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 composed 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 (The Wizard of Oz, 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.