bhaskar wrote:
It is regarded that anamorphic DVDs are better than non-anamorphic due to the extra resolution - don't the above screenshots disprove this point?
So, what's my point? Before people go crazy for progressive DVDs, they should go crazy and try and get the Indian DVD companies to sort out they're authoring and encoding techniques. A Progressive transfer does not automatically produce a good dvd.
Anamorphic enhancement helps those with 16:9 or 16:9 capable 4:3 TVs, but of course, all the other variables have to be sorted out for an improvement to exist. Like you said, Bhaskar, it doesn't automatically produce sharp images, and it is just one of many factors in a transfer, but it does use the available resolution more effectively than letterbox 4:3.
To me, progressive is not the most important link in the chain of video quality. I think it should be provided, but on my interlaced 4:3 TV I am not really bothered by combing artifacts. This could be because I haven't really seen a 480p DVD on a progressive scan TV set. But progressive isn't a factor in whether or not I buy a DVD. Not like anamorphic is, but maybe I'll change my mind. But knowing Ayngaran, they will probably improve other aspects of their video transfers when they start doing progressive. The fact that authoring companies like DEI, Super Digital, and Sai Digital Base used progressive was one indication that they did indeed care about quality.
Login 
Register
FAQ
Search
