Why the movie aren't in 16/9 (1.78:1)

Hi,

I own a 52" Samsung Série 6 HDTV. I would like to know what you think about this. I think a wider ratio than 16/9 is a waste of screen and just doesn't do the job. Last week, me and one of my friends watch "Runaway (1984)", a movie with Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons, on Ztélé HD (a channel in HD we have up here in Quebec). We were stupefied that an old movie like this rendered in 16/9 HD was better looking on the HDTV then any blu-ray ever rented. Example, just after "Runaway" we watch "The day the earth stood still" in blu-ray, I can't even tell you how disappointing the 2.35:1 aspect ratio was after a full wide screen movie.

It seems to be easier "to get in" a wide screen movie. I never meet someone thinking otherwise.

So what do you think? Why on a blu-ray disc, at least, they don't put a 16/9 aspect ratio option (if there is some space left, scrap the commentary of the make up girl that should make space). For fifty years they have been shooting in 4/3, now HD channel are in 16/9, so why the 2.35:1.

Greetings,

Fred

Because movies are made for the theater first and some directors want the full 2.35 experience with their films.  The Blu-Ray version shouldn't be altered just because we have 1.78 sets.  On the other hand, you might be happy to watch 2.35 films on a cable HD channel.  They are very often cropped to fit the screen.

Move to HT Software.


You've just met thousands of people who think otherwise.

Here's an interesting fact of which you are apparently not aware: Runaway was filmed at 2.35:1. The version you thought looked so good on HD broadcast was cropped at the sides. It wasn't an accurate presentation of the film. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but you can keep it.

Didn't we all know this day would come?  Preference for 4:3 fullscreen is now appearing as preference for "16:9 fullscreen".

(The flip-side argument: some have asked why can't Blu-ray be 2.35:1 anamorphic, since some have constant height projector/screen arrangements...)

FRLEV120 should look into purchasing a Phillips Cinema 21:9 HDTV.  That way you can watch a 2.35:1 feature and have it fill the entire screen.  The TV functions the way that movie screens used to before the economic screens in multiplexes took over (which function like the current 16:9 screens).

That or he doesn't know about original artistic intent and not all films have the same aspect ratio. I too knew this would happen.
FRLEV, look up something on the internet called OAR. Original Aspect Ratio. ALL films should be presented in their OAR, never cropped to 16:9 at all, UNLESS the film was intended to be shown that way.
RESEARCH!

Sometimes I despair.

You do realise that 2.35:1 films have been around for over 50 years, and that 16:9 televisions are a much more recent compromise to be able to show all manner of ratios?

You're in a forum by and for people who think otherwise, and who think that seeing what the original filmmakers intended to be seen is more important than whether a TV has black bars.

You can probably do that with your TV.  I'm sure it has a ZOOM function that will fill your screen and get rid of the black bars.  However, you will not get to see the movie as the filmmaker intended.  In effect, you would be doing the same thing that happened on some DVDs and almost all VHS copies--missing a lot of the picture.

Do you also stretch 4:3 material to fill your screen?  Do you mind the distorted image such a stretch creates?  If not, then you should feel free to use the ZOOM function to fill your screen with wide ratio films. 

In the end, though, you will not find much support for your proposal here, as this site caters overwhelmingly to people who prefer (and have gone out of their way to acquire when they were rare) copies that have the original ratio--no matter how wide or narrow.  You are free to not share that preference, but you should not expect sympathy for yours here.  It would be like going to a discussion board dedicated to the Maple Leafs and expecting a sympathetic hearing for your enthusiasm for the Canadiens.  They may well enjoy talking hockey with you, but they won't share your preference.  Nothing personal about it.

Whenever I flip to a HD channel showing a 2.35:1 film cropped to 1.78:1, I cringe. Just last weekend, Universal HD was showing Goldeneye in that manner. It looked horrible, as you would expect. I couldn't change the channel to something else fast enough.

The introduction of widescreen TVs hasn't eliminated the horror that is pan & scan -- it's just altered its appearance.

Yes, they call this "16:9FH" which means 16:9 Full Height. It is the pan and scan of the HDTV generation.

No matter what video format is released it seems that there are some idiots that will screw it up.

Nice to have your opinion. I knew the movie were film in 2.35:1 ratio since long. I understand that for you my point of view is weird. But, if you don't know what you're missing it doesn't hurt.
 

I think a lot of people out there, would like to have full screen 16/9.
 

I also think that the Hollywood producer are powerful people. Why don't they put pressure on TV maker or the organisation that sets the standard for TV to make 2:35 TV. I know the TV broadcaster are also powerful. But for the broadcasters they had to transit to 16/9 so a change for 2.35:1 wouldn't matter that much.
 

Thanks guy for all your response it's nice to have a different point of view.

Why do you think a 2.35 TV would make you happy?  Since you're one of those people who wants every square millimeter of his screen filled at ALL times regardless of how the movie was filmed, why wouldn't you complain that 1.85 or 16:9 movies weren't filling your 2.35 screen (they would have side bars)?  The fact is that you will never be happy, because filmmakers don't use the same aspect ratio, and no one has any business dictating what aspect ratio they should use.

But we do know what we're missing.  Even on a movie I've never seen before, I can tell when the sides have been cropped off.  Sometimes the composition just looks cramped, but sometimes you can even see characters partly flowing out of the frame, and it's obvious it shouldn't look that way.

Doug

Doug speaks the truth.

Fred, try thinking about it a different way. Let’s talk art (as in paintings). If you had a nice painting, what would you do if it didn’t fit any frames you owned? Would you chop the sides or top and bottom off to get it to fill a smaller frame or or would you matte it to show the whole painting in a larger frame?

 

Movies are art (let’s not get into the quality of some of this “art”; even bad movies are art). The “artist” (director) creates the art to his artistic vision. The composition of the frame is part of that artistic vision. The TV is simply the frame. If the aspect ratio of the “art” doesn’t fit the “frame”, the black bars are used to "matte" the picture so that the art can be appreciated to its fullest.

 

In my opinion, anyone who worries more about filling their screen than viewing the content is missing the point. You don’t own a TV to watch the TV itself, but to view content. If the content doesn’t fill the screen, is it better to compromise the quality of the content or matte it with black bars?

 

You will certainly find people who would agree that they’d rather fill their screen, but you won’t find many of them on this forum.

perfectly put.

I'll never understand why people are still looking at the tv and not what is being shown on the tv. I work in a video store and whenever anyone STILL asks for the full screen dvd i show them a dollar bill and fold the sides down to imitate what happens to most full screen dvds, when they say they don't lke the lack bars I ask them why they are looking at the black bars.

So don't look at the bars, look at the movie.

Frédéric - Welcome to HFT. I still have scars on my back from the 30 lashings I received here at HTF a few years back. I wanted to know if I could get TV versions of movies like the Blues Brothers or Armageddon with out all the cussing so I could watch them with my then 6 & 7 year old children. They took me straight out side and tied me to the wiping pole. As it turned out, I didn't enjoy either movie. I didn't watch them at all because of the language and I didn't want my kids picking that that up.

In my opinion, watch it the way you enjoy it. In my theater with a 113" screen, I always watch movies how they are recorded on the DVD. But on my "small" 60" TV up stairs, I use the zoom feature. Oh the Horror!! I would much rather have a bigger picture that fills the screen where the action takes place and loose a little of the scenery on each side, than have a full width picture that is shorter and thus the action is smaller.

As stated you are watching the movie, not the TV. I find amazing that others can not enjoy the movie (story line, plot, etc..) with out having the entire width of the picture. Yes I could still totally appreciate the Mona-Lisa if one inch were cut off each side. It still doesn't change the focal point of the painting.

I do agree with the point that DVDs should be sold in the original aspect ratio though. Let the end user decide how he wants to watch it, zoomed in or with black bars. I have wondered your thought the other way. Why didn't they make all TVs 2.35:1 to fit most movies instead of 1.78:1? Its your TV, watch it the way you like.

Quote:
Here is a critical point of discussions like these: the focal point isn't all that matters. Da Vinci put everything in that painting for a reason. Certainly, the stuff in the middle is generally more important than the stuff on the edges, but all of it is part of the work. It's not that it would be impossible to appreciate the art if the edges were lopped off, it's knowing that the work is lessened that dampens the experience.

I agree if there is something there worth look at. Most of the time it is just background to fill your field of vision. Filling your field of vision also depends on your seating distance.

Know what?  None of us here needs to justify our preference for OAR.  The new guy (Farlev120) needs to read the HTF mission statement:

"We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended."

And:

"We want to advance films and TV shows to be represented as complete as possible and with their full image and soundtrack, as intended by the original creators, intact."

We support OAR here, period.  Cropping?  Hell, no.  Zooming?  Again, hell no.  2.35:1 in a 16:9 frame?  Hell YES.  As TonyD so astutely pointed out, you should be watching the MOVIE, not the black bars.

This really isn't an appropriate forum for people who value the frame over the art within.

Once again FRLEV120 & drobbins, I will direct your attention to the Philips Cinema 21:9 HDTV which was made available in the UK back in April.

 

Check it out for yourself at this link:

 

www.engadget.com/2009/01/29/philips-56-inch-cinema-21-9-hdtv-gets-showcased-on-video/

I support OAR to the fullest but can't help feeling the OP was more of a joke post.

Given the laws of geometry, "fortunately" the horrors aren't quite as bad as in the days of 4:3 TVs.



Given his follow-up posts, I doubt it.  He seems to genuinely feel that way.

And yes, by all means get the newfangled Philips TV.  I saw it at the showroom, and it does look like a nice bit of kit.  It even has an ambient lighting feature that changes colour to match whatever is on-screen.

To be honest I never read the  HTF mission statement and I agree that nobody needs to justify anything to anyone concerning their movie watching habits. I also agree that the best way to watch a movie is the way it was originally intended to be watched. However the conditions for that are not always available. I have enjoyed many a movie on a tiny ipod video.

Take a 27" CRT (my old TV). Its picture height is about 16 inches. If I watch a 2.35:1 on it, the picture height is only 9" high and I have lost 43% of the available picture. Try watching a 9" high picture from 18' back.   If you get a 60" TV, the height is 29", but if you watch a 2.35: movie on it, the picture height is only 22" high. and you are not using about 24% of the available screen. Just estimating the height on that 53" Phillips, the height doesn't look much more than 18" which is sill not that tall of a picture from further back. So yes if my seating distance is further back in my living room, I zoom to see the picture better (getting old and needing glasses and all)   My preferred option it to kick my son off the Xbox Live and watch my movie as intended in my theater as it was designed. I don't notice any black bars there because the picture fills my field of vision.

It depends. AMC-HD has actually taken pan & scan or open matte versions of films created for 4x3 screens and stretched the image to fill the 16x9 screen! The Godfather is one I remember. History-HD did the same thing with Band of Brothers. The result was as bad as any pan & scan transfer for 4x3 TV that I've ever seen. I now completely ignore the movie listings on AMC-HD when bringing up the on-screen guide.

Even on the cropped 2.35:1 -> 16x9 transfers, I get a claustrophobic feeling watching the "movie". Goldeneye looked very cramped, as did Lord of The Rings when it was shown on TNT-HD. I could only watch a few minutes before turning it off. I would much rather watch my OAR SD-DVD transfers.

Honestly, I really can't imagine who would want one of these. For one thing, you'd have to zoom everything to fit the screen, as there is no 2.35:1 content.

For another, everything but scope films will have black bars on the side, and 4:3 material will have huge sidebars.

At least 16:9 is halfway between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1, so that you're never losing that much screen real estate.

Somehow I doubt it was as bad as you're making it out to be.  And to be fair, you were asking for something that (at least in the case of Blues Brothers) would change the tone of the movie.  Filmmakers have gone to court, and won, to protect that.  Frankly, if the tone of the movie would offend someone, then there's other movies that won't.
I can't see any reason to zoom on a 60" TV.  If the action is too small, you're sitting too far away, regardless of whether the screen is 27 inches or 27 feet.  The screen should fill roughly similar portions of your field of view no matter the size of the display.  While, As you say, the choice is up to you, the OP seems (or seemed) to be arguing for filmmakers to compromise their vision to one standard, which is ridiculous.  No one's asking musicians to keep their music between, say, certain audio frequencies, number of beats, or at certain lengths, so filmmakers shouldn't be asked to do the same just because of what is essentially a lack of education or motivation about film.
The Mona Lisa metaphor is flawed in several ways.  First, no one was asking Da Vinci to make the painting adhere to arbitrary sizing rules.  Second, as was pointed out, painters rarely put in background details for no reason.  And last but perhaps most important, there are many paintings that have no particular focal point, or where important information would be lost.  Cutting off the sides of Hieronymous Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" would ruin the entire piece.  Losing the bottom of Copley's "Watson and the Shark" would mean you'd lose the symbolism of the missing leg.  Or what about da Vinci's own "Last Supper?" Would you consider the painting complete with only 10 or even 8 apostles?
True.  But at the same time, one shouldn't be discouraging education of how movies are made and meant to be seen.  Finding out movies I had been watching as a child had 2x or more as much stuff happening in the frame gave me a whole new appreciation for those films.  You should foster that viewpoint instead of just determining that one's personal aspect ratio must always be the dominant viewpoint.  Particularly in cases where the viewer is unclear on technical ideas such as viewing distance or visual framing.

Well the thread ended up being locked.

I think I have already addressed all your other points. I agree it is a seating distance issue.

My first "big screen tv" was an rca 27" tv and I was thrilled to finally be able to watch widescreen films on such a big tv.
this was 1989.

Yeah, same story here... I got a 27" Sony set in 1990 and thought it was HUGE.  Funny how things change.... nowadays my 50" Panasonic plasma just doesn't seem big enough....  :D