Is the option for a full-screen high def movie even available any more? Can anyone name a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie available in the 4:3 format? Please, I'm not talking about pre-1950 movies that were shot in 4:3.

I hope it's killed 4:3. I wish everything on TV was in widescreen, or at least letterboxed so I can zoom on it to restore the ratio. Widescreen forever!:cool:

:confused:So you are asking if any 1.85 or 2.40 films are P&Sed to 1.33 then master in HD to be played on a 1.78 TV?:confused: I must be misreading.

There may be/will be some 2.40 P&Sed to 1.78 for HD DVD/BD but not 1.33. I will have no use for them so they better offer OAR first and foremost.

i think by definition all thats associated with hd is some form of widescreen with a
couple of ratios.

Here are the most commen aspect ratios:

1.33 (4x3) SDTV - 35mm
1.37 Academy - Full Frame - 35mm w/sound
1.66 European Widescreen (used some by Disney and The Truman Show from Paramount)
1.78 (16x9) HDTV
1.85 Flat or Matted
2.35 Panavision or Super 35

i think by definition all thats associated with hd is some form of widescreen with a
couple of ratios.The 2 resolutions we associate with HDTV - 720p and 1080p - are 16x9 per the HDTV standard. All other aspect ratios, including 16x9 (1.78:1) are what has been used, and currently used, in the TV and movie industry when "filming" content. The aspect ratios are independent of the HDTV resolution (or any resolution) when we watch them. I think that makes sense. :)

larry

There may be/will be some 2.40 P&Sed to 1.78 for HD DVD/BD....Interesting. Can anybody speak to this... whether there are any 'scope' presentations that have been "modified to fit your" HDTV? What about from 1.85, since it's so close to 1.78 anyway?

Conversely, are there any films originally shot in, say, Super35, whose original theatrical AR was 2.35, but has been re-released in HD at 1:78, utilizing more of the frame's height?

There is absolutely no reason why they can't release a matted/letterboxed presentation. Would be similar to what you may remember as those widescreen-for-4:3-TV "letterboxed" DVDs of the past that we hate so much.



We will get 4:3 releases eventually, but right now, I think studios want to push widescreen films.

What about from 1.85, since it's so close to 1.78 anyway?



Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and Sleepy Hollow are the only ones I can think of. The standard DVD's of Disturbia and The Fountain were also opened up from 1.85 to 1.78.

I hope it's killed 4:3. I wish everything on TV was in widescreen, or at least letterboxed so I can zoom on it to restore the ratio. Widescreen forever!:cool:

So, I guess you hate Casablanca, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, Double Indemnity, and the hundreds of other classics filmed in the Academy Ratio? :mad:

I maybe not understanding this discussion, but doesn't the Good German count? Wasn't that in 4:3 only?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0452624/technical

Is the option for a full-screen high def movie even available any more? Can anyone name a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie available in the 4:3 format? Please, I'm not talking about pre-1950 movies that were shot in 4:3.No one makes HD pan-and-scan 4:3 conversions of widescreen movies. Why? Did you get one of those early 4x3 HD sets?

The bad news: you will probably have to upgrade.

The good news: nearly any current HDTV set, pciked at random, has much better resolution than an early "HD" set. Adn they can be had for as little as $1000.

So, I guess you hate Casablanca, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, Double Indemnity, and the hundreds of other classics filmed in the Academy Ratio? :mad:


Yes, it gets me how all these OAR people complain about pan & scan releases, yet zoom in or stretch original 1.33 (1.37) films to fill their 16x9 screens. To me, it's a lot more about content than the shape of the screen, This is coming from a guy with both 2.35 and 16x9 screens. I started out in film collecting, and had a 35mm projector with 1.37, 1.66, 1.75, 1.85, 2.0, and 2.35 aperture plates and several lenses. We would mask our screen according to the film's aspect ratio. I have tried to carry this over to my video projector, to some extent. Widescreen is nice, just like with film projection, but I don't really "enjoy" the content of a film more with one ratio or another. There are scads of terrible films these days which look nice and are widescreen. I would rather watch a good film in 1.33.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and Sleepy Hollow are the only ones I can think of. The standard DVD's of Disturbia and The Fountain were also opened up from 1.85 to 1.78.

If there is a list, add Starship Troopers (UK import). Looks fantastic by the way!

Mia

Is the option for a full-screen high def movie even available any more? Can anyone name a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie available in the 4:3 format? Please, I'm not talking about pre-1950 movies that were shot in 4:3.

you're asking like you actually want this. Please tell us you don't want this! Death to foolscreen! OAR forever! Good riddance!

The 2 resolutions we associate with HDTV - 720p and 1080p - are 16x9 per the HDTV standard. All other aspect ratios, including 16x9 (1.78:1) are what has been used, and currently used, in the TV and movie industry when "filming" content. The aspect ratios are independent of the HDTV resolution (or any resolution) when we watch them. I think that makes sense. :)

larry


The two resolutions associated with HDTV are actually 720p and 1080i.

I hope so. I hate it when you get an ad or program on TV in 4:3. Black bars on the top and bottom, I can handle. On the sides AHHH

Its even worse when commercials come on in a 4:3 format, but widescreen (If that makes sense) so you get black bars on the sides and the top and bottom. My 60" tv ends up with a 30" picture.

Conversely, are there any films originally shot in, say, Super35, whose original theatrical AR was 2.35, but has been re-released in HD at 1:78, utilizing more of the frame's height?
"The World's Fastest Indian" was opened up like that. The OAR version can be seen on HDNet Movies, but the BD and HD-DVD are both 1.78:1, which is why I refuse to buy it.

Is the option for a full-screen high def movie even available any more? Can anyone name a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie available in the 4:3 format? Please, I'm not talking about pre-1950 movies that were shot in 4:3.
"Full screen" in the hi-def would is 16:9, and many HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs are in 16:9 format. Regarding 4:3 movies, you said "not pre-1950 movies that were shot in 4:3". Few movies after 1953 (the first year for widescreen) were shot in 4:3. What 4:3 movies are you asking about being available?

So, I guess you hate Casablanca, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, Double Indemnity, and the hundreds of other classics filmed in the Academy Ratio? :mad:

:confused:

Just voicing a general preference for widescreen and the opinion that it should be more widespread in it's general use on TV. If something was shot in 4:3, it should be left that way. Regarding new material, I just don't think 4:3 has any place as an acceptable standard anymore.

What I do HATE is when networks crop widescreen material to 4:3. I love it when those shows are letterboxed. That way, depending on the set I'm watching, I can select a "zoom mode" to restore the program to it's intended ratio.

Star Trek (the series) is 4:3.

Unfortunately, more recent 4:3 (or approx) titles have been cropped for HDM: Dragon's Lair, the Roy Orbison concert, the IMAX films, etc. I fear that this will become acceptable and we could see TV shows and other material also cropped (they're already doing this on TV with shows like Knight Rider). There doesn't seem to be much objection to it for some reason.

/\ They should store it on disc at higher res (without encoding pillarbox black bars) then people who want it cropped/zoomed to fill the screen can without loosing as much 'resolution' but people who don't will want it cropped/zoomed will still have 1080p res?

/\ They should store it on disc at higher res (without encoding pillarbox black bars) then people who want it cropped/zoomed to fill the screen can without loosing as much 'resolution' but people who don't will want it cropped/zoomed will still have 1080p res?

Just give it to us at 4:3 1080p, and let the non-enthusiasts stretch it using their display's "zoom" function. The educated shouldn't suffer for the demands of the ignorant.

Just give it to us at 4:3 1080p, and let the non-enthusiasts stretch it using their display's "zoom" function. The educated shouldn't suffer for the demands of the ignorant.
But if they did it my way, both groups of people would have a high quality image (but just the croppers would miss the sides). If done your way the croppers would not only miss the sides, they'd get a more blurred/pixelly picture

you're asking like you actually want this. Please tell us you don't want this! Death to foolscreen! OAR forever! Good riddance!I definitely don't want full-screen 4:3 movies if the original aspect ratio was widescreen. I'm asking because when family members wanted to buy me a DVD, I used to have to be very clear "Don't buy the FULL screen version!". Is that a question I don't have to worry about any more, or when high def movies become more popular will they start making full screen again. I still see high def TV's being sold in the 4:3 format, so it isn't dead yet.

...I still see high def TV's being sold in the 4:3 format, so it isn't dead yet.

What? I don't think that's possible. If I remember the FCC ruled after the 1.33 HDTV's came out that all TV's must be 1.78 in order to called HDTV's. Therefore no more 1.33 HDTV's could be made (or called HDTV).

Please provide a link to any 1.33 HDTV's being sold new.

Depends on what you mean by HDTV. I thought it technically referred to the source, not the display.

There's a bunch of 1.33 CRTs with ATSC tuners at walmart.com. They'll display a 1920x1080i or 1280x720p HD broadcast.

I definitely don't want full-screen 4:3 movies if the original aspect ratio was widescreen. I'm asking because when family members wanted to buy me a DVD, I used to have to be very clear "Don't buy the FULL screen version!". Is that a question I don't have to worry about any more, or when high def movies become more popular will they start making full screen again.
I guess that depends on sucess/penetration. If HDM is the next LaserDisc, appealing only to movie buffs, you will never have to worry. If, however, it achieves 50% or better penetration, I guarantee that the mindless pixel zombies will scream until "fullscreen" 1.78:1 crops of every movie becomes available.

On the other hand, Sony (of all people) recently took a stand with Spider-Man 3 (on DVD), and offered it ONLY in the widescreen edition. "Available exclusively in widescreen" was plastered all over the cardboard stands. If Sony can tell the foolscreen people to go F themselves with such a major release, maybe there is hope for us yet....

I still see high def TV's being sold in the 4:3 format, so it isn't dead yet.
Where are you seeing these? Crutchfield doesn't sell any, neither does ABT electronics. Walmart sells ONE--a 15" Sanyo. Best Buy sells two, again both are 15". I think we can all agree that, as far as HDM is concerned, people buying 15" TVs don't matter. It's not like they're going to sit a foot from the screen so they can take advantage of the extra resolution.

So where have you seen a REASONABLE size HDTV in the 4:3 ratio recently? I'd prefer something 32" or larger, but I'd even be willing to accept a 27". But please, no 15s. It's been at LEAST two years since I've seen one, personally. And when I did, it was a closeout of a 55" RPTV that had probably ended production 2 years before that.

There's a bunch of 1.33 CRTs with ATSC tuners at walmart.com. They'll display a 1920x1080i or 1280x720p HD broadcast.
....at 480i. DTV != HDTV

There is absolutely no reason why they can't release a matted/letterboxed presentation. Would be similar to what you may remember as those widescreen-for-4:3-TV "letterboxed" DVDs of the past that we hate so much.



We will get 4:3 releases eventually, but right now, I think studios want to push widescreen films.

No sane person owning a HDTV will want to see the 4:3 aspect with anything they view. No offense intended. :)

Depends on what you mean by HDTV. I thought it technically referred to the source, not the display.

There's a bunch of 1.33 CRTs with ATSC tuners at walmart.com. They'll display a 1920x1080i or 1280x720p HD broadcast.

Those are not HDTV's and aren't call HDTV's. In order for a TV to be labeled HD it must be able to display the HD resolution, not just receive it. If that were the case you could take a 20 year old 12" B&W and hook a ATCS converter box and you would have a HDTV. So it's not just a broadcast standard.

Th OP clearly states that 1.33 HDTV's are for sale.

Those are not HDTV's and aren't call HDTV's. In order for a TV to be labeled HD it must be able to display the HD resolution, not just receive it. If that were the case you could take a 20 year old 12" B&W and hook a ATCS converter box and you would have a HDTV. So it's not just a broadcast standard.Exactly. I am doing this now with an older 42", 16x9 flat panel, with a maximum resolution of 480p.

While I do get a remarkably crisp 16x9 picture off the HD channels from my cable box, I am under no illusion that the image I see is in "High Definition".

No sane person owning a HDTV will want to see the 4:3 aspect with anything they view. No offense intended. :)

If the OAR is 4:3, that's what I want to see. I guess I should be committed to the mental ward. :(

Joe Bloggs, your suggestion wouldn't work because some (perhaps many) displays would be unable to squeeze the stretched image back into the proper shape. Some displays don't allow any manipulation of an HD image, whether by zooming or stretching.

I sure hope Pan&Scan is dead (be it 4:3 or 16:9). I suppose a P&S of 1.85 wouldn't bother me too much since it's only a 5% loss, but I'd still prefer the original aspect ratio. But doing a P&S on a 2.35:1 movie? Heck no! (25% loss)

And I say bravo to Sony for releasing Spiderman 3 in Widescreen ONLY! I didn't know that before, but now that I do know that, it makes me want to go out and buy the movie just to say thanks in some small way. :cool:

Yes, it gets me how all these OAR people complain about pan & scan releases, yet zoom in or stretch original 1.33 (1.37) films to fill their 16x9 screens.

I think the people you are referring to aren't true OAR people. Even before I had a 16:9 display, I only get widescreen releases (unless the original format was 4:3). And it bugs the heck out of me when I see a 4:3 image stretched onto a 16:9 display.

As for me, I purchased the complete "Get Smart" (a 1960s spy spoof) series on DVD. It was all filmed in 4:3, and I display it as 4:3 on my 100" 16:9 screen. Somebody mentioned the original Star Trek series. The same goes for that. It was originally filmed in 4:3, so I will watch it in 4:3. We don't need Scotty looking any fatter than he already is.

Just give it to us at 4:3 1080p, and let the non-enthusiasts stretch it using their display's "zoom" function. The educated shouldn't suffer for the demands of the ignorant.

Righty-O

I sure hope Pan&Scan is dead (be it 4:3 or 16:9). I suppose a P&S of 1.85 wouldn't bother me too much since it's only a 5% loss, but I'd still prefer the original aspect ratio....

Warner used to open the mattes up from 1.85 to 1.78 so you gained 5% instead. Most people watch on TV's and TV's almost always have 3% to 6% overscan so they would never know.

What? I don't think that's possible. If I remember the FCC ruled after the 1.33 HDTV's came out that all TV's must be 1.78 in order to called HDTV's. Therefore no more 1.33 HDTV's could be made (or called HDTV).

Please provide a link to any 1.33 HDTV's being sold new.
"Samsung’s cutting-edge TX-T2793H represents the best of the new generation of SlimFit™ high definition TV."
Aspect Ratio: 4:3

LINK (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204145821&SearchEngine=Shopper&SearchTerm=204145821&Type=PE&Category=Elec&Gad=0&dcaid=15889)

"Samsung’s cutting-edge TX-T2793H represents the best of the new generation of SlimFit™ high definition TV."
Aspect Ratio: 4:3

LINK (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204145821&SearchEngine=Shopper&SearchTerm=204145821&Type=PE&Category=Elec&Gad=0&dcaid=15889)

Looks like I was wrong. That is unbelievable that they can put a HDTV label on that. :eek:

Only reason to see anything in 4:3 is it was produced in that format. On my HDTV, I get black bars on the left and right side of my set on SDTV when viewing 4:3 content as it should be. My HDTV will stretch it, but there is no way I would watch it stretched.

Looks like I was wrong. That is unbelievable that they can put a HDTV label on that. :eek:
I thought it was discontinued, but I went to Samsung's web site and found THREE different 4:3 HDTV models - LINK (http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/subtype/subtype.do?group=televisions&type=televisions&subtype=slimfithdtv)

I hope new content in 4:3 is done. I hate stretched and cropped content and do not manipulate the image I am given. I also prefer the the extra information available in the 16:9 format.

Zoomed 4:3 from dvd looks horrible on my 61" tv. I have a few tv series where they chose to crop and zoom instead of show OAR because the series was split between the 2.

From http://www.dtv.gov/glossary.html

Aspect Ratio: A numerical expression of the relationship of width to height of a TV screen. 4:3: This numerical sequence refers to the aspect ratio of the National Television Systems Committee (NTSC) TV screen, with "4" unit width corresponding to "3" unit height, proportionally, regardless of the actual size of the screen. 16:9: This numerical sequence refers to the aspect ratio of wide screen DTV formats for all HDTV and some SDTV (Standard Definition) video. A "16" unit width corresponds to "9" unit height proportionally, regardless of the actual size of the screen. The widescreen 16:9 numerical sequence provides a viewing experience very similar to that of 35 mm movies.

It would seem from the FCC site that labeling a 4:3 set as an HDTV is treading the thin line of false advertising.

As long as the set is capable of displaying a scanrate of 720p or higher and has a built in ATSC tuner it can be called an HDTV regardless of the aspect ratio of the screen.

4/3 HDTVs were very much more common in the first few years of HD (98-2002 or so) than they are now. Most were either direct view crts or crt based rptvs. These were invariably 1080i native displays, many of which would also display 480p or 540p natively for SD inputs. Some would actually do a "raster squeeze" which compressed the scanned area of the crt(s) to a 16/9 area in the center of the screen and thus use all 1080 available scanlines to produce picture content (black bar areas weren't scanned), but a few (notably Hitachi and some Toshiba) 4/3 sets continued to scan the entire crt and put gray bars at top and bottom as burn-in prevention. The actual picture content on these was only using about 810 of the total 1080 scanlines.

The number of 4/3 HDTVs still "in the wild" is so miniscule that there is no chance of us ever seeing any pan/scan version of a widescreen film in HD DVD or Blu Ray, hence no need to specify that you want the widescreen version of a film in these formats as is unfortunately still the case with so many SD dvd releases.

And I say bravo to Sony for releasing Spiderman 3 in Widescreen ONLY! I didn't know that before, but now that I do know that, it makes me want to go out and buy the movie just to say thanks in some small way. :cool:


Probably had a lot to do with Sam Raimi having a little more clout with them these days. I may be mistaken, but I don't think I've ever seen a "full screen' version of Transformers or Hot Fuzz, either.

Those are not HDTV's and aren't call HDTV's. In order for a TV to be labeled HD it must be able to display the HD resolution, not just receive it. If that were the case you could take a 20 year old 12" B&W and hook a ATCS converter box and you would have a HDTV. So it's not just a broadcast standard.

Th OP clearly states that 1.33 HDTV's are for sale.

Are you saying my Sony 36" XS955 is not an HDTV?

From http://www.dtv.gov/glossary.html

Aspect Ratio: [ snip ] The widescreen 16:9 numerical sequence provides a viewing experience very similar to that of 35 mm movies.


Wow, the gubermint didn't get it right. Big suprise. [ /sarcasm]

35mm is a 4:3 format. The only thing that makes 35mm wide screen is the lens used on the cameras which filmed the movie. Originally, of course, the lens just recorded a standard 4:3 image onto the film. But later they made the wide angle lenses which recorded a distorted image onto the film. And so corresponndingly, the film must be shown on a projector with an anamorphic lens.

Although it makes me wonder... when the first widescreen movie came out, I wonder how many theater managers didn't change the projector lense, be it through ignorance, or because they didn't want to waste all that space on their screens?

No sane person owning a HDTV will want to see the 4:3 aspect with anything they view. No offense intended. :)
__________________
"There is nothing to terrible to see as ignorance in action."

Irony.

Are you saying my Sony 36" XS955 is not an HDTV?

Did you read the post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12954093&postcount=28) I quoted to? :confused: Is that your TV? Looks like it's not so why ask if I was referring to you?

1.78:1 is the new 4:3

I'm having a hard time deciphering just what this thread is about, but the 4:3 != HDTV arguments are just plain wrong.

Every one of you with a 1366x768 display should agree that the resolution and the aspect ratio of your set has little to do with the ability to display HDTV sources. After all, there is no such thing as 1366x768 HDTV, just as there is no such thing as 640x480 HDTV. But there is most definitely such a thing as high resolution (HD) 4:3 source material.

I'm having a hard time deciphering just what this thread is about, but the 4:3 != HDTV arguments are just plain wrong.

Every one of you with a 1366x768 display should agree that the resolution and the aspect ratio of your set has little to do with the ability to display HDTV sources. After all, there is no such thing as 1366x768 HDTV, just as there is no such thing as 640x480 HDTV. But there is most definitely such a thing as high resolution (HD) 4:3 source material.

Agree, from what I understand HD has to do with resolution and not aspect ratio. I have a Sony Vega 36in HDTV that is 4:3. There's no question that it is an HDTV.

Does HBO still P&S its movies on its HD channel? There was an enormous amount of grumbling about it when HBO-HD came alive last century, nearly everything was "modified" to fit your screen so that many 2.35 movies were butchered. I haven't watched it for a long time so it's a real inquiry. Also, are HD and BR 2.35 movies ever cut down to 16:9, to pander to the black bar haters?

Does HBO still P&S its movies on its HD channel? There was an enormous amount of grumbling about it when HBO-HD came alive last century, nearly everything was "modified" to fit your screen so that many 2.35 movies were butchered. I haven't watched it for a long time so it's a real inquiry.
They occasionally put something on in OAR (I think I remember watching Star Wars III and it being in scope), but they are the exception, and most definitely NOT the rule. Generally speaking, everything is in 16:9 foolscreen. Yes, even movies that were originally shot in 1.37:1 (such as Elephant) or 1.66:1 are typically zoomed/cropped.

Which is wierd, because their own series, The Wire, is shot in 1.37:1 and presented in that aspect ratio. They won't butcher their own material, but for everyone else's it's fine.....

Also, are HD and BR 2.35 movies ever cut down to 16:9, to pander to the black bar haters?
Someone mentioned that "The World's Fastest Indian" was opened up from 2.35 to 1.78:1. But that's the only one I'm aware of. However, lots of 1.85:1 films are opened up to 1.78:1 on both formats. I'm not enough of a purist that this little change bothers me, though.

Thanks - does that mean most other HD channels present in OAR? (I plan to get the Dish HD package once I move so it would be something to look forward to)

What I fear is the day when every one has 16/9 sets. When "fullscreen" changes from 4:3 to 16:9. I hope blu-ray never sees this. As I always hated having to search for OAR DVDs as many places like walmart only carry fullscreen. Which they say is based on sales.

But one day if bluray catches on enough and every one has 16/9 sets. Boxs will be labeled as fullscreen or widescreen.

if Blu-ray doesn't catch on This could very well happen to DVD.
Disney already seems to do this to a point with their OAR and "family friendly 1.66:1 which id guess fits within a 16/9 frame due to average overscan. And on a 4:3 set the bars are slightly smaller then a 16:9 bars.

I myself only get OAR.. The benifit of blu-ray and HD-DVD is I can just pick up the movie and don't have to worry wether or not its OAR

What I fear is the day when every one has 16/9 sets. When "fullscreen" changes from 4:3 to 16:9. I hope blu-ray never sees this. As I always hated having to search for OAR DVDs as many places like walmart only carry fullscreen. Which they say is based on sales.

But one day if bluray catches on enough and every one has 16/9 sets. Boxs will be labeled as fullscreen or widescreen.

if Blu-ray doesn't catch on This could very well happen to DVD.
Disney already seems to do this to a point with their OAR and "family friendly 1.66:1 which id guess fits within a 16/9 frame due to average overscan. And on a 4:3 set the bars are slightly smaller then a 16:9 bars.

I myself only get OAR.. The benifit of blu-ray and HD-DVD is I can just pick up the movie and don't have to worry wether or not its OAR

Well, at least about half the time they'll only have to make one version. It just seems that there are a lot more 2.35:1 movies due to "HD-friendly" (*sigh*) genres skewing the totals. Then again, if you're the type who only buys action and sci-fi in HD, you'd have to seek out the right version more often.

BTW, I don't think that "family friendly" widescreen is anything but a label. They put that on material that happens to be 1.66:1 IIRC. It doesn't mean it's been modified. Now, it's possible that home video was in mind when the decision was made to use 1.66:1 in the first place, but that doesn't really matter. Are there any examples where that label was used and the ratio was changed?

Are there any examples where that label was used and the ratio was changed?That's the crux of my OP. Has a single high def transfer changed the original theatric aspect ratio?

I just can´t believe that Pan & Scan versions of new movies are still avalible on DVD in the US. Is there so many 4:3 TV:s left over there and people "stupid" enough to watch butchered picture? :eek:

Pan & Scan versions of movies died even on VHS 10 years ago over here.

There is a lot of confusion here. There is no anamorphic mode for HD. it is 16x9 period. If you are seeing 4x3, it is a 16x9 frame with pillarbox bars encoded in, just like 2.35 and 2.40 are 16x9 with letterbox bars encoded in.

I'm from Europe and like Stevie from Sweden mentiones this problem has not been an issue since VHS over here and even on VHS we were able to choose letterboxed widescreen for the biggest titles and at the end of VHS many titles were even released widescreen only. When DVD hit widescreen only was the only option for anyone wanting to have any respectability in the DVD business.

The only time I notice Pan and Scan issues is when ordering DVDs from the US or Canada. Once in the beginning of DVD I imported a box of three relatively new titles and wondered a bit why they were so cheap. When they arrived in the mail I sure found out why. They were cheap because no one wanted them. They were all cropped from their aspect ratio of 2.35-1 to fit 'my' screen. Well at the time I had already bought a 16/9 SD set and they definitely did not fit my screen and the place I bought them from didn't advertize the fact that the titles were all cropped. This all ended with me sending the set back and getting my money back.

All DVDs are released OAR only over here, well except for a few selected 'cheap' titles lending their transfers from old Laserdisc or VHS masters and on a few second rate cable stations broadcast of movies. These 'cheap' DVD releases are only available in 4:3 fullscreen.

I was hoping the advent of HD would eliminate PandS all together but I have noticed some of the early HD satellite channels have made it a problem once again with 1.78-1 being the new 'fullscreen'.

Here's to hoping this all ends soon.

I just want to see the film maker's original vision regardless of ration.
I want it un-distored and un-cropped. I dont want to "zoom in" on pain in the butt non-anamorphic widescreen, and I dont care about "black bars" on the sides or top!
I think most film buffs feel the same way.

I just can´t believe that Pan & Scan versions of new movies are still avalible on DVD in the US. Is there so many 4:3 TV:s left over there and people "stupid" enough to watch butchered picture? :eek:


Television in North America had no interim SD digital period as it did in Europe. Before HD became popular there were few 16:9 sets available and even today the overwhelming majority of non-HD programming (like news and reality) is 4:3.

That's the crux of my OP. Has a single high def transfer changed the original theatric aspect ratio?

Yes. The World's Fastest Indian was released as 2.35:1 theatrically, and is on BD & HD as 16:9. I believe it was stretched vertically, or "opened up" as they say.

If the OAR is 4:3, that's what I want to see. I guess I should be committed to the mental ward. :(

Joe Bloggs, your suggestion wouldn't work because some (perhaps many) displays would be unable to squeeze the stretched image back into the proper shape. Some displays don't allow any manipulation of an HD image, whether by zooming or stretching.

Surely you realize that a WS (16:9) display will also properly display a 4:3 image, just with sidebars. But viewing a WS movie on a 4:3 display will require letterboxing (or severe cropping), and that applies to about 99% of what you will be viewing. THAT setup would be insane, IMO (no offense). :):)

Yes. The World's Fastest Indian was released as 2.35:1 theatrically, and is on BD & HD as 16:9. I believe it was stretched vertically, or "opened up" as they say.

Not stretched, it was just transferred without a matte in place, and re-framed to adjust for headroom.

No sane person owning a HDTV will want to see the 4:3 aspect with anything they view. No offense intended. :)


As Bugs Bunny would say in the Looney Tunes that I watch on my HDTV in the proper 4:3: "What a maroon."

What I fear is the day when every one has 16/9 sets. When "fullscreen" changes from 4:3 to 16:9. ... I myself only get OAR.. The benifit of blu-ray and HD-DVD is I can just pick up the movie and don't have to worry wether or not its OARWhile I absolutely loathe non-OAR, I don't think HD will lay to rest the key objection from the die-hard "full screen" faction: that, with a 2.35:1 'widescreen' presentation, only 818 horizontal lines of a 1080 display, and 545 of a 720, are being utilized... effectively "wasting" almost 25% of the available vertical resolution of their expensive 16:9 HDTV screen.

That said, there is a very real technical side-benefit from scope, when you consider that this is 25% of the available 16:9 image area that doesn't need to be encoded on-disc. The upshot of this is that a lower compression ratio can now be used (resulting in better picture quality), or a longer run time can be achieved, or both.

I'd dare say that King Kong would not be a Tier-0 HD DVD had PJ chosen to shoot it at 1.85:1.

Surely you realize that a WS (16:9) display will also properly display a 4:3 image, just with sidebars. But viewing a WS movie on a 4:3 display will require letterboxing (or severe cropping), and that applies to about 99% of what you will be viewing. THAT setup would be insane, IMO (no offense). :):)

He was suggesting that they should encode a 4:3 image as a stretched 16:9 image, in order to use all of the pixels. I was saying that some displays would not be able to correct for this.