Question about CLDD704 vs LDS9

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Hello members,

I've been looking into buying a high-performance LD player, and have
been looking at S9's, X9's, C2EX's, etc. However, I also plan on
getting a Pioneer SD-533HD5 television set. I've read that the Pioneer
530 series televisions supposedly have the same 3D-Y/C comb filter as
the LDS9 and the HLDX9. Being that an LDS9 is basically a D704/79 with
the 3D/YC comb filter, would it be more cost-effective for me to
simply use a D704/79 through the TVs' comb filter? It won't get X9
results, but if it rivals S9 results, I'd be satisfied. Any comments?
37 answers Last reply
More about question cldd704 lds9
  1. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    The Elite 530 does have the same comb filter has the X9/S9, but the
    SD-533 does not. I believe the 533's filter is more in line with the
    CLD99. Also, even though the 530 has the same filter as the X9, it
    does not provide the same options. On the Elite 530, the comb filter
    has 5 levels of adjustment, labled 1 through 5. the X9 has three
    different modes, Normal, HR, and C-Wide, and you can indivdually
    adjust the Y/C levels. The 530's comb filter does not have these
    options. Never the less, it is an awesome comb filter, it is just
    that it is tailored towards LD specifically in the X9/S9.

    I myself have an Elite 530 and use an Elite CLD79 LD player via
    composite into it. The CLD79 is the same player video wise as the CLD
    704. I can tell you that this combination gives a great LD image. I
    am very impressed with how the Elite 530 handles LD. I hope to pick
    up an HLD-X9 within the next two weeks, and I can provide a comparison
    between the Elite CLD 79 via composite and the X9 via S-video into the
    Elite 530 then.


    memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote in message news:<9fecf0b.0405151033.7ce46387@posting.google.com>...
    > Hello members,
    >
    > I've been looking into buying a high-performance LD player, and have
    > been looking at S9's, X9's, C2EX's, etc. However, I also plan on
    > getting a Pioneer SD-533HD5 television set. I've read that the Pioneer
    > 530 series televisions supposedly have the same 3D-Y/C comb filter as
    > the LDS9 and the HLDX9. Being that an LDS9 is basically a D704/79 with
    > the 3D/YC comb filter, would it be more cost-effective for me to
    > simply use a D704/79 through the TVs' comb filter? It won't get X9
    > results, but if it rivals S9 results, I'd be satisfied. Any comments?
  2. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405151033.7ce46387@posting.google.com...
    > I've been looking into buying a high-performance LD player, and have
    > been looking at S9's, X9's, C2EX's, etc. However, I also plan on
    > getting a Pioneer SD-533HD5 television set. I've read that the Pioneer
    > 530 series televisions supposedly have the same 3D-Y/C comb filter as
    > the LDS9 and the HLDX9. Being that an LDS9 is basically a D704/79 with
    > the 3D/YC comb filter, would it be more cost-effective for me to
    > simply use a D704/79 through the TVs' comb filter? It won't get X9
    > results, but if it rivals S9 results, I'd be satisfied. Any comments?

    If that set does indeed have the same comb filter, using composite
    output from a 704 should give you similar results to using S-video with
    an S9.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<dSupc.7661$zO3.2832@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
    > "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    > news:9fecf0b.0405151033.7ce46387@posting.google.com...
    > > I've been looking into buying a high-performance LD player, and have
    > > been looking at S9's, X9's, C2EX's, etc. However, I also plan on
    > > getting a Pioneer SD-533HD5 television set. I've read that the Pioneer
    > > 530 series televisions supposedly have the same 3D-Y/C comb filter as
    > > the LDS9 and the HLDX9. Being that an LDS9 is basically a D704/79 with
    > > the 3D/YC comb filter, would it be more cost-effective for me to
    > > simply use a D704/79 through the TVs' comb filter? It won't get X9
    > > results, but if it rivals S9 results, I'd be satisfied. Any comments?
    >
    > If that set does indeed have the same comb filter, using composite
    > output from a 704 should give you similar results to using S-video with
    > an S9.

    I don't think you can simply state that S9 = 704 + 3D filter. There
    are other design differences, they show in numbers:

    Specs: S9 vs 704
    video S/N: 52 vs 51
    audio S/N: 117 vs 115
    weight: 10.2 vs 8.4

    The S9 is LD-only while the 704 has a compromised clamp to accomodate
    CDs. The S9's aluminium turntable better picks up RF signals (that's
    what the Pioneer leaflet says). The S9 can read LD-G. Etc...

    Whether the 704 rivals the S9, depends on how you value these
    differences.

    Nicolas
  4. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    I have a PRO-530 and I have tested 704's, 97's and X9's on it. While
    everyone knows I prefer the 97 on an Analog RPTV the same is not true for a
    digital PRTV like the 530. I prefer the X9 with my 530. I prefer the 97
    with my 34PW9818 Philips tube HD ready TV.

    The best results I have achieved by using the X9's Y/C output into the 530.
    The X9's 3D filter is a lot more flexible and I prefer it. I have not had a
    S9 here for repair since I purchased the 530 but it does have the same
    filter as in the X9 but the S9 has the same smearing issues as the 704. The
    X9 corrected that problem.

    Kurtis

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405151033.7ce46387@posting.google.com...
    > Hello members,
    >
    > I've been looking into buying a high-performance LD player, and have
    > been looking at S9's, X9's, C2EX's, etc. However, I also plan on
    > getting a Pioneer SD-533HD5 television set. I've read that the Pioneer
    > 530 series televisions supposedly have the same 3D-Y/C comb filter as
    > the LDS9 and the HLDX9. Being that an LDS9 is basically a D704/79 with
    > the 3D/YC comb filter, would it be more cost-effective for me to
    > simply use a D704/79 through the TVs' comb filter? It won't get X9
    > results, but if it rivals S9 results, I'd be satisfied. Any comments?
  5. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    Kurtis- You stated in another thread that the composite output of a
    D704 "will equal the R7, R9, S9 and X9" (I'm assuming you mean equal
    to the others' composite output). You're saying that the comb filter
    in the set will minimize any major differences between the players?

    Guys, ultimately I'm looking for a player under $500, due to the
    modest size of my LD collection, but I want to view those discs in the
    best video performance possible at that price. I've heard the japanese
    Sony Hi-Vision players give extremely high performance at a cheaper
    cost than the S9/X9, but I'm wary of getting a player that will be
    difficult to repair or get spare parts for.

    I've also considered the CLD97 and the Pioneer LDS9, but I'm not
    willing to spend $1000 for an LD player. Should I just go ahead and
    get a D704? Any more comments will be appreciated.

    Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Yb-dncXvX7nadzvdRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
    > I have a PRO-530 and I have tested 704's, 97's and X9's on it. While
    > everyone knows I prefer the 97 on an Analog RPTV the same is not true for a
    > digital PRTV like the 530. I prefer the X9 with my 530. I prefer the 97
    > with my 34PW9818 Philips tube HD ready TV.
    >
    > The best results I have achieved by using the X9's Y/C output into the 530.
    > The X9's 3D filter is a lot more flexible and I prefer it. I have not had a
    > S9 here for repair since I purchased the 530 but it does have the same
    > filter as in the X9 but the S9 has the same smearing issues as the 704. The
    > X9 corrected that problem.
    >
    > Kurtis
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    I have stated in the past that the composite output from these machines is
    about equal. The difference is in the quality of the comb filter used for
    the S-Video output.

    The CLD-D704 should make you plenty happy unless you want the 3D Adaptive
    filter in the S9 or X9 but those cost more.

    As for Sony, the NTSC picture is grainier than Pioneer units. You are
    correct in that you can get the Hi-Vision output cheaper with the Sony but
    for NTSC the Pioneer is a better unit.

    Kurtis


    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405181237.543ffd7@posting.google.com...
    > Kurtis- You stated in another thread that the composite output of a
    > D704 "will equal the R7, R9, S9 and X9" (I'm assuming you mean equal
    > to the others' composite output). You're saying that the comb filter
    > in the set will minimize any major differences between the players?
    >
    > Guys, ultimately I'm looking for a player under $500, due to the
    > modest size of my LD collection, but I want to view those discs in the
    > best video performance possible at that price. I've heard the japanese
    > Sony Hi-Vision players give extremely high performance at a cheaper
    > cost than the S9/X9, but I'm wary of getting a player that will be
    > difficult to repair or get spare parts for.
    >
    > I've also considered the CLD97 and the Pioneer LDS9, but I'm not
    > willing to spend $1000 for an LD player. Should I just go ahead and
    > get a D704? Any more comments will be appreciated.
    >
    > Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:<Yb-dncXvX7nadzvdRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
    > > I have a PRO-530 and I have tested 704's, 97's and X9's on it. While
    > > everyone knows I prefer the 97 on an Analog RPTV the same is not true
    for a
    > > digital PRTV like the 530. I prefer the X9 with my 530. I prefer the
    97
    > > with my 34PW9818 Philips tube HD ready TV.
    > >
    > > The best results I have achieved by using the X9's Y/C output into the
    530.
    > > The X9's 3D filter is a lot more flexible and I prefer it. I have not
    had a
    > > S9 here for repair since I purchased the 530 but it does have the same
    > > filter as in the X9 but the S9 has the same smearing issues as the 704.
    The
    > > X9 corrected that problem.
    > >
    > > Kurtis
    > >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405181237.543ffd7@posting.google.com...
    > Kurtis- You stated in another thread that the composite output of a
    > D704 "will equal the R7, R9, S9 and X9" (I'm assuming you mean equal
    > to the others' composite output). You're saying that the comb filter
    > in the set will minimize any major differences between the players?

    The composite output of those players is inferior to the S-video output
    of those players, and is about equal to the D704's composite output. The
    D704's S-video output could go either way, depending on how good the
    comb filter in your TV is.

    > Guys, ultimately I'm looking for a player under $500, due to the
    > modest size of my LD collection, but I want to view those discs in the
    > best video performance possible at that price. I've heard the japanese
    > Sony Hi-Vision players give extremely high performance at a cheaper
    > cost than the S9/X9, but I'm wary of getting a player that will be
    > difficult to repair or get spare parts for.
    >
    > I've also considered the CLD97 and the Pioneer LDS9, but I'm not
    > willing to spend $1000 for an LD player. Should I just go ahead and
    > get a D704? Any more comments will be appreciated.

    At under $500, the D704 is your best bet.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    Kurtis- What exactly do you do when you 'tweak' a D704?


    "Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<9a-dnQviisazWjfdRVn-ig@comcast.com>...
    > I have stated in the past that the composite output from these machines is
    > about equal. The difference is in the quality of the comb filter used for
    > the S-Video output.
    >
    > The CLD-D704 should make you plenty happy unless you want the 3D Adaptive
    > filter in the S9 or X9 but those cost more.
    >
    > As for Sony, the NTSC picture is grainier than Pioneer units. You are
    > correct in that you can get the Hi-Vision output cheaper with the Sony but
    > for NTSC the Pioneer is a better unit.
    >
    > Kurtis
  9. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    It is tweaking the servo's so it will not lock or skip up playing CAV and
    CLV LD's, plus tweak the tracking angle and tangential angle to achieve
    lowest crosstalk which also results in the lower background noise. If your
    704 is already at these points I cannot improve it.

    Kurtis

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405191514.1c018c1d@posting.google.com...
    > Kurtis- What exactly do you do when you 'tweak' a D704?
    >
    >
    > "Kurtis Bahr" <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:<9a-dnQviisazWjfdRVn-ig@comcast.com>...
    > > I have stated in the past that the composite output from these machines
    is
    > > about equal. The difference is in the quality of the comb filter used
    for
    > > the S-Video output.
    > >
    > > The CLD-D704 should make you plenty happy unless you want the 3D
    Adaptive
    > > filter in the S9 or X9 but those cost more.
    > >
    > > As for Sony, the NTSC picture is grainier than Pioneer units. You are
    > > correct in that you can get the Hi-Vision output cheaper with the Sony
    but
    > > for NTSC the Pioneer is a better unit.
    > >
    > > Kurtis
  10. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    Actually I read on Josh Z's site that the LDS9 "is built off the
    basics of the CLD-99 but with the addition of an even more advanced
    High Resolution 3D Comb Filter", and that a CLD99 is "a CLD-79 with a
    sophisticated 3D comb filter.", and that a CLD79 "is an Elite-ized
    version of the CLD-D704". So based on those descriptions, I simply
    assumed that S9 = 704 + High resolution 3D comb filter. So are those
    specs you gave me based on the inherent design itself, or due to
    differing filters?


    nsa@dk.catv.ne.jp (Nicolas Santini) wrote in message news:<13d89e92.0405151803.1369667e@posting.google.com>...
    > I don't think you can simply state that S9 = 704 + 3D filter. There
    > are other design differences, they show in numbers:
    >
    > Specs: S9 vs 704
    > video S/N: 52 vs 51
    > audio S/N: 117 vs 115
    > weight: 10.2 vs 8.4
    >
    > The S9 is LD-only while the 704 has a compromised clamp to accomodate
    > CDs. The S9's aluminium turntable better picks up RF signals (that's
    > what the Pioneer leaflet says). The S9 can read LD-G. Etc...
    >
    > Whether the 704 rivals the S9, depends on how you value these
    > differences.
    >
    > Nicolas
  11. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    I'd like to hear that, but I expect the X9 to still give better
    performance, due to the special laser. I would expect the D704 + Elite
    530 to more closely compare to the S9's S-Video output, due to the two
    player's design similarities.


    gltaylor74@hotmail.com (gtaylor) wrote in message news:<928d927c.0405151746.42a69dfb@posting.google.com>...
    > I myself have an Elite 530 and use an Elite CLD79 LD player via
    > composite into it. The CLD79 is the same player video wise as the CLD
    > 704. I can tell you that this combination gives a great LD image. I
    > am very impressed with how the Elite 530 handles LD. I hope to pick
    > up an HLD-X9 within the next two weeks, and I can provide a comparison
    > between the Elite CLD 79 via composite and the X9 via S-video into the
    > Elite 530 then.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    gltaylor74@hotmail.com (gtaylor) wrote in message news:<928d927c.0405151746.42a69dfb@posting.google.com>...
    > The Elite 530 does have the same comb filter has the X9/S9, but the
    > SD-533 does not. I believe the 533's filter is more in line with the
    > CLD99.

    It is? Where did you get that information?

    > I myself have an Elite 530 and use an Elite CLD79 LD player via
    > composite into it. The CLD79 is the same player video wise as the CLD
    > 704. I can tell you that this combination gives a great LD image. I
    > am very impressed with how the Elite 530 handles LD.

    Do you use the set's line doubler with LD movies? If so, how does it
    look? And does the set's stretch modes work well with your letterbox
    LD's?
  13. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote in message news:<9fecf0b.0405201448.1df081b7@posting.google.com>...
    > gltaylor74@hotmail.com (gtaylor) wrote in message news:<928d927c.0405151746.42a69dfb@posting.google.com>...
    > > The Elite 530 does have the same comb filter has the X9/S9, but the
    > > SD-533 does not. I believe the 533's filter is more in line with the
    > > CLD99.
    >
    > It is? Where did you get that information?

    I have no hard proof. However, the Elites comb filter is adjustable
    from a range of 1 to 5. The 533 uses settings of off, standard, and
    max. That just makes me believe that it may not be the same filter.

    The line doublers are also not entirely the same. The new Elites use
    the Pure Cinema III line doubler, which has Pure Cinema settings of
    Off, Std and HQ and will upconvert 480i to either 480p or 1080i. The
    533 uses the pure cinema I and has settings of Off or On. It does not
    have the HQ mode. It only converts from 480i to 480p.
    >
    > > I myself have an Elite 530 and use an Elite CLD79 LD player via
    > > composite into it. The CLD79 is the same player video wise as the CLD
    > > 704. I can tell you that this combination gives a great LD image. I
    > > am very impressed with how the Elite 530 handles LD.
    >
    > Do you use the set's line doubler with LD movies? If so, how does it
    > look? And does the set's stretch modes work well with your letterbox
    > LD's?

    I think LD look great with the Elite. I do use the Elites line
    doubler. Kurtis Bahr above also have an Elite 530 and uses it with his
    X9. Kurtis compared the Elites line doubler to the Iscan Ultra with
    his X9 has the source, and found no significant improvement in the
    Iscan over the Elites. The Elite has the best stretch modes around. I
    think they work great. I just purchased an X9 and should have it in a
    couple of weeks, and am really curious to see how much of an
    improvment it is over the CLD79.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    >
    > I have no hard proof. However, the Elites comb filter is adjustable
    > from a range of 1 to 5. The 533 uses settings of off, standard, and
    > max. That just makes me believe that it may not be the same filter.
    >

    That's funnny you say that, because I recently read a rumor that the
    533's internal structure is based on the Elite 510. I think the Elite
    510 had the same comb filter as the CLD99, correct?
  15. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    All these are after the CLD-D703 if you want to get picky, the 703 is a 704
    without AC-3. The 99 is a 704 with a better 3D Adaptive filter, the 79 has
    the optics of the 704 but the digital section is downgraded to the one in
    the 604. The S9 gives you a larger clamping surface but you loose CD
    playback to get that and the S9 has a much better 3D Adaptive filter than
    the 99.

    I my opinion the 704 is the best bang for the buck, if you want CD playback
    I prefer the CLD-97. If you don't need CD playback, skip over the 99 and
    get the S9. Well worth a little more money.

    Kurtis

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405192330.67b0407f@posting.google.com...
    > Actually I read on Josh Z's site that the LDS9 "is built off the
    > basics of the CLD-99 but with the addition of an even more advanced
    > High Resolution 3D Comb Filter", and that a CLD99 is "a CLD-79 with a
    > sophisticated 3D comb filter.", and that a CLD79 "is an Elite-ized
    > version of the CLD-D704". So based on those descriptions, I simply
    > assumed that S9 = 704 + High resolution 3D comb filter. So are those
    > specs you gave me based on the inherent design itself, or due to
    > differing filters?
    >
    >
    > nsa@dk.catv.ne.jp (Nicolas Santini) wrote in message
    news:<13d89e92.0405151803.1369667e@posting.google.com>...
    > > I don't think you can simply state that S9 = 704 + 3D filter. There
    > > are other design differences, they show in numbers:
    > >
    > > Specs: S9 vs 704
    > > video S/N: 52 vs 51
    > > audio S/N: 117 vs 115
    > > weight: 10.2 vs 8.4
    > >
    > > The S9 is LD-only while the 704 has a compromised clamp to accomodate
    > > CDs. The S9's aluminium turntable better picks up RF signals (that's
    > > what the Pioneer leaflet says). The S9 can read LD-G. Etc...
    > >
    > > Whether the 704 rivals the S9, depends on how you value these
    > > differences.
    > >
    > > Nicolas
  16. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote in message news:<9fecf0b.0405202147.7290f381@posting.google.com>...
    > >
    > > I have no hard proof. However, the Elites comb filter is adjustable
    > > from a range of 1 to 5. The 533 uses settings of off, standard, and
    > > max. That just makes me believe that it may not be the same filter.
    > >
    >
    > That's funnny you say that, because I recently read a rumor that the
    > 533's internal structure is based on the Elite 510. I think the Elite
    > 510 had the same comb filter as the CLD99, correct?

    I'm not sure about that. I think the Elite x10 series had the same
    filter has the HLD-X9/LDS9 LD players. If you look at the owners
    manual for the X10 Elites which can be downloaded from pioneer's
    website, you will see that the comb filter has 5 levels of adjustment,
    from a range of 1 to 5. Likewise, the pure cinema line doubler
    settings are Off, STD, and HQ. The 533's comb filter has settings of
    Off, Std, and MAX. The 533's Pure Cinema uses Off and On. The Elite
    x10's used the pure cinema I line doubler, which is supposed to be
    what's in the SD-533. If the deinterlacer and comb filter were the
    exact same, why did they use different adjustment levels? If it
    truely is the same deinterlacer and comb filter in the two sets, then
    they took away some of the flexibility and possibly some of the
    performance. For example, the 610's pure cinema has HQ mode, whereas
    the 533 does not.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    I agree that my 530 is supposed to have the same filter as my X9 and I have
    the service manuals for both and will look at it sometime. The big
    difference that matters for me is that the X9 allows separate Y and C
    adjustments where my 530 lumps them together into a NR adjustment function.
    I also figured that by having the X9 do it closer to the source it could be
    more noise free.

    I tried other RPTV's and picked the 530 as in my opinion it did a better job
    with NTSC signals so it's NTSC processing is good.

    Kurtis


    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0405202147.7290f381@posting.google.com...
    > >
    > > I have no hard proof. However, the Elites comb filter is adjustable
    > > from a range of 1 to 5. The 533 uses settings of off, standard, and
    > > max. That just makes me believe that it may not be the same filter.
    > >
    >
    > That's funnny you say that, because I recently read a rumor that the
    > 533's internal structure is based on the Elite 510. I think the Elite
    > 510 had the same comb filter as the CLD99, correct?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    > I myself have an Elite 530 and use an Elite CLD79 LD player via
    > composite into it. The CLD79 is the same player video wise as the CLD
    > 704. I can tell you that this combination gives a great LD image

    Do you use the stretch modes when watching LDs on that set?
  19. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    Kurtis Bahr <kbahr@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40bfda08$0$2935$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
    > I'm not home right now, taking care of my Dad, but I use Zoom mode or
    > the one right before 4:3 to keep the correct aspect ration.
    >
    > Kurtis

    How does the LD picture look with the zoom modes on? I heard that LD
    doesn't look good zoomed on a widescreen set, but I also heard that
    the Pioneer sets have the best stretch modes in the business. Also-
    I'm the guy that emailed you inquiring about buying a 704 from you.
    Email me when you get home and have checked out the 704s.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0406032213.3f0295cd@posting.google.com...
    > How does the LD picture look with the zoom modes on? I heard that LD
    > doesn't look good zoomed on a widescreen set, but I also heard that
    > the Pioneer sets have the best stretch modes in the business.

    Stretched is still stretched. If a picture was meant to be seen as 4:3,
    stretching it to 16:9 is going to be like looking through a fisheye lens
    whenever there is horizontal movement within the frame.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    >"If a picture was meant to be seen as 4:3,
    > stretching it to 16:9 is going to be like looking through a fisheye lens
    > whenever there is horizontal movement within the frame.

    But how does this coincide with gtaylor's comments above that his
    Elite 530 'gives a great LD image' and is impressed by how the 530
    handles LD? The 530 is a widescreen set.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0406041131.533ebda1@posting.google.com...
    > >"If a picture was meant to be seen as 4:3,
    > > stretching it to 16:9 is going to be like looking through a fisheye
    lens
    > > whenever there is horizontal movement within the frame.
    >
    > But how does this coincide with gtaylor's comments above that his
    > Elite 530 'gives a great LD image' and is impressed by how the 530
    > handles LD? The 530 is a widescreen set.

    Widescreen sets have two valid modes for watching laserdisc content: a
    pillarbox mode that places 4:3 content in the center of the screen with
    bars on the sides, and a Zoom mode for non-anamorphic widescreen movies
    that magnifies the center of the picture and crops off the letterbox
    bars on the top and bottom.

    There are also stretch modes. If you really enjoy watching movies
    through a fisheye lens, have at it. Personally, I find it distasteful. A
    4:3 picture is meant to be seen as 4:3. A widescreen picture is meant to
    be seen as widescreen.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "> Widescreen sets have two valid modes for watching laserdisc
    content: a
    > pillarbox mode that places 4:3 content in the center of the screen with
    > bars on the sides, and a Zoom mode for non-anamorphic widescreen movies
    > that magnifies the center of the picture and crops off the letterbox
    > bars on the top and bottom.
    >
    > There are also stretch modes. If you really enjoy watching movies
    > through a fisheye lens, have at it. Personally, I find it distasteful. A
    > 4:3 picture is meant to be seen as 4:3. A widescreen picture is meant to
    > be seen as widescreen.


    I always assumed that stretch modes and zoom modes were the same
    thing. I thought that when you watch a widescreen laserdisc on a
    widescreen set, the picture naturally sits in the center of the
    screen, with black bars on both the top and sides; and by zooming it
    you remove the black bars on the sides, but still leave small bars at
    the top. And when you watch fullscreen laserdiscs on a widescreen set,
    there's gray bars on the sides (or so I'm assuming). You're saying
    that adjusting the image to remove the black/gray bars on the side of
    the screen invariably gives the fisheye lens effect?
  24. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    Kurtis Bahr <kbahr@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40c15901$0$2940$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
    > I also have a 530HD and I bought it as it did better with NTSC pictures
    > than a Mits I brought home and others I've played with in stores. Now
    > all the HDTV's seem to be designed for HD operation and you get varying
    > levels of NTSC performance depending on how much they wanted to spend.
    > NTSC won't be as nice as a 480p/720p/1080i input, just something I've
    > had to accept. I still have my 40" Pioneer Analog unit which has a much
    > clearer and sharper NTSC picture than the 530HD.
    >
    > Kurtis

    What picture mode do you use to view widescreen laserdiscs?
  25. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Chris W." <memnon2@ziplip.com> wrote in message
    news:9fecf0b.0406051511.27e67c0@posting.google.com...
    > I always assumed that stretch modes and zoom modes were the same
    > thing. I thought that when you watch a widescreen laserdisc on a
    > widescreen set, the picture naturally sits in the center of the
    > screen, with black bars on both the top and sides; and by zooming it
    > you remove the black bars on the sides, but still leave small bars at
    > the top. And when you watch fullscreen laserdiscs on a widescreen set,
    > there's gray bars on the sides (or so I'm assuming). You're saying
    > that adjusting the image to remove the black/gray bars on the side of
    > the screen invariably gives the fisheye lens effect?

    No, widescreen TVs typically have 4 viewing modes:

    - A 4:3 mode that pillarboxes content in the center of the screen with
    bars on the sides (good for 4:3 content)
    - A Zoom mode that magnifies the center of the picture and crops off the
    top and bottom (good for non-anamorphic letterbox content, as you
    describe above)
    - A 16:9 mode with a linear stretch (good for anamorphically-enhanced
    widescreen content)
    - A non-linear stretch mode that distorts a 4:3 picture to fit the 16:9
    screen. These usually crop a little bit off the top and bottom, then
    stretch the rest more on the sides than in the center. Objects in the
    center of the frame look geometrically correct, but on the sides they
    will be stretched and any time the camera moves it gives the fisheye
    effect.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    memnon2@ziplip.com (Chris W.) wrote in message news:<9fecf0b.0406051514.61ef0868@posting.google.com>...
    > Kurtis Bahr <kbahr@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40c15901$0$2940$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
    > > I also have a 530HD and I bought it as it did better with NTSC pictures
    > > than a Mits I brought home and others I've played with in stores. Now
    > > all the HDTV's seem to be designed for HD operation and you get varying
    > > levels of NTSC performance depending on how much they wanted to spend.
    > > NTSC won't be as nice as a 480p/720p/1080i input, just something I've
    > > had to accept. I still have my 40" Pioneer Analog unit which has a much
    > > clearer and sharper NTSC picture than the 530HD.
    > >
    > > Kurtis
    >
    > What picture mode do you use to view widescreen laserdiscs?

    On my Elite 530, I use the 4:3 mode for 1.33 aspect ratio laserdiscs,
    Cinema Wide for 1.85 ratio discs, and Zoom for 2.35 ratio lasers. I
    see no fisheye effect as Josh stated.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:928d927c.0406060623.26fc165b@posting.google.com...
    > On my Elite 530, I use the 4:3 mode for 1.33 aspect ratio laserdiscs,
    > Cinema Wide for 1.85 ratio discs, and Zoom for 2.35 ratio lasers. I
    > see no fisheye effect as Josh stated.

    Why would you use different modes for 1.85:1 and 2.35:1? On Pioneer
    sets, "CinemaWide" is meant for non-anamorphic 1.66:1. For
    non-anamorphic 1.85:1, Zoom should nearly fill the screen with accurate
    picture geometry.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<cdHwc.15425$Yd3.5528@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
    > "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:928d927c.0406060623.26fc165b@posting.google.com...
    > > On my Elite 530, I use the 4:3 mode for 1.33 aspect ratio laserdiscs,
    > > Cinema Wide for 1.85 ratio discs, and Zoom for 2.35 ratio lasers. I
    > > see no fisheye effect as Josh stated.
    >
    > Why would you use different modes for 1.85:1 and 2.35:1? On Pioneer
    > sets, "CinemaWide" is meant for non-anamorphic 1.66:1. For
    > non-anamorphic 1.85:1, Zoom should nearly fill the screen with accurate
    > picture geometry.

    Using Zoom on a 1.85 ratio film completely fills the screen and you
    lose image on the sides. Cinema Wide will correctly display a 1.85
    aspect ratio with very small bars on the top and bottom with no
    apparent lose of image. I have tested this using the non-anamaphoric
    DVD of Psycho, which is 1.85. I paused on a scene in the office in
    the begining of the film. I switched to 4x3 mode to see what the
    image should look like. I then switched between Cinema Wide and Zoom,
    and there was lose of image with Zoom plus scan lines are more
    visible. Cinema Wide looked better with no image lose.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:928d927c.0406061349.65877d99@posting.google.com...
    > Using Zoom on a 1.85 ratio film completely fills the screen and you
    > lose image on the sides.

    Sounds like overscan.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<OBMwc.1009$Y3.678@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
    > "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:928d927c.0406061349.65877d99@posting.google.com...
    > > Using Zoom on a 1.85 ratio film completely fills the screen and you
    > > lose image on the sides.
    >
    > Sounds like overscan.

    It isn't. Zoom is the wrong mode for 1.85 ratio non-anamaphoric.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:928d927c.0406061712.31cf6f9@posting.google.com...
    > > > Using Zoom on a 1.85 ratio film completely fills the screen and
    you
    > > > lose image on the sides.
    > >
    > > Sounds like overscan.
    >
    > It isn't. Zoom is the wrong mode for 1.85 ratio non-anamaphoric.

    Your television's aspect ratio is 1.78:1.

    1.85:1 is wider than that. This is simple math.

    If it weren't for overscan, a 1.85:1 image should mostly fill the screen
    with small black bars on the top and bottom. Overscan of about 5% (which
    is perfectly normal) usually cuts off the visibility of those letterbox
    bars. It will also appear to crop image off the sides. That's what
    overscan does.

    Pioneer's "CinemaWide" mode is designed for non-anamorphic 1.66:1
    material. A 1.66:1 image would fill the screen from top to bottom but
    have small pillarbox bars on the sides.

    If you find it preferable for 1.85:1 material as well because it
    counteracts the effects of overscan, that's perfectly fine, but it
    wasn't designed for that usage. You should be seeing black bars on all 4
    sides of the picture.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<%lSwc.16082$Yd3.13192@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
    > "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:928d927c.0406061712.31cf6f9@posting.google.com...
    > > > > Using Zoom on a 1.85 ratio film completely fills the screen and
    > you
    > > > > lose image on the sides.
    > > >
    > > > Sounds like overscan.
    > >
    > > It isn't. Zoom is the wrong mode for 1.85 ratio non-anamaphoric.
    >
    > Your television's aspect ratio is 1.78:1.
    >
    > 1.85:1 is wider than that. This is simple math.

    Correct, which is why Cinema Wide has small black bars for 1.85
    non-anamaphoric.
    >
    > If it weren't for overscan, a 1.85:1 image should mostly fill the screen
    > with small black bars on the top and bottom. Overscan of about 5% (which
    > is perfectly normal) usually cuts off the visibility of those letterbox
    > bars. It will also appear to crop image off the sides. That's what
    > overscan does.
    >
    > Pioneer's "CinemaWide" mode is designed for non-anamorphic 1.66:1
    > material. A 1.66:1 image would fill the screen from top to bottom but
    > have small pillarbox bars on the sides.

    Tell me where in the owners manual it says that. What it actually
    states is that Cinema Wide is for Vista size images, and for Cinema
    Scope images that contain subtitles, ie 2.35 with subtitles such as
    Star Wars. My understanding is that Vista Size is not 1.66 exclusivly.
    It is used for up to 1.96. I don't think I have any 1.66
    non-anamaphoric, but would like to see what it does with it.

    Zoom states that it is for Cinema Scope size images.
    >
    > If you find it preferable for 1.85:1 material as well because it
    > counteracts the effects of overscan, that's perfectly fine, but it
    > wasn't designed for that usage. You should be seeing black bars on all 4
    > sides of the picture.

    I disagree with Cinema Wide is for 1.66 exclusively. Cinema Wide
    perfectly displays 1.85. Zoom distorts it.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:928d927c.0406070247.18dc970e@posting.google.com...
    > > Your television's aspect ratio is 1.78:1.
    > >
    > > 1.85:1 is wider than that. This is simple math.
    >
    > Correct, which is why Cinema Wide has small black bars for 1.85
    > non-anamaphoric.

    It also puts small bars on the sides, which it doesn't need to do for
    1.85:1.

    > > Pioneer's "CinemaWide" mode is designed for non-anamorphic 1.66:1
    > > material. A 1.66:1 image would fill the screen from top to bottom
    but
    > > have small pillarbox bars on the sides.
    >
    > Tell me where in the owners manual it says that.

    How about here?

    http://tinyurl.com/yq9x7

    -----------
    CinemaWide Mode - is designed for letterboxed films in the 1.66:1 "mild"
    widescreen format. It maintains the accuracy of the horizontal
    information, removing the black bands at the top and bottom of the
    frame.
    -----------

    > What it actually
    > states is that Cinema Wide is for Vista size images, and for Cinema
    > Scope images that contain subtitles, ie 2.35 with subtitles such as
    > Star Wars. My understanding is that Vista Size is not 1.66 exclusivly.
    > It is used for up to 1.96. I don't think I have any 1.66
    > non-anamaphoric, but would like to see what it does with it.
    >
    > Zoom states that it is for Cinema Scope size images.

    The manual's wording is misleading.

    The chip inside the TV is not intelligent enough to tell the aspect
    ratio of the content on the disc. Whether the content is 1.66:1, 1.85:1,
    or 1.96:1, the "CinemaWide" mode is going to zoom it in the exact same
    degree. On 1.96:1, you will see even larger bars on the top and bottom
    of the frame, with the same sized bars on the sides.

    > I disagree with Cinema Wide is for 1.66 exclusively. Cinema Wide
    > perfectly displays 1.85. Zoom distorts it.

    As far as the TV is concerned, there is no difference between one
    non-anamorphic picture and another. It can't tell what the aspect ratio
    is. The only difference between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 is that to your eye
    the 2.35:1 picture has larger black bars. The TV doesn't know that. It
    treats them exactly the same. If you think Zoom is distorting 1.85:1
    content, then it is equally distorting 2.35:1 content.

    Zoom magnifies the center of the picture. The sides of the video signal
    should reach the sides of the TV screen, and the black bars on the top
    and bottom will be cropped.

    CinemaWide magnifies the center of the picture to a lesser degree. The
    top and bottom of a 1.66:1 image will reach the top and bottom of the
    screen, and bars are added to the sides.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<xKYwc.16251$Yd3.2920@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
    > "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:928d927c.0406070247.18dc970e@posting.google.com...
    > > > Your television's aspect ratio is 1.78:1.
    > > >
    > > > 1.85:1 is wider than that. This is simple math.
    > >
    > > Correct, which is why Cinema Wide has small black bars for 1.85
    > > non-anamaphoric.
    >
    > It also puts small bars on the sides, which it doesn't need to do for
    > 1.85:1.

    I haven't ever watched a non-anamaphoric 1.66 on mine, but I've heard
    other Pioneer owners state that it does not add side bars. I'll have
    to pick up a non-ana 1.66 and test this for myself. What are some
    1.66 no-ana titles?
    >
    > > > Pioneer's "CinemaWide" mode is designed for non-anamorphic 1.66:1
    > > > material. A 1.66:1 image would fill the screen from top to bottom
    > but
    > > > have small pillarbox bars on the sides.
    > >
    > > Tell me where in the owners manual it says that.
    >
    > How about here?
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/yq9x7

    That is a document written for the SD-641, not the Elite 530. The 641
    is an older design. Technology has been improved upon since that set.
    >
    > -----------
    > CinemaWide Mode - is designed for letterboxed films in the 1.66:1 "mild"
    > widescreen format. It maintains the accuracy of the horizontal
    > information, removing the black bands at the top and bottom of the
    > frame.
    > -----------
    >
    > > What it actually
    > > states is that Cinema Wide is for Vista size images, and for Cinema
    > > Scope images that contain subtitles, ie 2.35 with subtitles such as
    > > Star Wars. My understanding is that Vista Size is not 1.66 exclusivly.
    > > It is used for up to 1.96. I don't think I have any 1.66
    > > non-anamaphoric, but would like to see what it does with it.
    > >
    > > Zoom states that it is for Cinema Scope size images.
    >
    > The manual's wording is misleading.
    >
    > The chip inside the TV is not intelligent enough to tell the aspect
    > ratio of the content on the disc. Whether the content is 1.66:1, 1.85:1,
    > or 1.96:1, the "CinemaWide" mode is going to zoom it in the exact same
    > degree. On 1.96:1, you will see even larger bars on the top and bottom
    > of the frame, with the same sized bars on the sides.

    I'm getting confused here. With 1.85, there are NO bars on the side,
    and there shouldn't be. Why would there be at 1.96? There should be
    larger bars on the top and bottom, but on the sides? Are you saying
    that Cinema Wide should always have side bars because a document
    written for the SD-641 TV, which is an old set now, says it is
    designed for 1.66? Perhaps the function of the cinema wide mode has
    been improved since the SD-641. But I can tell you that on ~1.85 there
    are certainly no side bars.
    >
    > > I disagree with Cinema Wide is for 1.66 exclusively. Cinema Wide
    > > perfectly displays 1.85. Zoom distorts it.
    >
    > As far as the TV is concerned, there is no difference between one
    > non-anamorphic picture and another. It can't tell what the aspect ratio
    > is. The only difference between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 is that to your eye
    > the 2.35:1 picture has larger black bars. The TV doesn't know that. It
    > treats them exactly the same. If you think Zoom is distorting 1.85:1
    > content, then it is equally distorting 2.35:1 content.

    I watched my star wars LD on my old 4x3 set, and then watched it on
    the Elite using zoom mode and I saw no lose of information on the
    sides. Cinema Wide feature the same video content but with much
    larger black bars.

    I'm not sure what we are arguing about at this point, but all I can
    say is regardless of what you have read, Cinema Wide is the best mode
    for ~1.85. Zoom mode zooms too much and crops the image.
    >
    > Zoom magnifies the center of the picture. The sides of the video signal
    > should reach the sides of the TV screen, and the black bars on the top
    > and bottom will be cropped.
    >
    > CinemaWide magnifies the center of the picture to a lesser degree. The
    > top and bottom of a 1.66:1 image will reach the top and bottom of the
    > screen, and bars are added to the sides.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:928d927c.0406071454.3963e4b1@posting.google.com...
    > I haven't ever watched a non-anamaphoric 1.66 on mine, but I've heard
    > other Pioneer owners state that it does not add side bars. I'll have
    > to pick up a non-ana 1.66 and test this for myself. What are some
    > 1.66 no-ana titles?

    Try The Nightmare Before Christmas or James & the Giant Peach, on either
    laserdisc or DVD.

    > That is a document written for the SD-641, not the Elite 530. The 641
    > is an older design. Technology has been improved upon since that set.

    Regardless of whether technology has improved, companies tend to keep
    the same names for the same functions from one model to the next. Maybe
    I'm wrong and they changed the designation of "CinemaWide", but it seems
    unlikely.

    > > The chip inside the TV is not intelligent enough to tell the aspect
    > > ratio of the content on the disc. Whether the content is 1.66:1,
    1.85:1,
    > > or 1.96:1, the "CinemaWide" mode is going to zoom it in the exact
    same
    > > degree. On 1.96:1, you will see even larger bars on the top and
    bottom
    > > of the frame, with the same sized bars on the sides.
    >
    > I'm getting confused here. With 1.85, there are NO bars on the side,
    > and there shouldn't be. Why would there be at 1.96?

    Because the TV has no way of telling what aspect ratio the movie on the
    disc is. You're setting the TV for its 1.66:1 mode, which adds bars on
    the sides. Regardless of what aspect ratio is really on the disc, it's
    going to do the same thing to every movie.

    If you're not seeing bars on the sides, it's possible that overscan is
    cutting them off.

    > > If you think Zoom is distorting 1.85:1
    > > content, then it is equally distorting 2.35:1 content.
    >
    > I watched my star wars LD on my old 4x3 set, and then watched it on
    > the Elite using zoom mode and I saw no lose of information on the
    > sides. Cinema Wide feature the same video content but with much
    > larger black bars.

    This just proves my point. CinemaWide is shrinking the movie picture
    down, adding bars on the sides (possibly cut off by overscan). The
    effect you see is that the movie image looks smaller and the bars on top
    and bottom look bigger.

    Look again and I bet you WILL see loss of information on the sides with
    ZOOM mode. The information is lost to overscan.

    > I'm not sure what we are arguing about at this point, but all I can
    > say is regardless of what you have read, Cinema Wide is the best mode
    > for ~1.85. Zoom mode zooms too much and crops the image.

    Whatever Pioneer has decided to call the functions on their latest TVs,
    you should be using the same setting for all non-anamorphic discs
    regardless of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If that's not Zoom, then you should be
    using CinemaWide for both. The TV does not have separate settings for
    non-anamorphic 1.85:1 and non-anamorphic 2.35:1. From the TV's
    perspective, both of these pictures are exactly the same as one another.

    1.66:1 is a custom aspect ratio setting that some TV manufacturers
    include that adds bars on the sides so that you don't lose picture off
    the top and bottom from that aspect ratio (as you would if you did a
    straight Zoom).
  36. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<Xlsxc.3291$Y3.673@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
    > "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:928d927c.0406071454.3963e4b1@posting.google.com...
    > > I haven't ever watched a non-anamaphoric 1.66 on mine, but I've heard
    > > other Pioneer owners state that it does not add side bars. I'll have
    > > to pick up a non-ana 1.66 and test this for myself. What are some
    > > 1.66 no-ana titles?
    >
    > Try The Nightmare Before Christmas or James & the Giant Peach, on either
    > laserdisc or DVD.
    >
    > > That is a document written for the SD-641, not the Elite 530. The 641
    > > is an older design. Technology has been improved upon since that set.
    >
    > Regardless of whether technology has improved, companies tend to keep
    > the same names for the same functions from one model to the next. Maybe
    > I'm wrong and they changed the designation of "CinemaWide", but it seems
    > unlikely.
    >
    > > > The chip inside the TV is not intelligent enough to tell the aspect
    > > > ratio of the content on the disc. Whether the content is 1.66:1,
    > 1.85:1,
    > > > or 1.96:1, the "CinemaWide" mode is going to zoom it in the exact
    > same
    > > > degree. On 1.96:1, you will see even larger bars on the top and
    > bottom
    > > > of the frame, with the same sized bars on the sides.
    > >
    > > I'm getting confused here. With 1.85, there are NO bars on the side,
    > > and there shouldn't be. Why would there be at 1.96?
    >
    > Because the TV has no way of telling what aspect ratio the movie on the
    > disc is. You're setting the TV for its 1.66:1 mode, which adds bars on
    > the sides. Regardless of what aspect ratio is really on the disc, it's
    > going to do the same thing to every movie.
    >
    > If you're not seeing bars on the sides, it's possible that overscan is
    > cutting them off.

    There are no sidebars. Period.
    >
    > > > If you think Zoom is distorting 1.85:1
    > > > content, then it is equally distorting 2.35:1 content.

    > >
    > > I watched my star wars LD on my old 4x3 set, and then watched it on
    > > the Elite using zoom mode and I saw no lose of information on the
    > > sides. Cinema Wide feature the same video content but with much
    > > larger black bars.
    >
    > This just proves my point. CinemaWide is shrinking the movie picture
    > down, adding bars on the sides (possibly cut off by overscan). The
    > effect you see is that the movie image looks smaller and the bars on top
    > and bottom look bigger.
    >
    > Look again and I bet you WILL see loss of information on the sides with
    > ZOOM mode. The information is lost to overscan.
    >
    > > I'm not sure what we are arguing about at this point, but all I can
    > > say is regardless of what you have read, Cinema Wide is the best mode
    > > for ~1.85. Zoom mode zooms too much and crops the image.
    >
    > Whatever Pioneer has decided to call the functions on their latest TVs,
    > you should be using the same setting for all non-anamorphic discs
    > regardless of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If that's not Zoom, then you should be
    > using CinemaWide for both. The TV does not have separate settings for
    > non-anamorphic 1.85:1 and non-anamorphic 2.35:1. From the TV's
    > perspective, both of these pictures are exactly the same as one another.
    >
    > 1.66:1 is a custom aspect ratio setting that some TV manufacturers
    > include that adds bars on the sides so that you don't lose picture off
    > the top and bottom from that aspect ratio (as you would if you did a
    > straight Zoom).

    I will rent a non-anamaphoric 1.66 soon and see if Cinema wide does
    this. Probably won't be too soon as my HLD-X9 just arrived from
    Nicolas!

    We're going to have to just agree to disagree. Cinema Wide makes 1.85
    look the best, hence the owners manual stating that it is for Vista
    size images. Zoom works best with 2.35, hence it's statement of
    Cinemascope.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

    "gtaylor" <gltaylor74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:928d927c.0406091739.51a2835f@posting.google.com...
    > > If you're not seeing bars on the sides, it's possible that overscan
    is
    > > cutting them off.
    >
    > There are no sidebars. Period.

    If they were hidden by overscan, you wouldn't know.

    > I will rent a non-anamaphoric 1.66 soon and see if Cinema wide does
    > this. Probably won't be too soon as my HLD-X9 just arrived from
    > Nicolas!

    You really don't specifically need a 1.66:1 disc to tell. Any aspect
    ratio content will do. You just have to look closely to see what happens
    to the image when you change from one mode to the next.

    > We're going to have to just agree to disagree. Cinema Wide makes 1.85
    > look the best, hence the owners manual stating that it is for Vista
    > size images. Zoom works best with 2.35, hence it's statement of
    > Cinemascope.

    There is no logical explanation for how this could be. Honestly, try
    thinking it out, what could the television possibly do differently to
    distinguish these aspect ratios, unless it is visibly cropping or
    stretching one of them to fill the screen? I would like to know what it
    is you think that CinemaWide mode does to 1.85:1 material that it
    doesn't do to 2.35:1 material.

    I don't mean to sound argumentative. You've just left me utterly
    perplexed.
Ask a new question

Read More

Laser Disc Players Filter