16x9 DVD??

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Scott F, Jun 16, 2002.

  1. Scott F

    Scott F Auditioning

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 1998
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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![​IMG]
    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
     
  2. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Jay Sylvester

    Jay Sylvester Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. HenrikTull

    HenrikTull Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2000
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. JeremySt

    JeremySt Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Jeremy
  6. Scott F

    Scott F Auditioning

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 1998
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  7. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. Scott F

    Scott F Auditioning

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 1998
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for that idea. I will use that response.

    Scott F
     
  9. Wayne Bundrick

    Wayne Bundrick Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  10. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    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.
     
  11. Cliff C

    Cliff C Extra

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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"...
    [​IMG]
     
  12. HenrikTull

    HenrikTull Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2000
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dave, I think Robert Harris was making a joke. [​IMG]
     
  13. Lars Vermundsberget

    Lars Vermundsberget Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2000
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  14. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,518
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
     
  15. jeff peterson

    jeff peterson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 1998
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,518
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Jeff,

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

    Chris Bardon Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    2,059
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  18. Scott F

    Scott F Auditioning

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 1998
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
    Scott F
     
  19. Ken Garrison

    Ken Garrison Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Anders Englund

    Anders Englund Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 1999
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     

Share This Page