Blu-ray versions Inferior to Cable TV versions

[JimGamer]

I recently watched The Maze Runner trilogy of movies on Blu-ray.

I then watched The Maze Runner movies on Comcast.

It was very obvious to me that the Comcast versions that filled the HDTV screen with 16:9 Widescreen were showing me things that were NOT seen in the 2:35:1 Ultra Widescreen version on Blu-ray.

I then did a comparison where I watched the Comcast movies on HDTV and watched the Blu-rays on my laptop.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Comcast movies seen on HDTV "adds" information to the "top and bottom" that is NOT SEEN in the Blu-ray versions of the movies.

This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "marketing" for Blu-rays tells us. We are always told that the 2:35:1 Ultra Widescreen movies such as Star Wars contains "extra information" to the sides. We are told that the Blu-ray versions of the movies allow us to see all that "extra information" to the sides. And we are told that is the reason why the "black bars" are seen at the "top and bottom" of the Blu-ray versions of the movies.

I have seen Blu-ray movies where it is in fact "true" that the Ultra Widescreen version "add" information to the sides, which means the "black bars" at the "top and bottom" are in fact necessary.

However, I have now seen quite a few movies where the Blu-ray versions are released as 2:35:1 Ultra Widescreen versions, when in reality is in PAINFULLY CLEAR that they SHOULD HAVE BEEN released as 16:9 versions that contain "extra information" at the "top and bottom" and DO NOT INCLUDE the "black bars" at the "top and bottom."

I have seen similar situations with the 4:3 and 16:9 formats. For example, Transformers: The Movie from 1986 was originally made as a 4:3 movie. However, when it was released in the theater, it was "cropped" at the "top and bottom" in order to be compatible with the 16:9 screens. Transformers: The Movie was released on disc as both a 4:3 movie and a 16:9 movie. This was often the case with the DVD format - where one side would contain a 4:3 "Full Screen" version and the other side of the disc would contain the "Widescreen" version.

The Blu-ray format has MESSED UP BIGTIME, though. Blu-ray movies literally do the EXACT OPPOSITE by making it so movies that are seen as 16:9 on Comcast and at theaters and up being "cropped" so they are 2:35:1 "Ultra Widescreen" movies for the home versions of the Blu-ray Discs. ... This is the WRONG THING to be doing!

When I watch Blu-ray movies that have "black bars" at the "top and bottom," I often use the "zoom" feature in order to eliminate the black bars. But in many movies, there are subtitles and text that appears closer to the left or closer to the right. This causes the text and/or subtitles to be unreadable.

Also, if the movie originally was 16:9, but is "cropped" from the "top and bottom," it is bad enough. Using a "zoom" feature to "crop" the "sides" makes it so you are seeing only a very small portion of the original movie!

I would like to know if anyone knows the answer to this question: Why are the Blu-ray versions of the movies released in a 2:35:1 format where the "top and bottom" have been "cropped" in order to produce "black bars," when in reality those movies should be released in a 16:9 version that displays a larger amount of data?

Just start watching Maze Runner 3 on Blu-ray and Comcast in order to instantly verify this for yourself. In the opening scenes of the movie, you see the power grid and all those towers. You also see all those destroyed cities and building. From "left to right" and "side to side" the Comcast version and Blu-ray version are 100% identical. However, from "top to bottom" the Blu-ray version is missing information not seen in the "top and bottom" of the Comcast version. For example, there are parts of the power grid and parts of the city not seen in the Blu-ray version.

Thank you. ... This problem NEEDS to be corrected. ... The HDTV sets we use are in the 16:9 format. Whenever possible, it is in our best interest to watch movies in 16:9 with as much of the original data as possible. When a Blu-ray is "cropped" into the 2:35:1 format, it truly is a terrible thing. It literally means we would be better off watching the movie on Comcast, because we would be seeing "more" of the movie.

We may even want to get a petition going to fix this.

Even if a person were to purchase an OLED Ultra-Widescreen device, it would still be in their best interest to watch the Comcast version of the movie with "black bars" on the "sides" of that OLED Ultra Widescreen device rather than the Blu-ray version. They reason why is because the 16:9 Comcast version would allow you to see "information" on the "top and bottom" that is not seen at all in the "cropped" 2:35:1 Blu-ray version.

[meremortal]

Perhaps less relevant, but sometimes hdtv airings seem to have more of a 'filmlike" or grainier appearance compared to the blu. It also could be noise, compression, encoding or any number of things. BASEketball is one that comes to mind where I kind of preferred the tv look. I'm obviously no expert on these things and it could just be cases where I just prefer one aesthetic over another at times.

[bigdaddyhorse]

What you are describing sounds more like a flim shot on super-35, which uses a 4X3 or 16X9 image but is intentionally cropped to 2.35. Many times, even in this day and age, those play "open matte" on cable so while you are seeing the extra picture on top and bottom, you aren't supposed to be. The filmmakers intention is a 2.35 image which is why the bds/dvds are that way, and that is how they look in theaters too. Some like the way open matte 1.78 looks though. Just wait until you see an anamorphic 2.35 film (no extra picture top and bottom cropped to 1.78 on cable), that is painful.

Sounds like you need to read up on aspect ratios if you have been zooming blu-rays to watch them cuz you don't like the bars. The bars are your friend and make things look how they are supposed to look.

[Vilya]

A movie should be presented in its original aspect ratio (OAR) as intended by the director. There are many sizes of OAR and no 16:9 TV can display them all without the usage of black bars.

It is not about getting the "most" information or utilizing all of your TV's screen, but getting the information that the filmmaker intended for the audience to see.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by JimGamer

The BD isn't "cropped" - it presents the movie the way it was composed for and exhibited theatrically. It's the streaming that is just an open matte version containing visual info that wasn't originally intended to be seen. Black bars exist to maintain the original aspect ratio for TV viewing. Look up aspect ratios - there are helpful threads on this very forum.

[Hypnosifl]

There's an old page on "matted widescreen" that explains this well, with a nice example of the problem with "seeing more picture" from A Fish Called Wanda: https://web.archive.org/web/20080304...en_matte.shtml

[JimGamer]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

There's an old page on "matted widescreen" that explains this well, with a nice example of the problem with "seeing more picture" from A Fish Called Wanda: https://web.archive.org/web/20080304...en_matte.shtml

I am 100% familiar with "Aspect Ratios" and the explanations that websites and magazines give of those Aspect Ratios.

For example, the example always given is "When something in the Ultra-Widescreen 2.35:1 Ratio is played on a Widescreen HDTV that is 16:9, you ended up with 'black bars' on the 'top and bottom.'"

Those websites and magazines always give the same example of, "If you had an Ultra Wide-Screen HDTV where there was a 2.35:1 Ratio, you would be seeing 'black bars' on the 'sides' of the 16:9 movies."

However, with movies such as The Maze Runner trilogy and many others, there would still be a benefit to watching the movies with "black bars" on the "sides" of a 16:9 movie on an Ultra-Widescreen HDTV. You would be seeing image information on the "top and bottom" that is not seen in the 2.35:1 Blu-ray version that is released.

I would be far happier if the Blu-ray products included a "2.35 Ultra-Widescreen" version and also a 16:9 "Widescreen" version, because the 16:9 version we see on Comcast is superior.

According to what those websites and magazines say in their descriptions of "Aspect Ratios," they make it seem like when you are watching a 2.35:1 movie on Comcast in a 16:9 format, it is the Comcast version that is inferior because the 2.35:1 version was "cropped" on the sides in order to make it fill the 16:9 HDTV. In scenarios where the movie did in fact have an original source of 2:35:1, that would be true.

HOWEVER, it is now PAINFULLY CLEAR that the OPPOSITE is taking place. We are seeing movies are originally 16:9 and full the screen of a 16:9 HDTV on Comcast, but are then "cropped" into 2.35:1 ratios for their Blu-ray release in order to make them "seem cool" or "fit in" or something.

BOTTOM LINE: I would rather see "more" of an "image" when the original recording allows extra data to be seen. In The Maze Runner trilogy of movies, I saw the movies the first time in their Blu-ray format with their 2.35:1 Aspect Ratios. I saw the movies a second time in a 16:9 Aspect Ratio on Comcast. It was SO OBVIOUS that IMPORTANT pieces of information were being seen the SECOND time I saw the movies on Comcast, I realized IMPORTANT things were MISSING from the Blu-ray version. This is what caused me to confirm these FACTS in a side-by-side comparison.

In The Maze Runner 3: The Death Cure, the movie starts out action-packed. You see cities that are destroyed, electrical towers, trucks, helicopters, and many other things. With the 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio, you are only seeing about two-thirds of the image on Blu-ray. With the 16:9 Aspect Ratio seen on Comcast, you are seeing the "full" image, and there really are IMPORTANT things that stand out.

One person replied by saying, "Comcast and Cable TV don't produce an image that is a clear as Blu-ray and it has more digital noise in the background." My response to that would be, "It depends on the movie." I have seen plenty of Blu-ray movies that have digital noise in the background. And I have seen Comcast and Cable TV broadcasts that look amazing. For example, Cobra Kai is a series on YouTube that I watch on Comcast and it looks as good as any Blu-ray I have ever seen.

I'm very disappointed in the Blu-ray format. I really cannot believe an unbiased person would say, "I'd rather see two-thirds of a skyscraper in the Blu-ray version rather than the full skyscraper in the Comcast version."

Even in the 16:9 Blu-rays, I noticed they do not actually have a resolution 1920x1080. Their actual resolution is 1920x1040 - with some pixels missing at the top and bottom. I confirmed this while watching the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and I noticed some things missing with just 40 pixels!

From this point on, I'm going to skip the Blu-ray versions.

[JimGamer]

HERE IS A SIMILAR POST I HAD WRITTEN THAT EXPLAINS THINGS ABOUT HOW EVEN 16:9 Blu-ray MOVIES ARE NOT ACTUALLY 1920x1080 RESOLUTION, AND ARE INFERIOR TO THE 1920x1080 CABLE TV VERSIONS:

SUBJECT: Blu-ray movies are visually inferior to Starz movies. ... I want to know "Why?"

I recently watched a Blu-ray movie called Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

This Blu-ray movie claims to have a resolution of 1920x1080 - as all Blu-ray movies do. In reality, the movie only uses a resolution of 1920x1036. There are very small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

What really surprised me about Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Blu-ray was the incredibly poor visual quality with all the digital noise in the background.

I then saw Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Starz today on Comcast. Two things surprised me. First, there was not nearly as much digital noise in the Starz version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Second, the Starz version of the movie used all 1920x1080 pixels. I initially presumed this was because the screen was either slightly stretched or slightly zoomed to use all 1920x1080 pixels in the 16:9 format. But this was not the case. What I discovered SHOCKED me!

I simultaneously played Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Starz HD on Comcast at the same time I was watching the Blu-ray version on my laptop computer. At the start of this movie, the screen stays focused on the same area for quite a long time while the opening credits are displayed. It is incredibly obvious that Starz has access to a version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels that actually does have a Native Resolution that was originally recorded at 1920x1080, and that the Blu-ray version "should" include that detail, too.

The proof of this is that there is "detail" at the top of the screen (i.e., stars in the sky) seen in the Starz HD version that fills the 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV, while those stars are not seen in the sky at all in the Blu-ray version.

Further proof is that there is "detail" at the bottom of the screen (i.e., detail in the fence) seen in the Starz HD version that fills the 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV, while that detail in the fence is not seen at all in the Blu-ray version.

Does anyone know "why" the Blu-ray version that claims to run at 1920x1080, but actually only runs at 1920x1036 is missing that detail? ... I have quite a few Blu-rays that run at resolutions slightly lower that 1920x1080 in this way. Now, I can only presume that they are missing detail that would appear on TV broadcasts, as well.

It seems very terrible that Cable TV channels have access to superior versions of movies when these Blu-ray movies are so expensive and show "cropped" versions that are inferior. The movie clearly was recorded and meant to be played at a resolution of 1920x1080.

I presume Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is not the only Blu-ray like this. I actually do not like those black bars at the top and bottom of movies - especially the movies with an aspect ratio of 2:4 to 1. I realize you can "Zoom" in at the expense of cropping the sides. The problem is the "Zoom" is "centered," but that often leaves out text on the screen that appears on the left or right. And it often leaves out important conversations appearing on the side. I can live with the black bars appearing at the top and bottom in movies that were originally filmed in an aspect ratio of 2:4 to 1, because in that scenario the entire "reason" why you are seeing those "black bars" is because it allows you to have the privilege of seeing "all" the "detail" as it was "originally filmed."

But with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, that is NOT the case! ... In Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Blu-ray, you are seeing small "black bars" in a movie displayed at 1920x1036 resolution, even though it clearly was "originally recorded" and "meant to be seen" in 1920x1080 resolution. The Blu-ray version running at 1920x1036 resolution "leaves out" that detail.

Any help and technological explanation would be appreciated.

[lilboyblu]

You’ve been a member of Blu-ray.com for 13 years. It’s hard to believe that you have not read or learned anything from here in all that time.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Can't believe we even having this discussion in 2020. Sure, some films have extra picture you see on cable, most do not and are cropped instead. If you hate the black bars enough to zoom in anyway, then that's what you see on cable for any movie that isn't just opened up and you must not care about what you miss on the sides. I can tell director's intent means nothing to you, so just do your thing and be happy with it. Most people here only want the director's intent to be shown, which is why we prefer a little less picture on some films. Blu-ray's will probably never also contain open matte versions along with intended ratios, so bury that pipe dream now before it stinks any more. Now there will be exceptions, I actually own one (Argento's Opera 3-disc has an open matte version, never watched it), but 99.99% of blus will not.

[DVD Josh]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

You’ve been a member of Blu-ray.com for 13 years. It’s hard to believe that you have not read or learned anything from here in all that time.

That clearly seems to be the case though.

[James Luckard]

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by JimGamer

But with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, that is NOT the case! ... In Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Blu-ray, you are seeing small "black bars" in a movie displayed at 1920x1036 resolution, even though it clearly was "originally recorded" and "meant to be seen" in 1920x1080 resolution. The Blu-ray version running at 1920x1036 resolution "leaves out" that detail.

What makes you think that the ratio at which it was "originally recorded" has anything to do with how it was "meant to be seen"? Did you look at the specific page on matted widescreen I linked to, or do you think that since you already know all about aspect ratios you don't need to? Please take a look at it, I think it may concern an issue with aspect ratios that you weren't familiar with, namely that in some cases part of the originally filmed image must be removed in order to show a shot the way it was intended to look by the director/cinematographer (and the way it was shown in theaters). In particular, pay attention to the shot from A Fish Called Wanda showing that the scene as originally recorded included John Cleese's shorts, even though the shot was clearly composed with the intention that only his upper body would be seen so it would look like he was naked.

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by JimGamer

I am 100% familiar with "Aspect Ratios" and the explanations that websites and magazines give of those Aspect Ratios.

Everything you say in your two novel-length posts that follow this statement clearly demonstrates that you do not understand aspect ratios.

[Ruined]

damn black bars get off my lawn!

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

You’ve been a member of Blu-ray.com for 13 years. It’s hard to believe that you have not read or learned anything from here in all that time.

Maybe he just registered in 2013 and only returned today - this thread contains the total sum of his participation on the forums.

[78deluxe]

OP you are wrong in theory

However, if you are also suggesting that the Maze Runner trilogy is actually worth watching in any form. Then I commend you on a unique and original job of trolling.


Yes, I own the first two on BluRay thanks to a thrift store find, where someone else already discovered how poor they were and gave them away.

[willbfree]

Sometimes the open matte version is preferable, sure. But sometimes only some of the shots are open matte and other shots are zoomed in, particularly for films from more than ten years ago when it was easier to simply not render the effects outside of what would be seen theatrically - so live action scenes would be opened up on top and bottom but scenes with special effects would be zoomed in with the sides chopped off.

More recently, films are made to be safe for multiple different aspect ratios.

Blade Runner 2049 is a good recent example of a film that fans collect in both versions. The open matte version was shown in IMAX theatres, and the digital version of it was sold in Russia, so aside from some titles being in another language it is a perfectly fine alternative version.

But don’t blame BluRay. The medium does not dictate the studio’s choice of what version to sell or where.

It was fun to read your post though - felt like we’d traveled back in time. Welcome, newbie. You’re here just in time to see the end of disc-based distribution.

[willbfree]

And don’t forget about tv shows. Future Man was framed “for both the 2.35:1 (letterboxed for Hulu) and 1.78:1 (extracted for all other platforms) aspect ratios.” By “extracted” they mean they zoom into it, and lop off the sides.

Which may be a conundrum for you - do you want the extracted 1.78:1 version that fills your screen as you’ve demanded, or do you want the 2.35:1 version with more data on the left and right?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by JimGamer

I recently watched The Maze Runner trilogy of movies on Blu-ray.

I then watched The Maze Runner movies on Comcast.

It was very obvious to me that the Comcast versions that filled the HDTV screen with 16:9 Widescreen were showing me things that were NOT seen in the 2:35:1 Ultra Widescreen version on Blu-ray.

I then did a comparison where I watched the Comcast movies on HDTV and watched the Blu-rays on my laptop.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Comcast movies seen on HDTV "adds" information to the "top and bottom" that is NOT SEEN in the Blu-ray versions of the movies.

This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "marketing" for Blu-rays tells us. We are always told that the 2:35:1 Ultra Widescreen movies such as Star Wars contains "extra information" to the sides. We are told that the Blu-ray versions of the movies allow us to see all that "extra information" to the sides. And we are told that is the reason why the "black bars" are seen at the "top and bottom" of the Blu-ray versions of the movies.

I have seen Blu-ray movies where it is in fact "true" that the Ultra Widescreen version "add" information to the sides, which means the "black bars" at the "top and bottom" are in fact necessary.

However, I have now seen quite a few movies where the Blu-ray versions are released as 2:35:1 Ultra Widescreen versions, when in reality is in PAINFULLY CLEAR that they SHOULD HAVE BEEN released as 16:9 versions that contain "extra information" at the "top and bottom" and DO NOT INCLUDE the "black bars" at the "top and bottom."

I have seen similar situations with the 4:3 and 16:9 formats. For example, Transformers: The Movie from 1986 was originally made as a 4:3 movie. However, when it was released in the theater, it was "cropped" at the "top and bottom" in order to be compatible with the 16:9 screens. Transformers: The Movie was released on disc as both a 4:3 movie and a 16:9 movie. This was often the case with the DVD format - where one side would contain a 4:3 "Full Screen" version and the other side of the disc would contain the "Widescreen" version.

The Blu-ray format has MESSED UP BIGTIME, though. Blu-ray movies literally do the EXACT OPPOSITE by making it so movies that are seen as 16:9 on Comcast and at theaters and up being "cropped" so they are 2:35:1 "Ultra Widescreen" movies for the home versions of the Blu-ray Discs. ... This is the WRONG THING to be doing!

When I watch Blu-ray movies that have "black bars" at the "top and bottom," I often use the "zoom" feature in order to eliminate the black bars. But in many movies, there are subtitles and text that appears closer to the left or closer to the right. This causes the text and/or subtitles to be unreadable.

Also, if the movie originally was 16:9, but is "cropped" from the "top and bottom," it is bad enough. Using a "zoom" feature to "crop" the "sides" makes it so you are seeing only a very small portion of the original movie!

I would like to know if anyone knows the answer to this question: Why are the Blu-ray versions of the movies released in a 2:35:1 format where the "top and bottom" have been "cropped" in order to produce "black bars," when in reality those movies should be released in a 16:9 version that displays a larger amount of data?

Just start watching Maze Runner 3 on Blu-ray and Comcast in order to instantly verify this for yourself. In the opening scenes of the movie, you see the power grid and all those towers. You also see all those destroyed cities and building. From "left to right" and "side to side" the Comcast version and Blu-ray version are 100% identical. However, from "top to bottom" the Blu-ray version is missing information not seen in the "top and bottom" of the Comcast version. For example, there are parts of the power grid and parts of the city not seen in the Blu-ray version.

Thank you. ... This problem NEEDS to be corrected. ... The HDTV sets we use are in the 16:9 format. Whenever possible, it is in our best interest to watch movies in 16:9 with as much of the original data as possible. When a Blu-ray is "cropped" into the 2:35:1 format, it truly is a terrible thing. It literally means we would be better off watching the movie on Comcast, because we would be seeing "more" of the movie.

We may even want to get a petition going to fix this.

Even if a person were to purchase an OLED Ultra-Widescreen device, it would still be in their best interest to watch the Comcast version of the movie with "black bars" on the "sides" of that OLED Ultra Widescreen device rather than the Blu-ray version. They reason why is because the 16:9 Comcast version would allow you to see "information" on the "top and bottom" that is not seen at all in the "cropped" 2:35:1 Blu-ray version.

You evidently have trouble grasping aspect ratios. I suggest you read this thread I made to help you comprehend: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=183967

If a director and his/her DP shoot a film in 2.39:1 then it needs to be viewed that way. Often times cable networks get the open matte of 2.39:1 to films to fill up the standard 16:9 screens that people have in their homes. This is what I refer to as bastardizing a film. It's kind of like taking an original painting and altering to how you think it should look while someone like Monet, Picasso, or Rembrandt didn't want you to see it that way.