Why Blu-ray don't had the option of full or widescreen like DVD do?

[Blu3]

Originally Posted by mugupo

DVD has choice of choose full screen and wide screen in certain movies, but why none of the blu-ray do this? Do You wanted to see blu-ray offer this option?

No, because that would be a step backwards.

4:3 tvs are obsolete. 16:9 allows for OAR viewings with minimal black bars (compared to a 4:3 tv for example).

Move forward

Besides, just about all new tvs have several zoom options, if you really want to fill the screen. Just know that you'll be cutting out some of the image, just like a 4:3 full screen edit does.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Those titles are 1.37:1 not 4:3 (or 1.33:1). Sorry, there close, but not quite the same, as black bars would still be present on a 4:3 tv if displayed in there OAR,

Overscan would make these appear full screen, even if they are marginally different in scope.

We must not allow for any deviation from filmmakers intent on blu-ray. I half wish the pan and scan people had stuck with VHS - much less ever considered a move to blu-ray.

[blindcat87]

Every time this topic comes up I find myself wishing I could find an archive of the page run by this crazy guy who not only wanted to get people to sign petitions to make studios "stop mangling films by cutting them up to present them in the horrible widescreen format" or some other such rant, he wanted to get class action lawsuits going and to get Congress to pass a law outlawing Widescreen versions on home video formats. I encountered it while VHS and LD were still the major formats, but he went even more ballistic when DVD came out. I am not sure when he dropped off of the virtual map, but I haven't been able to find even an archive of his site. Too bad, it was an absolute laugh riot. He was totally serious and sincere and no amount of reason, logic, or fact would sway him. I never tangled with him on Usenet, but I guess he had some memorable knock down drag outs there in various newsgroups trying to drum up support for his crusade.

Chris

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Overscan would make these appear full screen, even if they are marginally different in scope.

We must not allow for any deviation from filmmakers intent on blu-ray. I half wish the pan and scan people had stuck with VHS - much less ever considered a move to blu-ray.

[KingLeonidas300]

I prefer widescreen, 100%. When I use to buy DVD's, I wouldn't buy the movie if it wasn't offered in widescreen. I wish all blu-rays had the option or give the option as to which version you want to buy, but I guess I will have to look past it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by KingLeonidas300

I prefer widescreen, 100%. When I use to buy DVD's, I wouldn't buy the movie if it wasn't offered in widescreen.

Even things like Wizard of Oz or Snow White? Gone with the Wind? Casablanca?!

I wish all blu-rays had the option or give the option as to which version you want to buy, but I guess I will have to look past it.

Blu-rays don't give an option at all. Standard release design is original aspect ratio. There is no "widescreen" and "fullscreen" versions. There is only one release of a title.

I still say that everything should be available at open-matte to 16:9 and use software to matte for proper aspect ratio. That way, people who MUST HAVE THEIR SCREENS FILLED (even if it means seeing special effects flubs or boom mics) can get it. And hey, I'm in favor of economy here too. Quite a bit of disc space is wasted encoding a hard matte in the picture. I'm sure they could spend a few bits encoding the picture that lies "underneath", then have the player add the matte manually before outputting to screen.

I contend that this should also be the case for filmed material appearing originally in 4:3 that can be opened up to a wider format. Seinfeld, for example, had a little extra filmed area that had never been seen, but it wasn't quite enough to fill 16:9, so they cropped part of the picture which previously HAD been seen. I'd rather them scan all they can, whatever aspect ratio that would be, then when released on disc, give viewers the option of seeing this little bit extra or not. Dragon Ball Z and Hogan's Heroes also suffered this fate as I understand it. Scrubs is well documented as having additional material available since they originally wanted to be ready for widescreen presentation... I just hope they don't crop part of the original 4:3 picture when a 16:9 version of the show becomes available.

[blacklion]

How about respecting the freedom of choice of those of us who are not technophiles or AV snobs? I personally prefer full screen. I buy my DVDs in full screen as far as is possible. If they were offered in BD, I'd happily buy those exclusively. I don't like the zoom function either.

I don't care in the least about aspect ratios and all the rest of that geek gobbledygook. I only care about what my eyes perceive as a great picture and also resonates in my ears as awesome sound.

I realize that many (if not most) of the people on this forum are audio/video-philes and techies. But y'all can at least endeavour to respect the preferences of people who are not like you instead of constantly sneering and mocking like teenage fanboys.

[Hammie]

Originally Posted by blacklion

How about respecting the freedom of choice of those of us who are not technophiles or AV snobs? I personally prefer full screen. I buy my DVDs in full screen as far as is possible. If they were offered in BD, I'd happily buy those exclusively. I don't like the zoom function either.

I don't care in the least about aspect ratios and all the rest of that geek gobbledygook. I only care about what my eyes perceive as a great picture and also resonates in my ears as awesome sound.

I realize that many (if not most) of the people on this forum are audio/video-philes and techies. But y'all can at least endeavour to respect the preferences of people who are not like you instead of constantly sneering and mocking like teenage fanboys.

You could get the Philips 21:9 TV and then the wider than 16:9 movies would fit. All others would have the black bars on the sides like the older 4:3 movies/TV shows.

[zany6669]

Originally Posted by blacklion

How about respecting the freedom of choice of those of us who are not technophiles or AV snobs? I personally prefer full screen. I buy my DVDs in full screen as far as is possible. If they were offered in BD, I'd happily buy those exclusively. I don't like the zoom function either.

I don't care in the least about aspect ratios and all the rest of that geek gobbledygook. I only care about what my eyes perceive as a great picture and also resonates in my ears as awesome sound.

I realize that many (if not most) of the people on this forum are audio/video-philes and techies. But y'all can at least endeavour to respect the preferences of people who are not like you instead of constantly sneering and mocking like teenage fanboys.

How about respecting the artistic decisions of the filmmaker instead of dismissing the distinction between pan and scan butchery and the way the film was actually conceived and shot as the "gobbledygook" of "teenage fanboys"?

[blacklion]

Originally Posted by zany6669

How about respecting the artistic decisions of the filmmaker instead of dismissing the distinction between pan and scan butchery and the way the film was actually conceived and shot as the "gobbledygook" of "teenage fanboys"?

At the very moment that the artistic filmmaker sold his artistic rights to the movie studio which put it on a disc, offered it in fullscreen and widescreen formats and asked me to pay money for either, it became my choice to decide how I prefer to watch it and therefore which version to buy. Just as I have the choice of buying a plane ticket to go see the original of the Mona Lisa on a canvas in the Louvre or I can buy a cheap reprint poster of a camera image of the original at a flea sale. Its all about choice; my choice once money changed hands.

[jsteinhauer]

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by blacklion

Just as I have the choice of buying a plane ticket to go see the original of the Mona Lisa on a canvas in the Louvre or I can buy a cheap reprint poster of a camera image of the original at a flea sale. Its all about choice; my choice once money changed hands.

You mean, of course, a reprint of HALF of the picture

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by blacklion

At the very moment that the artistic filmmaker sold his artistic rights to the movie studio which put it on a disc, offered it in fullscreen and widescreen formats and asked me to pay money for either, it became my choice to decide how I prefer to watch it and therefore which version to buy. Just as I have the choice of buying a plane ticket to go see the original of the Mona Lisa on a canvas in the Louvre or I can buy a cheap reprint poster of a camera image of the original at a flea sale. Its all about choice; my choice once money changed hands.

While I completely and utterly disagree with you, you make a good argument. Regardless, you need to understand that full screen goes against the whole idea of Blu-ray. Blu-rays are designed to give the movie experience that the director intended in every way possible, to include aspect ratios. I think that answers your question. Use the zoom feature on your remote, and you will acheive the same effect, while obviously suffering from some major video quality degridation.

[BluBox]

I have alsways preferd WIDEscreen dvds. I would even take them back when i was dumb enough to buy the WRONG format. I always bought widescreen dvds because some day i have that new TV. Now blurays are the way it was meant to be seen, so yes lets keep moving forward.

[NewBluClu]

I think by "full screen" the OP meant filling the whole 16:9 screen. No need to be 4:3 fobic, it is gone and forgotten.
so while I do not advocate butchering the picture, I would not mind an option to fill 16:9 screen. Besides, because of the very minor aspect ratio differences, cutting out and degrading PQ would not be nearly as bad as with 4:3 to 16:9.
let's not feed on "the way director intended" crap. we just went through a major aspect ratio change. The directors are welcome to intend shooting for 16:9 or, we should have gone from 4:3 to 2:35 or whatever else directors are shooting.

[zany6669]

Originally Posted by blacklion

At the very moment that the artistic filmmaker sold his artistic rights to the movie studio which put it on a disc, offered it in fullscreen and widescreen formats and asked me to pay money for either, it became my choice to decide how I prefer to watch it and therefore which version to buy. Just as I have the choice of buying a plane ticket to go see the original of the Mona Lisa on a canvas in the Louvre or I can buy a cheap reprint poster of a camera image of the original at a flea sale. Its all about choice; my choice once money changed hands.

I love your contempt for filmmaking on an artistic level justified by the fact that film is a popular medium. Anyway, enjoy not watching things.

[My_Two_Cents]

I can't believe I missed this thread the first time around. I've seen some stupid threads in my time here, but this one has got to rank up there near the top. I will, however, give it credit for going at the "black-bar issue" from a different angle...

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by blacklion

At the very moment that the artistic filmmaker sold his artistic rights to the movie studio which put it on a disc, offered it in fullscreen and widescreen formats and asked me to pay money for either, it became my choice to decide how I prefer to watch it and therefore which version to buy. Just as I have the choice of buying a plane ticket to go see the original of the Mona Lisa on a canvas in the Louvre or I can buy a cheap reprint poster of a camera image of the original at a flea sale. Its all about choice; my choice once money changed hands.

Actually you don't have the option of seeing the Mona Lisa on a canvas in the Louvre ... since the Mona Lisa was painted on a piece of wood, not canvas .. or, should the Louvre offer you the option of seeing Leo's painting on a poplar panel or a modern version on canvas.

There are two reasons why many of us do not want "Widescreen/Fullscreen" combos:
1) Putting two versions on the disk will likely result in lower audio and video quality.
2) Some cheap producers may release films only in a cropped ratio.

Since letterboxed blu-rays can be zoomed to fill the screen without a major loss of quality, there is no reason you can't control your own viewing experience at home to your heart's delight.

[blindcat87]

It doesn't matter whether it is the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 or 21:9 and 16:9. The "director intended crap" is still the correct way to display the movie. We didn't just go through a big AR shift, these ARs have been here for a very long time, it is just 4:3 displays that have recently gone away. The various aspect ratios have existed in theaters for a very long time, existed on VHS, LD, DVD, and now BD. No matter what a particular individual's personal preference is, the OAR is the correct way to display the film. People are free to wish to watch a cut version of the film but no amount of logical twisting and turning is going to change the fact that the OAR is correct. There is a mechanism for modifying the film to fill the screen, it is the zoom function. People might not like it, but it allows people to fill their screens without interfering with others right to watch the film in the correct aspect ratio, without forcing the studio to bear the expense of doing a second master that would cost them resources and end with the same basic result as using the zoom function (no matter what you do, you have to zoom in on the frame to get a wider aspect ratio film to fill a narrower aspect ratio screen and that inherently loses some detail and definition, there is no way around this), and without using up disc space or bandwidth that could better be used on the correct presentation or requiring a second disc for the alternate version.

If one cares more about filling a screen than watching a movie the way it is supposed to be presented, one can avoid wider aspect ratio films or use the zoom function. Those are the options. Any other options are going to make the process and/or costs more onerous on the studios or interfere with the ability of people to watch the film in a correct presentation. The OPs use of the Mona Lisa metaphor is really poor. A more accurate comparison would not be between a print and the original, but rather viewing either a print or the original as it is or viewing the print or original with curtains hung so you can only see the face. In one case you saw the Mona Lisa, whether in original or print, in the second you saw the Mona Lisa's face. I keep hearing people say they feel ripped off when their screens aren't filled, but what is the real rippof is not seeing anything but the Mona Lisa's face and not the rest of the painting.

Director's have never chosen the aspect ratio of their films based on the shape of screens in theaters or in people's homes. The choice is based on the type of film and how open or closed they want the feel of the film to be. It has been this way since films began being shown in widescreen and the idea that they might stop using certain aspect ratios because the home market moved from square to rectangular screens of a certain ratio is just a foolish idea. People are free to like or dislike a director's choice as much as they wish, but the choice is as much theirs and is as important to the look and feel of a film as an authors choice of narrative style is to the mood and feel of their novel.

Again, people have the right to feel however they wish about a film's aspect ratio, but it is not snobbery or elitism to say that the OAR is correct, it is fact, just as displaying any work of art as the artist intended is correct. It does not take a lot of videophile or technogeek knowledge and study to realize that the way to make a wider aspect ratio film narrower involves removing material that is supposed to be seen and to zoom in on the image and that zooming in on an image looses detail and definition. People are allowed to want this, but one does not have to be a snob or an elitist t, or even a videophile to want to get the film as intended. Whether the cutting and zooming means you can no longer see some secondary action going on off to the side, like say the enemy scout the approaching army fails to see riding off in war movie that tips the viewer off to an ambush coming or just the vast, overwhelming battlefield suddenly becoming cramped and dense, it changes the film just as not seeing the rest of the body and the background changes the Mona Lisa. Some may not care, might care more about using all of their screen, but it matters to many, it matters to the director, and it is still the correct way to watch the film. So, zoom to your heart's content, avoid the films that don't fill your screens, or continue writing the studios asking them to slice and dice the films for you, but don't expect the majority of fans to jump on your bandwagon, especially not at a site populated by movie fans of varying degrees of seriousness, and don't expect the studios to jump up and down to spend more money and resources to make this happen.

Chris

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Since letterboxed blu-rays can be zoomed to fill the screen without a major loss of quality, there is no reason you can't control your own viewing experience at home to your heart's delight.

Actually, you do loose quite a bit of resolution when you zoom. You've essentially increased the original size of the film pixels by 20-30%, depending on what you are zooming from.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by mugupo

DVD has choice of choose full screen and wide screen in certain movies, but why none of the blu-ray do this? Do You wanted to see blu-ray offer this option?

Why dont' art galleries have an option of seeing half of each painting or the full painting?

Same question...same logic...