| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my
DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? Also, I tried playing a James Taylor HD-DVD, and it hung repeatedly. I had read about this problem in the reviews of this movie in a review, but chalked it up to an inexperienced user. Overall though, I'm very happy and amazed by the picture! |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"James Egan" wrote in message
. .. I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? ========================= Many movies are 2.35:1/2.40:1. They will be letterboxed even on a 16:9 (1.78:1) set. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a wonderful thing! Besides, that still uses about 75% of the screen (which is more than half). Zooming or worrying about black bars is a fools game. ========================== |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
James Egan wrote:
I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? Also, I tried playing a James Taylor HD-DVD, and it hung repeatedly. I had read about this problem in the reviews of this movie in a review, but chalked it up to an inexperienced user. Overall though, I'm very happy and amazed by the picture! Was the picture height about 75% of the screen height? If it was half, then there is something wrong. The movie was a cinemascope movie meaning it has an Original Aspect Ratio (OAR) of 2.35 to 1 (or 2.40 to 1). For a 16:9 (1.78:1) screen, the height of the picture should be 1.77/2.35= 0.75 of the screen. This is good because you are seeing the movie the way it was presented in the theater with no cropping. If you had a regular DVD player, I would suspect that you had it set to a 4:3 TV. This is a common mistake for people who get wide screen 16:9 TVs to connect them to the DVD player, but not change the settings to 16:9 output in the DVD player. But you have an XBox HD-DVD player so I would have thought it was fixed to display a 16:9 screen. I would double check the settings for the XBox just to be sure. Most modern movies are made in two aspect ratios: 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The 1.85:1 movies are close enough to the 1.78:1 screen, that they cropped the picture slightly or leave a thin bar at the bottom when transferring it to a DVD or HD video. The 2.35:1 movies should be letterboxed if the picture is not cropped or are sometimes shot "open matte" which I will leave you to google. Unfortunately some premium cable channels - HBO-HD is often guilty of this - will crop the 2.35:1 picture for the the 16:9 screen. Really messes up some movies. Other OARs for film are 1.37:1 (used up to the 1950s), 1.66:1, 2.0:1, 2.20:1, and superwide 2.76:1 (used famously for Ben Hur). In a proper presentation, these will be shown pillarboxed or letterboxed on the HD TV. But you will be seeing the movie as it was presented in the theater. Alan F |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
James Egan wrote:
I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? When I first started looking into HDTV, I found some good, basic explanation info he http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-...io.html?page=2 -- Mike Gratis |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:57:59 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:20:39 -0400, James Egan wrote: I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? Your screen is 1.7:1. The movie's 2.35:1 How is it supposed to use the whole screen? Maybe the studio releasing the movie on DVD could cut off the very left and very right sides, rotate them sideways and run them along the tops and bottoms of the finished picture. That would fill up the whole screen. Or, if the guy really wants to have his TV filled, he can wait until some HD channel creates a 16x9 pan&scan version of the film. At least having some professionals decide (on a shot by shot basis) which subset of the film you should be watching is better than just randomly zooming in on the center chunk. Actually, who is it that creates the pan & scan versions we see on TNT-HD and so on? |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:02:10 GMT, Alan F
wrote: The 2.35:1 movies should be letterboxed if the picture is not cropped or are sometimes shot "open matte" which I will leave you to google. Unfortunately some premium cable channels - HBO-HD is often guilty of this - will crop the 2.35:1 picture for the the 16:9 screen. Really messes up some movies. Is it actually HBO that makes this decision? Not the studio or whoever is selling the film to HBO? I don't think they simply snip off the left and right sides. I think that someone is making a conscious decision about which elements are most important for each shot. I rememeber, back when E.T. first came to VHS, hearing that Spielberg himself was involved in the pan & scan decision making. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"James Egan" wrote in message . .. I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? Also, I tried playing a James Taylor HD-DVD, and it hung repeatedly. I had read about this problem in the reviews of this movie in a review, but chalked it up to an inexperienced user. Overall though, I'm very happy and amazed by the picture! I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:12:23 +0000, Mike Gratis wrote:
James Egan wrote: I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? When I first started looking into HDTV, I found some good, basic explanation info he http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-...io.html?page=2 Yes, I'm familiar with what letterbox is, but was hoping it would not be as severe with a large TV. You can read about a great deal of this and a great deal more at wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterbox -Thanks |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:05:05 -0400, Guest wrote:
I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. I can't believe that someone is so stupid and so immature. Of course I'm familiar with letterbox, but not with letterbox and LARGE screen TV's. It was more of a comment. You are so off base with your asinine comment, one would think that you are some immature childish juvenile, but I doubt it. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:27:51 -0700, Richard C. wrote:
========================= Many movies are 2.35:1/2.40:1. They will be letterboxed even on a 16:9 (1.78:1) set. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a wonderful thing! Besides, that still uses about 75% of the screen (which is more than half). Zooming or worrying about black bars is a fools game. ========================== I think directors think that letterbox is wonderful, and everyone that watches their movies doesn't. g Some of them are REALLY ridiculous. The movie Troy looked like I was loosing 40-50% of the picture. The good thing is on a 61" set, the picture is really large to begin with! |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:57:59 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
Your screen is 1.7:1. The movie's 2.35:1 How is it supposed to use the whole screen? My point is the directors think that this format is wonderful, and the rest of us that watches it do not. My point was it is annoying to buy a 61" TV, then loose have the picture. If you don't agree with that, what can I say? |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
James Egan wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:57:59 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote: Your screen is 1.7:1. The movie's 2.35:1 How is it supposed to use the whole screen? My point is the directors think that this format is wonderful, and the rest of us that watches it do not. Please speak for yourself. Directors choose aspect ratios for reasons having to do with the story being told. My point was it is annoying to buy a 61" TV, then loose have the picture. That would be "lose". It's too bad you are annoyed. If you could be bothered to learn *why* a director chooses an aspect ratio, you might learn to appreciate wide-screen movies. If you don't agree with that, what can I say? I don't agree with that. You could say that you are willing to learn why others are more than satisfied by being able to see movies in the director's chosen aspect ratio. Too bad David Lean can't explain it to you. http://www.davidlean.com He chose to use virtually every aspect ratio available over the course of his career. Each choice was deliberate and related to the way he wanted to tell the story. Matthew -- I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one. Which one do you want? |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On 2007-03-17, James Egan wrote:
My point is the directors think that this format is wonderful, and the rest of us that watches it do not. My point was it is annoying to buy a 61" TV, then loose have the picture. People go to a theater to see a spectacle. That means wide. 2.35:1 is very common. BEN HUR is 2.76:1. Now, I admit there is something satisfying about an aspect ratio that completely fills a TV screen. A friend has an HD 4:3 CRT. It is the ultimate film noir display. It's just nice to see those old black-and-white classics fill up a squarish screen. Similarly, those titles which are close to 16:9 look very neat on a widescreen TV. But complaining about black bars for wider titles is nuts. I would be annoyed if I did not have access to truly wide movies, whether they fit the screen or not. -Bill -- Sattre Press History of Astronomy http://sattre-press.com/ During the 19th Century by Agnes M. Clerke http://sattre-press.com/han.html |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
In article ,
James Egan wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:27:51 -0700, Richard C. wrote: ========================= Many movies are 2.35:1/2.40:1. They will be letterboxed even on a 16:9 (1.78:1) set. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a wonderful thing! Besides, that still uses about 75% of the screen (which is more than half). Zooming or worrying about black bars is a fools game. ========================== I think directors think that letterbox is wonderful, and everyone that watches their movies doesn't. g The director doesn't care about letterbox, one way or the other. He just shoots the movie in the aspect ratio that suits his style. If you ever go to the cinema, you may notice that the big screen is also letterboxed for some films. Some of them are REALLY ridiculous. The movie Troy looked like I was loosing 40-50% of the picture. The good thing is on a 61" set, the picture is really large to begin with! Well, you could tighten up the picture by either distorting it to fill the screen or truncating the sides while filling the screen from top to bottom. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:33:55 -0400, Matthew L. Martin wrote:
James Egan wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:57:59 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote: Your screen is 1.7:1. The movie's 2.35:1 How is it supposed to use the whole screen? My point is the directors think that this format is wonderful, and the rest of us that watches it do not. Please speak for yourself. Directors choose aspect ratios for reasons having to do with the story being told. My point was it is annoying to buy a 61" TV, then loose have the picture. That would be "lose". It's too bad you are annoyed. If you could be bothered to learn *why* a director chooses an aspect ratio, you might learn to appreciate wide-screen movies. If you don't agree with that, what can I say? I don't agree with that. You could say that you are willing to learn why others are more than satisfied by being able to see movies in the director's chosen aspect ratio. Too bad David Lean can't explain it to you. http://www.davidlean.com He chose to use virtually every aspect ratio available over the course of his career. Each choice was deliberate and related to the way he wanted to tell the story. Matthew I know that directors select goofy aspect ratios for their own egocentric artistic purposes. I have never met ANYONE in my entire life that was not annoyed by them, except for several in this newsgroup. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"James Egan" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:05:05 -0400, Guest wrote: I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. I can't believe that someone is so stupid and so immature. Of course I'm familiar with letterbox, If that was the case, there is no reason for you to be surprised or annoyed. but not with letterbox and LARGE screen TV's. ? So by your twisted logic, the larger the screen gets, the more th epicture fills up the screen? Common sense man, common sense! It was more of a comment. You are so off base with your asinine comment, one would think that you are some immature childish juvenile, but I doubt it. I see that you have some new words that you looked up. It seemed to be very hard for you to spell or even use the simple ones in their proper context. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
James Egan wrote:
I know that directors select goofy aspect ratios for their own egocentric artistic purposes. I have never met ANYONE in my entire life that was not annoyed by them, except for several in this newsgroup. James, OK. Now we know what you are doing. The rest, Please stop feeding the troll. Matthew -- I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one. Which one do you want? |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:33:27 -0400, Guest wrote:
"James Egan" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:05:05 -0400, Guest wrote: I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. I can't believe that someone is so stupid and so immature. Of course I'm familiar with letterbox, If that was the case, there is no reason for you to be surprised or annoyed. but not with letterbox and LARGE screen TV's. ? So by your twisted logic, the larger the screen gets, the more th epicture fills up the screen? Common sense man, common sense! Different TV's have different aspect ratios dip-****. Common sense! It was more of a comment. You are so off base with your asinine comment, one would think that you are some immature childish juvenile, but I doubt it. I see that you have some new words that you looked up. It seemed to be very hard for you to spell or even use the simple ones in their proper context. I'm a highly paid professional, but what are you? Go away ninny, you're wasting bandwidth, and causing me to do the same. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"Guest" wrote in message ... I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. The questions will probably continue for years. There is no way to know what part of the population still do not know or do not understand current technology. I recently had to inform someone that the OTA TV they have been watching for the last 8 months was not really HD - they did not know that they had to tune to the digital HD channels instead of the same old analog channels they were used to watching with the old non-HDTV. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
In article ,
Tom Stiller wrote: The director doesn't care about letterbox, one way or the other. He just shoots the movie in the aspect ratio that suits his style. Directors care about letterboxing after the fact, though. Spielberg and Scorsese were promoting letterboxed tv (and dvd) releases of their pictures years ago. I'll leave it to you to Google what the very first letterboxed dvd release was; it wasn't a picture directed by either of those two. -- W. Oates |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"James Egan" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:33:27 -0400, Guest wrote: "James Egan" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:05:05 -0400, Guest wrote: I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. I can't believe that someone is so stupid and so immature. Of course I'm familiar with letterbox, If that was the case, there is no reason for you to be surprised or annoyed. but not with letterbox and LARGE screen TV's. ? So by your twisted logic, the larger the screen gets, the more th epicture fills up the screen? Common sense man, common sense! Different TV's have different aspect ratios dip-****. Common sense! Different ratios or not, the ratio will stay the same regardless of size for any ratio, "highly paid professional." It was more of a comment. You are so off base with your asinine comment, one would think that you are some immature childish juvenile, but I doubt it. I see that you have some new words that you looked up. It seemed to be very hard for you to spell or even use the simple ones in their proper context. I'm a highly paid professional, but what are you? I am a moderately paid (by CT standards) professional who has actual common sense! Go away ninny, you're wasting bandwidth, and causing me to do the same. You wasted your with this bull**** question. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"Mark" wrote in message ... "Guest" wrote in message ... I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. The questions will probably continue for years. There is no way to know what part of the population still do not know or do not understand current technology. I recently had to inform someone that the OTA TV they have been watching for the last 8 months was not really HD - they did not know that they had to tune to the digital HD channels instead of the same old analog channels they were used to watching with the old non-HDTV. I guess things will get easier when everything is HD. Now you know why the Japanese market their products differently for the USA then they do for Asia and Europe... |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"James Egan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:33:55 -0400, Matthew L. Martin wrote: James Egan wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:57:59 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote: Your screen is 1.7:1. The movie's 2.35:1 How is it supposed to use the whole screen? My point is the directors think that this format is wonderful, and the rest of us that watches it do not. Please speak for yourself. Directors choose aspect ratios for reasons having to do with the story being told. My point was it is annoying to buy a 61" TV, then loose have the picture. That would be "lose". It's too bad you are annoyed. If you could be bothered to learn *why* a director chooses an aspect ratio, you might learn to appreciate wide-screen movies. If you don't agree with that, what can I say? I don't agree with that. You could say that you are willing to learn why others are more than satisfied by being able to see movies in the director's chosen aspect ratio. Too bad David Lean can't explain it to you. http://www.davidlean.com He chose to use virtually every aspect ratio available over the course of his career. Each choice was deliberate and related to the way he wanted to tell the story. Matthew I know that directors select goofy aspect ratios for their own egocentric artistic purposes. I have never met ANYONE in my entire life that was not annoyed by them, except for several in this newsgroup. If you ever watch a "behind the scenes" of a Motion Picture, the Video Cameras (no more Film, all Digital now) have 4:3 screens/monitors with taped off areas for Wide Screen. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
It is GOOD to see someone else write about widescreen (2.35:1) and HDTV's
annoying 1.78:1 format. We are all victims of SONY and NHK's HDTV creation back in the 80s. If we are going to accept - we will have to accept! - how HDTV worked out, and Hollywood continues to make 2.35:1 films initially for the theater, Hollywood should consider keeping the main part of their imagery in the center 2/3 of their 2.35:1 format. For some of us, a 2x zoom works fine provided that the zoom icon turns off (which for many players, including Sony) do not. The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. "James Egan" wrote in message . .. I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? Also, I tried playing a James Taylor HD-DVD, and it hung repeatedly. I had read about this problem in the reviews of this movie in a review, but chalked it up to an inexperienced user. Overall though, I'm very happy and amazed by the picture! |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
BTW - this is one reason why Runco's 2.35:1 projector is so popular with the
deep-pocket buyers! "WGD" wrote in message news:[email protected] It is GOOD to see someone else write about widescreen (2.35:1) and HDTV's annoying 1.78:1 format. We are all victims of SONY and NHK's HDTV creation back in the 80s. If we are going to accept - we will have to accept! - how HDTV worked out, and Hollywood continues to make 2.35:1 films initially for the theater, Hollywood should consider keeping the main part of their imagery in the center 2/3 of their 2.35:1 format. For some of us, a 2x zoom works fine provided that the zoom icon turns off (which for many players, including Sony) do not. The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. "James Egan" wrote in message . .. I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? Also, I tried playing a James Taylor HD-DVD, and it hung repeatedly. I had read about this problem in the reviews of this movie in a review, but chalked it up to an inexperienced user. Overall though, I'm very happy and amazed by the picture! |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
In article [email protected],
"WGD" wrote: The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes it so difficult for people to get it right? -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote:
In article [email protected], "WGD" wrote: The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes it so difficult for people to get it right? You loose me. (I couldn't resist) |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:38:19 -0400, Matthew L. Martin wrote:
James Egan wrote: I know that directors select goofy aspect ratios for their own egocentric artistic purposes. I have never met ANYONE in my entire life that was not annoyed by them, except for several in this newsgroup. James, OK. Now we know what you are doing. The rest, Please stop feeding the troll. Matthew Whatever you are thinking, you are way off base. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:10:37 -0400, Guest wrote:
You wasted your with this bull**** question. Obviously not dip-****. Just look at the other responses in the thread. We're having an intelligent adult conversation, unlike you. **** off Guest. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:10:24 -0400, James Egan
wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:27:51 -0700, Richard C. wrote: ========================= Many movies are 2.35:1/2.40:1. They will be letterboxed even on a 16:9 (1.78:1) set. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a wonderful thing! Besides, that still uses about 75% of the screen (which is more than half). Zooming or worrying about black bars is a fools game. ========================== I think directors think that letterbox is wonderful, and everyone that watches their movies doesn't. g Some of them are REALLY ridiculous. The movie Troy looked like I was loosing 40-50% of the picture. The good thing is on a 61" set, the picture is really large to begin with! (Retrying one more time, without the ASCII art.) I too would like to use my whole HD screen for every movie I watch. I would love it if every movie ever shot had been in the same aspect ratio -- whatever that ratio happened to be. I actually don't think there would be much artistic loss if every movie ever shot were shot at, say, 16x9. Gone with the Wind was narrower, Lawrence of Arabia was wider, but they both seemed to convey their "epic" scope. Unfortunately, that's not what we're stuck with today. We've got this library of movies and TV shows that contain (mostly) 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, and 2.35:1. Given the current situation, I can't see a much better solution than to just make TV screens somewhere in the middle and accept some black bars -- either on the sides (for the 1.33:1 movies and shows) or on the top & bottom (for the 2.35:1) movies and shows. By my calculations, 2.35:1 is about 16:6.8. So when you letterbox it for a 16:9 screen, you're filling 6.8 of those 9 height units with picture, filling about 75.6% of the height of your TV. The bars at the top and bottom of your TV screen should each be a little less than 12.5% of the height of your screen. Something like this: http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/T...35-100-L16.gif Again, I personally wouldn't mind if every movie shot from now till the end of time were 16x9. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
Guest wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message ... "Guest" wrote in message ... I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it. The questions will probably continue for years. There is no way to know what part of the population still do not know or do not understand current technology. I recently had to inform someone that the OTA TV they have been watching for the last 8 months was not really HD - they did not know that they had to tune to the digital HD channels instead of the same old analog channels they were used to watching with the old non-HDTV. I guess things will get easier when everything is HD. Now you know why the Japanese market their products differently for the USA then they do for Asia and Europe... You won't live that long. Everything available on your TV receiver is not going to be HD. You may see "everything" become digital, but that doesn't imply HD. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
James Egan wrote in
: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:12:23 +0000, Mike Gratis wrote: James Egan wrote: I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360 HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then. I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture would use the entire screen? When I first started looking into HDTV, I found some good, basic explanation info he http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-...center/home/as pect_ratio.html?page=2 Yes, I'm familiar with what letterbox is, but was hoping it would not be as severe with a large TV. You can read about a great deal of this and a great deal more at wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterbox It is not as severe with a large TV. With a 16:9 TV you lose about 25% of your screen area to a letter-boxed 2.35:1 Cinemascope movie. With a 4:3 TV the loss is more like 43%. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"Peter H. Coffin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote: In article [email protected], "WGD" wrote: The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes it so difficult for people to get it right? Their morons. (; No they're not, they are "highly paid professionals!" I guess that is another way of saying drug dealer! -- 15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into action. --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:09:40 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:17:28 -0700, dgates wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:10:24 -0400, James Egan wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:27:51 -0700, Richard C. wrote: ========================= Many movies are 2.35:1/2.40:1. They will be letterboxed even on a 16:9 (1.78:1) set. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a wonderful thing! Besides, that still uses about 75% of the screen (which is more than half). Zooming or worrying about black bars is a fools game. ========================== I think directors think that letterbox is wonderful, and everyone that watches their movies doesn't. g Some of them are REALLY ridiculous. The movie Troy looked like I was loosing 40-50% of the picture. The good thing is on a 61" set, the picture is really large to begin with! I too would like to use my whole HD screen for every movie I watch. I would love it if every movie ever shot had been in the same aspect ratio -- whatever that ratio happened to be. If everyone thought like that all the way back through movie history, you'd probably be watching films in 1:1, and THEN where would your over-wide 4:3 screens be? I never heard about 1:1. But I'm sure I'd be just fine if all movies and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 4x3. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
In article ,
dgates wrote: I never heard about 1:1. But I'm sure I'd be just fine if all movies and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 4x3. What's magic about 4:3? I've got two eyes placed bilaterally so 2:1 makes more sense to me. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:44:10 -0400, Tom Stiller
wrote: In article , dgates wrote: I never heard about 1:1. But I'm sure I'd be just fine if all movies and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 4x3. What's magic about 4:3? I've got two eyes placed bilaterally so 2:1 makes more sense to me. I would also be fine if all movies and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 2:1. It's the consistency I want, more than any particular ratio. |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
On 2007-03-18, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article , Bill McClain wrote: People go to a theater to see a spectacle. That means wide. Really? No, it doesn't. IMAX didn't think so, anyway. To get more spectacle, do you go wider? Ah, the American idea: "if some is good, more is better!" Theatrical releases have been approximately 50% 2.35:1 for decades. Popular not just in America. -Bill -- Sattre Press History of Astronomy http://sattre-press.com/ During the 19th Century by Agnes M. Clerke http://sattre-press.com/han.html |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
Peter H. Coffin wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote: In article [email protected], "WGD" wrote: The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes it so difficult for people to get it right? Their morons. (; Your right. -- Dave (Since 1962) -=Perfect Picture. Perfect Sound Live every moment in High Definition=- |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message ... In article , Bill McClain wrote: People go to a theater to see a spectacle. That means wide. To get more spectacle, do you go wider? Ah, the American idea: "if some is good, more is better!" You mean it's NOT ?? :-) james |
Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!
David Zinck wrote:
Peter H. Coffin wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote: In article [email protected], "WGD" wrote: The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine. What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes it so difficult for people to get it right? Their morons. (; Your right. The problem is (of course) that your attempt at grammatical humor, probably, went right over the heads of those for whom it was intended. However, I must admit that it afforded me a little chuckle. BB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com