Y can't all BD's be 1.85:1

[Michael.Schinke]

I have kind of a wierdly opposing reaction. I watch as much of my TV content in HD as I can, so the 1:78 shape to me is what TV looks like. If I get a BD and it's in 1:78 or 1:85, I feel like it's television. When I see a film in 2:35 or 2:40 I feel like I'm seeing a movie, not just a well shot television show. I blame Star Wars for this; it was one of the first films I watched where I understood the differance the aspect ratio was making.

[bakesalee]

1.85:1 movies don't even fill up my screen. I've got a Panasonic plasma with the option to show no overscan. When I looked at any and all 1:85:1 movies I own in this mode, it became clear that the top 3-5 lines of pixels weren't being used - depending on the movie. So I'm actually looking for 1.78:1s

[Thunderchildga]

In the beginning of the movies, everyone shot in differing aspect ratios. Once things became standardized, people shot film in a 1.33 to 1 aspect ratio that was called Academy Standard. When the movies began to fight that demon, the television, a more rectangular aspect ratio called Academy Flat became the standard film aspect ratio at 1.85 to 1. The really widescreens of Cinerama, Cinemascope, VistaVision were all much wider and differing in aspect ratios. Back in the day, the movie studios were putting out a variety of graded films that ranged from A to B,C, and D grade movies. It seems that most movies that were B grade or less were shot on Academy Flat while the A-grade pictures were lavished upon with wide aspect ratios.

Part of making a movie is to make sure every bit of celluloid is used for a purpose and sets are set up to make sure that there are no real dead spots on the screen image. As the film gets wider, the on-screen action is more spread out. So when you start altering films to fit screens that do no have letter or pillar boxing to enable the entire film image to be seen, something invariably get cut off.

Back in the late 1980s, some professor discovered that the aspect ratio of 16:9 or 1.78 to 1 had the unique capability to being able to show every used aspect ratio within that ratio and not loose any information. For that reason alone, this is why 1.78:1 was adopted as the new digital TV standard back in the 1990s.

But with that said, some studios do some clipping of films in order to give a full screen image of films on a 16:9 screen without any bars. On standard Academy Flat movies, very little is lost.

I prefer to see the full image as presented in the theaters, and while black bars on older TVs of less than 30" is a bit of a pain, on my 60" Sony, the presentation is fantastic, even the ultra-wide Cinerama "How The West Was Won" looks incredible.

[hoju3508]

100% disagree.

[coopBluRay]

I want all movies to be shown in the original Theatrical aspect ratio. The intention of all High Definition entertainment is to re-create the theatrical experience in your home. If you alter an aspect ratio to fit a TV, you are no longer re-producing the theatrical experience.
I prefer to see what was intended by the Filmmakers by seeing the original theatrical presentation.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by DViper2399

I know everyone has there own opinion but mine is Why can't all Bd's be 1.85:1 ratio?? I think it makes the picture stand out so much more it fills most/to all of the display, I just think it stands out so much better...Back in the DVD & standard TV days I preferred Widescreen DVD's, I would freak if my GF accidentally would buy a fullscreen DVD & exchange it.. But I wish more bd's were 1.85:1 instead of the more common ratio of 2.40:1..Who agree or disagrees?

Are you ****ing kidding me!? I don't want to watch butchered versions of my movies. Its bad enough that so many Blu-ray releases are riddled with DNR and EE!

[dk3dknight]

When I had a small 9-10 inch tv I cared about the black bars, when I got a hd tv I quit caring about the black bars and cared for what the director wanted.

Dr. Strangelove and how I learned to love the black bars.

[crunchywyte]

I second^1000000 the statement "This again!?!"


Personally I've grown to loath movies that do not have "black bars", but still respect the director's decision to use 1.85:1/1.77:1...

I also read somewhere, and agree with, that the 2.40:1 aspect ratio is very close to the natural aspect ratio of the human eyes.....

[crunchywyte]

I sometimes wonder if these threads are started by people that know it will get people all in a tizzy, so they can just sit, watch, and laugh......

[Stubblecat]

I've been hearing people complaining about the 'black bars' since laserdisc days.

Do not spend thousands of dollars on technology if you do not understand the very basic entry level concepts of that same technology.

[supersix4]

my take was I really hated it when it was on some of the first widescreen dvds, but now it really doesnt bother me if it has or doesnt have the bars.

[toef]

So what is the OAR of Titanic? Wasn't that filmed in 4:3 and cropped in theaters? So are you going for the theater-experience or that crap line about "what the director intended"?

The black bars are annoying, sure, but one day I'll own a 2.35:1 shaped TV, so it will be ok. Except by then, maybe they'll be doing 4:1 ratios or something.

It doesn't really matter to me, because I don't really focus on the lines, but it's funny how bent out of shape some people get if you suggest turning a 2.35:1 into 16:9. The difference between 4:3 and 16:9 seems much greater than 2.35:1 to 16:9.

Nothing like 1080p in 2.35:1. Those black bars never looked as good as they do in HD. So what is the actual movie part of the screen, 820p or so?

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by DViper2399

I know everyone has there own opinion but mine is Why can't all Bd's be 1.85:1 ratio?? I think it makes the picture stand out so much more it fills most/to all of the display, I just think it stands out so much better...Back in the DVD & standard TV days I preferred Widescreen DVD's, I would freak if my GF accidentally would buy a fullscreen DVD & exchange it.. But I wish more bd's were 1.85:1 instead of the more common ratio of 2.40:1..Who agree or disagrees?

I Agree

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by toefer

So what is the OAR of Titanic? Wasn't that filmed in 4:3 and cropped in theaters? So are you going for the theater-experience or that crap line about "what the director intended"?

They are one and the same. James Cameron knew when shooting Titanic in 4:3 that it would be matted to 1.85:1 in theaters. Therefore he planned each shot with that in mind. (The video playback used on the set shows how the shot would look matted.)

In fact, when 1.85:1 films were released in Academy Standard for early home video, one could see boom mikes and such on the top and bottom of the frame. Pee Wee's Big Adventure suffered from this; in the VHS version, one could see how the effects were done, such as the hole in the bottom of Pee Wee's bike, where he is pulling out the endless supply of chain, or the tracks the street signs are sliding along in one shot. In The Shining, one could see the helicopter blades in the opening shot.

[Kaiju]

I don't really like when the screen is full (1.85:1), because for some reason it makes me feel like I'm losing some of the picture. So with black bars (2.35:1), I feel more comfortable. Weird I know...

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by TheMan

I don't really like when the screen is full (1.85:1), because for some reason it makes me feel like I'm losing some of the picture. So with black bars (2.35:1), I feel more comfortable. Weird I know...

I agree. I think the 2:40:1 looks better, but thats just me.

[toef]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

They are one and the same. James Cameron knew when shooting Titanic in 4:3 that it would be matted to 1.85:1 in theaters. Therefore he planned each shot with that in mind. (The video playback used on the set shows how the shot would look matted.)

In fact, when 1.85:1 films were released in Academy Standard for early home video, one could see boom mikes and such on the top and bottom of the frame. Pee Wee's Big Adventure suffered from this; in the VHS version, one could see how the effects were done, such as the hole in the bottom of Pee Wee's bike, where he is pulling out the endless supply of chain, or the tracks the street signs are sliding along in one shot. In The Shining, one could see the helicopter blades in the opening shot.

Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. I noticed the differences in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, because it's one of my favorite movies, and I have it on both VHS and DVD still.

[brett_day]

[Ator the Invincible]

Because trimming a movie to fit your screen would kind of be like trimming the "wh" off of the word "why". And who would ever want to do something like that?

[J6P]

Originally Posted by toefer

The black bars are annoying, sure, but one day I'll own a 2.35:1 shaped TV, so it will be ok. Except by then, maybe they'll be doing 4:1 ratios or something.

Are you sure? I'd guess you'll be wanting all of the content that "fills the screen" nowadays to be cropped in, so you don't have black bars on the sides of the picture, which it would on a 2.35:1 display.

The only answer that truly works for adamant black bar haters is to force all directors to work in one aspect ratio, and to butcher all existing film to also conform to that standard. A wider tv won't fix this "problem", but learning more about film and filmmaking might. I've seen a lot of people turned around on this issue here.