why? dvd theatrical widescreen release
 

I am so confused why they release this type of widescreen on dvd. I understand it is to retain the origional format and keep from loss of quality, but what I really hate is that even on a 42" plasma or lcd it is still small and you waist so much of your screen. You then have to use your player to force a pan scan..which then you loose heaps of quality.

?

thanks,

Coca

I don't know if you're serious or just messing with us, but we have gotten several complaint posts at AVS about HD DVDs and BDs not filling their widescreen TVs (because many of the popular movies released have been 2.40:1).

Let me guess, that's what you want? You want all your movies to fill your 16x9 TV?

O.A.R. coca, O.A.R.

Phil

Waist? You mean waste as in not use?

People need to get over the fact that the display device does not need to use all of its available pixels to display an image. You are seeing all of the image there is, what is the fascination with filling up the screen?

please stop posting here. k thanks bye.

Clearly "Coca" posted a very vague thread ("This" type of Widescreen DVD??)
with unusual spelling mistakes to add.

Waist Of Space

http://www.hmoon.com/graphics/measurement/waist.jpg

Maybe because for the first 50+ years of television people have had their screens filled?

If you think that the J6P outcry over "black bars" was bad before (with their 4:3 sets) just wait until they discover that after dishing out $1000-$2000 for their HD widescreen set that they will still have "black bars".

Why are you watching the black bars, anyway? There's much more interesting things going on between them.

You know, even in the days of VHS, I always bought the letterbox versions when they were available. Having black bars never bothered me. I wanted to see the film the way it was intended.

You ever watch a movie on cable and notice that the picture pans unaturally to a character and then back to another. That bothered me more than anything back in the day, and I didn't even know what was causing it back then. That is much more distracting than black bars.

Every so often... -ohbfrank-

:why: What a waist!

Yes you correct they had their screens filled with TV content.

I understand your pain. I always prefer a tight heap of quality myself.

Nice to see how new members are treated. Par for the course around here sometimes.

The difference here though, is that there are people that believe that when they buy a widescreen TV, all of their widescreen movies won't have black bars when viewed on the set. It seems crazy that they would not notice that some movies have bigger bars than others, but they just don't make the connection, and think that the new TV should not show bars at all.

I remember when I was growing up and watching TV on a basic 19 inch television. Everything seemed ok. I watched cable movies and never thought anything of it until I saw The Towering Inferno and Die Hard. Both those movies had opening sequences that were letterboxed and I was blown away how, even on a 4:3 TV, the letterboxing made the opening feel like a theater experience. Once the credits finished rolling and the widescreen left, I realized I was back in my kitchen and not in a theater. :(

A troll post is a troll post, regardless of how long the member has been around.

First the OP writes that he is confused as to why movies are released in widescreen on DVD, then he writes "I understand it is to retain the origional format and keep from loss of quality."

If he understands why, then he isn't confused, and there is no point to his post other than to stir the shit.

I'll be surprised if this thread is open after today.

That is the kind of oversimplification that causes misunderstanding. Not all movies were filmed in what we refer to as a widescreen AR. A good portion of the films shown on TV during the 50's and 60's were originally shot in the Academy Aspect Ratio (4:3) so there were no black bars and no cropping.
Then in the 70's and 80's, widescreen films were cropped to fit the TV screen. It wasn't until the 90's that letterboxing was brought to the mainstream's awareness.

Now, because of a lack of standards, we are doomed to a future of perpetual letterboxing and pillarboxing.

I have a DLP, not a plasma or LCD. And on my DLP, none of my screen is "waist"ed. My TV displays black bars above and below to ensure that the movie is presented in its original OAR. Without those black bars, the picture would either be stretched out and distored or some of the original picture would have to be chopped off. So it's far from a "waist". In fact, that space is extremely valuable in giving me the best possible viewing experience.

Maybe it's smaller because a particulalr movie you're viewing isn't anamorphic?

-notrolls- :notrolls:

I don't understand. What do you think they should have done? Do you think they should have stuck with 4:3 for all movies?

Even if you think they should have a) never shot movies in 2.40:1, but rather 1.85:1 so they would fit 16x9 sets, or b) went to 2.40:1 sets, you would have some letterboxing and/or pillarboxing either way.

True, and I've been there, but this poster just opened him/herself up to it.

Anyway, this way of thinking is why all DVDs should be encoded (somehow) with the ability to display in multiple ratios; if the film was shot 2.35:1, then weirdos like the OP who only care about filling the screen over all else, should be able to choose "16:9" aspect ratio or something, just to get rid of the small pesky "bars" at the top and bottom :rolleyes:
(maybe that can already be done)
As we see everywhere, people stretch 4:3 TV broadcasts to fit 16:9. I dunno, I don't like looking in a funhouse mirror all the time.

The OP probably got a harsh reception not only because they've walked into a forum where OAR is respected and started complaining about their screen not being filled, but also because they can't seem to construct a coherent post that's not full of lazily non-capitalized, misspelled words. If you ask me, he's <b>on</b> a little "coca".

Anyway, there is hope for people like that, because if I recall correctly, Sony's new transfer of <i>Monty Python and the Holy Grail</i> had its aspect ratio changed from 1.85:1 to 1.66:1, most likely so that people who bought widescreen TVs won't see the dreaded "black bars". Just when we thought foolscreen was dead, here comes "fullscreen for widescreen TVs". :grumble:

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.