One problem with blu-rays for me

Blu-rays I have like We Own The Night and the Planet Earth box set look great because they are in the 1:85 format so they fill up the whole screen w/out the black bars on top and bottom and it looks beautiful. most blu-rays I have however like Departed, Blood Diamond, Prestige and alot of other movies I rented are in the 2:35 and up and they have the black lines on top and bottom, is there anything I can do about that? Cause I dont see the point in expanding the size because then you lsoe clarity, blu-rays are so much more enjoyable for me without the darn black bars on top and bottom. thx for any help

... You really shouldn't be allowed to own a Blu-Ray player.

^^LOL hmm because I dont like the bars on top and bottom. What is your deal moron, its not a dumb question and I am sure I am not the first person to compain about it.

spice2k8.... ASPECT RATIO (learn more)

> Also, Adventures in WIDESCREEN

Has nothing to do with whatever format you are watching (Blu-ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS, LaserDisc), rather it's how the film was shot (ratio, lenses, projection) and then transferred to whatever home video platform you are using, such as Blu-ray in your example.

Only widescreen content filmed/transferred in 1:78.1 and 1:85.1 will 'fill the entire screen' naturally on an HDTV. Otherwise, you will always see some black bars on the top/bottom of the image, for content filmed in wider ratios than these.

Occasionally, for a widescreen film that's close to the 1:78.1 ratio, but has a little black bars on the top/bottom, the studio will transfer it slightly zoomed to fill the entire screen, as Warner did with the hi-def editions of The Fugitive. They also did it with the Kubrick film Full Metal Jacket, removing the 'open-matte' original home video preference of the director, and turning the hi-def disc editions into a widescreen presentation (I own the full-frame 'open-matte' LaserDisc edition).



-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)

Wow, the OP must be from the really new generation. This was the #1 silly posting complaint about standard widescreen DVD on Usenet back in 1997!

Darn I'm starting to feel old now that we have people who skipped/missed the DVD format all together (let alone VHS) and just started with Blu-ray as their first format experience.

Did you read that link LH? I'm a big Kubrick fan, and I hate when people say Kubrick wanted the movies presented in full-frame. He SETTLED for full-frame, because on a full screeen TV, the movie would have otherwise been presented in pan and scan, or with black bars, which he hated. He wanted them presented in open-matte because he didn't want home video people messing up his movies. Now we have widescreen TVs, so a widescreen presentation which does not have black bars would clearly be the presentation of choice for Kubrick. So, a widescreen edition on a widescreen tv is closer to his vision than open-matte.

I've actually over time got used to veiwing movies like this. Now I prefer to have widescreen versions especially when I had my Optoma projector. I used to stay away from widescreen versions like the plague but after everyone explainning that alot of the shot was missing in scenes in fullscreen I decided to see for myself and after that I was conveinced that WS is better.

[Post edited by tony1569 on Apr 18, 2008]

Thanks for the explanation interplanetaryspy, which I understand, and did so when I made the link. Guess I should have worded the comment a little better, but the point I was making (which you've provided the background for) was that he wanted FMJ shown in open matte (at the time)... but Warner today has instead produced HD versions in widescreen (1:78.1). But with your explanation we understand the reason why. I've seen the film in widescreen on one of the HD cable channels not long ago, and it looked fine/excellent, none-the-less.

-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)

Oh no, not agian. Really the manufactures should go back to 4:3 production right now Before anymore people get confused...

"...people say Kubrick wanted the movies presented in full-frame. He SETTLED for full-frame, because on a full screeen TV, the movie would have otherwise been presented in pan and scan, or with black bars, which he hated." --interplanetaryspy

Do you have a link to a reliable source for this information? It is not the story Kubrick's own friends and studio told.

Kubrick shot all of his films after "2001" in 1.33:1 (1.37:1). He was not pleased that he had to matte them for 1.78:1 theatrical showing, and before he died he requested that they be shown on disc in their original aspect ratio of 1.33.1 (which is what Warner Bros. originally did). A "full-screen TV" is generally defined as one with a ratio of 1.33:1 (non-widescreen), so the films would have shown up in open matte without any black bars.

Now that widescreen TVs are the norm for high defintion viewing, Warner Bros. went back to the theatrical ratios (1.78:1) for their latest Kubrick releases.

John

The same happened to me Tony, I realized that there was something missing...as for Kubrick, (as I posted before), I can't believe that Full Metal Jacket was shot for 1.33:1, it just looks a very 16:9 natural framing, shame...

And once again I remind you, are studios going to start releasing a 16:9 fullscreen??

"...are studios going to start releasing a 16:9 fullscreen?" --mvckavel

What's a "16:9 fullscreen"?

16x9 is the same as 1.78:1, the ratio of a widescreen TV. "Fullscreen" usually refers to the size of a 1.33:1 standard-screen television (or the size of a 1.33:1 image). 1.78:1 doesn't fit on a 1.33:1 television screen without bars at the top and bottom. But 1.78:1 (16x9) does fit perfectly on the screen of a 1.78:1 (16x9) widescreen television.

Sorry, I'm so dense, mvckavel, but I've missed your point. Maybe you could explain it again for me, and I'll catch on.

John

I think what he's saying is that since 16:9 is becoming the new Television Industry norm.. that Studios might start releasing their Fullscreen versions in a 16:9 format instead of 4:3. Basically taking a 1.85:1 And up and matting it to 1.78:1, thus removing the black bars.... annnnnd ruining the film.

[Post edited by Mike37 on Apr 18, 2008]

The black bars are not there...The black bars are not there...The black bars arrrrr.....Its called "change" and some people hate it. You haters shall adapt and learn. Remember when Tv's were round? I wonder if people "freaked" when they went square? The black bars.......are not there.(just ignore them)

Hey guys... you'll find this interesting! I had the original release of "Back To The Future" (the first one) on laserdisc when it came out: it was (1.33:1). Then it was later released on laserdisc in letterboxed (WS) format (1.85:1). I had both copies for a while, before I finally traded-in my "full-frame" (FF) version... but first, I had to compare how they differed! The most obvious you already know, but the new letterboxed transfer was from a new master (it had to be, obviously) and they did a great job with it.

Here comes the weird part!! The FF version had more data (movie image) at the top and bottom, that is "masked" by the black bars on the WS version. However... the WS version had more data on the sides than the FF version! That's not much of a difference, though... as 1.85:1 is not all that wide. There was probably more image lost on the WS version, but I take that version over FF or "pan & scan" any day!

Here's a better comparison of the same thing. Do any of you have "The Long Kiss Goodnight" on DVD? If you do, and it has both the FF and WS versions on the same disc... compare the amount of "movie data" that is lost on BOTH VERSIONS! This movie is 2.35:1 WS - yet you see a LOT of lost image on BOTH versions!! I OBVIOUSLY prefer the widescreen version... but it seems that they "could" have released a 1.85:1 version on DVD that would use ALL of the real estate of your widescreen TV display - AND shown all of the image.

I don't care if they never do this with movies that do have more image that could be shown, but it's an interesting idea. Perhaps they could make 1.85:1 the NEW "full frame" aspect ratio... and also have the original theatrical aspect ratio, too?! Just some food for thought!!!

Every director has a unique idea of what his/her film should look like when it's shown in a theater. The thing is, it's cheaper and easier for a director to frame (matte) a picture after the shooting in the widescreen format of his/her choice. Every film in this age of widescreen movies loses a good deal of information from the top, bottom, and sides (even when they're shot in widescreen) when the director and cinematographer do their framing after the fact. (For example, "Back to the Future" was originally shot in 1.37:1 and after the shooting framed for widescreen viewing.)

Now, what I hope most of us would like to see in our homes is exactly what the director intended be seen in theater, no more, no less.

Since widescreen ratios can be anywhere from 1.66:1 to 2.75:1 and everything in between, we often have to accept black bars on our home screens. If you go to any multiplex theater these days, you'll see that their big screens don't use all of its real estate top and bottom or at the sides, just like our little home screens have. It's just that in a theater, we don't notice it.

I don't believe a few misguided home viewers should dictate to fllmmakers what screen ratios to use just because these viewers insist that everybody in the world use a 1.78:1 ratio (the size of their 16x9 TV screens at home). Besides, even if every filmmaker did shoot and release only in 1.78:1, there are five decades of previous movies in varying screen ratios to deal with.

Instead, disgruntled viewers need to adjust to the way of the film world, not vice versa.

John

John,
I just wrote that..."Ignore the black bars." It is my opinion that once HDTV goes mass,people will demand the 16.9 "Fullscreen". Which will probably dictate how directors shoot there films. I just have this strange feeling that we will be seeing alot of movies shot or matted 1.85.1 from here on out. The people that don't understand the benefits of widescreen(mass public)will demand it.

blade,

I'm beginning to understand what you mean. By "fullscreen" you mean a picture that fills up a screen, no matter what size the screen. So a 16x9 "fullscreen" would be a 1.78:1/1.85:1 film image. Fair enough. Except that when people use the word "fullscreen," they generally mean a 1.33:1 picture that fills a 1.33:1 television. Studios even mark their keep cases "widescreen" and "fullscreen" to indicate the aspect ratio. So it was a little confusing to me.

As for filmmakers adopting a 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 standard just because people are buying more widescreen TVs, I doubt that will happen. Although 1.85:1 is used most commonly among filmmakers today, many of them want the option to go even wider with 2.35:1 and 2.40:1. Besides, over half the TVs in use today are 4:3, 1.33:1 sets, which will shows black bars no matter what the widesreen ratio. Filmmakers don't like to be dictated to. And neither do a lot of viewers. Personally, I'd like to see all films shot at 2.35:1, but I wouldn't suggest imposing this personal preference as a rule for everyone.

John

Quote:
It is my opinion that once HDTV goes mass,people will demand the 16.9 "Fullscreen". Which will probably dictate how directors shoot there films.

If that were the case, every theatrical film released to date from the last 40 years would have been Academy aspect ratio only. The ironic part is that films stopped using Academy because TVs came out that duplicated that aspect ratio.

Everybody,
The movie theater as we know it is on it's way out,it's only a matter of time before Home theater is going to replace it once and for all .(SOMEDAY) That is why I made the above statement. The black bars do not show up in the movie houses because the screen is so huge and it is dark. When you take these elements away(home setups) then thats when you start having your problems with black bars. The screens are not large enough for you to ignore them. I know all about aspect ratios and I prefer 2.35.1 as well. And yes when I say fullscreen I mean 16.9,not 4.3. You cant even hardly get a 4.3 set anymore. The television we all grew up with is dead. Movie theaters are next.

-blade

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Apr 20, 2008]

bladerunner1, I don't think you get it. The aspect ratio of old standard TVs was chosen because that WAS the aspect ratio of movies at the theater during that time. When that happened, everyone was saying how movie theaters would go out of business. The widescreen aspect ratios were then chosen for movies in order to allow theaters to differentiate the product from home TV in order to compete. Even though colour even came to TV, theaters are still with us and represent a significant percentage of revenue for studios.

Going forward, I think theater technology will continue to differentiate its product from the experience provided in your own home theater. History of the last 50 years have held that true so far, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

In addition, I should add that since the adoption of aspect ratios other than Academy, directors and producers have used various formats to artistic effect. Saying that they should only use a single aspect ratio is like saying painters can only use one specific brush, or photographers can only use a single lens. Film is an art form, and the aspect ratio is one tool among many to impress the viewer as intended.

Skyhawk,
I know what you are saying man(I really do) But you are also talking about "history". If you have not noticed...we move at the speed of sound now. These kids today don't know what in the hell we are talking about when we are talking about aspect ratios. Talk to people that buy widescreen televisions and 9 out of ten will tell you that they want the whole screen to be covered with picture. And what the mass wants....the mass gets. I can give you one reason to go to the movies. Screen size! I could give you about 50 not to. Will they adapt and change with the home theater boom? Well thats left to be determined. They should seriously consider it though,don't ya think. How is the weather in the U.K.?

-blade

bladerunner... I only content that you can realistically expect to see all the time in "16x9 fullscreen" (1.78:1) is HD-filmed programs of TV Shows, Made-for-TV movies, HBO movies/specials, Concerts etc. However, MOTION PICTURES are filmed in many different film ratios, with the most popular being these... 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1, 2.45:1 etc - as directors want a WIDER image than what's possible with 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1).

-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)

This will be my final thought on aspect ratios:
I know all about them. I am not some "rookie" you are typing to. So stop trying to explain them to ME. Instead use that time wisely,and explain them to your parents,grandparents,aunts,uncles,bros,sis,neighbors,priest,mailman,and your dog. Your just wasting your time here.

BTW-The new issue of Home Theater just arrived and they still say PS3 for BLU-RAY.

-blade