Uh...anamorphic widescreen? Been paying attention? We've been talking about that for awhile now.

And your deafness has exactly what to do with the ratio of your television? My point, and it was made pretty fucking clear when I used the words "home system", was that it is both simple-minded and ridiculous to argue that everyone else's expectations should be kept in check, or outright dismissed, simply because YOU have a 4x3 television.

These are the days of HDTV, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. You clearly aren't the target customer, which is fine. But enough of this "whiner" and "immature" bullshit. You don't get to set the standard for everyone else, especially when the existing standard is already higher than what you'll settle for. If people are unhappy with the specs of these DVDs, it's because they have very good reason to expect more for their money.

Yes, well, thank Christ for the rest of the world that the home video market isn't built around the limitations of your home system.

Now, repeat ten times (because this is basically what your contributions to this thread amount to):

I don't care what anyone else wants because I don't want it.

And then STFU and leave.

How did this topic spin off into such retardedness?

Lord Caldid, Raveers... you're right in saying that for those people who still have 4:3 TVs, these non-anamorphic OUT transfers (if indeed that's what they are) won't matter worth a shit. However, for the many people who do have 16:9 televisions, the image will be reduced to an unwatchable size on the screen, and will severely undermine the enjoyment of the viewing experience.

Also, as Lord Caldid stated himself, in the near future (i.e., "2009") the majority of people will have 16:9 TVs, thus reinforcing the opinion that a non-anamorphic release of these films is absurd.

What people are "bitching" about, then, is that while many are happy to get the OUT on DVD, they were hoping it would at least be done in a way that met current (and future) DVD standards. If these versions truly are non-anamorphic, then they really will be nothing more than bonus material -- something not meant to be watched for 2+ hours, but rather something to be fast forwarded through simply to re-watch a handful of lost classic scenes.




Good point. For that money, we should get a good OUT transfer.

The last 25 years or so have seen digital technology change the face of home entertainment so drastically and so quickly that it's astonishing. From compact discs to digital sound to VCDs to DVDs to MP3s to DivX and XviD to HDTV, from the NES to N64, PS, PS2, Xbox to PS3 and Xbox 360, there has been a steady and welcomed trend to make sound and video in the home clearer, sharper, better. There's kind of a staring contest going on between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray right now, but it's easy to see that within a couple of years we'll have at least one high-definition video disc standard.

And yet every step of the way there have always been people who not only insist that what they already have is as good as anyone will ever need, but that the new achievements are going to fail ("last I checked, HD-DVD isn't doing really well"). If these people had things their way, we'd never have had DVDs to argue about to begin with. Thank God they are only an ignorant minority.




Uh...why would they? In fact, pretty much the point of the ongoing discussion is why would anyone?

I mean, maybe if they were inundated with e-mails from you, Raveers and royalguard96, all to the effect of "WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANAMORPHIC AND WOULDN'T MIND IF YOU STOPPED", I guess they might consider it. But then whoever made that decision would probably be fired.

You're just funning now, right? Pulling my leg? Playing Devil's advocate for the purpose of making an argument that not even a moron would support?

"Lucas doesn't own the rights to American Grafitti" - You don't say!! Hey, when you were feeling pedantic, did it occur to you that the reason I used it as an example was to point out the irony that a "Lucasfilm" that Lucas doesn't control gets better treatment than one that he does? No? Well, go back and read again, true believer!!




But yet you did it anyway. You kind of excel at wasting bandwidth, don't you? I mean, along with "Last I checked, LFL is not a non-profit organization" and "a great storyteller can also be a great businessman" - you are really proving to be quite the master of the meaningless obvious statement.

By the way, I'm curious: when was the last time you checked on LFL? I don't think this thread is quite full enough of bullshit from know-it-alls with nothing to say, so I would like you to elaborate.

The illogicality people have been displaying on this board for the past few days is astounding, to say the least. People need to start using their fucking heads before typing up idiotic statements about things they clearly know nothing about.

What you fail to realize, either because you haven't bothered to process all the information in this thread, haven't read it all or because you are just plain dense, is that the quality of an anamorphic transfer is better even on your 4x3 TV. When it is no longer necessary to use space on the disc to draw those black bars that accompany every letterboxed transfer, that means that more space can be used for the 16x9 picture itself. That is the whole point of anamorphic transfer. It is extremely likely that most of the DVDs you own have been mastered this way, the exceptions being either early releases or releases otherwise meant to be viewed in a 4x3 ratio.

Are you getting this yet? If all you really have to contribute is "it doesn't bother me that the OUT is non-anamorphic because I only own a 4x3 TV," then YES, WE GOT THE MESSAGE THE FIRST FUCKING 1000 TIMES.



Brother, you fucking said it. What's really amazing is that a couple of these guys have practically zero posting activity otherwise. Why break your silence just to prove you're a dope?

this is the MF i remember.

sigh.

I was wondering how long it would take to get you to reveal that you really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Thank you.

The short version: the black bars you see on a non-anamorphic, letterboxed picture are actually part of the picture. They are conveyed to your screen by information on your DVD.

The black bars you see on an anamorphic picture are NOT part of the picture. They are put there by your DVD player because there is no information on the disc for that part of your TV screen. Hence, not a single megabyte of space on your DVD has been wasted to draw black bars. It's all going to the picture.

Do you get it yet?

(BTW, anamorphic discs with 2.35:1 pictures do have narrower black bars added to the picture, because their ratio is wider than 16x9 sets can accomodate. But they still don't waste as much space as a letterboxed disc does.)



You've known it for about 10 minutes. And after all of your bullshit, if you really think I'm the one who looks stupid now, you're seriously delusional. Fuck off, I'm done with you.

Why yes I can..."DUGH"

And this is why you asked "how is the resolution any better on a 4:3 TV"? Please. If you had information to offer other than the nonsense you've been spewing, you had plenty of opportunity to offer it. You chose an awfully coincidental time to attempt to pass yourself off as knowledgable. I also can't help but notice that despite my giving the "short version", which you call "common knowledge," you've still contributed nothing that indicates you know any more than what I told you.

As I said: fuck off. The only thing worse than an ignorant, stubborn pain in the ass is an ignorant, stubborn pain in the ass who thinks he can convince everyone that he was only "pretending" to be clueless.

The "anamorphic business." Yeah, right.



Tell me, while you were employed in the anamorphic business, were you ever exposed to such terms as "S-Video" and "component video"? Are you aware that there is a finite amount of space on a DVD and that it might be better if your compressed video data can make the best possible use of it? Has it occurred to you that if you really don't see any difference between VHS and DVD, that either your TV or your DVD player might be a piece of shit? (Not to mention: if you see no difference between VHS and DVD, why are you buying this release at all?)



Not better than "us." Just you, dude. And believe me, it's not difficult.

Lord Caldid's attitude seems to be that just because he'll be watching the films on technology that's becoming increasingly defunct, those people who don't use said substandard technology don't have the right to be disappointed that this embarrassing release will in fact be substandard. It's apparently immature to expect effort to be put into this majorly-hyped DVD release of three of the most popular films of all time. As I said before, this is Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi being held to a lower standard than every other DVD release I can think of.

Caldid was temporarily deactivated while a new chat thread was made:

http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6763

I'm glad I stopped posting when I did....at least I know when to quit.

While it's true that the composite video out on a DVD player has about the same bandwidth as a VHS player (about 3.5 MHz, I think), I believe the original digital signal on the DVD has about 6.75 MHz of native horizontal frequency and a higher pixel resolution: 720x480. VHS isn't digital, but it has the digital resolution equivalent of about 420x480, If I remember correctly.

Add to that things like dot crawl, luma smearing, chroma smearing, tape dropouts, etc... VHS is pretty awful. Laserdisc however, even though that too is analog, at least it's not tape, and it WOULD look about the same as DVD to your average consumer on a standard interlaced TV.

But both VHS tapes and Laserdiscs display quite a bit of analog noise that DVD has thankfully reduced and/or completely done away with.

DUH!!

Sorry, man...I couldn't resist. Thank you for the welcome breath of fresh air.

Again... DVD vs LD on a standard TV using composite in: yes. DVD vs VHS on a standard TV using composite in: no. Consumer grade VHS players simply don't have the proper signal to noise ratio to even compete (38dB versus DVD's 50dB). DVD looks much, much cleaner and sharper than VHS. Even the early DVDs from 1997 look much, much better.

Have anyone you know take the Pepsi challenge.

The fun never stops, does it?

Enjoy your personal thread, Lord Condom. You richly deserve it.

Oh for fuck sakes guys can you leave the personal attacks at each other in the reservation forum where it belongs, please...? Let's get back to the topic at hand...

Briefly, the topic of this thread was titled, "Lord Caldid and friends"

I think I have all ready given my opinion on the matter.

Yes I don't know what the hell to call this thread. Thing is, this isn't even really a bad thread compared to other sites where they are throwing up comparisons with holocaust, wanting to dig up Lucas divorce records, phone/email bombing LFL, and all this other e-justice shit.

Perhaps I don't follow the Internet rumour mill as closely as I should... historically speaking, how accurate has the Digital Bits been with SW info? Any chance this whole non-anamorphic issue is bullshit?

Also, is it possilbe for someone to take a letterbox DVD transfer and make it anamorphic? If so, would there be any drawbacks, such as loss of picture quality?

...and we're like, just over a week into this debarcle, and we've already got 3 threads dedicated to it!

AWESOME!!! [/sarcasm]

Hey Biggs, edit your post man... you're attributing something Caldid said to me.

Jesus, the last thing I need is for his posts to be mistaken for mine.


---------------
EDIT: thanks.