16:9 Widescreen Info (1 Viewer)

[Thomas&CJ]

Hello considering purchasing a widescreen tv but have become confused with the dizzying array of aspect ratios. If a DVD movie states on the box that it has been enhanced for 16:9 Tv's does that mean that here won't be any black bars appearing at the top to and bottom of the screen. And when something is shot in 1:85:1 which is the aspect ratio often given for widescreen movies does this eliminate the bars? Asked these question when I was looking at Best Buy but they said they didn't know what I was talking about, go figure? just want to make make sure I understand what to expect before I drop almost 2 grand on a Tv, (never thought I would) but.....well maybe Thanks Guys!!

Tom

 

[Jeff Gatie]

This is covered in the primer. Long story short, films are many different aspect ratios, TV's are not. Just as some films need black bars on a 4:3 tv, others need bars (side or top/bottom) on 16:9 TV's. See the Primer for more details.

 

[Jack Briggs]

And these are not "black bars," but simply unused space; nothing has been inserted -- no black bars, nothing.

This topic comes up an astonishing amount of times. Films come in several aspect ratios (some of them almost three times as wide as they are tall) while TVs come in only two. So think about it for a moment. How can either of the two TV aspect ratios accommodate perfectly all the many film aspect ratios? They can't.

Read the FAQ/Primer, please.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Here's the chapter in the Beginner's Primer and FAQ that specifically addresses your question:

If I buy a 16x9 wide screen TV, will I get rid of the black bars forever?

You may also want to look at the chapter on Anamorphic DVD, which also deals with the separate question of aspect ratios.

M.

 

[Thomas&CJ]

Thanks for the help guys I read the info you suggested. But back to my original question if the CD says that it's "enhanced for widescreen tv's" does that mean that it's in the 1:78:1 aspect ratio or if not what exactly does it mean "enhanced for widescreen" Thanks I'm getting there.

Tom j.

 

[MichaelOD]

it bascially means that the disc; when played on a widescreen television, will auto detect the correct aspect ratio to fill or not fill your screen. ex. a 1.78:1 anamorphically encoded disc will fill the entire screen on a widescreen tv. a 2.35:1 screen will have the respective "bars", but the video display is in its correct ratio. as well, an anamorphically encoded disc allows for a progressive signal [480p] on a progressive tv [screen resolution].

all of this of course, is how the terms: "anamorphic" or "enhanced for 16x9" relates to you, or the general consumer.

hopefully this doesn't confuse you more...if it does, i apologize; read the primer

 

[ChrisWiggles]

It's the way the film is shot. Anamorphic lenses are use, and baiscally squish a wide-screen shot into a 4:3 film frame. This is the way it looks on the disc too. Everything is squished and skinny. This can be done in various aspect ratios (i beleive). IT's a way of not losing film resolution because otherwise you'd have to mask the top and bottom of the 4:3 film frame, and lose all that film grain resolution outright. By sqeezing the widescreen frame into the entire 4:3 film frame, you don't lose that resolution. this is what they are talking about with anamorphic DVDs. It is separate from the aspect ratio of the film. You can have widescreen films in a variety of aspect ratios, shot anamorphically, or matted.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's the way the film is shot. Anamorphic lenses are use, and baiscally squish a wide-screen shot into a 4:3 film frame.

Absolutely wrong. The manner in which the film was shot has nothing whatsoever to do with 16:9 enhancement on DVD.

M.

* No doubt some nitpicker will feel compelled to observe that "anamorphic" enhancement has something to do with aspect ratio, because you don't apply it to material unless it's wider than 4:3. Well, guess what? You can, and some discs do, with black bars added at the side of the 4:3 image. The benefits of doing so are dubious, however, and it's very much the exception rather than the rule.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Really? I'd just assumed that they carried over the same way from film to DVD... Curious. So they take matted films then put them on DVD anamorphically? I guess I'm not really seeing the benefit in that. Confused... :frowning:

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Wait no, I'm not confused. .

So basically the film resolution of the active video, even with the lost resolution from matting is still far and above what DVD can provide, so preventing the loss of further resolution/scan lines to black bars AGAIN is preferred.

Brain fart on my part. Hah. That rhymes. Oh man.

 

[Thomas&CJ]

To Chris Wiggles,

Hi Chris, well you answered it best for me at least. Most of the DVD (sorry for saying CD's) that have the enhansed for widescreen tv's on them appear to have been shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio that would appear to be pretty close to the perfect fit you mentioned 1.78:1 how much of the screen do you lose with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Thanks again getting there. Going back to the primer. Thanks Guys

Tom

 

[Jack Briggs]

All a so-called "anamorphic" (extremely misleading word) disc is is one that has been encoded to display a native image in the 16:9 format. No squeezing involved. One disc outputs a 4:3 image, the other a 16:9 image -- and both have the same amount of resolution.

Why encode at 16:9? Among other things, it fits the shape of the new DTV standard.

The confusion seems to arise among those dealing with 4:3-native monitors and displays. A 16:9-encoded ("anamorphic") disc's image must be "downconverted" in the DVD player for proper scaling and display on a 4:3 monitor. In doing so, the player must use every third line of resolution in order to create the letterboxing "black bars" (I hate that term). This can be obviated by using a 4:3 monitor that has a true 16:9 mode (i.e., one that can collapse the scanning-line raster into a 16:9 window). Then the player can output at true 16:9 and display a 16:9-encoded disc at its full resolution.

Therefore, whatever "squeezing" that's going on occurs in the display, not on the disc.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Most of the DVD (sorry for saying CD's) that have the enhansed for widescreen tv's on them appear to have been shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio that would appear to be pretty close to the perfect fit you mentioned 1.78:1

How many more times can I say this? Listen closely:

Enhancement for widescreen TVs has nothing -- nix, nada, bupkis -- to do with the aspect ratio.

I have dozens, probably hundreds, of enhanced-for-widescreen DVDs of films wider than 1.85:1.

One more thing, and there's really no way to say this nicely: Chris's explanations may make the most sense to you, but that doesn't make them right.

M.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

My previous explanation was incorrect, indeed.

My failed connections was assuming that anamorphic filming was just carried over to DVD.

So anamorphic or not on DVD is a separate issue from whether the film was filmed that way. Right?

Got it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Correct, Chris. Reread Michael's (and my) posts above for as clear an explanation as I can imagine. Also, again, check out the FAQ/Primer. All the information is there.

 

[Ted Lee]

This can be obviated by using a 4:3 monitor that has a true 16:9 mode (i.e., one that can collapse the scanning-line raster into a 16:9 window).

is that commonly called the "anamorphic squeeze"??? does this work by "ignoring" the bars at the top and bottom (when scanning the picture) and "stuffing" more resolution into the picture area?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Ah, The Ted!

Yes, that's the so-called "squeeze trick." But it doesn't "stuff more resolution" into the picture area; the 480 lines of visible resolution are simply squeezed into a 16:9 window.

Now, with 32-inch and smaller sets, the effect of squeezing those 480 lines closer together results, when playing a well-authored, 16:9-encoded DVD, in a smoother-looking picture that has the appearance of greater resolution. But it still has the same resolution.

 

[Ted Lee]

Ah, The Ted!

yes, i have been known to wander outside of testy on occasion...

thx for the info jack!