16:9 FullFrame or 2.39:1 letterbox formatting for SCOPE films on Blu-ray Discs?

[Blu Tiger]

Definitely OAR. For the people that want all movies to be changed to 16:9...Don't you think buying a bigger tv is a better idea than all of the movie studios changing their movies to be 16:9?

[blackjackshalack]

Originally Posted by Rugbynerd

I know what original aspect ratio is, thank you. The issue is what I think looks best. Maybe if the PS3 did 24fps, then OAR would be a little more relevant (hm, looks like you don't know what you're talking about), or maybe if I had a gigantic 1080p tv then OAR would be ideal, but on a 37" 1080p flatscreen, 16:9 is the way to go for sure, regardless of OAR. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to cut off the outside 5% of the image? And what do you really miss by doing this? Nothing, but you gain a better image and full utilization of 1080p (do you even know what that is fuad?) What's more, how hard is it to make it so you can choose one option or the other on the same disc? Not hard. (And obviously on older movies you should not stretch them out... I'm only talking about movies that are 2.35:1 ratio-- would you rather have your HDTV display them in full 1080p 16:9 but lose the outside edges, or an effectively 720p OAR but retain the outside edges?

The whole point of having a widescreen tv in the first place is to eliminate "cutting off" portions of the film. To be able to show the film as it was intended and not have portions of the viewing field removed just to "fill" your entire tv screen giving you the impression you are seeing more when in fact you see less. I don't like 16x9. It gives the film a smaller scope because the film doesn't have the same width and everything is "zoomed in" as a result. You don't get the same background shots that really make the image IMO. I wish tv's were 1.33 but I have to live with 16x9 which is a trillion times better than stupid 4:3 which I refuse to watch.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by blackjackshalack

The whole point of having a widescreen tv in the first place is to eliminate "cutting off" portions of the film. To be able to show the film as it was intended and not have portions of the viewing field removed just to "fill" your entire tv screen giving you the impression you are seeing more when in fact you see less. I don't like 16x9. It gives the film a smaller scope because the film doesn't have the same width and everything is "zoomed in" as a result. You don't get the same background shots that really make the image IMO. I wish tv's were 1.33 but I have to live with 16x9 which is a trillion times better than stupid 4:3 which I refuse to watch.

Quoted for truth

[PeterTHX]

I don't like 16x9. It gives the film a smaller scope because the film doesn't have the same width and everything is "zoomed in" as a result. You don't get the same background shots that really make the image IMO. I wish tv's were 1.33 but I have to live with 16x9 which is a trillion times better than stupid 4:3 which I refuse to watch.

Huh?

[Deciazulado]

maybe he meant 2.33 tvs?

[nhaase]

I prefer whatever the original aspect ratio was. I don't mind the black bars. Just give me what the film-maker wanted.

[Camulus]

I am so glad I searched for the answer to this before starting a new thread. My first 2 BD movies gave me a cause for concern. Scooby Doo filled the screen and looked great. Underworld Evolution looked even better but had top and bottom black bars. Now that I know why it doesn't bother me. Thought my TV was broke!

[Deciazulado]

You are now a film aspect ratio connoisseur

[rucumn]

Originally Posted by AV_Integrated

In fact... take a look at what you lose by watching scope films in non-OAR on your display:

http://www.avintegrated.com/aspect_ratios.html

There is no question that nobody should be losing all that detail and extra action just because they want to fill their 16:9 screen perfectly. Those that DO demand that should really look into projectors that allow for anamorphic lens additions for scope movies. Get a 2.35 screen, and then add masking to properly frame non scope films.

What setting should i have my PS3 on to get the best picture? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks

[BOSS10L]

Originally Posted by rucumn

What setting should i have my PS3 on to get the best picture? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks

1080p as long as your display can handle it, even if it isn't a 1080p set.

[BOSS10L]

OAR or nothing....

I used to hate the black bars. Only because it was taking up valuable real estate on my 50" screen. But there was a simple solution. I got a PJ and bigger screen.

I don't seem to have an issue with bars on a 100" screen.

I do hope to go CIH one day though...

[rucumn]

Originally Posted by BOSS10L

OAR or nothing....

I used to hate the black bars. Only because it was taking up valuable real estate on my 50" screen. But there was a simple solution. I got a PJ and bigger screen.

I don't seem to have an issue with bars on a 100" screen.

I do hope to go CIH one day though...

Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. I meant Which picture setting on the PS3. 16:9 full frame or 2.39:1 letterbox. To not have any picture loss. I appreciate the help. Thanks again

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by rucumn

Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. I meant Which picture setting on the PS3. 16:9 full frame or 2.39:1 letterbox. To not have any picture loss. I appreciate the help. Thanks again

There's no 16:9/2.39 setting on the PS3.

All High Definition movies are encoded in a 16:9 square 1:1 pixels shape (1080 x 1920 pixels). Movies that are in a different aspect ratio than 1.78 (For example most of them!), like 1.37 and 1.85 and 2.39 will be presented inside the 16:9 1080 x 1920 frame. Respectively, in those 3 examples, as 1080 x 1485, 1038 x 1920, and 803 x 1920 if they are in their strict specified ratio.

So to not have any picture loss with Blu-ray movies you don't have to do amnything if you have a 16:9 HDTV wide display.


Now if someone wants to have his widescreen filled and still w/o loss, you could do a constant image height projection set up which leads to my following answer:

Originally Posted by BOSS10L

OAR or nothing....

I used to hate the black bars. Only because it was taking up valuable real estate on my 50" screen. But there was a simple solution. I got a PJ and bigger screen.

I don't seem to have an issue with bars on a 100" screen.

I do hope to go CIH one day though...

Does your PJ have a zoom lens?

If you do you could position the PJ so that the zoom when it's at it biggest zoom image size fills a 2.39 or so widescreen, and them zoom back (make the image smaller) for the 1.85-1.37 movies.

It's my opinion that going through the special anamorphic lens/scaler route unless you have lots of $$$$ to throw away is not worth it if your PJ already has a good zoom lens.

[invictus]

I've read most of these posts, understanding most of the most I've read. I've always been a fan of letterboxing. But have I been wrong? Am I seeing everything the director intended me to see with letterboxing?

Casino Royale has black bars on the tops and bottoms on my ps3 dellfps2405 combination and thats the way I prefer it.

To me the real problem lies in the fact there is no standard way to film a movie, (although its not really a 'problem') its up to the artisitic discretion and personal preference of the director or production company.

Could someone in the know answer my previous questions, I now this is semi-sidetracking but its related in a roundabout.

[Knight-Errant]

I would just like the intention of the director and cinematographer to be reproduced faithfully.

[Johnnybandit]

I think it is crap. I have spenty more than a couple grand to watch high def movies the way I wan to watch them and I dont even have full screen options. if you own old dvd players at least they give you the option to buy fullscreen or widescreen letterbox. I am with you and I would buy all the movies if I new they were full screen, but they arent so I wont. The bluray manufacturer ought to realize the customer is always right, and no one really cares about how the movie was shot. What matters is how the movies looks on my tv screen.

[BStecke]

WTF does the relevancy of OAR have to do with the PS3 doing 24fps? Which it does do, BTW.

[Mister Zob]

Originally Posted by Johnnybandit

The bluray manufacturer ought to realize the customer is always right, and no one really cares about how the movie was shot. What matters is how the movies looks on my tv screen.

Actually, I'm a Blu-ray customer, I'm always right and I don't care how the movies look on your display. I want them to look like exactly the way they looked in theaters.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by CareyD1080p

You understand me PERFECTLY sir.

Thank you.

By the way, love your "Matrix Reloaded" demo frames.

How do you do that?

Also, define "OAR" for me. Is that an acronym?

I believe it means Original aspect ratio. I was getting quite irritated by people using an uncommon acronym without defining it first.

[aristotles]

I would prefer to see modern movies shot, cut and distributed in 1:85:1 ratio as it is one of the closest ratios to 16:9 display screens. I will only see a movie maybe once or twice in a theatre and I might see it numerous times on my 16:9 screen. It would be helpful for studios to follow Casta Away as an example.