You are SO right -- that annoys the ever-lovin' shit outta me. Of course I'm not all that crazy about those stupid grey bars on the sides, either. I understand that black bars can cause screen problems and the grey ones are supposed to prevent that by keeping the signal level uniform, but it just bothers me. I've only seen that on older projection sets, so hopefully that's not the case on newer plasma and LCD sets. I wouldn't know -- can't afford one. :(

Yep. Widescreen is the new fullscreen. Totally against what people had been fighting for.

My Samsung LCD has black pillar boxes. I agree that gray would be distracting.

Actually, in that case it was to preserve the correct aspect ratio of 1.66:1. Either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 would have small bars on either the sides or top respectively, and with enough overscan you might not even see them either way.

CRTs and plasma sets are susceptible to burn-in. That's why they have the grey bars. DLP and LCD are NOT susceptible to burn-in. My DLP has black bars. I think the grey bars would be enough to drive me crazy. I'd rather stretch the picture than see the grey. Fortunately, I don't have to.

You get used to it.

The "correct" aspect ratio of that film seems to be in dispute, with 1.85:1 being more likely than 1.66:1. I wouldn't mind if the marketing hype was right about "preserving the correct aspect ratio", but after the "Special Edition" was presented in 1.85:1, I'm thinking it's bullshit.

Thanks for the info... I'll be going with LCD over plasma if I can ever afford a flat TV.

I'm sure most people do, but a lot of us wouldn't. I'm a graphic designer, and incorrect proportions are <b>really</b> annoying to me.

Oh never mind about those fullscreen and widescreen crap. I want the new waistscreen!

What a lot of people don't realize is when you see a movie in the theater, usually (at least the nicer theaters) the curtains adjust to the aspect ratio. Get there early and watch and hear them move into position so that all you see is screen then curtains around the borders.
If it makes you feel better, make some curtains for your TV and place around the edges and adjust them to cover up the "black bars".
Problem solved. That's what I did -wink-














(not really)

I think he meant that he gets used to the bars being grey instead of black. I know I never could (there's nothing "neutral" about grey when it glows), but I've never seen a plasma that didn't offer the option to switch between grey and black bars.

RichC

No, of course not. The problem was a lack of agreement as to what the next AR standard (for films) should've been. Once widescreen became the norm, it was the wild west, lawlessness I tell'ya. There was never an agreed upon standard beyond 4:3. If there was a standard (say, 16:9), then letterboxing would've been eliminated when we jumped to 16:9 sets... pillarboxing would be present for older material shot in 4:3.

That's what I said. The lack of a standard beyond 4:3 has resulted in the existence of letterboxing and pillarboxing from this point out forever.

True.
Not necessarily true. Not everyone who was "fighting for widescreen" was actually "fighting for OAR".

There were various reasons why people were fighting for "widescreen". Some did it because it made them sound more educated. Some did it because they had widescreen TVs and wanted them filled (not realizing that there was no widescreen standard). And there were some who were actually interested in OAR.

When I saw widescreen zealots complain that they weren't going to buy the WIZARD OF OZ on DVD until it was released in widescreen, I knew that things had gone off-the-rails. :lol:

Oh, that could be. Anyway, I wouldn't want to switch to black if it was eventually gonna burn in, but I really don't think I'd get used to either the grey bars or the stretching. I know some people never notice it (my brother leaves his set like that all the time, but then fullscreen doesn't bother him either), but either one would drive me up the wall. LCD will probably be the choice for me when the time comes.

Absolutely. It's kind of like listening to people complain that they're missing something with widescreen, which is only really true if a film was shot open-matte (and even then it's not really part of the film), but they ARE missing something with their beloved fullscreen. So sad.

What an entertaining thread! It has really been funny to read these posts. It hasn't been a "waist" of my time at all!

Does anyone else have the "Smart Stretch" feature on their widescreen TV?

That's what I tend to use when I watch 4:3 content from cable tv.

My brother's set has that, and there's a noticeable difference from, er, "dumb stretch", but not much. It's impossible for any hardware to <b>know</b> what looks right, and even if it stretches more in places where you might not notice it as much, it's still noticeable, especially since you're not dealing with a static image where the areas of less detail are always gonna be in the same place.

Gyech.

That's the mode where things actually change size when the camera pans from edge to center. It's like watching TV in a funhouse mirror.

This is why I will never buy a plasma TV: fear of burn-in if I decide to watch, say, a whole-series multi-season run of a 4:3 show. LCDs are almost there; in another year there will be 47" 1080p sets with HDMI 1.3 that have excellent black-level performance and wide field of view for under $2k. I can wait.

RichC

Waist not want not.

Man, I couldn't watch 24 on my widescreen TV. I had to switch over to my standard tv :(

No wonder I wait for the DVDs.

Coca, sorry for the elitists on the forum. I'm surprised, usually everyones much more friendly.

This website is very informative on the differences between widescreen and fullscreen. Be sure to read it all.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...reenorama.html

Then, if you have a widescreen TV, this will help you understand even more what you purchased and what you should expect from your television.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...hic/index.html

Widescreen 16:9 TV sets are, of course, a compromise ratio. The whole point about widescreen 2.35:1 films (which used to be known mainly as Cinemascope) was to give viewers a much wider picture without sacrificing the height. Obviously on TV you don't get a wider picture; you get a smaller picture. Looked at like this, it's perhaps not surprising that people complain.

(sarcasm) Yeah, fucking elitists. They ridicule anybody who dares to ask why everything isn't fullscreen. I mean, that's a valid question, isn't it??? (/sarcasm)

Come on, we're not elitists. This forum is called <b>DVDTalk</b> so it stands to reason that it's populated by people who can converse coherently and intelligently about DVDs. Therefore, someone coming in and complaining that their screen isn't being filled will inevitably get some static, especially if that complaint is barely coherent. Coca states that he realizes that widescreen preserves the original theatrical aspect ratio, but still complains that his screen isn't being filled. Filled with what, coca? Butterflies and daffodils? What exactly do you want to see? You're already seeing the entire picture with widescreen, so it seems ludicrous to cut off parts of the picture just for the sake of filling the screen.

To look at the "black bars" on the screen and expect to see something there is like looking behind your TV set and complaining that the picture is only shown on the front of the set. Video is only two-dimensional (unless you count time, but the image itself is 2D), and widescreen shows you the whole picture, which because it's a different shape than your screen, will NOT fill the screen without being cropped and/or distorted. I realize that a lot of people are frustrated after spending a grand or so on a new widescreen TV, only to still see thin black bars when watching certain movies, but if you'll actually look on the back of most DVD releases, it doesn't just say Widescreen, it actually gives the aspect ratio, which if you'll notice, varies from film to film, which is why widescreen is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Regardless of that, I really just don't understand what all the screen-filling nonsense is about. You're actually getting the whole picture, and if part of your screen is black it means <b>you should not be looking at that part</b>, just as you're not supposed to look behind your set like your cat does. The image is on the front of the screen and between any black bars or pillars that you might see. That's where you should be looking -- I promise you the whole picture is there if you just focus in the right place. Sheesh, I'm waiting for people to start calling the manufacturer saying "I see the picture okay, but there's this blank black space at the bottom with an "LG" logo on it, and below that there's a kind of stand-looking thing and some speakers. I've tried changing the channel or playing a different DVD, but it's always there. Also, at the top of the screen, it says "Liquid Crystal Display" and it's on that same blank black background. Can you tell me if there's a way to get rid of that???"