1.85:1 for the time being. When I buy a widescreen I'll feel differently but since I'm watching on a 27" at present I want as much screen filled as possible without having to deal with fullscreen.

I'd say it's more like you don't understand and you don't care. But at least you admit to your willfull ignorance, that's gotta count for something.

its about context....

a comedy doesnt need 235
a suspense type film is nice in 235 (to give little thriller fringes on teh outer edges)
grand sagas are also nice in 235
documentary types are nice in 185 and even in 178
Disney's 166 (and attempt to be different and pioneering) is just plain useless and pointless
nothing should be filmed in 133 anymore - let the old boob-tubers suffer and languish in their ignorance

after context, then it boils down to use of the available viewing area - a big saga shot in 235 that doesnt make good of the scope can be distracting...conversely, films shot in smaller aspects that move around too much would probably have done better and be less dizzying if shot in a greater scope.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. -rolleyes-

I like Disney's 1:66 :)

Give me the original OAR and I am a happy man.

:lol: :up:

what exactly does that mean...the whole widescreen tv is filled? i have a sony that has 16x9 enhanced option and always use it for my DVD's. i always get large black bars on top and bottom of screen. awesome pic quality, but is this what i am supposed to get with all dvd's with all ratio's. i mean the black bars differ with diferent ratio's obviously, but not by much. so generally always black bars...just making sure this is absolutely normal!! thanks in advance.

My favorite aspect ratio is the original aspect ratio :D

A 1.85:1 aspect ratio will normally fill the screen on a 16x9 tv.

Unless, you have your set calibrated to reduce the overscan that exists on most sets (most sets have about 5% overscan).

If you do, there will be small black bars at the top and bottom.

If you have big black bars on a 1.85:1 movie (you will also see that everything looks fatter), then you probably have a setting wrong on the TV or DVD player. Make sure that it is set to 16x9 or anamorphic settings.

care to explain that? Ive always been an OAR advocate, though that still doesnt preclude me liking, or having a preference for at least 16:9 and I've also typically been noted and quoted as hating 4:3, so I dont understand the point of your response

2.35:1 definitely. Shot in 70mm of course. I don't like matted widescreen.

well, i don't understand exactly what overscan is, but i always have huge black bars on top and bottom, but no image "looks fatter" ever. the picture quality is always so flawless that is why i thought these were normal. i am pretty sure both the settings on the tv and the dvd player are correct so i am not sure what to do now. i have seen sites, ones that were even linked from here that show that these black bars are indeed normal. but this thread and your post rock has me thinking otherwise.

ok...1. so i set my Sony 27" tv to 16x9 enhanced as it always is and my Sony dvd player to 4:3 letterbox (TV option) and put in "Impostor" which has a 1.85:1 aspect ratio...the picture was good and the black bars on top and bottom measured 1.5"

2. then i set dvd player to 16x9 (TV option), tv same, the picture looked crisper and the black bars measured just under 2" on top and bottom.

the 2. scenario is how i always had set so can somebody please tell if this is RIGHT or DEAD WRONG? and if wrong, what the heck am i doing wrong. thanks.


<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNxdm835' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4_6_3.gif' alt='Huh?' border=0></a>

see this pic is from one site linked from DVD Talk that indicated this was "proper" SDTV Presentation...this is how my pic always looks...are you saying normal is when the tv is filled and there are no black bars and this is TRUE widescreen?
http://www.rexer.com/cine/pix/OARsdtv185psg.jpg

1:85:1 in both the theatre and at home. When I go to the movies, I like sitting kind of close and hate having to swivel my head back and forth.

I think 2.39:1 (or about there) is beautiful... as John Carpenter said, like a big canvas for an artist to fill.

Of course, I like any aspect ratio as long as it's USED. The advent of Super 35 is stifling composition: 2.39:1 movies often have too much dead space on the sides as a result.

scott1598,

You don't have a Widescreen TV. You have a 4:3 TV that can take advantage of the extra anamorphic resolution, but that doesn't make it a widescreen.

On a real 16:9 Widescreen TV, the clip you posted would have no black bars at all. Technically it would have very very tiny ones, but they would be covered up by the overscan on the set.

Just another benefit to getting a true 16:9 display :)

I agree with this completely. Get the bubble screen TVs off the market and the boob tubers are going to have to make the transition whether they like it or not. When they made the switch from vinyl to CD the powers that be made it virtually overnight- the barest of turntables could be found in the marketplace. Time to do the same with all the foolscreen sets out there.

And we all know how idiotic directors can be. What about cyclops, or if you're watching the movie lying down on your side?

1:33:1 all the way! Fellowship members, 4th Ghostbusters, and 3rd Stormtroopers be damned!

K

ok...ok, so then i have just the 16x9 option and i keep that on and then those black bars that measure 2" on top and bottom are completely normal and that is that, correct???

2.35:1, especially if it's a big epic movie. It just looks so film-like.

2.35:1 without a doubt. 1.85:1 is sometimes heard as 'the poor man's widescreen'.

As for everyone saying 'original' or whatever the director wanted. Well the question was your favorite, not the director's!

I don't think that's a fair statement. A lot of directors have done wonders with 1.85:1, and a lot still opt for 1.66:1. Some movies just don't have the scope to use... um, Scope.