Talk:Anamorphic format

message: Although somewhat pedantic, it is worth noting several things about the current graphic - 
#35mm film prints are four perfs long per frame
#Non-anamorphic prints usually are soft-matted (ie 4 perfs per frame of image, which is then masked down to 1.85 or 1.66 in the projection gate), although hard-matted prints are not completely uncommon
#If dealing with a hard-matted print, the image space per frame will be roughly the equivalent of 3 perfs, although centered within the 4 perf frame.
I hope this all makes sense to someone who has the wherewithal and time to make the necessary corrections.
Thanks.
--84.65.127.251 06:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic 

message: Just wanted to note all this for clarification about my most recent edit:
#There is no such thing as 2.35. It's based on a long-obsolete definition of anamorphic production (see the section 2.35, 2.39, 2.4?). There should be no question on this matter, so please don't change anything back to 2.35 - it's an old ratio that simply stuck around as a synonym for 'Scope despite no longer being accurate. All anamorphic films from 1970 onwards are categorically 2.39.
#VistaVision (1954) did not preceed anamorphic widescreen (1953). It is also a widespread misconception that VistaVision was projected horizontally. VistaVision prints were always optically converted to standard flat vertical prints matted to 1.85.
#Cinemascope is an image origination system, not a projection system (although it is true that very little substantial has changed since the time of Cinemascope). Hence "shot on Cinemascope", not "projected on..." Basically it meant that a film was shot with Fox's lenses; this system fell by the wayside due to Panavision's improvements in modern anamorphic cine lens design that were rapidly adopted industrywide.
#Anamorphic and 2.39 are the same thing - therefore calling one the standard of the other is quite redundant.
#Techniscope section clarified and placed somewhere more appropriate. Basically the system was a predecessor to Super 35 in the theory of using a non-standard format and optically converting it to a standard.
--Girolamo Savonarola 00:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
: Item 2: "It is also a widespread misconception that VistaVision was projected horizontally. VistaVision prints were always optically converted to standard flat vertical prints matted to 1.85." Not true. I'm afraid. See http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvproj.htm 81.136.202.93 (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: The External links are used for "websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article." WP:CITE#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links Shawnc 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links vs References 

message: I've just reverted all recent edits by the last anonymous IP to edit the article. The reasons why are straightforward - overlinking of unnotable words within the article, breaking up the discussion of the anamorphic film technology by moving the anamorphic video section in between the film sections, considerable factual inaccuracies within the new text, and superfluous sentences re-stating what is already discussed in the article. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon IP edit reversion 

message: In the second paragraph of the article appears:
"To make full use of the available film, an anamorphic lens is used during recording; this lens effectively squeezes the picture horizontally so that (in the case of the common 2x anamorphosis lens) a frame twice as wide fills the available film area (Figure 2)."
I am confused by the use of the words "horizontally" and the linked use of "wide". Take the first. To all English speakers everywhere the word "horizontal" means "in a left/right, or East/West" direction. As in "the surface of a liquid is always horizontal", or "lie down on the bed in a horizontal position". Yet, in Figures 1 and 2, the image is manifestly being squeezed in a vertical direction. That is, the "force" doing the squeezing acts in a vertical (up/down, North/South") direction, from the sky to the ground, as when you put a "Jack-in-the-box" toy back in his box by squeezing him vertically. The only explanation for this bizarre way of description is to consider the strip of film in the figures as having been turned round 90 degrees and thus shown vertically in the Figures (from your head and dangling on the floor), it being perhaps the normal practice in the film industry to view film laid out left to right, in which case a film-maker would consider Figure 1 as being squeezed horizontally. But that way of looking at it follows merely because of the way in which he was holding the film and totally without regard to the fact that the image (the landscape) as presented in Figures 1 & 2 has undoubtedly been squeezed vertically (sky to ground). There can be no doubt about that. To state that such squeezing of the image, as you present it in the article to viewers of Wiki, is horizontal is incredibly confusing for non-experts trying to grasp the way in which the word "anamorphic" is used. People like me shooting widescreen video for DVD and TV display have no need of historical terms protruding from the age of film. I urge you to revise the use of these words in this article to make it more intelligible.
The beginning of the later section DVD Video may need amendment in the same way. The present wording "the player will send an anamorphic (horizontally squeezed) signal to the TV, which will compress the scanlines of the displayed image vertically !!! As it stands, this sentence is internally inconsistent and very confusing.
Steve Kirkby, 03/12/2006
:This is somewhat confusing, especially since a vertically stretched image and a horizontally squeezed image may appear to be the same thing without appropriate reference.
:In filmmaking, an anamorphic lens horizontally squeezes the image. There is no doubt about that - the vertical dimension remains unaffected while the horizontal field of view is expanded by the power of 2. This will, however, cause images which are not de-anamorphozed to look very thin, which the eye can mis-perceive as vertical stretching. However, the vertical dimension maintains itself while the horizontal is squeezed and unsqueezed. In other words, a 40 mm 2x anamorphic lens will have the same vertical field of view as a 40 mm spherical lens, but the horizontal field of view will be equivalent to a 20 mm spherical lens.
:In the case of DVD anamorphic compression - which is an entirely digital process involving pixels, not optics - the image is vertically stretched in order to maximize the frame resolution by not wasting vertical resolution on black bars. The picture is then digitally scaled back to its correct aspect ratio when it goes out to the TV. There is no change in the actual horizontal resolution - only the vertical has been recompressed. This should result in higher picture quality, because more vertical resolution is given to the frame image instead of the black bars.
:The truth is that these are two totally different concepts which only share the property of anamorphism (image stretching), and it might be a good suggestion to split these into separate articles, as they do not really have anything to do with one another directly. Girolamo Savonarola 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for simplicity's sake, you can think of it from the perspective of which dimension is considered more flexible: in film projection, all films tend to be projected at a constant height - the variation in aspect ratio is created purely by the width of the image displayed. So you'd compress the image along the horizontal axis. In video, however, the immobility of the screen edges means that the image width is kept constant and the aspect ratio is created by the height of the image (hence letterboxing). Therefore you'd compress along the vertical axis. This is all assuming that you're trying to keep the original aspect ratio and resolution, so things like pan and scan or zooming the image on a widescreen TV don't count, since they lose information - which is what anamorphic DVDs try to avoid. Girolamo Savonarola 16:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of "horizontal" and "vertical" causes confusion. 

message: According to my knowledge, your diagrams and also the Widescreen Museum, anamorphic is NOT squeezed 1.37 Academy - Academy aperture has fat frame lines, anamorphic uses the full frame except for the optical sound portion. Therefore it seems to use the old original 1.19:1 sound aperture (which neatly unsqueezes to 2.38, instead of 2.74). Is it so? 89.138.93.198 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less. It's all in the article. Girolamo Savonarola 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Academy 1.37?!

message: Is it really useful to be listing these at all? jhawkinson 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  home theatre lens manufacturers? 

message: I came here via Anamorphic lens. I wanted to add a link to one of many anamorphic lenses that have nothing to do with cinematography !
*The 'Pericentric' lens - makes anamorphic circular images from cylindrical objects
I haven't added it, because it is not relevant to the narrow topic of this page.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read WP:EL first, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anamorphic lens - de-merge ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anamorphic format. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.soc.org/opcam/04_s94/mg04_widescreen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I haven't edited, yet, but my initial reading was like (my added comas): "Anamorphic format is the cinematography technique of shooting a widescreen picture, on standard 35 mm film or other visual recording media, with a non-widescreen native aspect ratio." i.e. the "with" can relate to the shooting, rather than the media. The whole sentence could be rearranged, but a simple change might be "Anamorphic format is the cinematography technique of shooting a widescreen picture on standard 35 mm film or other visual recording media having a non-widescreen native aspect ratio." Or maybe "Anamorphic format is the cinematographic process of shooting a widescreen picture on standard 35 mm film or other visual recording media having a non-widescreen native aspect ratio." 49.185.184.214 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening line 

message: Figures 1 and 2 show the anamorphic format on 35mm to stretch the image vertically on capture and squeeze the image back down on projection. This is incorrect. Anamorphic capture in actuality compresses the image horizontally, and on projection the image is stretched back out horizontally. 67.198.76.196 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anamorphic capture compresses the image rather than stretches it