All Darc wrote:But it's sad to know that the so called HD Technology scrow up silent films, since HD it's for 16:9 format, and all 4:3 films will have black side bar on each side, killing resolution, cause the Dumb Ray technology, Ooops..., I mean Blu Ray Technology, have no advantage of anamorph or squeeze the image to avoid black bars on image signal.
For a movietone print, the image killing will a bit be more severe, since it's a bit closer to a square than 4:3 format, and the final resolution of the movietone frame area will be only 1290 pixels from left to right.
Sometimes I imagine if the stupid decision, of BLU Ray technology standart, to use black bars instead of multiple ratio aspects or anarmoph & squeeze, was a way they found to help take people away from old films, since it reduzes a lot the resolution for any film made in 4:3.
I hope a new and non dumb digital format for home video rise in few years, able to value more the good work of classic film restorers.
Anayway, the good new print will look better than any early edition of the Phantom.
OK, so I am trying to get my mind around this.
Anamorphic video in the DVD days was so that the black bars would appear on standard sets but the image would expand to fit widescreen sets. As far as I understood, the resolution of anamorphic and non-anamorphic on standard sets would have been identical, given the constraints of the standard definition, and that there was only value if you moved "up" to widescreen.
So today, widescreen is the standard. If you made something like "SD anamorphic", what would be the value, unless you dug up an LED/plasma 4:3 monitor somewhere? If you watch on a typical widescreen TV, you will have black bars whether they are in the image or not, and the resolution will be identical. Help me understand a case where having "SD anamorphic" makes sense, because I am not and your complaint is not making sense to me.