For those of us that love watching movies that fill our widescreen HDTVs, here's a list of movies that have 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratios!
Keep in mind that 1.85:1 is not 16:9, but it is close enough and in a lot of cases the overscan causes the image to fill the screen.
(We'll use the term 16:9FS to describe a 16:9 fullscreen movie).

*** If this list holds no interest for you, please move along without comment ;) ***

Be sure and let me know if there are any corrections or omissions and I'll try to keep it updated.
Current total:137 movies.

Now, go enjoy these movies in their 16:9 fullscreen glory! :D

EDIT: the list includes more than just movies.

An (M) under AR indicates the version is a Modified Aspect Ratio (MAR), not OAR.

Title AR Format
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Monkeys 1.85 HD DVD
40-Year-Old Virgin, The 1.85 HD DVD
Alice Cooper: Live in Montreux 2005 1.78 BD
An American Werewolf in London 1.85 HD DVD
Annapolis 1.85 BD
Ant Bully, The 1.85 BOTH
Architect, The 1.78 BOTH
Army of Darkness 1.85 HD DVD
Babel 1.85 BOTH
Benchwarmers, The 1.85 BD
Best of GetOut! Volume 1, The 1.78 HD DVD
Best of GetOut! Volume 2, The 1.78 HD DVD
Best of HDNet World Report Volume 1, The 1.78 HD DVD
Best of HDNet World Report Volume 2, The 1.78 HD DVD
Big Fish 1.85 BD
Big Hit, The 1.85 BD
Bikini Destination: Triple Fantasy 1.78 BD
Black Christmas (2006) 1.85 HD DVD
Breakfast Club, The 1.85 HD DVD
Break-Up, The 1.85 HD DVD
Brokeback Mountain 1.85 HD DVD
Brothers Grimm 1.85 BD
Caddyshack 1.78 HD DVD
Chain Reaction 1.85 BD
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 1.85 HD DVD
Chicago 1.85 BD
Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire: Live at the Greek Theatre 1.78 HD DVD
Chicken Little 1.78 BD
Christmas Story, A 1.85 BOTH
Chronos 1.78 BOTH
Clerks II 1.85 HD DVD
Click 1.85 BD
Corpse Bride 1.85 BOTH
Courage Under Fire 1.85 BD
Crank 1.85 BD
Cream: Royal Albert Hall - London May 2-3-5-6 2005 1.78 HD DVD
Dazed and Confused 1.85 HD DVD
Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta 1.78 BD
Devil's Reject, The 1.85 BD
Dinosaur 1.85 BD
Dirty Dancing 1.85 BD
Dirty Dozen, The 1.78 BOTH
Discovery Atlas: Australia Revealed 1.78 BOTH
Discovery Atlas: Brazil Revealed 1.78 BOTH
Discovery Atlas: China Revealed 1.78 BOTH
Discovery Atlas: Italy Revealed 1.78 BOTH
Dog Day Afternoon 1.85 BOTH
Dr. Seuss' How The Grinch Stole Christmas 1.85 HD DVD
Employee of the Month 1.85 BD
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room 1.78 BD
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 1.85 HD DVD
Excalibur 1.78 HD DVD
Fast and the Furious, The 1.85 HD DVD
Fast Times at Ridgemont High 1.85 HD DVD
Field of Dreams 1.85 HD DVD
Fugitive, The 1.85 BOTH
Full Metal Jacket 1.78 BOTH
Good Night, and Good Luck 1.78 BOTH
GoodFellas 1.78 BOTH
Guardian (2006), The 1.85 BD
Guitarscape Planet 1.78 BOTH
Half Baked 1.85 HD DVD
Happy Gilmore 1.85 HD DVD
HDNet World Report Special: Shuttle Discovery's Historic Mission 1.78 BD
HDScape: Exotic Saltwater Aquarium 1.78 HD DVD
Heart: Alive in Seattle 1.78 HD DVD
Holiday (2006), The 1.85 BD
Hollywoodland 1.85 HD DVD
Hoosiers 1.85 BD
House of Wax (2005) 1.85 BOTH
Hulk 1.85 HD DVD
Ice Age: The Meltdown 1.85 BD
Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks 1.78 BD
Jerk, The 1.85 HD DVD
John Legend: Live at the House of Blues 1.78 BD
Ladder 49 1.85 BD
Lady in the Water 1.85 BOTH
Last Waltz, The 1.85 BD
Legends of Jazz Showcase 1.78 BD
Lethal Weapon 1.85 BOTH
Little Man 1.85 BD
Manchurian Candidate (2004), The 1.85 BOTH
Manilow Live! 1.78 HD DVD
March of the Penguins 1.85 BOTH
Me, Myself & Irene 1.85 BD
Meet the Parents 1.85 HD DVD
Nacho Libre 1.85 BOTH
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies 1.78 BOTH
National Lampoon's Animal House 1.78 HD DVD
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 1.78 BOTH
Nine Inch Nails Live: Beside You in Time 1.78 BOTH
Nutty Professor (1996), The 1.85 HD DVD
Omen, The 1.85 BD
One Last Thing… 1.78 BD
One Six Right: The Romance of Flying 1.78 HD DVD
Open Season 1.85 BD
Out of Sight 1.85 HD DVD
Pat Metheny Group: The Way Up Live, The 1.78 BOTH
Planet Earth: The Complete Collection 1.78 BOTH
Queen, The 1.85 BD
Ray 1.85 HD DVD
Reds 1.85 BOTH
Rising Sun 1.85 BD
Rocky 1.85 BD
Rocky Balboa 1.85 BD
Rumor Has It... 1.85 BOTH
Saw 1.85 BD
Saw II 1.78 BD
Saw III 1.78 BD
Scanner Darkly, A 1.85 BOTH
Scary Movie 4 1.85 HD DVD
School for Scoundrels 1.85 HD DVD
Scooby-Doo (2002) 1.78 BOTH
Searchers, The 1.78 BOTH
Secret Window 1.85 BD
Sleepy Hollow 1.85 BOTH
Smallville: The Complete Fifth Season 1.78 HD DVD
Smokey and the Bandit 1.85 HD DVD
Sopranos: Season Six, Part One 1.78 BOTH
Sting, The 1.85 HD DVD
Stir of Echoes 1.78 BD
Stranger Than Fiction 1.85 BD
Terminator, The 1.85 BD
Tony Bennett: An American Classic 1.78 BD
Total Recall 1.85 BD
Traffic 1.85 HD DVD
U-571 1.85 HD DVD
Ultimate Avengers Collection 1.78 BD
Ultraviolet 1.85 BD
Under Siege 1.85 BOTH
Van Helsing 1.85 HD DVD
Vertical Limit 1.85 BD
View from Space with Heavenly Music, A 1.78 BOTH
Volver 1.85 BD
War Within, The 1.78 BD
Waterworld 1.85 HD DVD
Wild, The 1.85 BD
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 1.85 HD DVD
Wolf Creek 1.78 HD DVD
World Trade Center 1.85 BOTH
World's Fastest Indian, The (M)1.78 BOTH
You, Me and Dupree 1.85 HD DVD
Young Guns 1.85 BD

So you're determining which movies to buy/watch based on your display's aspect ratio? Something tells me you probably advocated for pan and scan DVDs in the past.

So no Matrix, no Star Wars and no LOTR for you.

Baronken

Don't let these naysayers dissuade you.

I've seen enough complaints hereabouts to believe that you've done some folks a service if it sways them towards purchasing HiDef of *any* format.

Before anyone cares to diss, consider that I have been using a 2.35 Constant Height setup for two years with lens and HTPC scaling, though I've recently sold my lens with the hope of a revamp. This however does not change my advocacy of OAR nor my support of the effort that has been put in here. Isn't there enough nitpicking going on around here without having to slag the efforts of some, simply because it doesn't suit *your* particular benighted portion of the universe?

ted

Ignore Trent - this is a useful thread (Movies on this list get an extra point in my book when I consider a purchase). There is no reason why 16:9 AR should not be enough of an improvement over 4:3. It sucks to have a big screen HDTV with only 60% of it being active. I like OAR but I like using 100% of the pixels I paid for more. TVs or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players should offer different zooms that maximize the vertical resolution to fit the 16:9 screen.

Off the top of my head, I know the following are incorrect:

Secret Window
The Fast and the Furious
U-571
Volver

Baronken

Don't let these naysayers dissuade you.

I've seen enough complaints hereabouts to believe that you've done some folks a service if it sways them towards purchasing HiDef of *any* format.

Before anyone cares to diss, consider that I have been using a 2.35 Constant Height setup for two years with lens and HTPC scaling, though I've recently sold my lens with the hope of a revamp. This however does not change my advocacy of OAR nor my support of the effort that has been put in here. Isn't there enough nitpicking going on around here without having to slag the efforts of some, simply because it doesn't suit *your* particular benighted portion of the universe?

ted


The difference is you didn't advocate all movies be shot 2.35 to fit your screen, he does.

If you think the bars are really that distracting(in HD res) how did you cope with letterboxed laserdiscs, dvd, or even crapvision VHS?

I would change my sorting order from The **** films to ****, The.

The difference is you didn't advocate all movies be shot 2.35 to fit your screen, he does.

So?
Its *his* screen.

Whether doctrinaire OAR pedants (and I am one) like it or not there are many who feel this way and who are we to deny them or ridicule them for what they want?

OAR skirmishes like the ubiquitous format harangues are *not* going to be won by mockery.

BTW if you choose to turn this into a support the artist thread I will simply ask when was the last time you were at Art Gallery?

ted

Most early copies of Lord of War were released in 1.78:1 aspect. Then Lionsgate fixed it to 2.4:1. My disc (part of the 2-disc set) is one of the 1.78:1 versions unfortunately.

Edit: oops this is an HD list. Nothing to see here, move along... :cool:

I like OAR but I like using 100% of the pixels I paid for more.

I am new to this issue. But can't the same "paid for" argument be used to argue for the images cropped out? Don't you want to see the whole images you paid for the movies?

Display pixels are just that, pixels. To me, it's the image that matters.

Last week. They'd cropped all the photographs to fit the frames.

But in all seriousness, I don't care which aspect ratio people prefer to watch, I just have a problem when people lobby to have movies cropped to their preferred aspect ratio.

This is what I'm talking about. Which is some including the OP wants all movies shot in the same aspect ratio because they would then fill all of his screen. Is it clear now? Do you want all movies shot in a single aspect ratio? If yes you agree with the original poster, if not, you agree with me...it's that simple.

OAR all the way! The OP should just use his zoom feature if he doesn't like black bars. I don't want one kilobit of data wasted on a disc by putting out a full screen version on the same disc.

HD must be the format that finally puts an end to modified to fit your TV sh-t.

Dan

Ignore Trent - this is a useful thread (Movies on this list get an extra point in my book when I consider a purchase). There is no reason why 16:9 AR should not be enough of an improvement over 4:3. It sucks to have a big screen HDTV with only 60% of it being active. I like OAR but I like using 100% of the pixels I paid for more. TVs or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players should offer different zooms that maximize the vertical resolution to fit the 16:9 screen.

I think the "I paid for those pixels so I expect them to always be used" argument to be pretty silly. Do you always play your audio at maximum volume because you paid for that amplification? Do you have to fill every seat in your car every time you go for a drive because dammit, you paid for those seats?

I don't see anything wrong with offering a 16:9 version of the film. As long as theirs a OAR version their as well I'm happy.

I just hate going to places like walmart as they primarily sell fullscreen. So I often have to drive 10-15 mile further to a BB in order to get the OAR version.


As far as 16:9 on HD formats I don't think it will happen for a long time if ever.
First it has to become a strong enough format that the average person wants it. Which would give the stuidos a reson to put out 2 versions.
Which would mean like 50% of homes would have a bluuray or HDDVD player.
But I think both formats will remain so small in comparison to DVD. The need for 16:9 FS will not be needed.

Like said the main issue I have is I have to look extra hard for the OAR version of a film becase the demand for FS is so high.

The question is why. Is it a marketing trink to get every one to buy FS. Then whrn they get a WS set. They will have to go back and buy all their favorites in WS.

Do pepole just not know what the diffence is and if they do should they care.

I think its that a lot of pepole don't know. Theirs been a few times that I got pepole to switch becase they did not understand. I always use popular movies to tell what they might be missing. For example ill say in star wars the FS version cuts out a good chunk of the back ground. Or when a group of pepole are talking they may just focus on the pepole talking and not the entire group.


But as far as far as 16:9/1:85.1 movies
Smallville
The worlds fastest indain (which is mdified from the orginal version. Many have noticed this when the full version is on HDNEt)

Hulk

This is what I'm talking about. Which is some including the OP wants all movies shot in the same aspect ratio because they would then fill all of his screen. Is it clear now?

Then the original poster has edited his post to reflect your wishes as *nowhere* in his post does he state that he wishes all movies were shot 16:9, which is what would be considered "Fullscreen" for widescreen displays. So the only thing that is clear to me is that he either has adjusted his post to reflect your wishes or you have turned this into something that is off topic.

Do you want all movies shot in a single aspect ratio? If yes you agree with the original poster, if not, you agree with me...it's that simple.

I do not wish all source to be the same aspect ratio, yet I do not agree with what you have inferred from the original post. Can I infer from your either/or requirements for agreement that you do not understand shades of grey, and by extension you do not like Black and White Film and since most B&W film is shot Academy Ratio thus you don't like this as well? Absurd ain't it? :rolleyes:

As a Constant Height user I might argue that all source should be displayed Constant Height since these are ratios, and for ratios to be ratios there has to be a constant. Since the O/P does not contain what you suggest I believe that your comments serve no purpose other than to move the thread towards *your* agenda.

In *your* mind it might be simple to agree with you, in *my* view, that is simplistic.

To the mods: It is evident *my* posts are Off Topic so feel free. If you choose to let them stand, be assured others can have the next word. I'm done with driving this thread into the absurdities that so many become these days.

ted

*** If this list holds no interest for you, please move along without comment ;) ***It's looks like this was ignored ;)

I made no claims about watching or not watching 2.35:1 films. This is just a list of 16:9 FS movies that might prove useful to people looking for movies that fill their 16:9 widescreen HDTVs. I fully plan to watch any movie I want on my TV regardless of AR. I just prefer the 16:9/1.85:1 ARs better as they make better use of my HDTV, IMO.

tvted, thanks for the support, but I'm not worried about anything anyone says here, as everyone has an opinion of what they like :)

And as far as OAR is concerned, I am ALL FOR OAR! :) I want to see every bit of the image. I don't want a pan & scan or a cropped version by any means. You lose picture that way. What I want is for most (if not all) future films to have an OAR of 16:9 :D If you start with an OAR of 16:9, then you do NOT have to modify it to fit your widescreen HDTV. No cropping, nothing, just watch it in its fullscreen glory! And all of your screen is used as well, what a bonus ;)

NickFoley, thanks but those films are already in the list.

Kram Sacul, I do not find "black bars" distracting. I find I like watching a 16:9FS better than having an unused portion(~25%!) of my screen while watching a 2.35:1 film. I love a lot of 2.35:1 movies. There is nothing that can be done about them as they were already filmed that way. I prefer to watch them in their OAR.

William, I will make that sorting change as soon as possible, thanks.

Quadra, I'm not lobbying for cropped movies. I want an OAR of 16:9, meaning the film was designed that way from the beginning. There are a lot of films done that way (hence the list), we just need more of them.

stephenju, yes you want to see the whole picture, i.e. OAR, I am advocating that. I just prefer movies with a 16:9/1.85:1 AR, and hope even more future movies are made that way.

homerx, I'm not trying to say a modified version of the film should also be included, I'm only interested in watching films in OAR. And as for those movies you listed, they are already in the list, thanks.

tvted, in your last post, you said:
Then the original poster has edited his post to reflect your wishes as *nowhere* in his post does he state that he wishes all movies were shot 16:9You are right, it wasn't in the post itself, it was in my signature ;)

In any event, this thread is NOT about the pros and cons of 16:9FS, it's merely a list to help those who desire movies that fill their widescreen HDTVs.

Thanks.

NickFoley, thanks but those films are already in the list.


What Nick is saying is that you have the films he named listed as being 1.85:1 when they are not. U-571 is 2.35:1 as is Fast and Furious, Secret Window and Volver.

tvted, You are right, it wasn't in the post itself, it was in my signature ;)
.........
merely a list to help those who desire movies that fill their widescreen HDTVs.

Thanks.

I gave up reading sigfiles when they all became placards for whatever HD format was selling that particular week. (Tired of the large fonts and bold colours reflecting what seems to be more religiosity than rationality). So that would still constitute being in the post, though it was not in the body of the post.

I wonder if there are others like me who have basically become lurkers over the last year as a result of what I perceive as the deterioration of the quality of discussion in these parts?

So in light of my poor reading skills, I'll say that unfortunately, I've reflected on the very possibility of what your sigfile advocates. Cinemascope is a particularly NA phenomenon - Europe is pretty well standard on 1.66:1 so for me with HDTV becoming ubiquitous there is a chance that more and more will be like you. Personally I see this as unfortunate as I think visual arts should not be constrained by a cookie-cutter frame we might put around them. Painting certainly isn't, and photography though, like cinema, a product of industrial uniformity, still can display images in non-standard ratios. Personally I think its the fault of the displays. Perhaps you might consider that with a pj and anamorphic lens/scaler you are no longer confined to a 16:9 outline. In the future there may be native 2.35 displays or perhaps an OLED paint on your wall with blacks deep enough that there will be no sense of screen real estate loss. So though I agree with the intent of the posting's body, I strongly disagree with the desire to restrict imagery to a particular frame.

ted

I see that Baronken has revised his original post since my first response. However, read the following post to understand why my original post read as it did.

Then the original poster has edited his post to reflect your wishes as *nowhere* in his post does he state that he wishes all movies were shot 16:9, which is what would be considered "Fullscreen" for widescreen displays. So the only thing that is clear to me is that he either has adjusted his post to reflect your wishes or you have turned this into something that is off topic.



I do not wish all source to be the same aspect ratio, yet I do not agree with what you have inferred from the original post. Can I infer from your either/or requirements for agreement that you do not understand shades of grey, and by extension you do not like Black and White Film and since most B&W film is shot Academy Ratio thus you don't like this as well? Absurd ain't it? :rolleyes:

As a Constant Height user I might argue that all source should be displayed Constant Height since these are ratios, and for ratios to be ratios there has to be a constant. Since the O/P does not contain what you suggest I believe that your comments serve no purpose other than to move the thread towards *your* agenda.

In *your* mind it might be simple to agree with you, in *my* view, that is simplistic.

To the mods: It is evident *my* posts are Off Topic so feel free. If you choose to let them stand, be assured others can have the next word. I'm done with driving this thread into the absurdities that so many become these days.

ted

My opinion is based on the facts of this thread and post from another with Baronken making the following post.

I love the "painting" analogy that most people spout trying to justify the director's intention.

Michelangelo was asked to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He wasn't asked to paint it to whatever aspect ratio he wanted, he was asked to paint the WHOLE ceiling.

Imagine if he painted it using a different aspect ratio than the whole ceiling (see pic), LOL!

Come on directors! Start 'painting' us movies using our whole tv!

Want more proof? click on the following link and pay close attention to post by Baronken and Pincho.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=793651

I wondered how long it would take until a fight broke out about OAR vs 16:9. We must have been spending so much time fighting about the formats that we almost forgot to drag this tired argument forward by a technology generation.

I wondered how long it would take until a fight broke out about OAR vs 16:9. We must have been spending so much time fighting about the formats that we almost forgot to drag this tired argument forward by a technology generation.

You would think we would be past this since it was covered in the DVD OAR vs. Pan and Scan discussions. Once again history repeats itself with negative implications.

What Nick is saying is that you have the films he named listed as being 1.85:1 when they are not. U-571 is 2.35:1 as is Fast and Furious, Secret Window and Volver.Ah, thanks, I read NickFoley's post wrong the first time. I'll check those out and make corrections if necessary. My source for the list was using highdefdigest's list of released HD movies.

Contributions such as NickFoley's will help make the list more accurate.

Thanks.

... So though I agree with the intent of the posting's body, I strongly disagree with the desire to restrict imagery to a particular frame.

tedI respect your disagreement with my desire. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

The problem is that the original post was meant to be informational. There are more than a few of us who this list helps in some way.

I wondered how long it would take until a fight broke out about OAR vs 16:9. We must have been spending so much time fighting about the formats that we almost forgot to drag this tired argument forward by a technology generation.There doesn't need to be a fight about OAR vs. 16:9 if they are one and the same. This has been discussed in other threads. Let's keep it there. This thread is a list of 16:9FS movies.

You would think we would be past this since it was covered in the DVD OAR vs. Pan and Scan discussions.If you feel this is the same issue, then please keep the discussion there.

Let's hope all future movies have a 16x9 OAR!

Hmmm...one single AR just to fill your screen. Remember you state ALL FUTURE MOVIES.

There are a number of titles on the list which were originally 2.39:1 and should be framed that way on HD discs, above and beyond the ones already mentioned. Here's the complete list, along with the photographic process which gave rise to that ratio:

BLACK CHRISTMAS (Super 35)
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS (Super 35)
SCHOOL FOR SCOUNDRELS (Panavision)
SECRET WINDOW (Super 35)
STRANGER THAN FICTION (Super 35)
U-571 (Super 35)
ULTRAVIOLET (HD Widescreen)
VOLVER (Panavision)

As was pointed out earlier, THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN was also filmed in Super 35 and released theatrically at 2.39, but the home video version has been reframed at 1.78, for no good reason at all (director's whim, in this case, which I honestly believe was misguided and inappropriate).

It's looks like this was ignored ;)

I made no claims about watching or not watching 2.35:1 films. This is just a list of 16:9 FS movies that might prove useful to people looking for movies that fill their 16:9 widescreen HDTVs. I fully plan to watch any movie I want on my TV regardless of AR. I just prefer the 16:9/1.85:1 ARs better as they make better use of my HDTV, IMO.

Thanks for the list!! Being new to both DVD and HD DVD, I also prefer the 16:9 AR over the 2.35:1 AR. My new HDTV is 65" of beautiful plasma and I like those movies that fill the screen rather than having black bars top and bottom.

Back in 2002, I bought a DVD player and had it for one day to only end up returning it......problem HUGE black bars...ugh! :mad: So, I got rid of it and stayed with my 1992 VCR unit until last month.

Now I have the Tosh HD XA2....great HD DVD player btw. :cool: But I now see some movies have this 2.35:1 AR....ugh :mad: more black bars again.

I think that they should all be 16:9 standardized AR. Let'em watch movies at the theaters with black bars on their screens! :D

But again....thanks for the listing as I will be a big user of those movies.

If their must be a croped 16:9 version then the OAR version should always be their as well for those that want to see the movie the way it was made.

But it becomes difficult to find OAR somtimes as many of the discount stores (IE walmart,target). Prefere to only sell fullscreen. This is what make me upset is I have to go out of my way to find the OAR version. I wish the discount store would sell just OAR or both so everyone has their preferd option.

But I don't see croped 16:9 movies coming to HD for awhile. The demade for two version of a film would have to be very high. Selling a few thousand copys of a movie isn't going to do it..
So until then pepole may have to zoom or strech their movie. I myself don't even notice the bars when the lights are down they just blend into the TV..

I think the "I paid for those pixels so I expect them to always be used" argument to be pretty silly. Do you always play your audio at maximum volume because you paid for that amplification? Do you have to fill every seat in your car every time you go for a drive because dammit, you paid for those seats?

This analogy is faulty due to the fact that filling our TV screens 100% is proven feasible 100% of the time. Ask anyone who has seen television prior to 2000.

But it becomes difficult to find OAR somtimes as many of the discount stores (IE walmart,target). Prefere to only sell fullscreen. This is what make me upset is I have to go out of my way to find the OAR version. I wish the discount store would sell just OAR or both so everyone has their preferd option.

I hate this too. At Wal-Mart, they'll get WS versions in their initial shipment, and that's it. If you don't buy it within the first month or two, it's gone. For me, BB is 30 miles away.

But I don't see croped 16:9 movies coming to HD for awhile. The demade for two version of a film would have to be very high. Selling a few thousand copys of a movie isn't going to do it..

We'll have to see what is on the Cars BD. Even if there will be HD extras, something tells me they don't need 100GB of space (or at least more than 75GB) if they are only going to include the 2.35:1 OAR version. I would not be shocked to see it come with a fullscreen 16x9 version.

Thanks for the list!! Being new to both DVD and HD DVD, I also prefer the 16:9 AR over the 2.35:1 AR. My new HDTV is 65" of beautiful plasma and I like those movies that fill the screen rather than having black bars top and bottom.

Back in 2002, I bought a DVD player and had it for one day to only end up returning it......problem HUGE black bars...ugh! :mad: So, I got rid of it and stayed with my 1992 VCR unit until last month.

wow you were late into the DVD scene


Now I have the Tosh HD XA2....great HD DVD player btw. :cool: But I now see some movies have this 2.35:1 AR....ugh :mad: more black bars again.

I think that they should all be 16:9 standardized AR. Let'em watch movies at the theaters with black bars on their screens! :D

But again....thanks for the listing as I will be a big user of those movies.


Aspect ratio arguments are killing my health. I swear I now have a vein over my left eye that is bulging continously because of AR debates :). People don't want to see the black bars, go back to VHS and Broadcast TV. We fought long and hard for OAR, I aint' about to give it up yet. Luckily there is enough of us that want OAR that it aint going to go away.

... Luckily there is enough of us that want OAR that it aint going to go away.Yes, we want OAR. Now we just need to carry it further and get that OAR to be 16:9 ;)

Yes, we want OAR. Now we just need to carry it further and get that OAR to be 16:9 ;)

Now you are turning your own thread into something else.

Why not 4:3 - some of the greatest films made are in this ratio? You don't hear me or others whining that your beloved 16:9 ratio doesn't fill our 2.35 screens. It certainly seems that you are more interested in your own needs rather than those who actually create this stuff. There are legitimate reasons for other ratios, though film is certainly governed by its industrial/commercial nature. Is it that you cannot conceive why some ratio other than 16:9 might be preferable for aesthetic reasons?

ted

Now you are turning your own thread into something else.No, it's still about 16:9FS movies.

Why not 4:3 - some of the greatest films made are in this ratio? You don't hear me or others whining that your beloved 16:9 ratio doesn't fill our 2.35 screens.If an opinion constitutes whining, then I guess the majority of the whining going on is from people who don't like the people who do like 16:9FS.

It certainly seems that you are more interested in your own needs rather than those who actually create this stuff. There are legitimate reasons for other ratios, though film is certainly governed by its industrial/commercial nature. Is it that you cannot conceive why some ratio other than 16:9 might be preferable for aesthetic reasons?If a certain scene requires an aspect ratio that 'enhances' the scene, then by all means, apply a matte. I am of the opinion that a whole movie does not require the aspect ratio to be 'tight", i.e. 2.35:1. For that battle scene or that wide shot, sure, plop a matte on there and 'draw your attention' to it. But making the whole movie 2.35:1 is basically applying a matte (top and bottom) to the whole 16:9FS movie ;)

Can anyone who owns these movies confirm their aspect ratios, please?

Black Christmas (HD DVD)
School For Scoundrels (HD DVD)
Stranger Than Fiction (BD)
Ultraviolet (BD)
The World's Fastest Indian (BOTH)


NickFoley has said these were incorrect (did not have a 16:9 aspect ratio), and have been removed from the list:
Secret Window
The Fast and the Furious
U-571
Volver

Thanks.

But making the whole movie 2.35:1 is basically applying a matte (top and bottom) to the whole 16:9FS movie ;)


Take your pick

1) But making the whole movie 16:9 is basically applying a matte (top and bottom) to the whole 4:3FS movie.

or

2) But making the whole movie 16:9 is basically applying a matte (left and right) to the whole 2.35:1FS movie.

I like OAR and everything, and while I started buying widescreen/letterbox when i was still on VHS ( :eek: ), I would certainly like the option to choose Open-Matte versions on disc. I most likely would buy them over OAR presentations, in fact but having both (same disc/packaging/whatever fits), would be ideal.

Take your pick

1) But making the whole movie 16:9 is basically applying a matte (top and bottom) to the whole 4:3FS movie.

or

2) But making the whole movie 16:9 is basically applying a matte (left and right) to the whole 2.35:1FS movie.Good point. But since the 2 movie 'standards' are basically 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, the best compromise between 4:3 and 2.35:1 would be 16:9 (or 1.85:1). :)

I am of the opinion that a whole movie does not require the aspect ratio to be 'tight", i.e. 2.35:1.

How many films have you been involved in the production of?

So are your walls at home completely covered in pictures from the ceiling to the floor? I mean, you paid for those walls. So why put up with the unused space of bare walls?

Or what about your car? How many seats does it have? Do you make sure they are filled at all times? You paid for that many seats. Why should they be wasted when you drive without any other passengers?

I like OAR and everything, and while I started buying widescreen/letterbox when i was still on VHS ( :eek: ), I would certainly like the option to choose Open-Matte versions on disc. I most likely would buy them over OAR presentations, in fact but having both (same disc/packaging/whatever fits), would be ideal.Yes, I started buying widescreen/letterbox movies back on VHS too. :) Getting relatives to buy me widescreen (or nothing) DVDs has been a chore ;)

The number of films with an Open-Matte version is quite small, but I agree it would be nice to see both versions in a disc package, as long as price wasn't affected.

I am of the opinion that a whole movie does not require the aspect ratio to be 'tight", i.e. 2.35:1. How many films have you been involved in the production of?None. But having produced films is not a requirement to have an opinion. ;)

2.35:1 is an incredibly versatile ratio.The same can be said for 1.85:1.

I've stayed out of most of these topics for quite awhile, because I was in film school and worked on several films a few years ago before going into law instead. As someone who cares about film, I find the idea that "ALL" films should be 16:9 troubling. Aside from the artistic merit of shooting in 2.39:1 scope for a variety of films, there are many technical differences involved as well.

Filming with anamorphic lenses provides a shallower field of depth, which makes actors seem closer together than they actually are. Filming in "full frame" and masking out 1.85:1 provides a deeper field of depth, and combined with the right lenses, can achieve deep focus, like in the film Citizen Kane, where almost every shot is deep focus, making Kane seem even more separated from those around him.

Filming with anamorphic lenses also utilizes the entire 35mm film cel, whereas 1.85:1 ignores a good 25% of it. Since we sadly have moved away from the larger film formats like 65/70mm, projecting a 35mm image onto a 50 foot screen presents enough quality compromises, without losng 25% of the available resolution.

Also, the idea of shooting all films at 16:9 assumes that filmmakers and movie studios care more about home video than they do about the cinema experience. The exact opposite is true. While home video releases make up a significant chunk of studio revenues, filmmakers and studios most definitely want the cinema experience to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the home video experience. For the studios, it's mainly a matter of money: they get to double-dip by having you see the movie in theatres and then buy the movie on video. For filmmakers, it's more of an artistic issue: they don't want their feature film to be so easily compared to a television movie-of-the-week. It's partially for this reason that more and more films are being shot using anamorphic lenses... they WANT the TV and home video versions to be lacking. If film becomes the bastard brother of HDTV and all movies were shot at 16:9, there really would be little reason to see films in a cinema, and the entire industry would have to reevaluate their usefulness and business model. Why not just shoot using HDTV cameras? It would be easier. This is also part of the reason that digital cinema uses a non-HDTV resolution (2k vs. 1920x1080) and 24fps instead of 30. If cinemas start to fail and close, the industry is doomed. Film is still different than video, and it needs to remain that way.

On a similar note, many theatres have constant height projectors so the 2.39:1 image is larger than the 1.85:1 image. This is good, and makes anamorphic films seem more cinematic. Again, TV and home theatre are competitors of cinema, and everyone in Hollywood wants to make sure that the film experience can differentiate itself.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now, but I'll just finish by saying that having multiple AR options, as well as the different cinema experiences they produce, is a key component of the art of cinema, and those who want to do away with it are missing out on the awesome flexibility of film, and the artitic possibilities that that flexibility provides to filmmakers. If films get relegated to the limitations of video and HDTV-specs, you only have yourselves to blame.

Can anyone who owns these movies confirm their aspect ratios, please?

Black Christmas (HD DVD)
School For Scoundrels (HD DVD)
Stranger Than Fiction (BD)
Ultraviolet (BD)
The World's Fastest Indian (BOTH)

Ahem. It turns out STRANGER THAN FICTION and ULTRAVIOLET were both composed for 1.85:1 and released that way to theaters and HD disc. I have no idea why I have them listed as 2.39:1 in my personal database, but I'm rather embarrassed about that little faux pas. Consider my knuckles thoroughly rapped - I'll try not to do it again...

Anyway, THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN is most definitely 1.78:1 on HD disc, despite being released theatrically at 2.39:1. The others were also filmed at 2.39:1, as I indicated in my earlier post, and should be framed accordingly on the various formats. If not, they've been altered from the original AR.

THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN is most definitely 1.78:1 on HD disc, despite being released theatrically at 2.39:1. The others were also filmed at 2.39:1, as I indicated in my earlier post, and should be framed accordingly on the various formats. If not, they've been altered from the original AR.Thanks Vincent, I'll scratch those from the list, and add a (M) for modified AR to The World's Fastest Indian.

EDIT: glad I'm just scratching them for now until confirmed. ;) Thanks Vincent for the clarification.

Aside from the artistic merit of shooting in 2.39:1 scope for a variety of films, there are many technical differences involved as well.Thanks for the info! Just from a viewer perspective, I didn't know about the technical differences.

Filming with anamorphic lenses provides a shallower field of depth, which makes actors seem closer together than they actually are. Filming in "full frame" and masking out 1.85:1 provides a deeper field of depth, and combined with the right lenses, can achieve deep focus, like in the film Citizen Kane, where almost every shot is deep focus, making Kane seem even more separated from those around him.

Filming with anamorphic lenses also utilizes the entire 35mm film cel, whereas 1.85:1 ignores a good 25% of it. Since we sadly have moved away from the larger film formats like 65/70mm, projecting a 35mm image onto a 50 foot screen presents enough quality compromises, without losng 25% of the available resolution. I'm guessing most current anamorphic lenses are for 2.35:1/2.39:1? Is it not possible to use an anamorphic lens to accomplish a 1.85:1 ratio? This would allow for the shallower depth of field and full usage of the 35mm film cels, correct? Any technical reasons it won't work?

Also, the idea of shooting all films at 16:9 assumes that filmmakers and movie studios care more about home video than they do about the cinema experience. The exact opposite is true. While home video releases make up a significant chunk of studio revenues, filmmakers and studios most definitely want the cinema experience to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the home video experience.I agree with this. I have argued before that the studios are making films for the theater. Until they decide to care more about the home video market, it is doubtful all movies will become 16:9. I am thankful there are as many 1.85:1 movies as there are, and hope for even more!

For the studios, it's mainly a matter of money: they get to double-dip by having you see the movie in theatres and then buy the movie on video. For filmmakers, it's more of an artistic issue: they don't want their feature film to be so easily compared to a television movie-of-the-week. It's partially for this reason that more and more films are being shot using anamorphic lenses... they WANT the TV and home video versions to be lacking. If film becomes the bastard brother of HDTV and all movies were shot at 16:9, there really would be little reason to see films in a cinema, and the entire industry would have to reevaluate their usefulness and business model. Why not just shoot using HDTV cameras? It would be easier. This is also part of the reason that digital cinema uses a non-HDTV resolution (2k vs. 1920x1080) and 24fps instead of 30. If cinemas start to fail and close, the industry is doomed. Film is still different than video, and it needs to remain that way.

On a similar note, many theatres have constant height projectors so the 2.39:1 image is larger than the 1.85:1 image. This is good, and makes anamorphic films seem more cinematic. Again, TV and home theatre are competitors of cinema, and everyone in Hollywood wants to make sure that the film experience can differentiate itself.Though I tend to agree with that last sentence, that would lend credence to only use 2.35:1, but there are many great 1.85:1 films out there.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now, but I'll just finish by saying that having multiple AR options, as well as the different cinema experiences they produce, is a key component of the art of cinema, and those who want to do away with it are missing out on the awesome flexibility of film, and the artitic possibilities that that flexibility provides to filmmakers. If films get relegated to the limitations of video and HDTV-specs, you only have yourselves to blame.Thanks for the insights, great post. I don't go the theater/cinema, so I enjoy my movie watching at home. I guess I should just be thankful they bring the movies to the home theater at all, eh? :)

Thanks for the info! Just from a viewer perspective, I didn't know about the technical differences.

I'm guessing most current anamorphic lenses are for 2.35:1/2.39:1? Is it not possible to use an anamorphic lens to accomplish a 1.85:1 ratio? This would allow for the shallower depth of field and full usage of the 35mm film cels, correct? Any technical reasons it won't work?

I appreciate your response. Just to clarify a few things: pretty much ALL anamorphic lenses in use presently are 2.39:1 AR (though it is often referred to as 2.35:1, that aspect ratio hasn't been widely used since the mid 70s). One of the reasons for not creating 1.85:1 AR anamorphic lenses is that 1.85:1 isn't a world-wide standard. Most theatres in Europe (and many other locations) project "flat" pictures as 1.66:1, and of course, full-frame DVDs still use 1.33:1 (either scanned from the 1.85:1 area, or expanfing upon it vertically). The other reason is that it really would just create a third "bastard" format that doesn't really provide the full benefits of anamorphic filmmaking, but tends to technically reside somewhere between the two current standards. The focal depth would be deeper than 2.39:1 anamorphic, but not as deep as full frame. This would also require all theatres to get a third lens type for movies shot (and projected) in this format. In the end, it would cost as much as 2.39:1 anamorphic, but with few of the benefits.


I agree with this. I have argued before that the studios are making films for the theater. Until they decide to care more about the home video market, it is doubtful all movies will become 16:9. I am thankful there are as many 1.85:1 movies as there are, and hope for even more!

I wouldn't really classify it as not caring about the home video format. I probably was too strong in wording. Studios (and to a lesser extent filmmakers) do care about the home video market, but it is definitely the secondary consideration, and they want to do everything possible to preserve the "hopefully better" cinema experience. First, they created color films -- eventually TV caught up. Then they went widescreen -- then, home video created letterboxing, and now wider aspect ratios. Then they created digital sound -- then, home video and HDTV adopted the same sound formats. Hollywood is always trying to stay a step ahead of home video/TV, and they have good reason to. Given that many of the movie studios are now owned by large media conglomerates the threat of film (as we know it) going extinct, is always real, and with the advent of HDTV, the threat of turning film into a "Direct to Blu-ray, HD DVD, and HDTV" business is always appealing to the studios' corporate parents. Film is an EXPENSIVE business, and if you can't justify those expenses as a film-based medium, then the reality is shareholders will want the business to go video and never look back.

Though I tend to agree with that last sentence, that would lend credence to only use 2.35:1, but there are many great 1.85:1 films out there.

There are indeed. There are also MANY wonderful 1.33:1 AR films, and some great films that use other ARs (2.2:1 Todd-AO, 2.56:1 anamorphic, 3.99:1 triple-camera cinerama). Again, a lot of thought is put into what AR to use for a given film, but a significant part of the decision is knowing the technical and artistic differences (field of depth, framing, etc.) that each format provides. Each format provides benefits and challenges, and settling the entire industry on one AR limits some of the artistic options available to the director and DP, and means that many films would have to be shot with a less-than-ideal AR.

Thanks for the insights, great post. I don't go the theater/cinema, so I enjoy my movie watching at home. I guess I should just be thankful they bring the movies to the home theater at all, eh? :)

I watch many movies at home, as well. There's nothing wrong with that. I also drive 45 minutes to an upscale V.I.P. room theatre to see movies on the big screen, where they don't allow in anyone under 21, and the overall experience is much more condusive to movie-watching than the "typical" theatre experience (the reclining chairs, full menu, and bar don't hurt at all either). Personally, I think that the advent of the 20-30 theatre mega-plexes is as bad for film as home video, as the screens are smaller, the patrons are annoying (why the hell are there 18-month olds crying during the showing of an R-rated picture at 10:00pm?), and the presentation is mediocre at best (no 70mm, limited digital, poorly treated 35mm prints). So, I definitely don't begrudge those who really don't want to go to the theatre at this point -- in many cases it's a less-than-great experience. But it is important to consider the ramifications on the industry should cinemas fail.

And don't be thankful that they release movies on home video at all. As much as the studios compete with TV, they know how to make a buck off it. You're not doing them any favors by buying their products. I, for one, AM thankful that, starting with laserdisc, many films have been made available in their OAR, so that I can experience films at home in the closest approximation to the original theatrical experience as possible, and seeing films at home as they were intended to be seen (only on a smaller screen).

None. But having produced films is not a requirement to have an opinion. ;)

Not to watch them you dont.

But I personally don't have an opinion on what aspect ratio is "needed" to film different scenes like you were saying, because I've never been a cameraman or director or anything like that. That's why I asked the question.

I just have no idea why they do it, but there sure seems to be some skill or artistry involved. Filmmakers choose different ARs because apparently they need them to tell their story.

Alright, just to confuse the situation more, and to explain the transfer of "The World's Fastest Indian." That film was shot in Super35 (a third shooting option I didn't bring up in my points earlier) where the film is shot optically flat on a slightly larger 35mm frame, but is designed to be reframed, both in theatres and on home video. It's the preferred format of James Cameron and a few other filmmakers. The advantage is that you are capturing a larger film image than you plan to use (in any presentation) and that can be reframed to 2.39:1 anamorphic (for a theatrical presentation) by using the entire width of the frame but only part of the height, or 1.33:1/1.78:1 for TV/home video, by using less width but additional height.

Most purists consider the 2.39:1 version as the OAR, but in reality, these films are often shot with both theatrical and home video transfers in mind, so the reframing isn't nearly as problematic in some cases. There are issues with the format, however, even when used correctly. The resolution of the anamorphic film image shown in theatres is less than that of a film actually shot in "scope," and doesn't have the characteristics of scope pictures that may or may not be desireable. Also, many would argue that there's less "art" in shooting a movie designed for multiple-aspect ratio presentations. I tend to agree with that, but it depends on the film. Lastly, many Super35 films (like those by James Cameron or Harry Potter) contain MANY SFX scenes. If you have the budget, I suppose, you can have the effects generated over the entire frame, however, it is more common to scan the film at 2.39:1 for the DI and have the effects generated on that (someone please correct me if that has changed). So, any shot with special effects will likely have to be reframed form the 2.39:1 theatrical print. Personally, I don't like the format (and I think most DPs have issues with it as well), but it does make it possible to use the additional width of cinema screens, while still maintaining a decent full-screen video transfer.

It's partially for this reason that more and more films are being shot using anamorphic lenses...

Sadly, this isn't quite true. In fact, the vast majority of 2.39:1 movies these days are shot in Super 35 (not widescreen at all, but a form of 'cropscreen', if you like), while anamorphic is considered a rarity, though still holding its own - just! However, more and more S35 films are being shot in 3-perf (rather than traditional 4-perf), which results in less waste as far as film stock is concerned and encourages a greater focus on the central 2.39:1 image (with 4-perf, there's simply too much extra space on the negative, which is used to 'protect' for TV, resulting in cramped, cropped theatrical versions). Examples of recent 3-perf films include THE AVIATOR, THE DESCENT and THE BLACK DAHLIA, amongst many others.

2-perf Techniscope will also be making a comeback later this year with the introduction of the Aaton Penelope camera, which employs 2- and 3-perf as standard (alongside 4-perf), which should save money for filmmakers and create beautiful widescreen images. In theory, at least.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that filmmakers are concerned with distinguishing their product from TV. A surfeit of closeups and medium shots in today's movies seems calculated to 'play better' on television, and many of the monitors and viewfinders used during principal photography feature markings which allow the filmmaker to herd all important visual information into the central 1.78:1 portion of the frame, to the point where it completely negates the use of the 2.39:1 ratio in the first place! After all, why use it if you're just going to cram everything into a 1.78/1.85 space, anyway? Super 35 is a perfectly viable format, but it's being used as a sop to television by the majority of filmmakers, many of whom are forced to use it by studio bosses anxious to facilitate the all-important ancillary markets. Check out this quote from Ken Kwapis, who fought an uphill battle to use anamorphic lenses for his film THE SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS:

"[The studio's] reservations [about using anamorphic lenses] are about one thing only, namely, whether an unwieldy aspect ratio will have an adverse effect on the - I love this phrase - 'revenue stream' of the film. Meaning: ancillary markets. For example, Wal-Mart is the country's biggest retailer of DVDs and they simply will not put widescreen editions of films on their shelves. I know, this point-of-view is shockingly prehistoric, but that's one example of why studios are scared of scope."

I wonder when was the last time Ken Kwapis went into a Walmart. Most of the films I see in Walmart are widescreen.

Back in 2002, I bought a DVD player and had it for one day to only end up returning it......problem HUGE black bars...ugh! :mad: So, I got rid of it and stayed with my 1992 VCR unit until last month.




Another clueless Joe 6 who wasted money on a big plasma. You will not be able to watch most of the great movies so why not stay with your VHS and 13" blurry SDTV??? I mean Joe....the black bars are here to stay...so I would avoid them and stick with SD.

I wonder when was the last time Ken Kwapis went into a Walmart. Most of the films I see in Walmart are widescreen.

Walmart may have altered its position since Kwapis made that comment, but at the time, this was one of the reasons given to him by the studio for dragging their feet on allowing him to shoot anamorphic rather than Super 35.

Another clueless Joe 6 who wasted money on a big plasma. You will not be able to watch most of the great movies so why not stay with your VHS and 13" blurry SDTV??? I mean Joe....the black bars are here to stay...so I would avoid them and stick with SD.How uninformed :(

The list at the very beginning of this thread is all about movies that suit bwclark's need perfectly! There is no need for him to constrain his viewing to SD.

Just to clarify a few things: pretty much ALL anamorphic lenses in use presently are 2.39:1 AR (though it is often referred to as 2.35:1, that aspect ratio hasn't been widely used since the mid 70s). One of the reasons for not creating 1.85:1 AR anamorphic lenses is that 1.85:1 isn't a world-wide standard. Most theatres in Europe (and many other locations) project "flat" pictures as 1.66:1, and of course, full-frame DVDs still use 1.33:1 (either scanned from the 1.85:1 area, or expanfing upon it vertically). The other reason is that it really would just create a third "bastard" format that doesn't really provide the full benefits of anamorphic filmmaking, but tends to technically reside somewhere between the two current standards. The focal depth would be deeper than 2.39:1 anamorphic, but not as deep as full frame. This would also require all theatres to get a third lens type for movies shot (and projected) in this format. In the end, it would cost as much as 2.39:1 anamorphic, but with few of the benefits.

Lots of interesting things here, thanks for informing those of us who weren't clear. But I wonder, when digital production and projection does take over (I think it's inevitable, whether its 5 years or 20), doesn't that mean the AR can be arbitrarily chosen for each movie, and that there will actually be more flexibility with focal depth? I suspect we will see a wide variety of crazy AR movies, in part motivated by creative license, but maybe in part to distinguish the cinema experience. Maybe even so, the pressure for future distribution will be so great that the movie will be shot with a protected 1.85 AR, who knows?

[QUOTE=Vincent Shaw]It's partially for this reason that more and more films are being shot using anamorphic lenses...




Also, I'm not sure I agree that filmmakers are concerned with distinguishing their product from TV. A surfeit of closeups and medium shots in today's movies seems calculated to 'play better' on television, and many of the monitors and viewfinders used during principal photography feature markings which allow the filmmaker to herd all important visual information into the central 1.78:1 portion of the frame, to the point where it completely negates the use of the 2.39:1 ratio in the first place! After all, why use it if you're just going to cram everything into a 1.78/1.85 space, anyway? Super 35 is a perfectly viable format, but it's being used as a sop to television by the majority of filmmakers, many of whom are forced to use it by studio bosses anxious to facilitate the all-important ancillary markets.


Finally someone speaks the truth about "Director's Intent". If you look at nearly all 2.35+ ratio movies made these days, it doesn't matter at all whether you look at it with or without black bars. My SD DVD player and my HD display can zoom up an SD or HD signal and very rarely is anything lost. Check out a blown up version of "King Kong". It looks just fine.

This certainly is not true for older CinemaScope movies. I don't want to look at "Lawrence of Arabia" in 16:9 format.

The directors intent is to get paid by his bosses and be asked to make another movie.

Can anyone confirm the following movies as having an OAR of 1.85:1 but the high def disc version as being 1.78:1 (MAR), please?

Architect, The
Caddyshack
Chicken Little
Excalibur
Full Metal Jacket
Good Night, and Good Luck
GoodFellas confirmed
National Lampoon's Animal House
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
One Last Thing...
Saw II
Saw III
Stir of Echoes
Wolf Creek


These had an OAR of 1.75:1. Can someone confirm a MAR of 1.78:1 on high def disc?
The Dirty Dozen
The Searchers

Can someone verify the AR of The Fugitive on high def disc (it has an OAR of 1.85:1)?

Thanks.

Does it actually matter if any of these movies have had the mattes opened from 1.85 to 1.78? Any black bars shown on these movies would be absolutely tiny.

You must REALLY hate black bars if such tiny slivers of dark put you off watching the film.

Wait so out of ALL the Blu Ray & HDDVD movies released, THAT'S ALL of them that are in 16:9 ratio?
Bull****

Buying a HD 16:9 TV, you'd expect maybe a little bit more HD movies would be in 16:9!!!!

If I wanted to watch 2.35 or 2.56:1 anamorphic whatever I would buought a projector

I think it's fair to point out that some people used to argue that HD DVD wouldn't have 16X9 aspect ratios movies because it was too hard on the bandwidth. That argument was basically that HD DVD needed the tiny bars to keep the bits down, and they were intentionally avoiding using every pixal on the screen for that reason. That was the gest of the argument anyway. From the information here, it looks like either format is about as likely to use 16X9 oar as the other.

Does it actually matter if any of these movies have had the mattes opened from 1.85 to 1.78? Any black bars shown on these movies would be absolutely tiny.

You must REALLY hate black bars if such tiny slivers of dark put you off watching the film.You have it backwards. By opening it up to 1.78:1, part of the movie is chopped off on the sides! I'm not happy with losing picture that is there in the original. :(

In any event, I asked in an attempt to update the list with more accurate data, not to eliminate them from the list. As can be seen from my original post, I indicate:Keep in mind that 1.85:1 is not 16:9, but it is close enough and in a lot of cases the overscan causes the image to fill the screen.so people with some overscan are probably losing some of the picture anyway (close to the same amount as from opening up a 1.85:1 to a 1.78:1).

Wait so out of ALL the Blu Ray & HDDVD movies released, THAT'S ALL of them that are in 16:9 ratio?
Bull****

Buying a HD 16:9 TV, you'd expect maybe a little bit more HD movies would be in 16:9!!!!

If I wanted to watch 2.35 or 2.56:1 anamorphic whatever I would buought a projector

LOL, posts like these make my head hurt. They release the Movies in their ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO, so that means if the movie was shown in theaters as 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 then by golly that's the same aspect ratio that the Blu Ray disc or HD DVD is showing. Golly, who would have thunk it.

From the information here, it looks like either format is about as likely to use 16X9 oar as the other.

16x9 OAR is used if that is how it was shown in theaters, if it wasn't 16x9 (or 1.85:1) in theatres then it is not shown in 16x9, OAR will always be multiple different aspect ratios depending on how the movie was originally shot and show in Theater, 16x9 is OAR for some movies while 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 is OAR for movies that were shot that way.

I think it's fair to point out that some people used to argue that HD DVD wouldn't have 16X9 aspect ratios movies because it was too hard on the bandwidth. That argument was basically that HD DVD needed the tiny bars to keep the bits down, and they were intentionally avoiding using every pixal on the screen for that reason. That was the gest of the argument anyway. From the information here, it looks like either format is about as likely to use 16X9 oar as the other.Hmm, I hadn't even looked at the format breakdown. I guess that eliminates claims from either camp that they have more HDTV 'Fullscreen' movies. :)

Wait so out of ALL the Blu Ray & HDDVD movies released, THAT'S ALL of them that are in 16:9 ratio?
Bull****

Buying a HD 16:9 TV, you'd expect maybe a little bit more HD movies would be in 16:9!!!!

If I wanted to watch 2.35 or 2.56:1 anamorphic whatever I would buought a projector
If you don't want to watch 2.35:1 movies, why are you reading and posting on avsforum? The majority of people here WANT to see movies preserved in their correct aspect ratios, whether they are 1.33:1 or 2.75:1.

I can't understand the thinking of people who expect Hollywood etc to only make movies in 16:9 as this is now the most common shape of TV. If we followed this line of thinking all movies would have been shot in 1.33:1 until the mid nineties!

Wait so out of ALL the Blu Ray & HDDVD movies released, THAT'S ALL of them that are in 16:9 ratio?
Bull****

Buying a HD 16:9 TV, you'd expect maybe a little bit more HD movies would be in 16:9!!!!

If I wanted to watch 2.35 or 2.56:1 anamorphic whatever I would buought a projectorWell, that's the good thing about this list then. You can see easily what movies will suit your tastes (16:9FS). :D

You have it backwards. By opening it up to 1.78:1, part of the movie is chopped off on the sides! I'm not happy with losing picture that is there in the original. :(

In any event, I asked in an attempt to update the list with more accurate data, not to eliminate them from the list. As can be seen from my original post, I indicate:so people with some overscan are probably losing some of the picture anyway (close to the same amount as from opening up a 1.85:1 to a 1.78:1).

Nope, I think you might want to check on this. Most movies that are changed from 1.85: to 1.78:1 simply have the mattes opened up slightly. They don't chop off the sides. The mattes are opened the same way that your beloved King Kong (2005) did it.

Nope, I think you might want to check on this. Most movies that are changed from 1.85: to 1.78:1 simply have the mattes opened up slightly. They don't chop off the sides. Exactly the same way that your beloved King Kong (2006) did it.Hmm, I think the number of movies filmed with open matte is relatively small, though, but I will check on it, thanks. :)

In any case, it'll get the list updated to indicate they are MAR not OAR (though the difference is slight and IMO better if they are as you say opened up, not zoomed).

Hmm, I think the number of movies filmed with open matte is relatively small, though, but I will check on it, thanks. :)

In any case, it'll get the list updated to indicate they are MAR not OAR (though the difference is slight and IMO better if they are as you say opened up, not zoomed).

It's not common for 2.35:1 movies to be filmed in such a way that the mattes can be opened (eg Super 35 etc) but a lot of 1.85:1 movies are. It's usually called 'shooting flat' or 'soft-matte'.

Most movies composed between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 are shot 'soft matte', which means the negative captures a 1.37:1 image, with all essential information gathered within the 'theatrical portion' of the frame. When transferring such movies to TV and/or home video, they can be adjusted accordingly, depending on which AR is required (1.33:1 for 4:3, or letterboxed/enhanced for 16:9). Nothing is lost from the sides when a soft matte 1.85:1 movie is reframed at 1.78:1, it's simply opened up at top and bottom, and the difference is infinitely small, to a point where it makes no discernible difference whatsoever. Personally, I'd prefer the 1.85:1 framing, but there's very little cause for complaint if the image is slightly altered to 1.78:1.

Hard matte movies are, of course, a different matter - alter those on home video or TV, and you crop away huge swathes of the original film. If I'm not mistaken, this was (is?) a common practice in Hong Kong, though other countries haven't taken to the format in great numbers. You could probably count the number of American films shot hard matte in the last twenty years on the fingers of one hand.

Hmm, I think the number of movies filmed with open matte is relatively small, though, but I will check on it, thanks. :)
I believe all of Tim Burton's films were shot that way. I know for a fact that at least some of them were.

Also, the idea of shooting all films at 16:9 assumes that filmmakers and movie studios care more about home video than they do about the cinema experience. The exact opposite is true. While home video releases make up a significant chunk of studio revenues, filmmakers and studios most definitely want the cinema experience to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the home video experience. For the studios, it's mainly a matter of money: they get to double-dip by having you see the movie in theatres and then buy the movie on video. For filmmakers, it's more of an artistic issue: they don't want their feature film to be so easily compared to a television movie-of-the-week. It's partially for this reason that more and more films are being shot using anamorphic lenses... they WANT the TV and home video versions to be lacking. If film becomes the bastard brother of HDTV and all movies were shot at 16:9, there really would be little reason to see films in a cinema, and the entire industry would have to reevaluate their usefulness and business model. Why not just shoot using HDTV cameras? It would be easier. This is also part of the reason that digital cinema uses a non-HDTV resolution (2k vs. 1920x1080) and 24fps instead of 30. If cinemas start to fail and close, the industry is doomed. Film is still different than video, and it needs to remain that way.
Yes, it's all about money.

You contradict yourself when you peddle the "artistic choice" babble for directors and then follow that up with "because they want the TV movie of the week to look like crap in cvomparison". That's not an artistic driven choice!!!

Face it, widescreen was introduced in the first place because movie studios were scared to death that the newfangled television would steal all their money. Yes, movies used to be 4:3. Now we have 2.35:1 all over the place for the same reasons. Those of you who champion the 2.35:1 flag and spout OAR and artistic choices are in reality just shills for the movie studios. It's unfortunate that most of you aren't even compensated for it.

Guess what? If 16x9 was the only option to film in it wouldn't kill any movies out there and it wouldn't destroy any artistic renderings. The movie business is constantly running scared so 2.35 won't go away.

What the heck is everybody arguing about this crap for?

Just got my free Tosh HD DVDs...SKY Captain and the World of Tomorrow is 16/9. I didn't see it on your list.

Haven't been here in awhile, but I seem to have attracted some hostility. Oh, well.

Lots of interesting things here, thanks for informing those of us who weren't clear. But I wonder, when digital production and projection does take over (I think it's inevitable, whether its 5 years or 20), doesn't that mean the AR can be arbitrarily chosen for each movie, and that there will actually be more flexibility with focal depth? I suspect we will see a wide variety of crazy AR movies, in part motivated by creative license, but maybe in part to distinguish the cinema experience. Maybe even so, the pressure for future distribution will be so great that the movie will be shot with a protected 1.85 AR, who knows?

That does seem like something of a possibility, and one I would love to see happen. That said, the requirements that are being adopted for Digital Cinema projection are VERY closely related to existing film, mandating 24 fps, etc. for compatibility. They have, though, chosen to go with perfectly square pixels, and are already slightly "masking" off part of the pixel grid for both 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 presentations. (Also, I don't think a final decision has been made regarding the use of anamorphic lenses to project the wider AR on Digital Cinema projectors. The quality would be improved somewhat, but I'm not sure theatres want to absorb that cost.) So it's definitely possible to go with all kinds of odd resolutions, but the problem becomes getting the systems set up correctly in each theatre. You could be looking at different lenses, or, at the very least, widely divergent focusing that needs to be done for each film.



Yes, it's all about money.

You contradict yourself when you peddle the "artistic choice" babble for directors and then follow that up with "because they want the TV movie of the week to look like crap in cvomparison". That's not an artistic driven choice!!!

Face it, widescreen was introduced in the first place because movie studios were scared to death that the newfangled television would steal all their money. Yes, movies used to be 4:3. Now we have 2.35:1 all over the place for the same reasons. Those of you who champion the 2.35:1 flag and spout OAR and artistic choices are in reality just shills for the movie studios. It's unfortunate that most of you aren't even compensated for it.

Guess what? If 16x9 was the only option to film in it wouldn't kill any movies out there and it wouldn't destroy any artistic renderings. The movie business is constantly running scared so 2.35 won't go away.

What the heck is everybody arguing about this crap for?

First, I didn't contradict myself. I was explaining both the artistic (director-driven) and economic (studio-driven) reasons for having a wider AR available. If you read my other posts I went into a little more detail on various benefits to different aspect ratios, though some of that depends more on whether a film is shot "flat" (be it Super-35 or standard 35mm) or "scope". I don't think I'm a shill for the movie studios, and I certainly have NO problem with 1.85:1 movies, when it's artistically appropriate, but whatever. And the reason people are arguing is because some people make claims like "If 16x9 was the only option to film in it wouldn't kill any movies out there and it wouldn't destroy any artistic renderings," which cannot be backed up and is infuriating to many people who believe in film as an artistic medium -- "Ben Hur" in 1.78:1 just wouldn't be "Ben Hur".

But to agree with you, it IS about money, too. As I said, studios and cinemas have a financial interest in producing a "big screen experience" that cannot be so easily recreated at home. What's wrong with that exactly -- it is their business?


Sadly, this isn't quite true. In fact, the vast majority of 2.39:1 movies these days are shot in Super 35 (not widescreen at all, but a form of 'cropscreen', if you like), while anamorphic is considered a rarity, though still holding its own - just! However, more and more S35 films are being shot in 3-perf (rather than traditional 4-perf), which results in less waste as far as film stock is concerned and encourages a greater focus on the central 2.39:1 image (with 4-perf, there's simply too much extra space on the negative, which is used to 'protect' for TV, resulting in cramped, cropped theatrical versions). Examples of recent 3-perf films include THE AVIATOR, THE DESCENT and THE BLACK DAHLIA, amongst many others.

I somewhat misspoke. Thanks for correcting. I was including all the many Super35 films in what I meant. I should have said "more and more films being shot for anamorphic projection". I also haven't worked in Hollywood for a few years, so thanks for catching me up somewhat on some of the upcoming trends.

This still leaves open the question of artistic intent, however, and what the OAR should be considered. If a studio is demanding "scope" pictures be shot on Super35 in order to make the full screen DVD and TV airings more palettable, that doesn't necessarily imply that the director or the DP really are giving those other ARs equal "attention," if you will. They might, or they might be focusing on the "scope" AR, with little regard to the additional area being captured.

Personally, I dislike Super35 (for feature film use) for many, many reasons, too numerous to go into here, but the fact that it's popularity is gaining is just bound to lead to MORE bickering about aspect ratios and how DVDs/HD DVDs/Blu-rays should be produced. I, for one, wouldn't want a 16:9 AR version of these films UNLESS the director specifically shot for that ratio. Otherwise, I'll take the 2.39:1 version... and I know those with constant height projectors would MUCH prefer the original theatrical ratio.

Anyway, to each his own. It will be interesting to see what studios decide to do about this, as the high def market picks up steam. I think eventually we'll see both WS and FS (16:9) discs released where appropriate, but not until the market gets much larger. I think for now, trying to convince the many people who want the original theatrical ratio preserved to give that up, (even on a Super35 film, which most people don't understand at all) is more difficult than the other way around.

There’s is a lot of good technical information on film production in this thread, so thank you for that.

But at the same time, this discussion and wish for/demand for filling your TV screen and cropping the OAR that pop up regularly seems rather lacking.

What I never see are threads that demands 2:35:1 Cinemascope TV’s.
Isn’t it time for the display producers to wake up and understand how many hours TV’s are used for movie watching?
I am sure there are many times more “movie hours” in the world displayed at TV’s than in cinemas. Why shouldn’t TV’s accommodate that?

Why go for lesser? Why not go for more?
All movie AR have the same hight, so they only need to make TV's wider.
2:35:1 is a bigger picture than 16x9 “widescreen”.
Wouldn’t you rather see movies like that on your TV instead of cropping them down to a too narrow display?

The home theater projectors can do 2:35 cinemascope, even though it’s still rather expensive accessory and cumbersome assembly to become common adoption for all PJ owners for the time being. Some work still has to be done there.

So why not Scope TV’s?
It’s only an addition of 1:33 to the existing “widescreen” TV’s.
Much less complicated than how 2:35:1 movies are made and projected as there are no optics involved. TV’s displays are basically sheets of plastics. Just cut them wider and add some processing power and you have a cinemascope TV. Two 4x3 displays beside each other is roughly 2:35:1. It’s not more complicated than that.

The most popular and watched movies (blockbusters) are nearly all shot in 2:35:1 but the TV’s where they are spending most hours being displayed can’t show them as they where made because they are too narrow.
Isn’t it time that people that watch much movies on their TV can have a choice and see their favorite 2:35:1 movies with a bigger picture than the 1:85:1 movies in the way they where made?
The first TV CE company that does that has a sure success on their hands.

Stop complaining about black bars and your screen isn’t filled with moving pictures. Use that energy to champion 2:35:1 cinemascope TV’s.
Call them MovieTV :) .



....and now I dive for cover :D

Just got my free Tosh HD DVDs...SKY Captain and the World of Tomorrow is 16/9. I didn't see it on your list.Thanks. I'm compiling an update that includes recently released and upcoming releases, just haven't had time lately, sorry.

So why not Scope TV’s?

JVC have already developed a prototype of just such a beast. I've been predicting it for years:

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49287301,00.htm

So why not Scope TV’s?What resolution would you propose for them? If you went with a width of 1920 (since the new high def disc formats use 1920x1080p for most of their releases), you would have a vertical resolution of around 817.
Now if you watch a movie with an AR < 2.35:1 the image will either be cropped top and bottom (unacceptable), or the image will be scaled down horizontally so it will fit vertically. For a 1.85:1 movie, the resulting displayed resolution will be approx. 1511 x 817. EDIT: Note that this would also have pillarboxing (205 pixel black bars, left and right sides).

If you use a full vertical resolution of 1080, the horizontal resolution would be approx. 2540. If you propose remastering 2.35:1 movies on high def discs to have 2540x1080p, that would look great, otherwise the current resolution of them (1920x817 ... technically 1920x1080 but with top and bottom areas being black) would be scaled up to fill the screen.

Just watched Aeon Flux (1.66:1) and it lookep pretty darn good using the entire screen (ps3 and 1080P tv with 1x1 mapping). Actually, it's probably the best BD movie (PQ wise I've watched thus far).

Everyone, I have a dilemma, I have a house with 3 bedrooms and a car. However, the thought of not being able to use every square-inch of my house and not being able to take up all 5 seats at once in my car is killing me. I paid for those 3 bedrooms and for all 5 seats in that car I WANT TO USE THEM ALL AT ONCE OTHERWISE I'M THROWING MY MONEY AWAY! HELP!

Everyone, I have a dilemma, I have a house with 3 bedrooms and a car. However, the thought of not being able to use every square-inch of my house and not being able to take up all 5 seats at once in my car is killing me. I paid for those 3 bedrooms and for all 5 seats in that car I WANT TO USE THEM ALL AT ONCE OTHERWISE I'M THROWING MY MONEY AWAY! HELP!

Well buy a projector for each room and install a speaker i each seat. :D

Everyone, I have a dilemma, I have a house with 3 bedrooms and a car. However, the thought of not being able to use every square-inch of my house and not being able to take up all 5 seats at once in my car is killing me. I paid for those 3 bedrooms and for all 5 seats in that car I WANT TO USE THEM ALL AT ONCE OTHERWISE I'M THROWING MY MONEY AWAY! HELP!

Pretty bad analogy actually.

A video is pretty much visual information, if a video uses the entire screen you are getting more information and more information for your buck, which is directly related to the primary purpose of the TV. On the other hand, the number of seats occupied in your car will make little difference when it takes you from point A to point B. Unless, of course, we go subjective and you fill your car up with people you actually like.

Pretty bad analogy actually.

A video is pretty much visual information, if a video uses the entire screen you are getting more information and more information for your buck, which is directly related to the primary purpose of the TV. On the other hand, the number of seats occupied in your car will make little difference when it takes you from point A to point B. Unless, of course, we go subjective and you fill your car up with people you actually like.

You're watching the movie as intended at 2.35:1 so it should make very little difference that you have "black bars". The primary purpose of your television isn't to have all pixels on, you're not "losing" anything by watching a movie that's not in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, because that's what you would've seen in the movie theaters.

edit: Clear answer: you're seeing what you're supposed to see at 2.35:1 and right now with TVs, that can only be accomplished by having black bars, you're not losing any information, and cropping off the sides to get 1.85 ratio would mean that you're LOSING information, not gaining.

You're watching the movie as intended at 2.35:1 so it should make very little difference that you have "black bars". The primary purpose of your television isn't to have all pixels on, you're not "losing" anything by watching a movie that's not in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, because that's what you would've seen in the movie theaters.

edit: Clear answer: you're seeing what you're supposed to see at 2.35:1 and right now with TVs, that can only be accomplished by having black bars, you're not losing any information, and cropping off the sides to get 1.85 ratio would mean that you're LOSING information, not gaining.

Well, it's all bout the source. But the argument of "as intended" is debatable. If 20% of the screen you paid for is not being used and it could have been used, you are losing money. You are being limited by the source.

Also, if the pixel is small enough so I don't see the detail, it doesn't matter if it's there or not. But those black bars are potential visible pixels that are not being used, and again, could've.

Anyway, I certainly prefer movies that use the entire screen.

Well, it's all bout the source. But the argument of "as intended" is debatable. If 20% of the screen you paid for is not being used and it could have been used, you are losing money. You are being limited by the source.

Also, if the pixel is small enough so I don't see the detail, it doesn't matter if it's there or not. But those black bars are potential visible pixels that are not being used, and again, could've.

Anyway, I certainly prefer movies that use the entire screen.

Not really debatable, hence "Original" in OAR.

Anytime you drive a car that you own without all of the seats taken you are "losing money". If you have a bedroom not being used, you are "losing money". When you go out to eat, do you eat every single bit of food and eat the ice in your drink? Otherwise, you are "losing money". It's just a flawed way of thinking to me, but to each their own.

Not really debatable, hence "Original" in OAR.

Anytime you drive a car that you own without all of the seats taken you are "losing money". If you have a bedroom not being used, you are "losing money". When you go out to eat, do you eat every single bit of food and eat the ice in your drink? Otherwise, you are "losing money". It's just a flawed way of thinking to me, but to each their own.

Everything is debatable. Maybe the problem is with the aspect ratio of the original source? Maybe it was adequate for a different reality.

Actually, yes! if you don't use what you paid for, you lost money. Every time you don't eat the food you bought and it goes waste, you've lost money. Simply because you bought more than you needed.
That's why most people adequate their purchases to their needs. For exmaple, if they need a small car they buy a small car not a bus.

That's the problem with analogies, you end up way off topic... and all I wanted was for movies to use the entire screen I paid for.

What resolution would you propose for them? If you went with a width of 1920 (since the new high def disc formats use 1920x1080p for most of their releases), you would have a vertical resolution of around 817.
Now if you watch a movie with an AR < 2.35:1 the image will either be cropped top and bottom (unacceptable), or the image will be scaled down horizontally so it will fit vertically. For a 1.85:1 movie, the resulting displayed resolution will be approx. 1511 x 817. EDIT: Note that this would also have pillarboxing (205 pixel black bars, left and right sides).
If you use a full vertical resolution of 1080, the horizontal resolution would be approx. 2540. If you propose remastering 2.35:1 movies on high def discs to have 2540x1080p, that would look great, otherwise the current resolution of them (1920x817 ... technically 1920x1080 but with top and bottom areas being black) would be scaled up to fill the screen.


The vertical resolution is the most important in the way the eyes and the brain process the resolution.
Therefore, a HDTV's in 2:35 would be best as approximately 2540x1080.

The TV would stretch the 2:35 Movie picture vertical and horizontal; in the same way it's done with a digital projector and an anamorphic lens to fill the screen.
Even better if the material was put that way on HD disc media, but that's a longer way to go than just making Scope TV's.

All 1080p HD TV's has to upconvert everything anyway, except 1080p from HD media.

I believe the unused sidepanels for 4x3 and 16x9 would be more acceptable for people than the horizontal bars because people would understand the AR in the correct relations to each other; 4x3> 16x9> 2:35 Constant Image Height.

And because unused sidepanels are a part of the display that is not in use, which is very different from black sidebars.

There could also be different solutions to how the unused sidepanels on 4x3 and 16x9 material will look more integrated into the nondisplaying part of the TV design.
While viewing TV channels in 16x9, the unused sidepanels can be used for anything from PIP to information streaming of internet content or whatever is the choice.

Everything is debatable. Maybe the problem is with the aspect ratio of the original source? Maybe it was adequate for a different reality.

Actually, yes! if you don't use what you paid for, you lost money. Every time you don't eat the food you bought and it goes waste, you've lost money. Simply because you bought more than you needed.
That's why most people adequate their purchases to their needs. For exmaple, if they need a small car they buy a small car not a bus.

That's the problem with analogies, you end up way off topic... and all I wanted was for movies to use the entire screen I paid for.

Well, my final question to you would be, how did you watch movies on your non-HD (or widescreen) tvs before? Did you purchase fullscreen DVDs only? Or did you "throw your money away" by buying widscreen DVDs?

Well, my final question to you would be, how did you watch movies on your non-HD (or widescreen) tvs before? Did you purchase fullscreen DVDs only? Or did you "throw your money away" by buying widscreen DVDs?
Never bought a 16x9 movie before going widescreen. TV was too small and could barely see the picture if 2:35 (1:85 was not much better either). Rentals were painful then, but it's all about moving forward.

It's not a deal breaker for me, I just prefer movies with a more adequate aspect ratio, in relation to my TV (what else).

Never bought a 16x9 movie before going widescreen. TV was too small and could barely see the picture if 2:35 (1:85 was not much better either). Rentals were painful then, but it's all about moving forward.

It's not a deal breaker for me, I just prefer movies with a more adequate aspect ratio, in relation to my TV (what else).

to each his own I guess, I watched OAR movies on a 13' tv for my college years (I had a 19' monitor so that helped too) and I never thought it was too small.

... There could also be different solutions to how the unused sidepanels on 4x3 and 16x9 material will look more integrated into the nondisplaying part of the TV design.
While viewing TV channels in 16x9, the unused sidepanels can be used for anything from PIP to information streaming of internet content or whatever is the choice.Ok, now that would be a cool use of the unused space (on a 2.35:1 HDTV)! Great ideas. :)

to each his own I guess, I watched OAR movies on a 13' tv for my college years (I had a 19' monitor so that helped too) and I never thought it was too small.Yes, I've bought only OAR movies for ages (and finding them on VHS was difficult at times). I want to see 'all' of the picture, but that doesn't mean I like the black bars, it's just a compromise I have to live with to be able to see the whole image.
The apparent reduction in vertical height when watching a movie with AR 2.35:1 on a 16:9 HDTV outweighs any 'epic', 'wide', (insert whatever awe-inspiring term you want to describe why 2.35:1 is good) feeling I should perceive from it being 2.35:1.
My tv remains the same width no matter what I watch, and by watching a 2.35:1 movie, the vertical resolution is not maxmized, and actually gives the perception of having a smaller picture, not a 'wide', 'panoramic', 'epic', (you get the idea by now I hope) feel.

Since I don't want a short height but very wide tv, i.e. a 2.35:1 HDTV (space considerations, you know), and most people probably wouldn't either, IMO, I will keep hoping that more and more movies are made with an OAR of 16:9 (or even 1.85:1). :)

The day the movie studios abandon the cinema, will be the day all movies are made OAR 16 X 9. I hope that never happens for I love the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I like the shape of the screen. I watch TV on my HDTV; I watch movies at the cinema or in my home theater where I can project the movie as it was projected in the cinema. Granted, it was expensive to get a front projector, 118” X 50” 2.35:1 screen, anamorphic lens, and a video processor, but probably not as much as a 60” plasma.

How would Ben Hur look at 1.78:1 compared to 2.76:1?

... How would Ben Hur look at 1.78:1 compared to 2.76:1?I would say that if the director had planned an OAR of 1.78:1 that he would have done a superb job and it would have looked great! :) Call me a fool for believing that directors have the talent to make great films in 1.78:1 AR. ;)

2.35 AR is suppose to be bigger than 1.78 AR not smaller!I like this sig line. Watching a 2.35:1 movie on a standard 16:9 HDTV and having ~25% of the screen being black bars, sure does make the movie look smaller! ;)

Just watched Aeon Flux (1.66:1) and it lookep pretty darn good using the entire screen (ps3 and 1080P tv with 1x1 mapping). Actually, it's probably the best BD movie (PQ wise I've watched thus far).Aeon Flux shows a OAR of 2.35:1. Is your version an import? After digging, I saw an import listed here (http://www.dvdspecials.nl/recensies/content/recensie.php?id=745). I can't read that site, but I got BD and 1.85:1 out of it. ;) You listed 1.66:1.

Thanks.

Well, OAR people (outside of this board) are likley a small minority.

Most non AVS Forum type folk that I know hate it when there are still "dumb black bars", as they put it. And, I for the most part, can agree.

Does anyone have any scoop/inside info on trends in Hollywood, given that nearly all new TV 's sold are 16:9, will there be a shift to shoot in 1.78:1?

I know most movie freeks hate it, but the majority like all those pixels put to use w/o having to zoom in.

Well, OAR people (outside of this board) are likley a small minority.

Most non AVS Forum type folk that I know hate it when there are still "dumb black bars", as they put it. And, I for the most part, can agree.

Does anyone have any scoop/inside info on trends in Hollywood, given that nearly all new TV 's sold are 16:9, will there be a shift to shoot in 1.78:1?

I know most movie freeks hate it, but the majority like all those pixels put to use w/o having to zoom in.

If anything, they may be more comfortable with 2.35:1, knowing that their movies will be less affected by letterboxing on a typical TV set than the typical set of 10 years ago. With home video taking more and more away from cinemas, there may also be a movement to use 2.35:1 to make the theatrical experience more special.

It would be impossible to make a display which will satisfy everyone. HD programs are usually displayed 1.78:1, the minority of movies are 1.78:1 or 1.85:1. If HDTVs were made to be 2.35:1 then what? We'd be complaining about the black bars on the sides of the screen. The current state of widescreen TVs with HD DVD and Blu-Ray is MUCH better than 4:3 TVs with DVD and VHS. If the small black bars are that distracting, just use cinema zoom. I have a XBox hooked up to a 4:3 SD TV. I put in a DVD, the black bars are more like black boxes, they're huge. 16:9 HDTVs and the material for it is very good imo, with the vast majority of HDTVs being widescreen it could make transition to HD DVD/Blu-Ray easier for some people "hey those big black bars are much smaller!"

Just think if HDTVs were 2:35.1. Some would complain about those huge side bars on 4:3 and 1:85.1..

I myself only buy OAR. I'm glad that all HDDVDs have been. I no longer have to search for OAR digging past all the FF discs.

Well, OAR people (outside of this board) are likley a small minority.


Doubtful. Otherwise, what has driven most DVD sales to be widescreen/OAR over the last few years? Blockbuster also stocks 100% OAR when available - I think that's true with Netflix too but not sure.

The studios will make whatever sells. Apparently Fullscreen was not selling that well.

Doubtful. Otherwise, what has driven most DVD sales to be widescreen/OAR over the last few years? Blockbuster also stocks 100% OAR when available - I think that's true with Netflix too but not sure.

The studios will make whatever sells. Apparently Fullscreen was not selling that well.

Netflix has the same policy, widescreen unless no other option. Think of it, all the bargain bins in walmart are filled with the full screen versions of films mostly, a lot of uninformed people originally pushed for Full frame years ago, but I think the "education" of OAR is prevailing.

Netflix has the same policy, widescreen unless no other option. Think of it, all the bargain bins in walmart are filled with the full screen versions of films mostly, a lot of uninformed people originally pushed for Full frame years ago, but I think the "education" of OAR is prevailing.


Big difference between full screen 4:3 and full screen 16:9....many SD DVD's I have rented over the years are 16:9 "Optimized for Widescreen TV's" - not necessarily 2:35:1.

Big difference between full screen 4:3 and full screen 16:9....many SD DVD's I have rented over the years are 16:9 "Optimized for Widescreen TV's" - not necessarily 2:35:1.

Those movies are 99.9999% OAR still. they have not been edited from 2.35:1 to 16x9, basically they are anamorphic encodes. They haven't gotten around to making "fullscreen" versions of 2.35:1 films. If the movie you watched was in 16x9 format that is because that is the original theatrical presentation as well.

I MASSIVELY prefer when a movie fills up the entire screen on my HDTVs. Most of the time nothing major happens on the extreme sides of a movie anyway, and I find the black bars very distracting. Give me more releases like Crank please! I know for a fact casual movie watchers prefer the entire screen filled as well. It's not like I'm advocating 4:3 here. Hell, I still think "epic" movies should retain their aspect ratio, but give me most releases in 1.85:1, and I'll be much happier.

The PROBLEM is that real movies are not shot in 16x9. So while a 16x9 transfer can work, too often it is a very ugly distortion. You (I) look at it and say - WTF happened?

But you're not in bad company - there are people here who spend tens of thousands on "anamorphic" systems to avoid black bars :rolleyes:

OAR only pse.

Edit: to clarify I don't mean the image is stretched, but the cropping results in a wierd picture

Actually, yes! if you don't use what you paid for, you lost money.

(snip)

That's the problem with analogies, you end up way off topic... and all I wanted was for movies to use the entire screen I paid for.

I'd rather see the entire movie I paid for. I mean, I bought the screen in order to watch movies, not the other way around...

I'd rather see the entire movie I paid for. I mean, I bought the screen in order to watch movies, not the other way around...

:), finally, a good comeback to all the "I paid good money for my 60 inch screen, i wanna see it all filed" people.

The Fountain is in 1.85

I'd rather see the entire movie I paid for. I mean, I bought the screen in order to watch movies, not the other way around...The other way around being: bought the movie to watch the screen? You're right, I didn't buy the movie to watch a huge section of the screen being black either! :p Of course, I don't watch the black bars, they just make the 'epic' films smaller instead of 'epic'.
I want to see the whole image too, but I would prefer that image to be 16:9 to begin with (OAR).

Yeah 16x9 movies definately get some brownie points in my book, black bars are very annoying. Unfortunately most good movies seem to be 2:35:1 :(

OAR all the way for me.
But watch what you want. Its your TV so your choise

Black bars are not annoying.

Children of Men is 1.85:1

I prefer the OAR especially of the epic movies like Lord of the Rings if LOTR isn't in its OR I won't buy it. However if some 2.35:1 movies were cropped to 1.85:1 it wouldn't be a disaster, the loss of visual information much smaller than in the VHS days of Pan and Scan. It depends on the movie, if all movies kept their OAR then that would be good, if some movies were cropped down to 16:9 then that wouldn't be a problem as long as it isn't an epic movie like LOTR or The Matrix or Gladiator.

...I prefer the OAR especially of the epic movies like Lord of the Rings if LOTR isn't in its OR I won't buy it. However if some 2.35:1 movies were cropped to 1.85:1 it wouldn't be a disaster, the loss of visual information much smaller than in the VHS days of Pan and Scan. It depends on the movie, if all movies kept their OAR then that would be good, if some movies were cropped down to 16:9 then that wouldn't be a problem as long as it isn't an epic movie like LOTR or The Matrix or Gladiator.
A 2.35:1 movie on a 16:9 screen is about 25% unused space*, so cropping it to fit the screen would result in about 25% of the movie missing! Granted, it's only the far left and right edges, but a lot of the 2.35:1 movies utilize that area.

* This also means that a 2.35:1 is about 25% smaller, yikes! :(

Bump. Been a while since this was updated!
Seed Of Chucky HD-DVD (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1038/seedofchucky.html) is 1.78:1
Knocked Up HD-DVD (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/988/knockedup.html)is 1.85:1

Watched Big Lebowski HD DVD (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/743/biglebowski.html) yesterday, 1.85:1

Do I have to read 118 posts to add that there are . . .

Those that love movies

Those that love their equipment

Which ever cat. you fall into - so be it. But you might be missing something . . . what the director and director of photography wanted you to see.

Bump. Been a while since this was updated!
Inside Man HD-DVD (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/662/insideman.html)is 1.85:1


That is incorrect. Inside Man is 2.35:1.

Is this thread being updated anymore?

Yeah we need a definitive list of 1.85:1 HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs! :)

no one wants 16x9 movies?:(

Only if it was intended to be shown that way. I do agree that 2.35:1 films get a little boring after awhile, mostly because of how bad most directors are at composing the frame nowadays. Not a lot of John Carpentor or Spielbergs out there.

At this point I rather have more 4x3 content (ie old movies) or even 1.66:1. Give us some vertical bars. :D

Here's what you do.

Cut a piece of black velvet to the exact dimensions of the front of your tv (not just the viewing area...the entire front of your tv), adding about 2 inches to the height. tape some velcro to the upper back of the tv, and attach the cooresponding velcro strip to the top of the velvet. Then, attach the velvet to the screen. With a piece of chalk, outline the screen area of a 2.35:1 dimension movie as it would appear on your screen. Then cut this area out of the velvet.

If you do this properly, you will be able to use this velvet overlay whenever you watch 2.35:1 movies. If you do a good enough job on it, it can look very cool. You won't be able to see the black bars at all because they will be hidden by the velvet. The velvet will also make for great masking that will enhance the contrast and blacks of the image.

You can't be bothered by black bars if you can't see them. If, after doing this, you are still bothered by the fact that your entire screen isn't using all of it's pixels, even though you can't see the black bars, then you truly are an extremely anal-retentive blowhard.

I keed...I keed...

I think we just need 2.35:1 or even better, 2:1 sets so that all ratios would get an equal area. Bjoern got it right.

Here's what you do.

Cut a piece of black velvet to the exact dimensions of the front of your tv (not just the viewing area...the entire front of your tv), adding about 2 inches to the height. tape some velcro to the upper back of the tv, and attach the cooresponding velcro strip to the top of the velvet. Then, attach the velvet to the screen. With a piece of chalk, outline the screen area of a 2.35:1 dimension movie as it would appear on your screen. Then cut this area out of the velvet.

If you do this properly, you will be able to use this velvet overlay whenever you watch 2.35:1 movies. If you do a good enough job on it, it can look very cool. You won't be able to see the black bars at all because they will be hidden by the velvet. The velvet will also make for great masking that will enhance the contrast and blacks of the image.

You can't be bothered by black bars if you can't see them. If, after doing this, you are still bothered by the fact that your entire screen isn't using all of it's pixels, even though you can't see the black bars, then you truly are an extremely anal-retentive blowhard.

I keed...I keed...

Honestly, I've always enjoyed the oar. Instead of changing the picture I'd rather have the option of buying a 2.35:1 TV.