Aspect Ratio

Gman · 16 Jun 2007 at 23:12

is it just me or are other people getting a little miffed of with the current aspect ratio situation?

Been getting a few Blue ray films and i'm seeing more and more of the top titles using an aspect ration of 2.40:1. great we get to see slightly more of the sides of the film but its increasing the black boarders at the top and bottom.

I want to watch a film in near full screen without having 1/3 of my screen taken up by a black boarder

Now I know you can alter it on the tv and it'll cut a a lot of the image off the side but often there's not a decent setting where you can get a good compromise between sacrificing some of the side image and reducing the border

in the past few years they started to go with 2.35:1 which is just about right but I thinking there pushing it a little too far. I've got a 32" lcd, I supose if you've got a 40"+ and watching in the dark you won't notice it as much but on a 32" you can notice that there's a hell of a lot of space on the screen no longer being utalised

weringo · 16 Jun 2007 at 23:44

Yeah I don't understand why either, no one has a 2.35:1 ratio TV so whats the point?

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 01:26

Gman said:
in the past few years they started to go with 2.35:1 which is just about right but I thinking there pushing it a little too far. I've got a 32" lcd, I supose if you've got a 40"+ and watching in the dark you won't notice it as much but on a 32" you can notice that there's a hell of a lot of space on the screen no longer being utalised

Actually it only gets worse. the bigger the tv, the bigger those borders are. play a 2.4:1 title such as casino royal and you get 2 and a half inch boarders on a 40" screen top and bottom. its madness. say something like this on avforums and all you'll get is 'thats the way its supposed to be, stop moaning' :rolleyes:

now compare that to a title such as apocalpyto. 1.78:1 and fits perfectly on our 16:9 screens and looks jaw dropping. why cant they all be mastered like that? as ive said before on the subject, our HD films shot be shot in a ratio that fits our HD screens. its a bloody cop out.

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 01:59

Why should a 2.40:1 Panavision film aspect ratio intended for the cinema be a perfect fit on a 16:9 video resolution?

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 02:07

DavidMarq said:
Why should a 2.40:1 Panavision film aspect ratio intended for the cinema be a perfect fit on a 16:9 video resolution?

because we arent watching it in a cinema? and i dont buy the whole 'its 2.4:1 in a cinema so why should it be different at home' bs. the films aren't shot in 2.4:1 afaik. thy are mastered in 2.4:1 for cinema, so why cant the best mastered in 1.85:1 or something for home?

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 02:12

james.miller said:
because we arent watching it in a cinema?

That does not change the method and medium on which the film was shot.

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 02:14

DavidMarq said:
That does not change the method and medium on which the film was shot.

first of all most cameras out there are still film. they arent 2.4:1 either unless you know otherwise? the amusing thing is....most professional digital cameras are 16:9 from what i can see lol

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 02:33

james.miller said:
first of all most cameras out there are still film. they arent 2.4:1 either unless you know otherwise? the amusing thing is....most profession digital cameras are 16:9 from what i can see lol

2.39:1 maybe more correct.

Films are shot and mastered as the director intends them to be released more often than not for cinema. If you then want to expand the vertical to fit a 16:9 screen then most TV sets allow you to do that. It is however not what the director intended.

It is a choice I would prefer to make myself rather then having the film remastered for TV losing something in the process.

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 02:41

DavidMarq said:
2.39:1 maybe more correct.

Films are shot and mastered as the director intends them to be released more often than not for cinema.

thats my point. they arent shot in 2.4:1 (or 2.39:1 if you must). they are mastered that way for cinema. if they are using digital camera's then they are actually being shot in 1080p24 (highly unlikely tbh). if they are using film...well..they have so much resolution available to them that they could use virtually any ratio they like lol. obviously its not quite as easy as that but if they master for the cinema, why not for home?

If you then want to expand the vertical to fit a 16:9 screen then most TV sets allow you to do that. It is however not what the director intended.

16:9 tv's have the ability to zoom, the dont have the ability to stretch vertically only meaning you are loosing horizontal detail. ive not come across a single 16:9 display that will allow vertical stretch only, my 40w2000 included.

It is a choice I would prefer to make myself rather then having the film remastered for TV losing something in the process.

you loose something either way. unless they simply keep more vertical detail in instead of cutting the sides off.

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 03:01

james.miller said:
thats my point. they arent shot in 2.4:1 (or 2.39:1 if you must). they are mastered that way for cinema. if they are using digital camera's then they are actually being shot in 1080p24 (highly unlikely tbh). if they are using film...well..they have so much resolution available to them that they could use virtually any ratio they like lol. obviously its not quite as easy as that but if they master for the cinema, why not for home?

Purely because you no longer get the film as the director intended you to see it. If you had it your way then that option is taken away from me.

I would have no problem with a dual format release.

16:9 tv's have the ability to zoom, the dont have the ability to stretch vertically only meaning you are loosing horizontal detail. ive not come across a single 16:9 display that will allow vertical stretch only, my 40w2000 included.

Does zooming not expand the vertical to fit the screen. I may not have been exactly clear on this but I am sure we both understand how the technology works.

you loose something either way. unless they simply keep more vertical detail in instead of cutting the sides off.

I would lose nothing as I do not use zoom. What does grate is when Sky feel that it is in my best interest that they make the choice for me.

squiffy · 17 Jun 2007 at 07:02

That's why I recommend to buy a bigger TV set that you initially thought would be ok. It's slightly different when watching 1:85 on a 32" from 2M, but once you put on a high ratio film the image is much much smaller.

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 12:19

DavidMarq said:
Does zooming not expand the vertical to fit the screen. I may not have been exactly clear on this but I am sure we both understand how the technology works.

zooming expands both the horizontal and the vertical, meaning you are loosing picture from the sides also.

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 13:17

james.miller said:
zooming expands both the horizontal and the vertical, meaning you are loosing picture from the sides also.

Surely this is desirable from your point of view otherwise all the people in the film would look like Peter Crouch.

Does remastering to 16:9 not do the same?

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 13:22

DavidMarq said:
Surely this is desirable from your point of view otherwise all the people in the film would look like Peter Crouch.

no it isnt desirable because you lose horizonal space.

Does remastering to 16:9 not do the same?

only if its remastered from the 2.4:1 cinema masters. what im saying is make two masters. one for cinema, one for home

all that would be required for home mastering would be keeping more of the vertical in the frame. cant be that difficult, surely.

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 14:17

james.miller said:
no it isnt desirable because you lose horizonal space.

As you do with pan and scan.

only if its remastered from the 2.4:1 cinema masters. what im saying is make two masters. one for cinema, one for home all that would be required for home mastering would be keeping more of the vertical in the frame. cant be that difficult, surely.

All explained here.

Matte removal has its own inherent problems.

For me the letterbox format is the only acceptable answer to what will remain a contentious issue for many.

It is unlikely that we will agree on this.

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 14:22

i dont even understand what you are disagreeing with?

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 14:30

james.miller said:
i dont even understand what you are disagreeing with?

Have you considered that your lack of understanding could be the problem.

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 14:33

no i really dont think so. if they didnt master the films for 2.4:1 only then it wouldnt even be an issue. Infact if they mastered for 1.78:1 instead then everybody would be happy - adjusting of cinema would be very easy.

what have i said that your actually disagreeing with? first you said they are shot in 2.4:1 - they arent. then you said most 16:9 sets allow you to expand the vertical - they dont, the zoom and and cut the horizontal off.

good example of a typical response though

james.miller · 17 Jun 2007 at 14:33

delete me lol

DavidMarq · 17 Jun 2007 at 14:48

james.miller said:
no, its your lack of understanding. if they didnt master the films for 2.4:1 only then it wouldnt even be an issue. Infact if they mastered for 1.78:1 instead then everybody would be happy - adjusting of cinema would be very easy.

What you are suggesting is that the film industry which produces in the main initially for the cinema audience, changes its methodology to suit the aspect ratio of your TV.

It is not going to happen.

what i have i said that your actually disagreeing with? first you said they are shot in 2.4:1 - they arent. then you said most 16:9 sets allow you to expand the vertical - they dont, the zoom and and cut the horizonal off.

I have qualified my statements as the thread progressed. Follow the links I posted then you might understand why I think leterboxing is preferable.

I am assuming that the leterboxing issue is where we disagree.