16x9 DVD?? (1 Viewer)

[Scott F]

Ok, I am trying to get my mind around this whole 16x9 format. I have a 16x9 HDTV...I buy widescreen movies...I still get the black bars! I know there are different aspect ratios, 1:85, 2:35:1 etc. But why didn't the studios make them all fit my widescreen TV! I can handle the black bars, but when people come over to watch a movie it is hard to explain to them why I still get the black bars when I bought a widescreen tv! UGHH!
It would be nice to have all DVD's 16x9...wouldn't it? This would help sell more widescreen tv's...maybe?
I am cornfused here brothers!
Scott F
Firmie's Home Theater

 

[Michael Reuben]

Movies come in different shapes. That's just the way it is. Altering the original shape to fit a 16:9 screen would be just as wrong as altering them to fit a 4:3 screen.

M.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

The reason not all DVDs are 16:9 is because of the need to maintain OAR (original aspect ratio). As you've seen, 1.85:1 films show no "black bars" (technically they should, but many are cropped to 1.78:1 to fit your set), while 2.35:1 and wider still require slight letterboxing. If all DVDs were formatted to fit a 16:9 screen, a large portion of the films we all love would be cropped, and the director's intent destroyed.
I'd suggest you visit Widescreen Advocate to learn more about preserving OAR. If you're still bothered by your guests' annoyance at the presence of the "black bars," maybe you could educate them on the issue.

 

[HenrikTull]

But what didn't the studios make them all fit my wodescreen TV!

Catch me guys, I think I'm gonna faint.

 

[JeremySt]

Every time a film goes into production, the director has to make a choice about what aspect ratio he wants his film to be in. I suggest these pages
my own page has a nice brief explanation
http://www.geocities.com/nostromo777/widescreen1.html
www.widescreenadvocate.com
www.widescreenmuseum.com

 

[Scott F]

Ok I don't want anyone to faint here! I am just trying to get in my head that's all. I agree , I think we should preserve the OAR. It is just a bit hard to explain to the lay people out there, that's all. Their response " You just spent $4,000 on this TV and you still get black bars!" YOU MORON! Thanks for the informational links, I will check them out.

Thanks Again,

Scott F

 

[Michael Reuben]

"You don't get a widescreen TV to eliminate black bars. You get it so that you can get the best possible image from your DVDs, and so that you're ready for hi-def TV."

M.

 

[Scott F]

Thanks for that idea. I will use that response.

Scott F

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Scott, tell your guests to imagine how big the black bars would be on a regular TV!

1.85:1 is just slightly wider than 16x9, and many DVDs of 1.85:1 movies just crop it to fit 16x9. The difference is only 7 scan lines on both the top and bottom. On a widescreen TV, there are no black bars. On a regular TV, black bars will take 25% of the screen area.

Now let's take a look at 2.35:1. On a widescreen TV, black bars will take 24% of the screen area. On a regular TV, black bars will take 43% of the screen area. (But OAR is still the proper way to watch movies even on a regular TV!)

2.35:1 viewed on a widescreen TV actually has slightly less black bars than 1.85:1 viewed on a regular TV. And if you ever use the widescreen TV to watch classic movies or regular TV shows which are the same 4x3 shape as a regular TV, it requires 25% black bars on the sides. Therefore, the 16x9 shape is an ideal compromise, sitting almost exactly midway between 4x3 and 2.35:1, and almost a perfect frame for 1.85:1.

By the way, each of the percentages I've given also indicates how much of the picture would be lost if it was cropped to fill the screen. For example, a 2.35:1 film panned & scanned to fill a regular TV is missing 43% of the picture!

 

[Dave H]

I suspect that when the day comes that widescreen TVs are mainstream, the masses will be complaining about black bars still. However, maybe by that time the actual screen of the TV will be able to physically move to the shape of the aspect ratio of the film. I believe Robert Harris mentioned something about this recently - Sony was working on something like this, unless I misunderstood him.

 

[Cliff C]

Now I'm afraid that when widescreen tv's become common, there will be a new kind of pan & scan, at least for films wider that 1.85:1..."This film has been formatted to fit your 16x9 screen"...
:frowning:

 

[HenrikTull]

Dave, I think Robert Harris was making a joke.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

A TV screen that physically changes its shape has to be a joke. Can it be done? Maybe, for all I know - but with what kind of technology? I can't see how it could be worth it...

Like Henrik I was also about to "faint" after reading the original post, but after reading the whole thread so far I've reinterpreted it slightly. Scott is having a problem with his guests - not with his 16:9 TV.

Think about this: Are you using the TV screen to watch movies? Or are you using movies to watch your TV screen?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

A TV screen that physically changes its shape has to be a joke. Can it be done? Maybe, for all I know - but with what kind of technology? I can't see how it could be worth it...

A front projector with adjustable screen masking will never show black bars - just like a movie theater!

 

[jeff peterson]

I'm sure automated masking is technically possible; ie, vinyl shades that lower from the top/raise from the bottom when watching a 2:35 film.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Jeff,

Stewart Filmscreen sells the "ElectriMask" system that does just that! I think Dalite also makes one.

 

[Chris Bardon]

Now I'm afraid that when widescreen tv's become common, there will be a new kind of pan & scan, at least for films wider that 1.85:1..."This film has been formatted to fit your 16x9 screen"...

Didn't they do this for the Pearl Harbour VHS (crop it to 1.85 from scope)?

 

[Scott F]

I exactly mean I am having issues with my guests...not my TV. I have more than enough responses supplied by you guys to put them in their place. You guys, as always have been great.
Personally I think most of my guests are jealous that I have a "theater" in my home.
Scott F

 

[Ken Garrison]

NO movie should be pan and scanned AT ALL! Even if it's from a 2.35:1 aspect ratio to a 1.85:1. On PPV on Directv, they showed Pearl Harbor Pan and Scanned to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio when the actual ratio on DVD is a 2.35:1. I only watched the first 5 minutes of it since PPV lets you have 5 minutes free. Anyway, it sucked. It was just as bad as a movie being P&Sed to 1.33:1. If it's filmed in 2.35:1 or any aspect ratio, it should stay that way.

 

[Anders Englund]

However, maybe by that time the actual screen of the TV will be able to physically move to the shape of the aspect ratio of the film.

I don't think that would solve anything, ever if it was possible. The adjustable screen would still have a maximum width and a maximum height, which would always be used fully. The fill-my-screen crowd would then go on complain about how thev've bought this futuristic TV (possibly with a telepathic remote), and couldn't use it.

Stupidity is not lacking knowledge. It's refusing to learn.

--Anders