I have seen Widescreen TV... (1 Viewer)

[DeathStar1]

and have developed a craving for it.
A freind of mine recently upgraded to a 16X9 TV, so for their Christmas party, I brought over a choice of two DVD's to test it out. Back to the Future, and Episode 2. I really wanted to try the latter, but they chose BTTF. So, we popped it in, filled up the entire screen as expected since it was an anomorphic title(just grabbed it and forgot to look at the back when I left), and this is a much better way to watch movies.
This model apparently automatically stretches the picture, either that, or they had it set to do that. Some of the extra features where a bit weird looking, but it wasn't too unbearable to watch.
Anyone have $3,000's so I can buy one of these babies? . The only thing they where missing was the surround sound system.

 

[James L White]

I want one too, a friend of mine has one, I watche Jackie Brown on it and it lloked like a new movie at was so big. I have a 35" 4:3 TV

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I really wanted to try the latter, but they chose BTTF. So, we popped it in, filled up the entire screen as expected since it was an anomorphic title

BTTF is 1.85/1 aspect ratio. It will fill the screen. Any aspect ratio greater than that (2.35/1 most common) will have letterboxing-as the aspect ratio widens, the bars become thicker. Just because a DVD is anamorphic, that doesn't mean the bars will be eliminated.

Bruce

 

[greg_t]

Bruce is correct. A dvd that is anamaphorically enchanced will provide 33% greater resolution when displayed on a 16x9 tv when in Full mode. 1.85 aspect ratio movies may display small bars, or none depending on the tv's amount of overscan. 2.35 ratio movies, such as Episode 2, will still result in black bars, although much smaller than they would be on a 4x3 TV.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

1.85 aspect ratio movies may display small bars, or none depending on the tv's amount of overscan. 2.35 ratio movies, such as Episode 2, will still result in black bars

And all of this is true whether the movies are "anamorphic" (16:9-enhanced) or not. A 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 movie is going to fill up exactly the same amount of screen real estate on a widescreen set either way assuming that you're using the right display setting for each type. An aspect ratio is an aspect ratio is an aspect ratio.
Regards,
Joe

 

[GlennH]

A 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 movie is going to fill up exactly the same amount of screen real estate on a widescreen set either way assuming that you're using the right display setting for each type. An aspect ratio is an aspect ratio is an aspect ratio.

That's very true in theory Joseph. But in practice I've noticed that the overscan on many 16:9 sets in FULL mode seems to be a bit larger than it is in ZOOM mode, for whatever reason. Thus, a 1.85:1 anamorphic movie may fill the 16:9 screen while a zoomed 1.85:1 non-anamorphic movie has very small black bars. This was the case on both of the 16:9 sets I've owned.

This situation may lead some to incorrectly conclude that the anamorphic enhancement is responsible for filling the screen. As noted, the "enhancement" is to the resolution and has nothing to do (directly) with screen real estate.

 

[Jan Strnad]

The letterboxed, non-anamorphic DVDs will indeed fill the screen, or can be made to do so, but you're only getting the middle group of lines, so they don't have the quality of an anamorphic transfer.

Jan

 

[Ric Easton]

Neil,

I know all about that craving! I finally satisfied it a month ago and bought a 53" widesreen. It's like I'm watching my movie collection for the first time!

Ric

 

[Brian L]

That's very true in theory Joseph. But in practice I've noticed that the overscan on many 16:9 sets in FULL mode seems to be a bit larger than it is in ZOOM mode, for whatever reason. Thus, a 1.85:1 anamorphic movie may fill the 16:9 screen while a zoomed 1.85:1 non-anamorphic movie has very small black bars. This was the case on both of the 16:9 sets I've owned.

Bingo.

My Pioneer 533 (I think Ric has the same set) does exactly that. I suspect this was a deliberate design choice on Pioneers part.

As I have said in other threads, a clear violation of the scared oath of the OAR, but screw it, I am going to live with it.

BGL

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

There's no difference between letterbox and anamorphic on my old (analog) Toshiba widescreen set. I know from doing a/b comparisons between LDs and more recent DVD editions of the same film. With overscan there is no difference between 1.85:1 letterbox and 1.85:1 anamorphic. And of course the zoomed letterbox mode is lower resolution than anamorphic, that's why anamorphic exists. My point was just that the fact that the screen is filled on a widescreen set is not necessarily a function of the disc's being anamorphic.
Regards,
Joe

 

[Ric Easton]

Brian's right I have the same set. I know that it overscans a bit because even with 1.85:1 you would get very thin black bars... But I have not noticed anything seeming misframed and do not feel that I am missing any of the picture. In other words... It's close enough to OAR...and man, that picture is sweet!


Ric