I presented this elsewhere but thought you guys may be interested....
I tried to capture a comparision between anamorphic and non anamorphic on my system. My XBR does the compression if the DVD player is set to 16x9. While the pictures hardly do real justice to the differences, I find in actual viewing situations it is extremely different than a single frame shows. These are images taken from my XBR. They were captured with a Nikon coolpics 990 digital camera. They have been resize to 1280x1024 from the 2048x1536 native resolution of the camera. The difference is greatly dimminished from the down sizing of the resolution. If anyone would like I can send them the full sized images, but be warned they are big 1.3Mb each image.
I also had to crop ala P/S to keep the image size down, not much but it is not OAR now
You be the judge to which is which...
Those picture above do not capture the full gains of doing this compression. A single frame cannot show the motion artifacts that occur during down conversion in a moving picture.
Bing
I tried to capture a comparision between anamorphic and non anamorphic on my system. My XBR does the compression if the DVD player is set to 16x9. While the pictures hardly do real justice to the differences, I find in actual viewing situations it is extremely different than a single frame shows. These are images taken from my XBR. They were captured with a Nikon coolpics 990 digital camera. They have been resize to 1280x1024 from the 2048x1536 native resolution of the camera. The difference is greatly dimminished from the down sizing of the resolution. If anyone would like I can send them the full sized images, but be warned they are big 1.3Mb each image.
I also had to crop ala P/S to keep the image size down, not much but it is not OAR now
You be the judge to which is which...
Those picture above do not capture the full gains of doing this compression. A single frame cannot show the motion artifacts that occur during down conversion in a moving picture.
Bing
Comment