1.85:1 or open matte to 1.78:1

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Seymour

Robert Rodriguez is another director where a couple of his films have altered aspect ratios for blu-ray (and DVD).

Yep. OUATIM and Planet Terror spring to mind. And when I had a 21:9 TV, I watched Sin City cropped to 2.35 and it worked, I mean really worked. I know that one's always been in 1.85, but I thought it worth mentioning.

[Erk248]

Oar all the way, unless the director approves/reviews/makes the change. I subscribe to the auteur approach of filmmaking so directors approval means more than anything in my opinion.

[Booker Dewitt]

My tv has overscan, so it doesn't matter to me.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Booker Dewitt

My tv has overscan, so it doesn't matter to me.

So you're cropping 1.78:1 images on all sides.

[noddinoff]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I'll never understand why people think that "extra" picture information is a good thing or why a filled screen is a bonus.

You don't understand why your average person would want their expensive tv screen to be filled vs scope which to them appears as if only a 1/3 of the screen is being used? Scope really works well on certain films but there are others where its unnecessary and the worst part is sometimes it doesn't even add all that much more information on the sides to justify the letterboxing in the first place, I'll zoom a letterboxed image on occassion just to see how much info would get cut off and shockingly barely any does lots of the time. I was watching dark of the moon on blu the other day and really enjoyed it like I always do but then it came on cable a few days later and it was not in its OAR the letterbox was removed to fill the screen and while I do prefer OAR because Im a purist like most collectors I will admit that I did enjoy it filling my screen and it just made it more immersive to me for that particular movie. Its especially annoying when you factor in 3d, who wants to watch 3d blu rays on a sliver of the screen when you could be using the whole thing. Letterbox is also a pain in the ass because I have a plasma and while they say burn in isn't possible with the newer ones thats just not true, I don't abuse my tv at all and it has permanent burn in from tv channel logos in the corner and the image retention is so bad that its a constant worry "is this time gonna be permanent". Ive come to accept that like 80% of blu rays will be letterboxed so I don't get disappointed by that like I did in the very beginning when I started to collecting but Im not gonna lie when I put in a disc and the movie starts and it fills the screen Im always a bit happier than if it didn't.

[tenia]

I don't care, because opening from 1.85 to 1.78 is an extremely minor deviation from OAR.
However, it's so extremely minor that I never understood the reason behind it...

[amoergosum]

OAR all the way !!!

[Booker Dewitt]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

So you're cropping 1.78:1 images on all sides.

Can't be helped with anything less than buying a new tv.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by noddinoff

You don't understand why your average person would want their expensive tv screen to be filled vs scope which to them appears as if only a 1/3 of the screen is being used?

My God...what the hell kind of expensive TV set does anybody own where a Scope film only uses 1/3 of the screen!

I'm sorry but that statement is patently ridiculous.

Actually, I do understand why the "average" person wants to fill the screen. Average people don't care about such things and they are ignorant of aspect ratios.

I just don't understand why a Blu-ray buyer would want their screen-filled.

It demonstrates a horrendous lack of sophistication about media.

[slimdude]

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, between 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratio anyway. As far as I know, both images fill the screen.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, between 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratio anyway. As far as I know, both images fill the screen.

For someone who is such a regular poster here, sometimes your lack of knowledge amazes me . Content with an 1.85:1 aspect ratio has small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, they can't be missed. If releases with this aspect ratio are being displayed as 1.78:1, it means your tv's overscan feature is being used. How don't you know this? Far out, I certainly wouldn't trust you to wire up a home theatre system if you are unaware of something so basic

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Booker Dewitt

Can't be helped with anything less than buying a new tv.

Sure, it can. There's almost always a way to alter the overscan on your display.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

For someone who is such a regular poster here, sometimes your lack of knowledge amazes me . Content with an 1.85:1 aspect ratio has small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, they can't be misses. If releases with this aspect ratio are being displayed as 1.78:1, it means your tv's overscan feature is being used. How don't you know this? Far out, I certainly wouldn't trust you to wire up a home theatre system if you are unaware of something so basic

On my HDTV, 1.85:1 movies fill the entire screen, just like 1.78:1.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, between 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratio anyway. As far as I know, both images fill the screen.

You're joking right? The difference is small, but it is indeed there.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, between 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratio anyway. As far as I know, both images fill the screen.

As Cevolution said it sounds like you have overscan or 16:9 selected as your Picture Size option. Find a title with 1.85:1 in your collection and cycle through the picture size options until you see the thin letterboxing of 1.85:1. It's usually called 1:1 or screen fit or something similar. You're missing out on video information with overscan. It doesn't matter if it's 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 et cetra, overscan will take a chunk out of it!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by chip75

As Cevolution said it sounds like you have overscan or 16:9 selected as your Picture Size option. Find a title with 1.85:1 in your collection and cycle through the picture size options until you see the thin letterboxing of 1.85:1. It's usually called 1:1 or screen fit or something similar. You're missing out on video information with overscan. It doesn't matter if it's 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 et cetra, overscan will take a chunk out of it!

Right, I've seen some displays call 1:1 'dot by dot', 'native', and 'actual'.

[Booker Dewitt]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Sure, it can. There's almost always a way to alter the overscan on your display.

It's a junky vizio from 2006.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You're joking right? The difference is small, but it is indeed there.

Well, I just put in a 1:85.1 blu-ray ( it took quite awhile for me to find one) to double check, if there was a bar at the top and bottom, and sure enough there is. I just haven't notice them before because, they're so small.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

For someone who is such a regular poster here, sometimes your lack of knowledge amazes me . Content with an 1.85:1 aspect ratio has small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, they can't be missed. If releases with this aspect ratio are being displayed as 1.78:1, it means your tv's overscan feature is being used. How don't you know this? Far out, I certainly wouldn't trust you to wire up a home theatre system if you are unaware of something so basic

Spot on. (even more so with slimdude's latest post above)

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Spot on. (even more so with slimdude's latest post above)

Nobody knows everything, including you. And don't deny it because, you'll be lying through your teeth!