1. Join Now

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

new to widescreen

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by welshwizard, Nov 13, 2003.

  1. welshwizard

    welshwizard
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    HI

    i know im probably one of the very few remaining owners of a square TV !!

    But ive seen the light, and am now looking for a 32" Widescreen, however i just have one comment/question ???

    When i watch a widescreen dvd on my 28" square TV, i get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen , fair enough !!

    Ive demo'd a few widescreens, and there they are again, those "**&$%&" black bars !!

    now i thought having a widescreen would prevent that ??

    help !

    tks
     
  2. scrapbook

    scrapbook
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    Messages:
    7,187
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +546
    I asked the same question when I first started looking at widescreen TV's - totally threw me too.

    The answer is a widescreen TV is a 16:9 format whereas DVDs are in a 2.35:1 format - different formats equal @#%*& black bars!
     
  3. hmsq

    hmsq
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    764
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +50
    that is interesting question so umpty dumpty lol :D
     
  4. Dan666

    Dan666
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +2
    Its because most movies are filmed with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Widescreen TVs have a screen aspect ratio of 1.85:1, so the picture gets scaled down - hence the black bars.

    Good news is that when you watch a film which has been shot in 1.85:1, it will fill the screen nicely.

    Dont know if anyone else has notcied, but Ive found that a lot of British films are filmed in 1.85:1.
     
  5. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,395
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +147
    Yes 1.85:1 is favoured more in the UK and Europe than in the states where 2.35:1 still seems to dominate.
     
  6. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,395
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +147
    welshwizard

    Bear in mind that the HEIGHT of a 32" WS is considerably smaller than that of your 28" square TV. It's more eqivalent to the height of a square 25" TV.

    As an ex-owner of a 28" sq TV I found my first WS TV, a 32" much too small for my liking and upgraded a year later with a 40".

    Just thought I'd warn you.
     
  7. Blighty_Boy

    Blighty_Boy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    This guy is exactly right let me point out 2 examples to you

    1) MY old 33" Square screen

    4:3 pictures = 33 "

    16:9 picture = approximately 30~31 " (with borders top and bottom)

    2) My new 32" wide screen

    4:3 pictures = approximately 21" (with massive borders Left and right of image)

    16:9 = 32"

    :) but they do look s\/\/anky in the living room ;)
     
  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
    The 16:9 format is designed as the perfect compromise between all the potential screen formats you may happen to require a display for, from 2.35:1 movies to 4:3 TV... It's an inbetween ratio, so the black bars you get at the top and the side are as small as possible.

    Until someone invents morphing TV screens that move to fit the screen format it's required to show, this is what you've got.

    No complaints.
     
  9. Jayb

    Jayb
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    149
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +0
    I had a 25" Square and upgraded to a 32" wide, although they are about the same height it does seem alot bigger, but I suppose it may be different going from a 28".

    Anything bigger than 32" would dominate my room and like many others I had to make it wife friendly.........:rolleyes:
     
  10. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,395
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +147
  11. Jayb

    Jayb
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    149
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +0
    Kevo nice link........:smashin:

    The site confirms why I think my 32" is a lot larger than my old 25"....simple it is!

    ok in 4:3 mode only slightly but in all of the widescreen modes almost double the visable screen

    So seeing as probably 99% of all dvds are widescreen and this is why most of us are into AV then there is no contest, 16:9 wins hands down. according to the link to get anywhere near the same visable screen in widescreen you would need a 35" square tv.....:eek:

    So kevo tell us the real reason you went for a 40 incher....:D
     
  12. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,395
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +147
    HEIGHT.

    Don't know about you but the height of something usually tells me how big something is rather than the width.

    Don't forget you had a 25" sq TV, I had a 28".

    Watching 2.35:1 films on a 32" was almost akin to the height of a portable !

    So I went for a 40" and have never looked back since
     
  13. Barry Bingham

    Barry Bingham
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've found getting a DVD deck with its own sensible zoom ratios helps: Since getting a Panny S75 deck with a zoom which zooms 2.35:1 to exactly 16:9 and no more, I've been rewatching all my 2.35 disks again on my 32" Loewe. And finding it a far more involving experience......:)
     
  14. Jayb

    Jayb
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    149
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +0
    Kevo according to your link 2.35:1 on a 32" is still displayed 2.5" higher than on a 28" square tv.

    But dont get me wrong if I could go for a 40" I would....Size does matter.....:smashin:
     
  15. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,395
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +147
    Yes but my point is that the overall height I was used to with a 4:3 TV (watching full screen), was ever decreasing with a 32" WS TV.
    I didn't have a DVD player with my 28"TV so I never watched any WS material on it. Hence I was always used to the full height

    :confused: WHY?

    At the expense of chopping off the sides and losing out on some resolution. What's so involving about this?

    Ask yourself is it worth it just to 'fill the screen'?

    Just ignore the black bars and enjoy what's in between or upgrade to a larger TV.
     
  16. Barry Bingham

    Barry Bingham
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Kevo,

    I have spent two years asking myself this question. And when it comes to 2.35 material the answer is an overwhelming "YES". Naturally upgrading to a larger set of equal picture quality would be better but a 40" CRT would be too bulky to meet the domestic acceptability test;).

    I'm not one of these people who cannot live with black bars at any price. I do not for example attempt to make 4:3 images fill the screen since the image loss is in my view unacceptable - tops of heads, subtitles etc. Thats because I agree with you that height is important. In fact more important IMO than width. But 2.35 is a different ball game to 4:3.

    Basically its just down to which compromise you prefer: the entire image but smaller and best resolution, or larger images in the 85% of the picture in which 99% of the action takes place. If resolution is not compromised too much then I consider the latter to be more involving. Which is simply my preference.

    All I'm pointing out is that the Panny S75 is the first deck I've come across to minimise resolution loss sufficiently to enable me to enjoy that preference- and that some other screen size challenged punters might feel likewise...... I could never have done this with the Tosh's 1.5x zoom - the resolution was unacceptably poor.
     
  17. Jayb

    Jayb
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    149
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes you are right when you say the hieght of a 32" is smaller than a 28" square tv....but only by 1 inch so I would hardly call that considerable. Imo the move for most people from a 28" sq to 32" wide would be more than exceptable considering the imense gain of watching anything in wide screen.

    :confused: surely the point of buying a wide sreen tv is to increase the veiwing area, to help you watch a movie as the director intended, I totally agree with Pointon & Kevo on this point and if anybody is so offended by black bars I would suggest you stick with your square TV's, watching everything in 4:3 pan scan.......:rolleyes:
     
  18. Joe Pineapples

    Joe Pineapples
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    7,248
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Doncaster
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    Barry

    Does it specify in your Pana DVD manual, what the actual zoom size is? (which perfectly trims the black bars in the 2:35 ratio)

    I'm looking round for a player that can do this too.

    cheers

    Dean
     
  19. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,395
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +147
    :rolleyes:
    :lesson:

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.

    On behalf of 99% of the AV forum members I implore you.

    Come to think of it, I did something similar with The Matrix when I first got my WS TV and kidded myself it looked better because I had succesfully 'filled the screen' and got rid of those black bars.
    Obviously I soon saw the errors of my ways and a few weeks later I saw sense and watched it correctly, bars and all.

    I now cringe when I look back at this, as you probably will in the near future.
     
  20. Joe Pineapples

    Joe Pineapples
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    7,248
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Doncaster
    Ratings:
    +1,066
    Kevo

    I know what you're saying, and there are some films i would want to watch in their original 2:35 picture. But the option to zoom in (just enough) on some film material, is something i would like to have. I really think there are only a handful of directors out there who have the craft/skill to fill every inch of the cinema screen, with something worth looking at. And again, these are the ones i WOULD watch with the black bars.
     
  21. Barry Bingham

    Barry Bingham
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Deansimm

    The relevant ratio is x1.34 or Cinemascope 1, as Panasonic call it. There is also a x1.04 ration called "American Perspective". There's also "Cinemascope 2", ie x1.43, the equivalent to the evil 4:3 "pan/scan" that Kevo & Jaybe refer to.

    However what is really neat on the S75 is that you can set exactly the magnification you require via an onscreen panel - which means you can set the best compromise between enlargement and resolution. I often choose x1.21 - which gives small black bars and slightly better resolution than x1.34

    As to whether or not you should do this - it just depends on what works for you - and as you say what the film is. The suggestion that to do any zooming at all means you might as well stick with 4:3 is frankly ludicrous - there's a huge difference between a pan/scan to 16:9 and one to 4:3. I would not want to go back to 4:3 - because the lateral information loss is far too great. Of course there are sacrifices in picture information and resolution with zooming. But if you have a modest 28 or 32" CRT there are also compromises in adopting the cinematic purist line. Smaller images in the part of the picture that really matters. There are no absolute truths here: the 16:9 TV set is a compromise to deal with varying formats. At the end of the day you can turn zoom on and off and decide in every case which is best. I've watched films in native and in zoom - and which I prefer depends on the movie. How close you sit to the set is one determining factor.

    If I had a 40" CRT or 42" plus plasma in my modest living room I would almost certainly not wish to zoom 2.35 material to 1.85. But I don't have such devices and I often do zoom. Which is a valid preference in an imperfect world, not a fundamental betrayal of all things AV.........
     
  22. Jayb

    Jayb
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    149
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would be interested to know which films you think can be improved by watching them in Zoom mode.
     
  23. Jayb

    Jayb
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    149
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +0
    Kevo I'm sure you are right but thought I would put it to the vote, I have started a poll in the DVD players section to find out.
     
  24. Barry Bingham

    Barry Bingham
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Jayb, two that come to mind (barely watchable imo on a 32CRT otherwise unless zoomed) are early releases of "Bladerunner" and "2010". Both s***e transfers which may explain why I noticed virtually no cost in resolution loss.

    More surprising are "Crouching Tiger.." and "Gladiator", although these are candidates for x1.21 rather than full 16:9. Similarly "2001"

    I must stress that until I got the Panny I found the res loss too great to zoom any film......
     

Share This Page

Loading...