1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

16:9 Dvd

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by jamesanderson, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. jamesanderson

    jamesanderson
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    when watching dvds on a widescreen panny viera 37", why do you still get the black bars at the top and bottom?

    i know this is due to the aspect ratio of the dvd but why dont they put them in 16:9, all the dvds i have all have different ratios

    why is a widescreen film put in a different ratio than 16:9? :confused:
     
  2. hornydragon

    hornydragon
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    28,293
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Somewhere near the M4 most of the time......
    Ratings:
    +1,215
    there are many wide screen standard originally film aspects cinemascope etc keeps the original detail the same as what director intended......
     
  3. CarlitoBrigante

    CarlitoBrigante
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's why when you watch something like Star Wars, which is filmed in 2.35:1, you will get black bars at the top and bottom, but when you watch something like From Dusk Till Dawn, which is filmed in 16:9, you will get the picture filling up the screen.

    As hornydragon said, it's how the director intended the film to be.
     
  4. jamesanderson

    jamesanderson
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    but if the director wanted the film to be in widescreen, then 16:9 is good
    and when you have paid nearly 2k on a 37" plasma you want to be watching 37", not 32 and a couple of inches of black at the top and bottom,

    i know you both know what you are talking about, but if you watch loads of films then the black bars can become annoying, and will the black become burnt in?
     
  5. jamesanderson

    jamesanderson
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    panasonic auto makes the image recieved to fit the fullscreen but then you are stretching the image and the quality reduces, any ideas?
     
  6. markbigears

    markbigears
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    516
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    chalk, Kent
    Ratings:
    +18
    all films in 1:85:1 aspect are widescreen.
     
  7. CarlitoBrigante

    CarlitoBrigante
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    There's no way around this until they discover a way for the screen to morph to the correct shape for each aspect. Maybe in a hundred years or so...
     
  8. jamesanderson

    jamesanderson
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    not thinking that far ahead, just thinking of the fact that companies spent millions developing the technology to get "WIDESCREEN TVS" why cant the dvd companies put the film in a format to suit widescreen tvs. there is no need for black bars, unless you are watching on a 4:3 which for most is unlikely
     
  9. markbigears

    markbigears
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    516
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    chalk, Kent
    Ratings:
    +18
    er, they can ... its called 1:85:1 ratio .... look out for "widescreen edition" like saving private ryan
     
  10. jamesanderson

    jamesanderson
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    do the math.....

    1.85 * 9 = 16.65
    1 * 9 = 9

    therefore the aspect is 16.65:9

    on most dvds the aspect ratio on the back says approx so the ratio is 16:9
     
  11. markbigears

    markbigears
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    516
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    chalk, Kent
    Ratings:
    +18
    ok, so i'm a few digits out, but you get what i'm saying.....no black bars top and bottom
     
  12. jamesanderson

    jamesanderson
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    mark, didnt mean to sound as though i was having a go at you,

    but my point is still unanswered

    why arent dvds in either 16:9 or 1.85:1

    this would give you a full screen when watching on a widescreen tv
     
  13. rooster-x

    rooster-x
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    600
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Lancaster
    Ratings:
    +28
    Why don't you just zoom the picture using a DVD player with zoom function. That's what we do with my Girlfriends Toshiba DVD PLayer (can't remember the model no.). I prefer to watch with the black bars as you get to see the whole picture, so at my house I don't zoom in :) (we both have the same player, if only I could remember the model no. ???)
     
  14. markbigears

    markbigears
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    516
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    chalk, Kent
    Ratings:
    +18
    james.... the reason being films are not shot for TV. films in general are far wider aspect 2:35:1 and so on. So if you want to view a film as the director shot it, you end up with black bars top and bottom. Correct me if i'm wrong but i think thats the general idea.
     
  15. MJS

    MJS
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    34
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +0
    Here's what a quick google found:
    http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

    It all depends, as has been said before, on how the director wants it seen.
    I've been guilty myself of expanding 4:3 material to 14:9 on my widescreen tv, but have always kept the same aspect ratio. I would imagine that with DVD sales being a huge part of a film's takings that we might see more 16:9 ish (1.66, 1.78, 1.85 aspect) material generated by the studios. Actually I don't know, epic stuff in 2.35 aspect still looks best in the cinema, and that is their main business. Widescreen is generally anything that isn't 4:3 and doesn't have to be 16:9.

    Go into any electrical shop and see how many different sized pictures you can see. My mum had an issue with a salesman in Comet of all places when two widescreen tv's were showing the same channel and one had black bars and looked fat (i.e 4:3 expanded) and one didn't. My mum could see the difference but the salesman couldn't explain why, and even told her they must be showing different channels!

    Personally I can't use any of the special zoom and stretch features as the geometry distortion puts me right off. People who say they paid for a big screen and don't get the full picture annoy me - sorry.
     
  16. Ken

    Ken
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    362
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Ratings:
    +2
    The movie is originally made for cinema viewing on the very wide screens. If a 1:2.35 film is put on DVD in 1:1.78 (16:9) format, then you will be loosing part of the original image.

    Ken
     
  17. grahamtriggs

    grahamtriggs
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    779
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +33
    You watch what you want, but when I pay 2K for a screen, I want to watch things as they are meant to be seen. I want the full image that was shot by the director, without any stretching of the image. That means bars down the side for old TV programmes (4:3), bars at the top and bottom for most films.

    I do not find the bars to ever be annoying (except if you watch some digital channels that crop a programme that was originally shot in 16:9 to a 4:3 ratio). But then I expect to see the *whole* film/programme as it was shot without distortion, and don't consider it a fault that empty areas of the screen are necessary to achieve that depending on the content. Plus, I make sure that my screen size is big enough to be happy with the 'in use' area, even when that is smaller than the screen size.

    At nearly 2K, you could easily have had a 42" screen.
     
  18. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,585
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +336
    It's funny really. I asked eactly the same question when I worked for JL 4 years ago. We had a £7,500 42" Phillips plasma running a dvd. I couldn't understand why a widescreen tv still had borders top and bottom. I hadn't realised/considered that movies shown at the cinema were in 21:9 or even 24:9. Now as great as this is for a dedicated cinema, it wouldn't exactly be very practical to have a tv in this format. Imagine watching ordinary tv in this format. 16:9 however is a good ratio for the majority of tv programming and as such is the format adopted by broadcasters. The format of any given dvd has nothing to do with tv manufacturers by the way.

    Anyway, there are 3 possibilities. You can watch the film as it was intended by the director, (in 21:9 and with borders top + bottom). Or can watch in full screen by stretching/zooming the image to fit, (leading to elongated picture distortion. Third, you can expand the image to fit cutting off the edges of the screen. Would you prefer to loose either end of the picture just to have a full screen. Personally I like to watch the film as was intended. In my experience it's something you come to appreciate in time. Infact I would pick a 2.35:1 version over 16:9 everytime. Even for a 4:3 tv.
     
  19. blindlemon

    blindlemon
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...assuming it was originally shot in 2.35:1 :)

    A few months ago FilmFour showed Les Destinées Sentimentales in what looked like 2.35:1 and very nice it was too :)

    However, a while later, Channel 4 showed the same film in 16:9. Of course, I was outraged - until I compared the two. That's when I noticed that the 16:9 showing (which I had assumed to be the director's original 2.35:1 version with the sides chopped off) was actually the same width as the one shown on FilmFour - but with extra material at the top and bottom :eek:

    So what FilmFour had shown was actually the 16:9 version with the top and bottom masked :suicide:

    I have to admit, though, it looked more 'arty' like that....
     
  20. grahamtriggs

    grahamtriggs
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    779
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +33
    This is where it all gets fun ;-) The tricky thing is, how it was shot and the director's intentions may be entirely seperate. It's entirely possible that a feature is shot in 16:9 because it is cheaper to do so, or to provide a 16:9 format for TV broadcast, without cropping the main content, and yet the original intention to still be a 2.35:1 image and everything is framed for that - the 'extra' information being superfluous to the original vision.
     
  21. astirling

    astirling
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    800
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dunfermline
    Ratings:
    +44
    A cinema screen is around 2.35:1 and some directors want to use the whole canvas. If this is translated to DVD without alteration then you get the black bars. The alternative is for the director to develop his beloved film in 16:9 and then you'd have people at the cinema complaining that they've paid their £5 and they don't expect the film to stop several feet short at either side of the cinema screen.

    Interestingly, Stanley Kubrick shot his latest films (well everything from "The Shining" onwards) in 4:3. They were shown in cropped 16:9 in the cinema however he was aware that they would make it to television eventually and widescreen TV wasn't around at the time. He therefore intended for the top and the bottom of the picture to be opened up for home broadcast and framed them accordingly.

    As for filmfour....they sometimes mess around with the aspect ratio of the films. I remember their 'widescreen' version of shallow grave was basically the 4:3 image with the top and bottom chopped off.

    In answer to the original question, directors intend their films to be viewed at the cinema and often decide to use the full screen.
     

Share This Page

Loading...