Screen bars on blu-ray

[Monder]

I have just installed my spanking new Panny TX32-LZD85 and PS3 as my blu-ray player. The first thing I watched was an upscaled DVD which looked great and I am very impressed with the experience.

Next up I tried my first and only blu-ray disc, Casino Royale, but I am faced with one of my irritating annoyances upon viewing. I get those big old black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, which I didn’t get on the DVD I watched previously. While on my old CRT television I put it down to incompatible worldwide formats I would have thought this sort of thing would have been sorted out by now. I am watching a 1080p film on a 1080p set which I presume is all 16:9, do we not have global standards? I not concerned by the screen burn like other contributors, I would just like to get full value out of my screen and see the whole thing in use. Zooming the picture is not an option as far as I am concerned as I want to maintain a native image.

I know that I am not understanding something here and would appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.

 

[Monder]

I just checked the box, it says 2.40:1, can anyone convert that into english for me, know how many variances there are and know which one will fit on to my screen in full?

 

[fr0g]

Watch with the black bars. Its cinemascope. If you don't, you either lose some of the image, or watch a distorted image. I see little point if you want the best quality.

*edit... This means you are watching the film as it was shown in the cinema, at 2.40:1 , rather than a cropped for TV version. This is a good thing

Your TV is 16:9
(1.77777;1)

This is the ratio of horizontal width to vertical height.

 

[Monder]

So is there a general rule of thumb that anything that was shown in the cinema will be barred up while straight to DVD stuff will be full screen?

 

[fr0g]

No rule of thumb, but I personally prefer the bars. It usually means I am watching the cinema release, rather tan one edited for the small screen.
You get used to the bars...

 

[professorhat]

Agreed (and if anyone knows me and fr0g, this is fairly irregular!)

 

[Monder]

Should have bought a shorter telly.

 

[tvmog]

Monder:So is there a general rule of thumb that anything that was shown in the cinema will be barred up while straight to DVD stuff will be full screen?

Although subject to minor variations there are basically two cinema ratios. The widescreen "letter box" shape which will give you the black bars top and bottom when translated onto a 16:9 or 4:3 TV, and a squarer format which equates more closely to a 16:9 shape and will be re framed to fill the entire screen when transferred to DVD. If you go to the cinema regularly you will often see the shape of the screen being changed between the commercials which are almost always in the squarer format and the main feature which may be in "letterbox" format.

The letterbox format tends to be used more for big action type films, and the squarer format for more intimate drama and comedy, but this is not a hard and fast rule by any means.

To further confuse the issue, it is not unknown for some films to be shot in such a way that they can be cropped at the top and bottom to create a widescreen effect in the cinema, and then have the missing detail restored when framed at 16:9 for DVD.

The exact ratio of most multiplex cinema screens tends to be dictated more by the shape of the auditorium and therefore there will almost always be a degree of cropping either top and bottom or sides when you see a film at a cinema. However, most films are framed to allow for this, keeping all important detail within a "safeframe area"

 

[Anonymous]

As a leyman i prefer to see the whole of the flat screen with picture on it. To my mind its like: "why the hell cant i have the full screen when i have invested in a wide screen tv etc etc". When i had my set i tried zooming etc but it just looks terrible.

You say that its the big movies that usually have the letter boxing. This is the case with my lord of the rings DVD but the contrary applies with saving private ryan. It has much more impact with the whole screen lit up and i prefer this by a country mile. All that fanatsctic technology and im still staring at a thin sliver on my expensive wide screen TV. It just doesnt seem right.

 

[tvmog]

I know what you mean, but ultimately it's about which format the director feels will frame the imagery to best effect. A bit like a painter deciding whether a subject will work best in landscape or portrait shape. Although as I said it is now quite common for films to be framed in such a way to work in both formats.

Interestingly "The Horse Whisperer" ,which was on TV as I was writing the original post used both formats for its cinema release. The opening city based sequences were presented in the squarer format, with the screen expanding to the letterbox format to take full advantage of the wide open vistas of the outdoor country side scenery later in the film. A couple of other films have done this but it is rare.

 

[Monder]

Gander has got it on the nose for me, it's all about getting value out of my screen. When the size of the widescreen was decided however many years ago, the manufacturers should have collaberated with the film studios and tv companies and come up with a size that would show as fuller picture as possible.

 

[tvmog]

One size is never going to fit all when it comes to the shape of a TV screen. The epic story telling of something like "Lord Of The Rings " with its wide panoramic vistas is well served by the letterbox format, but "Coronation Street" and "Parkinson" are going to look very odd in that ratio. So in many ways 16:9 is always going to be a bit of a compromise. Most feature films when shown on TV are now reframed to fill the whole screen irrespective of what the original format was, but the film studios tend to assume that DVD and Blu Ray viewers will want to see the film framed the way it was shown in cinemas.

I would howver be interested to know why 16:9 in particular was chosen as the standard size for TV screens.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Because it's the standard size for widescreen TV broadcasts, I believe.

Why broadcasters had to choose a format different to movies is a separate question!

(PS The black bars issue is one of the reasons why, as a movie lover who enjoys watching films in the proper format, I have a projector/80in screen at home).

 

[Anonymous]

Well if the media companies advertised 2 versions of a movie for sale - one in 16:9 and the other in 2.4:1 - I think the vast majority of people will go for the 16:9 or the full screen disc. ÿIn other words, I think the directors snobbery is getting in the way of what people really want - or perhaps they don't really care what most people want or simply want to satisfy the minority of anal videophiles who actually have projectors at home. ÿ

ÿ

The media companies now make more money on DVD/Blu Ray sales than they do at the box office now. ÿI think its time they start changing their priorities and digitally master the films to be full screen or at least give people the full screen option.ÿ

 

[professorhat]

Hmm, hard one to say. I don't want to be accused of snobbery but I would definitely go for the "black bar" edition as otherwise you're missing potentially important information from the proper film. There was a website somewhere which showed an example of this as, in the proper cinema widescreen edition, you could see a woman was at the door in a scene which was massively important to the plot of the film. However, in the video / DVD edition, they decided to go for the cut down screen and you could no longer see this, so suddenly the film made no sense! I think there was actually crucial information going on the other side of the screen as well, hence why they couldn't show both bits of information.
I seem to remember at one point before the wide take up of widescreen TVs, you could buy two versions of the film, one in 4:3 and one in "Widescreen" format. Even though I only had a 4:3 TV at the time, I always bought the widescreen version for the above reason. My guess is most people did the same, hence why this took off and they didn't bother with the two versions any more?

 

[Anonymous]

The 16:9, or 1.78:1 ratio was a compromise between two standards, the UK/US 35mm standard (1.85:1) and the European 35mm standard (1.66:1). Anamorphic DVDs decompress the image to fit a 16:9 screen.

AFAIK, cinema releases have always been in wider ratios. Normally 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 but there were a lot of varying formats back in the day. Super-wide-o-vision anyone?

So what you have is a compromise display screen format that has to cater for broadcast 16:9 signal and cinema release material.

hth
Gary

 

[Andy Clough]

Glad to see you're up bright and early Gary!

 

[Clare Newsome]

Catenaccio:
the minority of anal videophiles who actually have projectors at home.

I'll take that as a compliment

In the US - due to the lingering presence of enormous 4:3 rear-projecton TVs - you can still buy a lot of DVD releases in Full Screen format (see Amazon.com for lots of examples).

With a multi-region DVD player, you can get stuck in to those...

 

[tvmog]

Gary Mardell:The 16:9, or 1.78:1 ratio was a compromise between two standards, the UK/US 35mm standard (1.85:1) and the European 35mm standard (1.66:1). Anamorphic DVDs decompress the image to fit a 16:9 screen. AFAIK, cinema releases have always been in wider ratios. Normally 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 but there were a lot of varying formats back in the day. Super-wide-o-vision anyone? So what you have is a compromise display screen format that has to cater for broadcast 16:9 signal and cinema release material. hth Gary

In the early days of films the image used to be almost square. Interesting article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio

Most exhibitors have a fairly liberal attitude to image framing these days anyway. My local multiplex has 10 auditoriums of differing sizes and I doubt if the height to width ratio of the screen is the same in any of them.

 

[Monder]

Sometimes, we see footage shown on TV in 4:3, especially when watching old football matches. In fact last season, ITV were showing the occational european matches in 4:3 because they were at the mercy of the foreign broacasters and what they show.

When this happens, we don't like it as we (with widescreen TVs) end up wit chunky large bars running virtically up the screen. I think the issue here is the same principle; just the bars are in a different place. Broadcasting in 4:3 resulting in bars in not generally acceptable, films should not be any different.

It's about time we had some standards.

 

[Anonymous]

Good point Prof Hat, but my point is - if the movie makers make the vast majority of their money on DVD/Blu Ray - they should start making the movies with 16:9 as the priority rather than 2.35 to 1. Traditional cinema is dying and they should now start to re-prioritize the way they film movies.

 

[fr0g]

Catenaccio:Good point Prof Hat, but my point is - if the movie makers make the vast majority of their money on DVD/Blu Ray - they should start making the movies with 16:9 as the priority rather than 2.35 to 1. Traditional cinema is dying and they should now start to re-prioritize the way they film movies.

Sorry, but I totally agree with Prof on this one.
Widescreen in the cinema gives a large audience the extra 'impact'.

16:9 was maybe a compromise, but I seem to remember that it was said that is was also the pretty much the 'perfect' ratio, ie The human brain can take all the information quickly without strain.

Films IMO look better in widescreen, and I for one would continue to buy the wide release, even if they offered a 16:9 alternative. I was even happy with full widescreen movies when I still had a 4:3 TV (which means VERY large bars top and bottom).

As for cinema dying... que?

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:Glad to see you're up bright and early Gary!

One does one's best

 

[Anonymous]

I'm with the Prof and fr0g on this one. I say let the film maker shoot in the aspect ratio they want. It's a visual medium and it's not as if we have the size limitations of 20 years ago where a 28" 4:3 set was considered huge (in the UK).

If you want a real cinema experience at home, a projector and screen is the way to go.

What really gets me though is when broadcasters put graphics outside the 14:9 'safe' area.....grrrrr!

 

[John Duncan]

This is, quite frankly, an extraordinary conversation.

I personally would like publishers to make all books the same size so they fit on my IKEA Billy bookcase.