Why does it seem that every movie I watch on dvd is now 2.35:1? :confused:

It's a conspiracy to get us to buy wider tv's in the future.

I don't know about every DVD, but when I rent a batch, usually at least one is that aspect ratio. And I'm not seeking it out, either; I'm watching titles I want to watch.

My question is why doesn't the FCC mandate that ALL digital broadcasting be done in 16:9 and not just HD. 4:3 should be permanently outlawed for all new programming and sources!!!

I agree fully and have asked the very same question. We have all been switched from 4:3 to the 1:1.85 format so what gives with the 1:2.35 format ?... I have never understood the reasoning. Secondly, we are all upgrading to the 1920X1080 screens .... expecting high definition picture - only to get this oddball size and get black bars on our screens, making the actual viewable image lower than high definition resolution (I don't count the black lines as part of a viewable image, sorry) as the viewable image does not occupy the required 1920X1080. We should all start sending in a petition.

Why does it seem that every movie I watch on dvd is now 2.35:1? :confused:

Because you weren't paying attention before. There have always been a very large quantity, probably a majority, or movies which are wider than 16:9, such as 2.35. It's been like that for decades and decades at least, long before there was ever a 16:9 television or even DVD or VHS for that matter.

2.35:1 aspect ratios give the material a much more epic scope than the 16:9 AR. Movies series like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings just wouldn't be the same with a 1.85:1 AR.

We have all been switched from 4:3 to the 1:1.85 format so what gives with the 1:2.35 format ?... I have never understood the reasoning.

2.35 has been around a lot longer than 16 by nine screens. On a 4 by 3 screen, the 2.35 movies have even bigger black bars, but I still dont care...2.35 is the coolest aspect ratio, and I hope ALL new movies come out with that aspect ratio.

Movies series like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings just wouldn't be the same with a 1.85:1 AR.

I completely agree.

Movies are made for the theater, first and foremost, not for watching on TV. No, they should not dictate the aspect ratio to the director!

Aspect ratios are going to be chosen by the filmmakers for what they want to do.

That's just not going to change.

We should all start sending in a petition.

Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:

I honestly can't tell for sure if those folks upthread are joking, but surely this is all in jest.

this thread sucks :(

-Gary

And no film was ever shot in 1:1.78...

And no film was ever shot in 1:1.78...

Well, invert that: http://us.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/AspectRatios/1.78_:_1/

-Bill

I agree fully and have asked the very same question. We have all been switched from 4:3 to the 1:1.85 format so what gives with the 1:2.35 format ?... I have never understood the reasoning. Secondly, we are all upgrading to the 1920X1080 screens .... expecting high definition picture - only to get this oddball size and get black bars on our screens, making the actual viewable image lower than high definition resolution (I don't count the black lines as part of a viewable image, sorry) as the viewable image does not occupy the required 1920X1080. We should all start sending in a petition.
:)

You might want to try watching Ben-Hur. Tank slit Theater. :D

At the Cinema 2.35 Films are bigger than 1.78 (16X9) films. At home they're smaller. You might want to check out the Constant Image Height forum (HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=14&f=117)) if it really bothers you.

can someone explain these aspect ratio's to me?

i thought there was 4:3 and 16:9...

now i been reading all this stuff on DVDs that are 2.40:1 and 2:35:1 and all these numbers..

what does it mean exactly?

what difference will this make when viewing on a 46" LCD?

thank you,

Rob.

and people want a tv screen that fits the film. geesh you all dont want much.



Well, I think they want all films to fit their screen. Nevermind that ratios have significant effects on content, presentation and other factors, they better not see any bars! :mad: :rolleyes:

Well, I think they want all films to fit their screen. Nevermind that ratios have significant effects on content, presentation and other factors, they better not see any bars! :mad: :rolleyes:

I think people should get what they want.

If I were king, all displays would have a "Zoom & Clip" button. If anyone asked about black bars, everyone would just say "push the button!" The image would be scaled to fit vertically and the sides clipped off. Problem solved.

I have never heard anyone (apart from film buffs, you know who you are) complain about missing material on the sides when viewing pan&scan titles. Complaints (or at least questions) about black bars is one of the most common topics at AVSForum. All the HD forums have stickies attempting to explain aspect ratios.

-Bill

I think people should get what they want.



So do I, but the public at large (the ones paying for all this stuff) seems willing to deal with the bars. Otherwise, the studios would respond and make everything 16:9.

Widescreen and letterboxing has been around for a while now.

16x9 is what's used for the TV screen size because that's commonly the tallest widescreen aspect ratio used. A lot of comedies and dramas utilize this, this isn't always a rule by far, but you see the wider aspect ratio used a lot for big budget films that rely on action. When you're in the theater you have a much bigger picture going on. This has been going on long long long before the switch to HDTV's friends.

There's no secret here, movies with the wider aspect ratio will still have bars on the top and bottom of the screen. It's not a big deal, you're still getting a much larger image on your widescreen TV than you would on a standard one... unless you bough a very very small HDTV :)

Probably spend millions of dollars in calibrating to get rid of the pink tint?

So do I, but the public at large (the ones paying for all this stuff) seems willing to deal with the bars. Otherwise, the studios would respond and make everything 16:9.

Widescreen and letterboxing has been around for a while now.

And the existence of pan & scanned titles shows the public will "demand" clipped titles for their 4:3 screens. I would not be surprised to see the same thing for 16:9, which will be the new "full screen". Another round of heartburn for film collectors.

-Bill

Pan and scan existed alongside letterboxed offerings, though, so people just bought what they wanted.

oh and please dont mix up the not understanding with complaining. once understanding is there then most people don't complain.


In the words of Gary Cooper: "Yup".
Ignorance may be bliss but there is a better bliss to be had. That which comes from knowledge.

Rofl
If I were King :)

So now we'll have 4:3 P&S, 16:9 P&S and finally, the films original aspect ratio.

I understand the complaint from the casual viewer. They're used to films being made available in a 4:3 format, with parts of the image cut (or for films that really put the Pan in pan & scan and look terrible doing it - like In the Line of Fire - watch that in 4:3 P&S and try not to throw up). Now we're all switching over to 16:9 TVs. I don't believe the original intention of 16:9 televisions was for the DVD/film crowd, but more for broadcast.

The beauty of DVDs - instead of giving us everything in straight 4:3 or 16:9, they allowed the film to be presented as it was MEANT to be presented - in its original aspect ratio. Now everyone owns a 16:9 set, thinking they can watch DVDs that are not P&S and also fill the screen. Not happening. I wouldn't be surprised if, down the line, when 4:3 is a distant memory, that films MAY be released in 16:9 P&S and their original aspect ratio (just to appease the general audience... which is quite large).

I'll still be watching in the original aspect ratio. Also, I hope they don't put both aspect rations on one flip disc. If we could just do away with that already, please. I never get the right side down on the first try.

However, for those who are concerned about not getting the most out of their wide TVs, rest assured that most everything broadcast, including films on HBO, etc, will be presented, cropped, in 16:9.

I remember when I started buying DVD's and not too long in, I realized the benefits of widescreen. Even on my old 19" standard RCA television, it was widescreen all the way.

+1
When the only TV I had was 4:3 I only bought widescreen DVD's. I wanted to see what people saw in the movie theater, not what some technician thinks should be seen when cropping for a 4:3 TV.

In my opinion, 16:9(1.76:1) is actually the oddball. Where the heck did they come up with it?

Cinerama
2.60:1

Cinemascope
2.66:1
2.55:1
2.35:1

Super Panavision 70
2.20:1

Ultra Panavision 70
2.76:1
2:35:1

Panavision
2.40:1 then matted

VistaVision
1.66:1
1.85:1
2.0:1

Todd-AO
2.2:1 while filming 2.35:1 print

Technirama
2.2:1 while filming 2.35:1 prin

Academy
1.33:1
1.37:1

Why don't they just make automatic adjustaing bezels to better give the illusion that there are no black bars?

Why don't they just make automatic adjustaing bezels to better give the illusion that there are no black bars?
Careful ... what color would the adjusting bezels be? Although they could just use some of my newly patented invisi-paint. Makes anything you put it on completely transparent. ;)

I though silly putty and scaling were the same thing!

JVC has some 2.35 TV's coming out.

Could have sworn it was more than a prototype, so i guess I'm wrong (again).
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49287301,00.htm