Annoying Black Bars

Never seen that. In that case I would be careful to mix the 2:35 ish stuff with full screen in between.
Or to get back to the original point of the thread and why I raised this issue, just watch 2:35 movies full screen like Sony recommend... ;)
 
Last edited:
If 2.35/1 ratio TVs becomes the standard of future

I believe Philips tried this a few years ago, but it didn't take off. I suspect people didn't like the black bars at the sides on 16.9 content which makes up the majority of TV broadcasts.

If black bars bug people so much the answer is simple. Get yourself a projector and anamorphic lens, and don't forget the 2:35 ration screen with fully automated masking for 16.9. Voila - no more black bars! :laugh:

Personally, they don't bother me, it means that the film is being presented correctly, and that can only be a good thing.
 
I posted some example above of proper widescreen,

However, when super 35 is used for the cinema, you actually see more of the image without the black bars.


More image, yes. Image that was intended to be seen, no.

I'm sure that you know that, it's just that all the dilberts who want their screens filled won't understand the concept.
 
I'm sure that you know that, it's just that all the dilberts who want their screens filled won't understand the concept.
There was a function on the first widescreen CRT TVs that enabled you to stretch the then still ubiquitous 4:3 images to fill the screen, so the middle was normal but the sides were stretched and distorted. Maybe there is a market for a function to stretch 2:35 images to fit 16.9 screens, that might keep them happy. ;)
 
One of my mates has this same problem. He can’t understand the wasted space. Twenty years ago he would only buy fullscreen 4:3 releases then he got a widescreen TV and would only buy 1.78:1 stuff or zoom in. He would not see sense.

So I told him that humans have 120 degree field of vision which really wound him up. He said that’s stupid too because he only looks straight ahead. So I sold him some horse blinkers and now he’s happy.

Perhaps we could move this thread to somewhere more appropriate? The VHS or equestrian forum?

There’s some painful irony that it’s sat in the specific sub-forum where most of us are concerned with getting better image quality not new tactics on how to ruin image quality (let alone artistic intent).
 
More image, yes. Image that was intended to be seen, no.

I'm sure that you know that, it's just that all the dilberts who want their screens filled won't understand the concept.


Yes .....However..........

I think James Cameron is on record saying that sometimes he prefers the 1;85;1 image of his movies that were shot in super 35. Avatar was masked off at 2.35.1 for cinema but 1.85.1 for dvd.
I think that the new Blu-ray of top gun was also messed about with by Tony Scott before his passing with the black bars masking more of the image than the last DVD release. I prefer the more open matt versions my self of Super 35 movies but want the full widescreen treatment of films that were actually shot that way like most of the bonds, the first Ghostbusters ect.

Plus most movie shown on TV now are except sky movies are shown in either a less pan and scanned version but opened up to the 16:9 tv ratio, or are the super 35 open matt versions of full 2.35.1 movies.

You only have to see something like T2 when it is shown on terrestrial TV to see that.


To be honest, with IMAX now. there really is no need to shoot any movie in full widescreen, as I think IMAX fills a 16.9 tv without the black bars when viewed at home.

If you want a really strange experience, watch the new Transformers movie. The aspect ration is constantly changing during the movie!
 
There was a function on the first widescreen CRT TVs that enabled you to stretch the then still ubiquitous 4:3 images to fill the screen, so the middle was normal but the sides were stretched and distorted. Maybe there is a market for a function to stretch 2:35 images to fit 16.9 screens, that might keep them happy. ;)

I remember that. The actors used to get fatter as they walked off screen. :D One of the tv companies (Sony?) used to call it Smart as I recall.

Bri
 
I can understand people saying that a film loses some of it's impact when it doesn't fill the screen, but I personally would not want to lose the information at the sides of a 2.35:1 ratio production. My compromise is to turn on "overscan" for these. That way I lose very little from the sides, while getting a bit more impact from the fuller screen area. I've never really noticed any quality drop from doing so, I guess the old Panasonic ST30 plasma scales well.

Andy
 
Yes .....However..........

I think James Cameron is on record saying that sometimes he prefers the 1;85;1 image of his movies that were shot in super 35. Avatar was masked off at 2.35.1 for cinema but 1.85.1 for dvd.
I think that the new Blu-ray of top gun was also messed about with by Tony Scott before his passing with the black bars masking more of the image than the last DVD release. I prefer the more open matt versions my self of Super 35 movies but want the full widescreen treatment of films that were actually shot that way like most of the bonds, the first Ghostbusters ect.

Plus most movie shown on TV now are except sky movies are shown in either a less pan and scanned version but opened up to the 16:9 tv ratio, or are the super 35 open matt versions of full 2.35.1 movies.

You only have to see something like T2 when it is shown on terrestrial TV to see that.


To be honest, with IMAX now. there really is no need to shoot any movie in full widescreen, as I think IMAX fills a 16.9 tv without the black bars when viewed at home.

If you want a really strange experience, watch the new Transformers movie. The aspect ration is constantly changing during the movie!
And yet Cameron ensured that the T2 3D re-release was solely 2.35, go figure. Personally I want to see what it was originally framed for, even on Super 35, and not some open matte version that's usually done solely to appease the black bar haters. I dunno how many movies you've watched on TV lately but the main terrestrial channels routinely broadcast in 2.35, just a week or so ago I watched Good Kill on C4 and Fury on C5 and both were in proper widescreen. They were shot anamorphic but even so, they'd have cropped them to 16:9 if this was a few years ago but now I'm still amazed how much proper 2.35 content we get on TV. Even some TV shows are broadcast in wider ratios like 2.00:1, and others are full 2.35.

So far from TV being the death of proper widescreen, it's seen it flourish. Lots of adverts are even shot anamorphic now. Sure, not EVERY movie is shown in full widescreen when it could've been but it still amazes me how far we've come. As for IMAX, if every cinema were an IMAX then you might have a point, but they're not so you don't. I saw the open matte 1.78 version of Skyfall on ITV a while ago and couldn't stand how much dead space it had top and bottom, it was framed up for 2.35 by one of the best DPs in the business and it shows.

I'm just happy to take whatever ratio a movie was intended to be shown in, no matter if there's black bars on the sides, bars on the top & bottom, bars that come and go.
 
TBH I would be happier with a cinema aspect screen and have black borders on TV junk instead. Its annoying to have the viewing area shrink when watching a movie.

I guess this is where projects may be more useful - get a larger/wider screen and zoom the image if necessary.
 
Yes .....However..........

I think James Cameron is on record saying that sometimes he prefers the 1;85;1 image of his movies that were shot in super 35. Avatar was masked off at 2.35.1 for cinema but 1.85.1 for dvd.
I think that the new Blu-ray of top gun was also messed about with by Tony Scott before his passing with the black bars masking more of the image than the last DVD release. I prefer the more open matt versions my self of Super 35 movies but want the full widescreen treatment of films that were actually shot that way like most of the bonds, the first Ghostbusters ect.

Plus most movie shown on TV now are except sky movies are shown in either a less pan and scanned version but opened up to the 16:9 tv ratio, or are the super 35 open matt versions of full 2.35.1 movies.

You only have to see something like T2 when it is shown on terrestrial TV to see that.


To be honest, with IMAX now. there really is no need to shoot any movie in full widescreen, as I think IMAX fills a 16.9 tv without the black bars when viewed at home.

If you want a really strange experience, watch the new Transformers movie. The aspect ration is constantly changing during the movie!

IMAX is 1.43:1 so on a 16:9 screen you would have black bars at the sides, films on Blu-ray with IMAX sequences like Interstellar and The Dark Knight have the footage cropped top and bottom to fill the screen.
 
That's old-school 15-perf 65mm IMAX though, most movies shot in "IMAX" in the last few years have just been an Alexa 65 with an IMAX sticker on it, that camera shoots 2.11 in open gate so it's perfect for the 1.90 digital IMAX ratio. Honourable exceptions go to Dunkirk (natch) and The Last Jedi which also used proper 65mm IMAX as well as regular Alexa and 35mm anamorphic.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom