Different widescreen ratios - why?

Curio

Curio

Curio

Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2004
Posts
8,040
Location
Brit in the USA
Is there a reason they can't decide on a standard widescreen ratio? It really annoys me that the majority of the films I watch on my TV still have black bars top and bottom :mad: It just seems stupid having these nice big HD screens and wasting all those pixels. It actually really lessens my enjoyment of a movie to be honest....sad I know. However, it makes me happy in my bottom when I watch a HD TV show that fills the screen. Why can't they pick one and stick to it? Wouldn't that make life easier for everybody involved?
 
I like watching with borders to get a wider view if that how the director intended, I can't stand it when broadcaster (channel 4 i'm looking at you) stretch the image to make it full screen.
 
Happens in the cinema too, just the curtains move and it's projected so you don't notice it as much. Simply put its because the wider shots are generally more 'cinematic', in films you tend to notice action, adventure and the likes are filmed at higher than 16:9, whereas stuff like Comedies which aren't really about scale, visuals or cinematic scope, are 16:9.

As mentioned there are 2.35:1 TVs out from Philips, but they're not that popular for obvious reasons; 16:9 is pretty much a compromise ratio, that provides a wider picture, whilst not being unbearable for shows and channels produced/broadcast in 4:3
(Imagine how tiny a 4:3 picture in on a 2.35:1 tv!)
 
In cinema you tend to have between 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 for cinemascope 'cinematic' experience.

Other stuff tends to be 1.85:1 (not quite 16:9/1.78.1) because of the legacy and physical characteristics of the film medium.

You very rarely have films in 16:9 - but lots of people call 1.85:1 since it's almost but not quite.

If you're really bothered about having borders, get a projector and a movable mask over the screen for different ARs.

This is somthing i've been starting to think about - it wouldn't be too difficult to build somthing involving PLCs which uses the output AR of your video file to automatically adjust your screen mask (i'm also looking at writing my own iPad style home automation interface - all touchscreeny)
 
The black bars can be a bit annoying and I certainly agree that a standard widescreen TV look much better when it is completely filled with the picture. So much so that if I was intending to 'show-off' a new TV I would almost certainly do it with 16:9 material. There is a good reason for the black bars however as a lot of movies are shot in 2.4:1... I'm not an expert on why this is but I assume it is a combination of making certain scenes in the films look more 'epic' and also producing a 'wow factor' at the cinema. It would have course possible to 'pan and scan' 2.4:1 material down to a 16:9 ratio for home release (DVD etc) but then you would lose a substantial amount of the picture (all those aliens in the star wars cantina scene is a classic example). Because of this black bars are seen as a good compromise to prevent the loss of information

So we not just produce all TV's with a 2.4:1 ratio? Well lots of films are produced in 16:9 ratio.... Comedies and so called 'charcater movies' do not require scope ratios and would look slightly silly... So with a 2.4:1 TV you would still need black bars to view 16:9 material however this time they would be vertical rather than horizontal. Furthermore, for everyday viewing 16:9 is a much better ratio. Could you imagine watching the news, snooker, football, or eastenders in 2.4:1? It would have course look silly so the only option would be to have vertical black bars. All in all I think 16:9 is the best compromise for watching a variety of differnt material on your TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom