By default, DVD players are set up for regular 4:3 televisions and will show these movies properly letterboxed.

But normally, a letterboxed movie wastes about 30 percent of the available resolution. An anamorphic movie doesn't waste any space for the black bars, it vertically compresses the image so that it fills all 480 lines, like so:



As you can see, an anamorphic image looks great on a widescreen TV set because it uses all the lines. Anamorphic movies also look fine on regular TV sets because the DVD player will do the right thing and add the black bars for the letterbox mode.

But if they produce the movie as plain letterbox (not anamorphic), then I have to zoom in on the letterboxed picture with my widescreen TV set. Since I'm zooming in on only 60 percent of the lines, the picture looks fuzzy in comparison to the crystal clear quality of the the anamorphic ones.

So. Does anyone know if the Princess Bride DVD is anamorphic or just plain letterboxed?

___________
Tony Fabris

Damn... thanks for the info. I checked out a website that I used to buy laserdiscs from and it says that it's in Widescreen format, 1.85:1 aspect ratio, but the 16:9 Enhanced section is blank, rather than a yes or no. I'm guessing this is the piece you're looking for and it doesn't seem to have it. Okay, okay... back on topic. How are you going to get your Empeg to play DVD's?

George

Ok, I just checked my disk and it is only letterbox. I'm just glad it's not pan and scan only.

-Finally received my Mark2 no thanks to customs.

Ok, I just checked my disk and it is only letterbox. I'm just glad it's not pan and scan only.

Did you check based on only the printing on the box cover? If so, I'm already aware of that. My point is that some films aren't labeled one way or the other, and then you get it in the player and discover it's anamorphic.

Even if you don't have a widescreen TV, you can tell if it's anamorphic by setting your DVD player to "16:9" mode. In that mode, plain-letterbox movies will appear unchanged, anamorphic movies will be vertically squished like the third image in my illustration.

It actually saddened me when I saw it on the shelf- one of my all time favorite movies, finally on DVD. I was about to buy it and then I noticed the labeling. I mean, I could have still bought it, but without the extra resolution I might as well just watch the video tape I already own of the film. Very sad, since it's not any more expensive to produce the anamorphic version.

At least the DVD of Ferris Bueller is anamorphic. Excellent transfer, too...

___________
Tony Fabris

Eh? Tony, Anamorphic has nothing to do with mastering, it's a type of non-linear lense for the camera that films the movie in the first place!

To present a movie in cinemascope, at the time it was introduced, lenses could not be ground other than in a linear grind pattern, ie. fixed radius. To project a picture onto a small, square screen, you could use a normal lense. Cinemascope boasted a wide screen, with a 16:9 ratio between width and height, giving a non-square filmed area on the negative. To project it using lenses of the time, they had to build new cinema screens with a distorted, wrap-around shape to give a linear projection from a linear grind lense.

Later on, they worked out how to grind the lenses for projectors/cameras in a non-linear (variable radius) way, which meant that cinemas did not have to invest in the expensive screen structures any more, and could get away with just a flat screen with the 16:9 aspect ratio, where the lense compensated for the distortion of projection onto a flat screen.

Don't confuse aspect ratio with "anamorphic" this is like saying "a car engine is Gerbil" (this might be funny if your Ex's engine does actually happen to have the name "Gerbil" ). A letter-boxed movie is a movie modified to provide a way to present a movie filmed with an anamorphic lense (to give a wide filmed area) at the correct 16:9 aspect ratio expected in a good cinema on a TV screen with a different (4:3, or 12:9) aspect ratio. The result is a movie where you can see the entire extent of the filmed image, but at lower resolution and with wasted display area.

As a point of note, since the majority of movies made since the 30's have been filmed with non-linear grind lenses, virtually everything that the movie studios had in back catalogue by the mid-50's when the new TV companies came knocking for content (with large chequebooks) was widescreen. This meant a problem for the TV companies. How do you show it on a TV? Which bit? The left side, or the right side? Since there was no concept of Letterboxing, or the technology to do it, a process named "shuttering" was developed for the celluloid-to-video transfer, where a skilled technician was employed to control the transfer onto tape with a Movieola conversion machine. Part of his job was to "pan the video camera" (ie. the visible viewing area of the 4:3 video "eye") across the movie's projected image to focus the viewing audience's attention on some part of the action shown on one or other side of the movie "screen". This meant that a large amount of the viewed content of a movie was frequently ommitted. If you watch a shuttered and panned movie on TV, you are probably conditioned to seeing the "viewpoint" shift on screen as the film plays (you are probably not even concious of it at all these days). This is one of the reasons why people who have only seen a movie on TV are frequently surprised by seeing it the cinema for the first time - close to 40% of the visual material of the original has been ommitted for TV viewers.

So to sum up - a letterboxed movie is already anamorphic due to the lense used to film it; the difference is in the display resolution on a small aspect ratio screen.

One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

Thanks for the history lesson, Rob.

We're all aware of the pan-and-scan technique, and I'm also aware that the term "Anamorphic" was originally used to describe the way a Cinemascope image is captured on the film celluloid, as well as to describe the lens used to project the film back to its original aspect ratio.

However, the term "Anamorphic" also refers to a choice that's made in the DVD mastering process. It really is exactly like I described it: The producers can choose to master the image in either the full 480 anamorphic lines or the 60% letterboxed lines. In the world of DVD creation, this is a digital process instead of an analog one. And whether or not you can see the movie in this "enhanced" mode depends on your equipment and whether or not you've made the 16:9 choice in the DVD's user setup menu.

Yes, this very closely parallels the original analog-celluloid usage of anamorphic lenses, but your statement that "Anamorphic has nothing to do with mastering" is misinformed. In DVDs, it has everything to do with it.

The advantages to an anamorphic DVDs are so overwhelming, I don't know why all widescreen movies aren't produced this way. I can think of a couple of possible reasons:

1) An anamorphic DVD has more data than a letterboxed one. So maybe you wouldn't have as much room to store extra bonus material. Personally, I'd rather have the extra resolution than the extra bonus material. And I know that there's ways to get around this limitation: Double-layer DVDs, increasing compression on the bonus material, etc.

2) Perhaps the people who were given the job of mastering the DVD only had a letterboxed telecine transfer on videotape to work from. Maybe they weren't given the resources to go back to the original print and get a proper anamorphic telecine transfer to start with. I think this is the most likely explanation, and if true, this is just LAME. This would be akin to the early days of CD's, when the discs sounded harsh because they were just normalized samples of the vinyl LP master tape. Nowadays, we know how to create CDs properly, and they're not just dupes of an LP: we know how to squeeze the extra resolution from the CD format. Same with DVDs: if they would just treat it as a better format instead of a fad, they'd realize they can publish their work in higher quality and it's an advantage to go back to the original source material.

___________
Tony Fabris

Sigh. Thanks for checking.

I'm so dissapointed that they didn't make that DVD anamorphic. You have no idea how much better an anamorphic DVD looks on my TV compared to a plain one. It's not HDTV, but it starts to approach that level of quality. It's quite an experience to have a 46" widescreen TV in your house and watch a high-rez movie with surround sound like that. Better than a movie theater because the popcorn doesn't cost ten bucks. And the screen is brighter.

I mean, the regular-letterbox stuff is tolerable, but like I said, at that point I might as well just pop in the videotape.

___________
Tony Fabris

I don't know. I think if it's possible, someone will find a way. Someone wrote a piece of "software" to play MP3's on the AutoPC and it sounds like garbage... but they still wrote it. Why? Because they wanted to see if they could do it. Unfortunately, that's the history behind the atom bomb, too. Heh, sometimes "just because" isn't a very good reason. (Sorry, didn't mean to get political. Moving on...) So, I've got a feeling that somewhere down the line, someone will come up with it. I'm really not sure that the Empeg would be able to play it, though, due to processing power. It would be pretty cool to see a movie in all blue, all red, all green, or all amber, too.... and not have to adjust your TV set to see it that way! Okay, okay, so this is just a pipe dream, but, hey... maybe one day the Empeg will evolve into a somewhat larger unit with an plasma screen. Ya never can tell...

George

As a follow-up to the whole anamorphic enhancement thing, here's a link to a site with an interesting essay on the topic. What I find most interesting is that the author doesn't own a TV set that can take advantage of it- he put up the page based solely on a demonstration of the technology.

___________
Tony Fabris

Who the heck started this off-topic thread? You or me? I've thoroughly enjoyed the whole discussion. I've learned more in the past few days than I ever knew there was to know about DVD's. I'm probably going to be buying a player soon, too, so this is good info. I was all set to buy one, but then I visited Pioneer's website and it was talking about the next step being Digital Progressive Scan DVD. It sounds pretty impressive. Since I plan on getting a wide-screen TV in the near future, I figure I may as well wait for this technology to come out in a DVD changer. Now Empeg just needs to make a home player that eliminates the need for DVD's and DVD changers, just like they did with CD's and CD changers.

George

I was all set to buy one, but then I visited Pioneer's website and it was talking about the next step being Digital Progressive Scan DVD. It sounds pretty impressive.

Don't hold off on buying a player because of this feature. Progressive scan is:

a) No big deal. Definitely not as big a deal as the anamorphic/letterbox thing.
b) Here now, but only on the most expensive players (ones over $700.00).
c) Only useful for high-end TV sets which can accept this kind of input.

You may not realize it, but if you have a DVD-ROM drive in your PC, you're already enjoying progressive-scan DVD playback.

All that progressive scan means is that the DVD player is capable of displaying the image in progressive frames rather than interlaced frames. They're the same frames, they're just not split up into two fields of alternating lines like interlaced NTSC television. And unless you're using an antiquated computer monitor, it's probably working in progressive (non-interlaced) mode rather than interlaced mode.

But even without a progressive scan DVD player, I can get an image out of my TV set that's very close to a progressive scan image. My Mitsubishi TV set has what's called a "Line Doubler", the digital circuit that converts all the possible image formats into one its high-rez CRTs can understand. One of the features of the line doubler is that it converts interlaced input into progressive output since its CRTs can do progressive output.

I'm told by those with progressive-scan DVD players that yes, if your DVD player does this and you have a progressive-capable television, the movies look better than their interlaced counterparts. But not by much. And a good line doubler can accomplish nearly the same task with an interlaced source.

___________
Tony Fabris

So, then simply put, if I get a normal DVD player with a TV that can do line doubling, I'll get nearly the same results? Pioneer has a progressive scan player out and it only retails for $449. Not a bad price, if you ask me. Do the line doubling TV's cost a lot more than regular ones?

George

So, then simply put, if I get a normal DVD player with a TV that can do line doubling, I'll get nearly the same results?

Something like that. The line doubler is just the digital image converter that's built in to my set. Any TV that can do higher-than-NTSC resolution will have that in it. Basically, that means big-screen TVs and HDTVs.

Pioneer has a progressive scan player out and it only retails for $449. Not a bad price, if you ask me.

That's not a bad price at all for a progressive-capable player. If you intend to eventually upgrade to a big screen TV or an HDTV, you might consider getting that as your first player. Do you have a link to somewhere that sells it?

But like I said, you need a big-screen TV or an HDTV-capable set to take advantage of either progressive input or progressive output. The inputs on my set will digitally convert an interlaced image into a progressive one because the CRTs will do progressive output. So really, if you think about it, if you've got a set that can handle progressive input, then it will also be able to convert interlaced to progressive for you and you don't necessarily need a progressive player.

The difference with a progressive player is that you get an extra level of clarity that comes from skipping the conversion process. I'm told that there is a difference, although I haven't seen it demonstrated. Honestly, an anamorphic DVD looks so great on my Mitsubishi set that I can't imagine it getting any better.

___________
Tony Fabris

Well, I did a search on the Pioneer unit on PriceWatch and came up with some interesting stuff. There are 3 dealers on there that list it. I've never bought from these guys, so I don't know how good their service is, but I've bought from a few vendors off PriceWatch without incident so far. Anyhow, the 3 dealers are: Beach Camera, Buy Dig, and TechNet Deals. They have prices listed of $289, $289, and $383, respectively. I did a quick search on the net using Lycos and this place turned up. I like the fact that they're a BBB member, even though that doesn't mean they're reputable, hehe. Supreme Video has it for $309.99.

I'd buy a progressive scan player, but I really want a DVD changer. I know it's the ultimate in laziness, but I'd prefer to keep my DVD's in the thing most of the time, so I don't have to go hunting for them. I'll probably wait for someone to make one before I take the DVD plunge. (I'm still a little irked that everyone stopped making laserdiscs all of a sudden.)

Thanks for all the info! If you decide to pick up the player, let me know how much of a difference you see in the picture.

George

I'm half tempted to keep quiet because threads like this are what make people looking for Empeg information stop reading the BBS. But I understand this is a BBS and therefore, a sort of socialization place for some.

Anyway, before you spend big money on TVs and DVD players, you might consider the projector/PC option. You get WAY better picture quality when playing DVDs through your PC and now 8x6 and 10x7 projectors are becoming affordable. LCD and DLP Projectors are also way brighter than CRT big-screen tvs and can create a MUCH bigger screen of course if you have the room for the screen on a wall (and your wife will let you decorate the room geek-style).

The best option is to use hardware MPEG decode on the PC. Software works ok, but every software DVD decoder has a particular problem and you need about a PIII 600Mhz to do it. The added bonus of the PC is you can add TV tuners, HDTV tuners, etc and do lots of picture in picturing. With a PC, you can also rip DVDs using the DivX (MPEG4) codec and store them on hard disk or CDROM. A typical movie compresses to about 650 MB pretty easily and is very watchable. But it's still a very evolving technology.

When you don't take advantage of progressive video, you're throwing away HALF of the data that the DVD holds. Interlaced is a good hack, but you really notice it if you're used to progressive and have to go back. Just imagine setting your computer monitor to 60Hz Interlaced.. Migrane city.

Anyway, just look into it before you spend bucks on a piece of equipment that you think will last you for 10 years. The PC option is definitely not for the non-technical. It's a pain in the ass to use, but if you're anal for video quality, there's no better way to fly.

-Hoagy.

Thanks for sorting me out on those points, Tony.

One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

I'm still waiting for customs to give me my Empeg...

George

In practice, dedicated DVD players are much higher quality than a PC decoding DVDs and doing a TV-out, even a dedicated S-video tv out. Trust me, I've tried it. Logistically most people don't have a pc located 3 feet from their entertainment center (3 feet is the svideo limit). A lot of pc's capable of dvd's don't have y/c out as well.

And!! Sorry Spud, interlacing does not mean you lose half the resolution. When interlacing occurs, half the resolution lines are drawn, then the other half is drawn staggered a small amount. This is done in half the time as well so effectively you get full resolution. Effectively, the lines are drawn like this:

time1 time2
frame1 frame2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----

progressive looks like this:

time1+time2
=====
=====
=====
=====

Flicker is associated with this technique because as the phospher glow from the first pass will typically fade slightly on the second interlace pass.

If you're anal for DVD quality the PC is not quite there yet. Nopers!

Calvin

Use SVGA not S-Video.

I really don't think that a few off topic messages are going to turn people away. That's the reason we change the subject. If the subject no longer interests you, you can stop reading. I know what you mean, but the people that come here realize that the is more of a "family" (no mafia ties, though... Yo, Tony! Go get da boys! ---Sorry, Tony, you just seem to fit into a lot of posts.) than simply a message board. The people on here are so willing to help out that just about anything can be asked. Granted, we don't want to stray too far off topic or do it fairly often, but every once in a while is okay, I think. Tony and I (and now you) have mentioned in our responses that this is way off topic and we probably should get more talk about Empeg, but it just happens. We're all friends here. What do friends do? They talk... about anything. Again, you are right, though, this does need to be minimized. I'll stop talking DVD's now. Deal?

George

Well then you'll have to explain to me how to use SVGA on my 32 inch TV. Or for that matter, when I pick up a 60 inch TV will it accept SVGA? I think not.

Calvin

Television flickers horribly. You can verify this by running your computer video output to your TV. The reason why it does not appear to flicker is the 1) elements on screen is typically in motion 2) television is usually presented field by field.

On my point#1, you can verify this by running your computer output to your tv. I remember on my old Amiga, running 640x400 interlaced out to the TV will cause all sorts of flickering problems. You can verify this from a PC as well. Static objects *will* flicker.

point#2 -- the first and second passes of the interlace is typically considered as two separate "frames" (known as fields in the industry) -- so consider than it takes 1/60 of a second to draw the first and second fields. However, it only takes about 1/30 of a second to draw the first field and 1/30 to draw the second field. So rather than "wasting" the 1/30 cycle and allowing possible phospher fade, the next frame goes into the second interlace pass (the second field). So basically, you lose HALF the resolution and gain twice the refresh. This is a very common practice btw.

There are TVs out there that have high phospher persistence and only ~200 lines of resolution. These are the cheapy tv's, and are actually adequate for much content out there...

keep in mind though, this doesn't apply to DVDs. DVDs output many more vertical lines of resolution than broadcast, and are typically full frames and not field based.

The more expensive TVs out there have low persistence phospher to keep pixels from hanging around too long and fuzzing things up. However, manufacturers can increase the scan frequency using electronic magic, implement line doublers, progressive scanning, etc, to create miraculous improvements over straight interlacing.