Widescreen Presentations...

[Lexmark3200]

Why do some widescreen DVDs take up more screen space -- from top to bottom, that is -- on 4:3 televisions than others? I have some widescreen DVDs that present massive black areas on top and bottom of the main image and others which fill that area and present very small black areas and more picture overall top and bottom on my 27" screen....are these DVDs with less black areas considered the "matted" format, or am I wrong? Is it just a framing difference on each picture?

Of course, on a 27" screen, I prefer when the films exibit much less black area to top and bottom....

[uncooked]

i believe its called anamorphic widescreen?

i know all my dvd's that are anamorphic, like lord of the rings, fast and the furious special edition, spiderman. etc..... there are alot. when i play thoughs on a fullscreen it takes up 3/4 of the screen instead of half.

personally i really like the 3/4 format way better. but thats becuase i have a fullscreen tv.


go check the dvd's you have played that have less black and see if it says anamorphic on it.

[Lexmark3200]

i believe its called anamorphic widescreen?

i know all my dvd's that are anamorphic, like lord of the rings, fast and the furious special edition, spiderman. etc..... there are alot. when i play thoughs on a fullscreen it takes up 3/4 of the screen instead of half.

personally i really like the 3/4 format way better. but thats becuase i have a fullscreen tv.


go check the dvd's you have played that have less black and see if it says anamorphic on it.

Thanks Uncooked, but I dont believe it has anything to do with anamorphic....I think anamorphic DVDs still show up with lots of black area on my screen.

[cam]

Thanks Uncooked, but I dont believe it has anything to do with anamorphic....I think anamorphic DVDs still show up with lots of black area on my screen.
It has everything to do with the aspect ratio of the dvd. A 4:3 tv has a aspect ratio of 1.33 to 1. Look on the back cover of a dvd and it will most likely say 1.85 to 1, or 2.35 to 1. The 1.85 to 1 is right on par with a 16:9 tv, small bars on a 4:3 tv, 2.35 to 1 is wider then a 16:9 tv so you will have small bars on a 16:9 tv and really big bars on a 4:3 tv. The higher the number such as 2.35 to 1 the bigger the bars on your 4:3 tv which is 1.33 to 1.

[Lexmark3200]

It has everything to do with the aspect ratio of the dvd. A 4:3 tv has a aspect ratio of 1.33 to 1. Look on the back cover of a dvd and it will most likely say 1.85 to 1, or 2.35 to 1. The 1.85 to 1 is right on par with a 16:9 tv, small bars on a 4:3 tv, 2.35 to 1 is wider then a 16:9 tv so you will have small bars on a 16:9 tv and really big bars on a 4:3 tv. The higher the number such as 2.35 to 1 the bigger the bars on your 4:3 tv which is 1.33 to 1.

Wow....I'm lost! So these DVDs with small black areas on my TV arent the "matted" type?

[cam]

Wow....I'm lost! So these DVDs with small black areas on my TV arent the "matted" type?
Think of it this way, your tv is 4:3 which is 1.33 to 1. Any dvd that says it is formatted to fill your screen means it is 1.33 to 1. NO BLACK BARS. Now, if it is a higher ratio such as 1.85 to 1 which alot of dvd's are you will get black bars. To simplify, your tv for every 1.33 inches across it is 1 inch high. 1.85 to 1, same thing, every 1.85 inches across it will be 1 inch high. As you can see with the 1.85 to 1 you will travel more width as opposed to height so the movie won't reach the top and bottom of your screen. 2.35 to 1 is even wider, for every 2.35 inches across till it fills the width of your sreen it will be 1 inch high. BIGGER BLACK BARS.

[kelsci]

Hi Lex; At movie theaters, the projectors are equipped with amaphoric lenses that can slip right into the projector to modifiy the 4:3 ratio that can be shown in the theater. If they have a 2:35 widescreen film, they slip in a lens to restore the geometry of the picture which happens to be widescreen. If they do not slip that amorphoric lens into the projector, you will have geometric distortion where the scenario of the movie particulaly of horizontal objects will all look like pencils. Our dvd players have an electronic version of an anamorphic lens in the circuitry that is used when you watch a widescreen dvd on a widescreen monitor and you would set the players menu for WIDESCREEN. The LETTERBOX mode avoids the pencil stick look and keeps the geometry of the picture intact unfortunately with black bars that increase with the ratios of the film on the disc beyond 4:3. When a movie is shot in the field in widescreen mode, the camera is using a compression technique to squeeze more image on a frame of film. The same size frame of film can be used to photograph a multitude of ratios. The camera itself has a anamorphic lens that photographs anamorphically on a 4:3 film frame(usually l:66 to 1 and higher) and the theater and dvd player has lenses and electronic circuitry to restore the correct geometry of the image.

[mtrycraft]

Why do some widescreen DVDs take up more screen space -- from top to bottom, that is -- on 4:3 televisions than others? I have some widescreen DVDs that present massive black areas on top and bottom of the main image and others which fill that area and present very small black areas and more picture overall top and bottom on my 27" screen....are these DVDs with less black areas considered the "matted" format, or am I wrong? Is it just a framing difference on each picture?

Of course, on a 27" screen, I prefer when the films exibit much less black area to top and bottom....

That depends on the aspect ratio of the movie. Not all are the same. Some are 1.77, some are 1.85, some are 2.35, 2.40 and a very few even wider, more black bars.

[Lexmark3200]

That depends on the aspect ratio of the movie. Not all are the same. Some are 1.77, some are 1.85, some are 2.35, 2.40 and a very few even wider, more black bars.

I see....thanks Mtry and Kel and everyone....most of the DVD's I play which are widescreen are the type that create large black areas on top and bottom of the image on my 27" Sony screen; some, as I described, and which I absolutely prefer, play back with much thinner, smaller black areas....I was just wondering why this was. But as was explained to me (on another site, I believe), "matting" has nothing to do with the DVD playback presentation; so I was wrong there.

[mtrycraft]

I see....thanks Mtry and Kel and everyone....most of the DVD's I play which are widescreen are the type that create large black areas on top and bottom of the image on my 27" Sony screen; some, as I described, and which I absolutely prefer, play back with much thinner, smaller black areas....I was just wondering why this was. But as was explained to me (on another site, I believe), "matting" has nothing to do with the DVD playback presentation; so I was wrong there.


Next time you watch one of those extreme black areas measure the width and height of the picture and see if you get one of these ratios- width over height and also check the back of the box. At times it will give the aspect ratio.

[RGA]

I bought Laser disc and DVD specifically for these black bars. No kidding. I could care less about the picture quality which was fine on Tape...I recorded some to Tape that I bet nobody could see a difference between on a normal 27 inch screen at 6 feet away.

When you go to a theater the screen is a rectangle. You are trying to fit a rectangle image into a square. 2.35:1 Means that the image is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. The director of most major action films use 2.35:1 because you can get far more of what is going on left to right than you could shouting 1.66:1 or ful frame. VHS tapes basically had the center of the screen enlarged and the sides completely chopped off. (The note "This film has been modified to fit your screen). To me that note should read "This film has been completey ruined and butchered to fit designer's incompetance and public ignorance.

Look at what you are missing with this Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade example - http://www.widescreen.org/examples/last_crusade/index.shtml

Here are loads of other movies to better see why Pan and scan is atrocious. http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

This page discusses Aspect Ratios http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

[Lexmark3200]

I bought Laser disc and DVD specifically for these black bars. No kidding. I could care less about the picture quality which was fine on Tape...I recorded some to Tape that I bet nobody could see a difference between on a normal 27 inch screen at 6 feet away.

When you go to a theater the screen is a rectangle. You are trying to fit a rectangle image into a square. 2.35:1 Means that the image is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. The director of most major action films use 2.35:1 because you can get far more of what is going on left to right than you could shouting 1.66:1 or ful frame. VHS tapes basically had the center of the screen enlarged and the sides completely chopped off. (The note "This film has been modified to fit your screen). To me that note should read "This film has been completey ruined and butchered to fit designer's incompetance and public ignorance.

Look at what you are missing with this Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade example - http://www.widescreen.org/examples/last_crusade/index.shtml

Here are loads of other movies to better see why Pan and scan is atrocious. http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

This page discusses Aspect Ratios http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Well, sure, those crusading for the merits of widescreen are going to be hearaled on that page....its a Widescreen Advocate site! I have been to that site plenty of times already, and looked at their examples. While I respect why widescreen is the format of choice for serious enthusiasts of the hobby, for ME personally, I find the widescreen experience too distracting on my smaller set...that is ME, personally. There is just way too much fullscreen bashing going on these days; sure, I agree the average Wal Mart consumer doesnt know a good DVD presentation from a hole in the wall and thats why they scream for fullscreen DVDs, but I just feel that for my personal setup on a 27" screen, the full frame presentations are more enjoyable...but I can see how folks taking this hobby serious can get a bit melancholy when thinking of the average consumer and their cries of no black bars....

[paul_pci]

I bought Laser disc and DVD specifically for these black bars. No kidding. I could care less about the picture quality which was fine on Tape...I recorded some to Tape that I bet nobody could see a difference between on a normal 27 inch screen at 6 feet away.

When you go to a theater the screen is a rectangle. You are trying to fit a rectangle image into a square. 2.35:1 Means that the image is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. The director of most major action films use 2.35:1 because you can get far more of what is going on left to right than you could shouting 1.66:1 or ful frame. VHS tapes basically had the center of the screen enlarged and the sides completely chopped off. (The note "This film has been modified to fit your screen). To me that note should read "This film has been completey ruined and butchered to fit designer's incompetance and public ignorance.

Look at what you are missing with this Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade example - http://www.widescreen.org/examples/last_crusade/index.shtml

Here are loads of other movies to better see why Pan and scan is atrocious. http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

This page discusses Aspect Ratios http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Thanks for the link, RGA. I am shocked and appalled. I had no idea. You know, I only have a 27" tv also and have often contemplated getting "full screen" movies, but never again. Yikes.