Black bars with widesceen movies

sharon wrote:
I have a large widescreen HD TV and the movies I rent are always
widescreen. Yet, sometimes when I play the movies I still get black
bars at the top an bottom of the screen. It is very annoying. Why
does this happen?

1.78:1 aspect ratio movies will fill the screen. 1.85:1 will have small
black bars on top and bottom, 2:35:1 will have larger ones.

There are many aspect ratios used for films. Just think how much real
estate you would lose with a standard 1.33:1!

On Dec 31, 3:21*am, "XPickel" wrote:

I can't stand when they squash or stretch images.

I used to think they showed Kung Fu movies to make fun of Asians
because they'd appear skinnier, due to not removing the anamorphic
lens to keep all the action in frame.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 31, 3:21 am, "XPickel" wrote:

I can't stand when they squash or stretch images.

I used to think they showed Kung Fu movies to make fun of Asians
because they'd appear skinnier, due to not removing the anamorphic
lens to keep all the action in frame.


the good thing about that was when i purchased old vhs of kung fu films at
markets i could watch them on my widescreen tv with an improvement in
picture quality due to the companies inadvertently releasing them as
anamorphic.


--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

sharon wrote:

I have a large widescreen HD TV and the movies I rent are always
widescreen. Yet, sometimes when I play the movies I still get black bars
at the top an bottom of the screen. It is very annoying. Why does this
happen?

I have a somewhat different view. I personally feel that the 2.35
format, with large black bars, is not optimal for most movies as viewed
in most home or home theater applications. In other words, the OP is
right. - There IS a problem.

The usual response to such comments is that the picture format or shape
is a matter of artistic expression, and that by watching a thin
horizontal bar of a picture (with 25 to 30% or more of your screen
devoted to the horizontal black bars), you are seeing the picture as the
director intended, and thereby respecting and honoring the director's
artistic skills and judgement. While this may be true if you happen to
have a large 2.35 screen eight to ten feet in width, watching such a
picture on a 45 to 55-inch flat screen is definitely not what the
director had in mind. - Instead, what he anticipated was that you would
be watching the picture on a huge screen as usually used in typical
theater settings, in which the screen often extends substantially
accross the width of the theater.

Such large, wide-format screens used in most theaters are, of course,
usually much wider than most 1.85 or 1.33 screens, but because the
screen is so large, the vertical dimension or height of the picture
remains the same as, or is even somewhat greater than it would be in
most 1.85 and 1.33 pictures as emplyed in the past. (Obviously, the
viewer's distance from the screen is also a factor, but in most modern
theaters, the screen is so huge that the impression that you are quite
close to the picture.) In a typical theater with a large, 2.35 screen,
the result is that the apparent height of the screen remains quite
large, and objects and actors are viewed in the same relative size as
seen in "traditional" theater screens with more vertical formats. (E.g.,
the actors/objects don't have to be made smaller to make them fit the
screen.) In other words, additional width is ADDED to the picture
without SUBTRACTING from the height. By contrast, when viewing the
picture in one's home on a typical HD flat screen TV with 1.85 format,
the height of the picture as viewed IS effectively reduced, and the
actors and other objects are seen as if they were substantially smaller,
or farther away from the viewer. (And particularly if the flat screen is
mounted on or near a wall, the TV itself may also be located farther
away from the viewer than a conventional console.)

Another negative factor with the ultra-wide formats is that the black
bars represent wasted pixel capacity. In other words, with 1.85
software viewed on a 1.85 TV screen, all of the potential detail (pixels
of information) of which the TV is capable are seen. In the 2.35 or
wider formats, however, the pixel segments that could have illuminated
the upper and lower "black bar portions" are not used, and are therefore
essentially wasted. (You could get the same effect by simply extending
black masks accross the top and bottom portions of your screen.) In
other words, 25-30 percent of your investment in a high rez display has
been largely wasted, in light of the potential detail that could have
been shown.

I'm not going to get into the never-ending discussion of what, if
anything, should be done about the issue (although I do have some
opinions and suggestions). My point is simply that by watching a
wide-format movie in its original format on a typical HD TV you
DEFINITELY ARE NOT viewing the movie as the director anticipated or
intended. - In other words, viewing the movie in it's original format
isn't an opportunity to congratulate oneself for respecting the
"artistic judgement" (if that's really what it is) of the director.

Jim

In article ,
JimC wrote:

I'm not going to get into the never-ending discussion of what, if
anything, should be done about the issue (although I do have some
opinions and suggestions). My point is simply that by watching a
wide-format movie in its original format on a typical HD TV you
DEFINITELY ARE NOT viewing the movie as the director anticipated or
intended. - In other words, viewing the movie in it's original format
isn't an opportunity to congratulate oneself for respecting the
"artistic judgement" (if that's really what it is) of the director.

So you're just going to whine about what is, without proposing any
alternatives? What are the alternatives?

My TV has a fixed aspect ration of 16:9; it is not adjustable.
Movies come in many different aspect ratios.
The available choices a
1. Display the picture filling the larger dimension of the TV
filling out the shorter dimension with black bars.
2. Display the picture filling the smaller dimension of the TV
chopping the larger dimension of the picture to fit.
3. Stretch the shorter dimension of the picture to fit the TV.
There are several geometries that can be applied to the stretch.

Incidentally, if you go to a movie theater, you will see that they use
the equivalent of black bars, in the form of curtains, or other
concealments to accommodate the aspect ratio of the movie being shown on
their fixed size screen.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

On Dec 31, 1:34*pm, JimC wrote:

Another negative factor with the ultra-wide formats is that the black
bars represent wasted pixel capacity.

While your make valid points regarding the pixel capacity, cropping
does affect the presentation, and at times, the comprehension of the
film. My personal example is a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark,
where Marian bends over for no reason in the cropped shot, just before
all hell breaks loose. In the widescreen, she is clearly focused on
what's for sale, oblivious to the swordman charging behind her.

The Siskel & Ebert answer was the scene where Lawrence meets Ali, and
Ali shoots Lawrence's guide. Ali is in the middle, and the other two
flank the shot at the edges. A cropped version cannot depict this
relationship (it is a long shot to represent the barrenness and
distance of the desert), nor are the vistas fully revealed.

Kubrick's shot compositions in 2001:A Space Odyssey are also affected
by the cropping of negative space. So yes, the only proper solution is
to get a bigger screen, but what made anybody think that fitting this
stuff on a 4 by 3 was any sort of solution? It may be mitigated by the
16:9, but so is letterboxing. To have to put up with another
generation of cropping, when a cinephile has spent so much to get away
from it is infuriating. If a layperson has something against eating
fish eggs, they ought to stay the hell away from the caviar.

Kimba W Lion wrote:

JimC wrote:


In other words, viewing the movie in it's original format
isn't an opportunity to congratulate oneself for respecting the
"artistic judgement" (if that's really what it is) of the director.


Apparently, it's an opportunity to bitch about nothing.

You bought a screen. It's x inches wide by y inches high. Your choice now
is to fit the picture to the width of the screen, or you could fit the
picture to the height of the screen.

That's it. If the first choice isn't big enough for you, buy a bigger
screen. If the second choice doesn't suit you, don't do it.

All this nonsense about wasted pixels is just you making yourself
miserable.

Sorry my note offended you Kimba. - Hope you have a pleasant evening.

Jim

Tom Stiller wrote:

In article ,
JimC wrote:


I'm not going to get into the never-ending discussion of what, if
anything, should be done about the issue (although I do have some
opinions and suggestions). My point is simply that by watching a
wide-format movie in its original format on a typical HD TV you
DEFINITELY ARE NOT viewing the movie as the director anticipated or
intended. - In other words, viewing the movie in it's original format
isn't an opportunity to congratulate oneself for respecting the
"artistic judgement" (if that's really what it is) of the director.


So you're just going to whine about what is, without proposing any
alternatives? What are the alternatives?

My TV has a fixed aspect ration of 16:9; it is not adjustable.
Movies come in many different aspect ratios.
The available choices a
1. Display the picture filling the larger dimension of the TV
filling out the shorter dimension with black bars.
2. Display the picture filling the smaller dimension of the TV
chopping the larger dimension of the picture to fit.
3. Stretch the shorter dimension of the picture to fit the TV.
There are several geometries that can be applied to the stretch.

Incidentally, if you go to a movie theater, you will see that they use
the equivalent of black bars, in the form of curtains, or other
concealments to accommodate the aspect ratio of the movie being shown on
their fixed size screen.


Whining? Seems to me that you're the one doing the whining Tommy. - I
merely expressed my particular opinion, which you obviously don't like,
but which you also, obviously, can't refute. The purpose of my note was
to make a point that you, and others, apparently feel somewhat
uncomfortable acknowledging. - That viewing wide format material on a
typical HD TV is not at all what the director had in mind, and it's not
the way the movie was intended to be viewed.

But contrary to your note, there are several other alternatives. In my
case, in which I use a front projector with a 94" 16:9 screen, I could
install a larger, 2:35 screen a foot or two behind the 94" screen and
zoom the picture to fit the 2:35 screen when watching wide format
material.

Jim

wrote:

On Dec 31, 1:34 pm, JimC wrote:


Another negative factor with the ultra-wide formats is that the black
bars represent wasted pixel capacity.


While your make valid points regarding the pixel capacity, cropping
does affect the presentation, and at times, the comprehension of the
film. My personal example is a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark,
where Marian bends over for no reason in the cropped shot, just before
all hell breaks loose. In the widescreen, she is clearly focused on
what's for sale, oblivious to the swordman charging behind her.

The Siskel & Ebert answer was the scene where Lawrence meets Ali, and
Ali shoots Lawrence's guide. Ali is in the middle, and the other two
flank the shot at the edges. A cropped version cannot depict this
relationship (it is a long shot to represent the barrenness and
distance of the desert), nor are the vistas fully revealed.

Kubrick's shot compositions in 2001:A Space Odyssey are also affected
by the cropping of negative space. So yes, the only proper solution is
to get a bigger screen, but what made anybody think that fitting this
stuff on a 4 by 3 was any sort of solution? It may be mitigated by the
16:9, but so is letterboxing. To have to put up with another
generation of cropping, when a cinephile has spent so much to get away
from it is infuriating. If a layperson has something against eating
fish eggs, they ought to stay the hell away from the caviar.

Please note that my original post stated that I thought that "for MOST
movies [not all movies] as viewed in MOST home or home theater
applications," [not all of them] the 2.35 format isn't optimal. I
recognize that for certain subject matter, such as in the desert scenes
in Lawrence of Arabia, a wide format picture is effective and desirable.
But not all of them. - For example, if wide-format screens are
appropriate for some films, and narrow screen formats are appropriate
for other subject matter, why don't we see new films in 3:4 format? In
other words, if it's a matter of artistic expression for the particular
material, then why wouldn't we see 3x4 or other narrow format pictures
when they would be appropriate for the particular material.

Also, I didn't advocate a particular "fix" (or ANY "fix" for that
matter), because I first wanted to make the point. (The point being that
viewing such films on most HD TVs doesn't provide the effect the
director was intending, and that we are just kidding ourselves when we
claim we are being true to the director's artistic intent by watching
most films in 2.35 or wider format on most HD TVs.} If we could agree on
that point, I would be glad to move on to the issue of what, if
anything, might be a reasonable solution to the problem.

Jim

On Dec 31, 7:00*pm, JimC wrote:
Please note that my original post stated that I thought that "for MOST
movies [not all movies] as viewed in MOST home or home theater
applications," [not all of them] the 2.35 format isn't optimal. I

Glad you saw I wasn't trying to flame you.

recognize that for certain subject matter, such as in the desert scenes
in Lawrence of Arabia, a wide format picture is effective and desirable.
* *But not all of them. - For example, if wide-format screens are
appropriate for some films, and narrow screen formats are appropriate
for other subject matter, why don't we see new films in 3:4 format? In

Eyes Wide Shut was the most recent studio pic. But it's an obsolete
format now. Nobody does Cinerama either. 4:3 was *******ized by the
inferior quality of television (and movies have to offer something
that TV doesn't), and now that HD digital is taking hold, 16:9 will be
the independent's format as well. However, 4:3 still makes appearances
under documentary and short film at the Oscars.

viewing such films on most HD TVs doesn't provide the effect the
director was intending, and that we are just kidding ourselves when we
claim we are being true to the director's artistic intent by watching
most films in 2.35 or wider format on most HD TVs.}

I'd have to disagree based on James Cameron's enthusiastic making of
Titanic contribution to the X Box 360 launch, and Ken Burns on the PBS
DIgital TV Crash Course. Given that it is such a leap forward towards
showing things as they intended, they welcome the technology.