For those of you with 1080p content (Blu-ray) and normal 16:9 1080p screens, do you normally watch 2.35:1 content (movies) in its native letterboxed format, or do you zoom it in to fill your entire screen?

I didn't think that BD was an anamorphic format?

Seggers

1. Yes, the use of the word "anamorphic" here is incorrect.

2. No, I don't want to throw away a significant portion of the picture information I paid for when I bought the Blu-ray Disc. I paid for those pixels and I want to see them all! ;)

Why don't the manufacturers just build TV's with the correct format? I have a few DVD's that play in 16:9 but most of them don't. Or, why don't the film makers create their movies in 16:9? Seems stupid to me. And I know that both groups could make the change so that when we buy a large screen TV that the majority of content, not the minority, would fit correctly.

thanks for the correction about the wording, anamorphic.

I'm with you jaseman, I think most people who are buying a 46"+ TV have movies as a priority and would be ok with sidebar letterboxing for non-movie content.

Who ever voted "zoomed" should have their blu-ray player confiscated! :)

OAR for me all the time. My 2.35:1 movies have bars at the top and bottom, and my academy ratio films have bars on the sides. I am interested in the film, not filling up my TV screen.

If they actually made 2.35:1 TVs, then the "I want my screen filled" types would start zooming 16:9 films because they would have black bars on the sides.

Why would one want to zoom (reducing the resolution and deleting some of the picture)?

I always use 1:1 pixel mode for 1920x1080 content, which results in no zooming or overscan. (and fit to screen for lower resolutions)

ditto: on my Samsung 550 1080p TV it's called "just scan" i think.

Who ever voted "zoomed" should have their blu-ray player confiscated! :)

Same for whoever started this poll :)

The industry should move to 2.35:1 displays.

I do not zoom what so ever that is a no no;) And I also use a Anamorphic lens so no black bars for me:)

The industry should move to 2.35:1 displays.

There are plenty of 4x3 films I want to watch. 16x9 is the only reasonable compromise I feel.

There are plenty of 4x3 films I want to watch. 16x9 is the only reasonable compromise I feel.

True, but dont tell me you wouldnt like the 56 inch Philips 21:9 in the bedroom. ;)

Who ever voted "zoomed" should have their blu-ray player confiscated! :)

+1

It´s the same people that complained about "I don´t want no dang black bars on da screen!!" back in the 4:3 CRT TV days :D

Or, why don't the film makers create their movies in 16:9? Seems stupid to me.

Because the movies are made for THEATERS with 2.35:1 screens and NOT 1.78:1 TV displays ;)

And 2.35:1 movies have much better looking compositions than 1.85:1, escpecially for huge action/sci-fi/adventure movies.

The Zoom function should be banned in the High Def era :D

What I think is funny (in a weird sense) is that if you go to an actual movie theater, not every feature will "fill up the screen". There are actually "black bars" at the top and bottom when watching widescreen presentations.

That apparently doesn't bother people---yet do OAR on a TV and the screaming starts. :D

You should think that people have gotten used of the black bars by now ;)

In sweden, a LOT of movies was shown on regular broadcast TV in OAR since the early 90:s, and Pan & Scan died even on VHS at the end of that decade.

It´s incredible that Pan & Scan versions of NEW movies on DVD:s STILL are avalible this day and age in the US. Are 4:3 CRT:s still avalible in US stores?

I hope all these complaints from "black bars" haters won´t bring on the "open matte"/cropped hell to Blu-ray :D
Oh yeah....Alliance in Canade have released a few 2.35:1 movies in 1.85:1 :rolleyes:

And 2.35:1 movies have much better looking compositions than 1.85:1, escpecially for huge action/sci-fi/adventure movies.


That is a matter of personal opinion - and I don't agree with it.

They "may" look better in movie theaters, but in my opinion not on TV's. I'm a big fan of the 1.85 ratio. As an example, watch the 1.85 scenes from The Dark Knight. Getting a "full" screen (1.85) picture was soooo much better looking than the 2.35 ratio which most of the movie was in. Granted the IMAX cameras helped out.

Also - people with TV's that are subject to "burn in" also may choose to zoom so they don't get black bar's "burned" into their displays.

I don't zoom any blu-ray but there are some old DVD releases like Cut Throat Island and The Great Outdoors that do not project correctly even though they are widescreen.
*I'm sure there are other titles that have this issue as well.

The widescreen is projected within the 4:3 boundaries on the screen.

So, on those special circumstances, I can either watch a DVD in widescreen within the 4:3 boundaries or zoom it to fill the screen.

Format Wars

By Steven Soderbergh

In case you were wondering how bad a 2.40 film looks on standard-size HD channels, our national vice president explains it all. And, he’s taken a photo of himself to prove his point.

http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Summer2009/InMyOpinion/tabid/720/Default.aspx

I voted "letterboxed" but I use an anamorphic lens now, so no black bars for me.

For the past 9 years I have used a 16x9 screen and have NEVER zoomed.....

I voted "letterboxed" but I use an anamorphic lens now, so no black bars for me.

For the past 9 years I have used a 16x9 screen and have NEVER zoomed.....

But those subtitles in black bars are a b*tch ain't they :-)

The industry should move to 2.35:1 displays.

I'm not sure if you're just teasing here, MovieSwede, but can you imagine the angry letters to manufacturers from people watching standard-screen (1.33:1) broadcasts and older 1.33:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen and having even more black space on the sides. :)

By the way, more theatrical releases are still projected at 1.85:1 in theaters than 2.35:1/2.40:1, and, of course, most HD television shows these days are shot at 1.85:1/1.78:1.

As somebody else pointed out, when your local multiplex theater shows a 2.35:1 movie, the top and bottom of their screen usually has black spaces on it, which we don't notice. Or, conversely, 1.85:1 moves are sometimes shown on 2.35:1 screens, and either we don't notice the black areas on the sides of the screen, or a curtain is pulled in from the sides to accommodate the film size projected.

16:9 (1.78:1) is, indeed, the best compromise for a widescreen television set, what with over fifty years of movies shot in 1.33:1 (1.37:1) until the early 1950's, TV broadcasts in 1.33:1-1.85:1, and movies today in everything from 1.33:1 to 2.75:1. No one size TV fits all. Even though projectors can manage the correct sizes, one's in-home screen has to be big enough to fit them all, meaning some space will not be used for some ratios.

John

But those subtitles in black bars are a b*tch ain't they :-)

what black bars......I don't know what you are talking about.:D

What I think is funny (in a weird sense) is that if you go to an actual movie theater, not every feature will "fill up the screen". There are actually "black bars" at the top and bottom when watching widescreen presentations.

This is not supposed to happen, and is not very common in my experience. Movie theaters are "constant image height" installations -- they move the side masks in and out to accommodate varying aspect ratios.

I'm know there are many incompetently-run movie theaters out there, but nobody should mistake this for anything but ignorance, laziness, or malfunctioning equipment. It's not supposed to happen.

What I think is funny (in a weird sense) is that if you go to an actual movie theater, not every feature will "fill up the screen". There are actually "black bars" at the top and bottom when watching widescreen presentations.

That apparently doesn't bother people---yet do OAR on a TV and the screaming starts. :D


I can't recall ever being at a theater that had black bars during the feature other than watching blown up features on a true Imax screen. I doubt it would have taken more than 10-15 seconds to forget about the bars honestly, but is this a common thing in some areas?

I have been to a few theaters which seem to use multiple size screens (some rooms with 2.4 ratio, some 1.85) and put the films in specific rooms depending on the film in question. More commonly a lot of theaters have 2.4 screens with side masks/curtains that move in or out depending on what the film needs,

to the poster above who wanted a 2.35:1 display, phillips actually sells one now outside the US http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/gb/consumer/cc/_categoryid_TELEVISIONS_CA_GB_CONSUMER/?tab=cinema%2021:9

Never zoom my samsung (16x9), but eventually when I build my dedicated room I'll do a 2.37:1 CIH screen, I'll "Zoom" that to fill the width.

For those of you with 1080p content (Blu-ray) and normal 16:9 1080p screens, do you normally watch 2.35:1 content (movies) in its native letterboxed format, or do you zoom it in to fill your entire screen?

You've got to be kidding me. Someone would zoom in a 2.35 movie so it "fills their screen"? :eek:

You've got to be kidding me. Someone would zoom in a 2.35 movie so it "fills their screen"? :eek:

So many people want Blu Ray to go mainstream, but what they forget is that the pan & scan lovers are gonna come along for the ride...:rolleyes:

Of course not... what do you think I am, a neanderthal?

You should think that people have gotten used of the black bars by now ;)

In sweden, a LOT of movies was shown on regular broadcast TV in OAR since the early 90:s, and Pan & Scan died even on VHS at the end of that decade.

It´s incredible that Pan & Scan versions of NEW movies on DVD:s STILL are avalible this day and age in the US. Are 4:3 CRT:s still avalible in US stores?


You can actually still purchase 4:3 CRTs here, although they are not at all common. I recently saw several similar to this at a local store:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8205765&type=product&id=1165610666527

to the poster above who wanted a 2.35:1 display, phillips actually sells one now outside the US http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/gb/consumer/cc/_categoryid_TELEVISIONS_CA_GB_CONSUMER/?tab=cinema%2021:9

I wonder how it handles those IMAX scenes in the Dark Knight.

to the poster above who wanted a 2.35:1 display, phillips actually sells one now outside the US http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/gb/consumer/cc/_categoryid_TELEVISIONS_CA_GB_CONSUMER/?tab=cinema%2021:9

Have been looking at that one in stores, while its a nice display.

$6250 is a bit to much.

This thread should've been "Do you alter the aspect ratios of any content" because many sets have stretch and zoom functions for people that don't know any better.

I think this article has been brought in other thread(s), but it's speaks to the overall issue with zooming

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Aspect_Ratio/HBO/HDTV_Broadcast/Steven_Soderbergh_on_Aspect_Ratio_Offenders/3226

Why don't the manufacturers just build TV's with the correct format? I have a few DVD's that play in 16:9 but most of them don't. Or, why don't the film makers create their movies in 16:9? Seems stupid to me. And I know that both groups could make the change so that when we buy a large screen TV that the majority of content, not the minority, would fit correctly.
There is no "correct format". Each Director and/or Cinematographer decides on how they are going to frame their movie for purely artistic reasons. It isn`t likely they will ever take a TV format into consideration when making their movie for the theater and most consider changing the framing to fit the screen as a crime.

There is no "correct format". Each Director and/or Cinematographer decides on how they are going to frame their movie for purely artistic reasons. It isn`t likely they will ever take a TV format into consideration when making their movie for the theater and most consider changing the framing to fit the screen as a crime.

Then how do you explain Super 35? ;)

They should make a rubber TV. This way you could stretch it or compres it to the shape that you want :D

They could also sell you a 4:3 TV with addon screen modules that you could stick on the side with velcro :p

Best solution I came with... Watch movie in a dark room. You won't notice the black bar that much this way.

Best solution I came with... Watch movie in a dark room. You won't notice the black bar that much this way.

Yes, this is the solution offered by many of today's motion-picture theaters. We don't notice the black bars on the top, bottom, or sides of a theater screen, because either it's too dark or because the theater draws a curtain down or in to hide the unused areas (black bars) of the screen (unless the projected film dimensions fit the theater screen, which doesn't always happen.)

The manager of my local 16-screen multiplex took me on a tour of the projection room this morning. Of the 16 screens, six were in wide (2.40:1) dimensions and ten in flat (1.85:1) dimensions. When the theater has to show a 2.40:1 film and doesn't have a wide screen available, he lowers a curtain to mask the black, unused area at the top. Unless he forgets, which he said sometimes happens, in which case nobody ever notices the black area, anyway.

In any case, like theaters a television uses a fixed size screen, so we deal with it one way or another.

John

My display is 2.39:1 so no I don't.

Art

The best reply in this discussion was to point out my new signature, a fantastic quote I just read today.