Resize a 16:9 to panavision/cinemascope

[freelock7]

I would like to resize a 1:85 movie to 2:35 (anamorphic panavision 16:9).
Is it possible to keep the same resolution (720,576) and the same aspect ratio ?
What script resize can I use for that?
AddBorders(0,60,0,60) add a letterboxing but aspect ratio is wrong.
How to correct?

[Daodan]

I'm not exactly sure I understood you right, but you seem to have a PAL dvd (720x576), and you want to keep the full resolution and also the original aspect ratio? If that's the case just do anamorphic encoding (an easy way is to put the DAR in matroskamerge, or SAR in the encoder (at least in xvid and x264 i know you can)). There are quite a few discutions over this in the mpeg4AVC forum.

[Wilbert]

What is the DAR of your 1.85 movie? If the DAR is also 16x9 you should either crop stuff away from the 1.85 and replace it by black borders, or add black borders to the left and right.

[freelock7]

Ok but letterboxing on the left and right is not compatible with 16:9 TVscreen.
I found the solution in FlaskMpeg in advanced parameters
unchecked letterboxing (top=50; bottom=50)
Keeping aspect ratio =16:9
AR is preserved.

[Wilbert]

Ok but letterboxing on the left and right is not compatible with 16:9 TVscreen.
Why wouldn't it be compatible? It is still 720x576 / 16x9. Perhaps it's not desirable, agreed ...

Just curious, why is keeping the 1.85 not an option?

[freelock7]

Don't you think 2:35 is better than 1:85?
It seems curious to have a "pan-scan" anamorphic 1:85 (or fullscreen) while original picture is 2:35 letterboxed (or widescreen).
The 2:35 format is my preference because it remains the best way to see a movie with much details.
If the native format is not 2:35, so I agree, it's a waste of time to do it!
Thanks for your suggestion.

[Wilbert]

Don't you think 2:35 is better than 1:85?
It seems curious to have a "pan-scan" anamorphic 1:85 (or fullscreen) while original picture is 2:35 letterboxed (or widescreen).
I agree, but i thought your source is a 1.85 movie? In your pics you are cropping away part of the image, which is a pity if it is not necessary.

[freelock7]

Really bad indeed (i didn't see it)!
Your option is the best. I'll do some tests on my TV screen. Thanks.

[Mug Funky]

hehe. sounds like the "restored" thunderbirds series. originally shot in 4:3 (of course... why waste film?), it was seen fit to crop the top and bottom off the show and present it in anamorphic 16:9 with half the picture missing.

2 cents: only mess with aspect ratio if you're going to gain something, not lose it.

[MrTroy]

hehe. sounds like the "restored" thunderbirds series. originally shot in 4:3 (of course... why waste film?), it was seen fit to crop the top and bottom off the show and present it in anamorphic 16:9 with half the picture missing.
Are you sure? Ever since I'd read this post, I went looking on IMDB, Amazon, DVD review sites, etc. to see if this was true. But every single site lists the Thunderbirds DVDs as 1.33:1.

Or were the 1.78:1 versions quickly removed from the shelves and replaced by 1.33:1, when they found out people like the OAR better?

[Mug Funky]

to be honest, i don't know. i heard the above from a TV series boffin the other day. sounds like the sort of thing that happens though...

it's possible it was restored to 16:9, then letterboxed to 4:3 :) i'd hate to see that happen...