Blu-ray movies should be in BOTH 1.78:1 and 2.39:1 formats

[reiella]

Might be worth putting those crops in the sticky thread for easy compare.

[DaDane]

Originally Posted by andytoh

Zooming will fill the screen but will decrease the resolution. It's not a good enough solution for me.

Well, haven't read the specs but that is stupid if true!

In my opinion the resolution of the information-carrying part of the picture (i.e. with no black lines) should always be the highest possible (i.e. 1080x1920 for Blu-ray, 720x576 for DVD (at least PAL DVD, - I think NTSC DVD has a slight different resolution)).

DVD's actually do have panoramic recording. The resolution is, I am quite sure, 720x576 whether 4:3 or 16:9, - but admitted not for other formats like 2.39:1

Obviously that would make the pixels in some movies (the 2.39:1) very long and others (the 4:3 movies if any) very tall.

For now it might not help a bit, - but eventually we will get screens which can do better than 1080p (some already have on PC's) and also 2.39:1 lcd's/projectors might come out.

[Deciazulado]

[andytoh]

I have a question:

We know that 2.39:1 movies on blu-ray are not 1080 pixels high--more like 800 pixels. When movies are shown on high definition channels, which fill the screen, how many pixels high is the movie--is it the full 1080 pixels? I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 1 on HDTV the other day, and it looked very, very sharp.

[Merrick]

Sorry, but I just couldn't leave this one alone...

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Thank you to the person with the shots from Star Wars, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, where you actually lose a character from the shot. They have a demo on Pearl Harbor that has the same thing where they have to completely cut out a character.

I think the BIG question is how we crop Ben Affleck out of all the scenes.

[Merrick]

Originally Posted by mj23007

First off this argument that the movie is transfered "the way the director intended it", is stupid! I am the consumer who pays for him to be able to make this movie. I should be able to watch it in whatever aspect ratio I want. And if blu ray is really that great and has so much extra capacity. Both aspect ratios should be supported on every movie!

And have you *completely* missed the points that:

a) if the original aspect ratio is there you can have the aspect ratio you want by pushing a little button on your remote. Push the button and stop whining.

b) if *both* aspect ratios are to put in the same package it means:
1) greater cost - no matter how it's packaged. Two separate masterings have to be done.
2) longer production times - i.e., slower release of new titles
3) if put on one disc then either lower bit rates (= lower resolution FOR BOTH) or loss of all extras and at least some sound tracks - and then only for relatively short films. Long films will have to be *dramatically* reduced in resolution to squeeze them onto the same disc.
4) if put on two discs, then *even longer* production times (i.e., even slower release of new titles) and *even higher* production costs (i.e., your wallet - when even you seem to suggest that you'd never take the other disc out of its package, and by the way, since you might *give* your second disc away to a friend or sell it for personal profit the studios are going to be against it or are going to REALLY jack the prices up to compensate for the loss in sales).

There are probably at five other MAJOR resaons why forcing the studios to include both formats is a bad idea. What's the reason *for* doing it? Oh, yeah, you don't want to change the apsect ratio on your TV.

[goodstuff]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Pretty much end of story.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Merrick

Sorry, but I just couldn't leave this one alone...



I think the BIG question is how we crop Ben Affleck out of all the scenes.

Ahhh yes, but the BIGGER question is what do we do with all of his lines of "dialogue"?

[invictus]

Don't like the black bars? Make your own 16:9 movies. Other then that respect the artists choice for the screen format he chooses.

[Canada]

I don't think any HDTV shows are shot in 2:39:1 I believe that there shot in
1:78:1 and maybe some are shot in 1:85:1?

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by andytoh

If 2.39:1 has won the battle over 1.78:1 and is aesthetically more pleasing, then explain why high definition movies on HDTV are almost always in 1.78:1. I suppose because blu-ray producers are smarter than Rogers?

When I see this, I just had to register and respond.
Do you really think the brains behind the creation of HDTV never considered this? 2.39 movies have been around for ages. CinemaScope debut as far back as 1950s? And there are probably millions of movies shot in this very aspect ratio.

With nearly 50 years worth of movies, do you really think they completely missed this out? And don't forget, there are other aspect ratios to consider. The other two common ones are 1.85 and 1.66
2.39 and 1.85 are two very different shapes. And so what's the solution?
Please search for Kern H. Powers.
http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf

Read this PDF and understand the history and reason behind the chosen 16:9 (1.78) aspect ratio for HDTVs.

Cropping for 4:3 and 16:9 TVs is really stupid. The whole idea, especially for High Definition Releases (both HD DVD and Blu-ray) is to relive the experience as close as possible to when we watch a title on the cinema. Why pay so much to remove part of the experience? It's almost like saying, "Hey! I have a friggin' 21" CRT TV and it only comes with two speakers. They should release an edition without the Centre, Surround Left, Surround Right and LFE channels."

Come on, it's not as if you don't have a choice in your hands. You can choose to zoom in to fill your HDTV. It's as good as Dolby Digital and DTS offering you the option of downmixing your multichannel soundtracks to 2.0 and play through your stereo speakers.

[Deciazulado]

[jermwhl]

*sigh* anyone else sick of these threads popping up?

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by jermwhl

*sigh* anyone else sick of these threads popping up?

Hell Yes....

[Psiweaver]

Guys its 2.35:1 i just had to correct that. You can always buy an anamorphic lens system for nice projectors to fix the the whole black bars issue if it really bothers you that much. I like my movies exactly as the director intended them to be. If you crop them down to 16:9 you may as well crop it all the way down to 4:3. You are still significantly altering the aspect ratio of the presentation from what the director intended.

[Deciazulado]

Nope you're wrong. 2.35 was the SMPTE standard till the 60's.

It's 0.690" x 0.825"

That's 2.39

[WickyWoo]

I don't think any HDTV shows are shot in 2:39:1 I believe that there shot in
1:78:1 and maybe some are shot in 1:85:1?

The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is so small, it's barely even noticeable.

[justinbaily]

That's abserd because any cropping is bad. and why you had 1.79.1 listed and not 1.85.1 which has no black bars on 16x9 widescreen t.v's is beond me.
Know this when your dvd or bd player is hooked up to a 16x9 HDTV you must change it's video setting to 16x9 for stuff to look right.

The hdtv video should be set to FULL as normal,wide and wide zoom make things look wrong. Test it with halo 1 full won't cut off your health bar/ammo but
wide and wide zoom will if played on xbox 1 it will fill the screen but normal
makes it 4x3 even on a 16x9 set.

WHATEVER a film's shot in is whatever i watch it in anything less is unacceptable.

[ClaytonMG]

Is there a way to start locking threads like this up? Since people can't seem to read the whole "Black Bars" sticky thread, maybe things like this should just get deleted right away to prevent people from getting angry (I for one actually get angry when I read that I should have to suffer with lower-quality picture because some special person wants to fill their TV).

[Leopold BUTTERS]

stranger than fiction is full screen...if someone wants a full screen BD go buy that one.