Re: One problem with blu-rays for me

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]