Black lines top and bottom

Guest2 · 24 Jun 2009 at 10:14

I have never understood what is the point in having a massive widescreen tv then losing 4" vertically off the top and bottom of the screen.

Isnt the nature of the widescreen tv supposed to make this redundant? I.e a film created in 16x9 should fit with no black lines on a tv that is in 16x9 ratio

Phil99 · 24 Jun 2009 at 10:31

You're right but at the same time quite wrong...

16x9 content does indeed fill the whole of a 16x9 screen. HOWEVER films are typically 2.35:1 which requires letterboxing on 16x9 TVs. Ever noticed how the cinema screen is a fair bit wider than your home TV?

See this wikipedia article and the other thread on the same topic on the same page in this subforum.

Guest2 · 24 Jun 2009 at 10:39

Which begs the questions. Why arnt TVs made to 2.35:1/Cinema wideness or why arnt DVDs made in 16:9?

Dont really see the point in a 42" screen if you lose 10" vertically in black lines. I always stretch to fit, it makes it look a bit strange/crappy but its more watchable than 10" of screen

xxalxx · 24 Jun 2009 at 10:44

Aye only some films are 16:9.

If you are so put off by it, you could always get a 21:9 tv

http://www.cinema.philips.com/

Phil99 · 24 Jun 2009 at 11:03

Guest2 said:
Which begs the questions. Why arnt TVs made to 2.35:1/Cinema wideness or why arnt DVDs made in 16:9?

Dont really see the point in a 42" screen if you lose 10" vertically in black lines. I always stretch to fit, it makes it look a bit strange/crappy but its more watchable than 10" of screen

At least Pan&Scan it to chop off the edges, that must look terrible

Ev0 · 24 Jun 2009 at 11:38

Never minded the black bars really, it's how the film was meant to be seen and as said most other stuff like tv is now filmed 16:9.

That Phillips TV is quite cool, but remember if you have something that doesn't give you the black bars for 2.35:1 then imagine what it'll be like for none 'proper' widescreen viewing

Nymins · 24 Jun 2009 at 12:02

It's because tv's weren't meant to be used to watch films, just normal tv programs that are 16x9.

Filmmakers won't change the aspect ratio cause it's a standard used for many years, try will lose some picture if they need to film everything in 16x9.

daz · 24 Jun 2009 at 14:37

16:9 was a bit of a cop-out ratio to decide upon but I suppose it was the best option really.

Simon · 24 Jun 2009 at 20:21

Just get a bigger tv if you think the picture is too small.

Oh and ignore the black bits

Deadude · 24 Jun 2009 at 21:33

after about 2 minutes of watching a film i normally completly forget there there anyway

Simon · 24 Jun 2009 at 23:09

Deadude said:
after about 2 minutes of watching a film i normally completly forget there there anyway

You can't even see them on a Kuro

Skeeter · 24 Jun 2009 at 23:37

I have no issues with tvs being 16x9, as TV shows are that aspect, a films are letter boxed and always will be.

I will just never understand who the idiot was who decided that TV screens would be 16x9 yet PC monitors would be 16x10!!!!

probedb · 25 Jun 2009 at 10:30

Can't we just have a sticky with the answer to this question and then point people at it and close it. There are 2 threads on this page alone discussing the same issue and there've been lots recently as well?

May stop the same stuff being repeated again and again and .....

Corasik · 26 Jun 2009 at 20:05

Widescreen computers displays are probably considered to allow publishing designs covering a pair of A4 sheets side by side, with room for menus, and editing tool bars etc.

I find at close quarters a 16:10 screen is idea for gaming and work. 16:9 loses too much height.