netflix pc-hd silverlight streaming - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 Old 12-26-2012, 07:51 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So I have a 1080p 2nd monitor... when I run netflix in full-screen HD mode on this monitor, for the last recent title, I still had video-bars on the top and bottom of the screen. This also happens when I run a 16:9 DVD. However I will say that the picture was very clear and clean. Much clearer than a DVD. So it was definitely a higher resolution than 480p. Am I getting 720p? I'm not sure (If I was... wouldn't that have the appropriate hd ratio, as to not have the bars on a wide screen?)

I've read a lot about how Netflix is not paying any attention to silverlight pc subscribers. However, is there any standard PC way of getting around this, without buying a roku? I would like to achieve 1080p. Even the cable company broadcasts many channels in 1080i.

Note: I tried using WMC (that has an option for netflix, but the initial screen says you need an 'unlimited membership' to continue. So I backed out. I do not have an unlimited membership.

-Robert
robertkjr3d is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 Old 12-27-2012, 03:08 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think my problem comes from my limited understanding of this: http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/a/aahdtvfaqs6a.htm

I thought all should look fine in 16x9, but this is saying that some movies are even wider. I watched 'Red Dog', and IMDB reports it has the Aspect Ratio: 2.35 : 1

Edit: So I just have to learn to live with the bars (or pretend I don't see them), until the day I get an even wider screen. I've also read how HBO/TBS and other channels will reformat many movies to 'fit my screen', so that they appear full-screen. Obviously your going to lose something in that process. I can already recall watching 'A big year' on HBO (also 2:35), and some of the faces looked a little bigger than I thought they should. Like if I were the camera man, I wouldn't have gone-in for that close of a 'close-up'...
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #3 of 18 Old 12-27-2012, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bonscott87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilds of West Michigan
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22

Well, almost *all* movies are wider then 16x9 so they will always have black bars top and bottom. There are a few exceptions.   Pretty much only TV shows are 16x9.


Scott
bonscott87 is offline  
post #4 of 18 Old 12-27-2012, 12:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
This is completely unrelated to Netflix. Because not all movies and TV shows have the same height-to-width ratio, there will always be black bars on some video, no matter the shape of your screen.

Some TVs make it easy to zoom in and eliminate the black bars. But this is at the expense of chopping off the sides of the picture. Us snobs on AVS forums would never stoop to such a level. wink.gif We like to see the entire movie, as the director intended.
dfiler is offline  
post #5 of 18 Old 12-27-2012, 02:05 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah I'm just figuring this stuff out... However I also didn't know what the my cable companies did by cutting the edges off, or worse (mutating the picture)...and that's how they get these movies to 'fit the screen'. It would seem after all this time, that the TV/PC technology would have caught up to the size of the standard filming ratio. I guess... a few more years.
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #6 of 18 Old 12-27-2012, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
reddice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Any director that films a movie wider than 16:9 is a idiot. If movie theater and TV screens are 16:9 then why would you want it wider with black bars.

Earthlink Standard powered by Time Warner Cable Brooklyn.
ASUS RT-N66W Router 374.43 (Merlin Build) using OpenDNS.
Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV 3, Sony PS3 Slim, Sony PS4 all Wired.
Cats are the best pets.
reddice is online now  
post #7 of 18 Old 12-27-2012, 02:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andyross63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 2,701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddice View Post

Any director that films a movie wider than 16:9 is a idiot. If movie theater and TV screens are 16:9 then why would you want it wider with black bars.
Movie theaters are typically 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, which is what most movies are made for (HDTV is 16:9 = 1.78:1). In fact, in a theater, you can often see the top/bottom of the screen shrink if the main movie is 2.35:1 after they finish the pre-movie ads and switch to the main previews and movie.

Need help with your Motorola DVR? Check the Wikibook:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
andyross63 is offline  
post #8 of 18 Old 12-28-2012, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddice View Post

Any director that films a movie wider than 16:9 is a idiot. If movie theater and TV screens are 16:9 then why would you want it wider with black bars.
2:35:1 one or "scope" (as it is loosely called from CinemaScope) is a nice aspect ratio for movies. It is particularly a nice canvas for action. Widescreen TVs were difficult to even as 16:9 (1:77:1) because of the way that CRTs work. LCD's freed that up. Cropped "scope" looks claustrophobic and often bad to anyone who knows cinematography.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #9 of 18 Old 02-20-2013, 05:57 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was looking though this old thread. While I don't appreciate his tone. 'Reddice' may have some point in this day and age of young people watching movies on their little hand-held devices, and thinking thats the way it should be done. (yes I poke fun at them with their headphones...watching movies) Yes filmmakers did not intend to make movies for 16:9 tv screens or hand-held devices... But that's prolly where the money is going to be now. They prolly can't expect to make as much at the theater ticket as they used to, if at all. Speaking for myself, the only movies I see in the theater are 3D ones, and then only ones my wife and I deem worth seeing. All the rest we will just wait till they come to Netflix.
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #10 of 18 Old 02-20-2013, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
larrimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjr3d View Post

I was looking though this old thread. While I don't appreciate his tone. 'Reddice' may have some point in this day and age of young people watching movies on their little hand-held devices, and thinking thats the way it should be done. (yes I poke fun at them with their headphones...watching movies) Yes filmmakers did not intend to make movies for 16:9 tv screens or hand-held devices... But that's prolly where the money is going to be now. They prolly can't expect to make as much at the theater ticket as they used to, if at all. Speaking for myself, the only movies I see in the theater are 3D ones, and then only ones my wife and I deem worth seeing. All the rest we will just wait till they come to Netflix.

The realities are what they are. This is the same thing that happened back in the CRT days and VHS and we're seeing it again. On smaller sets (and tablets and phones and...) black bars make the picture unwatchable, so we'll see more cropping. I agree that 2:35 is where it is at for movies, and my next projector setup will defitntely be just that. However, for the masses that view material on small screens, I would be OK with cropping if the OAR is still available to me.


Here is an idea: Make the Blu Rays/HD copies OAR and crop the DVD (SD) to 16:9- that will drive all videophiles to Blu Ray and will allow SD copies to be viewed without bars on smaller sets, where the resolution makes little difference anyway. Might even stretch the life of DVDs out even longer.

Studios: Are you listening?

Living the HT Dream...now in 4D.
larrimore is offline  
post #11 of 18 Old 02-20-2013, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What I'm getting at is: I'm agreeing with 'Reddice' in that. It doesn't make sense for new movies to be made in those ultra-wide aspect ratios. I understand older movies were made in that format, and yes they are on the BD, and even on the DVD in that format. But for newer movies: 'Lets use all the 1920x1080 pixels... that are free for the taking' No sense leaving any of them black. Even when you project the picture with a projector, all your doing is streaching a less 'resoluted' (is that a word?) picture. - I believe even Ultra-HD is still 16x9.
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #12 of 18 Old 02-21-2013, 07:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
larrimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjr3d View Post

What I'm getting at is: I'm agreeing with 'Reddice' in that. It doesn't make sense for new movies to be made in those ultra-wide aspect ratios. I understand older movies were made in that format, and yes they are on the BD, and even on the DVD in that format. But for newer movies: 'Lets use all the 1920x1080 pixels... that are free for the taking' No sense leaving any of them black. Even when you project the picture with a projector, all your doing is streaching a less 'resoluted' (is that a word?) picture. - I believe even Ultra-HD is still 16x9.


Actually, I am disagreeing with that part. Movies in the theater are "made" for 2.35:1 and this mimics how we see much better than 16:9 (which is 1.78:1) in that we see more side to side than up and down. I also read earlier that someone said that theaters move coverings up from the bottom and down from the top to display 2.35, thereby shrinking the screen. In almost every normal size theater in the country, this is incorrect. The screen is actually scope sized in width and instead, curtains come from the sides to shrink the screen to 1.85:1 (close to 16:9).

For those with large TVs like you and me, the bars shouldn't be annoying and, if you really want to enjoy the film as it was intended, should be presented in scope format at home, which can be done with a projector. Also, the scope aspect could easily be presented in an anamorphic mode just as DVDs are with the scope being squeezed into the 16X9 frame on a blu ray, eliminating your argument on loss of resolution.

However, I am saying that SD sources could, and maybe should be cropped or "panned and scanned" if you prefer, to fill up smaller 16:9 screens which do not benefit as much from the higher HD resolutions. A trade off that I think benefits everyone involved. In fact, from time to time, I will reencode a video from my Tivos for use on my tablet on a trip and I take the extra time to crop it so it fits the tablet. I have no issues with it as I still have the OAR (original aspect ratio) version at home.

Living the HT Dream...now in 4D.
larrimore is offline  
post #13 of 18 Old 02-21-2013, 09:02 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are you saying that your projector is better than 1080p (1920x1080 pixels?) - So what is actually taking place when you watch a movie that is 2:35:1 - This is going to happen - A 1920x 800) is projected on a larger canvass. This has nothing to do with the eye. All I'm saying is that it is still a ghastly waste of the rest of the usable pixels in the modern age of technology.


1st Edit: I admit I had to google how many pixels it was for a 2:35 to 1 ratio.
Edit: This is what I meant by un-'resoluted' - Your learning to live with the lower resolution of 800 pixels instead of 1080.
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #14 of 18 Old 02-21-2013, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjr3d View Post

Are you saying that your projector is better than 1080p (1920x1080 pixels?)

Many video projectors will scale a 2.35 image in the vertical plane to 1080, there are several external video processors that will do the same. Then you place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens to stretch the 1.78 image to 2.35 the horizontal plane. Yes, the image is still 800 pixels in the vertical but you are using all of the display pixels.

There are efforts underway to get the studios to release true anamorphic Blu-ray titles. If they do then you would not need a scaler, only an anamorphic lens. Now we would have a true 2.35 with a full 1080 in the vertical plane. 2.35 video projector screens are readily available from most of the leading suppliers.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #15 of 18 Old 02-21-2013, 11:07 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

Many video projectors will scale a 2.35 image in the vertical plane to 1080, there are several external video processors that will do the same. Then you place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens to stretch the 1.78 image to 2.35 the horizontal plane. Yes, the image is still 800 pixels in the vertical but you are using all of the display pixels.

There are efforts underway to get the studios to release true anamorphic Blu-ray titles. If they do then you would not need a scaler, only an anamorphic lens. Now we would have a true 2.35 with a full 1080 in the vertical plane. 2.35 video projector screens are readily available from most of the leading suppliers.

re-Edit: I understand. The lens then puts it back into the shape its supposed to be.
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #16 of 18 Old 02-22-2013, 06:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
larrimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

....There are efforts underway to get the studios to release true anamorphic Blu-ray titles. If they do then you would not need a scaler, only an anamorphic lens. Now we would have a true 2.35 with a full 1080 in the vertical plane. 2.35 video projector screens are readily available from most of the leading suppliers.

This is what I was alluding to in my earlier post. This is much needed IMHO.

Living the HT Dream...now in 4D.
larrimore is offline  
post #17 of 18 Old 02-22-2013, 06:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
larrimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjr3d View Post

Are you saying that your projector is better than 1080p (1920x1080 pixels?) - So what is actually taking place when you watch a movie that is 2:35:1 - This is going to happen - A 1920x 800) is projected on a larger canvass. This has nothing to do with the eye. All I'm saying is that it is still a ghastly waste of the rest of the usable pixels in the modern age of technology.


1st Edit: I admit I had to google how many pixels it was for a 2:35 to 1 ratio.
Edit: This is what I meant by un-'resoluted' - Your learning to live with the lower resolution of 800 pixels instead of 1080.


No, what I was saying is that 2:35 is the perfect aspect for movies and has been proven to be a more engaging format in several studies. I don't want to handicap movies in the theater (or at home for those wishing to have the best experience) because TVs are 16:9 ratio.

Living the HT Dream...now in 4D.
larrimore is offline  
post #18 of 18 Old 05-06-2013, 05:19 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Let-me resurrect this again... btw. It's been a while now since I've seen a new BD at home wider than 16x9. Since my last post. To quote an earlier poster: The studios listened very fast. There are still a few movies made with the big format, when doing a quick scan on imdb of some newer titles, but a lot less now it seems.
robertkjr3d is offline  
Reply Video Download Services & Hardware

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off