Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

Why aren't widescreen TVs normally 2.35:1

6045 Views 13 Replies 11 Participants Last post by HsuDreamTheater, Apr 11, 2015

HsuDreamTheater

Discussion Starter · Apr 8, 2015

Sorry if this is a novice question, but simple as it is no friends have been able to answer. Since we made the switch to widescreen mostly flat panels in the past 10 years, its seems for every 1.85:1 movie (that fills entire screen) there are twenty 2.35:1. Now I'm not complaining, just curious....figured since all TVs made the move to go widescreen to get rid of black bars that they'd want picture full in, if so why aren't the TV manufacturer standards setting them up for 2.35 to be (is "native" the right term)?

Save

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

westa6969

· #2 · Apr 8, 2015 (Edited)

HsuDreamTheater said:
Sorry if this is a novice question, but simple as it is no friends have been able to answer. Since we made the switch to widescreen mostly flat panels in the past 10 years, its seems for every 1.85:1 movie (that fills entire screen) there are twenty 2.35:1. Now I'm not complaining, just curious....figured since all TVs made the move to go widescreen to get rid of black bars that they'd want picture full in, if so why aren't the TV manufacturer standards setting them up for 2.35 to be (is "native" the right term)?

Here's a link to numerous technical articles that can present the challenges of what you suggest. Choose your poison but it's not as simple as one may think.

http://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=27&id=9366&Itemid=81

VIDEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video

FILM FORMATS/Aspect Ratio's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

A summary review of this material demo's the challenge as far beyond any close to simple especially when standards are so diverse globally and the TV market is limited by those regional differences also. There were discussions about ten years ago by Sony that they were developing an SXRD that could adjust the pixels displayed to adjust to different formats but then they killed off SXRD tech shortly after.

Reading these and other spec's that impact such a capability may provide 21:9 wide screen but may adversely impact other formats and sometimes it's been done but often on a panel that can cost around a $100K+. I believe Samsung and others has demo'd them at CES.

See less See more

Save

RandyWalters

· #3 · Apr 8, 2015

My take on it is that sometime more than a dozen years ago the world adopted the 1.78:1 aspect ratio as the new standard for HD and PAL television broadcasting and the new TV screen format. I don't know who or what agency made this decision, but the whole planet was on board with it.

Movies on the other hand have been mostly 2.35:1 for several decades (even before TVs were invented) and are intended for movie theaters first and foremost. Playing these movies on a TV set is not their focus, and it's always been acceptable for the TV to have black bars on the top and bottom just as it's acceptable to have them on the sides on older 4:3 TV content.

Save

rlindo

· #4 · Apr 8, 2015

A lot of content is in a 1.85:1 or less format: games, tv, pre 50s movies in the Academy ratio and then non-anamorphic ratios of many films from the 50s and 60s. Given all that, a 1.78:1 ratio screen is a happy medium for most people who may do more other stuff than just watching more modern era films. Stuff shot in 1.33:1 would be small on your average 2.35:1 ratio tv and people would flip out.

I'd also gather the current ratio is easier to fit into rooms for most.

Save

Lils Roro

· #5 · Apr 8, 2015

I've always been amused by people that hate the black bars, and especially my wife. They much prefer zoom or an out of whack aspect ratio even if it means cutting off the left, right, and bottom of the picture.

Save

aerodynamics

· #6 · Apr 8, 2015

I wish 21:9 TVs were more prevalent. The side bars wouldn't bother me when watching 1.85 content. But with critcal viewing of 2.35 stuff, it would be nice to get rid of the letterbox. There's always projection, I guess. A couple years ago Vizio actually released a Cinemawide series but I never actually saw them in stores and from what I've read, it wasn't the greatest performer.

Save

andy sullivan

· #7 · Apr 8, 2015

Most people watch broadcast material from the multitude of TV studios. All broadcast material is based on the 16:9 format. This is the reason the vast majority of people buy TV's for. Watching broadcast TV. The main dominating feature revolves around sports. This past weekend I rented Interstellar and Hobbit the Five Armies. Both PPV movies on Dish were presented in 16:9. The problem is with the theatrical releases. Most big budget movies are shot in 2:35 and this is strictly the choice of the director. They want a wider scope which lends itself well to the theater experience. Rent or buy the blu-ray of Interstellar and or Hobbit and you will see it as seen in theaters. Rent it on PPV and you will see it fill your screen. Then decide which you prefer.

Save

jogiba

· #8 · Apr 8, 2015

All HDTV broadcast content and many movies like Avatar are in 1.78 so I don't think 2.35 will ever be a standard on TVs.

Save

Viper187

· #9 · Apr 9, 2015

Lils Roro said:
I've always been amused by people that hate the black bars, and especially my wife. They much prefer zoom or an out of whack aspect ratio even if it means cutting off the left, right, and bottom of the picture.

What I never understood is why there aren't more complaints about movies that are cropped top and bottom (or is it all sides?) to make some 2.35 transfers (Super35). I remember seeing screen caps of Terminator 2 fulls creen DVD vs widescreen DVD with more to see on top and bottom in the 1.33 version. I'd like to know when we're going to start getting access to the complete frames of some of these films. We can do 4K resolution now. How bout we open these things up to see everything? I absolutely despise that Super35 filming method in some movies. Look at Collateral. Every scene in the taxi chops off Tom Cruise's head. You see it in many 2.35 films. Like we needed to see that extra few pixels at the sides where nothing is going on, but we don't need to see the actor's whole head. Annoying.

Save

Frank714

· #10 · Apr 9, 2015

Viper187 said:
What I never understood is why there aren't more complaints about movies that are cropped top and bottom (or is it all sides?) to make some 2.35 transfers (Super35). I remember seeing screen caps of Terminator 2 fulls creen DVD vs widescreen DVD with more to see on top and bottom in the 1.33 version. I'd like to know when we're going to start getting access to the complete frames of some of these films. We can do 4K resolution now. How bout we open these things up to see everything? I absolutely despise that Super35 filming method in some movies. Look at Collateral. Every scene in the taxi chops off Tom Cruise's head. You see it in many 2.35 films. Like we needed to see that extra few pixels at the sides where nothing is going on, but we don't need to see the actor's whole head. Annoying.

Exactly the reason why I still haven't gotten rid of my 4:3 "full screen" Terminator 2 LaserDisc, yet.

Looks to me like this rule has been almost petrified in stone: Films shot in Super35 will be broadcast in "full screen" 1.78:1 (without mattes covering information at the top and bottom) to appease general TV audiences, yet will be only released in the original theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 on discs to appease collectors and purists.

I adore James Cameron for being rather laid back concerning the issue (Titanic in 3D is full screen 1.78:1) and I would definitely appreciate a 1.78:1 full screen release of the Matrix Trilogy (unfortunately the original "full screen" broadcast was screwed up because it just zoomed into the 2.35:1 frame

)

Save

sonyfanboy

· #11 · Apr 9, 2015

Viper187 said:
What I never understood is why there aren't more complaints about movies that are cropped top and bottom (or is it all sides?) to make some 2.35 transfers (Super35). I remember seeing screen caps of Terminator 2 fulls creen DVD vs widescreen DVD with more to see on top and bottom in the 1.33 version. I'd like to know when we're going to start getting access to the complete frames of some of these films. We can do 4K resolution now. How bout we open these things up to see everything? I absolutely despise that Super35 filming method in some movies. Look at Collateral. Every scene in the taxi chops off Tom Cruise's head. You see it in many 2.35 films. Like we needed to see that extra few pixels at the sides where nothing is going on, but we don't need to see the actor's whole head. Annoying.

Whether you like it or not, Widescreen 2.35 AR always capture less image from a lens because a lens is circular, not a rectangle. A Super 35 film captures a bigger viewing angle than anamorphic 2.35. When a Super35 image is cropped to 2.35, viewing angles are pretty much the same as anamorphic.

The subjects head not being on the entire frame is a compositional decision and not a technical error.
http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/7816_1_1080p.jpg

Save

Frank714

· #12 · Apr 10, 2015

sonyfanboy said:
The subjects head not being on the entire frame is a compositional decision and not a technical error.
http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/7816_1_1080p.jpg

However, if the corresponding film was shot in Super35 and broadcasted in 1.78:1 then that was also a compositional decision of the director, so who is to say which one is right and which one is not?

Right now I'm only aware of one film where the director insisted upon the 2.39:1 aspect ration after he had learned the original DVD featured a 1.78:1 full screen aspect ratio - Silverado.

Save

Viper187

· #13 · Apr 10, 2015 (Edited)

Frank714 said:
However, if the corresponding film was shot in Super35 and broadcasted in 1.78:1 then that was also a compositional decision of the director, so who is to say which one is right and which one is not?

Right now I'm only aware of one film where the director insisted upon the 2.39:1 aspect ration after he had learned the original DVD featured a 1.78:1 full screen aspect ratio - Silverado.

Collateral was 2.35 even on VHS, so that might be a 2nd case. I really could care less what a director wants. I'll forever hate Richard Donner for demanding Warner not release the extended cuts of the Lethal Weapon movies on BD. I still want to know who the hell is holding up the BD release of Abyss. That should've gotten a 25th anniversary BD last year. Is it Fox or goddamn Cameron? There was an HD transfer of the damn thing being broadcast ages ago but still no BD. Of course, that was only the theatrical cut. If they end up screwing us on the SE cut after all this time it'll really suck.

Save

HsuDreamTheater

Discussion Starter · #14 · Apr 11, 2015

All good informative post people thank you. The black lines don't bother me, I just figured the masses are bothered by them hence most TV manufacturers would want to cater to the MAJORITY of modern blu rays, and make the vertical line exception for small amount of 1.85s... thanks for the responses guys

Save

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month