Star Wars Trilogy - Anamorphic DVDs 2.39

[///S320]

Ok guys,
Another question:

I got my Star Wars Trilogy DVD set from amazon yesterday. It says on the dvd case that all discs are Anamorphic 2.39 aspect. Can somebody please explain me in simple english what does that mean? I spend hours yesterday reading about it on the net.

However, when i play the dvds i still get the horizontal black bars on my 16:9 plasma.. why is that???

Thanks

[Ratman]

http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=1052

[jeonunh]

What that anamorphic means is all the data for the picture is compressed into the image instead of having some lines wasted on the black bars... or at least that's roughly what it means. AS for the black bars, the movie has a wider aspect ratio than your tv. The image isn't 16:9, so unless you use a stretch mode you'll get the bars. Personally I'd just watch it with the bars, as long as you don;t do it all the time it won't be a problem with burn in or anything.

[Eyedox]

16:9 Televisions are approx 1.78:1 aspect ratio ... Star Wars is 2.39:1 ... wider rectangle. You can't put two different width rectangles in the same space and expect them to fit perfectly on top of each other. You either need to letterbox it with black bars at the top and bottom, or cut off the extreme sides of the movies. It's basic geometry.

[jco]

anamorphic just means that the video is not encoded as a 2.39:1 image letterboxed on the 4:3 format. Instead it is encoded as 2.39:1 on the 16:9 format. The black bars
you see on a 16:9 televison are inevitable and ARE wasted pixels. What I wish they had done with DVD format was have THREE formats, 4:3, 16:9, and 64:27 instead of just two, 4:3 and 16:9. the third format, 64:27 would have allowed better picture quality for 2.35:1 format films. Maybe they will do it for HD-DVD or have 16:9 and 64:27 only and eliminate 4:3 format.
JCO

[57U]

Let's clarify this anamorphic DVD situation. There is only so much video information that fits on an NTSC DVD (basically x by y pixels). Anamorphic DVDs use all of these pixels.

A 4:3 TV (without vertical compression or SD TV) cannot stretch DVD images, therefore some of the pixels (actually lines) get "thrown away" by the DVD player when the image is sent to a 4:3 TV, if the DVD player is set to 4:3.

If the DVD player is set to 16:9, all of the pixels (lines) are used and none thrown away (either on a 16:9 TV, or on a 4:3 HDTV with vertical compression. It's that simple. Remeber DVDs don't actually store "pixels or lines". They store bits.

Non-anamorphic DVDs didn't have all of the information encoded in the first place, so no information is "discarded" since it was never there. The "resolution" of non-anamorphic DVDs is a factor of 1.333 less than anamorphic DVDs.

That's why you see no difference in non-anamorphic DVDs when you switch your DVD player between 16:9 and 4:3, while you will see a difference on anamorphic DVDs.


Now, bit rate, as in Superbit, or some other DVDs that maximize the "flow" of information, is a separate subject altogether. The maximum bitrate for DVDs is 10 Mbps (video and audio). Some DVDs utilize this flowrate better than others, although I find that production values are more important that bitrate.

[///S320]

Thanks again for replies.

Last night i changed my dvd settings to 16:9 and things look GREAT!

My horizontal bars are trimmed and the screen looks big.

:hyper:

[jco]

57U,

when a 2.35:1 movie is encoded in the 16:9 DVD anamorphic format, all of the pixels
are not being used, the black bars pixels are wasted pixels. That is why a third
anamorphic format would have been better, then even 2.35:1 format sources could
use all the pixels.
JCO

[57U]

JCO, I belive you are correct, but the anamorphic DVD still stores 1.33X what a non-anamorphic DVD does. Had they done the "third format" as you suggest, they would have needed another stretch mode to do the appropriate stretch on your TV.

Just as an FYI, 2.35:1 DVDs are not all exactly 2.35:1. If you measure the "black bars" you'll find them quite variable, so there is not "one" 2.35:1 ratio, there are many. Also, there are a huge number of aspect ratios - 1.1, 1.33, 1.6, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.0, 2.35, 2.6, etc. so your TV stretch modes and DVD formats would actually be far too complex. They are "already too complex" for most people to handle with just a couple of formats.

[Matt27]

1:33:1 Full screen, 1:78:1 or 1:85:1 16:9 widescreen.


That is all we need baby:) We would nenver have to worry about black bars, in fatc there is a partition on line some where online that is being written to the motion pictures of america about this.

When we buy a widescreen set, we expect our 16:9 content to fill the screen. other wise if 2:45:1 is wider than 16:9, Than why do they film it wider than the screens we have? Should there be 26:12 screens?lol.I'm not saying there should'nt be black bars, which is obvious to fill the missing peices of the picture, but i just wish more directors would film more in the 1:85:1 AR and 1:78:1 AR.

[dmast]

I think 57U has it right on this difficult-to-understand anamorphic issue. Here is another way to say essentially the same thing (I think).

We need to remember that the current DVD native output is by definition always a 480 line, 1.33:1 formated picture. Next we have to consider that all modern movies are either about 1.85:1 or about 2:35:1 format. The question is how to fit these two movie formats into the different DVD geometry. There are basically two ways.

The first (and original) way is to just naturally encode the movie picture directly on to the 1:33 native DVD format, and then play it back as a 1:33 picture. In this case there will be two black horizontal bars, one on top, one on the bottom of your 1:33:1 display. What will the resolution be? In the case of the 1:85 source material, resolution will be 360 lines actually used for the picture X 720 horizontal pixels. In the case of the 2.35 source material, resolution will be 270 lines X 720 horizontal pixels. In both cases, pixel density is better than an SD picture, but not great.

The best (and current) way is to encode the movie anamorphically on the 1.33 DVD format. Anamorphic encoding simply stretches the picture vertically (one notch - ie from 1.85 to 1.33, or from 2.35 to 1.85) to use all of the 480 available lines, in the 1.85 case, or more of the lines, in the 2.35 case. Then either the DVD player or the display device compresses the picture to restore proper perspective.

In the case of the 1.85 source picture, the display is now presented with 480 lines of information in the 1.85 size picture. Now here is a big if. IF your display is capable of presenting more than the standard 480 line density (ie - like my 600 X 800 SVGA projector), then I have increased my resolution. In the case of my SVGA projector, I actually achieve 450 lines. A projector with greater resolution would achieve all 480 lines.

In the case of the 2.35 format, 360 lines are encoded (vs the non-anamorphic source of 270 lines). I achieve 337 lines with my SVGA projector. In both cases a 1.33 display will have the horizontal black bars. To get rid of the black bars, buy a display that has a native 1.85 geometry.

Hope this helps. I have never seen this anamorphic issue presented in this way, but I think it is accurate in that it seems to fit the observable facts. As always, gentle constructive feedback is always appreciated! :)

[Matt27]

I just wish more directors would film in the 1:85:1 and 1:78:1 aspect ratios that's all.
I think many people would agree with me on this.Of coarse they would be anamorphic.

[jokerb]

Here's what I don't understand. This forum has all of these different numbers and ratios. I guess directors choose the aspect ratio that they feel is best for their movie. But whenever we go to the theater, it always fills up the screen. Why do we have to have black bars on our TVs, but they don't have them in the theaters?

And let me guess at my own question. Is the screen not always filled up? Are the curtains on either side just the movie version of the black bars? The movies are always the same height, just different widths? Because if that's not it, then there should be some way to fill up our screens.

[57U]

The screens are usually roughly 2:35:1. For those movies, the curtains are at the edge. For 1.85:1 movies, the curtains are moved in. Some people put "curtains" on their TVs...

In the larger cinemas, you can actually see them move the curtains - for example, the previews may be in one format with the main feature in another.

To be honest, since I've had my HT, I've only been to the cinema a couple of times in the past 10 years.

[BFG]

Most Movies that are in theaters these days are released as 2.35:1. If a movie is released at smaller size, then there will be bars on the side because their projectors Aspect are around 2.35:1
Much like 4:3 content has side bars on our 16x9 TVs

But some movies are shot in a "scope" aspect ratio of 1:85 so when they're released on DVD they can be released in that ratio.

[Matt27]

No one really likes the 2:45:1 aspect ratios, that's why when a new realease come out they hope it's a 1:78:1 or 1:85:1 because it fills the screen. Paul anderson is one of those directors who films his movies in 1:85:1, i just wish there was more directors out there that would please us at home, delivering the full picture to our screens the way it was intended to be when the format first came out.

[57U]

Most Movies that are in theaters these days are released as 2.35:1. Actually if you look at the split of all movies, it's about 50% 1.85, 50% 2.35. If you're inclined to see "action" movies, then it's the latter. If you're inclined for more of the non-action stuff, it's more likely to be 1.85. I randomly looked at about 100 DVDs one day and that's what I found after weeding out the occasional "odd" aspect ratio.

[BFG]

Yeah my DVD's are about 50/50 for me too, but some of those 1.85 dvd were in the theater as 2:35, the extra info in the theater was just outside the scope, it was still filmed to be released as 1.85:1, Spiderman is a good example of this.

[57U]

BFG. As I've gone through the DVD listings and IMDB, that is pretty rare though. The WS DVD is almost always OAR. (Enough acronyms for you?)

One item of note. I've noticed that about 50% of the HD movies shown on TMN-HD that were originally 2.35:1, were shown as 1.85:1. A lot of studios are providing a variety of versions for the HD market. They even had one or two 4:3 HD movies, and that simply didn't make any sense (Confidence was one such movie).