Can someone provide an overview of what HD-DVD software is available in the 16:9 and 235:1 screen formats, respectively? I'm assuming that the newer releases, and those with high rez audio, are usually in 235:1. - Is this so?

Frankly, I don't like the 235:1 format. - I've been told to get used to it, get an anamorphic lens and screen setup, or zoom the picture (With the emphasis being on the "get used to it, get with the program" answer). The "fixes" also entail certain downsides and technical issues, of course. So I'm wondering what the overall trends are relative to the software, what percentage of HD-DVDs are now available in 16:9, and what percentage of new releases are expected to be in 16:9 or 3:4, if any.

Thanks,
Jim

C what percentage of HD-DVDs are now available in 16:9, and what percentage of new releases are expected to be in 16:9 or 3:4, if any.

Thanks,
Jim

That would be up to the releasing studios, and the aspect of the material itself. Is it such a burden to accept the material in the aspect that it's creators intended?

Now that digital intermediates are becoming more and more common, lots of filmmakers who used to shoot in 1.85:1 are now shooting in 2.39:1. So like it or not, you'll probably be seeing more 2.39:1 movies in the future, not less.

Can someone provide an overview of what HD-DVD software is available in the 16:9 and 235:1 screen formats, respectively? I'm assuming that the newer releases, and those with high rez audio, are usually in 235:1. - Is this so?

Frankly, I don't like the 235:1 format. - I've been told to get used to it, get an anamorphic lens and screen setup, or zoom the picture (With the emphasis being on the "get used to it, get with the program" answer). The "fixes" also entail certain downsides and technical issues, of course. So I'm wondering what the overall trends are relative to the software, what percentage of HD-DVDs are now available in 16:9, and what percentage of new releases are expected to be in 16:9 or 3:4, if any.

Thanks,
Jim

The ratio of 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 movies has held steady at around 50/50 for the last 55 years. Newer films are not being released in 2.35:1 more often, though you might find the films you enjoy (epics, action films, etc.) are released in 2.35:1 because it is a wider, more expansive ratio. Comedies and romances are more geared to 1.85:1.

PS - Please stop refering to the butchering of the film's OAR as a "fix". The aspect ratio is not "broken." The films are as they were in the theater; nothing more, nothing less than what was shown on the big screen. Please remember the film's aspect ratio was chosen for a reason and that reason was how it will look in the theater. Your TV being filled does not cross the director's mind when they create their art. It shouldn't cross your mind when you view it, either. Stop watching the bars and start watching the movie!

exactly...the theaters also have "black bars" on their screens, they just cover them with curtains on the wider aspect ratio films :)

So....it doesn't fill your screen and it doesn't fill the theater's screen....hmmm...must be the directors intent, then.

Okay..not really black bars, but unused screen space

That would be up to the releasing studios, and the aspect of the material itself. Is it such a burden to accept the material in the aspect that it's creators intended?

As I noted, with the emphasis being on "get used to it, get with the program."

Jim

As I noted, with the emphasis being on "get used to it, get with the program."

Jim

I'm not a fan either.

How is a movie made better by filming in anamorphic? Is it easier for the directors/producers?

That would be up to the releasing studios, and the aspect of the material itself. Is it such a burden to accept the material in the aspect that it's creators intended?



As I said, with the emphasis on the "get used to it, get with the program." -
It's not a "burden", but I don't like it. It makes my viewing experience unpleasant. - When I see wide format movies in a theater, it's on a screen that extends horizontally substantially accross the width of the theater. My home screen is 92-inches diagonally, and I like the size, and the format, and since it's a "pulldown" screen, I can retract it and use the room for other purposes. Getting a bigger, wider one, or installing retractable borders, would be a substantial hassle, and would remove that flexibility.

Jim

As I said, with the emphasis on the "get used to it, get with the program." -
It's not a "burden", but I don't like it. It makes my viewing experience unpleasant. - When I see wide format movies in a theater, it's on a screen that extends horizontally substantially accross the width of the theater. My home screen is 92-inches diagonally, and I like the size, and the format, and since it's a "pulldown" screen, I can retract it and use the room for other purposes. Getting a bigger, wider one would be a substantial hassle, and would remove that flexibility.

Jim

You dont like original aspect ratio? WTF are you talking about??

Sigh....

I absolutely cannot fathom why some are so bothered by black bars. The film is shown as it was in the theaters. As one who has pursued original aspect ratio on home video for 25 yrs, even on a 27 inch CRT screen, it boggles my mind why this continues to "crop up" (excuse the pun) in today's times with widescreen TV. I would have thought that the vast majority of people buying HDTV's would have gotten used to seeing movies as they were intended and not hacked to "fit your screen".

Want to see a real example of what cropped or pan & scan does? Look at original Star Wars in a fullscreen compared to OAR widescreen version, specifically the scene near the end where the fish-eyed battle commander is issuing orders and the battle console is showing the death star coming out of the shadow and into firing range on the planet. Characters, and probably 40% of the shot is missing in fullscreen cropped version.

Don't some of you complaining about black bars ever watch TCM? They only show movies in OAR, with widescreen 1.85 & 2.35 shown letterboxed. At least now we have anamorphic so the black bars are smaller than what they would be just letterboxed.

Please read up on what anamorphic really means and does. It is not meant to make the black bars more noticeable but less.

The ratio of 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 movies has held steady at around 50/50 for the last 55 years. Newer films are not being released in 2.35:1 more often, though you might find the films you enjoy (epics, action films, etc.) are released in 2.35:1 because it is a wider, more expansive ratio. Comedies and romances are more geared to 1.85:1.

PS - Please stop refering to the butchering of the film's OAR as a "fix".

Actually, I'll continue to refer to such techniques (some of which entail spending multiple thousands of dollars) as a "fix" any time I want to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The aspect ratio is not "broken." The films are as they were in the theater; nothing more, nothing less than what was shown on the big screen.
Please remember the film's aspect ratio was chosen for a reason and that reason was how it will look in the theater.

As mentioned previously, when I see the wide format films in theater, the screen typically extends substantially accross the width of the room. I don't want to mess up my room and effectively limit its use to HT by constructing a wide screen of comparable relative size.


Your TV being filled does not cross the director's mind when they create their art.

But it crossed my mind.
------------------------------------------------------

It shouldn't cross your mind when you view it, either.

Clarification: In your opinion, but not mine.
------------------------------------------------

Stop watching the bars and start watching the movie!

-- As I said in the original note, the emphasis being on "get used to it, and get with the program."


But actually, I don't see the bars. - I have a front projector with 92-inch screen, and when the lights are dimmed, I don't notice the black bars. What I object to is that with 235:1 movies, the height of the picture, or the vertical illuminated portion of the screen, is substantially reduced, resulting in the actors being viewed as being unaturally small relative to the screen size, and/or farther away. It's good for landscapes, but not for most other material. Also, the available viewing areas on the upper and lower portions of the screen (and the potential picture detail/pixels that could have been processed in the corresponding sections of the LCD chips) are effectively lost. Total available pixels of viewing area is substantially reduced, with the upper and lower sections being thrown away.

Bottom line is that I don't enjoy viewing movies in 235:1. I had thought that enjoying the viewing experience (rather than appreciating the director's artistic techniques) was the primary idea in building a nice HT system. Guess I had it all wrong.

Jim

Sigh....

I absolutely cannot fathom why some are so bothered by black bars. The film is shown as it was in the theaters. As one who has pursued original aspect ratio on home video for 25 yrs, even on a 27 inch CRT screen, it boggles my mind why this continues to "crop up" (excuse the pun) in today's times with widescreen TV. I would have thought that the vast majority of people buying HDTV's would have gotten used to seeing movies as they were intended and not hacked to "fit your screen".

Want to see a real example of what cropped or pan & scan does? Look at original Star Wars in a fullscreen compared to OAR widescreen version, specifically the scene near the end where the fish-eyed battle commander is issuing orders and the battle console is showing the death star coming out of the shadow and into firing range on the planet. Characters, and probably 40% of the shot is missing in fullscreen cropped version.

Don't some of you complaining about black bars ever watch TCM? They only show movies in OAR, with widescreen 1.85 & 2.35 shown letterboxed. At least now we have anamorphic so the black bars are smaller than what they would be just letterboxed.

Please read up on what anamorphic really means and does. It is not meant to make the black bars more noticeable but less.

I made a rare trip to Family Video the other day. I overheard a man mutter "Why do they have to make all of the gd movies in widescreen?" I said "A lot of people have wide screen tvs now." He replied "I've got a widescreen tv but the black bars drive me nuts so I watch the fullscreen ones." I thought to myself, Oh God....... I walked away.

In terms of guessing what movie will be what ratio, the big action movies such as 300 or Bourne will likely be 2.35:1 (or close to it), while the comedy/less-action-oriented films will likely be 1.78:1 or 1.85:1. Of course, there are exceptions (Spider-Man 1 is 1.85:1, American Beauty is 2.35:1, etc.), but it's an intelligent guess.

I thought this kind of appaling mentality died out during the transition from VHS to DVD. If you don't like 'scope films, then don't watch them. Simple as that. Filmmakers shouldn't stop using a specific cinematic form just because a minority of "film fans" don't like it.

Actually, a movie isn't made easier when shot in anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses require much more light than spherical lenses. They're also much bigger and heavier. And focusing is much more difficult due to the shallower depth of field. So why do filmmakers use it? Because the frame composition is completely different than 1.85, and when used properly it's beautiful.

Your primary goal for having a nice HT system can be whatever you want it to be. But if that primary goal isn't to appreciate the filmmaker's intentions, why the hell do you watch movies?!?!?

Well in fairness to the OP and to the 1.78:1 format we're talking about, a fairer comparison would be 2.35:1 compared to 1.78:1, not 1.33:1.

These discussions never extend beyond the evils of cropping. To me, the more interesting question is why do artists feel they need to work in an AR that is supported only in the diminishing venue of movie theaters, and is not properly supported by the media or the display devices that are clearly now the mainstream?

It's demonstrably possible to create visual masterpieces in 1.85:1. IMO 2.35 is just a bad habit that originated in the movie versus TV battle of 50 years ago.

Jim Cate seems like he's in the wrong forum.

IMO 2.35 is just a bad habit that originated in the movie versus TV battle of 50 years ago.

So you're saying The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and 2001: A Space Odyssey would be the same in 1.85? Leone and Kubrick sure used some bad habits to make beautiful films.

1.85 was invented 50 years ago also. Is that not a "bad habit"?

You can call widescreen a "bad habit". I'll call it a beautiful innovation that came about due to competition.

No I'm not saying they would be the same. I'm saying they could have been masterpieces in 1.85:1.

Stanley Kubrick worked in a lot of different ARs.

So sick of these threads.

It's demonstrably possible to create visual masterpieces in 1.85:1. IMO 2.35 is just a bad habit that originated in the movie versus TV battle of 50 years ago.

So the old Cinerama & 'scope classics with wide vistas like How the West Was Won, Ben Hur, Cleopatra, Ten Commandments, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, let alone Star Wars, Close Encounters, etc etc (too numerous to count) would be the same and project the same impact on the "big" screen if filmed in 1.85?

Sorry, if I flat out don't believe that statement of yours. If it were true, then why are movies still filmed that way today, with less emphasis on theaters and much more on home video. The grandeur of some movies would be lost if filmed in 1.85 only.

Sorry, but I strongly feel that the type of attitudes that somehow directors should only cater to the home video market by filming exclusively in HDTV format is wrong.

So sick of these threads.

And so am I. I'm done. Can't convince some people.

And so am I. I'm done. Can't convince some people.

agreed.

IMO the battle to convince was lost long ago in the widescreen/fullscreen war.

The goal now is to make sure people who don't understand or outright dismiss director intent don't have an influence over what kind of product we get from studios.

With Wal-mart getting in the HD game, my stomach turns at the prospect of them once again influencing studios to release cropped versions of films. Last thing we need with two HDM formats out there is dual 1.78 and 2.35 releases of the same film to "please" everybody.

The ratio of 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 movies has held steady at around 50/50 for the last 55 years. Newer films are not being released in 2.35:1 more often, though you might find the films you enjoy (epics, action films, etc.) are released in 2.35:1 because it is a wider, more expansive ratio. Comedies and romances are more geared to 1.85:1.

PS - Please stop refering to the butchering of the film's OAR as a "fix". The aspect ratio is not "broken." The films are as they were in the theater; nothing more, nothing less than what was shown on the big screen. Please remember the film's aspect ratio was chosen for a reason and that reason was how it will look in the theater. Your TV being filled does not cross the director's mind when they create their art. It shouldn't cross your mind when you view it, either. Stop watching the bars and start watching the movie!

The funny thing is that this guy does not even see the black bars: he's using a projector in a dark room. He's gonna miss out on a lot of great movies if he's just planning to stick with 1.85:1

Can someone provide an overview of what HD-DVD software is available in the 16:9 and 235:1 screen formats, respectively? I'm assuming that the newer releases, and those with high rez audio, are usually in 235:1. - Is this so?

Frankly, I don't like the 235:1 format. - I've been told to get used to it, get an anamorphic lens and screen setup, or zoom the picture (With the emphasis being on the "get used to it, get with the program" answer). The "fixes" also entail certain downsides and technical issues, of course. So I'm wondering what the overall trends are relative to the software, what percentage of HD-DVDs are now available in 16:9, and what percentage of new releases are expected to be in 16:9 or 3:4, if any.

Thanks,
Jim
Jim, et. al.
Perhaps a quick visit to the fascinating "Widescreen Museum" website might give a better perspective on this issue. I remember being thrilled at seeing "The Robe" in 1953 in the even-wider (2:55-1) aspect ratio, in my home-town theatre at age 10. We loved our big 21-inch B&W tv but movie-goer-even-then I was blown away by the 'Scope process and a year later by the introduction of Vista-Vision (1:85-1) by Paramount with "White Chritsmas."

I freely admit to loving it when a film or dvd is 1:78 or 1:85-1 and fills my screen. But if not I just enjoy the film as the ARTISTS who made it wanted me to.

Whether or not you enjoy the formats on your tv, check out the interesting facts about the "whys" and "wherefores" of widescreen film. It's a fun read! Enjoy.

Joe

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

-- As I said in the original note, the emphasis being on "get used to it, and get with the program."


But actually, I don't see the bars. - I have a front projector with 92-inch screen, and when the lights are dimmed, I don't notice the black bars. What I object to is that with 235:1 movies, the height of the picture, or the vertical illuminated portion of the screen, is substantially reduced, resulting in the actors being viewed as being unaturally small relative to the screen size, and/or farther away. It's good for landscapes, but not for most other material.

Jim

Get a bigger screen then. End of story.

So the old Cinerama & 'scope classics with wide vistas like How the West Was Won, Ben Hur, Cleopatra, Ten Commandments, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, let alone Star Wars, Close Encounters, etc etc (too numerous to count) would be the same and project the same impact on the "big" screen if filmed in 1.85?
Once again, I never said I thought they'd be the same. I also never said I didn't like 2:35:1 movies.

BTW 2001 is a bad example, being filmed in Super Panavision 70mm and shown in Cinerama theaters. The AR was carefully and thoughtfully chosen, for a good reason. And most of the movies you listed are true classics, mostly not available in HD yet, and old. How about some more current HD DVD masterpieces like License To Wed, Old School, Evan Almighty, etc. Man they would have been ruined if not for 2.35:1, right?

Speaking of Stanley Kubrick, how would you feel if you had to watch some of his other classics butchered and cropped? Movies like The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket? (Careful before you answer :p)
Sorry, if I flat out don't believe that statement of yours. If it were true, then why are movies still filmed that way today, with less emphasis on theaters and much more on home video.
Yep, that's my question.

But actually, I don't see the bars. - I have a front projector with 92-inch screen, and when the lights are dimmed, I don't notice the black bars. What I object to is that with 235:1 movies, the height of the picture, or the vertical illuminated portion of the screen, is substantially reduced, resulting in the actors being viewed as being unaturally small relative to the screen size, and/or farther away.

So install a constant image-height system. Make your screen as wide as your projector will accommodate, and set the height so that a 2.35 movie fills the screen. When you have 1.85 source material, zoom your projector back so that the image still fills the screen vertically.

There are more elaborate ways of maintaining constant image height -- therre's a whole forum here dedicated to it -- but this is the solution to your problem. Expecting the entire motion picture industry to change its methods to accommodate your desire for consistency is not reasonable.

...How about some more current HD DVD masterpieces like License To Wed, Old School, Evan Almighty, etc. Man they would have been ruined if not for 2.35:1, right?

While I wouldn't put any of these in the same category of "classics" ;), they do indicate that directors use different AR's for reasons. They have choices. That we as consumers do not and should not dictate that movies should predominately be filmed in a specific AR just because our TV's have a specific AR. You proved my point that directors have the right to make those choices, not us.

Speaking of Stanley Kubrick, how would you feel if you had to watch some of his other classics butchered and cropped? Movies like The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket? (Careful before you answer :p)

I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the correct AR's of these works. IIRC, when he decided on 4:3 for home video releases of these movies, that was the prevalent AR used in TV's. Now, times have changed, so we are able to enjoy them as shown in the theaters. Some cropping of the "extra" screen area on the top/bottom so that the sides are shown as in the theaters. How's that? :)

ss9001

Once again, I never said I thought they'd be the same. I also never said I didn't like 2:35:1 movies.

BTW 2001 is a bad example, being filmed in Super Panavision 70mm and shown in Cinerama theaters. The AR was carefully and thoughtfully chosen, for a good reason. And most of the movies you listed are true classics, mostly not available in HD yet, and old. How about some more current HD DVD masterpieces like License To Wed, Old School, Evan Almighty, etc. Man they would have been ruined if not for 2.35:1, right?

Steve, come on man. You're comparing the cinematography of 2001, Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to Old School and Evan Almighty?!?!?!?!

No, made-for-the-mall crap like Old School and Evan Almighty probably wouldn't be impacted much by a narrower aspect ratio. That's because their filmakers didn't slave over trying to achieve maximum impact and artistry with every shot.

Famous, awe-inspiring scenes such as the chariot race in Ben Hur, Omar Sharif's entrance in Lawrence of Arabia, and the stargate sequence in 2001 wouldn't be the same in 1.85. That's a fact.

My final word to people who don't like "black bars": watch something else! Don't try to change the filmmaker's tools to fit your narrow (pun definitely intended) needs.

So sick of these threads.

Me too. If you can't deal with aspect ratios, you shouldn't be allowed to own a tv, never mind watch movies!!

...Expecting the entire motion picture industry to change its methods to accommodate your desire for consistency is not reasonable.

Nor practical or desirable.

Me too. If you can't deal with aspect ratios, you shouldn't be allowed to own a tv, never mind watch movies!!

:D

Not another OAR/black bars thread. :rolleyes:

So Jim, hope it's loud and clear by now:

"Get used to it, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!" :D

Steve, come on man. You're comparing the cinematography of 2001, Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to Old School and Evan Almighty?!?!?!?!

No, made-for-the-mall crap like Old School and Evan Almighty probably wouldn't be impacted much by a narrower aspect ratio.

I was trying to be tactful :D

Well, if I ruled the world, I'd make the director show me on storyboards why he really needed 2.35:1 before I'd allow it. Snakes On A Plane, sure, I could see why that was necessary. Snakes are inherently widescreen.

I just revisited The Searchers on HD DVD. Hard to argue that 1.85:1 was a problem on that one.

I don't like "black bars" either, so I have two screens: a 2.35 wall screen and a 16x9 pulldown screen, which I can pull down in front of the 2.35 when desired. I need to make small changes with the zoom and image shift, but I can do those in less than thirty seconds. Of course, you need a front projector for this kind of thing but, to me, that's the best way to watch movies anyway.

why are movies still filmed that way today, with less emphasis on theaters and much more on home video. The grandeur of some movies would be lost if filmed in 1.85 only.

When I first got into HDTV I was hoping that someone made a 2.35:1 set instead of 1.85:1. :D Yes, if someone made a 2.35 HDTV set I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I'd put up with vertical black bars.

I just wish I had bought a completely black framed tv set. (I have a silver Pani). Then the black bars would disappear even more.

Steve, come on man. You're comparing the cinematography of 2001, Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to Old School and Evan Almighty?!?!?!?!
The sarcasm was implied.

^^
A nice solution. I'm considering a front projector setup and need an accoustically transparent screen. I thought of 2 electric motorized screens, but would have to put up with the need for re-focusing. Still, it is a solution that could cost less than a constant-height anamorphic lens setup.

Snakes are inherently widescreen.

I love it! Best quote of the month.

The sarcasm was implied.

Whew! You had us worried;)

Bottom line is that I don't enjoy viewing movies in 235:1.

If this is truly how you feel then I propose you try something, avoid watching widescreen (wider than 1.85:1) movies for a while, say a month. Note what movies you wanted to see that you had to avoid and decide whether or not it’s worth depriving yourself from seeing those movies in order to use all the pixels in your PJ and every square inch of screen. If it is worth it to you, then continue enjoying your equipment as you see fit. Leave the widescreen content on the shelf.

By the way, how do you feel about 4:3 content?

By the way, how do you feel about 4:3 content?
He stated previously that it was the loss of vertical resolution that bothered him the most.

I also just watched Casablanca. A stunning presentation. But don't you think it's a little suspect that virtually no directors choose 4:3? Black & White is chosen occasionally for artistic effect, but never 4:3. Hmmm, maybe it's not entirely artistic vision that dictates the 2.35:1 choice.

How is a movie made better by filming in anamorphic? Is it easier for the directors/producers?

Actually, it's a lot harder to film in anamorphic, because the depth of focus is smaller and a lot more light is required. From a technical standpoint, it's better because it uses nearly the entire 35mm frame. Sperical movies only use about 75% (depending on aspect ratio and tons of other variables).

Here's why people don't like black bars:

If the movie is cropped (i.e. to be seen on every inch of a big screen), then you never know your missing that tree on the very edge of the screen. So, it is not upsetting. It's hard to miss something you don't know is there.

However, you spend a ton on a big screen TV and see the black bars and they sit there for the whole viewing experience, never going away, telling you "WRONG SHAPE! WRONG SHAPE!" (unless you're in a pitch black room). You can get bummed out about unused screen space because it's right there in front of you.

Bars anywhere on a TV screen are never going to be acceptable to everyone. As long as we have bars, there will be those who wish they would go away. It's going to be a fact of TV viewing life until we all die.

stop watching the bars, and watch the movie.. :D


p.s... most people that complain about the "black bars" also prefer to watch 4x3 content stretched. UGH.

So install a constant image-height system. Make your screen as wide as your projector will accommodate, and set the height so that a 2.35 movie fills the screen. When you have 1.85 source material, zoom your projector back so that the image still fills the screen vertically.

There are more elaborate ways of maintaining constant image height -- therre's a whole forum here dedicated to it -- but this is the solution to your problem. Expecting the entire motion picture industry to change its methods to accommodate your desire for consistency is not reasonable.Yup, that's the best way. Followed by "only view 1.85:1 movies" and then "get a video processor to crop non 1.85:1 moves to 1.85:1".

larry

I'm not a fan either.

How is a movie made better by filming in anamorphic? Is it easier for the directors/producers?

Our eyes are made to handle a very wide aspect. Height not being an issue a wider aspect allows you to take in more video.

i cant belive people still debate this.
back when laserdisc started releaseing titles in widescreen i jumped for joy.
why in the world does the blackbars bother anybody these days.
we have 16x9 hdtvs with hdm formats thats what your gonna get.... widescreen!
thank god for it.
if you really love movies you want to them as they were shot.

Try looking at this way. Basically you are saying that If you went to an art museum and saw a Monet or a Van Gogh and didn't like the frame size, then the artist was a buffoon and should have put the art in a different type of frame.

Can you imagine cutting of the sides of the Mona Lisa because hated the frame?

If you agree that film is art, then the black bar argument, shouldn't even be an argument. It was the artist's interpretation and nothing more.

Here's why people don't like black bars:

If the movie is cropped (i.e. to be seen on every inch of a big screen), then you never know your missing that tree on the very edge of the screen. So, it is not upsetting. It's hard to miss something you don't know is there.

However, you spend a ton on a big screen TV and see the black bars and they sit there for the whole viewing experience, never going away, telling you "WRONG SHAPE! WRONG SHAPE!" (unless you're in a pitch black room). You can get bummed out about unused screen space because it's right there in front of you.

Bars anywhere on a TV screen are never going to be acceptable to everyone. As long as we have bars, there will be those who wish they would go away. It's going to be a fact of TV viewing life until we all die.

THESE ARE MOVIES. They were made for movie theaters. We are getting the best representation of how they are supposed to look WITH BARS. It really blows my mind that people think its supposed to match their damn tv.

I've used this analogy a couple of times:
Why don't you go to the Louvre and ask why every picture isn't in the same size frame, positioned the same way?

Because that was not the intent of the artist!

It was not their intention to fit your damn television, it was their intention to provide shots in a manner which advances the narrative and in many cases provides emotional imagery.

The "fixes" also entail certain downsides and technical issues, of course.

why should any of us be able to tell directors how to make a movie?

i think you should take your argument to TV manufacturers, and start asking them to make TVs in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so you can view movies "full screen."

of course, then, the only thing you're actually losing is the size of 1.85:1 and 4:3 movies and broadcasts - now those will have black bars or bigger black bars.

sometimes directors require more landscape than you approve. if you don't like it, boycott all 2.35:1 movies, get all your buddies to boycott them, and then if there are enough of you, they will stop making them, because they won't make any money.

i'll warn you though - you're going to get nowhere. movies have been made that way for a long time. they're not going to change the way they make movies because of the advent of 16:9 TVs.

it's like if you asked, thirty years ago, hollywood to start making all their movies in 4:3, because you don't like having the edges cut off.

on Video, the edges were cut off because they wanted to use all the screen space, because screens were small. as screens got bigger, they had the opportunity to actually have their film represented the way it was meant to be.

next time you buy a TV, take into account the fact that you will be watching 2.35:1 films, and get a TV big enough to suit your viewing habits. otherwise, start zooming and making your own edits.

it's like complaining that apples don't taste like oranges. there's just no point. if you want it to taste like oranges, eat oranges.

why don't you do this: in your home theater, you should have a 4:3 screen so you can watch that without bars, a 16:9 so you can watch that without bars, and then get a custom built 2.35:1 screen (have the manufacturer cut the top and bottom of the screen off and custom-fit a new frame) for 2.35:1 movies. then, no matter what media you have, you can watch it full-frame.

sounds kind of ridiculous right? You're right - instead, they should force everyone that ever makes a video/film/etc to use the exact same size. makes much more sense.

Here's what I don't get. People are always preaching about OAR as if anything else is an abomination. I totally agree with that. But no one seems to have a problem with movies being remixed into 8 gazillion channels, or recut into needlessly flabby "extended editions." I mean, how many petitions would there be if something like Wild Things was 16x9? Yet no one seems to care that it's got about 7 minutes of footage that's just not supposed to be there. Everyone's got the cinematographer's back, but then the editors are just left to fend for themselves. What's up with that?

I call for an equal defense of all artistic vision! Who's with me?

The painters' analogy is lacking, for several reasons. First, obviously, canvases come in all sizes. Second, there's no user-installed hardware involved in viewing them. Third, I don't think 2.35:1 is anywhere near a common AR for paintings. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Care to comment on my point about the lack of 4:3 movies being released?

Here's what I don't get. People are always preaching about OAR as if anything else is an abomination. I totally agree with that. But no one seems to have a problem with movies being remixed into 8 gazillion channels, or recut into needlessly flabby "extended editions." I mean, how many petitions would there be if something like Wild Things was 16x9? Yet no one seems to care that it's got about 7 minutes of footage that's just not supposed to be there. Everyone's got the cinematographer's back, but then the editors are just left to fend for themselves. What's up with that?

I call for an equal defense of all artistic vision! Who's with me?

Yeah! :D

Jim Cate
You should buy a video processor such as a Lumagen HDQ.
I have one and when watching 2.35:1 movies, 3 clicks on the remote and the image is beautifully zoomed to fill the 16:9 screen.
Yes you are loosing some info on the sides, but if you want your screen filled, you will have to take this as a comprises.

When the widescreen format was conceived, 16:9 screens were the perfect compromise between all of the different image formats. Its in the middle of the frame sizes.

Care to comment on my point about the lack of 4:3 movies being released?

There are still some 4:3 films ... Gus Van Sant's Elephant comes to mind. It seems that most filmmakers prefer wider ratios because the width allows for a more immersive viewing experience. Does that address your point?

Care to comment on my point about the lack of 4:3 movies being released?

yeah, I could comment you don't know what the hell you're talking about. movies moved away from 4:3 for the reason that they wanted to differentiate from tv, when tv was in its infancy.

you just spit out the perfect defense of wide OAR.

There are still some 4:3 films ... Gus Van Sant's Elephant comes to mind. It seems that most filmmakers prefer wider ratios because the width allows for a more immersive viewing experience. Does that address your point?

A little. But it seems to me if it really was due to artistic vision (controlled by the director and the DP) we'd see more 4:3 ARs. Unless that particular AR is somehow inferior. And directors would get their "director's cuts" released at the theaters.

I think it's a lot more about 2.35:1 being the status AR, based on a history that goes back to the mid-fifties, rather than any inherent superiority of that AR. And I think the passionate defense of 2.35:1 here stems more from a vestige of the abhorrence of cropping.

YMMV.

movies moved away from 4:3 for the reason that they wanted to differentiate from tv, when tv was in its infancy.

My point exactly! :D Thanks for your reading comprehension skills.

My point exactly! :D Thanks for your reading comprehension skills.

except that modern directors have little to no experience with shooting for 4:3. its not something they would use to start with. your point is invalidated by the inherent superiority of ws.

call me back when your eyes are vertical in your head and not horizontal.

Take a dollar bill which just so happens to have a 2.4:1 aspect ratio and try to fit it in a 2.5 by 3.3 inch box. It doesn't fit so cut the sides off. Now tell me you are getting more of your dollar bill!!!!!!!! Watch the movie, not the black bars!!!!!!!! A 16:9 aspect ratio is a compromise ratio with letterboxing for 2.4:1 films and pillarboxing for 1.37:1 films. Star Trek TOS looks fantastic with every ones head cut off at the top when you zoom in. We all know how butchered 2.4:1 films were on pan & scan titles. Thank god there are no full screen titles on hddvd unless they were filmed that way.

OK, before this thread gets too long or stupid, let me go ahead and post the arguments all you black bar haters are going to spew forth in the hopes you can convince us you are correct. It's easy because I've heard them all 1000 times before:

There's nothing interesting on the sides.
Movies aren't art, they are entertainment.
Some movies aren't art, only very few are (followed by Kubrick ramblings blah blah blah).
Super 35 is filmed for both ratios.
Kubrick wanted his films fullscreen.
Cameron said fullscreen is better back on the laser disk of the Abyss.
Directors should listen to their audience.
Widescreen began as a marketing ploy.
It's all a scam to force you to buy 2.35:1 TV's in the future, that's why all the cool movies are in 2.35:1.
SD DVD had fullscreen, HD should too.
I saw the movie on HBO and it didn't have bars.
If they made it fit the screen in the theater, they should make it fit my TV.
etc., etc., etc.

Except all of the above is just BS to justify the only true reason why these philistines want the bars gone:

"I paid good money for my TV, I want every pixel lit!!!!

It's all a scam to force you to buy 2.35:1 TV's in the future, that's why all the cool movies are in 2.35:1.

this is my favorite one.

It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion about this. :o

As an accident of the era of film-making which most intrigues me, a considerable number of my DVDs are 4:3 and OAR. I'm not crazy about how small 2.35:1 movies can seem; so I sit a little closer[I]. If something is presented in 16x9 on TCM, I sometimes zoom it up to fill the TV; the transmission is usually good enough even zoomed. If it's a little too pixelated doing that, I sit a [I]little further away.

One thing I have discovered with my most recent TV (a modest Tosh 52" LCD) is how great even 4:3 looks -- like b&w early 60s Naked City TV episodes on DVD or the Special Edition of Citizen Kane released a couple of years ago.

I agree with the flow here: give me what the director / producers originally intended without lopping bits off to suit some marketers notion of what's acceptable.

It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion about this. :o


I agree (but probably not for the same reasons as you).:rolleyes:

The fact that a dollar bill has a 2:40:1 ration indicated the nature of the conspiracy. The shadow government (or perhaps the back bar government) has hidden messages imbedded in the black bars designed to brainwash the masses. The OP and other brave souls recognize the threat and are "fighting the power" by calling for 1:78 and 1:85 AR.

:D

I'm not worried though, I wrap my money in aluminum foil.

Wouldn't it be really neat if all artists painted only on a canvas I already bought? That'd be neat.

Wouldn't it be neat if there were a noob/fullscreen forum?


OK, before this thread gets too long or stupid
Too late. Luckily, such nonsense is ignored by the studios.

Maybe people should just buy 16:9 movies if they love it so. Vote with your wallet.

Personally I think it is hilarious that some of you guys get this worked up over aspect ratios.

Neither the OP (who wisely did an Elvis a long time ago) nor I ever once advocated "full screen" or cropping. Sheez people.

Personally I think it is hilarious that some of you guys get this worked up over aspect ratios.

Yea :rolleyes:

Can someone explain how the current aspect ratio's came about? Will we see different formats in the future?

Why isn't there one standard, where every film is 2.35:1?...sorry if this is noob question.

Wouldn't it be neat if there were a noob/fullscreen forum? Yes, but then we would be deinied the perverse curiosity of watching a train wreck.

The painters' analogy is lacking, for several reasons. First, obviously, canvases come in all sizes. Second, there's no user-installed hardware involved in viewing them. Third, I don't think 2.35:1 is anywhere near a common AR for paintings. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Care to comment on my point about the lack of 4:3 movies being released?

Please take these comments as good natured, but Canvases like movies and film come in different sizes. No user installed hardware to view, but eyeballs are used for both.

I give you full credit on number 3, but someone will probably pull out a link to a painting in 2.35:1

Can someone explain how the current aspect ratio's came about? Will we see different formats in the future?

www.widescreenmuseum.com

You dont like original aspect ratio? WTF are you talking about??


You need to get a grip on yourself Hip. Calm down, and clean up your language.

No, I don't like the original aspect ratio - IN MY HT ROOM. I like it in the theater, in which a huge screen extends substantially accross the width of the room, but not on my 16x9 screen. On my system, 2.35:1 results in a loss of over 24 percent of the available pixels, equivalent to switching to a projector having only 74% of the resolution. It's wastefull, annoying, and unpatriotic. (We are supposed to be conserving and not wasting our resources, aren't we?)

Jim

Yea :rolleyes:

Can someone explain how the current aspect ratio's came about? Will we see different formats in the future?

Why isn't there one standard, where every film is 2.35:1?...sorry if this is noob question.

They developed when in 1952 This IS Cinerama was the highest grossing film of the year . . . .

3.00 to 1 AR - DEEPLY curved screen and 8 channels of sound - 5 screen channels and 3 surround channels. It used 3 strips of 35mm side by side with a bit of an overlap.

FOX went to France to look at a lens system that was Anamorphic. In 1953 They premiered Cinemascope. 2.35 to 1. 4 track stereo - magnetic.

Then in 1955 Michael Todd invented Todd-AO - 2.20 to 1 now using 70mm film instead of 35mm film - 6 track stereo - 5 screen channels with 1 surround.

Panavision introduced Super Panavision - 70mm 2.20 and then Ultra Panavision - 2.76 to show on the Cinerama screens (called Super Cinerama) They worked closely with MGM who "sold" their format to Panavision - Camera 65 - Ben Hur.

Then all the 70mm productions stopped and Cinerama went out of business and we were left with 2.35 which later became 2.40 to hide the reel change marks. 1.85 has been since the 1950's - the "poor man's" widescreen - as compared to 1.37 - 35mm flat.

Paramount was also a part of the widescreen heyday with their Vistavision - 35mm 8 perf Hort. as opposed to Vertical. - 2.00 to 1. Still used today in special effects work and the "mother" of IMAX - 70mm 15 perf Hort.

Oh - the UK had their widescreen also - 1.66 to 1.

Paramount was also a part of the widescreen heyday with their Vistavision - 35mm 8 perf Hort. as opposed to Vertical. - 2.00 to 1. Still used today in special effects work and the "mother" of IMAX - 70mm 15 perf Hort.

And used in The Searchers which I mentioned earlier. A fantastic film. The depth of field is incredible.

1.85 has been since the 1950's - the "poor man's" widescreen - as compared to 1.37 - 35mm flat.


"Poor man's widescreen"...heh. ;)


I'm amazed that people are obsessed with a full screen.

On my system, 2.35:1 results in a loss of over 24 percent of the available pixels, equivalent to switching to a projector having only 74% of the resolution.

bad bad comparison... the resolution doesn't change at all...

back to watching the train wreck... :)

[QUOTE=ss9001;12376527]Sigh....

I absolutely cannot fathom why some are so bothered by black bars.

Well, you better get used to it, because some are still bothered by scrunched down 235:1 horizontal pictures seen that result in the system wasting about 24% of the screen, and 24% of the available pixels.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The film is shown as it was in the theaters.

NO IT IS NOT! In the theaters, it is shown on huge screens, many of which extend substantially accross the width of the theater. A far cry from most home TVs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


As one who has pursued original aspect ratio on home video for 25 yrs, even on a 27 inch CRT screen, it boggles my mind why this continues to "crop up" (excuse the pun) in today's times with widescreen TV. I would have thought that the vast majority of people buying HDTV's would have gotten used to seeing movies as they were intended and not hacked to "fit your screen".

Again, get used to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to see a real example of what cropped or pan & scan does? Look at original Star Wars in a fullscreen compared to OAR widescreen version, specifically the scene near the end where the fish-eyed battle commander is issuing orders and the battle console is showing the death star coming out of the shadow and into firing range on the planet. Characters, and probably 40% of the shot is missing in fullscreen cropped version.

Does one example prove your point with respect to all pictures?

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Don't some of you complaining about black bars ever watch TCM?

I'm not complaining about the black bars. (In my front projection system, when the lights are dimmed, I seldom see the bars.) I'm complaining about the strange, scrunched down, narrow horizontal picture, and about the fact that I'm loosing over 24 percent of the potential detail (pixels) that could be shown by my projector.

Jim

I give you full credit on number 3, but someone will probably pull out a link to a painting in 2.35:1

The Mona Lisa in 2.35:1:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9889/monalisawsee7.jpg

The ratio of 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 movies has held steady at around 50/50 for the last 55 years. Newer films are not being released in 2.35:1 more often, though you might find the films you enjoy (epics, action films, etc.) are released in 2.35:1 because it is a wider, more expansive ratio. Comedies and romances are more geared to 1.85:1.

Not wanting to feed this thread, but I'd love a cite on the above claim. I used to be called on to write about some of these issues and I haven't done the research more recently than 10 or 12 years ago, but, to the best of my knowledge, the percentage of anamorphically shot films has never been anywhere that high. In the fifties and sixties, I think it was more like 15%. In that period, a lot of stuff was still in 4:3, with 1.85 (or thereabouts, if you want to count foreign films) non-ana, masked stuff gradually taking over.

I'm sure the percentage of 2:1 and higher, anamorphic stuff has grown, but I still would surprised if it was anywhere *near* 50% (oh, and we can count varioius non-ana Super processes in with those). Last time I looked, masked1.85 still ruled the roost.

Of course, I haven't looked that recently.

OK, before this thread gets too long or stupid, let me go ahead and post the arguments all you black bar haters are going to spew forth in the hopes you can convince us you are correct. It's easy because I've heard them all 1000 times before:

There's nothing interesting on the sides.
Movies aren't art, they are entertainment.
Some movies aren't art, only very few are (followed by Kubrick ramblings blah blah blah).
Super 35 is filmed for both ratios.
Kubrick wanted his films fullscreen.
Cameron said fullscreen is better back on the laser disk of the Abyss.
Directors should listen to their audience.
Widescreen began as a marketing ploy.
It's all a scam to force you to buy 2.35:1 TV's in the future, that's why all the cool movies are in 2.35:1.
SD DVD had fullscreen, HD should too.
I saw the movie on HBO and it didn't have bars.
If they made it fit the screen in the theater, they should make it fit my TV.
etc., etc., etc.

Except all of the above is just BS to justify the only true reason why these philistines want the bars gone:

"I paid good money for my TV, I want every pixel lit!!!!

For those people, I say: C.R.A.P. Should I further elaborate? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ss9001;12376527]Sigh....

I absolutely cannot fathom why some are so bothered by black bars.

Well, you better get used to it, because some are still bothered by scrunched down 235:1 horizontal pictures seen that result in the system wasting about 24% of the screen, and 24% of the available pixels.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The film is shown as it was in the theaters.

NO IT IS NOT! In the theaters, it is shown on huge screens, many of which extend substantially accross the width of the theater. A far cry from most home TVs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


As one who has pursued original aspect ratio on home video for 25 yrs, even on a 27 inch CRT screen, it boggles my mind why this continues to "crop up" (excuse the pun) in today's times with widescreen TV. I would have thought that the vast majority of people buying HDTV's would have gotten used to seeing movies as they were intended and not hacked to "fit your screen".

Again, get used to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to see a real example of what cropped or pan & scan does? Look at original Star Wars in a fullscreen compared to OAR widescreen version, specifically the scene near the end where the fish-eyed battle commander is issuing orders and the battle console is showing the death star coming out of the shadow and into firing range on the planet. Characters, and probably 40% of the shot is missing in fullscreen cropped version.

Does one example prove your point with respect to all pictures?

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Don't some of you complaining about black bars ever watch TCM?

I'm not complaining about the black bars. (In my front projection system, when the lights are dimmed, I seldom see the bars.) I'm complaining about the strange, scrunched down, narrow horizontal picture, and about the fact that I'm loosing over 24 percent of the potential detail (pixels) that could be shown by my projector.

Jim

Should have some research before hand, shouldn't you? At least before subjecting sane individuals to such narrow views. You and your ilk remind me of those nutjobs that were censoring movies, as they didn't match their religious viewpoint!!

Widescreen has been available on home formats for almost two decades, it didn't exactly creep up and bite you on your ass, did it? Why not donate your equipment to someone that will actually enjoy it, instead of p*ssing moaning! Jesus!! :mad:

So install a constant image-height system. Make your screen as wide as your projector will accommodate, and set the height so that a 2.35 movie fills the screen. When you have 1.85 source material, zoom your projector back so that the image still fills the screen vertically.

There are more elaborate ways of maintaining constant image height -- there's a whole forum here dedicated to it -- but this is the solution to your problem. Expecting the entire motion picture industry to change its methods to accommodate your desire for consistency is not reasonable.

I've read some of the forum you refer to, and most of the "good" solutions are fairly involved and expensive. I have a pull-down screen, and it's very convenient when I don't want to leave the screen down, dominating the room. When the screen is retracted, the room is no longer a "home theater room" and can be used for other purposes. Your solution might be worth a try if I had a larger home, larger budget, and better WAF, but it's not practicable under current conditions.

Jim

Me too. If you can't deal with aspect ratios, you shouldn't be allowed to own a tv, never mind watch movies!!

Raul, if these discussions make you sick, maybe you shouldn't read them. Regarding your comments, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. - AS AM I.

Jim

So Jim, hope it's loud and clear by now:

"Get used to it, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!" :D


Thanks for the advice Eap. - Have a nice evening.


Jim

I've read some of the forum you refer to, and most of the "good" solutions are fairly involved and expensive. I have a pull-down screen, and it's very convenient when I don't want to leave the screen down, dominating the room. When the screen is retracted, the room is no longer a "home theater room" and can be used for other purposes. Your solution might be worth a try if I had a larger home, larger budget, and better WAF, but it's not practicable under current conditions.

Jim

Well, I guess now that we've established that what you're pursuing isn't art but simply convenience, we can put this sucker to rest.

The Mona Lisa in 2.35:1:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9889/monalisawsee7.jpg

Excellent!

On my system, 2.35:1 results in a loss of over 24 percent of the available pixels...If your goal is to use all your pixels, then you can zoom and crop the movie to use all your pixels. That might result in a loss of over 24 percent of the available movie, but if that's what you want go for it.

What is it that you were hoping for? You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Common sense tells you that there's gonna be some space around the edges. I'm sure you must realize that something of 2.35:1 aspect ratio will not fit perfectly into something of 16:9 aspect ratio. They're two different sized rectangles.

There are only a few ways you can "make it fit". (1) You can match the edges of the shorter rectangle with those of the taller one, resulting in black bars top/bottom filling the excess space, or (2) you can enlarge the shorter rectangle so its top and bottom match the taller rectangle and chop of the excess length on the sides (a pan-n-scan movie), or (3) you can distort the shorter rectangle until it is the same shape as the taller one, resulting in tall skinny actors (much like an anamorphic movie would look when projected through a standard - nonanamorphic - lens). Which of these methods would you prefer? You don't like (1). Fine. So chose (2) or (3). Your TV or projector probably supports both of those. Mine does (though personally I'd never use that).

Did you want an option (4) ... to require all movie makers to only film in 16:9 to match your screen? (and remaster and re-release all the existing moves to meet this new criteria?) I really don't get the point of your post otherwise.

If this is truly how you feel then I propose you try something, avoid watching widescreen (wider than 1.85:1) movies for a while, say a month. Note what movies you wanted to see that you had to avoid and decide whether or not it’s worth depriving yourself from seeing those movies in order to use all the pixels in your PJ and every square inch of screen. If it is worth it to you, then continue enjoying your equipment as you see fit. Leave the widescreen content on the shelf.

By the way, how do you feel about 4:3 content?

It's an interesting suggestion. From reviewing the available HD-DVD selections, I'm anticipating that many of the new releases in 235:1 won't be of that much interest to me. (In general, of course, not always.) For example, I'm not really into Spiderman, Lost Sumurai, Road Warrior, Red Dragon, Superman, Terminator, etc. - I might like Ray, Rio Bravo (J Wayne, D Martin), Good Night and Good luck, An Inconvenient Truth, etc., all of which seem to be in 1:85:1 format. I'm also looking for classical concerts, operas, ballet performances, etc. (some on B Artes now apparently), which I think will also be in the "normal" 1.85:1 format. (Just a joke! Don't get in a tizzy.)

In the case of 235:1 films that I want to see, I would prefer to see them "slightly zoomed," leaving smaller upper and lower horizontal lines, and loosing a small portion of the left and right edges.

Regarding 3:4, I saw Casablanca the other day and really enjoyed it. Much more detail and realism in HD. Because the black lines are on the outer sides of the picture, out of the normal field of view, they don't interfere with the picture. And because the picture fills the screen vertically, the actors and interior scenes of the cafe are seen more realistically.

In my opinion, of course.

Jim

...I'm complaining about the strange, scrunched down, narrow horizontal picture, and about the fact that I'm loosing over 24 percent of the potential detail (pixels) that could be shown by my projector. Jim

If you really see a strange, scrunched down picture, maybe you are using the wrong stretch or aspect mode. I can make a 2.35 picture look distorted by using the mode on my TV used for standard, non-anamorphic letterboxed films. Some anamorphically enhanced discs seem to have a slight curvature to the image; maybe this is what you're referring to. If so, this is how they reduce the space devoted to black bars. It's more noticeable in some films than others; I found Training Day to have more of a curvature, with the cars looking a bit smaller lengthwise. Most of us still prefer that to cropping.

However, you should not see a severely distorted image. If you do, you might be using the wrong aspect mode. If you are using the correct mode, then what you are seeing is the result of anamorphic enhancement. Without anamorphic enhancement, the image will be letterboxed resulting in a flat looking image, but larger black bars and more wasted pixels. If you want to compare anamorphic to letterboxed, watch The Abyss on DVD; it's straight letterboxed with no anamorphic enhancement. If Abyss looks OK to you and not scrunched, you have your answer. You could always look for used widescreen laserdiscs, which were letterboxed only.

It's a trade-off. Your choices are live with it, use a different aspect mode or zoom, spend the money for an anamorphic constant height setup, or only watch 1.85 movies. The choice and technology is up to you. But complaining about it gets u nowhere and no sympathy from videophiles, since it ain't changing the way studios are mastering widescreen transfers.

Try looking at this way. Basically you are saying that If you went to an art museum and saw a Monet or a Van Gogh and didn't like the frame size, then the artist was a buffoon and should have put the art in a different type of frame.

Can you imagine cutting of the sides of the Mona Lisa because hated the frame?

If you agree that film is art, then the black bar argument, shouldn't even be an argument. It was the artist's interpretation and nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


On the other hand, can you imagine someone going into the Musee d'Orsey or the Musee Marmaton in Paris and cropping all the Monet paintings such that you can only view them in a scrunched down, stretched out 2.35:1 format? If the scrunched down, stretched out format is truly "artistic," as you seem to think, why do so few of the great artists use it? - Maybe the movie directors are "scrunching down and stretching out" their pictures because they don't want you to think much about the ridiculous "adolescent actiony" content.

Jim

why should any of us be able to tell directors how to make a movie?

i think you should take your argument to TV manufacturers, and start asking them to make TVs in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so you can view movies "full screen."

of course, then, the only thing you're actually losing is the size of 1.85:1 and 4:3 movies and broadcasts - now those will have black bars or bigger black bars.

sometimes directors require more landscape than you approve. if you don't like it, boycott all 2.35:1 movies, get all your buddies to boycott them, and then if there are enough of you, they will stop making them, because they won't make any money.

i'll warn you though - you're going to get nowhere. movies have been made that way for a long time. they're not going to change the way they make movies because of the advent of 16:9 TVs.

it's like if you asked, thirty years ago, hollywood to start making all their movies in 4:3, because you don't like having the edges cut off.

on Video, the edges were cut off because they wanted to use all the screen space, because screens were small. as screens got bigger, they had the opportunity to actually have their film represented the way it was meant to be.

next time you buy a TV, take into account the fact that you will be watching 2.35:1 films, and get a TV big enough to suit your viewing habits. otherwise, start zooming and making your own edits.

it's like complaining that apples don't taste like oranges. there's just no point. if you want it to taste like oranges, eat oranges.

why don't you do this: in your home theater, you should have a 4:3 screen so you can watch that without bars, a 16:9 so you can watch that without bars, and then get a custom built 2.35:1 screen (have the manufacturer cut the top and bottom of the screen off and custom-fit a new frame) for 2.35:1 movies. then, no matter what media you have, you can watch it full-frame.

sounds kind of ridiculous right? You're right - instead, they should force everyone that ever makes a video/film/etc to use the exact same size. makes much more sense.


What a ridiculous, childish note. - Get a grip on yourself Mike!

Jim

-------------------------------------------------------------------


On the other hand, can you imagine someone going into the Musee d'Orsey or the Musee Marmaton in Paris and cropping all the Monet paintings such that you can only view them in a scrunched down, stretched out 2.35:1 format? Or, if the scrunched down, streched out format is truly "artistic," as you seem to think, why do so few of the great artists use it? - Maybe the movie directors are "scrunching down and stretching out" their pictures because they don't want you to think much about the ridiculous "adolescent actiony" content.

Jim

You keep saying scrunched down, stretched 2.35. It is not artificially being stretched. It **may** have a slight curvature to the image where the sides seem to "bend" backwards and this may be what you see. This is due to anamorphic enhancement. Again, watch a non-anamorphically enhanced DVD or laserdisc and see for yourself. If it's not labeled "enhanced for widescreen TV's" or "anamorphically enhanced", chances are it's letterboxed. HD displays have a mode for anamorphic and a mode for standard letterboxed. How the image looks depends on which mode being used. Make sure you are using the correct mode for the disc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


On the other hand, can you imagine someone going into the Musee d'Orsey or the Musee Marmaton in Paris and cropping all the Monet paintings such that you can only view them in a scrunched down, stretched out 2.35:1 format? Or, if the scrunched down, streched out format is truly "artistic," as you seem to think, why do so few of the great artists use it? - Maybe the movie directors are "scrunching down and stretching out" their pictures because they don't want you to think much about the ridiculous "adolescent actiony" content.

Jim

Perhaps you are right, but in my opinion it's the director's intent, not mine that matters. If he feels it should be "scrunched" then so be it. Remember we are talking about OAR which is how it was meant to be viewed. We aren't talking about altering the original image.

Please don't feel like you are being attacked, this should be a rational, intelligent debate. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, I'm just trying to get you to see this argument in a different light.

On the other hand, can you imagine someone going into the Musee d'Orsey or the Musee Marmaton in Paris and cropping all the Monet paintings such that you can only view them in a scrunched down, stretched out 2.35:1 format?

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/reduction/saferhomes/safehome/images/officer-letterbox.jpg

To the original poster.
For my front projection set up, I bought a 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen. All formats are then showed in their full height with black bars on the sides for 4.3 and 16:9. This is called a Constant Image Height set up and is gaining in popularity. I didn't buy all the extra equipment - the lenses, the scalers, and so on. No budget for it - I went for the "poor man's" set up. I use zoom and shift on my projector to fill the screen for the 'scoped movies. I went this route because when I thought about it, most of the stuff I watch is in 2.35:1, or at least my favorites, so I thought why put up with top and bottom black bars which make the movie look smaller ? I remember one forum member saying 2.35:1 wasn't meant to look smaller. And personally, after watching a couple hundred hours of movies in this setup, I'm beginning to really apreciate the wider format much more. When a 16:9 movie goes in, it's narrower aspect just seems so visually confining now. As another defense for wider aspect ratios, I recall another member stating that human field of vision is much wider than it is tall, so why shouldn't movie cinematography reflect that ?
The reasons to shoot in a wider format are many. I don't want to extend this thread needlessly, but I recall there was another recent thread on this topic that had a link to real good site that offered some good examples in support of wider aspect ratios. It is not the museum one linked in this thread, however. I suggest you search the forum for it and give it a read. It may change your mind.

The bottom line is, we as consumer ought to be free to chose whether or not to watch films the way in which the director and cinamtographer intended them to be seen. That won't be possible unless it's put down on the medium that way. When it wasn't, as in the days when VHS was king or in the early days of DVD, the consumer was deprived of that freedom.

This entire argument stems from what I feel is a backwards philosophy on the part of lots of people on this forum, even those that prefer OAR. Lots of people actively seek out content which will showcase their system, when it should be the other way around. A home theater's job is to showcase content. I have 6.1 channels of sound. It's very rare that I ever use that back channel, but it's there when I need it. The same thing is true of my display. 16:9 is the ideal ratio for a display because it's the middle of the three common ratios, and allows for the least amount of compromise. But just because you have X amount of screen area doesn't mean you always have to use it. Isn't it nice to have the flexibility?

Its clear that the vast majority of posters on this thread are advocates of OAR.

Jim is not, and the slamming by a few posters, of his opinions doesn't do any of us any good.

He is entitled to feel the way he does, and shouldn't be mocked because of it.

[QUOTE=Steve Schauer;12378982]The painters' analogy is lacking, for several reasons. First, obviously, canvases come in all sizes. Second, there's no user-installed hardware involved in viewing them. Third, I don't think 2.35:1 is anywhere near a common AR for paintings. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You're entirely correct. I've visited art musems in London, Paris, Provence, Amsterdam, Munich, Beijing, Cairo, Florence, Rome, Luxor, Mexico City, Zurich, and a number of US cities, and I very seldom see a painting on a stretched out, scrunched down 2.35:1 format canvas.

I don't think American film makers use the wide format for artistic reasons. (If so, they would also use formats such as 3:4 when artistically appropriate for a particular movie. - But they don't.) Instead, I think they use the wide format for dynamic effect in adolescent-interest pictures such as Superman, Spiderman, Road Warrior, 300, Red Dragon, etc. And simply because a big picture on a big screen with lots of explosions sells tickets. It has little to do with art.

Jim

This is very simple . . really . . .

Do you want to watch The Magnificent Seven? Or do you want to watch The Magnificent Four?

[QUOTE=Steve Schauer;12378982]The painters' analogy is lacking, for several reasons. First, obviously, canvases come in all sizes. Second, there's no user-installed hardware involved in viewing them. Third, I don't think 2.35:1 is anywhere near a common AR for paintings. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You're entirely correct. I've visited art musems in London, Paris, Provence, Amsterdam, Munich, Beijing, Cairo, Florence, Rome, Luxor, Mexico City, Zurich, and a number of US cities, and I very seldom see a painting on a stretched out, scrunched down 2.35:1 format canvas.

I don't think American film makers use the wide format for artistic reasons. (If so, they would also use formats such as 3:4 when artistically appropriate for a particular movie. - But they don't.) Instead, I think they use the wide format for dynamic effect in adolescent-interest pictures such as Superman, Spiderman, Road Warrior, 300, Red Dragon, etc. And simply because a big picture on a big screen with lots of explosions sells tickets. It has little to do with art.

Jim

Guess you haven't watched any westerns have you?

The 2.40 (IT IS NOT 2.35 - it was changed YEARS ago) is exactly for the use of artistic value. It is hard to shoot in due to the Anamorphic lens. The Director has a vision - the screen is his vision for all of us to see.

Its clear that the vast majority of posters on this thread are advocates of OAR.

Jim is not, and the slamming by a few posters, of his opinions doesn't do any of us any good.

He is entitled to feel the way he does, and shouldn't be mocked because of it.

Sure he should be mocked. He's entitled to his opinion and we are entitled to mock him for it. Some opinions are more educated, more concerned with art and more concerned with the actual content we are showing, rather than the number of pixels we light up on out little electronic boxes. His opinions are anathema to ours, so just as his mocking tone pushes his philistine obnoxiousness on us, he can have it back in spades. Fair is fair.

On my system, 2.35:1 results in a loss of over 24 percent of the available pixels, equivalent to switching to a projector having only 74% of the resolution.

You're not getting all of the pixels available on an HD DVD anyway using a Sanyo Z4. If you ever upgrade your equipment, can filmmakers return to using 2.35:1?

I don't think American film makers use the wide format for artistic reasons. (If so, they would also use formats such as 3:4 when artistically appropriate for a particular movie. - But they don't.)

But you have to keep in mind that the only two ratios which essentially every theater in the country are equipped for are 2.39:1 and 1.85:1. Most theaters don't have the equipment to show movies in 1.37:1.

The 2.40 (IT IS NOT 2.35 - it was changed YEARS ago)

Actually, it's not 2.40 either. It's 2.39.

[QUOTE=Steve Schauer;12378982]The painters' analogy is lacking, for several reasons. First, obviously, canvases come in all sizes. Second, there's no user-installed hardware involved in viewing them. Third, I don't think 2.35:1 is anywhere near a common AR for paintings. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You're entirely correct. I've visited art musems in London, Paris, Provence, Amsterdam, Munich, Beijing, Cairo, Florence, Rome, Luxor, Mexico City, Zurich, and a number of US cities, and I very seldom see a painting on a stretched out, scrunched down 2.35:1 format canvas.

I don't think American film makers use the wide format for artistic reasons. (If so, they would also use formats such as 3:4 when artistically appropriate for a particular movie. - But they don't.) Instead, I think they use the wide format for dynamic effect in adolescent-interest pictures such as Superman, Spiderman, Road Warrior, 300, Red Dragon, etc. And simply because a big picture on a big screen with lots of explosions sells tickets. It has little to do with art.

Jim

Geez, I guess someone needs to have a little conversation with David Lean, John Ford, Sam Penkinpah, Clint Eastwood, John Sturgis, Cecil B. Demille, Ridley Scott and Stephen Spielburg and tell them that their 2.35:1 works are nothing but "adolescent-interest pictures" and the only reason they used 2.35:1 was because "a big picture on a big screen with lots of explosions sells tickets." Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Jim Cate;12380077]

Should have some research before hand, shouldn't you? At least before subjecting sane individuals to such narrow views. You and your ilk remind me of those nutjobs that were censoring movies, as they didn't match their religious viewpoint!!

Widescreen has been available on home formats for almost two decades, it didn't exactly creep up and bite you on your ass, did it? Why not donate your equipment to someone that will actually enjoy it, instead of p*ssing moaning! Jesus!! :mad:

Raoul, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, and I wouldn't think about interfering with your right to express them or to enjoy the scrunched down, stretched out 2.35:1 format. - But I hope that you would also be considerate enough to recognize my right to my opinions and the right to express them without childish, personal attacks like the above. I suppose that what bothers me about this discussion is the supercilious, "I know I'm right-why can't you get it" attitude of many of those promoting the 2.35:1 format.

Jim

[QUOTE=raoul_duke;12380147]

Raoul, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, and I wouldn't think about interfering with your right to express them or to enjoy the scrunched down, stretched out 2.35:1 format. - But I hope that you would also be considerate enough to recognize my right to my opinions and the right to express them without childish, personal attacks like the above. I suppose that what bothers me about this discussion is the supercilious, "I know I'm right-why can't you get it" attitude of many of those promoting the 2.35:1 format.

Jim


Ever think they just may be right? Ever think that your reasoning leaves much to be desired and you have no real clue about the use of 2.35:1 (sorry 2.39:1) and are only making stuff up to fit your incredibly wrong theory about "scrunched down, stretched out" films?

Somehow I doubt you ever gave that a thought (yet we are the arrogant ones :rolleyes:).

If your goal is to use all your pixels, then you can zoom and crop the movie to use all your pixels. That might result in a loss of over 24 percent of the available movie, but if that's what you want go for it.

What is it that you were hoping for? You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Common sense tells you that there's gonna be some space around the edges. I'm sure you must realize that something of 2.35:1 aspect ratio will not fit perfectly into something of 16:9 aspect ratio. They're two different sized rectangles.

There are only a few ways you can "make it fit". (1) You can match the edges of the shorter rectangle with those of the taller one, resulting in black bars top/bottom filling the excess space, or (2) you can enlarge the shorter rectangle so its top and bottom match the taller rectangle and chop of the excess length on the sides (a pan-n-scan movie), or (3) you can distort the shorter rectangle until it is the same shape as the taller one, resulting in tall skinny actors (much like an anamorphic movie would look when projected through a standard - nonanamorphic - lens). Which of these methods would you prefer? You don't like (1). Fine. So chose (2) or (3). Your TV or projector probably supports both of those. Mine does (though personally I'd never use that).

Did you want an option (4) ... to require all movie makers to only film in 16:9 to match your screen? (and remaster and re-release all the existing moves to meet this new criteria?) I really don't get the point of your post otherwise.


I would not want option (1), option (2), option (3), or option (4). My preference would be a compromise in which the 2.35 picture is slightly enlarged (zoomed) such that the upper and lower horizontal lines are reduced in thinkness but not eliminated, and in which small vertical sections (the extreme right and left portions of the picture) are lost. No vertical or horizontal distortion, only a small portion of the picture is lost, and the "scrunched down, stretched out" effect is reduced. Actually, I have mentioned this preference in several previous notes.

Jim

Next up...why 480i is a more natural resolution and 1080p is a scrunched up, oversampled mess.

Imagine if the real world looked like 4:3...me thinks the Op is pulling all your legs. His arguments border on the silly and absurd and I think that is his point.

It is the same as the " I see no difference between 480i and 1080P " guys. Most of them are here for fun and giggles. I assume the Op is also motivated by the spirit of jest.

And this relates specifically to HD DVD software how?

[QUOTE=Jim Cate;12380835]

Guess you haven't watched any westerns have you?

The 2.40 (IT IS NOT 2.35

Aren't you doing a little nit-picking here Lee?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

- it was changed YEARS ago) is exactly for the use of artistic value. It is hard to shoot in due to the Anamorphic lens. The Director has a vision - the screen is his vision for all of us to see.

I like some westerns, and some are artistically done. But I question whether the scrunched down, stretched out formats (2.40 or 2.35) are being used in most new releases for artistic purposes. It's more for dynamic effect, and because a large picture on a large screen is impressive and sells tickets. Along with lots of explosions, etc.

Jim

[QUOTE=Lee Stewart;12380864]

I like some westerns, and some are artistically done. But I question whether the scrunched down, stretched out formats (2.40 or 2.35) are being used in most new releases for artistic purposes. It's more for dynamic effect, and because a large picture on a large screen is impressive and sells tickets. Along with lots of explosions, etc.

Jim


So you are saying "dynamic effect" and an "impressive" picture have nothing to do with artistic intent? Wow, you really don't need us to argue with you, leave you alone for a while and you make our argument for us. :confused:

And what is so bad about a director wanting to sell tickets? Isn't that their only way to get to make movies?

Can someone provide an overview of what HD-DVD software is available in the 16:9 and 235:1 screen formats, respectively? I'm assuming that the newer releases, and those with high rez audio, are usually in 235:1. - Is this so?

Frankly, I don't like the 235:1 format. - I've been told to get used to it, get an anamorphic lens and screen setup, or zoom the picture (With the emphasis being on the "get used to it, get with the program" answer). The "fixes" also entail certain downsides and technical issues, of course. So I'm wondering what the overall trends are relative to the software, what percentage of HD-DVDs are now available in 16:9, and what percentage of new releases are expected to be in 16:9 or 3:4, if any.

Thanks,
Jim
2 Fast 2 Furious
A Mighty Heart
Aeon Flux
Alpha Dog
Anchorman - The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Apollo 13
Assault on Precinct 13
Babel
Backdraft
Black Rain (Special Collector's Edition)
Black Snake Moan
Blades of Glory
Born on the Fourth of July
Bulletproof
Carlito's Way
Casino
Cinderella Man
Coming to America
Dawn of the Dead
Disturbia
Doom
Dragonheart
Dune (1984)
End of Days
Evan Almighty
Face Off
Failure to Launch
Fast & Furious
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Flags of Our Fathers
For Love of the Game
Freedom Writers
Friday Night Lights
Hot Fuzz
Hot Rod
Hulk
Hustle and Flow
Inside Man
Jarhead
King Kong
Land of the Dead
Mercury Rising
Miami Vice
Mission - Impossible II
Mission Impossible
Next
Notting Hill
Payback - Straight Up - The Director's Cut
Pitch Black
Pride & Prejudice
Red Dragon
Seabiscuit
Serenity
Shaun of the Dead
Shooter
Smokin' Aces
Spy Game
Stardust
The Bone Collector
The Bourne IdentityThe Bourne Supremacy
The Contract
The Cowboys
The Deer Hunter
The Fast & The Furious: Tokyo Drift
The Frighteners - Peter Jackson's Director's Cut
The Game
The Getaway (Unrated)
The Interpreter
The Last Starfighter
The Mummy Returns
The Mummy
The Omega Man
The Rundown
The Scorpion King
The Skeleton Key
The Thing
The Ultimate Matrix Collection
The Untouchables (Special Collector's Edition)
The Warriors
Timecop
Transformers
Troy - Director's Cut
U-571
Unleashed
What Dreams May Come

2.35:1 is NOT scrunched down or stretched out. You are simply getting more picture on either side, which enables more dramatic compositions for certain films. You can dislike the fact that it means the vertical scale has to be smaller all you want, but stop calling it scrunched down or stretched out - that is simply not true. Nothing is stretched, nothing is scrunched. It's like looking at a vista, then stepping back a bit - sure everything is a little bit smaller, but you can see more at once.

2.35:1 is also NOT used to sell more tickets. Commercials for movies do not give that kind of information - it's all fullscreen for the most part. And most movie reviews don't mention it either. The average person going into a movie has no knowledge (or interest in) what the aspect ratio of the movie they're about to see is. And with a theater where the black curtains come down on the sides, it's hard to even notice unless you're specifically looking for it.

It is a fact that humans are able to process more horizontal information than vertical. Just stare straight ahead and unfocus your eyes a bit - you can pick up quite a bit of peripheral information to the left and right, but very little up or down. Filmmakers are taking advantage of this.

I find it ridiculous that you're complaining about this on a 92 inch screen. I'm using a "small" 32 inch-er right now, and the black bars are maybe an inch or two on the top and bottom - hardly something that seems small or squished.

You say you don't want to disrespect our opinion, but then you go on to mock 2.35:1 as "scrunched and compressed," and express desire for filmmakers to not film in it. I am fine with you wanting to fill your whole screen - simply use the zoom functionality. Just don't expect others to give up scope AR when we like it just fine.

Perhaps you are right, but in my opinion it's the director's intent, not mine that matters. If he feels it should be "scrunched" then so be it. Remember we are talking about OAR which is how it was meant to be viewed.



We aren't talking about altering the original image.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the director's intent relative to how it should be viewed related to how it would be viewed on a huge, wide screen in a theater. - This may not mean that viewing it on a typical home video in the same (240:1) format would provide the same type of effect. (Perhaps with a large, wide screen such as those seen in the Runco ads it would.) My point is that viewing a vertically limited picture on a typical home video, such as a 45-inch LCD or plasma, wouldn't provide the same type of effect as seeing it on a giant screen that extends accross the width of a movie theater. So, I don't think viewing strictly in the OAR is as important as some seem to think, so long as you aren't drastically changing the format.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please don't feel like you are being attacked, this should be a rational, intelligent debate. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, I'm just trying to get you to see this argument in a different light.

Thanks. I try to be rational, and reasonably civil, though I don't always succeed. Ultimately this boils down to personal preference, and I recognize that others' taste may differ.

Jim

Well, I guess now that we've established that what you're pursuing isn't art but simply convenience, we can put this sucker to rest.

Ever hear of "both and"? And sensible budgetary controls?

Jim

Ever hear of "both and"? And sensible budgetary controls?

Jim

Art should not be compromised for your convenience.

Jim, enough already. You've already been presented with several solutions (CIH being the only valid one, besides accepting it, IMO), and yet you still complain. So what are you going to do?

BTW, you are wrong, yes wrong, when you say 2.35:1 is "scrunched down, stretched out". Enough of this crap already.

The fact that a dollar bill has a 2:40:1 ration indicated the nature of the conspiracy. The shadow government (or perhaps the back bar government) has hidden messages imbedded in the black bars designed to brainwash the masses. The OP and other brave souls recognize the threat and are "fighting the power" by calling for 1:78 and 1:85 AR.

is the black bar government the ones w the black helicopters that we're supposed to be a'sceart of?:D

You keep saying scrunched down, stretched 2.35. It is not artificially being stretched. It **may** have a slight curvature to the image where the sides seem to "bend" backwards and this may be what you see. This is due to anamorphic enhancement. Again, watch a non-anamorphically enhanced DVD or laserdisc and see for yourself. If it's not labeled "enhanced for widescreen TV's" or "anamorphically enhanced", chances are it's letterboxed. HD displays have a mode for anamorphic and a mode for standard letterboxed. How the image looks depends on which mode being used. Make sure you are using the correct mode for the disc.

yeah, im also starting think thats whats going on w his setup. non-anamorphic w/s discs and/or wrong a/r settings.

Here's what I don't get. People are always preaching about OAR as if anything else is an abomination. I totally agree with that. But no one seems to have a problem with movies being remixed into 8 gazillion channels, or recut into needlessly flabby "extended editions." I mean, how many petitions would there be if something like Wild Things was 16x9? Yet no one seems to care that it's got about 7 minutes of footage that's just not supposed to be there. Everyone's got the cinematographer's back, but then the editors are just left to fend for themselves. What's up with that?

I call for an equal defense of all artistic vision! Who's with me?
As much as I'll defend OAR to the death, I must join you in defending all "artistic vision."

And this relates specifically to HD DVD software how?

Movies are software. This is as on-topic as any other audio or video discussion about the content on the disc, if posters could just keep their slander and insults out of it. Why do so many feel so threatened by this subject?

Sure he should be mocked. He's entitled to his opinion and we are entitled to mock him for it. Some opinions are more educated, more concerned with art and more concerned with the actual content we are showing, rather than the number of pixels we light up on out little electronic boxes. His opinions are anathema to ours, so just as his mocking tone pushes his philistine obnoxiousness on us, he can have it back in spades. Fair is fair.

yeah, im also starting think thats whats going on w his setup. non-anamorphic w/s discs and/or wrong settings.

i see many of the 'experts' here cant even agree on whether its 2.35x1, 2.39x1, or 2.40x1; this is becoming a 'tower of babel'.:D

Movies are software. This is as on-topic as any other audio or video discussion about the content on the disc, if posters could just keep their slander and insults out of it. Why do so many feel so threatened by this subject?

Look at how long it took us to get films in OAR after years and years of fullscreen VHS and TV presentations, and you can see why people feel threatened. It's because they don't appreciate others calling for the newest HD medium to revert back to pleasing the lowest common denominator; that being the fullscreen fan.

i see many of the 'experts' here cant even agree on whether its 2.35x1, 2.39x1, or 2.40x1; this is becoming a 'tower of babel'.:D


It's 2.39:1. It used to be 2.35:1 and that is still somewhat of a standard term, even if it is inaccurate.

Look at how long it took us to get films in OAR after years and years of fullscreen VHS and TV presentations, and you can see why people feel threatened. It's because they don't appreciate others calling for the newest HD medium to revert back to pleasing the lowest common denominator; that being the fullscreen fan.

That battle is over. There's zero danger of pan and scan HD movies showing up.

We all know that great movies have been made at 2.3? AR. My feeling is that this should be the exception, when called for, and not used just because it looks more cinematic, whatever that means.

Now excuse me while I go enjoy the artistic vision of The Wedding Crasher in glorious 2.3whatever to 1 (IMDB says 2.35:1).

That battle is over. There's zero danger of pan and scan HD movies showing up.

We all know that great movies have been made at 2.3? AR. My feeling is that this should be the exception, when called for, and not used just because it looks more cinematic, whatever that means.

Now excuse me while I go enjoy the artistic vision of The Wedding Crasher in glorious 2.3whatever to 1 (IMDB says 2.35:1).


As I've said the 1000 times I've heard the old "but movie XXXX isn't art, so it should be fullscreen, unlike movie YYYYY" argument before - Just because it is art, doesn't mean it is good art. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you fullscreen fans really never come up with anything new. Now please dazzle me more with some of the Kubrick or Cameron/Abyss arguments. Or will you break out the big guns and go for the "If the director supervises the crop and chop, then it's okay" tripe? :rolleyes:

I hope you're not watching on a 60Hz or God forbid 120Hz set, because that 24p flicker is what Buster Keaton, er I mean the director, intended.

As I've said the 1000 times I've heard the old "but movie XXXX isn't art, so it should be fullscreen, unlike movie YYYYY" argument before - Just because it is art, doesn't mean it is good art. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you fullscreen fans really never come up with anything new. Now please dazzle me more with some of the Kubrick or Cameron/Abyss arguments. Or will you break out the big guns and go for the "If the director supervises the crop and chop, then it's okay" tripe? :rolleyes:

speaking of 'the abyss', what i wouldnt give for an hdm or at least a good anamorphic w/s sd version of it. MY KINGDOM FOR...:D

Only problem I have with black bars is that it makes displays with poor black levels painfully obvious and distracting during a film.

Only problem I have with black bars is that it makes displays with poor black levels painfully obvious and distracting during a film.

what he said!

Why people would want a 2.35:1 film to be shown 1.33:1 is beyond me. Do you guys know how much of the frame is cut? Do a lot of you widescreen nay Sayers even know how aspect ratios work?

Check out this page, when ever someone tells me widescreen is no good, or that they rather have the "Full" picture, I direct them to this site,

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2933/favaspectratio.html

Folks who want fullscreen should go back to VHS, I’m sorry, it's just silly to not want the movie shown as it was filmed, especially after you see how much of the movie is cropped for fullscreen. With widescreen TV's people shouldn't even be complaining.

Jeff-

I would not want option (1), option (2), option (3), or option (4). My preference would be a compromise in which the 2.35 picture is slightly enlarged (zoomed) such that the upper and lower horizontal lines are reduced in thinkness but not eliminated, and in which small vertical sections (the extreme right and left portions of the picture) are lost. No vertical or horizontal distortion, only a small portion of the picture is lost, and the "scrunched down, stretched out" effect is reduced. Actually, I have mentioned this preference in several previous notes.

Jim

If I'm understanding correctly, is what you're referring to similar to Univisium?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

The DVD of Apocalypse Now (any edition) and a few others Vittorio Storaro shot have been cropped to this format which is about 2:1.

BTW, I don't necessarily think there's no danger of cropped HD movies. They did it to the laserdisc game Dragon's Lair, and some IMAX movies which are supposed to be closer to 4:3. I don't think we'll see 2.35:1 movies cropped for a while though, except for when the director wants it that way (The World's Fastest Indian).

I hope you're not watching on a 60Hz or God forbid 120Hz set, because that 24p flicker is what Buster Keaton, er I mean the director, intended.

Oh no!! Not the "You can't replicate a projector and film, so you should throw out all aspects of the theater presentation!!" argument. What ever will we do to combat this evil strawman that Steve has placed in our midst? I don't know what to do with this clever and technical, "never seen before" argument from a clearly superior foe!! We are certainly doomed in this debate now! :rolleyes:

Steve, with HDM, 24p is on the disk so if you have a display capable of it, you can use it. If the chop and croppers had their way, the original aspect ratio would be compromised on the disk itself. Any more little fancy arguments in your head?

Yeah, he's complaining on a 92in screen, when I'm content with black bars on a 53in. so I sure can understand his dissatisfaction. If only all of us had your good fortune to have a 92in or larger screen. :rolleyes:

It's pointless to try to convince this guy, folks. Jim Cates, you can live with it, buy technology to do something about it, but just stop complaining because there's no sympathy from the vast majority of people who are in this hobby to see the film as its supposed to be seen.

Use a HTPC to zoom in. It's personal preference, I don't particularly care what the director intended - I want to watch a film how I want to watch a film. Film viewing is a subjective experience, like any art. It's not mathmatics.

I prefer 2.35:1 films.

Yeah, he's complaining on a 92in screen, when I'm content with black bars on a 53in. so I sure can understand his dissatisfaction. If only all of us had your good fortune to have a 92in or larger screen. :rolleyes:

It's pointless to try to convince this guy, folks. Jim Cates, you can live with it, buy technology to do something about it, but just stop complaining because there's no sympathy from the vast majority of people who are in this hobby to see the film as its supposed to be seen.

If you have a 16:9 screen and watch a 2.35:1 movie, you get the black bars at the top and bottom...we all know that. Here is the problem and I agree with the OP, that I like the looks of a 1.85:1 movie over a 2.35:1 movie any day on my screen. However, I like OAR, so I watch a 2.35:1 movie the way it was intended, but the picture isn't as good. The black bars you have at the top and the bottom are taking up pixels. 30% I believe. Also, for projectors, you are losing 30% of the brightness on the bars. So, for a 2.35:1 movie, it's 30% less bright and 30% less pixels (in the movie portion of the screen) than a 1.85:1 movie. This is why folks use an anamorphic lense. They use a Scaler that will take a 2.35:1 movie and stretch it Vertically. The anamorphic lense then stretches that out properly to fill a 2.35:1 screen, not losing any pixels or any brightness.

Although I'm a fan of OAR, every 1.85:1 movie I have looks better on my 100" 16:9 screen than a 2.35:1 that's wasting pixels and brightness on the bars at the top and bottom.

Use a HTPC to zoom in. It's personal preference, I don't particularly care what the director intended - I want to watch a film how I want to watch a film. Film viewing is a subjective experience, like any art. It's not mathmatics.

I prefer 2.35:1 films.

Great solution. I couldn't care less how you want to watch a film. Just give me the OAR on the disk and anyone else can zoom, cut, crop or watch it upside down for all I care.

Although I'm a fan of OAR, every 1.85:1 movie I have looks better on my 100" 16:9 screen than a 2.35:1 that's wasting pixels and brightness on the bars at the top and bottom.

So what you're saying is that even though you enjoy OAR 2.35:1 movies, every other forum user here will now have to have their favorite films cropped to 1:33:1 just so you can prefer 1.85:1 movies? Some people....

:D

I wonder how many of these black bar haters would be pissed if they went to a theater to see Star Wars and instead of seeing it in 2.40 - the theater closed the curtains down to 1.85 and stuck an apeture plate right behind the lens?

Lee, try to keep up. Nobody's asking for that.

There are several ways for the OP to achieve his desired result. Many of them have been offered in this thread already. If someone wants to alter the intended image in their own home--fine. But two things need to be made clear.

One--wider aspect ratios are NOT "squeezed and scrunched" on a properly set up display/player. All proportions are proper so while objects may appear smaller, they are not "squeezed/scrunched" (unlike what happens when there is an improper setting in either the display or player or both). So let's stop with the "squeezed/scrunched" nonsense. This is supposed to be a place where people come for information, among other things, and we should be, even in our disagreements, responsible enough not to state something that is misleading (deliberately or otherwise).

Two--those of us who are happy to get OAR as often as possible (it's not always available, even if the disc has a widescreen version, but that's for another debate) DO NOT want to see releases routinely made that have been "cropped" to make a "fullscreen" version. Let that choice be made in each person's home with their gear--not forced upon everyone else. So if the OP and others want to "fill their screen", let them take the measures necessary to do it. Let it not be done by locking that as the only available print on disc releases.

Frankly pan and scan is the second most evil thing ever perpetrated on movies. The first was cropped releases before the pan and scan machine was invented. (Anyone who remembers "AW by ven Spiel"--especially the scene where two pairs of hands are having a conversation at the dining room table--knows what I'm talking about.) If broadcast TV had simply shown films in OAR in the first place--without exception--people would have learned to ignore the bars AND they would have learned that MOVIES, as distinct from TV PROGRAMMES, are not intended, necessarily, to be seen in the same AR.

I have been buying movies since 1990 and in every instance where the widescreen version was available (including very wide ARs like those used for Ben Hur and Spartacus, among others) that was the one I purchased. And, until 1999, I was watching those films on a 13" TV. From 1999 to 2001, I made the big move to a 20" TV. After that, to a 32" TV (2001 to 2007). Today I get to see them on a 64 inch 16:9 screen. But I would still watch them if the only thing I had was my old 13" TV. Cropped/pan and scan is better than nothing at all (otherwise I never would have rented/bought a movie on VHS that wasn't as close to OAR as possible) but if OAR (or very close to) is available, finally, as a rule, let us not go back to when it was an exception.

So what you're saying is that even though you enjoy OAR 2.35:1 movies, every other forum user here will now have to have their favorite films cropped to 1:33:1 just so you can prefer 1.85:1 movies? Some people....

:D

Not sure I follow. I said nothing about 1.33:1. I said I'm a fan of OAR, which is how I watch movies. What I'm saying is the picture quality on my projector looks BETTER with 1.85:1 movies than it does on 2.35:1 because Pixels and Brightness are LOST on the black bars of a 2.35:1 movie....which is EXACTLY why people do the CIH systems, so they get a 2.35:1 movie without losing Pixels and Brightness. If you aren't familiar with CIH, there are tons of threads here to review.

Lee, try to keep up. Nobody's asking for that.


Actually, if you substitute "bought a disk" for "went to a theater" in Lee's post, that is exactly what the OP is asking for:

I would not want option (1), option (2), option (3), or option (4). My preference would be a compromise in which the 2.35 picture is slightly enlarged (zoomed) such that the upper and lower horizontal lines are reduced in thinkness but not eliminated, and in which small vertical sections (the extreme right and left portions of the picture) are lost. No vertical or horizontal distortion, only a small portion of the picture is lost, and the "scrunched down, stretched out" effect is reduced. Actually, I have mentioned this preference in several previous notes.



So black bars that are "reduced in thinkness but not eliminated" would be akin to a 1.85:1 presentation, right?

BTW, "reduced in thinkness" - Pretty ironic, no? :D

Lee, try to keep up. Nobody's asking for that.

No difference is there?

What you see is what you get.

Or are you saying that it should be OAR in the theater - but not at home?

:confused:

Although I'm a fan of OAR, every 1.85:1 movie I have looks better on my 100" 16:9 screen than a 2.35:1 that's wasting pixels and brightness on the bars at the top and bottom.

This is the key point isn't it, you feel that your precious screen is being wasted. It is not being wasted. There isn't anything to show there, you aren't missing out on anything. Nice screens are made to showcase good movies, not the other way around.

Listen, this is as straight as I can put things for you folks: If you want to zoom, crop, squish, or stretch your movies, that is perfectly fine - there are a multitude of technologies out there that will let you do those things. No one cares what you do inside your own home, so have a ball. But you are not ever going to get 1.85:1 versions of 2.39:1 films. The vast majority of home theater enthusiasts will only accept a movie's original aspect ratio. And directors and people involved with the creation of the movies want the original aspect ratio out there. You aren't simply going against people like us on this forum - you are going against the people who made these films that you seem to think so lowly of. I'm not asking you to admit your opinion is wrong - but admit that your opinion goes against the grain and results in something other people dislike, for very valid reasons, and accept that you'll have to fix your little problem on your own.

Time to figure out your projector's zoom functions!

Sigh...

What I'm saying, and what tonybradley said, is that we're movie lovers, we watch OAR, we don't want anything cropped. How many times and how many ways can I say that?

I also said that I know there are visual masterpieces produced at all aspect ratios, even 1.33:1. Since the optical media and the displays are 16:9, I wish more films were produced in that AR.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Sigh...

What I'm saying, and what tonybradley said, is that we're movie lovers, we watch OAR, we don't want anything cropped. How many times and how many ways can I say that?

I also said that I know there are visual masterpieces produced at all aspect ratios, even 1.33:1. Since the optical media and the displays are 16:9, I wish more films were produced in that AR.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Because you're asking directors to not make films the way that they want to. This request is even more selfish than wanting 1.85:1 versions on home video releases.

You may not see the benefits of 2.39:1, but directors and plenty of other movie fans do.

This is the key point isn't it, you feel that your precious screen is being wasted. It is not being wasted. There isn't anything to show there, you aren't missing out on anything. Nice screens are made to showcase good movies, not the other way around.

Listen, this is as straight as I can put things for you folks: If you want to zoom, crop, squish, or stretch your movies, that is perfectly fine - there are a multitude of technologies out there that will let you do those things. No one cares what you do inside your own home, so have a ball. But you are not ever going to get 1.85:1 versions of 2.39:1 films. The vast majority of home theater enthusiasts will only accept a movie's original aspect ratio. And directors and people involved with the creation of the movies want the original aspect ratio out there. You aren't simply going against people like us on this forum - you are going against the people who made these films that you seem to think so lowly of. I'm not asking you to admit your opinion is wrong - but admit that your opinion goes against the grain and results in something other people dislike, for very valid reasons, and accept that you'll have to fix your little problem on your own.

Time to figure out your projector's zoom functions!

Dude, you are wrong. The black bars DO take up pixels and brightness of my precious Projector. Sound and Vision actually has a great article about this in their latest release.

As I've said, which you don't seem to read, I have no problem with OAR. I'm just saying 'I THINK' 1.85:1 movies look better on my PJ than 2.35:1", which is wasting pixels and brightness on the bars. That doesn't mean I'm zooming, nor cropping, etc. Read before you post please.

Dude, you are wrong. The black bars DO take up pixels and brightness of my precious Projector. Sound and Vision actually has a great article about this in their latest release.

As I've said, which you don't seem to read, I have no problem with OAR. I'm just saying 'I THINK' 1.85:1 movies look better on my PJ than 2.35:1", which is wasting pixels and brightness on the bars. That doesn't mean I'm zooming, nor cropping, etc. Read before you post please.

But there isn't anything to display there. There's simply nothing to fill those pixels with. And if you really feel that 2.39:1 movies result in the picture not being bright enough to enjoy, maybe you need to fix some settings or get your TV repaired. If it's just the mental issue of knowing in your head that your TV could be brighter, I feel you're looking at home theater enjoyment in the wrong way (or at least a very odd one).

Sigh...

What I'm saying, and what tonybradley said, is that we're movie lovers, we watch OAR, we don't want anything cropped. How many times and how many ways can I say that?

I also said that I know there are visual masterpieces produced at all aspect ratios, even 1.33:1. Since the optical media and the displays are 16:9, I wish more films were produced in that AR.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Sigh . . .

It's not that hard to understand (you really aren't that obtuse, you know . . . and we aren't that dumb). You want directors to make films that fit your Tee Vee. You want them to limit their artistic vision in order to light up all your pixels. You have adopted a "crop it at the planning stage" theory in order to get around the obvious bastardization that occurs when cropping it at the transfer stage.

You also give tacit approval (while maintaining plausible deniability- see above) for cropping existing 2.35:1 films by giving tired old arguments like (paraphrasing) "Wedding Crashers doesn't really need to be 2.35:1 cause it's not art" and "I hope you are watching at 1080p/24 because unless you see the flicker, then you aren't being true to the theater presentation", etc.

See, there's really nothing new from the screen fillers of the world and we "understand" your arguments better than you think.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that there's no support in the HD DVD or Blu-Ray spec for anamorphic 1920x1080 2.39:1. DVD had anamorphic 1.78:1 support so they didn't have to encode black bars on the disk, at least up to that AR.

But there isn't anything to display there. There's simply nothing to fill those pixels with. And if you really feel that 2.39:1 movies result in the picture not being bright enough to enjoy, maybe you need to fix some settings or get your TV repaired. If it's just the mental issue of knowing in your head that your TV could be brighter, I feel you're looking at home theater enjoyment in the wrong way (or at least a very odd one).


Sir, can you explain to me then, why so many go with CIH scenarios with 2.35:1 screens? If the black bars did NOT take up brightness and pixels, then you could build a 2.35:1 screen, and Zoom your Projector until ONLY the image was on the screen, and the black bars were off the screen. That would sure be cheap and easy. But, uh oh...why don't they do that? Oh yeah, because even though they have an image filling their 2.35:1 screens, they aren't getting the full pixels and brightness for that image, because about 30% is still being used up by the black bars that are now zoomed off the screen. So, CIH was created with the scaler that will Vertically stretch the picture (utilizing ALL pixels), then the anamorphic lense will stretch this picture that includes all Pixels, hence giving you a better picture.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that there's no support in the HD DVD or Blu-Ray spec for anamorphic 1920x1080 2.39:1. DVD had anamorphic 1.78:1 support so they didn't have to encode black bars on the disk, at least up to that AR.

That would mean support for anamorphic 2.35:1 built into the displays. Since all non-CRT displays are fixed pixel, anamorphic 2.35:1 would have no benefit until higher resolution displays are the norm.

Ok, I think we beat this issue to death for now - until someone creates a new thread down the line. :) It's not like this subject has never come up before...

larry