Found this on another thread, for those like me who want the BD movies to fill their entire HD TV. If you know of others pls add to the list.

The Ant Bully
Apocalypto
The Architect
Babel
The Big Hit
Big Fish
The Black Crowes: Freak 'N' Roll... Into The Fog
Bridge To Terabithia
Brothers Grimm
Bruce Springsteen Live in Dublin
Bullitt
Chicago
Chicken Little
Chronos
Click
Closer
Coming To America
Corpse Bride
Crank
Cruel Intentions
Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta
The Devil's Rejects
Dinosaur
Dirty Dancing
Discovery Atlas: Australia
Discovery Atlas: Brasil
Discovery Atlas: China
Discovery Atlas: Italy
The Dirty Dozen
Dragon's Lair
Employee of the Month
The Fugitive
Full Metal Jacket
The Fountain
Gothika
Good Night and Good Luck
Goodfellas
The Guardian
Happily N'Ever After
Hellboy
The Holiday
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
Lady in the Water
The Last Waltz
Legends of Jazz: Showcase
Lethal Weapon
March of the Penguins
The Messengers
Music and Lyrics
Nacho Libre
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies
Night at the Museum
Nine Inch Nails Live: Beside You In Time
The Omen 666
Open Season
Planet Earth: The Complete Series
The Queen
Rocky
Saw I
Saw II
Saw III
A Scanner Darkly
Scooby Doo
The Searchers
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Sleepy Hollow
Smallville The Complete Sixth Season
The Sopranos Season 6
Stranger than FictionTerminator
Total Recall
Toto: Live In Amsterdam 2003
Trading Places
Ultimate Avengers
Ultraviolet
Under Seige
Vertical Limit
The Warriors
Weeds Season 1
The Wild
Worlds Fastest Indian
World Trade Center
Young Guns


A Christmas story
Alice Cooper: live at montreux 2005
Annapolis
Blue Planet IMAX
Chain Reaction
Chris Botti: live with Orchestra and guests
Courage under Fire
Daddy's Little Girls
Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City
David Gilmore: Remember that Night
Doctor Strange
Dog Day Afternoon
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Freedom Writers
Galápagos
The Getaway
HDNET World Report: Shuttle Discovery's Historic Mission
Hoosiers
House of Wax
Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks
Little Man
The Manchurian Candidate
The Marine
National Lampoons Christmas Vacation
Nature's Journey
Nip/Tuck: The Complete 4th Season
Norbit
One Last Thing
Reds: 25th Anniversary Edition
Rescue me: The Complete Third Season
Rio Bravo
Rising Sun
Rocky Balboa
Roving Mars IMAX
Rumor has it...
The War Within
Waiting: Unrated and Raw
Weeds Season 2
U2: Rattle and Hum

HOLLOW MAN: DIRECTOR'S CUT @ 1.85:1 -- release date Oct 16, 2007
KING OF NEW YORK @ 1.85:1 -- release date Oct 23, 2007
LED ZEPPELIN: THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME @ 1.85:1 -- release date Nov 13, 2007

SURF'S UP @ 1.85:1 -- release date Oct 09, 2007
FULL METAL JACKET: DELUXE EDITION @ 1.78:1 -- release date Oct 23, 2007
THE SOPRANOS: SEASON SIX, PART II @ 1.78:1 -- release date Oct 23, 2007
THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME @ 1.85:1 -- release date Nov 13, 2007
GOTHIKA @ 1.85:1 -- release date Sept 25, 2007
DAWN OF THE DEAD @ 1.85:1 -- release date Oct 02, 2007
DAY OF THE DEAD @ 1.85:1 -- release date Oct 02, 2007
EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN @ 1.85:1 -- release date Oct 02, 2007
MASTERS OF HORROR: SEASON ONE, VOLUME I @ 1.78:1 -- release date Oct 16, 2007
MASTERS OF HORROR: SEASON ONE, VOLUME II @ 1.78:1 -- release date Oct 16, 2007
MASTERS OF HORROR: SEASON ONE, VOLUME III @ 1.78:1 -- release date Nov 13, 2007
ULTIMATE FORCE @ 1.85:1 -- release date Nov 13, 2007
20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH @ 1.85:1 -- release date Dec 04, 2007
MASTERS OF HORROR: SEASON ONE, VOLUME IV @ 1.78:1 -- release date Dec 11, 2007

Never really mattered to me, as long as it's HD and not a normal DVD it's fine by me.

I thought 1.78:1 filled up the entire screen on a 16x9 set? 1.85:1 is a little wider than 16x9.

I thought 1.78:1 filled up the entire screen on a 16x9 set? 1.85:1 is a little wider than 16x9.

You are correct. Some of us have overscanning tv's that trim a little bit around all the edges, which may make 1.85 appear to completely fill a 16x9 set. It is a bit disappointing when that happens because then we're not getting the whole picture.

Thanks for the list. These are the ONLY HD discs that have true 1080 lines of vertical resolution. 2:35 mastered discs only have (1.78/2.35) ~818 active horizontal lines. Sad, never discussed, but true.
One of the few advantages for seeing a movie at the commercial theater.

Thanks for the info. These are the ONLY HD discs that have true 1080 lines of vertical resolution. 2:35 mastered discs only have (1.78/2.35) ~818 active horizontal lines. :eek: Sad, never discussed, but true.
One of the few advantages for seeing a film at the commercial theater.

Thanks for the list. These are the ONLY HD discs that have true 1080 lines of vertical resolution....

Actually almost all of them (except videos like Planet Earth) only have 1040 true lines of vertical resolution.;) :D

What a stupid thread, I would never choose a film cause of its aspect ratio...

All the King's Men

What a stupid thread, I would never choose a film cause of its aspect ratio...
What a stupid comment from you, Just because someone doesn't want to watch a movie with the same aspect ratio as you isn't a stupid idea.

There was a time when I don't want to buy a movie that is not 1.85. This is a good thread (for me).

If you are interested in this statistic, you can see a full list of movies by aspect ration [b]as carried and as defined by Amazon[b]. So if Amazon is wrong, so is the list.

In any case, it automatically updates so it is always current.

Have fun!

For 1.85:1 > http://www.blu-raystats.com/amazonstats.php?OrderBy=Title&AspectRatio=1.85:1

For 1.78:1 > http://www.blu-raystats.com/amazonstats.php?OrderBy=Title&AspectRatio=1.78:1

Thanks for the info. These are the ONLY HD discs that have true 1080 lines of vertical resolution. 2:35 mastered discs only have (1.78/2.35) ~818 active horizontal lines. :eek: Sad, never discussed, but true.
One of the few advantages for seeing a film at the commercial theater.

But isn't the quality of the picture displayed exactly the same? Aren't the "unused" lines being used to display black bars? Can you expand on this?

What a stupid comment from you, Just because someone doesn't want to watch a movie with the same aspect ratio as you isn't a stupid idea.

Yes, its quite stupid, because its not OAR. Only videogame idiots complain about OAR. I used to lurk on these forums and never post, but I feel compelled to post every time I see some feeb complaining about OAR like its something other than how it should be. If you are so feeble minded "the black bars" bother you, you really should keep your posting limited to videogame sites. OAR exists for a damn reason.

I'm going to just go ahead and guess that those of you who complain about "black bars" were the same idiots buying fullscreen aka 'foolscreen' dvds for your 4:3 tvs before you got a widescreen set, you're simple minded, and this is not the place to push your stupidity.

Take it easy, tutelary. You and I may not care if there are black bars, but many do. It certainly doesn't make their opinion stupid. If you don't like the thread, just stay out of it. What's the point of starting up a useless flame war that will get deleted?

Take it easy, tutelary. You and I may not care if there are black bars, but many do. It certainly doesn't make their opinion stupid. If you don't like the thread, just stay out of it. What's the point of starting up a useless flame war that will get deleted?

Its not "a useless flame war". This is a movie forum, not a videogame forum. The stupidity of complaining about OAR does not belong here, pretty simple.

Yes, its quite stupid, because its not OAR. Only videogame idiots complain about OAR. I used to lurk on these forums and never post, but I feel compelled to post every time I see some feeb complaining about OAR like its something other than how it should be. If you are so feeble minded "the black bars" bother you, you really should keep your posting limited to videogame sites. OAR exists for a damn reason.

I'm going to just go ahead and guess that those of you who complain about "black bars" were the same idiots buying fullscreen aka 'foolscreen' dvds for your 4:3 tvs before you got a widescreen set, you're simple minded, and this is not the place to push your stupidity.

Exactly man!!!!!!!!!! I thought this was called the AV Science Forum! People that want this should use the already craptastic thread about the same subject on the blu-ray.com forums.

Anyone have a list of 4:3 only discs? I don't feel like getting a widescreen TV - they're trying to hide that damn image from me! kthxbye...

Its not "a useless flame war". This is a movie forum, not a videogame forum. The stupidity of complaining about OAR does not belong here, pretty simple.

Nobody was complaining, the OP posted a list of titles that would fill his whole 16:9 screen. It is a list that you couldn't care less for, but others may. If you are so keen on keeping this forum so "on topic", perhaps you should read the rules of AVS. I believe it says something about respecting others...

Anyone have a list of 1.85:1 films actually presented at 1.85:1 on BD rather than cropped or opened up to 1.78:1?

As far as the resolution argument goes, the same answer has long been posed on the DVD forum, namely if you count the pixels that are no longer present when a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 film is cropped to 16:9, you lose far more resolution than black bars could ever be responsible for.

Vahid,

Are you going to maintain the list or not? If not then, please delete it; there are way too many lists to keep track of already.

Thank you.

As far as I can tell, the movies on that list are OAR at 1.85:1. So what's the problem?

Anyone have a list of 1.85:1 films actually presented at 1.85:1 on BD rather than cropped or opened up to 1.78:1?

As far as the resolution argument goes, the same answer has long been posed on the DVD forum, namely if you count the pixels that are no longer present when a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 film is cropped to 16:9, you lose far more resolution than black bars could ever be responsible for.

Film pixels? <Segmentation fault. Core dumped.>
Although I agree that film holds vastly superior image quality, it boggles my mind to think that film has pixels. A lot of the film detail is lost as it is digitized, pixelated, and lossy compressed.

Generally, I prefer OAR. But with such a wide variety of source materials from sdtv, hdtv, and movies with a wide range of aspect ratios, some kind of black bars are inevitable on some of the sources.

But isn't the quality of the picture displayed exactly the same? Aren't the "unused" lines being used to display black bars? Can you expand on this?

+1
I have the same Question

The only thing that matters to me is that the movies are in OAR. Black bars are great as they allow us to see the movies they were they were intended to be seen.

+1
I have the same Question

Every HD 1080 BD/HD DVD is encoded with 1080 lines (1920x1080). A 2.40 (widescreen) film will have about 800 lines (1920x800) of vertical resolution (1.85 about 1920x1040). When centered this leaves about 140 lines above/below (20 above/below for 1.85) that doesn't contain any original picture info so they are just "colored" ecoded as black. The lines could be any color but black is the universal color chosen (many plasma/CRT people would prefer gray bars to prevent burn-in). It also uses the least amount of bandwidth (data rate) of any other color.

The only thing that matters to me is that the movies are in OAR. Black bars are great as they allow us to see the movies they were they were intended to be seen.

agreed

You and I may not care if there are black bars, but many do. It certainly doesn't make their opinion stupid.

Umm, yes it does. It's a VERY STUPID attitude to have toward films.

here is another complete list. and some of you are not too bright. these movies were shot in 1.78/1.85:1, so there is no need for black bars as these already are the OAR AND they fill an entire 16:9 screen. :rolleyes: Its a win/win.


http://mysite.verizon.net/ruvic/bluray-full.htm

Every HD 1080 BD/HD DVD is encoded with 1080 lines (1920x1080). A 2.40 (widescreen) film will have about 800 lines (1920x800) of vertical resolution (1.85 about 1920x1040). When centered this leaves about 140 lines above/below (20 above/below for 1.85) that doesn't contain any original picture info so they are just "colored" ecoded as black. The lines could be any color but black is the universal color chosen (many plasma/CRT people would prefer gray bars to prevent burn-in). It also uses the least amount of bandwidth (data rate) of any other color.

You didn't really answer his question. He is asking if the image quality is the same. The resolution is the same (pixels per inch) it is just the dimensions of the image (less vertical lines are active) have changed. Unlike when people refer to 1080p vs 720p where the dimensions of the display device are set and the resolution changes.


here is another complete list. and some of you are not too bright. these movies were shot in 1.78/1.85:1, so there is no need for black bars as these already are the OAR AND they fill an entire 16:9 screen. :rolleyes: Its a win/win.


http://mysite.verizon.net/ruvic/bluray-full.htm

I don't think people are questioning that. What they are questioning is why people are letting native aspect ratio be the determining factor in what movies they watch.

What they are questioning is why people are letting native aspect ratio be the determining factor in what movies they watch.
Ding Ding Ding.

For the most part I just want to buy movies I like and have them in OAR, but I like having a few titles on hand just to show off my system and frankly most people are not as impressed with 2.35:1. If I were trying to "sell" blu-ray to someone I would never demo a 2.35:1 title. Is this not a valid reason to have a list like this?

dis tred defynes insanitee!:eek:

Every HD 1080 BD/HD DVD is encoded with 1080 lines (1920x1080). A 2.40 (widescreen) film will have about 800 lines (1920x800) of vertical resolution (1.85 about 1920x1040). When centered this leaves about 140 lines above/below (20 above/below for 1.85) that doesn't contain any original picture info so they are just "colored" ecoded as black. The lines could be any color but black is the universal color chosen (many plasma/CRT people would prefer gray bars to prevent burn-in). It also uses the least amount of bandwidth (data rate) of any other color.

The black bar are not encoded on an anamorphic disc. Your player add the black bar.

The black bar are not encoded on an anamorphic disc. Your player add the black bar.

Not with BD and HDdvd. There is no such thing as an anamorphic WS BD or HDdvd.

Not with BD and HDdvd. There is no such thing as an anamorphic WS BD or HDdvd.

And the only case where a theoretical anamorphic blu ray would even have benefit would be in a CIH 2.35 screen setup anyhow. Not sure why folks are bitching about black bars.

here is another complete list. and some of you are not too bright. these movies were shot in 1.78/1.85:1, so there is no need for black bars as these already are the OAR AND they fill an entire 16:9 screen. :rolleyes: Its a win/win.


http://mysite.verizon.net/ruvic/bluray-full.htm

Your list is missing "All the King's Men" and "Night at the Museum."

Every HD 1080 BD/HD DVD is encoded with 1080 lines (1920x1080). A 2.40 (widescreen) film will have about 800 lines (1920x800) of vertical resolution (1.85 about 1920x1040). When centered this leaves about 140 lines above/below (20 above/below for 1.85) that doesn't contain any original picture info so they are just "colored" ecoded as black. The lines could be any color but black is the universal color chosen (many plasma/CRT people would prefer gray bars to prevent burn-in). It also uses the least amount of bandwidth (data rate) of any other color.


Quality?

Quality?

Are you asking what the quality of the black encodes are:confused:

Gone Baby Gone!

And the only case where a theoretical anamorphic blu ray would even have benefit would be in a CIH 2.35 screen setup anyhow. Not sure why folks are bitching about black bars.

exactly.

:)

The question is: what BDs are OAR in 1.78 or 1.85.

Why are people so hostile about such a straightforward question?

There was another thread where it was being proposed that 2.35 content be cropped to fill a 16x9 screen. Now THAT is an idea that deserves a little hostility.

But a simple list of discs that meet certain criteria (lists of discs with DTS MA; lists of discs with extras in HD; lists of discs with Java authoring; whatever) is nothing but information.

Information is good.

The question is: what BDs are OAR in 1.78 or 1.85.

Why are people so hostile about such a straightforward question?

There was another thread where it was being proposed that 2.35 content be cropped to fill a 16x9 screen. Now THAT is an idea that deserves a little hostility.

But a simple list of discs that meet certain criteria (lists of discs with DTS MA; lists of discs with extras in HD; lists of discs with Java authoring; whatever) is nothing but information.

Information is good.

You can get this information on the net I suppose. Maybe a search on IMDB + a cross check with Amazon yould be able to generate such a list.

But the main reason to not have a film in 1.78 or 1.85 is because the original movie wasn't made/composed in 1.78 or 1.85. I accept to pay a premium to get the movie in the best quality possible and that includes the OAR.

I was looking through my collection for some BD widescreen demo material the other day... especially stuff that filled the whole screen. I ended up with the following list --

Fill The Widescreen Demo Material
Oh, That's Pretty category - Planet Earth
Wow that looks good for an old flick - The Searchers
Badda Boom Action - Spider-man
Concert - NIN: Beside you in time

Is this a clear star in PQ at 1.85:1 that I'm missing? I'd really like something 1.85:1 that has a dynamic soundtrack and excellent PQ with special effects. Spider-man was the closest thing I could find.

FYI -- First couple of weeks with my Plasma had me looking at aspect ratios very closely. I found a number of HD DVD and BD titles that were 1.85:1 specifically to break in my screen. I then filled my netflix queue with them -- was a lot of fun, a lot of great material here. The poster here should subtitle this one [Plasma Break-in Titles]

-comix

What a stupid thread, I would never choose a film cause of its aspect ratio...

Then I would stand for reason that this thread is not for you. The OP never indicated that 1.85 AR should be the only deciding factor did he? NO..
You took the liberty of perverting the rational for the post. Did it occur to you that all things being equal PQ,acting,audio,etc that this could be the determining factor? I guess not.

Cameron, why didn't you make Aliens in 2.35:1

Found myself looking for the same thing yesterday after receiving my Pioneer 5080HD. Ice Age: The Meltdown looks sweet. :)

But the main reason to not have a film in 1.78 or 1.85 is because the original movie wasn't made/composed in 1.78 or 1.85. I accept to pay a premium to get the movie in the best quality possible and that includes the OAR.

You're not paying attention.

There are many movies whose OAR IS 1.85:1.

What is the harm in making a list of such movies that are available on BD?

I have a Sony KPL-46S3000 which is a 720p HDTV. While having a mental lapse I discussed this thread with my wife (VERY BAD mistake) who now wants to know exactly which Blu-Ray DVDs will fill the screen without black bars. All of you unfortunately are missing out on her 45 rave about me buying the set and the Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, so what should I look for (16:9?) on a DVD to fill my wee 720p screen?
Then again, maybe a new wife...:o

I have a Sony KPL-46S3000 which is a 720p HDTV. While having a mental lapse I discussed this thread with my wife (VERY BAD mistake) who now wants to know exactly which Blu-Ray DVDs will fill the screen without black bars. All of you unfortunately are missing out on her 45 rave about me buying the set and the Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, so what should I look for (16:9?) on a DVD to fill my wee 720p screen?
Then again, maybe a new wife...:o

Look for an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (sometimes it will be 1.78:1). This should be listed on the back of the disk package. Beware though, 1.85:1 is the aspect ratio often used for romantic comedies and gushy dramas, whereas 2.35:1 is used for action and adventure (not a hard and fast rule, but basically true). So this just may be your wife's way of forcing you to watch more chick flicks. If I were you, I'd just tell her all movies have bars. ;)

Anyway, so what should I look for (16:9?) on a DVD to fill my wee 720p screen?

It's fairly common for the "info grid" on the back of the box to read as follows (for movies):

1080p High Definition 16x9 2.35:1 or
1080p High Definition 16x9 1.85:1

A 16x9 screen is 1.78:1. If the program was made for HD video, the AR will actually be 1.78:1.

1.78 will obviously have no black bars.

1.85 Will have very thin black bars, which may be invisible if your TV overscans (or has an overscan setting that you have turned on).

2.35 (or 2.25 or 2.40 or whatever the actual AR of the film is) will have wider black bars, wide enough to fill the part of the screen not filled by the picture.

Once again, however, it's worthwhile to point out that the correct way to adjust apparent image size with HD video is to move closer to the screen, just as you would in a theater. Movies are not TV shows.

Wait a minute, what the heck is this list about? Is this a list of movies that were shot 1.85:1 and subsequently CROPPED for BRD to display 16x9 sans black bars?

I knew that sort of BS was being done (WB has done it), but I had no idea it was this widespread.

P.S.

If that's NOT what this list is about, the title of this thread is EXTREMELY misleading, since 1.85:1 and 16x9 are NOT the same AR.

If that's NOT what this list is about, the title of this thread is EXTREMELY misleading, since 1.85:1 and 16x9 are NOT the same AR.

"Extremely?" The difference between 1.85 and 1.78 is of very little consequence.

Even I, someone who is a staunch defender of OAR and only OAR, doubt that I could tell if a 1.85 movie had been cropped to 1.78 when viewed on a 16x9 screen without prior knowledge.

Wait a minute, what the heck is this list about? Is this a list of movies that were shot 1.85:1 and subsequently CROPPED for BRD to display 16x9 sans black bars?

I knew that sort of BS was being done (WB has done it), but I had no idea it was this widespread.

P.S.

If that's NOT what this list is about, the title of this thread is EXTREMELY misleading, since 1.85:1 and 16x9 are NOT the same AR.

On 90% of the televisions out there, 1.85:1 on a 16:9 screen will have no bars due to overscan. You only need 3% overscan to cover the bars.

I have a Sony KPL-46S3000 which is a 720p HDTV. While having a mental lapse I discussed this thread with my wife (VERY BAD mistake) who now wants to know exactly which Blu-Ray DVDs will fill the screen without black bars. All of you unfortunately are missing out on her 45 rave about me buying the set and the Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, so what should I look for (16:9?) on a DVD to fill my wee 720p screen?
Then again, maybe a new wife...:o

Look for movies that you want, and ignore trying to find movies to fill the screen. Be glad that you are able to buy movies in OAR.

Warner has done 1.78:1 transfers of 1.85:1 films since the beginning of DVD, maybe even further back. Paramount is the same way. Don't sweat it; it's only adding a little image anyway, not cropping it.

BTW, check out Corpse Bride for an example of great 1.85:1, er, I mean 1.78:1. It's animation but it's stop motion, so it has real objects.

On 90% of the televisions out there, 1.85:1 on a 16:9 screen will have no bars due to overscan. You only need 3% overscan to cover the bars.

Just because these ARs look the same on your television doesn't mean they are the same or that the difference is not relevant. My projector, for example, has zero overscan.

Warner has done 1.78:1 transfers of 1.85:1 films since the beginning of DVD, maybe even further back. Paramount is the same way. Don't sweat it; it's only adding a little image anyway, not cropping it.



The only way they could be "adding a little image," as you put it, would be if that "little extra" was included in the source. I know such filming techniques exist which can capture 1.85:1 for theaters and 1.77:1 for video reproduction, but such techniques are not always used when the original film is shot. And like I said, if the "little extra" isn't in the source, it cannot be added back, meaning that the pic would have to be cropped.

Well, it's still reasonable to assume that someone who is looking for titles that fill a 16x9 TV would consider 1.85:1 to be close enough, regardless of overscan. I'm a big OAR advocate too, but I'm not going to deny myself "1.85:1" Warner or Paramount titles because the image is slightly opened up to 1.78:1. That would cross the line of being too obsessive IMHO. Josh Zyber has a good comparison showing the compositional impact this makes. Maybe he'll chime in.

FWIW, my projector also has no overscan, and I can easily tell when a title is true 1.85:1, because there is an additional inch or two of the screen not illuminated at the top and bottom. I don't worry about it.

I don't worry about it.

Well, as long as you're not implying that your preferences should be my own, then I've got no qualms with what you're saying.

But I gotta say, I don't "get" why they'd bother doing this. As you already mentioned, 1.85:1 and 16x9 will appear the same to most people due to overscan. So what the heck is the point of making a modification that most people would never notice, especially when the only people likely to care would be the easily annoyed retentive OAR crusaders?

Okay, enough of this side conversation about the merits of OAR, which I really did not intend to start.

As mentioned in my first post, what I was trying to figure out is if the list in the OP was indeed a list of titles originally shot in 1.85:1 that had been "modified to fit your 16x9 television," which is the way I initially took it because of the word FULLSCREEN (so often associated with Pan&Scan from the old days) and the fact that 1.85:1 and 16:9 were being used interchangeably.

After looking at the list again and reading some of the posts in this thread, I don't think that's what the OP meant. I think what he really meant was "hey, here's a list of titles that will fill my entire widescreen TV which has at least 3% overscan."

If that's all he meant, this info niether bothers me nor provides me any utility, so I'll be on my way. The thread could use a better title though.

Well, Dragon's Lair was significantly cropped from its original 4:3 aspect ratio. The ironic thing is that the PC version contains 3 different ratios (including a 5:4 version that fills some LCD monitors), and it's on a DVD with much less space than a BD. Thankfully the upcoming Space Ace apparently has both the original 4:3 and the modified 16:9 ratio, so we can choose.

The IMAX films were also cropped from their original 1.44:1 (I believe) aspect ratio to 1.78:1. However, this has been rationalized by some to suggest that the films are supposed to fill your field of vision. I say they're cropped though. :)

Then, of course, there is the minor (IMHO) difference WRT 1.78:1 vs. 1.85:1. As I said before, I think this is small enough to be acceptable. Yes, if I was in charge, I'd do true 1.85:1, but this doesn't really bother me. In most cases, these films are shot open matte, so the 1.78:1 frame shows a little more of what was shot. Even if the image on a title is slightly cropped, it's not enough for me to refuse to buy and enjoy it.

As for why they do it, I've read somewhere that it's easier for telecine, since they can just frame the appropriate part of the open matte image. With 1.85:1, they have to additionally insert small black bars over the top and bottom of that 1.78:1 portion.

I would like to add Purple Rain as a 1.85:1 movie shown as 1.78:1 or (16x9).



As has been said in this thread, this slight difference of cropping probably does not matter to most. However with me and my new Pioneer 151FD...when set to Dot to Dot..a 1.85:1 image is actually very beautiful presented on a 16x9 screen. The difference is that it really does look like the ratio I would see at a movie theater and thus I feel more like I'm watching a film rather than a video presentation of a film.

I don't like it when there's any cropping to fill any TV frame.

Mr. Brooks is 1.85 :1

As has been said in this thread, this slight difference of cropping probably does not matter to most. However with me and my new Pioneer 151FD...when set to Dot to Dot..a 1.85:1 image is actually very beautiful presented on a 16x9 screen. The difference is that it really does look like the ratio I would see at a movie theater and thus I feel more like I'm watching a film rather than a video presentation of a film.

I don't like it when there's any cropping to fill any TV frame.

1.85:1 movies are typically not cropped when they're modified to 16:9. The top and bottom mattes are lifted, exposing a small amount of extra picture there. The difference is miniscule and does not affect the compositional intent of the shot.

Original 1.85:1
http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/Manchurian_185-1.jpg

16:9 Open Matte
http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/Manchurian_16-9.jpg

Anyone know of any Blu-Rays that are just black bars? :)

1.85:1 movies are typically not cropped when they're modified to 16:9. The top and bottom mattes are lifted, exposing a small amount of extra picture there. The difference is miniscule and does not affect the compositional intent of the shot.

Original 1.85:1
http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/Manchurian_185-1.jpg

16:9 Open Matte
http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/Manchurian_16-9.jpg

The effect that your displaying is exactly what I see with my display of a 1.85:1 movie. Just looking at your example of the 1.85:1 makes me feel like I'm looking at a movie dimension rather than a TV dimension. I've worked as a projectionist in several theaters for several years and I'm used to the two movie formats. (1.85:1 & 2.35:1)

It's true not much (and like you say) if any is cut off (even if just expanded at the top and bottom) however the 1.85:1 "look" makes it feel more like a movie.

What ever the reasons they like to fill the 16x9 screen, I think they should always give the 1.85:1 movies a 1.85:1 ratio transfer. The reason? Most people have overscan, so it will fill their screens anyway, and for those who have a "dot to dot" mode on their HDTVs, can take advantage of the 1.85:1 "look" if their TV can so 0% overscan. Even for people who can do the "dot to dot" mode, can also fill their screen by setting it to "full" (for a very small amount of overscan).

Was not the first spiderman movie 1;85;1 or 1:78:1?
I have the dvd and I did not figure the bd version changed the aspect ratio.

Was not the first spiderman movie 1;85;1 or 1:78:1?
I have the dvd and I did not figure the bd version changed the aspect ratio.

The first Spiderman movie is 1.85:1, though I don't know how it was put onto video.

1.85 doesn't bother me in the slightest, I still consider it "full screen" despite the matting (my display is pixel-for-pixel). The mattes are so small that they're basically a non-issue for me.

I do see what you mean about the difference between it and full 16:9, though.. I've only noticed it very recently, but some 16:9 films do seem a bit "TV-ish" because they actually fill every last pixel of the screen. Odd considering the matte lines on a 1.85 film are barely half an inch on my display.

The effect that your displaying is exactly what I see with my display of a 1.85:1 movie. Just looking at your example of the 1.85:1 makes me feel like I'm looking at a movie dimension rather than a TV dimension. I've worked as a projectionist in several theaters for several years and I'm used to the two movie formats. (1.85:1 & 2.35:1)

It's true not much (and like you say) if any is cut off (even if just expanded at the top and bottom) however the 1.85:1 "look" makes it feel more like a movie.

A 16:9 "full screen" transfer is 1920x1080 pixels. A letterboxed 1.85:1 transfer uses 1920x1038 pixels in the active movie image. That means a difference of 21 pixel rows at the top and 21 pixel rows at the bottom. That's equivalent to less than 2% overscan, and is also less than the typical variances in projection at most commercial movie theaters.

This is really a non-issue.

anyone have a list of 4:3 only discs? I don't feel like getting a widescreen tv - they're trying to hide that damn image from me! Kthxbye...

lol!!