my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » TV/DVD aspect ratios (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: TV/DVD aspect ratios Thomas Pitt Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: May 2007 posted 11-28-2007 04:54 PM                     I'm just curious as to why 16:9 has been chosen as the new aspect ratio for widescreen TV sets and monitors? I was under the impression that it was to make movies available in widescreen for home formats, but neither of the two common film aspect ratios (flat and scope) seem to fit the 16:9 screen properly! On DVDs, I've often noticed that 'flat' films fill the entire screen, often using anamorphic widescreen to get all the width into a standard NTSC/PAL signal. Even so, a small amount is cropped off the edges to get it to fit the screen. 'scope' films are even worse - they're shown in anamorphic widescreen, but with horizontal black bars at the top and bottom to preserve the scope aspect ratio. Some TVs have a mode where you can zoom the picture in slightly and get rid of the black bars, but then you're losing a small amount of the image off the left and right instead. What's your opinion on the 16:9 aspect ratio and how films are converted to fit? I would have posted a poll about zooming in the picture, but polling is disabled in the forum. Does anyone know why 16:9 was chosen for widescreen TV?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-28-2007 05:03 PM                        16:9 was chosen probably for the same reason 1080i exists... the people in charge of making these decisions are completely inept at being alive, much less logical, forward thinking. They made these decisions many years ago with their technology standards, figuring that technology would never advance so screens obviously can not be wider than 16:9 and high definition MUST be interlaced or compromised with a lower resolution progressive version (of course I am referring to 720p, which also should not exist). This is also the reason HDTV is broadcast with the horrible MPEG2 codec. I wish the format was 1.85:1, but that doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "16:9". I think 2.4:1 is too wide for general TV viewing. I don't mind a little letterboxing when watching scope movies. Movie theaters letterbox their screens for scope, so it's obviously good enough for everyone.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-28-2007 06:38 PM                     Actually, 16:9 is not without merit. It splits the difference between 1.85 and 1.66 formats reasonably well (1.78:1) such that either should be able to be shown without substantial cropping. It is 4:3 squared so there is a nice mathematical progression from traditional SD material to HD. It allows for a nicer transition from SD to HD as if TVs were to go for 2.39:1 or so, that SD material (the entire history of TV plus the first half century of film) would look horribly small. When widescreen TVs first came out and there was virtually no product to run on them, even if you got a "bigger TV" the picture if in 4:3 was often smaller than the TV it was replacing. 2.39 sets would have made that transition even worse. So with 16:9 you have a compromise that address most things except Scope well. However, there is some nice factors again with 16:9 (mathematically speaking). Reduce its width 33%, it is 4:3, enlarge its width 33%, it is 2.35. Thus with an anamorphic lens of 1.33X you can make a 16:9 projector project full resolution 4:3, 16:9 or 2.35. In fact, both ISCO and Schneider (ever heard of them) make anamorphic lenses for 16:9 video projectors that do just that! Steve  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-29-2007 02:21 AM                        quote: Thomas Pitt Does anyone know why 16:9 was chosen for widescreen TV? It was initially chosen by the International Telecommunications Union in the mid-80s, because (i) it represented a compromise between 1:1.85 and 1:1.66, and (ii) it almost exactly matched the super 16 frame. This was before the days of digital origination in the TV industry, and the expectation was that if HDTV caught on, super 16 would be the main capture medium. Its first use as a broadcast video format was in the short-lived MAC and MUSE systems (analogue picture plus digital sound HD telly): the former was effectively stillborn and the latter used on a small scale in Japan from the early '90s (and I believe still is for one or two channels, just). Brian Winston has an interesting chapter on early HDTV research and standardisation in his book Technologies of Seeing. His conclusion - that there was a conspiracy to kill it off by the manufacturers of standard definition hardware - is not one I agree with, but the basic historical background, including around the standardisation of 16:9, is in there. It seems to me that the stampede to widescreen telly, with everyone queuing up at their local Dixons or Comet to buy a flat panel LCD, has caused exactly the opposite problem to the one which emerged in the '50s and '60s. Then, we had broadcasters having to pan and scan to reformat widescreen film for 4:3 TV: now, we have 'legacy content' originated in 4:3 being cropped or stretched to fit 16:9 TV sets. What makes this even more chaotic is that the decision doesn't just lie with the broadcasters: many of these TVs include features which allow the owner to view a 4:3 broadcast cropped, anamorphically stretched or properly but with a vertical matte. So even the broadcasters are now no longer in control of the reformatting process.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Pitt Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: May 2007 posted 11-30-2007 01:41 AM                     The UK is rapidly moving towards 16:9 for all TV programmes as well. It's very hard to find something recently made in Britain that's still in the 4:3 format. Even old 4:3 programmes are being cropped to fit into a 16:9 screen; they crop off the top and bottom of the picture. This leads to framing errors, since the original cameraman and director never shot with 16:9 in mind! I think for 4:3 shows, the TV networks should just broadcast them in their original 4:3 format. Most TVs have an option to crop it to 16:9, or show it in 4:3 with borders at the side - it should be up to the viewer, not the broadcaster! I distinctly remember watching something that had been cropped this way. At one point, someone was talking to their dog... except you couldn't see the dog; it had been cropped off! CBBC in particular likes to show everything in 16:9, even when most of their original source material (such as old theatrical cartoons) is in 4:3 or Academy ratio.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-30-2007 04:15 AM                        A few years ago I was visiting a friend in Florida for a week just after he had purchased a big Sharp (I believe) flat panel which had a slew of settings designed to deal with what to do about 4:3 images. It had two types of anamorphic stretch settings to get 4:3 to fit into the 16:9 frame. One was a linear stretch which made everyone looking fat. The other was a non-linear stretch which put more stretch at the corners and less or none in the center of the screen. Thus, most of the time, people didn't look fat unless they were off to either side of the screen, in the middle, they looked like normal -- i.e., not like a lens had fallen off the projector. And I must say, on a fairly static image, the stretch at the corners was hardly noticeable....until the camera panned. Then it looked like you were looking thru a reverse fisheye lens. When he picked this setting, I complained loudly at first as is my wont, but realized that he had just spent gobs of money on his big screen and by gum, he was going to have a wide screen picture on it. Plus, I was a guest and figured it wasn't polite to call his anamorphic setting "stretch and wretch." At least not if I wanted to keep being fed. In the end, I guess it's better to let the end user decide what evil is less likely to cause him to upchuck his lunch. And a quick question -- can anyone remember how long it took for NBC to stop putting the peacock logo before EVERY color program with the announcer crowing about "The following color is brought to you in Living Color" (as opposed to dead color?). Because quite frankly, I am just about having enough of them making a big deal about every program they broadcast in HiDef. I guess when they turn off SD in 2009, that will pretty much make pointing out that a program is broadcast in HD pretty assinine. But quite honestly, I don't think I can hold out until 2009.  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2007 06:18 AM                     This is commonly misunderstood, but actually, standard definition doesn't get "turned off" in '09. What goes away is analog signal transmission from your local station. While everything over-the-air will be sent in digital, the vast majority of programming will still be SD. The NBC peacock, along with the post-show "chime" logo both were dropped in September of 1975 with the introduction of the new "N" logo, the one that looked like two trapezoids side-by-side.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-05-2007 05:37 PM                        I think there should be a large penalty for operating a wide-screen TV with a 4:6 picture stretched to fill the screen. The bar next door to the theatre just installed one of these TVs and it drives me crazy, every time I look thru their window I see this huge TV picture with these fat-headed ESPN talkers on it. I see this nonsense all over the place. Wake up, America!!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-05-2007 06:06 PM                        People are afraid of black bars. Remember, 98% of the world is stupid.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-05-2007 06:38 PM                     I think it's funny how some new widescreen televisions have what I like to call a "fun house mirror filter." It's a different way of stretching a 4:3 image to 16:9 proportions. When this filter is in effect, objects in the central area of the frame appear to be in proper proportion. Objects closer to the right and left ends of the frame become increasingly stretched. This fun house mirror filter may not be all that noticeable on images which don't have much movement. But anything with a good degree of movement will look strange. Imagery from lateral camera pans left to right or the reverse direction will also look weird.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-05-2007 09:46 PM                        Why do TVs have this adjustbable aspect ratio function, anyway? Why doesn't the image just automatically appear in the right aspect ratio? Is it just because people would return TVs as defective if the image didn't fill the screen? As you can tell, I'm an old-school TV person. But I'm considering an upgrade at the house -- the 25" Zenith console in our living room is starting to show its age. So as much as I hate the thought, I need to start learning about this crap.  |  IP: Logged Jon P. Inghram Expert Film Handler Posts: 124 From: Wichita, KS USA Registered: Jan 2007 posted 12-07-2007 04:37 PM                     "People are afraid of black bars. Remember, 98% of the world is stupid. " We had a manager who would always tell me to "get rid of the side bars" whenever we had ESPNHD on the big screen with a 4x3 show using the "ESPNHD" logo bars on the sides. And then there was the time he wanted both ESPNHD and ESPN2HD split on the screen side-by-side while still filling the vertical height of the screen, in glorious 8x9 aspect ratio!  |  IP: Logged Brad Allen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 688 From: Evansville, IN, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-07-2007 05:37 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley Why do TVs have this adjustbable aspect ratio function, anyway? Why doesn't the image just automatically appear in the right aspect ratio? I guess they do this to satisfy those that don't know any better. If your using a set top box, from your cable co or Directv, etc. you can set those up to display different aspects properly and automagically.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-07-2007 07:16 PM                 I have two DVD versions of the title Beautiful Mind. One in 4:3 and the other is 16:9 anamorphic wide screen. The 16:9 clearly has the tops and bottoms cropped off. I am not sure if the 4:3 DVD scan is from a full frame 35mm print or not. It could be from a 1.85 35mm print that has had it's sides cropped. This would mean the widescreen version is really a tunnel vision version of the original 35mm theater presentation.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-07-2007 10:15 PM                        There's no way that the 4:3 DVD is cropped from the theatrical version and then the 16:9 DVD cropped from that. You wouldn't be able to see anything! The 4:3 version simply unmasks the flat image (I assume that movie was flat or Super35). It wasn't composed for the 4:3 ratio, though. The 16:9 will be far closer to what was shown in theaters. I think I had a Terminator 2 picture like that around here somewhere.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.