Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[Henners]

I understand how the idea is to preserve the orignal aspect ratios etc

I'm just confused though as I bought a new lcd for my pc widescreen 24"

Though, with the black bars top/bottom - I understand great to keep the wide picture - but what is the point of getting a widescreen tv if my old 3:4 tv can do the same thing with the black bars..

I just would have thought that a widescreen tv would allow the screen to be filled - without loosing any picture cropping.. or does I not make any sense..

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Henners

I understand how the idea is to preserve the orignal aspect ratios etc

I'm just confused though as I bought a new lcd for my pc widescreen 24"

Though, with the black bars top/bottom - I understand great to keep the wide picture - but what is the point of getting a widescreen tv if my old 3:4 tv can do the same thing with the black bars..

I just would have thought that a widescreen tv would allow the screen to be filled - without loosing any picture cropping.. or does I not make any sense..

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

Any way you slice it, you're going to have black bars - whether they're at the top and bottom or on the sides - including what you're suggesting.

If the tv is wider to make a 2:35 movie fill up the screen, then a 1:85 will have black bars on the sides. And a 4:3 image will have even wider bars on the sides.

[Henners]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Any way you slice it, you're going to have black bars - whether they're at the top and bottom or on the sides - including what you're suggesting.

If the tv is wider to make a 2:35 movie fill up the screen, then a 1:85 will have black bars on the sides. And a 4:3 image will have even wider bars on the sides.

hmm... oh yes.. good point..

I guess yeah 16:9 looks like the better one to choose then..

I've tried stretching a 4:3 once.. yuck...

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Henners

hmm... oh yes.. good point..

I guess yeah 16:9 looks like the better one to choose then..

I've tried stretching a 4:3 once.. yuck...

Well, I don't know if I'd say it was "better." I don't have a problem with any of the aspect ratios on my tv anymore than I do when I'm at the theater (I never say, "Hey there's more wall space at the top and bottom of the screen!"). I'm usually watching the movie, not looking at the black bars.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I don't have a problem with any of the aspect ratios on my tv anymore than I do when I'm at the theater (I never say, "Hey there's more wall space at the top and bottom of the screen!"). I'm usually watching the movie, not looking at the black bars.

But in a good theater (using my definition of "good") you have "Common Height," and the image gets bigger, not smaller, as you move from the old 1.37:1, through 1.85:1, to 2.40:1. So with the wider formats there is not more black space at the top and bottom of the screen ... all films would have the same black space at the top and bottom ... only the width would vary.

[Trogdor2010]

This is turning into a deathmatch of Joes and cinephiles. To put it bluntly, all these movies you have seen are made for a movie theater, not Blu Ray, not DVD, not VHS, not even Laserdisc. But however, whats worse is that there are more crappy performance in those movie theaters. I watched Broken Embraces (Los Abrazos Rotos) a few days ago at the nearest arthouse theater (50 miles, sucks), and while a great film, had terrible uniformity in the focal path, it's too obvious, I even asked the projectionist (Nicely) to help with the focus, while they fixed the focus for the middle range of the picture at the cost of out of focus subtitles (I imagine the subtitles were what were in focus, but worth the cost), also some bothersome audio hiccups (I'm betting they are using the SDDS codec). This and the high cost of tickets are what scaring anybody to going to a theater and reminding me why I don't go there. Why do you think I even have a CIH set up to watch movies on?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by garyrc

But in a good theater (using my definition of "good") you have "Common Height," and the image gets bigger, not smaller, as you move from the old 1.37:1, through 1.85:1, to 2.40:1. So with the wider formats there is not more black space at the top and bottom of the screen ... all films would have the same black space at the top and bottom ... only the width would vary.

Well, that's the way it's supposed to be but I have been in theaters (recently) where they open up the screen at the top and bottom, not the sides, to display movies in 1.85.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Henners

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

Pointless as some director will come along and think his movie is so freakin special that it needs to be filmed in an even wider aspect ratio than that.

But hey, it's their 'vision'.