Video Killed the Ratio Bars?

[Jamboman]

Firstly I hope everyone in CES is enjoying the weather whilst the rest of us have to huddle round our amplifiers to warm up of an evening.

I wanted to ask a very basic question and one which has been floating round my brain for a little while now. When buying a DVD or blu-ray I often look at the ratio on the back and attempt to do a rough decimal/ratio to fraction calculation to see what proportion of the picture will fill my screen (not that this is the basis for buying disks but films such as Apocalypto and Hellboy do look splendid on my well worn Kuro 508LX). From this I’d always assumed that those films shown in letterbox format (or any other non 16:9 ratio) contained 1,080 pixels on the vertical picture (not including the black bands) irrespective of the ratio; I thought this as all discs are marketed as being 1080p and I assumed therefore that some detail was lost in putting it onto a conventional widescreen telly. Upon reading your review of the new Philips letterbox TV it seemed that this was not the case and some electronic wizardry is required to fill the screen – is this accurate.

I’m sure that the ratio/decimal/fraction ways of expressing TV sizes, film aspects, pixel resolutions and HD/full HD/4K2 panels have evolved over time but surely there has to come a point where this has to be standardised. Don’t get me wrong I enjoy a good maths puzzle however if the film only shows 785 lines of vertical picture I feel cheated out of 295 lines of picture and demand a refund/discount!

 

[John Duncan]

Yup, the 1080 pixels includes the black bars...

 

[Jamboman]

Its a bit of a con then really and effectivly means that a (sometimes large) proportion of the fabulous HD picture is just darkness (HD darkeness of course!). I'd always assumed that it was the TV or some other processing which inserted the black bands to suit the ratio of the display unit. I'm thinking of staring the Campaign for Realistic Apects (although the acronym may already be taken).

 

[John Duncan]

Jamboman:Its a bit of a con then really and effectivly means that a (sometimes large) proportion of the fabulous HD picture is just darkness (HD darkeness of course!). I'd always assumed that it was the TV or some other processing which inserted the black bands to suit the ratio of the display unit. I'm thinking of staring the Campaign for Realistic Apects (although the acronym may already be taken).

I think Campaign for Realistic Aspects/Proportions is available.

 

[simonlewis]

I prefer my wide screen with black bars, thank you.

I'm pretty sure it won't change.

 

[Anonymous]

What about CRAM?

Campaign for Realistic Aspects in Movies

Or

CAAM/CAAF

Campaign for Accurate Apects in Movies/ Film

Or

CADARPBBRPACTHDJCSMDCMP

Campaign for the Accurate Description of Aspect Ratios and Pixels on the Back of Blu Ray Packaging to Ascertain if Content is Truly Full HD or Just a Con by Sneaky Manufacturers who are Depriving Consumers of Many Pixels.

 

[John Duncan]

I preferred mine

 

[The_Lhc]

JF'inC are we STILL having this conversation?

Black Bars or chop the sides off, who wins? YOU decide!

Or not as it's been decided, if you don't like black bars only buy BD/DVDs with a 1.85:1 ratio and you can't go wrong.

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

the_lhc:
JF'inC are we STILL having this conversation?

Yep - it's a forum and each user is entitled to ask a question.

the_lhc:
Black Bars or chop the sides off, who wins? YOU decide!

Actually, this decision was made FOR us - by lazy film/film distribution companies who no longer give us the option.

the_lhc:
...if you don't like black bars only buy BD/DVDs with a 1.85:1 ratio and you can't go wrong.

That would seriously limit my choice of film. Some are advertised as 16:9 but in the 21:9 format. I'm not at home so cannot give you a specific example now. The picture is one or the other. Black bars are a mask - there because the original film is not in the same ratio as the TV in your lounge. They should not be included when describing a picture size.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[professorhat]

Zoom - it's what that button was invented for on your TV

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

If you zoom, you'd lose definition or sharpness - what would have been one pixel worth of information would be covered by more than one?

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[The_Lhc]

Cofnchtr:the_lhc:
JF'inC are we STILL having this conversation?

Yep - it's a forum and each user is entitled to ask a question.

Very funny, I meant that this conversation has ben going on, with exactly the same words, since DVD was released.

the_lhc:Black Bars or chop the sides off, who wins? YOU decide!

Actually, this decision was made FOR us - by lazy film/film distribution companies who no longer give us the option.

What option? You've NEVER had the option, beyond the old Pan and Scan 4:3 versions of films you used to get on video and some DVDs and nobody wants to go back to that again do they?

the_lhc:

...if you don't like black bars only buy BD/DVDs with a 1.85:1 ratio and you can't go wrong.

That would seriously limit my choice of film. Some are advertised as 16:9 but in the 21:9 format. I'm not at home so cannot give you a specific example now. The picture is one or the other. Black bars are a mask - there because the original film is not in the same ratio as the TV in your lounge. They should not be included when describing a picture size.

And, if the cover is correctly labelled, they aren't. When a film is described as 2.35:1 that means the bit inside the black bars. Sure if the back cover is wrong then it's annoying but most of them I find are correct. I look for films that are 2.35:1, that way I know I'm getting what the director intended (intended rather than shot as someone will turn round and say "Yeah but 35mm film is 4:3 and they just mask off what they don't want to use when shooting!" as if that somehow makes a difference).

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

OK picking two movies from my collection...

Superman Returns has the following description on the back:- 1080P High Definition 16 x 9 2.4:1

Gone In 60 Seconds has:- 1080P High definition / 16 x 9 / 2.35:1

I think we all agree that 16x9 and 2.35:1 are both different aspect ratios.

When I were a lad, we used to have an option of a 4:3 version, a 16:9 version and a 'Director's Cut' or 'Special Edition' version which usually meant 21:9. Those with 4:3 square TV's who did not jump on the widescreen bandwagon were able to buy a 4:3 version, those with a 16:9 TV could buy the 16:9 'Widescreen' version and those who wanted to watch 'as the director intended' could buy the 21:9 'Special Edition' version of a film.

I bought the 16:9 version which filled my TV screen. Today there is no opportunity for me to choose to buy a 16:9 version to fill my screen or the 'as the director intended' version at 21:9. This is the point I am making - the studios have restricted us to a 21:9 option and advertising 1080P as including the black bars. It doesn't matter what film you watch - the black bars are not a part of the director's vision. They should not be included when describing the picture area of a film. Sure, tell me it's a 21:9 or 2.35:1 which I know means a letterbox version on my 16:9 TV but at least give me the option of a 16:9 1080P version to fill my screen. As has been proven on another post within these forums, most of the action takes part in the centre of the image area so in reality I am not missing anything other than any impact the director was meaning to convey at the cinema. I feel this impact would be lost somewhat on my 40" TV at home.

So to answer your argument, yes I have had the choice made for me. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember?

Perhaps that's why 'Joe Public' haven't picked up on BD yet - the black bars are very off-putting for some people. Not everyone wants them.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[Anonymous]

But the film was shot in a particular aspect ratio, so any other versions, 4:3 or otherwise, are just zoomed-in versions of the original cutting out the sides and making it conform to the tv screen. You can still choose to zoom in and have the picture fit the screen.

Personally, I'd rather see the whole picture that was shot, and if that means black bars, then so be it - it's preferable to having a significant portion of the image lost.

The black bars are not part of the director's vision, but the widescreen presentation is. By having the 4:3 version you're getting less of the director's vision.

Your point about most of the action taking part in the centre of the screen may be true to some extent, but try watching something like The Abyss, or How the West was Won in 4:3 and tell if me if you think that's better than watching the film in its original aspect ratio with the black bars.

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

hmtb:
The black bars are not part of the director's vision, but the widescreen presentation is. By having the 4:3 version you're getting less of the director's vision.

I am not talking about a 4:3 option being available - I'm talking about a full height 16:9 version being available as an option. I am also not requesting the current 21:9 verisons are halted. I want choice. I used to have it.

hmtb:
Your point about most of the action taking part in the centre of the screen may be true to some extent, but try watching something like The Abyss, or How the West was Won in 4:3 and tell if me if you think that's better than watching the film in its original aspect ratio with the black bars.

Again I'm not talking about the 4:3 version. The difference between a 4:3 version and a 16:9 version would be more noticeable than the difference between a 16:9 and 21:9 version. I'd still prefer a 16:9 version that'll fill my available screen.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[Frank Harvey]

The UK Bluray of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (remake) is annoyingly labelled up as 2.35:1, when it's actually 16:9. I was miffed, as I already had the US version which was 16:9. So it swings both ways.

Like lhc, I know look for 2.35:1 movies, because they fill my field of view better, and to watch something like Memento, Zodiac or No Country For Old Men just seems 'right'. I'm trying to get hold of the Norweigan version of Seven, as that's apparently the only copy that's 2.35:1 - the US one is 16:9. That will be awesome.

 

[ElectroMan]

Doesn't '16:9' on a BD/DVD mean the picture is anamorphic, and does not refer to the actual aspect ratio, which is a separate issue?

16:9 widescreen is not quite the same as the cinema ratio of 1.85:1. And, of course, probably the majority of 2.35:1 films these days (like 1.85:1), are actually filmed full-frame, and masked prints are made for cinema release. So in some cases, a full-frame version from the original negative would show you more of the original image (though not what the director intended).

I think, like HD, aspect ratios are another thing that the industry could do much better to explain ...

 

[robjcooper]

Hi Electro,

You are half right about the anamorphic conundrum !

16:9 is recorded anamorphic for standard def images. The frame size recorded on PAL/625 tape is 720 x 576 pixels which is a 4:3 ratio. In order to get a wide image onto that frame, 16:9 images are squeezed horizontally so the original image size of 1024 x 576 pixels can then be recorded onto the 720 x 576 frame, hence the 'anamorphic' description. Your widescreen TV then restretches the image to fill the whole frame. This is also done with some 2.35:1 features as it means less processing by your TV than if it had been recorded in its native ratio (the anamorphic image will have much smaller letterboxing than a non squeezed 4:3 version)

HD however has a native 16:9 frame size i.e 1920 x 1080 pixels, so does not need to squeeze the image of a full frame 16:9 or 1.85:1 original source. A feature shot 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 is transferred full width but with a 'letterbox' top and bottom. 4:3 images are recorded pillar boxed i.e. with black bands left and right. This means that nothing is recorded anamorphic (or stretched/squeezed) for BluRay or HDTV.

You'll never see an 'open gate' or full aperture image as unless you enjoy boom mikes, set edges, and a plethora of other extraneous images the original camera neg will have been resized in the Telecine or print stage, to get rid of them (a guide to the shoot for safety area used by the DOP is usually found at the front of a neg roll so everyone knows how they've framed their shots.).

And even people who work in 'the industry' often haven't got a clue what they are talking about - I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain when making 16:9 programmes with 4:3 footage included, why those particular shots will lose part of the top and bottom of the frame !

Oh and as for the idea that 'most of the action takes place in the middle of the screen' expressed earlier on, try telling that to some of the directors and DOPs who are supposed to shoot protected 14:9 action safe for TV. I have spent many hours having to reframe and pan and scan images which just don't work when transferred to other ratios. I'm not naming names but a Prime time 2 part ITV drama I worked on a couple of years ago with total run time 3 hours took over a week to get into a viewable form for the 4:3 international version - so remember that when you watch something which seems to be ok in a different ratio, it has probably taken a hell of a lot of work to get it like that.

Hope there's a small bit of enlightenment in there from an industry person !

Rob

 

[ElectroMan]

Thanks!