What's so good about widescreen?

[Anthony P]

Not trying to be ignorant or start any arguments, I just don't see why people want widescreen when you're watching a movie. Why? Wouldn't you just prefer a movie that fits your entire TV screen, with no black bars, so you can see more details?

easy, because someone made a conscious decision when the movie was shot and things are happening in all 4 corners, when you force it to fit to your TV you are cropping some of that stuff off. Sometimes it is not important what gets cut, other times it is. Let's face it, if you where meant to see the person sneaking on the side, or the expression of the person that was left on the floor because you now only see the talker and not the listener you lose some of that movie.

[cakefoo]

[DeathByAsh'aman]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I'll take widescreen any day.

theres at least 4 or 5 people that have echoed my sentiments already. But if you cant tell from this previous post why fullscreen is wrong, then your movie watching priviledges need to be revoked.

[The Big Blue]

Originally Posted by The Lion King

Not trying to be ignorant or start any arguments, I just don't see why people want widescreen when you're watching a movie. Why? Wouldn't you just prefer a movie that fits your entire TV screen, with no black bars, so you can see more details?

That other thread makes so much sense now.

[scragham]

Originally Posted by cakefoo

lol that's a great sequence of pictures. love the text, too.

this needs to be a poster.

[jon s]

My question is why do you even have a Blu-Ray player and watching on a 4:3 SD television set???

[Heart&Soul]

If only all tv's came out widescreen (2.35). Then people would see the black bars on the side and think they were being cheated while watching 'Full Screen' movies.

[Canada]

Most people prefer to see the movie in the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) because you get to see the picture framed the way the director intended. Watching a 1:85:1 version of a 2:35:1 film amounts to butchering in lots of peoples opinion. I have watched 2:35:1 films for so long now I hardly notice the black bars.

[rubberghost]

i don't think it would hurt if it were a little wider. honestly.

[mikenike]

Here's an excellent video on YouTube on why widescreen is better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJhM3So4y8.

But to sum it up, widescreen tells more story, has better resolution (due to not being cropped and blown up), and director's vision is preserved. With fullscreen, you get pan and scan, which injects another person's opinions into the movie. Why pay money for less of something and have it marred by a pan and scan technician?

[Carlsberg19]

In all fairness that is zoomed in alot more than just covering the black bars lol!

[full]

Wich tv can remove the black bars?

[JasonR]

Originally Posted by full

Wich tv can remove the black bars?

Almost all new HDTVs have a zoom function.

[GORT]

Just when you thought it could not get any worse

[Vampyre]

Originally Posted by andyn1080

this is starting to get old. look plain and simple people like widescreen b/c there isnt pan and scan meaning you get the entire picture where as "full screen" the sides are cut off and in some movies important parts get left out of the picture. BUT I THINK THAT most people that like the picture to fill up the screen mean that they like 1.85:1 meaning animorphic widescreen, fills up the entire screen and the sides arernt left out/no pan and scan just a full picture with nothing cut off. so yea i like 1.85:1 aswell but at the same time i dont hate blackbar movies.

if im wrong please tell me but as far as i know 1:85.1 is not pan and scan, its the entire film sides and all just without the bars on top. so if thats true then that is what blackbars haters want 1.85:1 movies across the board.

This is the information I was looking for. I think. Is the 1:85.1 aspect ratio the same as the 16 X 9 aspect of the HD TV? I have 28 days later on blue ray. It fills up the whole TV with no black bars. So, my guess is that 1:85.1 is the same or very close to 16 X 9 TVs. At least I don't remember black bars on that movie. I will go back and double check though. Thank you.

[Vampyre]

One more question about black bars, TVs and movie aspect ratios.

Wide screen movies (at theaters) have been around a very long time. True? So why did it take so many years to finally get TVs made in a widerscreen 16 X 9 aspect ratio. It seems that the general public would be used to widescreen movies and the black bars by now if TVs and movies were made into widescreen a long time ago.

I like to experience different movie aspect ratios for what the director is trying to do with the movie.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Vampyre

This is the information I was looking for. I think. Is the 1:85.1 aspect ratio the same as the 16 X 9 aspect of the HD TV? I have 28 days later on blue ray. It fills up the whole TV with no black bars. So, my guess is that 1:85.1 is the same or very close to 16 X 9 TVs. At least I don't remember black bars on that movie. I will go back and double check though. Thank you.

A 16:9 TV screen is 1.7777 wide (1080 x 1920 pixels)
A 1.85 image would be 1038 x 1920 pixels (21 pixels of black bar on top and 21 pixels of black bar on the bottom)
If the 16:9 TV overscans the image 4% (or more) it shows only 1037 x 1843 pixels (or less) hiding the 1.85 bars.

Same thing would happen with a 1.66 wide movie (1080 x 1793 pixels, bars on the sides) and on a 16:9 display that overscans 7% or more, the side bars wouldn't show.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

One more question about black bars, TVs and movie aspect ratios.

Wide screen movies (at theaters) have been around a very long time. True? So why did it take so many years to finally get TVs made in a widerscreen 16 X 9 aspect ratio. It seems that the general public would be used to widescreen movies and the black bars by now if TVs and movies were made into widescreen a long time ago.

I like to experience different movie aspect ratios for what the director is trying to do with the movie.

When TV was "invented" it took the silent movie 1.33 shape (Even though movies changed to a 1.37 wide shape with sound). Displays were CRT tubes (which is basically a giant light bulb of sorts). To compete with TV, movies went wider than TVs. So one reason was that it was more difficult to manufacture a CRT shape wider than 4:3, so technology took is time. When HDTV was proposed many years ago, displays were still mainly CRTs. Some cinematographers were suggesting new 2.00 wide displays (as most movies at the time were either 1.85 or 2.40).
What we got was 1.777777 (the square root of 1.33 x 2.35 is 1.77)

[Vampyre]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

A 16:9 TV screen is 1.7777 wide (1080 x 1920 pixels)
A 1.85 image would be 1038 x 1920 pixels (21 pixels of black bar on top and 21 pixels of black bar on the bottom)
If the 16:9 TV overscans the image 4% (or more) it shows only 1037 x 1843 pixels (or less) hiding the 1.85 bars.

Same thing would happen with a 1.66 wide movie (1080 x 1793 pixels, bars on the sides) and on a 16:9 display that overscans 7% or more, the side bars wouldn't show.

When TV was "invented" it took the silent movie 1.33 shape (Even though movies changed to a 1.37 wide shape with sound). Displays were CRT tubes (which is basically a giant light bulb of sorts). To compete with TV, movies went wider than TVs. So one reason was that it was more difficult to manufacture a CRT shape wider than 4:3, so technology took is time. When HDTV was proposed many years ago, displays were still mainly CRTs. Some cinematographers were suggesting new 2.00 wide displays (as most movies at the time were either 1.85 or 2.40).
What we got was 1.777777 (the square root of 1.33 x 2.35 is 1.77)

OMG! You know your stuff! I knew there was a reason I got up today. Thank you for the explanation. I'll brush up on my Algebra and get back to you once we have a common frame of reference. Thanks much!!!!