Black bars with widesceen movies

In article ,
JimC wrote:

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.

As did I.

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.

And what you describe is what the director intended? Come on, even you
don't believe that.

The fact is that unless you display the picture in its original
geometry, you aren't seeing what was intended. Size is relative to
viewing distance and if the width of my home theater screen subtends (at
least) the same angle of vision as the "big screen", I _am_ seeing what
the director intended.

--
Tom Stiller

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

Tom Stiller wrote:

In article ,
JimC wrote:


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.


As did I.

Where, in my notes, do you see me "whining?" I'm merely stating my
opnions about the matter. I'm defending a minority position perhaps, but
I'm not whining.



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.


And what you describe is what the director intended? Come on, even you
don't believe that.

The fact is that unless you display the picture in its original
geometry,

Read my note. - I said I could provide a large screen in the 2.35 format
and [substantially] fill the screen. That WOULD be in the original
geometry.



you aren't seeing what was intended. Size is relative to
viewing distance and if the width of my home theater screen subtends (at
least) the same angle of vision as the "big screen", I _am_ seeing what
the director intended.


Obviously. That's why I tried to emphasize that the additional screen
would be a LARGER 2.35 screen. - LARGER, LARGE. In other words, large
enough to provide a realistic subtended angle of vision.

Jim

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article
,
wrote:


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.


Let's think about this.

When television came about, the movie people responded by doing
something that TV couldn't.

HDTV comes about now. What will the movie people respond with that HDTV
can't do?

Seems to me they are doing that now with their use of 1:2.35 or wider
formats displayed on huge, ultra-wide screens, resulting in a display
that's difficult or impossible to duplicate in most home TV systems.

Jim

Tom Stiller wrote:

In article ,
JimC wrote:


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.


As did I.

Where, in my notes, do you see me "whining?" I'm merely stating my
opnions about the matter. I'm defending a minority position perhaps, but
I'm not whining.



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.


And what you describe is what the director intended? Come on, even you
don't believe that.

The fact is that unless you display the picture in its original
geometry,

Read my note. - I said I could provide a large screen in the 2.35 format
and [substantially] fill the screen. That WOULD be in the original
geometry.



you aren't seeing what was intended. Size is relative to
viewing distance and if the width of my home theater screen subtends (at
least) the same angle of vision as the "big screen", I _am_ seeing what
the director intended.


Obviously. That's why I tried to emphasize that the additional screen
would be a LARGER 2.35 screen. - LARGER, LARGE. In other words, large
enough to provide a realistic subtended angle of vision. Obviously,
the distance from the screen to the viewer is also a factor for
achieving a particular subtended angle.

Jim