Anamorphic may bring the downfall of DVD...

OK, here's a thought. All previous A/V formats have been seriously flawed, and thus have been replaced: Betamax (too expensive), LP (too fragile), audio cassette (too LQ), VHS (too LQ). With talk of CD being replaced by dvd-Audio, don't you worry about the future of DVD, especially with new HD formats emerging. But the reason for DVD's downfall will be something which so many people feel so passionately about....Anamorphic. Think about it. Along with THX and DTS/DD/DD-EX, this is the one feature of DVD which is not supported across every single disc. And why? Expense? Maybe. But something just occured to me...DVD video still works on the principal of 4x3, just like crappy old VHS. Documentaries are still in 4x3. Limited disc space is often sacrificed for a 4x3 version. Some menu screens are in 4x3 only. Jesus, some features only work in 4x3! (i.e. Ghostbusters video commentary). As soon as 4x3 TVs become obsolete (within 3 or 4 years, I predict), so will the majority of the DVDs around today. The whole principal of Anamorphic is that it utilises the unused portions of the screen on the DVD (i.e. the black bars). Dammit, we shouldn't have black bars! The frame on the disc shouldn't be 4x3, it should be 16x9 by default! Then more resolution can be supplied to the picture anyhow, without the need for anamorphic! With the whole argument over 4x3 not being able to display anamorphic, plus some players not being able to downconvert it, don't you wonder how long this whole DVD phase will last? It's all getting far too complicated for my liking. Stretching a picture only to have it squashed back down by a seperate piece of equipment? This seems to contradict the point of DVD....simplicity without sacrificing quality. At least VHS in 4x3 was simple. I'm pissed off now, sorry people. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above points. Peace, out.
Si

------------------
"I have a bad feeling about this..."

Visit my John Williams website at http://homes.arealcity.com/sithlordsi/

[This message has been edited by Sith Lord Si (edited 12-05-1999).]

[Blade]

Well, part of the problem with your arguement is that your examples are a little flawed.

That old technology eventually succumbs to new has been the story of the world since inception.

But tapes and VHS have been around a long time and don't show much sign of disappearing too quickly.

Betamax never got the acceptance that DVD has already attained (the same can be said about LD). And LPs were defeated by something that had significant benefits: size, ease of use, ergonomics, and noticeably increased sound quality; in other words, the CD.

DVD-Audio's chances of replacing CDs is still pretty questionable. I'm sure that it will sound better, but the question will be how much better and under what circumstances.

Will you need a $2000 HT system (minimum) to appreciate the increased quality that DVDA can provide? And how noticeable a difference will there be between CDs and DVDA? If you can't notice the difference on an inexpensive car audio system or boom box or portable CD player, then I predict that it will have the same difficulties gaining acceptance as DTS has in the DVD market.

And let's keep in mind that this format (as fast as it has spread) is still less than four years old. With all the features available under the spec, several are still not made use of: seamless branching (Abyss), possibilities of the subtitle design (Ghostbusters, Mallrats), DVD 18 (The Stand, Aquaria), on the fly pan & scan, parental lock, on the fly MPAA rating editing, and even the more common special features (commentaries, deleted scenes, featurettes) are not found on every DVD.

But all of these things are becoming more common as the popularity of the format demonstrates itself by way of its rocketing market share. Already Disney and Fox have promised to increase anamorphic support and to bring pricing more inline with the other studios (see the Studio Day '99 report on this site).

Many studios already provide almost all movies with anamorphic transfers (Paramount, Tristar/Columbia, Universal, Warner, Dreamworks) and as HDTV becomes more popular so will these types of transfers.

I already know of several people who make it a point to purchase only anamorphic versions of films, and while they can't get everything they want in anamorphic, they still have collections they're very happy with.

I think DVD is proving itself to be too popular to be replaced too quickly. Look at the market acceptance it's already gained. Why would the studios and manufacturers throw that away to start marketing a new product that could turn into the minidisk of the '00s? (That last arguement was gleaned from one of Peter Bracke's editorials.)

I'm personally not too worried about our format. I think the only dangerous event in the road ahead for DVD will be Rental Pricing, but if handled right I think it could actually be a big plus for DVD.

------------------
-David

Thanks David, you've certainly put my mind at rest. However, although I'm sure that DVD will be around for a long while yet, I still think that there is too much incompatibility between 4x3 and 16x9. That's all I was saying really. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if I'd have said "DVD faces problems because it has been introduced during a time of transition in television aspect ratios" or something. Anyhow, I still think it would have been better to delay DVD until 16x9 is the norm, then we wouldn't even have to worry about anamorphic, would we?

------------------
"I have a bad feeling about this..."

Visit my John Williams website at http://homes.arealcity.com/sithlordsi/

[Dominik Pfleghaar]

Moving to the Soap Box area

------------------
Unca Dom, DDS-088
dominikpfleghaar@netscape.net
------------------
G = Guns, PG = Plenty of Guns, PG13 = more than 12 guns

[Taxi]

Si, I think you can stop worring about the future of DVD, simply because DVD can take advantage of the new widescreen TV, unlike VHS. The fact that you can have an anamorphic DVDs means that when you make the switch to a 16X9 set, DVD will be right there with you.

That is why making anamorphic DVD a standard NOW is so important. We don't want to be stuck re-buying our favorite DVDs later when we have widescreen TV's, and the non-enhanced DVDs don't look as good as they could have.

As for extra features being 4X3, this too will change, and in fact already is changing. More and more content for TV is being recorded widescreen. Since many of the "extra feature" start off as TV spots, I think you'll see more and more of this on DVD. It's still early. Wait another 3 or 4 years (like you said) and see if this is still a problem on DVD. I bet it won't be.

Taxi
DDS#42

Don't worry about the cost of mastering in 16x9. Morgan Holly, a former engineer at Criterion who still has ties there, told me there is NO EXTRA COST to mastering a film in anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic. The studios are the ones holding out on this for reasons other than cost.

Brad V.

Thanks guys, I was probably just having a rant. It's been a long weekend. I probably shouldn't worry so much, but as an 18 year old who can barely keep up with new technology (money wise), I think I have a right to know if DVD is gonna be the next Laserdisc (yeah right).
Si

------------------
"I have a bad feeling about this..."

Visit my John Williams website at http://homes.arealcity.com/sithlordsi/

I've never minded letterboxing on any format (LD,VHS,the rare tv showing) but I do have a problem with how ALL dvd players downconvert 16:9 to 4:3 that is to say.....crappy.
Sony blends the extra lines which blurs the picture(or makes the picture "soft") & all the rest just leave them out & that makes any horizontal lines that are close to each other dance & jitter in a very distracting way. I know I can get a sony WEGA or a 16:9 TV but I don't have $1.500 to $3.000 dollars to spend on them so I kinda like non-anamorphic DVD's for the time being.


[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 12-09-1999).]

[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 12-09-1999).]

[clortho]

Doug-

There's still a failing in your logic...you're still losing information with plain old letterboxing as opposed to anamorphic. You get a lower quality image due to the fact that part of the bitstream is dedicated to those black bars. Simply turn down the sharpness on your tv a notch or two...it works wonders.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

yes I have AVIA & Video Essentials & I already knew how to set the "sharpness" however your logic is the one that is flawed because if I (or anyone for that matter)do not have a 16:9 or WEGA TV than I'm NOT getting the infomation that you seem to think is so great,info that can ONLY be appreciated or indeed even seen at all on those TV's made for the process. non-anamorphic pictures are made(so to speak) for 4:3 TV's & look better in the ntsc system. That's all I was saying.
And yes I understand that non-anamorphic pictures on any format include the black bars as part of the whole image BUT the info that is put out by the DVD in it's conversion
is still the same as non-ana because the standard ntsc TV screen does not have the extra pixals otherwise the player wouldn't have to "down convert" the 16:9 picture(& in my opinion rather badly).
I'm sure if I had a 16:9 or WEGA TV I would be praising the format but like damn near everyone else in this country I don't & more than likely won't in the very near future. HDTV & HD-DVD is another can of worms.

[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 12-09-1999).]

[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 12-09-1999).]

[Taxi]

Doug, how are you gonna feel about all the DVDs (non-anamorphic) you buy today when you DO get that widescreen set, say 3-5 years down the road, when they aren't so expensive. Then the non-anamorphic titles you buy now are going to frustrate you royally.

Better to plan for the future now, than to pay the price later. Sure, you may have to suffer through downconversion artifacts now, but the payoff later will be worth it.

Taxi
DDS#42

[Slider]

Well... there is always laserdisc and VHS

I look at it this way. Downconversion artifacts are alot less annoying on a 4:3 set than the pixalation and jaggies that occur when zooming in on the picture with a 16:9 set.

Slider

[clortho]

Doug-

I have a 4:3 set, and I have a few non-anamorphic disks in my collection, and overall as long as the mastering is good, anamorphic dvds STILL look better even with the every 4th scan line issue. And many others can attest to this.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

in YOUR opinion that is Clortho(I don't care how many "others" you drag in) I have just as many LD's as I have DVD's ,120 each give or take ,and I can see a definite improvement over the LD but not over the ana/non-ana issue. And on the subject of LD I spent some time & money building my collection only to have it made obsolete in less than a year & now we have a great product which is going to (not now but sooner than we would like to think)be made defunct by HDTV & HDDVD if the "plan" goes ahead as...well...planned And the Anamorphic DVD's of today will be as defunct as the LD's are today so who will get these benefits that you guys speak of?
I think we know who.
Thats my opinion I may be wrong

[Taxi]

Do you realize what you just said?

You just said that since DVDs are going to be usurped by something better anyway, we might as well get non-anamorphic titles now, so that they'll look better on 4:3 TVs like yours.

Why not get the built-in longevity of anamorphic transfers NOW, thus making DVD a viable video alternative for the long haul (like when we get widescreen sets. I don't have one yet, either) instead of the short term.

Taxi
DDS#42

[This message has been edited by Taxi (edited 12-10-1999).]

No I did NOT say that taxi,what I said was in order to get the benifits from anamorphic you need 16:9 or WEGA & that those were too expensive and that by the time we CAN afford them we will have to upgrade once again(just like with LD)& spend more money re-building are collections. that's what I said. And I never said that I think we should buy only non-anamorphic dvd's I only said that I hate the down C artifacts & that non-ana DVD's were fine with me for the time being that's what I said.
If you don't beleive me just go up & re-read my first post and see for yourself.
If you disagree fine,but dont put word's in my mouth ok?

[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 12-11-1999).]

[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 12-12-1999).]

[micahp]

I have never noticed Down-C artifacts. I'm not saying they're not there, just that I haven't seen them.

And for a rare occurence, you can tally me to one of the "others" that Clortho was talking about.

I have (had) both Bug's Life discs. I did a comparison between the original, non-anamorphic, to the new, anamorphic and the difference was crystal clear.

I would swear that the collector's was like looking out the window on a bright,sun-shiny day, and the original was like looking at a standard film to dvd transfer.

------------------
Resident Me,
Micah P.
Digital Dreams

Well that's not necessairily the 16:9 giving you the improved image I have both versions of The Exorcist which are both 16:9 & the SE version is miles ahead of the first because the transfer was done very well(look at critirions Brazil & how beautiful it is).
I can live with(I have no choice of course)anamorphic I just want to afford the WHOLE benefit and by the way if you want to see the artifacts I'm speaking of look at the Alien dvd in the "space jockey" chapter as the camera pans up the detail of the....gun (I guess) dances & shimmers same with the part with Ripley calling to antarctica traffic control as the ship flies by the side of it (which has a lot of detail)does the same.Also all of the credits at the end of Ghostbusters jitter about very badly.