Watching movies letterbox/wrong aspect ratios. (2 Viewers)

[johnmcmasters]

Like others I always hated edited for TV aspect ratios, even as a kid. When I purchased my first VCR I only shelled out for either 4x3 movies or non-widescreen movies since I believed 1:85 or 1:66 films, etc., were not wildly abused by the aspect ratio issue. I did tape probably over a thousand wide screen film from broadcast or cable TV that had incorrect aspect ratios, but they always hugely dissatisfied me. As did mono releases of stereo mixes.

When I purchased my old and defunct Sony 42 inch tube TV, I also purchased my first laser disc player. The first films I purchased were all wide screen films that were letterboxed -- and I loved the experience. Black space at the sides or top or bottom has never, ever, bothered me in the slightest. Now have a 55 inch LG 16:9 OLED. I have a friend who also has a similar set up, and he absolutely hates letterboxing, especially black bars on the sides of 4:3 content. I used some cardboard boxes, painted black, to frame his screen as needed and, for some reason, that masking satisfied him emotionally,

So if you are really looking for advice, I say get rid of those film, and try to embrace the side panels for 4:3 content.

What is field of view (FOV)?

Field of view (FOV) is the range of the observable world visible through the human eye, camera viewfinder, etc. Learn more about the importance of this concept in optics.

www.techtarget.com

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

^RE: getting rid of non-OAR discs, well, I'm guessing that should really depend...

I'd think if one has a huge collection (that makes rewatching it all requiring at least a few years, if not more), then that might make sense, excepting for some select faves (one might prioritize for revisiting) stuck w/ only non-OAR releases.

I don't have that problem myself -- I have waaay too much content (in OAR), and none of my truly select faves fall into that (non-OAR) purgatory...

Even widescreen OAR titles I wanted that were stuck w/ no 16x9 releases have been coming out of late, including True Lies (finally) in the very near future...

_Man_

 

[Lecagr]

I'm also on Spectrum Cable and still like watching some tv on my classic CRT's that stick around primarily for classic videogaming. There's been no recent change here at my end since TCM went HD several years back.

The standard definition transfers are still full-screen and the HD transfers, which many of the Academy ratio films that they air have these days, are windowboxed on my 480i CRT's since the broadcast is HD and as a result is letterboxed on a 4:3 SD display.

For instance the film 'Love Me Tonight' was on a few hours ago on Turner Classic Movies. Filled the screen on my Trinitron just like it would've done back when TCM first went on the air in the standard definition era of television, which tells me that this 1932 film wasn't presented in HD today.

I'm a fan of the Bowery Boys movies and I have my own collection of the complete run of the series, all of the movies are full screen presentations which is what I prefer because I watch on a CRT TV.

Many of the movies are full screen airings that I recorded back in the 1980's from WGN TV in Chicago, the WGN airings are sourced from 16mm prints. Other movies from the series that I didn't get from WGN are full screen airings that I recorded from TCM.

Nowadays, TCM doesn't run Bowery Boys movies in full screen anymore. The earlier entries in the series (1946-53) are windowboxed with black bars all the way around the four sides. The later entries in the series (1954-57) are widescreened with black bars at the top and bottom. I don't like it but it doesn't really affect me since I have the movies in full screen which is my preference.

 

[Kaskade1309]

Front-loaded was the order of the day for tracks of that vintage. Also, The Blob was originally mixed in Ultra-Stereo, and not many Ultra Stereo tracks are what you’d call “immersive”.

I've heard plenty of remixes from that era that were turned into immersive powerhouses, even on DVD; this wasn't one of em.

Yes, Ultra-Stereo usually didn't elicit nail-biting aural experiences -- I recall the Ultra-Stereo track on Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (on the VHS tape AND the DVD as part of the From Crystal Lake to Manhattan DVD set) not being all that bad though.

 

[Kaskade1309]

Like others I always hated edited for TV aspect ratios, even as a kid. When I purchased my first VCR I only shelled out for either 4x3 movies or non-widescreen movies since I believed 1:85 or 1:66 films, etc., were not wildly abused by the aspect ratio issue. I did tape probably over a thousand wide screen film from broadcast or cable TV that had incorrect aspect ratios, but they always hugely dissatisfied me. As did mono releases of stereo mixes.

When I purchased my old and defunct Sony 42 inch tube TV, I also purchased my first laser disc player. The first films I purchased were all wide screen films that were letterboxed -- and I loved the experience. Black space at the sides or top or bottom has never, ever, bothered me in the slightest. Now have a 55 inch LG 16:9 OLED. I have a friend who also has a similar set up, and he absolutely hates letterboxing, especially black bars on the sides of 4:3 content. I used some cardboard boxes, painted black, to frame his screen as needed and, for some reason, that masking satisfied him emotionally,

So if you are really looking for advice, I say get rid of those film, and try to embrace the side panels for 4:3 content.

What is field of view (FOV)?

Field of view (FOV) is the range of the observable world visible through the human eye, camera viewfinder, etc. Learn more about the importance of this concept in optics.

www.techtarget.com

Ironically, I do not loathe letterboxing, and have become appreciative of the approach in many instances -- what I, for whatever reason, hate is PILLARboxing, where the 4:3 content is squeezed to the middle (where it's supposed to be on a 16:9 display) and the black bars are off to the sides.

There's a difference between LETTERboxing and PILLARboxing (and WINDOWboxing, for that matter, which is worst of all).

As for your advice, thank you -- that's what I kind of wanted to know when I was asking my questions. Once we get our Panasonic UHD disc player back from service, I'll have no choice but to watch the 4:3 content with the pillarboxing because the player is locked in a widescreen output.

I can't imagine painting cardboard pieces just to cover up black areas of scope or 4:3 content; I wouldn't go that far, LOL.

 

[Kaskade1309]

^RE: getting rid of non-OAR discs, well, I'm guessing that should really depend...

I'd think if one has a huge collection (that makes rewatching it all requiring at least a few years, if not more), then that might make sense, excepting for some select faves (one might prioritize for revisiting) stuck w/ only non-OAR releases.

I don't have that problem myself -- I have waaay too much content (in OAR), and none of my truly select faves fall into that (non-OAR) purgatory...

Even widescreen OAR titles I wanted that were stuck w/ no 16x9 releases have been coming out of late, including True Lies (finally) in the very near future...

_Man_

I try to embrace those films that were SHOT in 4:3 as their OAR when I view them with the pillarboxing -- I mentally sell myself on the fact that "this is how it was meant to be seen on your widescreen display," always going back to the fact that TCM and some other channels that show classics hard-code their transmission of such films with pillarbox bars.

What's weird is that some films in my collection that I THOUGHT were originally conceived for 4:3 and presented that way on DVD -- such as House on Haunted Hill, House of Wax, Night of the Living Dead and even some Kubrick films like The Shining/Full Metal Jacket -- were actually either re-released or WERE originally conceived in widescreen. For example, I always thought the original House on Haunted Hill was a 4:3 presentation natively, but then I came across the Warner Bros. DVD that exhibited it in a matted full screen transfer. Night of the Living Dead is another good example -- for the longest time, I thought the film was always meant to be shown in a 4:3 ratio based on all the public domain DVDs out there, but then I started to see the high def versions from Criterion, etc. pop up in which it was presented in 16:9 (unless I'm mistaken).

Now, I realize I am in a MASSIVE minority with regard to what comes next, especially on "OAR forever"-leaning sites like this one (and that's absolutely fine), but what I have been having a hard time getting my head around is the transition from 4:3 DVDs we had in our collection -- and there were a lot, because I started collecting them long, long before I met my wife and set up our current surround system with 4K hardware/software, being that I started off with a small Sony 4:3 tube set during the early days of collecting DVDs -- to the widescreen counterparts because my Panasonic player wouldn't auto-stretch them like the Oppos (or my own Cambridge CXUHD) did.

At any rate, I can't go into all that right now, but I will return when there's free time.

 

[garyrc]

This all takes me back to when I was a wee lad (about the time American Graffiti came out). We would watch The Million Dollar Movie (WOR-TV, Channel 9) and right as the movie was ending, a weird thing would sometimes happen. The cowboys riding off in the sunset would suddenly turn skinny as all heck, and then oddly-proportioned credits would roll.

I was baffled and also a little fascinated by this. My parents were of no help explaining this.

"Mommy, mommy, why do the actors in the credits look so skinny when the movie ends?"
"Well dear, it's because they refused to eat all their supper like you do, so now look at them!"

Ah, to watch CinemaScope on a crap Zenith TV.

A friend of mine, in an intro to film class, was actually told -- by the instructor -- that the skinny people at the end of a movie was a style. I went into my semi-annual conniption-fit.

 

[YANG]

Perception and Expectation would always have conflicts with one another if there's no Perfection.

 

[garyrc]

Perception and Expectation would always have conflicts with one another if there's no Perfection.

I'll hold out for Perfection

"... always meant to be shown in a 4:3 ratio ..."

4:3 is 1.33:1. That was -- very approximately -- the TV aspect ratio. As Leonard Maltin pointed out, you missed a bit of the image when watching an ordinary movie on old TV, but it wasn't too bad. Why? Professional 35mm films tended to be shot and projected in 1.37:1, not 4:3. The other ratios were 1.66:1 (chiefly European films and some Disney), 1.78:1 (HDTV's "fake" widescreen ratio of 16:9, expressed that way in hopes you won't do the math), 1.85:1 the USA's usual "narrow" or "standard" screen starting in about 1953, nicknamed "flat," probably because it wasn't really widescreen, and didn't have the trace of a depth effect that widescreen sometimes had. VistaVision "Motion Picture High Fidelity" was often projected at 1.85:1. There was 2.21:1 for lovely 70mm Todd-AO, Technirama 70, Super (not Ultra) Panavision 70, etc., and there were 2.35:1 and several other aspect ratios for CinemaScope. Panavision (the 35mm version), used 2.35:1 until it re-standardized at 2.39:1 (often called 2.4:1) later on. There were a few films made in an ultra wide 70mm format, Ultra (not Super) Panavision 70, and MGM Camera 65, both 2.76:1.

 

[Kaskade1309]

4:3 is 1.33:1. That was -- very approximately -- the TV aspect ratio.

I know.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Unless you have a tape measure and a calculator, you'll never be able to tell the difference between 1.33 and 1.37. Its that minute.

 

[JoshZ]

Unless you have a tape measure and a calculator, you'll never be able to tell the difference between 1.33 and 1.37. Its that minute.

Yeah, I'm continually amused at people who get hung up on the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1, or between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 - as if they could ever possibly discern those subtleties by eye. Or as if those ranges weren't well within the acceptable projection tolerances for theatrical projection.

 

[Worth]

Yeah, I'm continually amused at people who get hung up on the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1, or between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 - as if they could ever possibly discern those subtleties by eye. Or as if those ranges weren't well within the acceptable projection tolerances for theatrical projection.

Or 1.78 and 1.85.

 

[Lord Dalek]

On a modern TV, the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is a bit more obvious though.

 

[garyrc]

Or 1.78 and 1.85.

That one I can see. 1.78 fills our projection screen from top to bottom. With 1.85 there is a sliver of imageless space at the top. A sliver, to be sure, so no big deal.

A few years ago (it seems) I counted 10 aspect ratios. Now, all of a sudden there are more. Didn't we have enough?

 

[JoshZ]

A few years ago (it seems) I counted 10 aspect ratios. Now, all of a sudden there are more. Didn't we have enough?

Not to mention the directors that insist on switching around between all those aspect ratios shot-to-shot.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yeah, I'm continually amused at people who get hung up on the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1, or between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 - as if they could ever possibly discern those subtleties by eye. Or as if those ranges weren't well within the acceptable projection tolerances for theatrical projection.

Someone who will remain nameless gave me crap because I referred to IMAX 1.43:1 as IMAX 1.44:1 - or vice versa. Can't remember.

But he argued that I declared the wrong ratio over that .01:1!

 

[DaveF]

This thread is deeply weird to me.

Here in HTF nearly 25 years ago we were making cardboard mattes to enhance the experience of watching letterbox movies on our 25” CRT TVs.

How do you make "mattes"?

First of all, please excuse my ignorance, but I keep seeing posts refering to mattes and how they make widescreen movies look better on a regular tv. What supplies do I need to buy and how exactly do I make them? Also, do they really make a difference? Thanks for your help.

www.hometheaterforum.com

And for the past 20 years we’ve had CRTs that did anamorphic squeeze to show full resolution from widescreen DVDs.

Sony Wega's

Hey guys, just wondering how good are the Sony Wega tv's? They are always really expensive and look really nice but are they worth the money or is it just overpriced? Thanx!

www.hometheaterforum.com

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This thread is deeply weird to me.

Here in HTF nearly 25 years ago we were making cardboard mattes to enhance the experience of watching letterbox movies on our 25” CRT TVs.

How do you make "mattes"?

First of all, please excuse my ignorance, but I keep seeing posts refering to mattes and how they make widescreen movies look better on a regular tv. What supplies do I need to buy and how exactly do I make them? Also, do they really make a difference? Thanks for your help.

www.hometheaterforum.com

And for the past 20 years we’ve had CRTs that did anamorphic squeeze to show full resolution from widescreen DVDs.

Sony Wega's

Hey guys, just wondering how good are the Sony Wega tv's? They are always really expensive and look really nice but are they worth the money or is it just overpriced? Thanx!

www.hometheaterforum.com

Yeah, there's been some perplexing revisionist history here - like "everyone hated letterboxing".

 

[BobO'Link]

Yep - I just want to watch in OAR - and I don't care *what* OAR is, just that I prefer that to any pan-and-scan (for any WS product) or fake WS image (from 4:3/Academy ratio product). The "Black Bars" people constantly complain about do not bother me in the least.

I find it humorous that in the 4:3 TV age people complained about "them black bars on the top and bottom" of the screen with a true WS presentation and today it's people *still* complaining about that *and* have now added pillar boxing to the complaint, preferring to watch 4:3 product stretch out of proportion rather than in its proper AR.

Just hang/mount something black behind your set and watch with the lights off or dimmed and you'll likely never notice "them black bars" you hate so much. And for goodness' sake... remove those stupid "back lights" from around your set!! They do *not* help the image but trick your eyes into seeing something that's not there. In the long run, they're detrimental to viewing.