Just wondering if any HD DVD's actually fill a 16:9 widescreen tv. I've watched about 10 different films now and not a single one fills the screen entirely.

Most films are filmed in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I did watch two HD-DVD's yesterday that were 16:9 aspect ratio however and they were Willy Wonka and Polar Express.

I think Grand Prix, Sky captain and the World of Tomorrow and the Hulk are either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 so they will.

Art

Most films are filmed in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I did watch two HD-DVD's yesterday that were 16:9 aspect ratio however and they were Willy Wonka and Polar Express.

Are you sure? The Polar Express is 2.40:1.

repeat after me ..

there is nothing wrong with black bars

that's how the movie was shot and shown in movie theaters.

IIRC Scary Movie 4 (much funnier than I thought it would be, btw) was 16:9.

Actually I've heard that there are a significant (much-higher-than-would-be-expected) amount of films available on HD DVD that fill the screen. There was a thread on the HD DVD software forum dedicated to this surprising truth not long ago. I personally don't care either way because I enjoy the films in any ratio - but I think if you'll investigate, OP, - that you should be satisfied.

I think Grand Prix, Sky captain and the World of Tomorrow and the Hulk are either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 so they will.

Art

Grand Prix is 2.20:1

All of the Discovery Atlas HDs are 16x9.

Again, though, black bars are your friends. You're actually seeing more, not less.

Actually I've heard that there are a significant (much-higher-than-would-be-expected) amount of films available on HD DVD that fill the screen. There was a thread on the HD DVD software forum dedicated to this surprising truth not long ago. I personally don't care either way because I enjoy the films in any ratio - but I think if you'll investigate, OP, - that you should be satisfied.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=773898&highlight=1+85+1

repeat after me ..

there is nothing wrong with black bars

that's how the movie was shot and shown in movie theaters.

Then why did many buy a 'wide screen' TV? They should call them semi wide screen. Or better yet they should have offered a zoom that zooms the wider aspec ratio movies to fit the vertical axis or made the new HD player incorporate this feature.

Then why did many buy a 'wide screen' TV? They should call them semi wide screen. Or better yet they should have offered a zoom that zooms the wider aspec ratio movies to fit the vertical axis or made the new HD player incorporate this feature.

They bought a widescreen TV to better accomodate Widescreen movies. Many people are just ignorant that there are several widescreen aspect ratios. the 16x9 aspect ratio is a good middle ground for all the myriad of aspect rations. the 1.78:1 ratio covers a lot and gives a much smaller "black bar affect" on 2.35:1 ratio movies and gives much more space than a 2.35:1 ratio tv would have given to 4:3 sources. It's a compromise. NO ONE will ever have 0 black bars on their tv unless they are given a tv that can Morph or certain projector setups. People just need to stop whining about the damn black bars and how directors need to cater to their whims.

Or better yet they should have offered a zoom that zooms the wider aspec ratio movies to fit the vertical axis or made the new HD player incorporate this feature.

Most do, don't they?

This question is asked to no end.

someone really needs to educate people on OAR's.


Stickytime.

Most do, don't they?

Most DVD players have a zoom or s.fit button. However HDDVD players do not. A few of the warner titles allow zooming using the A-D buttons..

But like said you shoulf leave the bars their as zooming will either crop or stretch the image often times giving you a worse overall picture.

I don't even notice them anymore. My 16:9 set always has bars to the left and right during cable veiwing I'd rather not strech the 4:3 image out.

Nacho Libre was 16x9. And how would it be physically possible to build a display that can handle every aspect ratio without bars? Unless people want everything cropped? I wouldn't want that, but a good zoom would be nice for those who don't want bars.

I don't have a problem with the bars. I was just curious as to why some DVDs are made to the 16:9 ratio and others are not. If some movies can be made to this aspect ratio, then certainly all can. Like most things, I'm assuming it's a money issue.

I don't have a problem with the bars. I was just curious as to why some DVDs are made to the 16:9 ratio and others are not. If some movies can be made to this aspect ratio, then certainly all can. Like most things, I'm assuming it's a money issue.

That's kind of like asking why every CD can't have a female singing the vocals. If some can have them, they certainly all can, regardless of whether they were recorded years ago?

The issue is that some movies were made for 2.40:1, and that's why they're presented that way on the discs. If the movie was 1.85:1, that's how they're presented.

Now, if they wanted, they could shoot all of them for 1.85:1 from here on out (not that they will, I'm just saying hypothetically), BUT, what about all the movies that were made for 2.40:1 in the past? They can't go back and time and tell the directors they must make them 1.85:1.

Time to lock the thread?

I don't have a problem with the bars. I was just curious as to why some DVDs are made to the 16:9 ratio and others are not. If some movies can be made to this aspect ratio, then certainly all can. Like most things, I'm assuming it's a money issue.

Time to lock the thread?

Why lock it? The OP had a valid question wanting to know if there are fullscreen HD-DVDs (16x9 format).

EDIT: I have only seen Polar Express on HD-DVD so far and I don't remember if it was fullscreen 16x9. Will check tonight (on 360 addon).

EDIT: I have only seen Polar Express on HD-DVD so far and I don't remember if it was fullscreen 16x9. Will check tonight (on 360 addon).

The Polar Express is 2.40:1.

The OP also asked this in regards to why there are so few 16x9 (1.78:1) titles:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thundernz1
I don't have a problem with the bars. I was just curious as to why some DVDs are made to the 16:9 ratio and others are not. If some movies can be made to this aspect ratio, then certainly all can. Like most things, I'm assuming it's a money issue.
-
Which leads me to believe that the OP is lacking much more than aspect ratios for current titles...WHICH CAN BE FOUND at most high def review sites.


Why lock it? The OP had a valid question wanting to know if there are fullscreen HD-DVDs (16x9 format).

EDIT: I have only seen Polar Express on HD-DVD so far and I don't remember if it was fullscreen 16x9. Will check tonight (on 360 addon).

Goodfellas and Caddyshack are the only ones I recall off the top of my head that were 1.78:1 or 1.85:1.

Honestly, seeing this question pop up again and again on AVS forum after almost 10 years of DVD surprises the hell out of me.

I don't have a problem with the bars. I was just curious as to why some DVDs are made to the 16:9 ratio and others are not. If some movies can be made to this aspect ratio, then certainly all can. Like most things, I'm assuming it's a money issue.

Money has nothing to do with it.

Film makers are artists, they will use whatever aspect ratio fits the overal mood they are trying to set. One wouldn't ask for the Mona Lisa to be reframed as a landscape painting and so one shouldn't ask a film maker to do that to their movies.

Grand Prix is 2.20:1




I stand corrected. :)

Here are a few more:
Corpse Bride
The Thing
The Searchers
Good Night and Good Luck

Art

I don't have a problem with the bars. I was just curious as to why some DVDs are made to the 16:9 ratio and others are not. If some movies can be made to this aspect ratio, then certainly all can. Like most things, I'm assuming it's a money issue.

It's not a money issue. Wide movies (the ones with the black bars) are visually more impressive in theaters than movies that are less wide (the ones that fill the screen at home).

I hate it when the side curtains don't move to make way for Cinemascope, and I'll never understand why even Mr. Spielberg sometimes goes for 1.85:1. That's an okay format for comedies and some dramas, but that's it.

I hate it when the side curtains don't move to make way for Cinemascope, and I'll never understand why even Mr. Spielberg sometimes goes for 1.85:1. That's an okay format for comedies and some dramas, but that's it.

Agreed. The bigger the bars the cooler the picture for me. I also loooove the wide movie effect in theaters and this translates well to DVD.Maybe I'd think somewhat differently if I were using a 32" TV - but with my 108" FP setup, bring on the BIG bars.

It's not a money issue. Wide movies (the ones with the black bars) are visually more impressive in theaters than movies that are less wide (the ones that fill the screen at home).

I hate it when the side curtains don't move to make way for Cinemascope, and I'll never understand why even Mr. Spielberg sometimes goes for 1.85:1. That's an okay format for comedies and some dramas, but that's it.

Every movie has its own artistic needs. Neither ratio is inherently "better" or "worse" than the other. Saying that is like claiming that one color is better than another.

For example, Spielberg chose to compose Jurassic Park for 1.85:1 because he wanted to emphasize the height of the dinosaurs. A 2.35:1 framing wouldn't be as effective for that need. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan were composed for 1.85:1 to more closely emulate the look of vintage WWII newsreel footage.

I think all movies should be shot in Open Matte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte) and then the director/producer can use the portion of the whole image to make their "as intended by the director" version for the theater. And make the "as intended by the director plus some" to make the movie fill a 16x9 widescreen HDTV.
Or better yet, just make all films in Open Matte as 16x9 (1.78:1) and show them that way at the theater. You lose nothing this way as the "intended by the director" portion is still contained within the image, and wide-sweeping shots would be there (would just be more foreground and sky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg)).

I think all movies should be shot in Open Matte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte) and then the director/producer can use the portion of the whole image to make their "as intended by the director" version for the theater. And make the "as intended by the director plus some" to make the movie fill a 16x9 widescreen HDTV.
Or better yet, just make all films in Open Matte as 16x9 (1.78:1) and show them that way at the theater. You lose nothing this way as the "intended by the director" portion is still contained within the image, and wide-sweeping shots would be there (would just be more foreground and sky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg)).
You obviously have barely just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Just one simple question: Under your great plan how are Panavision films handled?:confused:

I think all movies should be shot in Open Matte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte) and then the director/producer can use the portion of the whole image to make their "as intended by the director" version for the theater. And make the "as intended by the director plus some" to make the movie fill a 16x9 widescreen HDTV.
Or better yet, just make all films in Open Matte as 16x9 (1.78:1) and show them that way at the theater. You lose nothing this way as the "intended by the director" portion is still contained within the image, and wide-sweeping shots would be there (would just be more foreground and sky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg)).


Is this a joke?

You obviously have barely just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Just one simple question: Under your great plan how are Panavision films handled?:confused:

Dangerous to what? I claim no knowledge of how filmmaking works. I just proposed a way for theater and television to match. Of course the movie companies prefer a way to draw people to the theater, so the draw is by having a different movie experience in the theater. Feel free to throw more insults my way though :cool:

As far as Panavision films, if you are referring to existing films, nothing can be done of course. Future films could be shot Open Matte with one standard aspect ratio (1.78:1). Of course this wouldn't sit well with Panavision who would prefer to offer a range of aspect ratios rather than one standard (and already have the expensive lenses to charge usage of).

I had a 100"+ screen also, and I prefer seeing the whole thing filled rather than chopping off top and bottom portions.

This thread was about fullscreen 16x9 HD movies (which is what I was proposing), so I guess we should get back to that. ;)

Is this a joke?
No. Is your question a joke? ;)

I think all movies should be shot in Open Matte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte) and then the director/producer can use the portion of the whole image to make their "as intended by the director" version for the theater. And make the "as intended by the director plus some" to make the movie fill a 16x9 widescreen HDTV.
Or better yet, just make all films in Open Matte as 16x9 (1.78:1) and show them that way at the theater. You lose nothing this way as the "intended by the director" portion is still contained within the image, and wide-sweeping shots would be there (would just be more foreground and sky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg)).

Photographic composition is an artform. The director and cinematographer choose the aspect ratio and position objects within the frame to achieve a desired purpose. Adding extraneous information to the top and bottom of the frame can throw off the balance of a shot and ruin its intended effect.

By your reasoning, there's no need for composition at all in moviemaking. All the director needs to do is place his camera on the far end of the room and make sure all of the actors are somewhere in frame. Who needs close-ups, or medium shots, or even editing? It's all the same so long as stuff shows up somewhere in the picture, right?

No, that's not how photography or filmmaking works.

"Standardizing" aspect ratios is akin to demanding that all painters use the same size canvas. For what purpose? So that the picture fills your TV? Your TV is just a box. The box's job is to display a movie. It's not the movie's job to fill your arbitrary box.

You don't hand a painter a frame you bought previously and tell him to paint something that fills it. The artist paints his artwork and then you find a frame that fits around it. The art itself is what's important, not the frame.

No. Is your question a joke? ;)

Nope.

[deleted the rest, as the post above already said what I wanted to say, painting analogy included]

Photographic composition is an artform. The director and cinematographer choose the aspect ratio and position objects within the frame to achieve a desired purpose. Adding extraneous information to the top and bottom of the frame can throw off the balance of a shot and ruin its intended effect.

By your reasoning, there's no need for composition at all in moviemaking. All the director needs to do is place his camera on the far end of the room and make sure all of the actors are somewhere in frame. Who needs close-ups, or medium shots, or even editing? It's all the same so long as stuff shows up somewhere in the picture, right?

No, that's not how photography or filmmaking works.

"Standardizing" aspect ratios is akin to demanding that all painters use the same size canvas. For what purpose? So that the picture fills your TV? Your TV is just a box. The box's job is to display a movie. It's not the movie's job to fill your arbitrary box.

You don't hand a painter a frame you bought previously and tell him to paint something that fills it. The artist paints his artwork and then you find a frame that fits around it. The art itself is what's important, not the frame.

And yet, TV programming has been standardized for years. Shows are created to fit the TV. Newer programming is 16x9 and fills the screen (by design). The directors for those shows don't just point the camera and leave it. Not sure why you would draw the conclusion that I think that composition isn't important. The directors for shows and made-for-tv movies (which fill the screen, btw) use composition to great effect and can do it within a 16x9 frame. There are many fantastic nature related shows in HD that are the director's artful expression. Yet they manage to do it within the 16x9 frame (and do it well).

You probably won't find a director of a tv show that will say, "I just want a wide short scene, we'll just make it black on top and bottom," though you might I suppose. They will more than likely compose the shot to make use of the full frame.

And as far as standardizing, what do you think 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 are? They seem to be pretty much the standard. If not, where are the 1:1, 1.92:1, 2.68:1, etc.? So much for freeform expression. Directors limit themselves to only a handful of aspect ratios. There's a reason behind it of course...what the theater can display.

Now given all that, I don't really expect the movie industry to change. They make movies for the theater. Movie directors like to use the different aspect ratios to express what they want seen at the theater. When the movie directors decide they want to make movies for tv (that would also look great in the theater, btw), then we'll see 16x9 movies that fit our HDTVs perfectly :)

EDIT: Technically I guess it's probably 2.39:1 (or 2.40:1) not 2.35:1.

I had a 100"+ screen also, and I prefer seeing the whole thing filled rather than chopping off top and bottom portions.

Don't you understand, NOTHING is being chopped off...there is NOTHING there to be missed. Watch the movie, not the bars...you're not missing anything.

repeat after me...
there is nothing wrong with black bars
there is nothing wrong with black bars

that's how the movie was shot and shown in movie theaters.
that's how the movie was shot and shown in movie theaters. ;)

Actually, theaters run constant-image height (CIH) so there are no letterbox bars to be had, and any pillarbox bars are masked off with curtains.

I think all movies should be shot in Open Matte and then the director/producer can use the portion of the whole image to make their "as intended by the director" version for the theater. And make the "as intended by the director plus some" to make the movie fill a 16x9 widescreen HDTV.
Problem with true open matte is you'll chew through a lot more film stock shooting the same film. Especially if the final AR is 2.35:1. Film stock ain't cheap and is a real cost for production companies! ;)

A better compromise is Super 35 (AKA Superscope 235). There are many famous examples of the format's flexability for both theatrical and home releases, such as Jim Cameron's The Abyss. He specifically used the format to be able to create two different home versions: one that represents the theatrical presentation in its OAR, and one for 4:3 full-screen that includes some bonus picture information rather than just a hack pan & scan job. I've seen both and while I always prefer OAR, there are elements of the full-screen version that are interesting too. The two definitely have a different "feel" (beyond the usual nausea and distain that results from P&S desecration).

Or better yet, just make all films in Open Matte as 16x9 (1.78:1) and show them that way at the theater. You lose nothing this way as the "intended by the director" portion is still contained within the image, and wide-sweeping shots would be there (would just be more foreground and sky).
Again, the result is going to be a different psychological feel by the audience to the displayed image. Using your example, going from 2.35:1 (yellow reticle) to 1.85:1 (red reticle) changes the focus of the image from just the mountains/rocks to a more wide-open landscape. I'm not saying that's bad, it's just probably not what the director/DP intended you to see.

Don't you understand, NOTHING is being chopped off...there is NOTHING there to be missed. Watch the movie, not the bars...you're not missing anything.
Bad wording on my part. Let me try again:

I had a 100"+ screen also, and I prefer seeing the whole thing filled rather than not having the whole thing filled.

If the movie was shot in an aspect ratio other than 16x9, I would definitely rather see the whole widescreen movie and ignore the black bars. No argument there, I want the whole image. Problem is, there is no image in the black areas :p

Problem with true open matte is you'll chew through a lot more film stock shooting the same film. Especially if the final AR is 2.35:1. Film stock ain't cheap and is a real cost for production companies! ;)I can see that would be a factor ;)
A better compromise is Super 35 (AKA Superscope 235). There are many famous examples of the format's flexability for both theatrical and home releases, such as Jim Cameron's The Abyss. He specifically used the format to be able to create two different home versions: one that represents the theatrical presentation in its OAR, and one for 4:3 full-screen that includes some bonus picture information rather than just a hack pan & scan job. I've seen both and while I always prefer OAR, there are elements of the full-screen version that are interesting too. The two definitely have a different "feel" (beyond the usual nausea and distain that results from P&S desecration).I have seen the Abyss both ways also and agree that P&S sucks.
Again, the result is going to be a different psychological feel by the audience to the displayed image. Using your example, going from 2.35:1 (yellow reticle) to 1.85:1 (red reticle) changes the focus of the image from just the mountains/rocks to a more wide-open landscape. I'm not saying that's bad, it's just probably not what the director/DP intended you to see.True, but the director planned his intention of what he wanted you to see based on the aspect ratio they decided to do the movie in. Make the choice of 16x9 to begin with and they will plan the shot to fit. I doubt that all the scenes in the movie are suited for one aspect ratio, so the director has to compromise sometimes anyway.

For those who think all movies should be 16 X 9, just make sure your TV will do a zoom, then you can get rid of the black bars. Granted you will crop the sides of the movie, but that will be the way you say the film should have been filmed in the first place.

I love 2.35 AR movies and went the extra mile so that they display correctly in my theater. 2.35 scope screen, anamorphic lens, and a video processor. So please don’t take my 2.35 movies away.

I think the better question is: When will TVs start coming with little automatic velvet curtains? Of course, they would also have to be wider than 16x9. :)

For example, Spielberg chose to compose Jurassic Park for 1.85:1 because he wanted to emphasize the height of the dinosaurs. A 2.35:1 framing wouldn't be as effective for that need.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The dinosaurs wouldn't be any less high in theaters @ 2.40:1 than they are @ 1.85:1.

But you do make good points. There are certainly movies that work very well at 1.85:1, and there are a lot of movies that don't work at 2.40:1.
In fact, if you can't tell that you're watching a zoomed version of a Scope movie then you know that the composition wasn't effective.

One good example is Spartacus (I think that's the one with the scene I have in mind) where there's two people talking to each other, both standing on opposite ends of the frame. If you zoomed this scene just a little bit, you wouldn't see the people anymore.

Of course this is an extreme example, more common are faces chopped in half on zoomed versions.

So yeah, I guess I generalized a bit. Both formats can be composed good or bad. I wouldn't want to imagine Titanic at 1.85:1, just like I wouldn't want to see Full Metal Jacket in 2.40:1.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The dinosaurs wouldn't be any less high in theaters @ 2.40:1 than they are @ 1.85:1.

It's not so much the height of the screen as it is the compositional relationship of the dinosaurs with the rest of the frame. They seem taller because the screen is less wide.

Make the choice of 16x9 to begin with and they will plan the shot to fit.
How about standardizing on 2.35:1 and make TVs wider? ;)

For example, Spielberg chose to compose Jurassic Park for 1.85:1 because he wanted to emphasize the height of the dinosaurs.
Josh, that may have been his "artistic" reason for choosing 1.85:1, but I remember reading in an early Widescreen Review that by using a flat format, it made the CGI effects easier to implement because they didn't have to be pre-squeezed (as they would have to be for anamorphic, ie. Panavision). Nowadays I'm sure they have the technological capability to do so.

For the record there are no 2.35 televisions available. So you cant escape black bars if you want a TV.

Now, I for one think black bars look worse than a filled screen. So if I had the choice of two movies (lets say the director made 2 versions both totally re-made to conserve artistic intention) I would always take the 16:9.

That being said I am lucky enough to have a HT with CIH, so i dont need to worry too much, but i do feel sorry for people who arent in a situation to do a dedicated theatre.

For the record there are no 2.35 televisions available.
No?! Really?! ;)

Now, I for one think black bars look worse than a filled screen. That being said I am lucky enough to have a HT with CIH, so i dont need to worry too much...
But even with constant-image height (CIH) you will get (black) pillarbox bars to the sides when the AR is less than 2.35:1. Or do you just not like letterbox bars? What do you do when the AR is more than 2.35:1 as in the case of Ben-Hur (shot in Super Panavision 70 at 2.7:1)? You'll need the bars then even with your CIH setup.

No?! Really?! ;)


But even with constant-image height (CIH) you will get (black) pillarbox bars to the sides when the AR is less than 2.35:1. Or do you just not like letterbox bars? What do you do when the AR is more than 2.35:1 as in the case of Ben-Hur (shot in Super Panavision 70 at 2.7:1)? You'll need the bars then even with your CIH setup.

That’s why they make velvet curtains. As far as Ben-Hur, Yes there are black bars, but for one movie who cares. I have more 2.55:1 AR than 2.76:1 that I have to deal with with black bars, and that’s OK also.

Imagine a scene outdoor.
Black bar to the top, black bar to the bottom (okay, can live with that)

Now imagine a transition to a very dark scene.
Black bar on the top and bottom disapear (same color as dark scene)
Now, for a moment, my head think I have a fullscreen movie.

Now your going back to that outdoor scene.
Black bars AGAIN.

See the problem ? To the viewer, It FEELS like the black bars come and go,

That, for me, completely ruins the experience,

so a ZOOM function, is a must...

So for me, there IS something wrong with black bars.

...That, for me, completely ruins the experience,

so a ZOOM function, is a must...

So for me, there IS something wrong with black bars.

(This is not directed at you, dopefish...your quoted comment just hits my sentiments to the opposite viewpoint ;) .)

For me, having something other than OAR ruins the experience. It is the only way I get to see the film as intended. I do not go to theaters because the viewing experience is so often ruined by too many external factors, so I reserve my film entertainment dollars for the home theater (front projection on large screen with sound system.) My choice.

I have elected many years ago to do my best to avoid non-OAR releases and non-anamorphic SD DVD releases. I made that choice because it is that important to me. Do I not have a few films I would have purchased...sure. But I made the choice for my consumer dollars.

If this is that important to many, either refuse to buy films that do not fill your screen or use the zoom and lose some of the intended viewing. If purchases suffer enough because of this (which I would doubt,) the studios will adjust on home video releases. If that should happen, I would have to either sacrifice my point of view or sacrifice the films released in such a manner. I accept that.

To me something is wrong when I sacrifice the OAR for a random editor's opinion/selection of what I might want...or not want...to see.

(ps. It amazes me this is a continued discussion on this forum.)

That’s why they make velvet curtains.

You know, I have never heard anyone complain about the curtains in theaters (except maybe "knowledgeable" movie fans). Certainly not J6P.

For those people complaining about the black bars:

get a BIGGER TV!

To the OP's question:

U2 Rattle and Hum is 1.85:1
Smallville Season 5 is (obviously ;)) 1.78:1.

For me, having something other than OAR ruins the experience. It is the only way I get to see the film as intended.And if the OAR is 1.78:1, would that be bad?

Imagine a scene outdoor.
Black bar to the top, black bar to the bottom (okay, can live with that)

Now imagine a transition to a very dark scene.
Black bar on the top and bottom disapear (same color as dark scene)
Now, for a moment, my head think I have a fullscreen movie.

Now your going back to that outdoor scene.
Black bars AGAIN.

See the problem ? To the viewer, It FEELS like the black bars come and go,


so a ZOOM function, is a must...
Or a light switch. ;)

And if the OAR is 1.78:1, would that be bad?

No that wouldn't be bad, however if you're saying that all directors everywhere should start making OAR at 1.78:1 that's like asking an artist to fill a certain type of canvas everytime he paints :rolleyes:. The artist now not longer has as much control over his "art work". The thing that it really comes down to is "I want my screen filled damnit!!!!! :( ) seriously people. The director created it a certain way, you tv doesn't accomodate that, sorry. Looks like it's black bars or the zoom button

And if the OAR is 1.78:1, would that be bad?
No that wouldn't be bad, however if you're saying that all directors everywhere should start making OAR at 1.78:1 that's like asking an artist to fill a certain type of canvas everytime he paints :rolleyes:. The artist now not longer has as much control over his "art work". The thing that it really comes down to is "I want my screen filled damnit!!!!! :( ) seriously people. The director created it a certain way, you tv doesn't accomodate that, sorry. Looks like it's black bars or the zoom button

Pretty much said it...it would not be bad if that IS the OAR, but to limit everybody from here on out and say the only acceptable OAR is 1.78:1 would be bad. If this discussion were YEARS ago, would we be telling Wyler...Ben Hur must be shot in 1.33:1 just because we want our television screens filled (if home media were available then.) Why stop there...Spielberg, you must have Schindler's List in color because we would be wasting the benefit of all those nice televisions people are buying, etc...

Spielberg, you must have Schindler's List in color because we would be wasting the benefit of all those nice televisions people are buying, etc...

I bought a COLOR TV, dammit!

Imagine a scene outdoor.
Black bar to the top, black bar to the bottom (okay, can live with that)

Now imagine a transition to a very dark scene.
Black bar on the top and bottom disapear (same color as dark scene)
Now, for a moment, my head think I have a fullscreen movie.

Now your going back to that outdoor scene.
Black bars AGAIN.

See the problem ? To the viewer, It FEELS like the black bars come and go,

That, for me, completely ruins the experience,

so a ZOOM function, is a must...

So for me, there IS something wrong with black bars.

Some folks have rigged up black cardboard shields that they velcro to their TV's to eliminate even seeing the black bars.

I was thinking of starting a similar topic but never did.

I dont mind the black bars but if a movie is gonna fill the whole screen it will add a little extra appeal to me.

I have Slither and that fills the whole screen. I also have Dazed & Confused and that one has tiny black bars that you can barley notice but basically fills the screen.

I don't care if they use 1.78 or 2.35, I just wish they would have picked a standard for TV and movies and went with it.... although I must admit I'm a fan of being able to see more of the "sky and foreground" and find some of the films in 2.35 to be too "squished" or "up close" for my taste.

repeat after me ..

there is nothing wrong with black bars

that's how the movie was shot and shown in movie theaters.

To see a Movie $9.50

My TV $2,500+ and I would prefer using all 60 inches of it.

To see a Movie $9.50

My TV $2,500+ and I would prefer using all 60 inches of it.

Since when did enjoying films become about "real estate" and not about the actual material itself?

Anyway, the above analogy is totally wrong, unless you watch only a single film on your display ever...otherwise, over the life of your display, I would bet the cost of a single program/movie is quite a bit less then the $9.50.

Since when did enjoying films become about "real estate" and not about the actual material itself?

Anyway, the above analogy is totally wrong, unless you watch only a single film on your display ever...otherwise, over the life of your display, I would bet the cost of a single program/movie is quite a bit less then the $9.50.


My point is I paid quite a bit of money for my TV and I would prefer (keyword PREFER) if the material I watch on it used the entire screen, i'm not going to die if it doesn't. I didn't mean those prices literally......

See, I would take a different spin on that. After spending money on a larger screen, it would really bug me if parts of the movie were cut off just to fill the screen for those with smaller TVs. I can actually see the argument FOR pan/scan for those people with screen size to viewing distance ratios that result in the image being so small that you may have a hard time making out small details in the scene. In such a situation, I could see wanting to make full use of every bit of your very display area, and zooming in helps make the image a little bigger. But if you've got a big TV, those reasons go away. What's the point of a big screen if you still have to chop off part of the content?

Don't you buy a car for the biggest number of people you may ever have to carry? Do you complain when driving it with only yourself as a passenger? Do you use every room in your house every day? Do you keep your dresser drawers completely full of clothes?

The screen on your TV accomodates every movie and, as stated MANY times already, is a compromise. Remember that the HDTV broadcast spec is 16:9, the TV is built to accomodate that compromise. A hypothetical question - would you be happy if you could buy another HDTV with a 2.35:1 ratio to acomodate those movies that are in that ratio? Then you can watch HDTV broadcast and 1.85:1 movies on your existing set and the 'scope movies on your new set. What? Too much money to spend? Then be happy with what you have secure in the knowledge that you're seeing every inch of the picture the director intended you to see.

I don't need a second tv, one in the living room is enough as I dont watch tv in bed. However, I would love for my next tv to be 2.35 since most of the movies I watch seem to be in this ratio, moreso than 16:9 anyway. If such sets are made I don't expect them for several years but thats okay with me since I only a month ago jumped into hd with my westy 37w3. It should last me well for five years, by which time I may have a house big enough for a larger screen; 37" is plenty for my apartment. There is one major problem here though: even bluray and hddvd dont show 2.35 in 1080p, it is more like 1920x850 (just a guess, dont feel like doing the math). This is one major reason why I may skip them both and wait for the next standard of home movie resolution (1440p? 2160p?) as maybe (in my dreams) they will have the foresight to allow full resolution for 2.35 displays in the standard.

Note to any ce/display makers out there: Perhaps you should start thinking that when it comes time for my next display purchase, any display with exteme high resolution and 2.35 (100%color gamut goes without saying) will likely get my money in five years; even if home movies remain 1080p@ 16:9 for some time, I would still want this for pc gaming or next-next gen consoles.

I don't need a second tv, one in the living room is enough as I dont watch tv in bed. However, I would love for my next tv to be 2.35 since most of the movies I watch seem to be in this ratio, moreso than 16:9 anyway. If such sets are made I don't expect them for several years but thats okay with me since I only a month ago jumped into hd with my westy 37w3. It should last me well for five years, by which time I may have a house big enough for a larger screen; 37" is plenty for my apartment. There is one major problem here though: even bluray and hddvd dont show 2.35 in 1080p, it is more like 1920x850 (just a guess, dont feel like doing the math). This is one major reason why I may skip them both and wait for the next standard of home movie resolution (1440p? 2160p?) as maybe (in my dreams) they will have the foresight to allow full resolution for 2.35 displays in the standard.

Note to any ce/display makers out there: Perhaps you should start thinking that when it comes time for my next display purchase, any display with exteme high resolution and 2.35 (100%color gamut goes without saying) will likely get my money in five years; even if home movies remain 1080p@ 16:9 for some time, I would still want this for pc gaming or next-next gen consoles.

Now, remember, BROADCAST HDTV will be in 16:9 ratio...so your 2.35:1 HDTV will be cutting off the sides of the pictures or squeezing it or some artificial contrivance. Can you see why a compromise was needed?

Happy Gilmore and Field of Dreams both do

This is a much overused example, but still effective. Let's take a look at "The Last Supper".

http://www.poster.net/da-vinci-leonardo/da-vinci-leonardo-the-last-supper-2108119.jpg

You see the way that DaVinci uses the size and ratio of the canvas to position everything in it? He not only fills the width of the frame with people, but also uses a very specific amount of negative space at the top of the canvas to represent the heavenly visage looking down on them. Every object in the frame is precisely positioned.

Now can you imagine if his patron told him, "I'm sorry, but I have a 16:9 canvas frame. You're just going to have to squeeze everything into that"? Would it really matter whether he was told to crop the sides or to paint extra floor and ceiling? Either one would destroy the delicate artistic balance of the composition. And for what gain? To fill an arbitrary frame that has nothing to do with the painting?

Hate to re-rail the topic, but The Perfect Storm fills a 16x9 TV. :)

This is a much overused example, but still effective. Let's take a look at "The Last Supper".

http://www.poster.net/da-vinci-leonardo/da-vinci-leonardo-the-last-supper-2108119.jpg

You see the way that DaVinci uses the size and ratio of the canvas to position everything in it? He not only fills the width of the frame with people, but also uses a very specific amount of negative space at the top of the canvas to represent the heavenly visage looking down on them. Every object in the frame is precisely positioned.

Now can you imagine if his patron told him, "I'm sorry, but I have a 16:9 canvas frame. You're just going to have to squeeze everything into that"? Would it really matter whether he was told to crop the sides or to paint extra floor and ceiling? Either one would destroy the delicate artistic balance of the composition. And for what gain? To fill an arbitrary frame that has nothing to do with the painting?

I think this painting analogy is flawed. The only thing that is similar here is that the painter would have the freedom to choose whatever size he thinks is best for his art. The similarity ends there however. The painter will also have the freedom of choosing his canvas in any shape or form while on HDTV we are pretty much limited to one canvas size to see all of his paintings. Why don't we switch places and ask the painter this: if he had a choice would he rather paint his 16:9 image on a 2.35:1 canvas or on a 16:9 canvas? I think we pretty much know what his choice will be.

Just my curiosity, if we had 2.35:1 as widescreen standard then we would see side bars if we watched 16:9 material. But placing curtains or some form of masking will be much easier with side bars. I believe movie theaters use curtains to do this.

Don't you buy a car for the biggest number of people you may ever have to carry?


No, I buy a car that performs well. The number of people that fit inside has never come into consideration. If I cared that much, I'd just buy a bus.


Do you complain when driving it with only yourself as a passenger?


I've thought about removing the passenger seat, cuts down on weight, and will make roll cage fabrication that much easier.


Do you use every room in your house every day?


Yes, some of us don't live in mansions.


Do you keep your dresser drawers completely full of clothes?


Yes, and my closet too.

Hate to re-rail the topic, but The Perfect Storm fills a 16x9 TV. :)

No it doesn't, unless you're zooming the image.

I think this painting analogy is flawed. The only thing that is similar here is that the painter would have the freedom to choose whatever size he thinks is best for his art. The similarity ends there however. The painter will also have the freedom of choosing his canvas in any shape or form while on HDTV we are pretty much limited to one canvas size to see all of his paintings.

If you have a frame that doesn't fit the painting/photo/whatever, you apply matting to fill the extra space. You see the white border around that "Last Supper" print in the screen shot I linked?

http://www.poster.net/da-vinci-leonardo/da-vinci-leonardo-the-last-supper-2108119.jpg

That's exactly what letterboxing is, matting to fit the artwork to an oversized frame.

The frame is just a tool to hold the artwork, as is your TV. Demanding that an artist change his composition to fit an arbitrary frame is absurd and insulting.

If you have a frame that doesn't fit the painting/photo/whatever, you apply matting to fill the extra space. You see the white border around that "Last Supper" print in the screen shot I linked?

http://www.poster.net/da-vinci-leonardo/da-vinci-leonardo-the-last-supper-2108119.jpg

That's exactly what letterboxing is, matting to fit the artwork to an oversized frame.

The frame is just a tool to hold the artwork, as is your TV. Demanding that an artist change his composition to fit an arbitrary frame is absurd and insulting.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the HDTV is the canvas (not the frame) and in our case comes only in one size. Even if we follow your analogy that the TV is just a frame, I bet you the painter would much prefer his artwork to be seen with no matting unless of course if that is part of the art.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the HDTV is the canvas (not the frame) and in our case comes only in one size.

No, the movie theater screen is the canvas. Your TV is a frame to display to home release "print".

Even if we follow your analogy that the TV is just a frame, I bet you the painter would much prefer his artwork to be seen with no matting unless of course if that is part of the art.

He'd prefer that his entire painting be seen the way he painted it. End of story.

You OAR guys are boneheaded. Its ridiculous how pompous you guys are.


A zoom function ((not a stretch or super ultra zoom )) is desperately needed for hdvd/BD.
Its pretty stupid to take away functionality many many many people have come to expect from DVD players as standard.

New gen players should be ADDING to peoples experience not taking away form it.

I will say this... take a good look at the back of HDDVD/BD titles...I think its EXTREMELY misleading to say "widescren 16x9 presentation " or " formatted for 16x9"
No it is NOT formatted for 16x9. Its intentionally misleading people who arent avid A/Vers into thinking the movie will play exactly right on there "16x9" TV. Simply not the case.
Its the same as tv movie broadcasts , if they started it with "formatted in 4:3" and you see a WS picture you'd be confused too.