I have an early 16:9 HDTV model that does not allow HD programs to fill the screen if they are 2:35 (black bands appear above and below). Do today's models (16:9) allow this? Thank you.

I have an early 16:9 HDTV model that does not allow HD programs to fill the screen if they are 2:35 (black bands appear above and below). Do today's models (16:9) allow this? Thank you.

Most will have a zoom mode, but you will lose some of the content.

I have an early 16:9 HDTV model that does not allow HD programs to fill the screen if they are 2:35 (black bands appear above and below). Do today's models (16:9) allow this? Thank you.

Most will have a zoom mode, but you will lose some of the content.

and decrease your picture quality which is the opposite of what you bought your hdtv for in the 1st place, right?

Most will have a zoom mode, but you will lose some of the content.

Is this, in fact, the case? I like to have the ability to zoom up a 2.35:1 picture to fill a 16:9 screen. (Please, no comments about the director's intent.) While it is true most displays can do this in analog, I am not so sure about most displays' ability to do this with a digital HDMI fed signal.

I know some Sony's can. Most other sets I have come across cannot.
This ability is usually not mentioned at all in specs. It's also can be hard to test in a B & M showroom.

Does anyone know of a list of sets capable of zooming up a digital HD signal?

Does anyone know of a list of sets capable of zooming up a digital HD signal?

Pretty much all of them nowadays. The list of sets NOT capable of this would be much shorter.

--Mav

What is wrong with you? Why would you want to distort and destroy your picture quality to "fill your screen?" Why bother with quality equipment. Stick with a 19" CRT...and buy those full screen dvds.

I have an early 16:9 HDTV model that does not allow HD programs to fill the screen if they are 2:35 (black bands appear above and below). Do today's models (16:9) allow this? Thank you.

Not all of them. Mine doesn't anyways, both HDTVs I owned before did, go figure :rolleyes: You're best to check it out first if this is really important to you, although my PVR can do it, so can one of my DVD players so if yours can it's not really an issue.

What is wrong with you? Why would you want to distort and destroy your picture quality to "fill your screen?" Why bother with quality equipment. Stick with a 19" CRT...and buy those full screen dvds.

I don't like people watching things with black bars on my plasma for stuff that isn't important, everyone hates the stretch look however most accept a zoom. The only time I have black bars on my screen is a movie, 4:3 is zoomed, if it's important I'll use gray bars. Aspect ratio options are useful, maybe not for everyone and often the TV does the best job

My question is, why? Why would you knowingly cut off the sides of the picture. We finally have OAR in the home after years of crappy VHS 4:3, and you want to go backward so you can fill the screen. Arghgh

I don't like the idea of cutting off the sides of the picture either. At the same time, I like a full screen; I feel more immersed in the program. It's not like in a movie theater, where you don't feel like anything is missing. At home, watching a 2:35 movie on a 16:9 screen, I can't help being reminded that a good portion of the screen is unused. The best compromise might be if they could devise an aspect that fills the screen and includes all the material, while compressing the sides very gently and gradually so that they appear more like an extension of the central part. Of course you'll still be aware that the sides are compressed, but you could learn to disregard it and ignore it -- just like you do when you use the "Just" aspect in the case of a 4:3 program. Obviously this is not for purists.

The best compromise might be if they could devise an aspect that fills the screen and includes all the material, while compressing the sides very gently and gradually so that they appear more like an extension of the central part. Of course you'll still be aware that the sides are compressed, but you could learn to disregard it and ignore it
I could, but I learned to disregard and ignore the black bars long ago...

I could, but I learned to disregard and ignore the black bars long ago...
Touche!

........
The best compromise might be if they could devise an aspect that fills the screen and includes all the material, while compressing the sides very gently and gradually so that they appear more like an extension of the central part. Of course you'll still be aware that the sides are compressed, but you could learn to disregard it and ignore it -- just like you do when you use the "Just" aspect in the case of a 4:3 program. Obviously this is not for purists.

I have heard of flat panels that would enlarge and stretch the sides of the image so that 2.35:1 would fit 16x9. Some people like this but I personally don't. This would enlarge the picture so that small amount of sides will be cut and same time stretches the sides of the image to fit to 16x9. Unfortunately I cannot remember the model numbers.

The best solution to this issue, IMO, is a CIH projector setup. A future possibility is Scope flat panels.

My Pioneer 6020 will do it just fine using the zoom feature.
You would never know it was not the original picture format unless someone told you it was in zoom mode.

My Pioneer 6020 will do it just fine using the zoom feature.
You would never know it was not the original picture format unless someone told you it was in zoom mode.

Okay. Is it zoom only or partial-zoom + side-stretch combination?

A future possibility is Scope flat panels.

possible. but EXTREMELY unlikely.

Okay. Is it zoom only or partial-zoom + side-stretch combination?

I don't if it is doing both or not. It just says zoom on the screen size selection.

I can tell you there is no distortion that I can see on the screen.

black bars suck, and are the worst part of blu ray and hd movies.

shoot the film for the proper aspect ratio to fill the screen or dont shoot it at all

I don't if it is doing both or not. It just says zoom on the screen size selection.

I can tell you there is no distortion that I can see on the screen.

Okay. Thanks. If there is an uneven side-only stretch, it will show up in horizontal pans.

possible. but EXTREMELY unlikely.

Potentially, future scope flat panels will create new business to manufacturers and retailers etc. People may consider keeping two sets, one for the Tv and the other for the movies. If there is sufficient demand/take-up, TV networks will consider upgrading to Scope...... This could happen in the next 5 to 10 year time frame.

4x3 is an engineering limitation of 50s (I think) and 16x9 is an engineering limitation of 90s.

shoot the film for the proper aspect ratio to fill the screen or dont shoot it at all

:rolleyes:

black bars suck, and are the worst part of blu ray and hd movies.

shoot the film for the proper aspect ratio to fill the screen or dont shoot it at all

Art should not be restricted to the present day engineering limits. Art is for ever. Engineering limits will (or should) be changed to show the art in its original form. ;)

black bars suck, and are the worst part of blu ray and hd movies.

shoot the film for the proper aspect ratio to fill the screen or dont shoot it at all

buy a bigger set, and they won't bother you... :)

16X9 isn't really an "engineering limitation" (at least for flat panels)... the 16X9 standard was agreed upon as a good compromise for the variety of aspect ratios that exist...

as cool as i think a "scope" flat panel would be, i gotta agree with westgate, i think it's highly unlikely that we'll see one... to delve into the realm of science fiction, it would be REALLY cool if someone could come up with some type of organic device that would "shape shift" dependent on incoming aspect ratio....

HD standards were firmed up in early 90s and at that time the mentality of the standards groups were limited by the CRT technology. It is very hard to engineer a CRT of 2.35:1. I thought this was the primary reason for selecting 16x9.

art should not be restricted to the present day engineering limits. Art is for ever.

+1000 :)

HD standards were firmed up in early 90s and at that time the mentality of the standards groups were limited by the CRT technology. It is very hard to engineer a CRT of 2.35:1. I thought this was the primary reason for selecting 16x9.

Ahhh....NO, that's not it. 16:9 was selected as the compromise aspect ratio that would offer the largest image and the smallest black bars when material in the three commonest AR's was displayed.

1) The commonest AR is and probably always will be 4:3 or 1.33:1. This AR can be displayed on a 16:9 screens with black sidebars that are each 12.5% of the screen, for a total of 75% image and 25% "pillarbox" sidebars.

2) 16:9 HDTV and 35mm or 70mm movies shot with "spherical" lenses (which specify a projector "aperture plate" of 1.78:1 can be shown on a 16:9 display with no black bars and 100% image. The very common AR of 1.85:1 will have extremely narrow top/bottom "letterbox bars" of about 3.8% of the screen total, or 1.9% top/bottom.

3) The so-called "scope" movies in 2.35:1 AR can be displayed on a 16:9 screen with black letterbox bars that are 12.5% of the screen top/bottom, for a total of 25% black letterbox bars and 75% image.

For maximum dramatic effect, the pillarbox and letterbox bars should be as black as possible, although for screen technologies subject to burn-in or image retention (primarily plasma flat panels and CRT projectors and CRT direct-view screens), gray bars are an acceptable compromise that prevents screen damage while only slightly degrading the image.

Many digital interfaces (HDMI and DVI) establish the active image area in the digital handshake and the internal scaler automaticly scales the image to fill the screen, adding pillarbox or letterbox bars as required. If you have a screen technology such as LCD which will not be damaged by letterboxing or pillarboxing, this is a genuine convenience.

The analog interfaces on an HDTV (i.e. the VGA (PC input), component video, S-video, and composite video) inputs often have more flexible scaling options than those that are present on the digital inputs. You can take advantage of this and may decide you want to. For example, I have a few older DVDs in "letterboxed widescreen" with the black bars top/bottom recorded onto a 4:3 image area. If I played these disks on my PS3 Blu-Ray or Toshiba HD-A30 HD-DVD players, both of which are connected via HDMI, I would have BOTH the recorded-in letterbox bars and the pillarbox sidebars, resulting in a smaller image area surrounded on all four sides with black.

I overcame this by retaining my original Panasonic RP-62 standalone DVD player and connecting it via the analog component video interface, with the player set for 480p output and a 4:3 monitor. Then I use the more flexible analog scaler options in my HDTV to stretch the 4:3 image horizontally, displaying the 720X480 source on a 1920X1080 display. This preserves the highest quality analog signal AND the correct 2.35:1 AR with black letterbox bars top/bottom. It was a zero-cost option because I already owned the older DVD player and the component video cables and analog sound cabling.

I only own about a dozen of these 4:3 letterboxed widescreen DVDs, but they happen to include some of my favorites like the James Cameron film The Abyss. Retaining the older RP-62 was a handy workaround for the fact that digital interfaces that automaticly scale resolutions don't always do so correctly.

Ahhh....NO, that's not it. 16:9 was selected as the compromise aspect ratio that would offer the largest image and the smallest black bars when material in the three commonest AR's was displayed.

1) The commonest AR is and probably always will be 4:3 or 1.33:1. This AR can be displayed on a 16:9 screens with black sidebars that are each 12.5% of the screen, for a total of 75% image and 25% "pillarbox" sidebars.

.........



Okay. It is possible that they (standards groups) selected the mid point between 4x3 and 2.35:1 for HD. However, IMO, this is a poor choice because they have given 50% weight to the legacy 4x3 which, I expect, will diminish with time. I doubt whether 4x3 would contribute to even 10% of the material that would be watched in about 5, 6 years time. IMO, it would have been a better compromise if they chose the mid point between 2.4:1 and 1.85:1 as the HD screen aspect.

Slight variation from OP, but there's a forum (and subforum) here devoted to 2.35:1 display, mostly with front projectors (FPs) and setting up 2:35:1 screens, often with variable masking panels. And JVC's newest FP, RS2(?), outlined in the >$3k-forum FP threads, has a built in feature for displaying 2:25:1 movies full screen. Optical or electronic manipulation of stored images seems likely to add distortions; less so, perhaps, with movies captured with anamorphic lenses (squeezed horizontally) shown with the correct stretching lens (as in theaters). -- John

There are practical factors as well. 2.35:1 screens would be very expensive to get in the same screen height as your old 4:3 set. HD adoption would have been slower and can you imagine stretched 4:3 content on them? Probably unwatchable.

Most people don't want to spend more money for a TV that looks smaller.

I think 16x9 is a good compromise, and would rather see movies shot in 16x9. You won't convince me 2.35:1 is some sort of great art form. 95% of the time that extra width is nothing more than wasted space. Unless you have a projector, lets face it, you are not really getting the real big-screen movie effect at home anyway. 16x9 movies are much more engaging on a 16x9 screen than a 2.35:1 movie is.

IMO, of course.:p

Okay. It is possible that they (standards groups) selected the mid point between 4x3 and 2.35:1 for HD. However, IMO, this is a poor choice because they have given 50% weight to the legacy 4x3 which, I expect, will diminish with time. I doubt whether 4x3 would contribute to even 10% of the material that would be watched in about 5, 6 years time. IMO, it would have been a better compromise if they chose the mid point between 2.4:1 and 1.85:1 as the HD screen aspect.

Ahh...No again. In fact more 4:3 material than ever is being released on DVD today. It's a combination of TV shows from the 1950's through 2000's (and many shows including virtually all reality programming are still produced in SD and 4:3) and older films.

16:9 really is the best screen shape. Second best (because it is the native resolution of more DVD material) is 4:3. The 2.35:1 screen is for recent movies only and most people use their HDTVs for a) HD and SD television b) gaming in 4:3 (rarely 16:9) and c) web surfing in 4:3 or 16:9 and d) DVDs in 4:3/16:9/2.35:1. When you consider the various uses for HD displays, 2.35:1 material is THE ABSOLUTE LEAST needed aspect ratio.

Which is not to say you should not lust after a Home Theater with a 2.35:1 constant height front projector and side-masking screen. Of course you should, but for the average HDTV, 16:9 is correct, convenient, and available now.