This is why some people ride the small bus... (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

what was BEN HUR? 2.55, I cant even imagin that in 1:85.

 

[Joe Fisher]

what was BEN HUR? 2.55, I cant even imagin that in 1:85.

According to IMDB, it is 2.76:1 for a 70mm Anamorphic print.

As far as I am concerned, all my viewing is done from 10ft on a 36" standard 4x3 TV. And the black bars don't bother me. Especially on wider scope films such as Ben Hur, 2001, Bridge on the River Kwai to name a few. I accept this because I know this was the directors vision.

So when the day comes when I upgrade to a 16x9 HDTV(and that will be soon)and a movie comes out that was shot 2.35:1 or even heaven forbid 2.76:1 I will watch it for artistic beauty.

If there are any black bars, so be it.

Joe

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Well, of course, I am a widescreen supporter. But I also do not like part of the large screen I have, 58" 16x9 RPTV, being wasted with black bars, I do prefer that my widescreen image fill my widescreen TV.

Does anybody else see the contradiction in this quote??? My advice the same advice I have given for years - Stop watching the black bars and start watching the movie!

 

[Mitch Stevens]

I can't believe a long term HTF member would even initiate such a discussion.

I couldn't believe it either. My jaw just about hit the floor when I read that all movies should be formatted or made in 1.85:1. But then I started thinking about what I've said in the past, and although I don't agree with John about making no more 2.35:1 movies, I myself have wished that some of my favourite TV shows would have been shot in 1.85:1 instead of 1.33:1.

I watch hundreds of TV shows all the time, (Buffy, Six Feet Under, Oz, etc.) and I really hate seeing the gray bars on the side of my Widescreen TV, and I wish that they had been shot in 16X9. But it's more than that. I never zoom in 4:3 TV shows (like many MANY people here do) and I am starting to see that some of the gray bars are slightly starting to burn in. *THAT* is why I wish that these shows are 1.85:1. Not because I want my screen filled, but because it's damaging my TV. If I had a TV where burn-in was completely impossible, then I simply wouldn't care what aspect ratio anything was in.

However, I absolutely LOVE 2.35:1 movies with all my heart. I love that aspect ratio as it's extremely pleasing for my eyes. It looks so beautiful. If I were a director, there is no doubt in my mind that all my movies would be 2.35:1. The truth is that on a widescreen set (like mine & John's) 2.35:1 is simply not a problem at all. The black bars aren't even that big. I have a 65" widescreen TV, and I'd say that the black bars are only about 2" in size....I'd imagine John's black bars to be even smaller than that, since he has a smaller TV.

On the other hand, the gray bars are massive in size (width & height) so if he's complaining about aspect ratios on a widescreen TV, he should only be complaining about 1.33:1.

 

[Clay-F]

What kills me is that a lot of people have dvd players and widescreen tvs and yet, know little about them.

Several times I've heard people asking "why do I see color fluctuations when I play a dvd?". They then tell me that their tv must be old or messed up. Everytime I ask "are you running your dvd player through your vcr?", and the answer....."yes...does that matter?". I laugh and ask them how long they've been watching dvds this way. Sometimes the answer is YEARS! Scary just scary....

2 weeks ago a friend purchased a 60" or so widescreen tv. He insists on stretching the image on shows to fill out the tv. Then I mention "I bet you'll be pissed when you see that some of your dvds are not anamorphic". He says..."anawhat". Then I quickly explain to him. His answer..."Well I dont buy dvds like that." Since he had no clue I cant wait till he pops in one and wonders why he has a few set of bars on his tv.

Later on he exclaims that all movies are shot in 16x9. I was tempted to ask if he even knew what that means....

 

[Qui-Gon John]

I never zoom in 4:3 TV shows (like many MANY people here do) and I am starting to see that some of the gray bars are slightly starting to burn in. *THAT* is why I wish that these shows are 1.85:1.

Well, I didn't mention it because it was a totally different reason, but BURN-IN is also one reason I zoom almost all of what I watch.

Clay, I can see where he's coming from. I avoid 2.35:1 non-anamorphic like the plague. The only such DVD's I buy have to be dirt cheap, like Walmart 5.88 bin, and I also have to have a pretty strong feeling there will not be an anamorphic re-release.

 

[Richard Kim]

Well, I didn't mention it because it was a totally different reason, but BURN-IN is also one reason I zoom almost all of what I watch.

As long as you vary the ARs that you watch, you should have nothing to worry about concerning burn in.

 

[Mitch Stevens]

Why not use artificial mattes to cover up the gray bars if they bother you so much?

But they don't really bother me all that much. What bothers me is the fact, that the TV is now getting burn-in, and no amount of mattes are going to unburn the TV. And I don't want too many different aspect ratios.

My TV viewing habbits are 40% 4:3 and 59% 2.35:1 and only 1% 1.85:1 (I hardly ever watch movies that actually fill up the TV.)

 

[Robert Anthony]

doesn't calibration pretty much take care of the burn-in? the contrast and brightness settings being hooked up correctly, as well as making sure the room is darkened--that should take away a LOT of the danger of your set burning in. Right?

The RPTV burn in problem is probably why, when I make the jump to large screen, I'm just going to skip straight to front projection. RPTV just seems to have more problems than it's worth.

but now we're not talking OAR but we're talking hardware stuff.

God Bless Off Topic meandering

 

[Mitch Stevens]

Calibration certainly helps, but it does not take the risk completely away. My set has been properly calibrated since the day I bought it, but since I watch so much of the same aspect ratio for so many hours at a time, I guess that's why it's starting to show burn-in.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

There seems to be quite a lot of lose change being thrown around in this thread so I suppose I might add to the coin collection...

First off, from now on I am only going to be referring to Full Screen as Fool Screen - TFF

Secondly, as much as I am amazed how many people still prefer Fool Screen, I am equally disappointed in how many people think that just because a DVD is in widescreen they think they are watching "100% of the film".

What everyone who loves film needs to be cheering for is "Original Aspect Ratio". There are die hard widescreen fanatics that will insist on watching a film in widescreen even though it was originally created and presented in 1.33 aspect ratio. Thus the studio simply chops off the top and bottom of the image to satisfy the widescreen fanatics. So now those same people that make fun of the Fool Screen watchers who lose the left and right side of the picture are now losing the top and bottom of the original picture of films with original 1.33 aspect ratios.

There are also many widescreen films on DVD where their original aspect ratio was 'trimmed' down. For instance there are many 2.35 films that are only available on DVD with a 1.85 aspect ratio. Thus making those that poke fun at the Fool Screen crowd even more hilarious because they themselves may be losing a lot of the left and right side of the image due to the cropping of aspect ratios greater than 1.85.

I do not support Fool Screen or Widescreen. Instead I hail studios that release films on DVDs with their original aspect ratio. Now if they want to include other aspect ratios as an option to appeal to a broader audience, I have no problem with that, nor should any civilized person.

 

[Clay-F]

Clay, I can see where he's coming from. I avoid 2.35:1 non-anamorphic like the plague. The only such DVD's I buy have to be dirt cheap, like Walmart 5.88 bin, and I also have to have a pretty strong feeling there will not be an anamorphic re-release.

The thing is that he didnt know what he was buying. His tv is still new to him, so he just hasnt watched a non-anamorphic disc yet. After I explained it to him, then he told me that he never buys discs like that. Basically he didnt know anything about anamorphic discs, so he couldnt plan his purchases around that.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

This whole thing kills me. It's all about squares and rectangles. How fricken difficult is it to imagine what happens when you try to stuff a rectangle into a square?!

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Maybe I'm still used to widescreen on a 36" 4:3 set, because now on my 57" 16:9 set 2.35 films actually seem more cinematic to me because of the width and the bars.

My 2.35 picture is still 21" tall on my 16:9 set. According to the TV Calc site, my 2.35 viewing area is literally triple the size it was on my 36" 4:3 set. Maybe I'm still in the honeymoon phase with my 16:9 set (3 months old), but the size of the picture is perfect for me.

As far as burn in is concerned, like everyone else says bringing down the contrast and brightness out of "torch mode" when you get the set is imperative. Plus Avia or DVE is essential. I actually keep an Excel log of what I view and in what ratio, and right it's like 65% to 35% in favor of 1.85 vs. 2.35. 2.35 has definitely been gaining lately, but I figure as long as I never let 2.35 get higher than 50% the burn in should be pretty even. Not too mention on many HT forums there are users who have had their sets for years, never thought twice about burn in and haven't had negative results.

Also, I choose to watch my 4:3 material on my 36" set mainly because my 4:3 picture size is not much bigger on my 16:9, and I don't like any of the zoom or stretch modes. I have a Toshiba which is widely known has having pretty good zooms, and they still bother me when I use them. I've also found that a lot of my TV DVD material looks better on my 36" set anyway-Babylon 5 and DS9 come to mind.

I tried making my own mattes for 4:3 viewing at first but I found them very cumbersome, but I think I made my a little uneven. Are there any companies that actually manufactures mattes for 1.33 or 2.35?

I certainly don't want to bash John, but I agree that it is surprising to find a long time member with that outlook, but to each his own. I wonder if they ever made 2.35 sets, if people would be less adverse to having pillarboxing on 1.85 films.

 

[Bill>Moore]

I have a 10-year-old daughter and I can only assume she knows widescreen is best as that's what we always watch. She's never complained at all about it. She's picked it out herself when it's had the option. I'm going to have to head over to Amazon and read some of these rebuttals now.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

I certainly don't want to bash John

Go ahead and bash, everyone else is.

Seriously though, I guess it just boils down to, one of the main reasons I got a widescreen set was to have it as theater like as possible. And to me, that also means as large as possible, (and sorry, FPTV is not an option for my situation). And since 1.85 (ana) DVD's fill my widescreen, without zooming, I just wish more/most movies were done this way. Would it hurt a given movie to be filmed that way vs. 2.35? I don't know, but IMHO I think not. I still think it would be an entertaining experience and still be widescreen, and have the added advantage of being almost the exact same ratio as the new wave of TV sets. In fact, if most/all movies were to be made in this AR, and the studios teamed up with the TV manufacturers, they could really work together to push a big surge in making 16x9 the predominant set sold. I think 2.35 AR is hurting sales, at least to some degree. 2 examples, I was talking with some friends of out of town family about 16:9 vs 4:3 sets and one of them argued that getting 16:9 is not really such a good thing, because you still have black bars on a lot of DVD's. And I overheard almost the exact same thing from a salesman at Best Buy. The customer asked if the 16:9 would have black bars when watching DVD's and the salesman told him, "yes, most DVD's still have the black bars, so if that concerns you, you might as well get the 4:3 model".

My question to my bashers, if most or all directors started filming their movies in 1.85, would you feel betrayed and scream for wider presentation or would you be satisfied with it as the director's intent? See the thing that gets me about the couple of comments that people can't believe I feel this way is, my comments were about future production, so if you're opposed to me hoping that 1.85 would become the norm, then you sound like you're opposed to 1.85 period. Because if future production were done this way, it would still be director's intent.

Andrew, it is interesting that you found the split to be 65% 1.85 vs. 35% 2.35. I'd be curios to see if that is represenative of most HTF'ers or the industry as a whole.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Jon,

I think the reason some folks are having trouble digesting what you are saying is that you seem to have the opinion that the artists that make films should limit there canvas to the dimensions that are most favorable for a type of display.

Forget for a moment that there are far more various types of displays than a 1.77 (yes that's right true HD TVs are not 1.85 so even your blessed 1.85 DVD wont be displayed in their original aspect ratio without bars) TV. Not only that, but only CRT and plasma monitors cause burn-in so for everyone else they don't even have to worry about burn-in.

What is most disturbing is imagining how anyone could feel so strongly against directors choosing to use any aspect ratio they feel best fits their style of film, and yes, having different aspect ratios most certainly is a conscious decision as it can effect the style of the film (as anyone who has seen Ben-Hur in its original 2.76 aspect ratio can attest to).

You do start to sound a bit Stalin-esque, but even in his era, he allowed his Russian directors to shoot films in various aspect ratios.

If we are going to restrict film's aspect ratio to meet the demands of a particular display device, maybe we should also insist that all photographers use the same size prints so that we can all use the same size photo albums and frames. In fact let us not stop there. Maybe we should force all artists to only paint on one standard sized canvas?

OK, reality check.

My advice is to enjoy all these wonderful films in their various aspect ratios on what ever display device you chose. No one is going to force you to buy a set that might get ruined by watching DVDs with aspect ratios that don't match your set.

Relax, make some popcorn and enjoy the show!

 

[Robert Anthony]

I'm not bashing you--I'm just trying to explain to you why your request is silly and not at all well thought out.

..okay, maybe that sounds like bashing to you.

if all directors started filming in 1.85, movies would be a little boring, to tell the truth. All the same size. I like that the varying aspect ratios help to tell the varying stories in varying ways. It's all about variety, and I prefer variety. Seeing as I don't watch black bars, the difference in size between 1.85 or 2.35 doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And you bringing up director intent throws me, too, because what you're bringing up seems to completely leave out director intent. Your idea takes AWAY decisions from directors for the SOLE BENEFIT of taking away 2 inch black bars off your widescreen TV.

Good luck cobbling together the signatures on the petition to make the MPAA and the directors guild and the cinematographers union to completely throw out anamorphic lenses. I'm sure Panavision would be happy to pretty much lose more than a 3rd of their business. it still seems to me that you don't really understand why different aspect ratios exist in the first place, and what those aspect ratios have to offer a director, as opposed to the myopic and shortsighted complaints about some small black bars on a television. You say it doesnt' make a difference, you don't think, but I think you simply haven't really checked into the reasonings behind why directors choose the aspect ratios they do.

Besides which, I don't think you've commented on the many contradictions you've already uttered in this thread. I mean, do you even recognize that you're contradicting yourself in your various arguments in this thread, or do you think we're simply misunderstanding you?

For instance, you say you want it as theater like as possible, which means as large as possible. For a lot of theaters, 2.35 IS as large as possible, not 1.85. And instead of trying to lobby the film industry into changing the way they film things, might I suggest that it might be a little easier to change the way you think about viewing movies? That you might possibly be looking at this whole situation in a manner that's a little too simplistic?

I think the shortsighted mindset that says "Black Bars = no sale" is what's hurting sales, not the fact that 2 inches of black bar are still visible on some DVD's. I believe the best bet against that mindset is customer education, not forcing the movie business to completely throw away a filming method long loved, long admired and much appreciated by audiences and filmmakers themselves.

 

[Todd Phillips]

My question to my bashers, if most or all directors started filming their movies in 1.85, would you feel betrayed and scream for wider presentation or would you be satisfied with it as the director's intent?

It would certainly be a duller place if all artists had the same view of the world. This is a straw man question. Would you be upset if all painters decided to stop using the color blue or would you be satisfied with the artist's intent?

We are arguing opinions here, but I'd have to disagree that it would still be as entertaining if the widescreen (2:1 and wider) vision was eliminated. Heck I would love to see the boundaries stretched more...like the return of Cinerama or some new wrap-around format, or the use of high quality 3D in the service of a quality movie.

Here's a list of directors' visions that we wouldn't have in a 1.85:1 world:

2001: A Space Odyssey
Ben Hur
Bridge over the River Kwai
Doctor Zhivago
Fellowship of the Ring
Good the Bad and the Ugly
How the west was won
Lawrence of Arabia
My Fair Lady
Music Man
Once Upon a Time in the West
Patton
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Sleeping Beauty
Sound of Music
Spartacus
Star Wars
Superman
West Side Story

These all use the width to the fullest and would be completely different if they weren't as wide as they are.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Andrew, it is interesting that you found the split to be 65% 1.85 vs. 35% 2.35. I'd be curios to see if that is represenative of most HTF'ers or the industry as a whole.

This is just my viewing so far, based on whatever titles I pick to watch. A little while ago I went over all my DVD's (400+) to see how many 1.85 vs. 2.35 I had, and while I know I had more 1.85, 2.35 easily dominates my top 50 films, which means my viewing should eventually even out. That 2.35 % I used has been growing steadily. Not too mention 2.35 tend to be more epic, and therefore longer.

Personally in order to make shots that need the width of 2.35 work in 1.85, I think you'd be left with too much head room, and just too much unused space in general. I think if anything it would feel like "zooming out".