do you hate 2:35:1 ratio movies???

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by grahamricho, Feb 6, 2002.

  1. grahamricho

    grahamricho
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    702
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    York
    Ratings:
    +13
    i know they were as the director intended but what a waste of picture size. i have a 6 ft screen i love 1:85 ratio big images but 2;35 ; 1 ratio do my head in less dramatic..what do people with 32 "tv think,i buy dvd and i always choose a 1;85 ratio over a 2;35;1 ratio,unless its a film i really want,but most blockbusters are in thedreaded 2;35;1 ratio is it just me???????give me some height!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  2. graham_ew

    graham_ew
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Must say I am the opposite I now love 2.35.1 films as I feel that I am (and in fact are) getting more film for my money and on my 40" Tosh they look geat, Giving a greater cinematic feel they must be animorphic though thats what I look for when buying
     
  3. grahamricho

    grahamricho
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    702
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    York
    Ratings:
    +13
    how do you work out your getting more film?
     
  4. graham_ew

    graham_ew
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    you know see more of what they actually shot when making it,,, the edges/perspective,,,,,, not more as in running time
     
  5. pointon

    pointon
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,381
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Right behind you!!!
    Ratings:
    +3
    All aspect ratios are the exact same height. The width is different.
    The 16:9 TV screen is designed as a compromise between these widths. If you want a larger TV width, buy a larger widescreen TV.

    The 2.85:1 ratio is the best that you can get. It is much more naturally panoramic in the way human sight is, not to mention allowing for a more artistic and cinematic picture.
     
  6. grahamricho

    grahamricho
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    702
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    York
    Ratings:
    +13
    but if it was shot in 1;85 ratio you would get more and in animorphic and fill the height of your screen up.
     
  7. graham_ew

    graham_ew
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    But I still prefer to watch a film in 2.35.1 (animorphic) as it looks more like a film and less like a TV program. but the DVD's that are never purchased are the horrible Pan & Scan the only 4:3 DVD's we have bought are the Buffy/Angel series but then they were made in 4:3.
     
  8. pointon

    pointon
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,381
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Right behind you!!!
    Ratings:
    +3
    Why would I care about filling my screen?

    Perhaps we should ask for discounts for the bits of screen that don't get used?

    No thanks. I prefer to watch a film in the way it was supposed to be seen, in the right way.
     
  9. grahamricho

    grahamricho
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    702
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    York
    Ratings:
    +13
    yes but bigger pics means more dynamic images,but if it was shot in 1;85 it would give you a bigger pic per area more dynamic and sticking to the (what the director intended) theory.we all dont have 30 foot wide screens,i feel that watching a 2;35 ratio on a 32"tv is like watching it on a portable tv theres no height,thats why i went the projector screen route but it makes my heart bleed when i see all the wasted screen area on my 6 foot screen!
     
  10. Napoleon

    Napoleon
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2001
    Messages:
    106
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    For goodness sake,what is wrong with you.A 6 foot screen,which must be wonderfully cinematic,watching films as they were made,and you're bitching about wasted screen area.Why not get a pan/scan version and zoom it right up your jolly wall. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Doubledoom

    Doubledoom
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    So, you would prefer to see less of the film to get a bigger image?

    2.35:1 films look great on a 32" ws set or bigger. The black bars aren't even noticeable.
     
  12. Shoka

    Shoka
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,330
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Surrey
    Ratings:
    +238
    I've got to agree with you there, and I would much prefer to see every film i have brought in 2.35:1.
     
  13. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,462
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +5,897
    More agreement here. The Original Aspect Ratio is nearly always going to be the best way of seeing a movie. I wouldn't want 2.35:1 movies butchered to fill up a narrower screen, just to gain a little height.
     
  14. Shoka

    Shoka
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,330
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Surrey
    Ratings:
    +238
    I might as well go out and buy a pan and scan disc, if i wanted it to fill the screen!!
     
  15. laurel

    laurel
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You can reproduce that full screen lovely pan & scan effect by simply zooming in on the 2.35:1 image.

    Ok this looses the sides - but not much goes on at the sides anyway. :D

    As an added bonus, the zoom gives a slightly "grainy" feel to the image reminiscent of the old "Odeon".

    Cheers

    Laurel

    PS. The comments expressed above in no way represent the opinions of the author. Any resemblence to characters either living or dead is purely coincidental.
     
  16. Stuart Wright

    Stuart Wright
    AVForums Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2000
    Messages:
    14,621
    Products Owned:
    7
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Ratings:
    +10,500
    I don't think you're going to win this argument - you are outnumbered for a start.
    For whatever reasons (and they are very good) directors elect to shoot their films in 2.35:1. Some people don't like the black bars - they are usually ignorant of why they are there.
    Most home cinema enthusiasts here like or put up with 2.35:1 knowing that this is how the director wanted YOU to see his vision. In my opinion, deliberately altering this to suit your TV (which of course includes panning and scanning) is an insult to the director.
    Anyhow if you are not happy with the size of picture you are getting on your 32, you can do one of two things - sit closer or get a bigger picture.
     
  17. MikeyB

    MikeyB
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    80
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Swindon
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have to agree with grahamricho.
    The reason I got a widescreen TV was because I was tired of the black bars while watching DVD's on my old TV.

    Imagine how peeved off I was to find out that half the films I own STILL have black bars on my shiny new widcreen :(
    As I only have a 28" widescreen, it does make the picture a bit on the small side. I do sometimes zoom it in so the bars are smaller, but I'm not best pleased about it I can tell you, I feel cheated.
     
  18. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,408
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +151
    Add me to the 2.35:1 Lovers List too.

    Films are made for cinemas and not for WS TVs.

    As a cinema can cope with all aspect ratios and still produce a large image and WS TV obviously can't and have to compromise depending on the aspect ratio.

    It's still better than watching a 2.35:1 image on a 4:3 TV.
     
  19. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Poor grahamricho, you really have taken a pasting here for speaking your mind.

    Well I am going to stick up for you! When I watch most (not all) 2.35:1 material I use the Zoom funtion on my DVD player to get it "nearly" to 1.85:1 ratio so that it fills my 16:9 screen. I like it better that way!

    As for being "an insult to the Director" well boo-hoo! He's already got his $millions and as I have paid for the movie I'll watch it any way I like!
     
  20. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    22,432
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +10,466
    did you know that the "zoom" button is the worst aspect you can possible choose, all it does is increase the picture size, but gives you an overall grainer picture.....not recommended.
     
  21. Shoka

    Shoka
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,330
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Surrey
    Ratings:
    +238
    Guess what button I wont be prgraming into my pronto when it arives? That'll be the ZOOM button, I hate it, just watch the film the way it was supposed to be watched, if the prodution company intended you to watch a film in 1.85:1 dont you think they would transfer it to DVD in 1.85: not in 2.35:1 :p
     
  22. Juzminator

    Juzminator
    Novice Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    Messages:
    346
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ipswich,England
    Ratings:
    +2
    Sorry...but I'm gonna go with Graham on this one.

    Mmmmm...my lovely Panny 32" PK1, I thought....widescreen heaven....uh-oh! What's this? Oh....enormous parts of the screen are blacked out....hold on...isn't this supposed to be a widescreen DVD? It is.....then what the fudge have I got enormous black borders on my TV???? Oh....I see ....it's in 2.35:1 as opposed to 1.85:1.

    This kinda thing is bitched about ad nauseum on my games-site (poor NTSC-PAL conversions)....OK, so no one region gets a "fuller" picture in this instance, but the principal remains the same....a vastly reduced picture height on a medium that was supposed to reproduce the cinematic experience.

    As to the suggestions that we should all just "get bigger pictures"...well, perhaps I'm in a minority on this forum as I don't appear to have money falling outta my a**hole!

    OK - so it's as the director intended....great....but how many new converts to the wonderful world of DVD and HC are gonna be utterly appalled to find that the black borders they so despised on their 4:3 tellys are just as prevalent on their state-of-the-art widescreen/DVD equipment? You know - the state-of-the-art equipment that everybody was telling them was just sooooo much better than what they've got now?

    I'm sorry to say it, but I think there's a lot of film "snobbery" about this whole subject....if anyone (seriously) in their right mind can actually justify (let alone applaud) the fact that a massive section of their viewing apparatus is just being blacked out, then I'm afraid that I just can't see the logic in that argument at all.

    "Get a bigger picture", indeed!.....Using that argument, the only logical conclusion would be to go and purchase my local Odeon.....sheesh! Everybody's ultimate goal on this forum, I'm sure, but not really that likely is it?

    BTW - most of you will know me well enough by now to realise that I'm not actually ranting at anybody here.....just trying to point out a massive flaw in their argument :p
     
  23. Shoka

    Shoka
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,330
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Surrey
    Ratings:
    +238
    I also don't have loads of money, and own a 32" w/s tele, but still prefer to watch the fim as it was transfered to DVD. Using the zoom button reduces the quality of the picture, so by doing this you are in theory wasting your money on a DVD player and DVD's. Why not just watch it on video it will probaly be around the same picture clarity as a zoomed picture and will probably cost you about a £10 less per film.
     
  24. Juzminator

    Juzminator
    Novice Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    Messages:
    346
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ipswich,England
    Ratings:
    +2
    Shoka - that's an excellent suggestion - revert back to an older, inferior technology just so I can utilise the full dimensions of the display on my new WS TV.....thank you for that - it all makes sense now.
     
  25. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,408
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +151
    If 2.35:1 bothers people so much then simple, don't watch films made in this ratio on your your WS TV. Go to the cinema instead.

    Everybody accepted this before WS TVs so why all the fuss now.

    I don't think people realised that films are made in different ratios (there have been literally 100s over the years) and because a TV is 'widescreen' the appearance of black bars throws them.

    What about 4:3 material and vertical black bars, I guess these same people stretch the image to fill the screen :(

    16:9 WS TVs were made with TELEVISION and BROADCASTING in mind, NOT Hollywood film Directors and Cinema films.
     
  26. Shoka

    Shoka
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,330
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Surrey
    Ratings:
    +238
    This is getting a bit like the, whats better DD5.1 or DTS arguement, at the end of the day it comes down to the same thing as that did, PERSONAL OPINION!!!
     
  27. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,408
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +151
    Tonight I'm going to check that all my framed photos fit exactly in their frames ;)
     
  28. BadAss

    BadAss
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,967
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +182
    Lets face facts. 16x9 ratio screen were brought out because 1, it is too costly to produce a 2:25:1 size tube. 2, even if the they could nobody would buy them as they still watch 4:3 tv transmitions. Thats why 16x9 is the compromise. Why get ****ed off with the black bars anyway, if we had to watch films as the director intended then we would never get to see them in the home full stop. Movies were made for the cinema. Remember TV wasnt invented when 70mm film came out and 70mm film is what look/fits best in the cinema. Lets be happy we live in a time when DVD quality and 5.1 sound is available at all. Nobody wants to turn back the clock now do they?
     
  29. pointon

    pointon
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,381
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Right behind you!!!
    Ratings:
    +3
    2.35:1 widecreen TVs would be so impractical... The tube would go back so far, you'd need to knock a wall through and divert traffic around the back of it, and so heavy your house would sink into the ground. Not to mention how much cheaper it would be to actually buy a whole cinema instead.

    I'm hoping they do this with a Plasma though, in time for when I can afford to buy one (about 103 years from now I reckon).

    The zoom button is a dispicable little button. I don't see the point in buying a widescreen TV only to go and chop the ends of of a film.
     
  30. Juzminator

    Juzminator
    Novice Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    Messages:
    346
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ipswich,England
    Ratings:
    +2
    Wow! Holy missed the whole point, Batman!

    Is it so unreasonable to expect that all films available in 2.35:1 also be available in a format that actually compliments and fully utilises the new technology that people are starting to put in their homes????

    I find it amusing that people are getting so hung-up on "zoom" buttons; and all the suggestions so far for those of us who don't enjoy massive black borders on their WS tellys are just sooooo helpful:

    1. Buy a bigger picture

    2. Go to the cinema


    Please....I know this is an HC forum, but can anyone here actually see the point that's being made??????

    Not everyone is as knowledgeable as the people on this site, and do not know about "the many different types of aspect ratios over the years"....all they know is that widescreen is widescreen, and, as such is it not unreasonable to expect to find that at least some of these people will be shocked and disappointed to find the same ugly black borders that beleaguered 4:3 tv's are still present on their spanky new WS tellys????

    Try telling a struggling, average household who've finally got round to making the leap to WS/DVD that the reason their kids are sitting in front of their new setup asking "Why are there big, black borders on our new telly, Mummy/Daddy?" is because that's how the director would like them to see the film....even if it means that the borders irritate the living **** outta them, and make them wonder why their parents bothered getting the setup in the first place.

    I agree that this argument could well run along the same lines as the DD5.1/DTS debate....I for one will never be able to see the logic in the argument that my WS equipment isn't displaying in it's fullest capacity (even though some 1.85:1 DVD's are available).
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice