I want my HD-DVDs to be full screen, not 2.35-1

[Brian Hall]

I would like for HD-DVD (and Blu-Ray) movies to be full screen on my HD-TV.

2.35-1 format wastes a lot of screen resolution with black bars at the top and bottom.

I purchased a 1080p TV and I want to see 1080 lines of resolution. There is almost never anything on the extreme left and right sides of a 2.35-1 image that is needed. Trim the left and right sides and give me full screen 1920x1080.

 

[Ilya]

I want my TV screen to be 2.35-1, so I could watch all movies the way they were intended by their directors!
I really wish both Blu-ray and HD DVD adopted anamorphic 2.35-1!!!

 

[Brian Hall]

There are very few movies that need a half-height wider screen.

The action is almost always concentrated in the area that would perfectly fit a full screen HD-TV.

The extra scenery on the sides contributes very little and does not justify wasting almost half of the vertical resolution on an HD-TV.

 

[Ilya]

Yeah, you might be right, why waste the frame on something that is not so important?

 

[charper1]

Full-screen/crop/pan&scan? ARGH! It sad these terms are still in our A/V vocabulary. OAR is always the way to go.

 

[mike123abc]

If you want that you will need to get a front projector with a pana lens. They make them so you can switch lens with a remote control. Movies used to be 4:3, that is why TV was 4:3. After TV came out movies went wide screen. The current 16:9 is a compromise between 2 popular movie formats.

 

[Ilya]

...The action is almost always concentrated in the area that would perfectly fit a full screen HD-TV.
The extra scenery on the sides contributes very little...

You would think so. But there are tons of examples posted on the Internet that prove otherwise.

There is an excellent article By Joshua Zyber at HighDefDigest.com please have a look at it.

How would you crop this (2.35:1) scene from 'Once Upon a Time in the West' without losing important image details?

​

Or look at this shot:

​

In this famous shot from 'Lawrence of Arabia' (photographed in 65mm at
an aspect ratio of 2.2:1), you might say that there's a lot of empty room on
the left that we don't need to see, but that would miss the point of the shot.
Director David Lean carefully uses negative space throughout the frame
(on the sides, in the expanse of sky above the characters, and at the horizon
in the deep background) to place his characters in proper perspective against
their environment. Losing even an inch of this would destroy the intentions
of the shot.

Read the entire article here.


This is a never-ending debate. Some people just hate black bars and would
gladly sacrifice the image, others can't tolerate cropping and want to see all
movies in their OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) - the way they were intended to
be seen in theaters. I guess it's a matter of personal preference.

As for me, I try not to watch movies unless they are in HD and in OAR.
I am thrilled that most HD DVD releases preserve the OAR!

 

[charper1]

If you want that you will need to get a front projector with a pana lens. They make them so you can switch lens with a remote control. Movies used to be 4:3, that is why TV was 4:3. After TV came out movies went wide screen. The current 16:9 is a compromise between 2 popular movie formats.

I think you could also go this route:

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product.php?cID=33&pID=66

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product.php?cID=33&pID=65

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product.php?cID=33&pID=400

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product.php?cID=33&pID=232



I assume other manufactures have similar. I am thinking this may be my next screen upgrade if I move my current FPTV den setup into the bedroom.

 

[Brian Hall]

I understand about OAR and the directors' "artistic vision". I still don't care about the extraneous image on the left and right. It is not important to me and doesn't make enough of a difference to justify wasting screen space and giving a smaller picture in the middle of a large screen.

I would be willing to pay extra for movies that included a true 16x9 ratio version and I have stopped purchasing HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray discs that only have a 2.35-1 picture.

 

[Ilya]

Well, nothing's wrong with that. As I said, it's a matter of personal preference.

If your TV set has a "Zoom" feature, you should be able to get rid of the unwanted "extraneous image" and fill the frame. Unfortunately, there is no "un-crop" button for the rest of us!

 

[GaryPen]

Some people just hate black bars and would
gladly sacrifice the image...

Undoubtedly the same people that prefer foreign movies be dubbed in English rather than subtitled, and who prefer the colorized version of Casablanca.

 

[Brian Hall]

Undoubtedly the same people that prefer foreign movies be dubbed in English rather than subtitled, and who prefer the colorized version of Casablanca.

Not in this case. I prefer subtitles. I've only seen the B&W version of Casablanca. I didn't care for it. Adding color would not have improved it.

 

[bidger`]

OAR is always the way to go.

:up

 

[GaryPen]

I've only seen the B&W version of Casablanca. I didn't care for it.

Well. That explains it.

 

[diogen]

...people that prefer foreign movies be dubbed in English rather than subtitled...

When done right, I actually prefer dubbed movies: reading the subtitles doesn't distract from watching the movie.

With subtitles there is always the risk of "cutting corners", simplifying the dialog to minimize the amount of text put on screen.
Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others, 2006) would be a good example. Quite a few nuances lost in subs.

An even better example would be the Russian "War and Peace". If you think that you get at least half the dialog, you are dreaming.
Bordering with rediculous, sometimes. But hey, everybody knows the plot...

Diogen.

 

[GaryPen]

Dubbing is no different. In fact, the English language script is usually what you are reading in the subtitles.

The main goal of the dubbing script writers and the voice actors are to fit the English words into the foreign actors' mouth movements.

I will take subtitles any day, if only to listen to the original actors acting for the scene, and not to fit words into other peoples mouths.

Now, if I had to choose between a dubbed widescreen version and a subtitled fullscreen, I'd be in a pickle!

 

[diogen]

Dubbing is no different. In fact, the English language script is usually what you are reading in the subtitles.

This is why I said "when done right".
I don't care about "fit the English words into the foreign actors' mouth movements", just make sure every sentence is translated even if it sounds a bit awkward.

But this is probably the ancient translators' discussion: do you translate the "words" or the "spirit"... It takes a genius to do both at the same time.

Diogen.

 

[tonyp56]

Um, doesn't OAR movies cut off the top and bottom of the image (crop vertically) to fit onto a wide screen TV? Sure seems that way to me (Full screen version has above the head of actor, wide screen has about the top of the browl down).

The only way, IMHO, to enjoy OAR, is to watch it in the theater, where OAR is intended to be viewed. The only reason many don't "format to fit this screen" is because it cost more to do it. If the OAR is 2.35:1 when in theater, it is cheaper to keep that aspect ratio with the DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray release, than it is to resize to 1.85:1--actually that is too big for wide-screen TV's, though overscan is just enough to display it.

Sorry to say, that is the reason why most are 2.35:1 anymore. Sometimes, DVD's can be found that are "Full Screen" HD-DVD's that I've looked at have been 2.35:1.

 

[John Kotches]

Um, doesn't OAR movies cut off the top and bottom of the image (crop vertically) to fit onto a wide screen TV?

No. They use a ~2:1 Panavision compression lens to fit the 2.35:1 framing into the 4:3 film frame.

Then they use another 2:1 expansion lens to get back the original 2.35:1 framing.

For movies to your home; they simply encode the active picture area.

Sure seems that way to me (Full screen version has above the head of actor, wide screen has about the top of the browl down).

This process is called an "open matte" in it you can see something the director hasn't intended you to see.

It can work; but many times it ruins the original composition intent.

The only way, IMHO, to enjoy OAR, is to watch it in the theater, where OAR is intended to be viewed. The only reason many don't "format to fit this screen" is because it cost more to do it. If the OAR is 2.35:1 when in theater, it is cheaper to keep that aspect ratio with the DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray release, than it is to resize to 1.85:1--actually that is too big for wide-screen TV's, though overscan is just enough to display it.

Overscan is a CRT artifact. Microdisplays don't need overscan.

Further; it isn't cheaper it's what the director wanted to be seen. End of discussion.

Sorry to say, that is the reason why most are 2.35:1 anymore. Sometimes, DVD's can be found that are "Full Screen" HD-DVD's that I've looked at have been 2.35:1.

No they aren't.

They are 2.35:1 because the wider picture has a bigger visual impact.

Do you know anything at all about the science involved in film making?

 

[GaryPen]

Apparently not. Nor the art of it, as well.