| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,490 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks Ken .. That second post must be pretty old as there are referances in there that say: · Columbia/Tristar almost always releases anamorphics (But they are never labeled) · Universal Home Video and Warner Home Video (WB) mostly release anamorphics · Paramount sometimes releases anamorphics · Fox has only released the Alien movies as anamorphic (Director, Ridley Scott, requested it) · Buena Vista (Disney) and Miramax have not released any anamorphic DVDs ??????????? | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 |  Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yep, it's back from the days of the hold-outs. I remember being none to happy with Fox in particular, but they came around.  (I have completely wiped the DivX fiasco from memory, so please don't bring it up!!!) (no, not the DivX video file format, the other DivX) (no not DivX TV, the other OTHER DivX) | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| Registered: March 23, 2011 | | Posts: 462 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
We have DVDs that use a 16:9 picture matte and DVDs that use a 4:3 picture matte. Blu-ray always uses 16:9 (outside of SD material, which is generally just special features). Why should we group them with the 4:3 DVDs instead of the 16:9? Not that DVD Profiler doesn't use the term"anamorphic," so its meaning is irrelevant. If you are hung up on the word "enhanced," it can be dropped without changed the meaning of anything. No, I'm not hung up on the word "enhanced". It's part of a technical term that actually means something. "16 x 9 Enhanced". You can't just remove the word "enhanced". You can't say that a DVD is 16:9. No DVD's are 16:9. It will just look like it is 16:9 on a 16:9 TV because the dvd is enhanced for 16:9 TV's. It's still 4:3. |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand how it works from a technical standpoint. I am just questioning whether this is the most useful paradigm to use. To Joe User with a TV, knowing whether the image matte is the same shape as the TV (and therefore whether he'll have to use some sort of zoom mode possibly) is more important than the technical minutia of why the matte is the shape it is. | | | | Last edited: by Ace_of_Sevens |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,626 |
| |