Your TV sucks! (Wrong aspect ratio and shape)

[Warm Gun]

So many movies in 2.4:1 and similarly wide aspect ratios, and even some new TV shows are now formatted this way (Genndy Tartakosky's Primal, the Star Wars shows), yet TV manufacturers continue only to offer flat 1.78:1 (16:9) TVs that make the wider picture more distant with black bars at the top and bottom. It's not as bad as in the 4:3 tube days, but it's not good. They should be 5120x2160 with a very subtle curve that keeps the picture from bulging out at you.

I know most of you watch movies alone. There's no one at your side bothered about the disproportion at an angle. Let's say, for once, you did have someone over. A bro would let their visitor sit in the center and take the side from which the curve of the screen is skewed. A girlfriend? Women can't sit through (your) movies anyway.

If having a square picture with giant black bars at the side when viewing 4:3 content bothers you, simply paint the wall black and you will never see the black bars in the dark again.

It's a conspiracy. The movie industry doesn't want you to have constant image height at home at an affordable price because it would nullify one of the few remaining points of legitimacy the dying cinema has left. Projectors have too many drawbacks at far higher prices to be a realistic solution.

[bhampton]

Both of my TVs suck,

I have a 720p 3d plasma that gets so little use I don't even think it has any burn in.
I have a 1080p TV that is used only for video games.

Thank goodness I own a projector so that movies get proper presentation !

As for the drawbacks of high end projectors .... I haven't noticed any.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

If having a square picture with giant black bars at the side when viewing 4:3 content bothers you, simply paint the wall black and you will never see the black bars in the dark again.

Shouldn't that apply to the black bars on the top and bottom with 2.40 content on a 1.78 screen as well? If you can't see the black bars then it doesn't matter if your TV's aspect ratio matches whatever you are watching.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Shouldn't that apply to the black bars on the top and bottom with 2.40 content on a 1.78 screen as well? If you can't see the black bars then it doesn't matter if your TV's aspect ratio matches whatever you are watching.

But it does matter with 2.4 where it doesn't with 1.3 because 2.4 appears farther away or is smaller on the 1.78 screen while 1.3 is narrower and therefore the same size.

[apricissimus]

Big TVs are so cheap now, who cares if there's "black bars" on the bottom and top, or on the sides?

If you were trying to watch Ben-Hur on an old 19-inch CRT, then yeah, that's more of a problem. But TVs have gotten a lot better since then!

TVs are so good and so cheap now, it's amazing to me that anyone would complain about them.

(Also, I've never understood why people use the phrase "black bars". It's just negative space where there's no image. They're not bars. They're nothing.)

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

But it does matter with 2.4 where it doesn't with 1.3 because 2.4 appears farther away or is smaller on the 1.78 screen while 1.3 is narrower and therefore the same size.

Then the issue is that your TV is too small or too far away. The shape isn't the problem.

2.40, 1.33, and 1.78 all look plenty big on my 1.78 screen.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

If you were trying to watch Ben-Hur on an old 19-inch CRT, then yeah, that's more of a problem. But TVs have gotten a lot better since then!

Ben-Hur with its extreme width of 2.76:1 would be far more impressive on a 21:9 TV. You wouldn't be squinting as much.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Then the issue is that your TV is too small or too far away. The shape isn't the problem.

2.40, 1.33, and 1.78 all look plenty big on my 1.78 screen.

Everyone with a 1.78 TV is equally affected. It wouldn't matter if I replaced my 65 inch TV with an 85 inch TV. It would have the reverse effect of making 1.3 movies and shows too big. You can scoot your seat closer for 2.4 movies, but the flatness of the screen will bulge out in the center more and the sound won't be right.

[Warm Gun]

Wait, were all those curved TVs a decade ago just 16:9 too? How pointless, that half-measure!

[apricissimus]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Ben-Hur with its extreme width of 2.76:1 would be far more impressive on a 21:9 TV. You wouldn't be squinting as much.

I didn't have to squint at all on my 55" 4K TV that I bought for $360.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

I didn't have to squint at all on my 55" 4K TV that I bought for $360.

The filmmakers intended it to take up most of your field of view, which doesn't work when your display width is so narrow that it shrinks the picture. Your experience with Ben-Hur was compromised by the 1.78 prioritization for fullscreen content.

[apricissimus]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

The filmmakers intended it to take up most of your field of view, which doesn't work when your display width is so narrow that it shrinks the picture. Your experience with Ben-Hur was compromised by the 1.78 prioritization for fullscreen content.

I saw it big, and in the correct aspect ratio. And in 1080p. That's good enough for me.

Standard TV dimensions are a good compromise for accommodating a variety of aspect ratios (and for actually fitting in people's living rooms).

[Cremildo]

Still complaining about "black bars"?

It's 2025, ffs. Get on with the times.

Whatcha gonna do? Have a standard 16x9 TV for 1.66/1.78/1.85 movies, an ultrawide one for 2.35 and wider movies, and maybe an old CRT for Academy Ratio ones?

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Still complaining about "black bars"?

It's 2025, ffs. Get on with the times.

Whatcha gonna do? Have a standard 16x9 TV for 1.66/1.78/1.85 movies, an ultrawide one for 2.35 and wider movies, and maybe an old CRT for Academy Ratio ones?

Why would you need a standard 1.78 screen for 1.3 to 1.85 movies when they will be just as big (Well, 1.85 would be a little bigger.) on a 2.4 TV? The 2.4 ratio accommodates nearly everything.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

So many movies in 2.4:1 and similarly wide aspect ratios, and even some new TV shows are now formatted this way (Genndy Tartakosky's Primal, the Star Wars shows), yet TV manufacturers continue only to offer flat 1.78:1 (16:9) TVs that make the wider picture more distant with black bars at the top and bottom. It's not as bad as in the 4:3 tube days, but it's not good. They should be 5120x2160 with a very subtle curve that keeps the picture from bulging out at you.

I know most of you watch movies alone. There's no one at your side bothered about the disproportion at an angle. Let's say, for once, you did have someone over. A bro would let their visitor sit in the center and take the side from which the curve of the screen is skewed. A girlfriend? Women can't sit through (your) movies anyway.

If having a square picture with giant black bars at the side when viewing 4:3 content bothers you, simply paint the wall black and you will never see the black bars in the dark again.

It's a conspiracy. The movie industry doesn't want you to have constant image height at home at an affordable price because it would nullify one of the few remaining points of legitimacy the dying cinema has left. Projectors have too many drawbacks at far higher prices to be a realistic solution.

Um...you okay bro? This is all a bit cloud cuckoo, even by your usual standards. As it turns out, my fiancée loves the same movies I do, we recently did a rewatch of the Lethal Weapons and always have to watch Bad Boys II when it's on telly.

Separate from that odd segue, I had a 21:9 TV once. Loved the idea of it but it wasn't a great TV in itself. Watching scope stuff was still amazing tho. But to view 1.85 and below in their proper aspect means massive vertical bars on either side, so we're back to square one, so to speak, with x content not matching y ratio. It hasn't caught on because it's impractical for most people, not because of a cinematic conspiracy - especially when you literally acknowledge that a lot of TV stuff nowadays is being made in 2.39 (and particularly 2:1) anyway. And could always follow your own advice re: 2.39 on a regular 16:9 TV and paint your walls black.

If you really want to rant on correctly then perhaps you could've done a Storaro and picked the 2:1 ratio as the Swiss Army Knife of TVs™️. Not only is there loads of 2:1 content which would fit perfickly, but ~1.85 stuff would have minimal pillarbox borders and 2.39 content would have minimal letterbox borders. Display manufacturers are already making 1.89 panels for professional monitors, have done for years to match the mastering resolution of theatrical deliverables.

[crutzulee]

Because of my non existent math skills, I happily fell into a 2.2:1 ratio screen when I went DIY acoustically transparent in my HT... it has been amazing for me displaying as large a picture as i could possibly want regardless of the movie actual ratio... The JVC black levels means that I no longer have to build custom masks like I've done in the past..

I have a cheapie 65" RCA 4K in the living room that's more than good enough for crappy is TV watching...

My son has an ultra wide monitor in his gaming rig... The picture looks absolutely stunning... if I was space constrained like in a dorm room, I could set this being a viable alternative for the OP

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Why would you need a standard 1.78 screen for 1.3 to 1.85 movies when they will be just as big (Well, 1.85 would be a little bigger.) on a 2.4 TV? The 2.4 ratio accommodates nearly everything.

That depends entirely on the size of the TV, not its aspect ratio. If the TV is wider but shorter than your existing 1.78 TV (as most 2.40 TVs are) than all 1.85 and 1.33 movies and shows would be smaller on the 2.40 TV.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

That depends entirely on the size of the TV, not its aspect ratio. If the TV is wider but shorter than your existing 1.78 TV (as most 2.40 TVs are) than all 1.85 and 1.33 movies and shows would be smaller on the 2.40 TV.

When you say "most 2.4 TVs," what TVs are you talking about? They had a short run, what, over a decade ago? I thought the height being the same or nearly the same was assumed from what I said. Because I like to space the tower speakers far apart for better stereo separation, I have enough space to maintain this image height with a 21:9 TV.

Width of a 16:9 65 inch TV is 57".

Width of a 21:9 65 inch TV is 76".

But if I had to go a little smaller with the height, it would still be fine. What we have now is a bigger compromise than slightly smaller fullscreen content.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And could always follow your own advice re: 2.39 on a regular 16:9 TV and paint your walls black.

Between apartments, but I did have black behind my TV for this reason. Didn't solve the annoying problem of scope movies being small, though.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

My son has an ultra wide monitor in his gaming rig... The picture looks absolutely stunning... if I was space constrained like in a dorm room, I could set this being a viable alternative for the OP

I have a Dell UltraSharp 40. It's a 40" 21:9 productivity monitor with a gentle 2500R curve. Love how full the scope movies appear on it, but would never use it for TV shows and movies because it's not OLED and being so close to the screen makes all the compression artifacts, other digital muck and grain too obvious.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Width of a 16:9 65 inch TV is 57".

Width of a 21:9 65 inch TV is 76"

That's wrong. The width of a 21:9 65 inch TV is 60". And the height is quite a bit shorter than the 16:9 TV.

https://displaywars.com/65-inch-16x9-vs-65-inch-21x9

An 82 inch 21:9 TV would be 76" wide.

https://displaywars.com/65-inch-16x9-vs-82-inch-21x9

The screen size is measured diagonally so changing the aspect ratio makes a big difference.

[chip75]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG2VCz7eDiM

I'm a bit dubious about some of the claims, but it's interesting tech.

I've banged on about for years but it's a shame we didn't have a bit more foresight with BD and UHD spec, we should have had the options to have variable ratios, even IMAX 1.43:1.

The screen tech will advance, but we'd need some serious updates, and they're scare as it is!