Resizing to Anamorphic - compression question

[spudgun01]

I'm looking to resize some non-anamorphic DVD's to anamorphic (I did this with excellent results for the Star Wars Trilogy!), but I've suddenly had a thought!!

If I perform an anamorphic resize with DVDRebuilder, would I get better quality copies if I first perform a no compression (DVD9) resize & then go back and compress the new anamorphic DVD to DVD5?

Or does it make no difference in quality (only takes longer doing anamorphice resize, then compression!)

Hope makes sense!

[Dashiell]

Hello there!

I asked a similar question not too long ago. I have done this very same thing myself. I used CCE Basic and was pleased with the result.

There is one mod on JDobbs' Doom9 forums named Manono that has serious ego issues, so be careful with this question. He actually thought I had converted the original DVD release (the new, modified films) to 4:3 before re converting to 16:9. He then followed this assumption into doing his best to make me look like an idiot because I asked the very same question you did.

In short, (too late ) the process will give you anamorphic transfers, but may also introduce the "jaggies" (rough, stairstepping edges). I was told this is only ideal if your HD set has a really crappy "ZOOM" feature.

As a general rule, the less compressing done the better. To answer your question, I would do a 16x9 conversion to DVD9 and THEN a DVD5 job.

I actually just burned +RDL discs for the SWT... I didn't want to compress again.

Best of luck!

[spudgun01]

Many thanks for this

I know it's time-consuming, but i want the best results.
So - 4:3 to 16:9 (DVD9) first & then recompress to DVD5 - great!

[blutach]

@Dashiell - I would ask your comments about mods and members of other forums be kept in private please.

As it turns out, I know manono very well, and he is one of the best (and nicest) there is.

We at DVF do not condone ill comments about other forums and thier administration, especially places as well respected as Doom9.

Regards

[Dashiell]

@Dashiell - I would ask your comments about mods and members of other forums be kept in private please.

As it turns out, I know manono very well, and he is one of the best (and nicest) there is.

We at DVF do not condone ill comments about other forums and thier administration, especially places as well respected as Doom9.

Regards

I respect you and your request, Blutach. My comments were not designed to malign, simply to explain what had happened to me. Nobody seemed to care then.

[blutach]

I did not see the thread at Doom9 and am not in charge of the DVDRB forum there - jdobbs and wmansir are. If there were comments that were out of hand directed against you, I am absolutely certain they would have stepped in.

Or, if they didn't and you felt aggrieved, you have redress to Doom9 himself. This is all explained in the rules.

The one thing neither we at DVF nor Doom9 appreciates is this caning of people in the open. I accept what you have just said, so let's move on.

Regards

[jdobbs]

I'm looking to resize some non-anamorphic DVD's to anamorphic (I did this with excellent results for the Star Wars Trilogy!), but I've suddenly had a thought!!

If I perform an anamorphic resize with DVDRebuilder, would I get better quality copies if I first perform a no compression (DVD9) resize & then go back and compress the new anamorphic DVD to DVD5?

Or does it make no difference in quality (only takes longer doing anamorphice resize, then compression!)

Hope makes sense!

I think you'll be better to just run against the original. I may be misunderstanding you.. but there really is no such thing as a "no compression resize" -- because you have to reencode to resize. As a result, the only way it would work would be to do two encodes -- which is usually not a good thing (as you lose a little quality with each generation of reencoding).

[windtrader]

I think you are asking what I have done in the past. On a movie that is 4:3 but displays a widescreen movie, there are black bars that actually take up real resolution and leaving less for the actual picture.

What I have done is create an anamorphic version by the resizing the vertical portion to fill the 4:3 format, thus the re-encode does actually create more pixels in the output, although it is interpolated. The reason I do this is I have a front projector that has 4:3 tubes and with this anamorphic version the actual movie uses the full vertical raster. The projector then does a anamorphic vertical "squeeze" and shrinks the frame into a 16:9 output. What this does is increase the illumination by about 20% since the full raster is used.

That is the only reason I can think for doing this unless you want to use a filter that you believe creates more (apparent) resolution than the original can show on the player.