1.85:1 or open matte to 1.78:1

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I never said mine was the only premium set in town. But having spent a lot of time calibrating it to the correct greyscale, colour and gamma, the PQ is absolutely stunning and I like it a heck of a lot, and I don't give a damn what the reviewers - who are usually pro-plasma anyway - have to say. What, you think I'm lying when I say it's got no DSE? I've gotten rid of previous TVs because of their noticeable backlight bleed, or their DSE, or their terrible motion response (like the 1st gen Philips 21:9 set), so I'm not just settling for x amount of performance with my X9. And just as you can find examples of people having issues with my set, I can and have found examples of people having issues with the latest and greatest plasmas (yes, it's that darned IR again, among other things).

Regarding your 'concern' about my treatment of my former plasma, I did all the stuff you mentioned and more. I ran it in at very low settings for 200 hours, and even after that I reigned in the brightness because I don't like overly bright images. Whenever watching sports I changed the aspect ratio to crop out the logos (news channels were out of the question, bye-bye Sky Sports News!) and I regularly used bright screens on test DVDs to 'wash' the image after viewing.

After all that I STILL ended up with 2.35 bars on the screen, and if that's odd then that's simply because I'm mainly a movie man as opposed to TV or video games. And the screen itself seemed to become less responsive to 'whitewashing' after a certain amount of time - the phosphors will inevitably lose brightness over time as the gas decays - so it got harder and harder to shift any IR. When I did have the nerve to play video games for a few minutes, I ended up with a reminder etched onto the screen for days afterwards. Hadoken!

I'll happily concede that my viewing habits (lots and lots and lots of movies) don't appear to be conducive to long-term plasma health, no matter how many hoops I jump through. Did I mention how much I like my LCD TV?

Your entire post could practically be summed up by the following sentence from my previous post:

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Obviously both have their strengths and weaknesses, and each individual will have their own preference between the two.

Sure, there are people who experience issues with plasma, which I acknowledged in my previous post when I stated "both technologies have their strengths and weaknesses". I also wasn't the one who originally made mention of all the strengths and weaknesses of each technology (I only ever mentioned IR), or who implied that my tv is completely free of a particular issue which can be considered inherent to the technology, you did . I was merely pointing out that there are reports out there from other people debunking this claim of perfection. When compared with other LCD tv's, DSE may very well be close to a non-issue with your particular "premium" model, but the same can be said about issues inherent to plasma technology being greatly reduced in premium models than it is in the lower to mid ranges. This is to be expected, as these are amongst the reasons why we pay a higher price for them. Not only that, while discussing IR and burn in with the member I responded to, I outlined both positives and negatives, which I feel demonstrates less bias on my behalf. You might feel DSE is a non issue for you, well I feel exactly the same way regarding the issues you stated that plasmas have in addition to IR (and though I am aware that IR is possible, I don’t have an issue with this as it is so easily manageable for me). You talk about chasing "faultlessness" with your displays, but isn't this what many enthusiasts also try to do.

It's a little hard to take your experiences seriously without getting the impression that there was some user error at play here, especially when you state things such as "When I did have the nerve to play video games for a few minutes, I ended up with a reminder etched onto the screen for days afterwards ". If not a user error, then I feel you are greatly over exaggerating this to further an agenda, or like member Wormraper stated in a thread about Vizio tv's yesterday, perhaps you got a lemon. This just doesn't happen to the majority of plasma users from a few minutes of playing video games, a few hours on the other hand, yes it can. Just like with the previous issue of burn in from 2.35:1 content you stated you had with plasma, this is also uncommon, and again if plasmas were as sensitive as that, you would be seeing far more complaints about this in the home theatre section of this site, as many members do game on their plasmas, including myself. I just find it a little strange. Also like you, I watch a lot of movies, I wouldn't own almost 1400 Blu-rays otherwise

I think we have established that this basically comes down to personal preference, and there is really no need therefore to continue on with this discussion, which really should have ended with my last post.

[Geoff D]

It's possible my Pioneer was a lemon, sure. Either that or I have an "agenda". For people who are so sure that they've got the bestest displays in the world, the plasma cognoscenti sure are a paranoid bunch.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I see your point with those caps. Thanks for the clarification.

My pleasure.

[noddinoff]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Between 2006 and 2011 all I ever bought was LCD panels, I shared the same fears as many other people regarding plasmas, but in late 2011 I decided to give plasma a go for the first time, and I've never looked back. I spent $2000 on a Samsung plasma, which I thought was cheap, and if it didn't workout, I thought big deal, it's not a large amount of money to be all that concerned over. If anyone gets permanent burn in from simply watching blu-ray's, they are a bit of a moron IMO. I own roughly between 200-250 Blu's which are 1.78:1, so obviously the greater percentage of my collection are in other aspect ratios therefore have black bars, and I've never had a problem.

Oh aren't you such a big shot, with your "2000$ is chump change to me" attitude, yeah most spoiled brats who still live with mommy and daddy and have no bills act like that. I bet your mommy bought it for you as well.

[Blu-21]

Just bumping this thread while the poll is still open for those who may not have saw it and got a chance to vote.

[JimSmith]

I voted opened up to 1.78:1. If a movie or film was shot in open-matte, basically in a 1.33:1 or a 1.37:1 aspect ratio I don't really mind them opening up the ratio to 1.78:1 from 1.85:1. It might as well fill the entire area of my widescreen TV.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

I voted opened up to 1.78:1. If a movie or film was shot in open-matte, basically in a 1.33:1 or a 1.37:1 aspect ratio I don't really mind them opening up the ratio to 1.78:1 from 1.85:1. It might as well fill the entire area of my widescreen TV.

Those films will have to be cropped to do that. Open matte more applies to super 35 films released in scope or 1.85:1. I simply prefer the OAR, no need to change what doesn't need fixing.

[luv2shop]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

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.

Then I am ignorant......I love the whole screen to be filled.

Let the hate posts begin. LOL

[Pecker]

I voted 'both', but as ever it's a bit complex.

On my projector I always watch in 1.85:1 by simply zooming very slightly. The black velvet frame of my screen is dark enough that you can't see the overspill.

On my plasma I watch native, so if it's in 1.85:1 I get tiny black bars, and if it's 1.78:1 I fill the screen.

Not sure which I prefer there. Some days the tiny black bars are like a badge of honour. Other times it's distracting.

The argument is that the director intended you to see 1.85:1. But you can also argue the director didn't intend you to see tiny bars on a 1.78:1 screen.

All-in-all, not worth worrying about, but I thought I'd chip in anyway.

Steve W

[KMR]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Those films will have to be cropped to do that. Open matte more applies to super 35 films released in scope or 1.85:1. I simply prefer the OAR, no need to change what doesn't need fixing.

"Open matte" refers to the vast majority of non-anamorphic widescreen films which were/are shot in full Academy ratio and intended for projection at a wider ratio, typically anywhere from 1.66:1 to 2:1 or wider. Studios had varying standards throughout the years, plus theaters had their own policies as well regarding projection (some were only capable of certain ratios, depending on the hardware they had).

An open matte film would generally be cropped less to be shown at 1.78 vs. 1.85.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by KMR

"Open matte" refers to the vast majority of non-anamorphic widescreen films which were/are shot in full Academy ratio and intended for projection at a wider ratio, typically anywhere from 1.66:1 to 2:1 or wider. Studios had varying standards throughout the years, plus theaters had their own policies as well regarding projection (some were only capable of certain ratios, depending on the hardware they had).

An open matte film would generally be cropped less to be shown at 1.78 vs. 1.85.

Please reread my post and what I was responding to, their is a reason I said "more applies" as what you are referring to is not relevant to the poster I was replying to.

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Please reread my post and what I was responding to, their is a reason I said "more applies" as what you are referring to is not relevant to the poster I was replying to.

Sweetheart, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! Go back to sleep!

[slimdude]

There isn't a big difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78.1 (as in night and day) enough to fuss over!. If the movie is in its original aspect ratio, there is nothing that anybody can do about it anyway, so why argue.

[jscoggins]

Unless there's a hard matte to 1.85:1, there's no reason not to show 1.78:1. In theaters, a nominally 1.85:1 movie could've been shown anywhere from 1.66:1 to 1.90:1 (Digital IMAX).

[HeavyHitter]

OAR for sure is what want to see.

I personally like 1:85 better than 1:78 because it is a hair wider of an image that is slightly perceptible when watching on my Constant Image Height front projection set-up (which is really how movies are intended to be seen anyway), but it's nothing to lose sleep about either.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Please reread my post and what I was responding to, their is a reason I said "more applies" as what you are referring to is not relevant to the poster I was replying to.

"open matte" doesn't exclusively refer to losing giant borders from a 2.35 show, it applies just as much to those smaller 1.85 borders too. And JimSmith is right: pretty much every movie shot 1.85 wasn't done with a hard-matte in-camera, they were shot with more height top and bottom so opening up the mattes to 1.78 is entirely possible.

And given the topic at hand, opening up the mattes doesn't bother me although I also prefer the subtle sense of extra wideness that 1.85 imparts on a frame. What I don't want is 1.85 cropped to 1.78 because that starts to hurt the composition, not a lot but enough to be noticeable to me.

[Dylan34]

I prefer to watch the film the way it was shot (OAR).

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

I prefer to watch the film the way it was shot (OAR).

Well, many/most "1.85:1" movies were shot with a lot of safety margins on top and bottom, to take into account theaters that might show them in 1.66:1.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Please reread my post and what I was responding to, their is a reason I said "more applies" as what you are referring to is not relevant to the poster I was replying to.

My post was absolutely relevant to what you were talking about. JimSmith explicitly used "opened up" as meaning expanded from the original intended 1.85:1 ratio, not the original negative full frame. And he is correct: going from 1.85 to 1.78 is "opening up", not cropping. Of course you can't "open up" a 1.33:1 image to 1.78:1 (or any other widescreen ratio), but I don't think anybody has ever been implying that.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Well, many/most "1.85:1" movies were shot with a lot of safety margins on top and bottom, to take into account theaters that might show them in 1.66:1.

Why would they show them at 1:66:1?