WT? Black Bars Onscreen with BD?

[shug7272]

I thought movies on Blu Ray were to take up the entire screen and not have the letterbox bars of the old DVD fasion. I picked up MI3 per the advice of several members here (kicks ass by the way) and noticed the letterbox bars. I thought this was a thing of the past with Blu Ray. Why do I need a widescreen high def 1080p television to play a 1080p signal only to STILL lose some of the screen to black bars? I hope it is something Im doing wrong cause Im pissed.

[u_nick]

there are two types of wide screen. some movies will give you 'black bars' and some wont.

search google. they'll explain it better

[FinweElensar]

Google aspect ratio to educate yourself on "Black Bars"

[Deane Johnson]

Originally Posted by shug7272

I thought movies on Blu Ray were to take up the entire screen and not have the letterbox bars of the old DVD fasion. I picked up MI3 per the advice of several members here (kicks ass by the way) and noticed the letterbox bars. I thought this was a thing of the past with Blu Ray. Why do I need a widescreen high def 1080p television to play a 1080p signal only to STILL lose some of the screen to black bars? I hope it is something Im doing wrong cause Im pissed.

How do you fit a movie shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio on a 16X9 screen?

[DaveFi]

OAR is still best. You want those black bars.

There has been so many posts on this topic lately in the forum I find it hard to believe you've missed one with 43 posts so far.

[Deciazulado]

There are 3 shapes of movies:

A) Academy (1.37 wide)
B) Flat Widescreen (1.66-1.85 wide)
C) Anamorphic "Scope"/70mm Widescreen (2.00-2.75 wide)

Your widescreen display is 1.78 wide.

Movies of shape "B" will fill your screen

M:i:III is a shape "C" movie, 2.39 wide

[Maximus]

Please can we sticky for OAR and why it is good!

[shug7272]

One post ridiculing me would have been enough. It seems the better Blu Ray does the less welcoming this site gets. This will be my last post here. Thanks for all the "help".

Oh and if I would have seen the previous post(s) I assure you I would have read that instead of starting one of my own only to be ridiculed. Its not something I enjoy or look for. If I wanted all this bs I would have asked at AVSforums, I guess I should have.

[DaveFi]

Originally Posted by shug7272

One post ridiculing me would have been enough. It seems the better Blu Ray does the less welcoming this site gets. This will be my last post here. Thanks for all the "help".

Oh and if I would have seen the previous post(s) I assure you I would have read that instead of starting one of my own only to be ridiculed. Its not something I enjoy or look for. If I wanted all this bs I would have asked at AVSforums, I guess I should have.

Hey, no one's ridiculing you, we're just saying that there has been so many posts on this topic you need to use the search function before you post a new topic.

[Behemoko]

If you take away the black bars, you screw up the OAR (original aspect ratio) and the movie is going to be stretched to fit, and look really, really bad..

[Dog2]

Those who favor (or merely accept) black bars seem to focus on the field of view and OAR. I'd like to suggest we look at the situation a little differently.

Alternative viewpoint 1: Cinemascope movies viewed on my HDTV waste many precious pixels at top and bottom. If the director intended us to see lower-resolution images, why did they shoot in 70mm instead of 16mm? If the director really cares about us seeing the detail in their artistic creation, then the image should be vertically stretched to provide more of that detail. It only takes a short while for the mind's eye to compensate for stretched images such that they look normal.

Alternative viewpoint 2: who says Cinemascope is the be-all and end-all of formats? Instead of vertically stretching to use all pixels or wasting pixels with black bars, why not increase the vertical field of view? Surely contemporary directors know their creation will ultimately be viewed in HD. This is a creative and monetary opportunity for them, not a limitation.

Alternative viewpoint 3: the blu-ray specification provides that panning and scanning information can be embedded at very low cost. Why isn't this information then included on discs, along with the *option* for the viewer to use it.

It's not outrageous at all to suggest a combination of 2 & 3 be provided, as well as to have a configurable zoom option on our TVs or players.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by DaveFi

Hey, no one's ridiculing you, we're just saying that there has been so many posts on this topic you need to use the search function before you post a new topic.

Also, you've been on the forum for nearly 2 and a half years, and you don't understand aspect ratios yet? Not trying to ridicule, I just find that hard to believe.

[dgator783]

Originally Posted by shug7272

One post ridiculing me would have been enough. It seems the better Blu Ray does the less welcoming this site gets. This will be my last post here. Thanks for all the "help".

Oh and if I would have seen the previous post(s) I assure you I would have read that instead of starting one of my own only to be ridiculed. Its not something I enjoy or look for. If I wanted all this bs I would have asked at AVSforums, I guess I should have.

no loss....why am I being mean? well...how do you become a senior member on this site and not know what OAR is (The reason for the bars)?....when someone asks a questions a million times, it gets annoying....aka we, who have been members for awhile, get annoyed....its really just being lazy on the Op's part, instead of trying to find or researching an answer, he just mearly posts a question thats been asked a million times.....u know when its a good time to post a question? If your research yields you 0 results and fails to provide you with answers....

[SDon1969]

Wow, this is an oldie! It got the 2-year+ bump!

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by benricci

Also, you've been on the forum for nearly 2 and a half years, and you don't understand aspect ratios yet? Not trying to ridicule, I just find that hard to believe.

Uh, the Dog opened a thread that is 2 1/2 years old. Davefi hasn't even visited the site this month.

As to the Dog, there are those who view movies on screens that are 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 as well. I won't go into detail about this since it's been discussed ad nauseum on several threads, but suffice it to say that director's use aspect ratio specifically to invoke certain emotions from the audience. For Instance, Spielberg used matte(1.85:1) for Jurassic Park because he wanted the the aspect ratio to be more vertical to accentuate the height of the T-Rex.