2.35.1 movies

nightrider1470

nightrider1470

nightrider1470

Soldato
Joined
25 May 2011
Posts
3,299
I have a 16.9 react screen, love it..

Really dont like the 2.35.1 movies as I obviously have black borders.

Is it possible with a certain device to fill my 16.9 screen with these type of movies "without any quality loss"?

Thanks
 
Get a 2.35:1 screen and enjoy the bigger screen and proper aspect ratio. The amount of 16:9 or 1.85:1 films is minuscule, not sure why anyone bothers with anything but a scope screen.
 
I do love my 21:9 monitor. Full screen, correct aspect ratio and no borders. :)

I'm surprised it hasn't taken off with TV's. I know there was a Philips 21:9 Widescreen TV but it seems to die off fairly quickly.

Apparently Philips still sell it and it does look great.
 
MissChief said:
I'm surprised it hasn't taken off with TV's. I know there was a Philips 21:9 Widescreen TV but it seems to die off fairly quickly.
Click to expand...
Presumably because manufacturers are still stuck in the habit of making TVs for watching, ya know, TV :p
 
Scam said:
Presumably because manufacturers are still stuck in the habit of making TVs for watching, ya know, TV :p
Click to expand...
TV that now routinely includes letterboxes formats from broadcast and streaming sources. TV has changes. The old idea of everything squashed into a 4:3 format died ages ago. It's now time to rethink the use of 16:9 when increasingly wider aspect ratios are used as standard in film production and that AR choice makes it through to the broadcast stage.
 
I mean they still concentrate on making TVs for watching television on, which is 16:9. I didn't mean 4:3 obviously.

If they make TVs that are 2.35:1 then everyone will complain that Game of Thrones has black borders left and right. So, the manufacturers can't win either way.
 
nightrider1470 said:
I have a 16.9 react screen, love it..

Really dont like the 2.35.1 movies as I obviously have black borders.

Is it possible with a certain device to fill my 16.9 screen with these type of movies "without any quality loss"?

Thanks
Click to expand...

No is the answer, as the only way to do it will be to zoom your picture in and you'll lose the sides.

I personally don't even notice the borders when watching a 2.35.1 ratio movie unless it swaps between ratios like Guardians of the Galaxy, Intersteller or Dark Knight/Dark Knight Rises.
 
"...they still concentrate on making TVs for watching television on, which is 16:9"

Actually, film played a much bigger part in shaping TV screen formats than you might realise. The reason why TVS were originally 4:3 format was because up to the mid 50's that was the shape of the film frame. It is known as Academy Format (as in "Academy Award"). The reason why wider formats started to crop up in film post 50's was that TV in the US was eating in to movie theater attendance figures. The Hollywood studios started to experiment with wider formats: Panavision, Cinemascope, Todd AO and others. They all allowed the Directors to shoot a wider vista. Cinemas were refitted with wider screens. The ideal screen allowed all the various formats from Academy through to the widest single projector formats to maintain the same image height but simply fill more of the viewers lateral vision. This was the birth of CIH projection: Constant Image Height.

CIH was important because it maintained the object size regardless of screen aspect ration. So if the screen was 20ft high and an actor filled that height in 4:3 then they would be the same height in the wider ratios too. None of the impact of the picture was lost in creating a wider aspect. This is something that 16:9 TVS and projectors don't do.

16:9 as TV aspect ratio came about because it was the closest compromise between 4:3 TV and the wider film formats which range anything up to 2.70:1. But it is a huge compromise. Those obsessed with lighting up every square inch of screen area will distort .or crop the TV and film frames. Anything wider than 16:9 means that the image height shrinks and objects become smaller.

Once a person has experienced CIH it's hard to go back to watching film and TV where the best quality pictures have the least impact. Coping with pillar boxing (unused screen area left and right) is far easier than most imagine.
 
Actually, Academy format is 1.375:1. I worked in telecine for 6 years ;)

I'm sure 16:9 TVs became the norm for production because that is what the HDTV standard was set at by SMTPE or someone.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9
It's a good average between wider formats and the old 4:3.

Anyway, we digress...
 
Wasn't one of the stumbling blocks for the Philips super wide TVs that Bluray and DVD actually encode the black bands as part of the image the image for 2.35:1 films. So to watch them in 2.35:1 you have to "zoom in", thus losing quality.
 
Jed Shields said:
Wasn't one of the stumbling blocks for the Philips super wide TVs that Bluray and DVD actually encode the black bands as part of the image the image for 2.35:1 films. So to watch them in 2.35:1 you have to "zoom in", thus losing quality.
Click to expand...
Well, your 16:9 HD Ready and Full HD TVs all scale DVD. Has that stopped DVD being a huge success? Now we have 4K TVs and everything apart from 4K streaming is scaled. Is there a suggestion that no-one will buy 4K TV??

The issue isn't scaling. It's this irrational obsession with having every square millimeter of screen area illuminated with picture every second that the telly is on. Yet again the lowest common denominator is set by the dumb and as a result the dumb set the agenda. We are doomed :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom