Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › Why the movie aren't in 16/9 (1.78:1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why the movie aren't in 16/9 (1.78:1) - Page 2

post #31 of 39
8/7/09 at 6:21pm
I went out of my way to buy widescreen VHS releases to watch on my 13" Sharp CRT in order not to miss anything (I just sat closer to the TV).  At the very least, OAR should be the released version (or as close to it as possible)--any cropping or zooming should be left in the hands of the individual--not forced on the audience in general.
Reply
post #32 of 39
8/7/09 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRLEV120 View Post
.

 

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.


The reason that HDTV is 16x9 and not some wider ratio, is because when the specs were being drawn up (in the late 1970's early 80's) it was felt by the TV makers that a glass tube wider than 16x9 would be to fragile and would have too much breakage in shipping. Of course these were the days before flat panel screens.

However 16x9 is a nice compromise between 1.37:1 (4x3) and 2.40:1 (CinemaScope) which is another good reason to recommend it for a fixed ratio screen. Now projectors where the masks can be move, is another story. But that is a tiny fraction of the market.

Also changing the broadcast standard is NOT like flipping a switch. Here in the U.S. it requires an act of congress. It took 30 years from the first HDTV proposals in 1978 till we finally got an HD system.

Doug

Reply
post #33 of 39
8/10/09 at 7:34pm
 I think one of the reasons that make 16X9 look so great is because of what in math is called "the golden ratio".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ratio

The size and shape of the rectangle that makes up 16X9 is naturally pleasing to the eye. I think a wider TV would stand out too much. But trying to get my family to understand why there are black bars is useless. Back in the DVD days, they would always get fullscreen. A few of my Blu-Rays my own repurchases of the movies that were fullscreen. Now I can watch the movies how they are meant to be seen.
Reply
post #34 of 39
8/10/09 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdReedFan20 View Post

 I think one of the reasons that make 16X9 look so great is because of what in math is called "the golden ratio".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ratio

The size and shape of the rectangle that makes up 16X9 is naturally pleasing to the eye. I think a wider TV would stand out too much. But trying to get my family to understand why there are black bars is useless. Back in the DVD days, they would always get fullscreen. A few of my Blu-Rays my own repurchases of the movies that were fullscreen. Now I can watch the movies how they are meant to be seen.
 


Actually, it's not that close to the golden ratio.  16:9 is 1:1.7777, the golden ratio is 1:1.618.  Given a screen size of height of 40 inches, that would translate to a width difference of 6 inches, which is quite a lot.  The choice of 16:9 was, as stated above, due to the engineering limits of glass CRT tubes at the time it was adopted.
Reply
post #35 of 39
8/10/09 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdReedFan20 View Post

 I think one of the reasons that make 16X9 look so great is because of what in math is called "the golden ratio".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ratio

The size and shape of the rectangle that makes up 16X9 is naturally pleasing to the eye. I think a wider TV would stand out too much. But trying to get my family to understand why there are black bars is useless. Back in the DVD days, they would always get fullscreen. A few of my Blu-Rays my own repurchases of the movies that were fullscreen. Now I can watch the movies how they are meant to be seen.
 

Don't let Vittorio Storaro know about that.  

Actually, 16x10 would be closer to that Golden Ratio, but you have a good point there -- at least in the case where the audience cannot be completely immersed by the FOV of the image (and would thus be impacted at least subconsciously by the AR/shape of the display).

OTOH, if the desire is to provide a completely immersive experience, then wider (than that ratio) is probably better -- and is likely why there are so many wider films, particularly for their more epic look-and-feel...

_Man_

 

Reply
post #36 of 39
8/10/09 at 8:11pm
 I've wondered this, but can commercial projectors produce a 2:35 image without the black bars and if so is the video quality good? If yes, and the quality is good, that could be a solution to those who "need" a full image. Heck, even I might get one if I could also find a nice big screen to go along with it. Then my family will stop complaining about the "black bars".
Reply
post #37 of 39
8/10/09 at 9:46pm
Look up Constant Image Height (CIH) projection.  It seeks to emulate theatre screens by using anamorphic lenses (or, on rarer occasions, other means) to have all the movies fill the same height on the screen--the width is adjusted by masks (just like the curtains at the cinema).  For that kind of setup, you have a "full-screen" all the time.  There are some problems with this approach--only projectors can do it (limited application in most people's homes, if practical at all); subtitle placement can be problemmatic if they are fixed below the image (as is the case for a number of films) and the equipment to do it right is fairly expensive.
Reply
post #38 of 39
8/11/09 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA View Post

Look up Constant Image Height (CIH) projection.  It seeks to emulate theatre screens by using anamorphic lenses (or, on rarer occasions, other means) to have all the movies fill the same height on the screen--the width is adjusted by masks (just like the curtains at the cinema).

Well, depends on the cinema. Maybe in the larger theaters at the multiplex they adjust the width, but as I recall at my local theater the smaller screens where films go before dying are constant image width, and mask vertically.
Reply
post #39 of 39
8/11/09 at 6:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATimson View Post


Well, depends on the cinema. Maybe in the larger theaters at the multiplex they adjust the width, but as I recall at my local theater the smaller screens where films go before dying are constant image width, and mask vertically.
The intention, though, is to remain at the constant height.  That some smaller cinemas do it differently does not alter that situation.  The 'scope ratio is intended to make the whole movie look "more majestic" than the 1.85:1 releases and CIH is the way to do that. 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › Why the movie aren't in 16/9 (1.78:1)