About DVD resolution

[luctmrc]

If MPEG2 can't support any resolution above 720x480 doesn't that mean that widescreen format DVDs (16:9) are inferior to fullscreen DVDs (4:3)? If a widescreen movie is confined to 720 pixels in width then in order for it to be kept in the 16:9 aspect ratio the height will have to be less than 480 pixels (somewhere around 400 or 408 is my guess) which would mean that widescreen TVs stretch out the actual picture contained in the DVD to fit the TV screen, thus giving you inferior quality. Is this true? Somebody please tell me it isn't. (And IF it isn't what is the secret REAL resolution of widescreen?)

[mikesbytes]

What about HD-DVD ?

[luctmrc]

well yea that's what i wanna know, like what is the resolution on those?

[proxyx99]

Depends on the screen. Actually the 19:9 has more resolution then 4:3.
Displayed on 4:3 screen it will be 720 by 360 roughly. Although I cannt give you detailed answer it all boils down to different pixel matrix used by these formats. 4:3 is not native to 16:9 so you will loose some resolution. On native 16:9 you will have more resolution then on comparable 4:3. Pixels are not square but rectangular. Very confusing indeed. Encoding 720:480 by definition should be using all vertical resolutioin lines available. So quality loss should not apply. Broadcast signal has 360 lines vs. cable companies actually sending no more then 240! (not in case of digital cable). There are websites that may enlighten you a bit. I certainly do not feel 100% comfortable as I don't own 16:9 native system to take advantage of it. PC monitors are 4:3. Tv broacast is mostly 4:3. Big mess. I'm fed up with salesman trying to sell you 16:9 and showing cable picture with squished faces. Or aritificially widening the picture on both sides to adjust to 16:9. What's better? To have 16:9 and have lines on the sides for TV, or 4:3 with picture getting smaller and smaller. I guess manuf. had to jump on it to force global TV swap. What will they come up with next, to render out spanking new 16:9 screens obsolete...?

[mikesbytes]

In reality, most TV's are standard definition and having more than 720 pixels wouldn't make any difference to the quality. The number of vertial lines is fixed, so to get a thinner picture, not using the top and bottom of the screen is the simplest solution that provided compatiblity with the standard definition TV's and therefor worked with what the comsumers already had. To sum up, if the DVD standard had provided a greater resoution, there would of been no benifit to the majority of consumers, as the standard definition TV's wouldn't have shown anymore detail anway.

[luctmrc]

wow what an exhaustive answer, thanks. Although this didn't really answer my question directly I now know that I probably shouldnt bother with widescreen. Nobody I know has a widescreen tv anyways.