I am not an expert in aspect ratios, I do know the differences, etc.

I assume that 1.78:1 or something fills a normal 16:9 television, and the other higher ones do not?

1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc.

How are most people viewing these HD DVD's, like 300 for example which I would need to zoom on my Pioneer 50" plasma?

It does look a little distorted, but do most people go with the full screen view to maximize the amount of action on the screen, or are most people here on AVS purists, and refuse to stretch?

My Pioneer does a fairly good job with Wide mode for 4:3 programming, but I am still trying to get used to Zoom mode on HD Disks.

I am not trying to get people to make my viewing preference decision for me, just curious how most of you view material when the black bars are taking up a fairly size portion of your 16:9 viewing area.

Thanks

Doug

I am not an expert in aspect ratios, I do know the differences, etc.

I assume that 1.78:1 or something fills a normal 16:9 television, and the other higher ones do not?

1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc.

How are most people viewing these HD DVD's, like 300 for example which I would need to zoom on my Pioneer 50" plasma?

It does look a little distorted, but do most people go with the full screen view to maximize the amount of action on the screen, or are most people here on AVS purists, and refuse to stretch?

My Pioneer does a fairly good job with Wide mode for 4:3 programming, but I am still trying to get used to Zoom mode on HD Disks.

I am not trying to get people to make my viewing preference decision for me, just curious how most of you view material when the black bars are taking up a fairly size portion of your 16:9 viewing area.

Thanks

Doug


I never ever ever ever zoom. Original Aspect Ratio is the only way. You zoom in you lose detail thus negating the need for HD. Hell, I was OAR only on 13 inch 4x3 tv why would I change my stance on not butchering my movie when I switch to HD.

I only watch OAR.

Zooming shouldn't distort the picture, BTW.

I never ever ever ever zoom. Original Aspect Ratio is the only way. You zoom in you lose detail thus negating the need for HD. Hell, I was OAR only on 13 inch 4x3 tv why would I change my stance on not butchering my movie when I switch to HD.

I understand and agree. Just trying to have some good points behind me when I educate the wife on why I am not zooming, as I insisted she did for the first 200 hours of my plasma's life. She now knows the plasma has that ability, and I dont want to lost the look, and she wants more screen being used so it looks more immersive.

I know, I should have bought the 60", LOL

Thanks for the reply.

Doug

I didn't zoom when I had a 16x9 set up for the reasons mentioned...degrade the image. Now that I have a scope set up 2.35:1, I do on some titles use DVDO's panorama feature, which takes a 1.85:1 image lock in the middle, but stretch the sides (best description I can give it) to "fill-in" the scope screen. For animation and certain action adventure titles I haven't felt it interfered/called attention to itself and enjoy the wider scope image.

I'm sure once the newness of scope where's off I'll use the panorama feature even less...right now it's a new and shiny toy.

Ron

I love black bars!!!!!!!!!

I understand and agree. Just trying to have some good points behind me when I educate the wife on why I am not zooming, as I insisted she did for the first 200 hours of my plasma's life. She now knows the plasma has that ability, and I dont want to lost the look, and she wants more screen being used so it looks more immersive.

I know, I should have bought the 60", LOL

Thanks for the reply.

Doug

lol, I know how that goes. My friends wife does the same thing. I got lucky and married a theater major who was educated in college about film, it's differences and it's aspect ratios. She refuses to get a cropped image. God I love her :D

I personally hope sometime in the future we could get an OAR movie or a fullscreen (16x9) or open matte I think they call it, like we do today with dvd or even on the same disc, to fill the whole screen....I would like to actually see all the detail (1920x1080p) on a movie that we don't get right now with OAR other than 1.78, etc...

i´d recommend to go 'constant height'. there is a whole forum dedicated to this:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117
in the meantime, it´s black bars for me. ;)

i´d recommend to go 'constant height'. there is a whole forum dedicated to this:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117
in the meantime, it´s black bars for me. ;)

I agree it doesn't always "distort" the transfer, but I do notice the way pioneer zooms to avoid it looking distorted, some of the information gets chopped off.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Doug

I personally hope sometime in the future we could get an OAR movie or a fullscreen (16x9) or open matte I think they call it, like we do today with dvd or even on the same disc, to fill the whole screen....I would like to actually see all the detail (1920x1080p) on a movie that we don't get right now with OAR other than 1.78, etc...

ummmm, you wouldn't see any more detail. 2.35:1 movies have as much detail as a 1.78:1 image. there is still the same amount of pixels per inch on the 2. You are just seeing more picture (or less picture if the movie wasn't shot in open matte) with the same amount of relative detail.

My aspect ratio preferences don't change based on HD or not... or a 16x9 display or not. I always watch in the original aspect ratio.

I like to see all of the material in the film, as it was framed and originally presented. If that means the top and bottom 2% (for 1.85:1), 12% (2.35:1) or 13% (2.41:1) of my screen is unused, so be it. I can't stand movies being hacked up to fill the screen on DVD, and won't tolerate it in the HD age either. You completely lose the feel and breadth of a film when you chop the sides off. Luckily it's a battle that thus far, hasn't had to be fought on HDM, as all releases thus far (at least that I'm aware of) have complied with the director's intent.

Strictly Original Aspect Ratio for me. I want to see the full picture the way it was composed for the theater.

I guess they removed the sticky on aspect ratios!

OAR only. This goes for everything. Movies, TV shows, documentaries, etc.

No zooming, stretching of any kind.

The only time I use zoom is for non-anamorphic, letterbox DVDs. I set the HD-A2 to 408i and use the TV's zoom to get rid of the side bars, maintaining the OAR.

No stretch whatsoever. My remote might as well not have a zoom function.

OAR for me.

I have a 36 inch 4:3 TV and I will never use anything but the OAR for my movies.

2.35 or wide for me. If its in 1.78 or 1.85 I actually zoom out so that I will have bars. Call me crazy but letter boxes make me feel better. :D

While the feel better part is true, OAR for me.

I understand and agree. Just trying to have some good points behind me when I educate the wife on why I am not zooming, as I insisted she did for the first 200 hours of my plasma's life. She now knows the plasma has that ability, and I dont want to lost the look, and she wants more screen being used so it looks more immersive.

Point her to this article:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/High-Def_FAQ/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ:_Why_Dont_the_Black_Bars_Go_Away/764

OAR only even when I had a 32" 4x3 set as my main display. Anything else is blasphemous.

I wouldn't touch the zoom button with a 10 foot poll. OAR only.

When i go from watching a TV broadcast that fills my 42" screen to say a movie that is 2.35:1 and i end up with bars on the top and the bottom i don't really like it to be honest.

I can't even change it if i want to anyway on HD-DVDs so i leave it and yes, i respect the filmakers intentions and all that, but it looks so much smaller.

I wish aspect ratios were a factor of my natural aspect ratio. i want to measure what this is my gazing at a blank wall and having someone mark the points that would form a rectangle just inside my field of view. Curious to know the result.

OAR for me, but personally I GREATLY prefer 2.35 movies, the wider the better for me. I think it just gives a more theatrical presentation, and I am very aware that I am getting more of the image and it's intended use.

I also think it's generaly more natural to view, even thoughh it sounds weird and you would think it wouldn't aply, whichh it certain might, but humans in general have a much better sense of horizontal distance and perspective then verticle, so seeing things longer just seems more natural for some reason to me.

OAR is good for people who have actual "home theaters" in their homes, but for a guy like me, a 46inch dlp image with a 2.35 image on it just doesnt site well. I like how HBO can have the entire screen filled with an image when I watch a movie. obviously this is all my own opinion.

as a compromise:
studios could release open-matte versions of scope-films on HDM, as far as they are available. The standard presentation of the disc would be oar (with black bars), but you´d have the option to 'open up the frame' to the top and the bottom, hereby filling up a 16/9 display. This is opposed to cropping/zooming the film (cutting off some parts left and right of the frame) in order to fill a 16/9 display.

In an ideal situation no information on the sides would be lost with open-matte, some even prefer the open matte versions to oar. I think HBO is showing quite a few open-matte versions of scope films, as they´ve received a lot of complaints about the black bars from their customers. There are threads about this in the HDTV forums.

Of course there are many points against open-matte. The imo strongest point against it is, that open matte 'destroys' the intended composition of the frame and therefore alters the 'feel' of the movie a great deal.

But if i had to choose between open-matte or a cropped version, i´d take open-matte anytime.

just my 2ct :)

as a compromise:
studios could release open-matte versions of scope-films on HDM, as far as they are available. The standard presentation of the disc would be oar (with black bars), but you´d have the option to 'open up the frame' to the top and the bottom, hereby filling up a 16/9 display. This is opposed to cropping/zooming the film (cutting off some parts left and right of the frame) in order to fill a 16/9 display.

In an ideal situation no information on the sides would be lost with open-matte, some even prefer the open matte versions to oar. I think HBO is showing quite a few open-matte versions of scope films, as they´ve received a lot of complaints about the black bars from their customers. There are threads about this in the HDTV forums.

Of course there are many points against open-matte. The imo strongest point against it is, that open matte 'destroys' the intended composition of the frame and therefore alters the 'feel' of the movie a great deal.

But if i had to choose between open-matte or a cropped version, i´d take open-matte anytime.

just my 2ct :)

I concur, that would be a very good solution.

It is nice to see there at least a few others who want the screen filled also, but I do totally agree with the reasons to go OAR. Mainly the director's intent.

Thanks for all your replies, and I will check out the link that one of you posted.

Doug

Mainly the director's intent.



If by director's intent, you mean the ability to see the entire image (non-cropped)?

In don't see the point in buying/selling 16:9 TV's if were going to be getting all are movies in 2:35 or 2:40.
It seems to me like were losing detail when they go that way. I just keep thinking why wouldn't they shoot 16:9 and have the extra height?

I loved how Planet Earth and The Sopranos Season Six Part One were 16:9

In don't see the point in buying/selling 16:9 TV's if were going to be getting all are movies in 2:35 or 2:40.
It seems to me like were losing detail when they go that way. I just keep thinking why wouldn't they shoot 16:9 and have the extra height?

I loved how Planet Earth and The Sopranos Season Six Part One were 16:9

Pls read the Aspect ratio sticky at the top of the forum. There is no detail loss, there is still the exact same pixels per square inch or screen in a 2.35:1 film as a 1.78:1 film.

16x9 Tv's were created as a compromise. There is a ton of 4x3 content out there as well as about a 50/50 (estimated in rough numbers) or 16x9 and 2.35:1 content out there. the 16x9 TV's were created to be a compromise, so 16x9 (1.85:1/1.78:1 films/content) would fill the screen perfectly and 2.35:1 would have minimal letterboxing while 4x3 content would have minimal pillarboxing. If you went with a 2.35:1 tv the 16x9 content and 4x3 content would have pillarboxing out the yin yang.

Pls read the Aspect ratio sticky at the top of the forum. There is no detail loss, there is still the exact same pixels per square inch or screen in a 2.35:1 film as a 1.78:1 film.

16x9 Tv's were created as a compromise. There is a ton of 4x3 content out there as well as about a 50/50 (estimated in rough numbers) or 16x9 and 2.35:1 content out there. the 16x9 TV's were created to be a compromise, so 16x9 (1.85:1/1.78:1 films/content) would fill the screen perfectly and 2.35:1 would have minimal letterboxing while 4x3 content would have minimal pillarboxing. If you went with a 2.35:1 tv the 16x9 content and 4x3 content would have pillarboxing out the yin yang.

I'll read that sticky in a second. I get that there is still the same pixel per square inch I just meant as I'm watching the film and the top of someones head is cut off I can help but feel if it was 16:9 we would see the top of his head.

I'll read that sticky in a second. I get that there is still the same pixel per square inch I just meant as I'm watching the film and the top of someones head is cut off I can help but feel if it was 16:9 we would see the top of his head.

you do realize that the reason that was done was to give it a more scope, less zoomed in feel, the director shoots his movie aspect ratio according to how he wants the audience to view scenes, many times he wants that scope feel to show the breadth of a wide army or some other spectacular shot. 16x9 is best used for a closer feel when focusing in on someone, most often used for dramas and comedies. Of course there always is outliers in the equation, but that is the general idea.

In don't see the point in buying/selling 16:9 TV's if were going to be getting all are movies in 2:35 or 2:40.
It seems to me like were losing detail when they go that way. I just keep thinking why wouldn't they shoot 16:9 and have the extra height?

I will once again direct people to this article:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/High-Def_FAQ/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ:_Why_Dont_the_Black_Bars_Go_Away/764

It has lots of pretty pictures to help explain things. :)

I don't understand... For those who question the black bars, did you not question it with DVDs? DVDs were worse IMO because there were anamorphic and non-anamorphic DVDS.

In don't see the point in buying/selling 16:9 TV's if were going to be getting all are movies in 2:35 or 2:40.
[...]

You´re correct and i´d love to see 2.35:1 aspect ratio tv-sets or even front-projectors with native 2.35:1 chips, i really do. So far, i´m still dreaming about a constant height set up. :)

OAR is good for people who have actual "home theaters" in their homes, but for a guy like me, a 46inch dlp image with a 2.35 image on it just doesnt site well. I like how HBO can have the entire screen filled with an image when I watch a movie. obviously this is all my own opinion.

If you like HBO HD, you must *love* TNT HD. The king of filling the entire 16x9 screen is TNT HD. 4:3, 20x9, whatever, they will fill a 16x9 for you--OAR be damned.

When I switched to a larger display, I learned to prefer OAR. With my 27" and 19" 4:3 CRT's from a distance of 10 ft., etc. I preferred full screen 4:3 DVD's. Yes, I now know this to be heresy. However, at the time I didn't care for the black bars or information lost. Now, that i've gone widescreen, I appreciate the "really" widescreen of 2.35, too. (Thank you, Universal HD and Voom movie channels for respecting this--usually.)

I don't "love" black bars. However, I do "hate" distorted images.

Here is the absolute best description why OAR is far superior to zooming. I've convinced many naysayers with this brilliant link. It describes the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 but the description still works for 2.35:1 ratios on 16:9 sets.

http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml

Here is the absolute best description why OAR is far superior to zooming. I've convinced many naysayers with this brilliant link. It describes the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 but the description still works for 2.35:1 ratios on 16:9 sets.

http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml

It's so sad that in 2007 there are people on a dedicated audio video forum who don't seem to understand this. I'm in shock.