Quote:
|
So let take an appointement in 5 years and we will see how you what you will call 16:9 at this moment, and how you then call "16:9 anamorphic".
|
I don't know why this point is so difficult to you. I don't see any problem with that... I believe "16:9 anamorphic" will still be called "16:9 anamorphic" as it is 16:9 and it is anamorphic. About "true 16:9" or "16:9 non anamorphic" it can be called by anything. You know that people do name formats, and sometimes with some wired names... but they both are (and will still be) 16:9. You know VCD and SVCD are two very different formats, but they both are 4:3, and no problem with that either.
Quote:
|
I was operator in a theater for 2 years and we NEVER called a cinemascope movie "2.35:1". We ALWAYS called it cinemascope.
|
Well, you can ask to
ANY one related to the cinema industry or movie industry in general this question: "
What is the aspect ratio of a cinemascope movie?" You will see that all of them will answer 2.35:1. Well, some of them may answer 2.66:1 or 2.55:1 or even 2.39:1, because those were aspect ratios used by the cinemascope format, but for sure
NO ONE will answer you that cinemascope is 4:3 aspect ratio.
Quote:
|
You probably don't know 70mm material where 2.35:1 movies are NOT cinesmascoped, than mean that you do NOT need to add a lens in front of the projector to restore the picture (that you need for cinemascope).
|
[off topic on]
I know 70mm material. But you probably don't know that before getting into 70mm, the 2.35:1 material passed through cinemascope 55mm, because theaters screen sizes grew and the increased magnification of the small 35mm frame started to produce visible grain and loose of brightness. There were also some movies that were optically converted from cinemascope 55mm to 70mm. This hybrid process was called Grandeur 70. But as you probably already guessed, this conversion is an optical
reduction, not a blowup.
[/off topic off]
Quote:
|
I undestand that you are still hung to the content because you never faced to other thing that "16:9 anamorphic".
|
You don't know what I have ever faced, so please don't make me laugh!
Quote:
|
As I said before, you will need to change your mind in few years. (or months ! EVD standalones arrive in European market mid-june. And EVD is like HD-DVD : it uses true 16:9).
|
Again, I don't know why I'll have to change my mind because of that...
It's just another format that will use 16:9 aspect.
Quote:
|
16:9 anamorphic = 4:3 even if you do not want to face the reality !
|
You are saying the opposite of all encoders designers, many respectable application designers of the video editing community, the DVD industry that prints their anamorphic DVDs as 16:9, etc, etc... and I am the one who don't want to face the reality?
Quote:
|
In one hand you have something you want to call 16:9 but that can be wrongly displayed with 1.3333 A/R, on the other hand you have something that will never be confused with a 1.7777 A/R. Take the conclusion you want.
|
Sorry, but now is
YOU that is proposing the confusion. You just can't define or prove anything based on the confusion that can be made if something was not interpreted correctly. That is nonsense.
Quote:
|
They had the choice between force people to change all their equipement (and you said yourself that this takes 5 years), and to find a trick to carry the 16:9 content in a 4:3 stream ! If you don't want understand that, I'm really sorry.
|
No Phil, I perfectly understand what you are trying to say. But (using Inc's words) "that's the way YOU want to explain" !
Aspect ratio refers to the relationship in size between the height and width of an image. You can tell me that the aspect ratio of an anamorphic image in its distorted form is 4:3 (even that is questionable),
but that is not the correct aspect of this image! The correct aspect of this image IS 16:9!
Quote:
|
Of course, the content of 16:9 anamorphic is 16:9 (as in theater, the content of cinemascope is 2.35:1).
|
And that is why we say the aspect ratio of 16:9 anamorphic is 16:9, and cinemascope is 2.35:1.
Quote:
|
Why do you think newbies do not understand why their DVD sources look "coneheaded" when they open it in wmp ?
|
Because first of all, they should
NEVER use WMP! It's a SHIT media player that can not even read the 16:9 flag correctly!
Quote:
|
That is people like you (no offense) that put in their mind that "16:9 anamorphic" is 16:9 that make them not understand why this not happens when they open a Divx of the same movie (that is also 16:9) !
|
No offense at all Phil, because if they use ANY decent media player that can at least read the video stream header correctly this will
NOT happen. Or even if they play this movie on a SAP this will also
NOT happen.
But if people like you (no offense) start to tell them that their 16:9 anamorphic are 4:3, they will start to set the aspect ratio (of a decent media player) to 4:3 and will find that their anamorphic sources look "coneheaded". That will happen because their sources are not 4:3, but 16:9 and that's the right way to set the aspect ratio for an anamorphic source.
Quote:
Edit: I just realize something. Take TMPGENC, take a 16:9 (in proportion) Divx as source. What do you use in source A/R ? You use 1:1 and not 16:9. Why ? Because you know that Tmpgenc calls "16:9" something that is "16:9 anamorphic" and so, even if your source is 16:9, you musn't use the setting "16:9" else the result will be vertically shrinked.
Let me make your words mine "My God! That's what I call confusion. Imagine explaining it to newbies!" 
|
Nope... again NO
Don't you ever do the tests you suggest?
For this setting (source aspect ratio) TMPG calls 16:9 any source that has a 16:9 aspect, be it anamorphic or not, and setting it as 16:9 will
not cause any vertical shrink. If you load a source like you propose TMPG will automatically set the source as 1:1, but I will explain that to you...
As I said before, TMPG (and most encoders) are not prepared (yet) to receive a source that is 16:9 but not anamorphic, so it treats this source as it treats any source that is out of the specs... as 1:1. This means that it will treat this source as if it has a square pixel (1:1) and doesn't need "distortion" to be viewed with correct aspect. It happens that (almost) all divx encodes do have a square pixel, and if you get a source like this, that have a 16:9 size proportion, it will have a 16:9 aspect ratio. So you
should set the "source aspect ratio" as 16:9, but it will also work if you leave it as 1:1.
It can't be easier to explain it to newbies. No confusion at all... If you have a 16:9 stream, be it anamorphic or not, set the source aspect ratio as 16:9!
Quote:
|
It's faster to screw up a virgin mind insteed of unscrewing a corrupted one and this thead is the perfect demonstration...
|
Haha! That was
PERFECT! I couldn't say it in a better way!
Quote:
|
(note: finally tmpgenc will be abble to handle true 16:9, it's juste like a Divx, you need to use 1:1 - It's sooooooooooo logical that I wonder how I didn't think about that before.
|
Yes! You right! Not only "
high level professional encoders like Discreet Cleaner" can produce non anamorphic 16:9 streams. TMPG also can. You just have to use 1:1, but now we are talking about the output! You feed TMPG with a 16:9 source (anamorphic or not) set the output to 1:1 and that is it... But you only have to set the output this way if you don't want a 16:9 flag in the stream.
Knowing the way TMPG "sees" that stream, it IS logical for me. Isn't it for you?
Well if it's not, and if you fell better this way, I will say that you can still set the output to 16:9! The exact same stream will be produced... The
only difference (as Rui said, and we already know) is that TMPG will insert the 16:9 flag. This will
not be a problem to any media player. It will even help them to set the correct aspect.
Quote:
|
I must be too stupid compared to those great designers that made this wonderfull software)
|
That is what you are saying..... NOT me!
[edit:] Look at the size of this F* post! Sorry for it...
Now I got really tired from this subject, and it's my turn to say that
I won't answer to it anymore.
