Progress - What Progress - They don't make DVD's like they used to ! (1 Viewer)

As a keen Film collector who looks for films that he missed while achieving old age - I am being driven mad by the diabolical insult that the current DVD manufacturers make when they issue Films not originally produced in a 2.35 Aspect Ratio.

I have a large number of films on Laserdisc / DVD and newer HD formats which I like to view on my full 4x3 Academy Ratio projector screen in Letter Boxed format where applicable.

The current practices ignore Video Standards that applied for many years forcing me to watch images that don't fill my screen because of BLACK BARS at each side - as well as those which are expected at the Top and Bottom when in Letterbox Format

The extent of picture width loss is from about 5% for original 1.66 Ratio Films up to about 20% for original 4x3 Ratio Films.

It seems crazy to me that a 4x3 Film which was intended to fill a 4x3 Ratio Screen can now only be seen as a postage stamp surrounded by Black Bars.

These "Postage Stamp" images have much less entertainment value and also shorten the life of CRT projectors by causing accelerated & uneven screen wear on the tubes.

OK - I hear you cry - they are just presenting these films in a "Constant Height" mode - but are these 16x9 TV's not able to adjust for pictures in 4x3 format ?

Why should these "classic" films now be re-issued in a form that requires collectors to buy new equipment such as a "Scaler" just to be able to restore the degraded images into what they should and would have been just a few years ago when DVD's were manufactured to the correct 4x3 Video Standards ?

Examples of New DVD purchases which no longer fill my screen width - but would be just fine if in letter-box format with ALL the Active Line period of the Video Signal still in use -

What A Crazy World 1.66 Joe Brown

Some People 1.66 Kenneth More

Play it Cool 1.66 Billy Fury

Bottoms Up 4x3 Jimmy Edwards

Just to prove the point the following films from the same series all play perfectly because they are forced to be in Letterbox form as even on 16x9 screens because they are in 2.35 Aspect Ratio and so are forced to use all the available line-period to contain the Video information.

Mister Ten Percent 2.35 Charlie Drake

Peticoat Pirates 2.35 Charlie Drake

The Cracksman 2.35 Charlie Drake

So what price Progress ???

Some tvs and bluray players have their own 'zoom' modes, some don't (and I hate that stretched look) -- those British movies you mention, pretty sure most are from the early and mid-60s (especially those Charlie Drake ones) but they may be tv prints that have been panned and scanned (watching one of these p&s movies in stretch mode on a widescreen tv is my idea of a living hell)

Some of these movies may be shot open matte and can zoom to widescreen -- do I hear the theme from "Marty" echoing in the background? -- but these days anything that comes out on dvd could be anything from anywhere.

The manufacturers consider it a dying format and are spitting out as much as they can before downloading becomes the in thing.....

I was scratching my head and try to figure out what kind of situation TS faced all these while... until brother Brian's reply that knock the idea out from my inner brain...

Yeah... it is about the movies' original photography and presentation ratio vs our fixed viewing screen ratio.

Remember some while ago PHILIPS came out with a 21:9 LED TV that wasn't selling well, that eventually goes discontinued? I guess majority of the Widescreen TV consumers are much comfortable to watch any movies in any other WS ratio on 16:9 monitors, compare to 21:9 which seems to cater only to 2.35:1 movies much better, although no matter what movie material is fed in, the height remains constant, with black bars on the sides varies.
21:9 TV have it's limitation on filling the screen when materials with 2.0:1 and narrower until 4:3 are played on the ultrawide 21:9 widescreen. In addition, due to lesser production volume that contributes to higher retail price, as well as future equiptment servicing challenge, alot would rather live comfortably with 16:9 screens of any size.

So... what's good with 16:9 screen?
Movies with 2.35:1WS, will have little black bars, which is much lesser than 30% of the 16:9 screen, will be acceptable to some. Suntitles helps to fill up the bottom if possible.
Movies with 1.85:1WS, will most likely receive cheers from the viewers, as the pictures fills the screen with barely visible black bars on top and bottom of the screen.
Movies with 4:3PnS, will most likely be regarded as waste to the screen to some folks, if they are not comfortable to chop off the top and bottom of the pictures just to fill up their screens.

I face TS situation in commercial cinemas now as they employ 16:9 screens installation. Gone were the days where most of the cinema screens were fitted with 2.35:1 or wider screens, and curtains rolls to the middle when 1.85:1 movies were screened, such that no matter which movies projected, constant height can be achieved...

So... in summary, i am supportive of Brian's idea to perhaps explore thru your equiptment to see if various zoom options are available. And make full use of such zoom functions to attain your preferred height or wideness of your movie presentation... In worst case... perhaps you may need to change your screen or projector(which comes with such zooming options) .

If I understand you correctly, you have a projector that throws to a 4x3 screen. So do I. When I went high-def, I decided on that shape because so much of what I watch is older material. But to fill the screen with that material while also being able to watch wide-screen material properly, I needed one more thing: a projector with a zoom lens. In my case, that was a JVC DLA-HD350. Of course, that means wide screen material has a smaller image, but it's still 8.5 feet wide, which is about all my room can handle.Note that I'm talking optical zoom here, not electronic. The lens does the magnifying, and since it's infinitely variable, it means I can also zoom 1.66 images to fill the full width.