Poll: Subtitle positioning in wider ratio (2.20+) movies on Sony Blu-ray Discs

[#Darren]

I support the needs of the CIH owners, but to say that 21x9 TV's will EVER become even remotely commonplace is extreme speculation.

Almost all regular TV broadcasts now are in 16x9, and that is what will influence the buying choices of Joe6Pack, because a wider screen will have unpleasant black bars and be a waste of screen acreage. And I seriously doubt the TV industry will go 21x9 anytime soon, if ever.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Kilian

The problem here is in this poll nobody knows how many voters have CIH screens.

Here's a poll that asks what people watch 2.35-2.40:1 Blu-ray movies on:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=106418

Curently 12.77% say they watch on a CIH setup.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the black bars are there and wasterd space, why not use as much of it as possible

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

For movies only. No TV shows.

It's not a television standard. Watch any 'scope movie on HBO and tell me if it's 21x9 or not. There are plenty more "black bar" haters out there than people who have CIH setups.

Anthony and Peter, do either of you advocate cropping 2.35:1 movies to 16:9? It seems like the both of you are caught up in the idea of "wasted space" and wanting to make use of the area currently occupied by black bars.

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Anthony and Peter, do either of you advocate cropping 2.35:1 movies to 16:9? It seems like the both of you are caught up in the idea of "wasted space" and wanting to make use of the area currently occupied by black bars.

Yeah, I was thinking that as well...

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Yeah, I was thinking that as well...

Isn't the cropping of the picture by CIH owners what is causing the subtitles to half-disappear from the screen?

[Eternal_Sunshine]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Isn't the cropping of the picture by CIH owners what is causing the subtitles to half-disappear from the screen?

Oh come on. The black bars are not part of the picture.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Anthony and Peter, do either of you advocate cropping 2.35:1 movies to 16:9? It seems like the both of you are caught up in the idea of "wasted space" and wanting to make use of the area currently occupied by black bars.

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Yeah, I was thinking that as well...

Hardly.

I've always been an advocate of OAR, I pillarbox all my 4x3 material (SDTV, older films, etc) and never zoom 2.35. I hate HBO's non-OAR practice and applaud Showtime's policy of letterboxing 'scope films. I have a HDNet 2.35 rip of The World's Fastest Indian transferred to Blu-ray and refuse to purchase the opened up 1.78 version on BD.

Point is I have a standard 16x9 HDTV. Needlessly severely pillarboxing 1.33 material and using black bar space for subtitle placement doesn't make me a zoomer.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I've always been an advocate of OAR, I pillarbox all my 4x3 material (SDTV, older films, etc) and never zoom 2.35. I hate HBO's non-OAR practice and applaud Showtime's policy of letterboxing 'scope films. I have a HDNet 2.35 rip of The World's Fastest Indian transferred to Blu-ray and refuse to purchase the opened up 1.78 version on BD.

Point is I have a standard 16x9 HDTV. Needlessly severely pillarboxing 1.33 material and using black bar space for subtitle placement doesn't make me a zoomer.

Your argument is contradictory. You support OAR, and yet insist that the studios put the rest of your screen to use. Just because your screen is 16:9 in shape, doesn't mean that all of those pixels need to be used. You can deal with the black bars being empty on your screen during non-subtitled movies. Why would subtitled movies be any different? Subtitles are part of the movie and belong in the movie picture.

The aspect ratio of your TV has no bearing on the aspect ratio of the movie. It also has no bearing on where the subtitles should be placed, unless the placement of the subtitles prevents you from reading them. Which is exactly why the studios should just place all the subtitles in the movie picture, where everybody can read them.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

* For foreign language movies, made mainly for their own country, they weren't really intended to have English subtitles in the picture - at least not when shown in their original country.

* Subtitles over-write things in the scene. Things that would have been completely visible for foreign language films in their original country.

OK, let's take a movie like Air Force One, which has been released on Blu-ray by Sony. This is an American movie made for an English-speaking audience. The majority of the dialogue in the movie is English. However, there are also selected scenes with Russian dialogue. That dialogue is deliberately intended to be subtitled. The director knew this when he made the movie. All theatrical prints released in the movie's primary market had subtitles in the picture.

And yet, as released on Blu-ray, the studio has stripped out the original subtitles and replaced them with electronic player-generated subs that are positioned half-in/half-out of the picture.

This is an alteration of the movie, as it was made by its director.

In fact, the first pressings of that disc didn't even have subtitles for those scenes. Sony had to issue corrected copies.

* The Blu-ray format is natively 1.78:1. Usually 1920x1080. The same aspect ratio as the vast majority of HDTVs that Blu-ray titles are watched on.

* A consumer HDTV isn't a cinema. Things that work on a cinema sized screen might not work as well on the vast majority of consumer 1.78:1 HDTVs, eg. most people probably watch HDTV from a further distance relative to screen size than they would at a cinema, and for 2.35-2.39:1 movies the picture's screen height will be even shorter relative to their TV.

This is the exact same argument that people use when they want all 2.35:1 movies to be cropped to fill their 16:9 screens. The exact same argument.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Why would subtitled movies be any different?

Um, 'cause they're subtitled?

Which is exactly why the studios should just place all the subtitles in the movie picture, where everybody can read them.

And there are plenty of times where the subtitles are washed out or illegible in the picture. While a pretty lousy flick, Goldmember had fun with this.

This is the exact same argument that people use when they want all 2.35:1 movies to be cropped to fill their 16:9 screens. The exact same argument.

No, it's not. Cropping out active picture information and deciding where to place words put in after the fact are 2 different things.

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No, it's not. Cropping out active picture information and deciding where to place words put in after the fact are 2 different things.

Closed captions for the hard of hearing, and subtitles on foreign films, were put in after the fact.

Theatrical subtitles are a part of the fabric of the movie.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Um, 'cause they're subtitled?

How arbitrary a distinction is that? That's like saying you want all black & white movies to be colorized. Why? Um, 'cause they're black & white.

And there are plenty of times where the subtitles are washed out or illegible in the picture.

Easily enough fixed by adding a small outline or dropshadow to the font.

No, it's not. Cropping out active picture information and deciding where to place words put in after the fact are 2 different things.

They both stem back to the same desire to put every pixel on your TV to use, regardless of whether they're needed.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

They both stem back to the same desire to put every pixel on your TV to use, regardless of whether they're needed.

You're stretching it there.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

...
And there are plenty of times where the subtitles are washed out or illegible in the picture. While a pretty lousy flick, Goldmember had fun with this.

This is the case for old SD/DVD subs - they can be washed and and also fat and ugly. People remember this very well. I think this is a key reason for (some) people voting for the option 2 and skew the results. This is not the case for blu-ray as I understand. Blu-ray HD subtitles are easily read when in the picture.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Anthony and Peter, do either of you advocate cropping 2.35:1 movies to 16:9? It seems like the both of you are caught up in the idea of "wasted space" and wanting to make use of the area currently occupied by black bars.

no, I said use the wasted space. You seem to be the one with an issue in seeing the black bars and want to eliminate any use of them. Do you think movies like Wizard of Oz which is filmed in Academy ratio should be cropped to fit a 16:9 or your anamorphic display?

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

Oh come on. The black bars are not part of the picture.

yes they are, that is why it is 1080p if they where not part of the pic neither the content on the disk or the output of the player would be 1080p.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

OK, let's take a movie like Air Force One, which has been released on Blu-ray by Sony. This is an American movie made for an English-speaking audience. The majority of the dialogue in the movie is English. However, there are also selected scenes with Russian dialogue. That dialogue is deliberately intended to be subtitled. The director knew this when he made the movie. All theatrical prints released in the movie's primary market had subtitles in the picture.

Do you think in Russia there are subs in those places? Did you ask the director if he wanted people to read subs or would he have loved it if everyone understood Russian and no subs where needed? Do you think none Anglophones should have to read English subs when watching it in a different language? If the subs where native to the picture (on the film from the get go) how did they disappear?

Subs are an unwanted artefact in the film necessary because we don’t all speak all the languages.

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Closed captions for the hard of hearing, and subtitles on foreign films, were put in after the fact.

Theatrical subtitles are a part of the fabric of the movie.

not always. If they are part of the fabric of the movie then they can't be moved, the same way that other parts of the images of the movie can't be moved out into the black frame. So the ones where it is part of the fabric are not in this discussion. If they can be moved (the ones discussed in the thread) it means they where never part of the fabric and added later for the theatrical presentation and the real fabric of the movie is sub less.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Your argument is contradictory. You support OAR, and yet insist that the studios put the rest of your screen to use.

how is that contradictory. If it is not OAR and it is P&S to fit the 16:9 screen (or if the OAR was 16:9- but this gets off topic) then where would the black bars be to put the subs in? If someone wants the subs out and into the black bars then it automatically assumes that it is OAR with OAR>16:9). Now if someone wants it in, then that could be for different reasons including "I want to fill up my whole screen" and those are the people that want P&S

it is funny how now asking for them out= P&S and a few pots earlier you said it was like asking to have 16:9 material with black bars all around.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

They both stem back to the same desire to put every pixel on your TV to use, regardless of whether they're needed.

no, it stems from getting the best use possible and having less stuff messing with the image (which does not include the graffiti called subs which where never intended as part of the pic). On the other hand CIH is all about maximizing the width. If you wanted you could watch the 16:9 presentation as created on the BD but you have a CIH which crops the top and bottom in order to use the full width (which is why the subs in the black bars become an issue). So would it be fair for us to constantly attack you and say you want P&S since obviously you are willing to sacrifice stuff (the subs which you are portraying as important) in order to maximize the image size and use your whole width. What if it is 16:9 or 4:3, you would need to sacrifice even more.

[Deciazulado]

Posts have been moved as the subtitles thread had veered into a discussion of human vision field of view, aspect ratio, and polling methodology.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, I said use the wasted space. You seem to be the one with an issue in seeing the black bars and want to eliminate any use of them. Do you think movies like Wizard of Oz which is filmed in Academy ratio should be cropped to fit a 16:9 or your anamorphic display?

Many people have an issue with black bars - many millions. That is human nature. People just put up with it. It is not something that should be emphasized.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes they are, that is why it is 1080p if they where not part of the pic neither the content on the disk or the output of the player would be 1080p.

No it is not - blackbars well and truely 100% not part of the picture. It is part of the display but not the picture. People watch the picture - the content - not a
”defective” display that cannot properly display 21x9 content.

The above statement is made without thinking from the human perspective - it is too technical minded statement.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Do you think in Russia there are subs in those places? Did you ask the director if he wanted people to read subs or would he have loved it if everyone understood Russian and no subs where needed? Do you think none Anglophones should have to read English subs when watching it in a different language? If the subs where native to the picture (on the film from the get go) how did they disappear?

Subs are a part of the picture same as the dialogue. People can read well-presented-slimline-subs when integrated with the picture. Blackbar subs are an utter distraction because it is not part of the picture and you are forced to focus on a void that shouldn't be there.

You really should use a 4x3 display for 16x9 movies and request a mechanism to place subs on 4x3 blackbar to satisfy your requirements.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Subs are an unwanted artefact in the film necessary because we don’t all speak all the languages.

No absolutely not. Subs is not an artifact. It is an integral part of the movie and also fundamental to the movie for a person who does not understand the spoken laguage. There is no movie without subs since you cannot understand it. The black (grey) bar is the artefact and it is a defect of the display due to it's inability to display content the way it was designed to be enjoyed. If the blackbar is fully black it can be ignored. Once subs are placed on the blackbar, it is absolutely a defect and forces to concentrate on that defect and makes many millions uncomfortable. IMO it is crazy.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not always. If they are part of the fabric of the movie then they can't be moved, the same way that other parts of the images of the movie can't be moved out into the black frame. So the ones where it is part of the fabric are not in this discussion. If they can be moved (the ones discussed in the thread) it means they where never part of the fabric and added later for the theatrical presentation and the real fabric of the movie is sub less.?

Whether the subs are burnin or not-burnin is mere unimportant technicality. The important fact is subs are well integrated into the picture when shown in the theaters - that is the way the movies were made for decades and it is universally acceptable practice from the human perspective. That is the way the movies are designed to be watched. That practice will not change since people want it that way. If blackbar subtitles were so important to people (to the mankind), movies theaters would have blackbars for the subtitles. The movies and theaters would have been designed like that to make life comfortable for people. But that is not the case - that will never happen because people do not want that to happen. Blackbar subs make life uncomfortable for many millions.

Please, please try to understand. Please try to think from the human perspective rather than “technical” perspective.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by syncguy

Many people have an issue with black bars - many millions. That is human nature. People just put up with it. It is not something that should be emphasized.

I know there are many black bar haters. They zoom, they make CIH set-ups they stretch.... The point is if someone asks to put stuff in the black bars obviously they are not trying to get rid of them. Now if someone is trying to get rid of them then they are most likely to not want anything important in them.

No it is not - blackbars well and truely 100% not part of the picture. It is part of the display but not the picture. People watch the picture - the content - not a
”defective” display that cannot properly display 21x9 content.

no, all BD pictures are 16:9 if the original is 4:3 or 21:9 or any other ratio. It is definetly part of the picture. Also if the subs are in the black bars then there is also critical info in it so how can you say it is not part of it and only on your "defective" display. I would guess if your display does not show what is there it is more right to call that display defective, then the one that shows what is there

The above statement is made without thinking from the human perspective - it is too technical minded statement.

for someone that says most people should not vote because they don't understand anything, you sure hate it when technical and facts get into the arguments instead of the BS you try to convince people.

No absolutely not. Subs is not an artifact. It is an integral part of the movie and also fundamental to the movie for a person who does not understand the spoken laguage. There is no movie without subs since you cannot understand it.

but that is the point if we all had universal translators or new all the languages then subs would not be there. That makes it an artefact. The director does not choose to put that graffiti all over his nice images it is forced on the movie because some people might not understand it otherwise. ergo an artefact

The black (grey) bar is the artefact and it is a defect of the display due to it's inability to display content the way it was designed to be enjoyed. If the blackbar is fully black it can be ignored. Once subs are placed on the blackbar, it is absolutely a defect and forces to concentrate on that defect and makes many millions uncomfortable. IMO it is crazy.

yes black bars are an artefact and in a perfect world they would not exist. But since movies have been made in many different ratios, we can't live without them when we standardize the AR. I know you will most likely give some moronic answer of that is why some have CIH set-ups but that would be more BS because CIH won't eliminate the black bars on the side of 4:3 or academy and it won't get rid of black bars top and bottom of movies like Ben-Hur (2.76:1) or Napoleon (4:1) the only way to get rid of them is to crop movies and I hope we all agree that it would be worst then having black bars

Whether the subs are burnin or not-burnin is mere unimportant technicality. The important fact is subs are well integrated into the picture when shown in the theaters - that is the way the movies were made for decades and it is universally acceptable practice from the human perspective. That is the way the movies are designed to be watched. That practice will not change since people want it that way. If blackbar subtitles were so important to people (to the mankind), movies theaters would have blackbars for the subtitles. The movies and theaters would have been designed like that to make life comfortable for people. But that is not the case - that will never happen because people do not want that to happen. Blackbar subs make life uncomfortable for many millions.

I am not asking for anything to change. I don't have an issue if they do or don't. You on the other hand are asking for change and voted for change. Right now the subs are 1 in and 1 out.

Please, please try to understand. Please try to think from the human perspective rather than “technical” perspective

I do understand, you have a CIH and want to use it in its fullest, that is why I voted for don't care. But you guys ask for compassion because you would rather not watch 16:9 (with black bars) when you can have a bigger 21:9 image while dismissing as ignorant or evil anyone that prefers all the benefits having the subs out of the 21:9 frame and in the black bars.

PS you used 21:9 so I started using it as well, but if your display is 21:9 then it gives an AR of 2.333 and not 2.39 so you either have some black bare on scope films or you are cutting off some of the sides)

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, I said use the wasted space. You seem to be the one with an issue in seeing the black bars and want to eliminate any use of them. Do you think movies like Wizard of Oz which is filmed in Academy ratio should be cropped to fit a 16:9 or your anamorphic display?

Of course not.

Do you think that movies like The Seventh Seal should have subtitles in the pillarbox bars on the sides?

yes they are, that is why it is 1080p if they where not part of the pic neither the content on the disk or the output of the player would be 1080p.

This is by far the most ridiculous argument yet in this thread. The letterbox bars are not part of the picture. When the movie was photographed, were there letterbox bars on the camera negative? When the movie was projected in theaters, were there letterbox bars on the screen? Of course not.

The letterbox bars are an artifact of your 16:9 TV being the wrong shape to display the movie as intended. As an unintended, unwanted artifact, the last thing we should do is draw more attention to them.

Do you think in Russia there are subs in those places?

In Russia, there would be subtitles for all the English language scenes.

Did you ask the director if he wanted people to read subs or would he have loved it if everyone understood Russian and no subs where needed?

Does the director speak Russian? In this case, the director is German. I know that he speaks German and English. If I had to guess, he probably doesn't speak Russian and needs those subtitles just as much as you or I do.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Do you think that movies like The Seventh Seal should have subtitles in the pillarbox bars on the sides?

why not? I don't have an issue with subs on the side (assuming there is place)

This is by far the most ridiculous argument yet in this thread. The letterbox bars are not part of the picture. When the movie was photographed, were there letterbox bars on the camera negative? When the movie was projected in theatres, were there letterbox bars on the screen? Of course not.

The letterbox bars are an artifact of your 16:9 TV being the wrong shape to display the movie as intended. As an unintended, unwanted artifact, the last thing we should do is draw more attention to them.

not at all. The black bars are on the disk themselves encoded as part of the video. Ask anyone that knows and not just people talking out of their a$$. is it an artefact of 16:9 when the OAR is larger or smaller? yes, but that does not stop it from being part of the video on the disk. It is not your display that does it.

In Russia, there would be subtitles for all the English language scenes.

But not the Russian scenes. you have subs where they don't and they have subs where you don't and someone that understands both should not have subs anywhere and if subs are there (because most Anglophones don't understand Russian and vice versa) then that guy that understands both should be able to enjoy as much of the picture as possible without the subs in the way

Does the director speak Russian? In this case, the director is German. I know that he speaks German and English. If I had to guess, he probably doesn't speak Russian and needs those subtitles just as much as you or I do.

no idea, and a bit irrelevant, obviously not all directors pick movies to direct just based on the languages they know. Let's take extreme examples Stargate, Star Trek (many of them) and Apocalypto. Obviously their directors did not speak Ancient Egyptian (or alian version of it), Klingon or Mayan.

The question is, if there was a way for everyone to understand the subtitled language would a director prefer that or have subtitles and make us read them? I don't think for the most part it is about getting us to read (or else he would not only have it in those other languages) but because we (and possibly he) don't understand the language and it is important for us to know what is said. I also don't think any of them where thinking "this movie needs more writing all over it”, do you?