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

[Rugbynerd]

I finally got my PS3 and was excited to finally see the 1080p movies on my 1080p flatscreen, but it turns out that all movies are in the 2.35:1 ratio instead of the 16:9 ratio, and therefore the utility of the 1080p capabilities are entirely wasted. Instead of having 1080 vertical lines of resolution of the movie, I have about 720 lines of resolution of actual film and 360 lines of wasted black space. Plus I feel like we are back where we started, when our 4:3 TVs would play 16:9 movies and leave black strips at the top and bottom. I would have bought every blu-ray dvd available, but now I have to say I am disappointed to say the least. In fact, it’s even embarrassing—my brother came over and looked at the image and said, “Why are there black bars at the top and bottom?”

At first I thought the solution would be to have the PS3 or blu-ray dvd player be able to have a zoom function such that it would zoom in and cut off a little bit of the edges on the sides. But that would actually decrease the resolution (because if you look at “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon,” for example, you will see that the subtitles are in the black boxes at the top and bottom, and therefore it is the disc that is the source of the formatting issue). The best solution would be to have the option of choosing 2.40:1 or 16:9 format from the same disc. It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to do.

[phranctoast]

hddvd is the same way. Most movies are made to the 2:35:1 atio. Even if you bought a dvd its usually that aspect ratio. the only thing thats not that ratio is tv. HD TV broadcast at 16:9.

[theknub]

rugby, this is simply an inherent "issue." it is the films aspect ratio that the director shot it in. there is nothing that can be done, hd-dvd has the exact same thing going on. not all films are 2.35:1. ice age for example fills the whole screen.

i won't even attempt to explain it because of my ignorance but hopefully someone like deci will come in and explain it all.

[Maximus]

The movie should be in the OAR, which for epic movies is 235:100.

[hyperdine]

I didn't vote, because I prefer movies in their original aspect ratio, regardless of whether it's 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc. If there was a 3rd option for OAR, I would've picked that one

[theknub]

^^same OAR all the way

[mainman]

I voted 2.35:1, but OAR is the way to go.

[Maximus]

Black bars are your friend not you enemy.

[dobyblue]

OAR - and the epics are all 235:100 which is fine by me.
Tune your TV so that the black bars are in fact black and you've pretty much done a rough calibration of your set.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

OAR - and the epics are all 235:100 which is fine by me.
Tune your TV so that the black bars are in fact black and you've pretty much done a rough calibration of your set.

I think I was quite lucky, when the TV was bought (Sony 46" XBR2) I bargained with the [independent] electronics guy to get a free calibration session for two settings, I have one for movies, and one for sport.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Rugbynerd

I finally got my PS3 and was excited to finally see the 1080p movies on my 1080p flatscreen, but it turns out that all movies are in the 2.35:1 ratio instead of the 16:9 ratio, and therefore the utility of the 1080p capabilities are entirely wasted.

What is truly wasted is the ability to do a search on original aspect ratio (OAR).

OAR is the way films are shown theatrically. Some are 1.33 like older movies (Gone With The Wind) which is about the same aspect ratio as your "normal" TV screen. For these films, watching them on your HDTV will bring black bars on the sides of the screen.

Some are wider, like Saving Private Ryan at 1.85 which is closer to HDTV's 1.78. These films for uninformed HDTV owners like you will fill the screeen fully.


Some wider films like Pirates Of The Carribean is at 2.35 and will have black bars at the top and bottom of the screen on your HDTV.

The point is this: Read up on your original aspect ratio. It's good for your movie watching experience.


fuad

[WriteSimply]

The poll should be closed until the OP understands the concept of OAR.


fuad

[Deane Johnson]

I have to agree. This poll should be closed as it has no relevancy to reality. I see countless similar threads on the internet started by people who have no understanding of OAR and they thought that somehow 16X9 makes everything the same size.

They shouldn't be spending their money on something they have so little understanding of.

This is a serious and valuable forum, and this poll makes it look kind of silly, IMO.

[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?

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Rugbynerd

I know what original aspect ratio is, -BAD RUGBYNERD BAD- 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?

You sir, are the '-BAD RUGBYNERD BAD-'.

[Spankey]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

You sir, are the '-BAD RUGBYNERD BAD-'.

I tend to agree..seems we got ourselves a troll...

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by sltmag

I tend to agree..seems we got ourselves a troll...

Yup seems that way, where are the mods when you need them most... sigh.

[Deciazulado]

hey! i was trapped on an airport in Pacavania! My missions take me far far away to exotic lands ya know

mm lets see.
First, priorities . Movies haven't been shot/projected in 2.35 since the 70's, people
2.35 is so old, so passé, it was used for like only 15 years out of Scope's Half a Century History! . So mmm unless you're refering to 50's and 60's optical soundtrack Scope, Scope is W I D E R than 2.35

Now to the issue at hand.

Yes 16:9 1080 is not 100% efficient with "Scope" or 70mm movies (2.00-2.75 aspect ratio).
For 2.40 wide films (Starting in the mid 90's they are cropped to 2.39 to hide the DTS control track but they are shot in 2.40 cameras), 1080 HDTV just uses 800 x 1920 pixels out of the 1080 x 1920 available (or 803 x 1920 for 2.39). Same thing will be happening for Academy Sound movies (1.375 aspect ratio), they will only use 1080 x 1485 pixels. HDTV has square pixels. They have chosen to not utilize 4:3 coding or 21:9 coding..

Although it seems to us that most movies are "Scope", the actual majority since the mid 50's on has been between 1.66 and 1.85. (And before that, it was 1.375 for sound and 1.333 for silents) (There's also lots of TV programming shot on film at 1.33 too.) It would have been great if they used 4:3, 16:9, and 21:9 coding for each film format, and maybe one day they will, but I suppose that for now when they set the standards they had other more pressing i$$ues to $olve!

Anyway, if the transfer is optimal, 1080 x 1485, 1038 x 1920, or 800 x 1920 are enough to look better than most prints in theaters. (The key words are optimally transfered ;D)

Now, if you don't like the situation of letterbox inside 16:9, you'll have to get a projector with a 1.33x or better zoon ratio, and a 21:9 or wider screen (or use the wall ). If you want to watch Ben-Hur proper you need a 1.55x or better zoom ratio lens.

Originally Posted by Rugbynerd

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

Actually if you zoom/crop a Scope image to fill a 16:9 screen you lose:
11% for SuperScope 2.00
19% for SuperPanavision (70mm) 2.20
23% for Technirama 2.30
24% for optical sound CinemaScope 2.35
26% for digital sound Panavision 2.39 or optical sound Panavision 2.40
30% for magnetic sound CinemaScope and Cinemascope55 (55mm) 2.55
35% for UltraPanavision (70mm) 2.75

I agree you'd get a more defined image if it filled the 16:9 frame but then the movie wouldn't show it's original canvas and be amputated.


Maybe at one point we'll have OAR editions and "FullFrame" editions. Sacre Blu!

Or 21:9 coding...

[dobyblue]

Dang brutha! That's what I call knowing your stuff.
Thanks for the info.

[theknub]

and deci returns to restore order in the world