DVD Josh

Josh Z's new article does a phenomenal job of explaining aspect ratios in easy to understand language for the beginner. Lots of good info for even those "in the know"! Nice work, Z.

It does not make sense to post the article here, as the accompanying pictures are as valuable as the words themselves.

You owe it to yourself to read about this important "aspect" of film presentation.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...rs_Go_Away/764

JOE29

I don't mind the black bars at all. To me, it gives the movie picture a wider look which I like. The only thing I don't like is full screen. But with alot of the older movies that's all that's available so I have to take it or leave it and just deal with it.

MikeDeN2K

All that's available? Just deal with it? It's the original composition of the film... why would you want anything else?

WWEFan

This was a very interesting article, which explained things very well, but I still have some questions about OAR on DVD releases. For example, if a film was shot in 1.85:1 ratio is that what it should be on a DVD or is 1.78:1 acceptable?

Also, take a film like The Graduate, in the thread for the Special Edition people say the want it in OAR yet from what I can tell the DVD is 2.35:1, which is the OAR for the film. Is my information wrong or is there something else to this. Thanks for any help.

Richard Malloy

WWEFan, I think the folks in that thread want "The Graduate" anamorphically enhanced.

"Anamorphic" is a tricky word, as it also refers to the nature of the lens when shooting cinemascope, i.e., 2.35:1. In the case of "The Graduate", it was "shot anamorphically" at 2.35:1, and is presented in this ratio on every DVD release. However, the R1 DVD is not "anamorphically enhanced", which causes it to appear letterboxed within a 4x3 frame on widescreen TVs.

Just to make things even more complicated... only "cinemascope"/2.35:1 films are "shot anamorphically", but all widescreen ratios - 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.66:1, etc. - can be "anamorphically enhanced" for DVD, and of course we prefer it this way.

WWEFan

That makes sense, thanks for the help.

compulsive dvd

When more people upgrade to 16:9 televisions, I will be laughing to myself at all the 1.33:1 fullscreen dvds people have purchased of recent movies. In fact, I'm still shocked at the amount still available in stores and places that carry full screen only. Then again, stretch to fill doesn't seem to bother many people, so I guess the fact that everyone looks too wide won't be noticed.

Jah-Wren Ryel

I mask out the middle of the picture with black velvet so that I can better focus on the black bars.

canaryfarmer

They're pretty much the exact same thing. They're almost used interchangeably these days. You would never notice the difference.

Josh Z

The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is a few scan lines. Opening the mattes to 1.78:1 does not affect the compositional intent of a shot.

1.85:1


Open Matte 1.78:1


Either version as seen on a TV with typical 5% overscan

BuckNaked2k

I know what you mean! I'm constantly amazed by all the 16:9 televisions I see out in bars, restaurants, etc, (to say nothing of my parents' living room) that are stretched to fit the whole frame. Does no one notice the fat heads and odd appearance of the picture but me?

Also, I wish Josh had used the term 16:9 in his article instead of hi-def when refering to the displays, as the Aspect Ratio is really the crux of the argument, not the resolution of the picture.

Egon's Ghost

Ooh, that Once Upon a time in the West shot is fantastic!

An important point that many people outside of this forum don't seem to grasp.

Al_Tahoe

I always suspected guys named 'Josh' were clannish.

Josh Z

I hear what you're saying, but the article was aimed at specifically at people who assume that High Definition equals "fill my HDTV".

Drexl

As much as I can't stand it, I can actually see where they have a good reason to have them stretched if they are plasma panels. An establishment like that will have a set on continuously throughout the day (some places 24 hours a day), and leaving it in 4:3 mode the whole time will probably lead to burn-in. This is even more important at a place like Best Buy, Circuit City, et al, where they might want to eventually sell their display models.

Alan Smithee

If a display can't show a picture properly without damage/burn-in, then it's a faulty piece of equipment.

When I worked at Tower.com, I actually had some moron ask for all his movies in foolscreen even though he had a plasma TV; his reason being that since 2.35 movies still had 'black bars', he'd rather stretch the foolscreen versions so they filled the screen.

Shannon Nutt

The burn-in "fear" has always been highly overrated, IMHO. I know people who won't watch anything in 1:33:1 (assuming that's the OAR) without zoom because they fear burn-in.

BuckNaked2k

Most of the time when I see this in a bar, they're showing ESPN......get a damn hi-def signal already!!!

DVD Polizei

Some day the great and wise industry will create 21.15x9 HDTV screens. Because all of our 2.35:1 movies will finally look fantastic.

Superman07

I've still never fully understood "anamorphic". I saw the above, but still not helping. Could somebody expand? Thanks!

Adam Tyner

Here's one guide.

The Bus

A suggestion for the article. I'm sure there's someone out there who needs their screen filled. Suggest for them to do what the theatres do: buy a projector and a screen. The black bars will disappear.

Nebiroth

The article was a little misleading by constantly referring to "HDTV". You can get widescreen televisions that aren't HD, and indeed, if you look hard enough I bet you can get HD TV's that aren't widescreen. And indeed, lots and lots of computer screens that people are using to show HD will not be widescreen either.

I can see that the article was aimed at HD owners, but really, by doing this it was just adding to the confusion.

This could have been addressed by adding a small intermediary paragraph that showed the introduction of widescreen televisions, and then noted that HD televisions are virtually all widescreen.

Referring to HD when you mean widescreen is confusing apples and pears IMHO.

BuckNaked2k

Thank you. I am one of a small minority of TV owners who have a 16x9 display that isn't HD-ready or HD-capable. I enjoy anamorphic enhancement, but I'm limited to 480p.

It can be said that while all HDTVs are 16x9, not all 16x9 TVs are HD.

Adam Tyner

It's an article on a site geared 100% around HD DVD and Blu-ray. How many people without HDTVs are reading a site geared towards high-def media?