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???"

I meant the gray bars. I have a degree in Media Design, though I have no desire to use it currently, so no, I can not deal with the out of proportion picture.

Or the ever popular shot of two people, or I should say half of two people, one on the right, the other to the extreme left, each barely showing with gaping space in between. No that's not too disctracting[/sarcasm]

The fact of the matter is TV and movies come in a variety of ratios. 1.33, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.2, 2.35. 2.4 or 2.5 to 1 all based on what the director desires. The old days of castrating the picture to one size fits all is thankfully over.

Again... an inaccurate oversimplification. When the Academy Ratio was the film industry standard, nothing was being "castrated".

I believe the "old days" he is referring to is the home video era before the arrival of dvd. His point is simple and accurate.

Yeah, that's what I got from it, too. As in, the old days of modifying a widescreen image to fit a 4:3 television screen are over.

In my experience, yes. This was before 16:9 displays existed. If a movie was exhibited in 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 or whateverthehell, we wanted it on home video in that ratio.

Replaced by the days of modifying an image to fit 16:9, be it Cinemascope or, in some cases, 4:3.

No, "the old days" refers to pre-Cinemascope, etc. when "Academy ratio" was standard. If filmmakers <b>composed</b> for Academy ratio, there was no problem showing the film on TV. However, a lull in theater business (and possibly the dissatisfaction of filmmakers) led studios to start using all kinds of gimmicks like Cinemascope, Panavision, etc. I personally think it's nice to have the different aspect ratios, but the honest truth of the matter is that they originated simply as gimmicks to get people back in theaters after the advent of television. Funnily enough, I believe the very reason TVs are 4:3 is because it was close to Academy ratio.

EDIT: I wasn't following who said what correctly, so let me clarify. I agree with both parties, but I don't think they're understanding each other correctly (like I should talk). "The old days of castrating the picture to one size fits all" probably did mean the days of fullscreen home video, but widescreen home video has been possible all along, and has been used as far back as CED. It was beginning to gain acceptance at the end of the VHS era, but when DVD came along and offered anamorphic capability, it was definitely a big boost for OAR. I agree that having a choice is much better than "the old days" when everything was "modified to fit your TV", but sracer is right when he says that had Academy ratio not given way to things like Cinemascope, etc. you wouldn't have two-shots that couldn't fit on a TV screen -- shots would have been composed appropriately for Academy ratio, which requires little or no modification when shown on TV (<i>The Wizard of Oz</i>, for example).

My brother has a 53 inch HD set,and despite knowing the difference between widescreen and 'fullscreen'. He has begun to buy 'fullscreen' only since as he says, "My tv makes everything fullscreen,so there is no need for widescreen dvds anymore".

In other words,he has the tv set to 'automatic' which you would think could tell the difference between aspect ratios and project them properly(like my widescreen laptop does). But instead it stretches everything including 16.9 enhanced scope films to a distorted 'fullscreen' look. So now he thinks he is watching everything in 'widescreen' and that 'fullscreen' is widescreen. Since his tv magically makes all movies the same format.

Julie, after reading dozens of your posts over the years I have come to the conclusion that your brother is retarded. You have my support, and please let him know that all of us here at DVD Talk are pulling for him.

I'm wondering if the OP actually has his DVD player set to 4:3 mode, rather than 16:9. That would make it seem like these widescreen movies are so small on the screen, since they would be letterboxed and pillarboxed. Too bad we can't ask, I think we've scared him off.