With the release of ABHAY, it is apparent that DEI has been unable to fix the Squashed Anamorphic problem in their, otherwise excellent, Anamorphic DVDs.

Until, DEI finds a way to get rid of this problem, should we prefer Non_anamorphic wide-screen DVDs from DEI?? Note that DEI-EROS non-anamorphic letterboxed DVDs are much better than all other brand anamorphic or non-anamorphic Indian DVDs. We can not say the same for DEI’s anamorphic DVDs because of the SQUASHED VIDEO.

Let’s think and discuss it here.

Note that the main (perhaps the only) reason for Anamorphic format is to get 33% extra resolution on wide-screen monitors. If anamorphic picture is 13% squashed, we get only 18% improvement (If you don’t agree with the numbers, see note below), instead of the required 33%. This 18% improvement over non_anamorphic comes with a penalty of watching a DISTORTED picture in 98% of the consumer displays. If we are happy, watching somewhat distorted picture, I would opt for the same 13% vertically stretched anamorphic picture. This way we get 51% improvement (if you don’t agree with the numbers, see note below) over non_anamorphic. I am not saying that I prefer distorted picture, I am just saying that I prefer vertical stretch instead of vertical squash.

The following is truly what I saw this past weekend:
A friend of mine had invited a few families and was showing off his new DVD player. He played “Mission Bollywood” which has many anamorphic clips. Unanimously everybody (aprox 40 people) preferred watching these anamorphic songs with Widescreen setting in DVD player while using 4:3 TV. Actually, everybody complained of squashed picture when settings were right and nobody noticed or objected to the 15-20% (as DEI anamorphics have squashed picture, the resulting picture with wrong settings has less than 33% stretch) vertical stretch for the wrong setting. This made me very upset, but it does show what the majority wants.

Rana


P.S.
CALC. NOTE:
2.35:1 letterboxed picture = 272 lines
2.35:1 anamorphic = 363 lines (33% improvement over 272 lines)
2.35:1 squashed 13% (2.66:1)** = 321 lines (only 18% improvement over 272 lines)
2.35:1 stretched 13% = 410 lines (51% improvement over 272 lines)

** What does 2.66:1 remind you of ?? (My thoughts later, if somebody interested)



Edited By rana on Dec. 17 2001 at 17:14

In a sense quality comes from two major improtance, firstly the source must be excellent, then the encoding process should be done with precision, craft & skill.

It really doesn't matter if the film is anamorphic or not...what matters is the excellence in picture presentation. Anamorphic presentations helps only if both of the above jobs are done satifactory. I would rather have the non-anamorphic Ayngaran DVD of Mudhalavan/Kandukodain Kandukodain then an anamorphic EROS DVD of any of thier recent titles.

Well said sunny. This is exactly what I want to say that DEI’s letterboxed (non_anamorphic) DVDs are better than anybody else’s, among Indian DVD makers, while their anamorphic DVDs are worst. I do not want to see just an 18% improvement in picture quality at the cost of watching a squashed picture.

I think DEI should go back to non_anamorphic format until they can fix the squashed anamorphic problem. Let’s hope, one day DEI will fix the squashed anamorphic problem and then we can enjoy their anamorphic DVDs.

Rana

Hmmm I’m not quite with you Rana. You’re saying because DEI can’t correct a simple problem we should take a step back to non-anamorphic DVDs ??? They are other reasons for anamorphic transfers apart from the 33% extras resolution – correct framing of subtitles, ability to pan and scan 2.35:1 film to 1.85:1 (not that many have done this!), and somewhat future proofing for digital TV. But to go back to non-anamorphic DVDs is just a ridiculous solution for this problem – I don’t see how this would enable DEI to fix this anyway since the problem lies within the telecine process. With that process being the expensive bit DEI are not going to start mastering widescreen films in non-anamorphic format only later to re-do them again at an extra expense – hence we have never seen re-issues of their fixed DVDs.

This video squash problem has become a farce. DEI have known about this problem for a very long time. Now even the most incompetent person would have corrected this problem by now. If time and time again your video is appearing ~10% squashed wouldn’t it strike you that you’re doing something fundamentally wrong? And knowing this, next time you did the DVD and knowing that it’ll turn out 10% squashed again – would you not just 10% vertical stretch it anyway? So either it appears correct or it’ll be ~10% vertical stretched – better either way.

As for you’re experience with friends and family – I wouldn’t be surprised if this really is the case. But I still think its a lack of understanding of the widescreen format and what anamorphic is that confuses most people. Recommended reading for family and friends who want to understand

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... index.html

Ali

I agree that DEI needs to fix the squashing problem with there Anamorphic DVDs, but I would NOT want them to stop releasing Anamorphic DVDs just because the the video is squashed. Lets not forget that DEI was the first to bring Indian DVDs fans Anamorphic DVDs and if they stop it will encourage others like Yash Raj and our good friends EROS (jk) to do the same!! Sooner or later DEI will fix the problem and we know they can as not all of there DVDs have this squashing problem.

"Not that many have done this!"
Let's be thankfull for that. And God forbid anyone were to start doing this. Ali, I really hope you are not advocating that DEI or anyone else for that matter should start Panning & Scanning 2.35:1 films to 1.85:1 (more appropriately 1.77:1 = 16:9 widescreen tv ratio). I WANT MY 'OAR' (ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO) and no tinkering with it is acceptable.


I absolutely agree with you on this. There should be no turning back from Anamorphic transfers. Infact we should impress upon all Indian DVD manufacturers to make Anamorphic DVDs in Original Aspect Ratio with 5.1 Surround sound (DTS would be great but we can make do with Dolby Digital), atleast in the case of movies that have been released like that in the theaters.



Edited By Sanjay on Dec. 19 2001 at 09:20

You misunderstand me...

I wasn’t saying that 2.35:1 films should be pan and scanned to 1.85:1 – I’m always a supporter of OAR. What I was talking about the automatic pan and scan feature of DVDs – some Hollywood DVDs have used this feature. 4:3 DVD films will always be displayed as 4:3. But with anamorphic 16x9 transfers there are options to on how to display the video;

- auto letterbox (16:9 anamorphic video for 4:3 display)
- auto pan & scan (16:9 anamorphic video for 4:3 display)
- widescreen (16:9 anamorphic video for 16:9 display)

ripped from DVD FAQ (section 3.5);

"For automatic pan & scan mode, the anamorphic video is unsqueezed to 16:9 and the sides are cropped off so that a portion of the image is shown at full height on a 4:3 screen by following a center of interest offset that's encoded in the video stream according to the preferences of the people who transferred the film to video. The pan & scan "window" is 75% of the full width, which reduces the horizontal pixels from 720 to 540. The pan & scan window can only travel laterally. This does not duplicate a true pan & scan process in which the window can also travel up and down and zoom in and out. Auto pan & scan has three strikes against it: 1) it doesn't provide the same artistic control as studio pan & scan, 2) there is a loss of detail when the picture is scaled up, and 3) equipment for recording picture shift information is not widely available. Therefore, no anamorphic movies have been released with auto pan & scan enabled, although a few discs use the pan & scan feature in menus so that the same menu video can be used in both widescreen and 4:3 mode. In order to present a quality full-screen picture to the vast majority of TV viewers, yet still provide the best experience for widescreen owners, some DVD producers choose to put two versions on a single disc: 4:3 studio pan & scan and 16:9 anamorphic.
Playback of widescreen material can be restricted by the producer of the disc. Programs can be marked for the following display modes:
- 4:3 full frame
- 4:3 LB (for sending letterbox expand signal to widescreen TV)
- 16:9 LB only (player not allowed to pan & scan on 4:3 TV)
- 16:9 PS only (player not allowed to letterbox on 4:3 TV)
- 16:9 LB or PS (viewer can select pan & scan or letterbox on 4:3 TV)"

OK not an ideal solution but it pleases both crowds to certain extent – I don’t think any Indian DVD have used this feature (prob too complex for them anyway! since they cant get basics right) – but few region 1 DVD have this feature.

Ali



Edited By ali on Dec. 19 2001 at 19:46

I don’t think any body got my thoughts right.

My posting,at the begining of this thread, showed my utter disappointment at DEI’s inability to fix anamorphic squashed picture problem. When I said, DEI should go back to Original Aspect Ratio non_anamorphic format, it contained a bit of sarcasm along with constructive criticism. As Ali said in one of the postings, “even a monkey can fix it”. Then why is it that the best Indian DVD maker has not fixed this problem for over one year now? May be it is deliberate. Deliberate, that is where my stated ratio ‘ 2.66:1 ’ has some significance which nobody has picked. I think, DEI is plainly shooting an uncorrected 1.33:1 picture and then just pixel doubling in the horizontal direction, giving a 2.66:1 aspect ratio (or may be, they have a 2:1 expansion lens only). Add a bit vertically and/ or crop a little from sides and you have a 2.5:1 aspect ratio, vertically squashed picture. This way they don’t need to buy the stretching lenses for cinemascope movies. If DEI uses this process, squashed picture problem will never be fixed.

2.66:1 instead of 2.35:1 implies a 13% vertical squash, whereas in most of my geometric comparisons, only 8-10% squash is mentioned. This is because I always used the measurement uncertainty to favor correct geometry. Quite likely, when I said 8% squashed, it really is 13%. Also If the original AR was 2.55:1 and 1.33:1 pixel doubled to 2.66:1 results in only 4% vertical squash, which is impossible to detect with any certainty. I think, 3 or 4 of DEI’s supposedly correct anamorphic DVDs are these 2.55:1 movies which may actually still be 4% squashed.

Now, the most important fact:
As compared to non_anamorphic, you get only 18% more # of lines, instead of the required 33% more, from an anamorphic 2.35:1 picture compressed to 2.66:1. Is this 18% improvement sufficient to compensate for the distorted viewing? NOT FOR ME. For this reason alone, I prefer DEI’s non_anamorphic 2.35:1 DVDs as compared to squashed anamorphic. They (DEI non_anamorphic) are still better than all other Indian DVDs, anamorphic or not.

Rana