Anamorphic Widescreen On 4:3 Displays
Dear Gary: I’m a reader from Norway. I’m not into all the high-tech reviews and equipment that your magazine mostly writes about, but I still enjoy it, and it’s interesting. I also read a few DVD magazines from England, and there’s been one thing that has been annoying me for a long time, “anamorphic widescreen.” It offers the best picture on DVD, but what’s bugging me is something your own Michael Coate said in the great D-VHS article in Issue 60 (page 42), and I quote, “Many believe they are seeing the higher resolution 16:9 enhanced ‘anamorphic’ images simply because the jackets state such, even though they’re playing DVDs on standard 4:3 monitors.” I have a 4:3 monitor, and I get the anamorphic image by using the 16:9 feature, but you always state that we only get it with 16:9 monitors. And even if I needed a new TV today, I would not buy a 16:9 monitor, because it is not as good. With normal 4:3 pictures, you get a smaller picture, or you have to cut or deform it. With widescreen movies you will get black bars, because the monitor is 1.78:1, and most movies are 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If not, for DVDs such as You’ve Got Mail, it’s cut to 1.78:1, and you miss a little bit of the picture. Also, my brother has a 16:9 monitor, and it always shifts between modes, even during a movie, so he watches movies in non-anamorphic, and then you still get a bad picture. But even on my 4:3 TV, with the 16:9 feature, there’s still some movies, like RoboCop and Army Of Darkness that are presented in anamorphic widescreen, but really are in a 1.66:1 ratio. The picture is cut, but then I can choose if I want to see it cut or not.
Anders Kristiansen
Research Editor and Staff Writer Michael Coate Comments:
I’m a bit baffled by your letter, but I’ll do my best to offer a useful reply. First, regarding the quote attributed to me in the D-VHS article from Issue 60, I’m under the impression that you didn’t understand the context of my statement or perhaps I simply failed to make myself clear. My point had to do with the public’s perception of what they get based on how a product is marketed and advertised, the use of “buzzwords,” etc. The “many” I was referring to were average consumers rather than informed enthusiasts. As for the comment about not making it clear that some 4:3 monitors can effectively play back anamorphic material...this is true, though this function is not as prevalent on sets sold in the U.S. compared to elsewhere in the world. I’m not a hardware reviewer—my focus with the magazine is on software and film-related content—and I do not recall ever stating that anamorphic playback (i.e. obtaining the “enhanced” resolution) can only be possible with a 16:9 display. As for the movie examples you listed, I believe you are mistaken. There continues to be a misconception regarding movies intended for 1.85:1 theatrical projection that are transferred to DVD in a 1.78:1 ratio. Barring any specific reframing done on a title-by-title, shot-by-shot basis, 1.78:1 transfers typically are not cropped. They simply show all of the 1.85:1 portion of the 35mm source element, along with nearly two extra percent of imagery at the top and another two percent at the bottom. A tiny amount for sure, and despite the purist and nit-picky nature of much of what we report here, I do not believe the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is worth fussing over. The difference isn’t enough to claim the presentation is being altered in an adverse manner. As for RoboCop (Region 1 versions, anyway), the DVD version framed at 1.66:1 was issued by Criterion a few years ago and was a non-anamorphic transfer. The imagery on this version fills the full width of the video frame and most of the height. The more recent MGM re-issue was anamorphically enhanced, but is framed in a 1.85:1 ratio. Yes, Army Of Darkness is anamorphically enhanced and 1.66:1, but, the 1.66:1 image is positioned within the 1.78:1 frame using the full height and most of the video frame’s width. Nothing should appear cropped if viewing correctly on any monitor, whether anamorphically enhanced for 16:9 playback or down-converted for 4:3 playback. A typical amount of overscan would approximate the amount of matting present on the left and right edges of the frame. If I understand your letter correctly, it appears that you prefer viewing widescreen movies on a 4:3 display rather than on a 16:9 display. You are certainly entitled to this preference, particularly if the set you purchased enables anamorphically enhanced playback. I believe, however, that for viewing widescreen material, a 16:9 display offers more value to the consumer as the display aspect ratio is closer to the many ratios utilized for widescreen content, resulting in less viewing area being used for the letterbox framing mattes, among other reasons.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com