Aspect Ratio Control on DVD players (1 Viewer)

[MancusoB]

Hear, hear. I agree with Patrick.

2:35 on a 16:9 set wastes about 25% of screen real estate.

1:85 wastes less than 4% but overscan takes care of that.

It would be a DIFFERENT story if all the material released in 2:35 made significant cinematographic use of the 2:35 frame, but I contend that they do not.

 

[Phil Nichols]

I agree 150% with Patrick and Mancuso. I've had some heated forum discussions over this in the past. (....got kicked off one forum that runs rampant with the OAR fanatics crowd...)

2.35:1 is not good for HT setups. 1.85:1 is the PERFECT viewing perspective for theaters in the home. 2.35:1 is great for monster screens that you don't find in 99.9% of the home theaters. I looked for 2 years and finally gave up on a DVD player that would do high quality small-step zooming of anamorphics so I could make 2.35:1 anamorphics perfectly fit my 58" 16X9 screen - not because I care about black bars but because I like the improved perspective of 1.85:1. I don't think my movie viewing will notice the slight loss of side infromation you get when you crop 2.35:1's to do this.

Still today NO ONE makes a DVD player that A) has no chroma bug, B) uses Faroudja or Silicon Image (the two best) deinterlacing chips, and C) has zooming equal to the Toshiba's, JVC's, and Malata's. Well "NO ONE" is a pretty big word....MAYBE some PCHT-based DVD box or the $10K Faroudja NR DVD player provides precision anamorphic zooming as well as - A) and interlacing quality equal to B), but I'm not aware of it.

 

[jeff lam]

I actually like the wider scope. More viewable info per shot. Its the same as comparing 4x3 to 16x9. 16x9 has more viewable info per shot. Screen size has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the film. True, most HT's have 16x9 and not 2.35:1 TV's but I would still rather have the wider scope.

 

[Dmitry]

Me, too. It just seems more movie-like, more aesthetically pleasing to me. Even on my 32" 4:3 TV I like it better.

 

[Patrick TX]

Well, on a 55" 16:9, 1:85 Anamorphic is a thing of beauty to MY eyes. I would gladly give up a TINY bit on the sides to gain 100% coverage on my set. The difference is huge to me.

 

[Grant H]

Depending on the director that edge loss may not be so tiny. What about two guys approaching each other from opposite directions in a vast desert?
An extreme example perhaps, but many such instances can occur in a 2.35:1 scope film. How often in sction films does someone pull a gun on someone else at arms length, putting each character's face on the edge of the screen?
The Star Wars films have great details on the edges of the shots.

Saying all movies should be 1.85:1 is kind of like saying all cars should be Black. Black bars didn't bother me on my 4:3 tv, and they don't bother me now on my 16:9.

If HDTV'S had been 2.35:1 you'd have to deal with bars at the sides for 1.85:1 flicks or else strectch them or cut off the top and bottom and zoom them which to me is worse than a bar I'm not looking at.