16:9 aspect confusion or "THE MYTH of 16:9"

[Technoid]

This guy has some serious problems:

http://www.geocities.com/dxaussie01au/myth.html

What you need to do is change your editing process slightly, instead of setting 16:9 as the outcome, force a letterboxed in a 4:3 frame as the outcome and the whole system will accept that and the TV will auto select for you when you play your DVD player SO DO NOT AUTHOR OR ENCODE 16:9 OUTCOMES EVER AGAIN.

EDIT:
The guy is not Nuts as I erlier said, he's a Raving letterbox fanatic that hasn't a clue

[Chrono_Wanderer]

you learn all kinds of strange things on MURC

[Brambus]

Nuts?

I've read "your guy" website from 1998 and his site has been a huge reference point for discussion and testing about DV - DVD authoring. Much more than MURC.

You SHOULD NOT abstract a phrase from a book and pretend to teach others who's going nut.

This way really pisses me off

Brambus

[dZeus]

Re: Nuts?

Originally posted by Brambus
I've read "your guy" website from 1998 and his site has been a huge reference point for discussion and testing about DV - DVD authoring. Much more than MURC.

You SHOULD NOT abstract a phrase from a book and pretend to teach others who's going nut.

This way really pisses me off

Brambus

sorry, but what's NOT stupid about willing to give up 33% extra vertical resolution on 16:9 TV sets, just because the author doesn't know how to author DVDs?

He probably used MPEG aspect ratio flags, while it's a well-known fact that DVD players only look at the aspect ratio as defined in the .ifo

and EVERY dvd player properly interprets that flag, so no such problem he experience should happen if he would use that way of authoring.

What pisses me off is that people who have a bad experience with something, will claim that as the absolute truth while in fact it probably is due to their own incompetance on the subject. Not to mention that they try to 'englighten' the public of this conclusion based on incorrect assumptions.

- Frank, who has a passionate hate for letterboxed DVDs

[Brambus]

Enlighten?

I also disagree with Ross McLennan in this case.
But...
He is not trying to enlighten anyone, he's just sharing his trials.
If you have read more of his site this shoud be clear. (If you... )
He's not talking about ifos and all that stuff, he is simply trying to share what happens to people that use plain dvd authoring tools the way they should used by people - not technoids.

That was my experience.
I often disagree with Ross, mainly in encoding area, but in this case IMHO i think you are missing the point.
Sorry.

Brambus

[dZeus]

ok, then what makes his conclusion of 'not using anomorphic encodes' more logical than 'not using DVDMaestro'? He doesn't say wether he tested any other authoring programs for this bug. He doesn't even try to pintpoint the bug. He just comes up with a sloppy solution which I wouldn't advice anyone to use. _especially_ if they've invested in widescreen optical lenses for their cameras (which he seems to have done himself). If you encode to letterbox, there's no need to buy expensive lenses. You can just trim off the 'leftover' areas from footage shot with a 'regular' lens camera.

What do you call the difference between 'enlightening people' and what he does? I don't see any differences...

look, I appreciate if he posts stuff that's accurate and is of help to lots of people, I really do. But if he posts completely inaccurate information then people have every right to criticise him for it.

[Flying dutchman]

Letterboxing does have some advantages, such as needing 30% less bitrate than anamorphic. I found this an advantage when transferring movies to SVCD and DVD+R. The result is less blocky. (mind you, I have a 4:3 TV set).