|
The Many Faces Of Widescreen
|
|
|
buxton
Member
|
2. September 2005 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
The black bars don't bother me as long as they are meant to be thre. I just expected any DVD that was presented in Widescreen to fill the screen - when I got black bars I started to think something was wrong. I also thought Anamorphic meant there was extra info on the left and right sides - that on a standard TV would render the actual picture to thin to be of much use - and on a Wide TV it would look fine.
I don't understand why when I try different DVD's that have the same Aspect Ratio I get different screen size/black bars.
If you look at the pics Spiderman 2 would be more than watchable with those bars. Scream is half that size (double the thickness of the black lines) - so do you think my DVD player may be struggling to output the correct ratio on modern DVD's - I asume the Enhanced (Anamorphic) signal for example is coded into the DVD? Or is it that some DVD's (Disks I mean) are just crap or mislabeled - you said Abyss is meant to be Anamorphic and isn't as an example of that.
I just seem to be having an issue getting my head around 16x9 - 2.35:1 - 4:3 - 2.40:1 etc and how they relate to each other.
What exactly is the ratio that fills the TV screen. I have what I can only call "Normal" widescreen DVD's - ie no Anamorphic or Enhanced and they fill the screen in Auto or Full mode - on my old standard TV I would have had black bars. I kinda expected ALL Wide DVD's regardless of ratio to do the same.
I have no idea if this is HDTV - stuff like this tends to take years to take off in the UK - so I will assume it isn't.
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
buxton
Member
|
2. September 2005 @ 14:13 |
Link to this message
|
I think a bit of it just clicked. On a HDTV an Anamorphic DVD will fill the screen - full 16x9. On a none HDTV it will have bars and so a 16:9 zoom is required to "emulate" it - but then I get the black gaps in the line scan? That drop the picture detail.
So if I play ANY Anamorphic DVD it simply will not fill the screen if it is isn't a HDTV? And the bars will adjust based on the aspect ratio.
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
MovieDud
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
2. September 2005 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
Correct, except that when I view 1.85.:1 anamorphic widescreen, the image fills the screen properly. If I view a 2.35:1 there will be black bars on the top and bottom. This is where it gets interesting...Progressive scan. My dvd players are Progressive scan, Progressive scan works with HDTV, Progressive scan is considered enhanced definition. The difference is normal dvd is placed on the monitor as 480 interlaced, while Progressive is 480 Progressive. When I zoom any 480 Progressive the picture still looks seamless, fluid, very filmlike, I just feel that there is imformation that is missed. There is no black lines in the image. There are those of whom feel that Progressive is not that great, I would differ as I have seen both and chose Progressive over interlaced anyday in regards to dvd, in the area of HDTV, the 1080 interlaced HD image is absolutely beautiful, and now thereis 1080 p (progressive). Everyhing comes down to what aspect ratio that the movie was shot in and then how is it mastered. I enjoy when many movies come out as 1.85:1 and they fill the screen, but when they do not I'm still o.k...the picture is breathtaking. No, the Abyss IS NOT in anamorphic even though it is classified as enhanced for widescreens. I just converted it, which I have done with all non-anamorphic dvds, rather than zooming the picture. I believe the picture looks better after I convert, rather than zooming. This kind of hobby can be confusing, but once you undertsand it really is pretty cool. Have a good day!
MovieDud
|
|
buxton
Member
|
5. September 2005 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
I found this animated link that explains the whole Widescreen/Anamorphic process - now I get it.
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm
I also found another link where it mentioned that some DVD players are better than others at doing the Anamorphic bit - my DVD is a good 5 years old - so may explain why I get different results with different films. Maybe it's time to get another player?
I don't know what I am doing.
ABIT KN8 SLI
AMD64 X2-4600
Geil Platinum 4x512Mb
nVidia 8800Gts 320Mb
Pioneer106-DVDRW
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. September 2005 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
As the person that began this thread, I feel I must point out that 16:9 is 1.78:1 not 1.85:1 as stated in that, otherwise, excellent explination.
|
|
MovieDud
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. September 2005 @ 16:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanx diabolos, I stand corrected my friend. I enjoy the dialog and the same joy of home theater as you. Have a good day!
MovieDud
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. September 2005 @ 04:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh wow, I'm sorry Movie. I was talking about buxton's link not your post friend.
|
|
MovieDud
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. September 2005 @ 07:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
diabolos, nothing to be sorry about. I'm glad that there are others who like home theater like I do. My wife is glad that I can talk about electronics with someone else beyond her. ha!ha! Have good day friend.
MovieDud
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
18. December 2006 @ 05:24 |
Link to this message
|
Another great source of info about what "Widescreen" is and why its cool not annoying.
The Guide to Film Aspect Ratios...
http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm
Thanks go to dblbogey7 for providing the original link.
Ced
|
Senior Member
|
18. December 2006 @ 09:19 |
Link to this message
|
Since this topic is reappearing with some interest, perhaps someone will have a thought or answer to this question/concern. Concerning the "black bars": what about the lines of resolution that you are losing when you watch movies with those black bars? From my understanding; let's say you have a picture that fills roughly 80% of the screen vertically with a 1080p source, you're losing 20% of the available resolution of a 16:9 aspect 1080p display. Correct? I understand that you can "stretch" the movie to fill the screen..you still don't use the full resolution of the display, just stretching that 80%. For example, with HDDVD/BR: when watching movies @ 1080p on a 1080p display (16:9 aspect) is it truely 1080p if you don't use the full resolution of the screen? Could it actually be, let's say...860p? With those extra lines of res going to the "black bars"? Hopefully I have made this post intelligible. Any one have any thoughts or am I just losing it?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2006 @ 09:20
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
18. December 2006 @ 10:51 |
Link to this message
|
@ChiknLitl:
I get your point but I tend to agree with others that the black bars are not annoying. There may be vertical pixels wasted but I'd rather see everything that the film director wants me to see. I just ignore the black bars and pay attention to what's in between them. Besides in a darkened room with the soundtrack going full blast I really don't notice them anymore. Besides it's not just HD-DVD and BluRay. You also see this in anamorphic widescreen 2.35:1 DVD's like LOTR, Star Wars etc. If it's not in its Original Aspect Ratio - if it's not in OAR - then I don't want to see it.
Panasonic PT-AE3000 1080p Projector//Carada 110" Criterion High Contrast Grey 16:9 Screen//Oppo BDP-83SE//Toshiba HD-XA2
Classe SSP800 Processor//Classe CA-5200 5 Channel Amplifier//Classe CA-2200 2 Channel Amplifier
Bowers & Wilkins 802D L-R/HTM 1D Center/SCMS Surrounds/JL Audio Fathom f113 x 2
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2006 @ 10:53
|
Senior Member
|
18. December 2006 @ 12:07 |
Link to this message
|
It's not the bars that are annoying me. It's losing resolution, if I've understood it correctly. The fact that HD sources are touting 1080p resolutions while only a portion of the signal is actually occupied by the film makes me feel cheated, lol! Saying that BR and HD DVD are 1080p may be technically correct but the actual movie itself is not at full 1080p resolution (some lines lost to bars), again, if I have understood this correctly. Please, correct me and explain if I've got it screwwed up. I have mentioned this before, I remember a Sony CRT that detected WS DVD's and devoted the entire 480 lines to the actual film, none to the bars. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2006 @ 12:08
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. December 2006 @ 05:02 |
Link to this message
|
ChiknLitl,
You are correct for the most part (movies 2.35:1 or wider). Its simply about preserving the artistic vision though. Sure it would be wrong for HD programming to have black bars on an HDTV but movies have black bars for a good reason not to cheat you.
Widescreen movies that are "Anamorphic" will give you full resolution and proper aspect ratio. You can test this by putting an anamorphic widescreen disc in to your DVD player. If you have a 4:3 SDTV tube set your DVD player to output a 16:9 signal. What you will see is all the resolution with the screen filled up (if the movie is shot at 1.85:1 or narrower). If the movie is shot at 2.35:1 or wider you will have black bars at the top and bottom but they should be very small.
My point is with the wider movies you still get full resolution even though the black bars are there as long as the movie aspect is anamorphic (the black bars are in the original video stream not created by the player or a black box matte). The narrower movies never have black bars when the aspect is anamorphic. In the case of anamorphic video all the TVs pixels are dedicated to the picture frame!
If you don't have time to do all that here are some good examples:
Anamorphic vs. Non-anamorphic (1.85:1 Film):
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/a...hic185demo.html
Anamorphic vs. Non-Anamorphic DVD (2.35:1 Aspect Ratio Film):
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/a...hic235demo.html
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. December 2006 @ 05:50
|
Senior Member
|
19. December 2006 @ 06:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
AHHH! I am enlightened and relieved! LOL! I read both links and the article to go along with them. I now have a new question: Looking at the screens in the links they appear to display the same images horizontally (i.e., not cropped), how do they make the image "taller" but not "wider" without the pic looking squished? I get that the original signal is squished then stretched, but if you look at the non-anamorphic screens-it's the same picture. The set didn't get any wider, so how do they get a bigger pic with all of the same info in it? The wonders of science!
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. December 2006 @ 07:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Which pics (1.85:1 or 2.35:1) of which tv type (4:3 or 16:9)?
Its all do to the wonders of Anamorphic encoding.
In the non-anamorphic pic there are black bars inserted by the movie producer (in the case of a non-anamorphic letter box widescreen movie) or DVD player (in the case of an anamorphic widescreen movie configured to play on a 4:3 tv) to force correct aspect ratio. With the anamorphic frame the tv can do what it wants to do with an anamorphic signal. If the tv is "Smart" it will recognize the anamorphic data and shape the frame accordingly. TVs that are not smart will display the data as given, at full resolution but with the wrong aspect ratio.
I think I answered your question?
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. December 2006 @ 10:18
|
Senior Member
|
19. December 2006 @ 13:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Whoops! I was asking about the pics of either aspect, 1.85, 2.35:1 looking larger with the anamorphic DVD's on 16:9 digital sets. I didn't realize that the non-anamorphic pics had grey bars vertically on the screens, taking up some of the screen. Makes perfect sense now. Thanks!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
LCSHG
Senior Member
|
22. December 2006 @ 14:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wide-screen 19:9 -- [1.78:] Fills the entire wide-screen TV. If 1.85:1 it will leave a very small boarder and on a 4:3 TV either leaves a boarder but is acceptable for viewing
If 2.35:1 [or scope] the wide-screen has to much boarder [is a sliver on most 4:3 TV] and is UN-acceptable
Sure you can screw around with the aspect ratio but it usually results in time and likely a quality loss. I have found very few flicks in anamorphic , or a DVD or TV that are smart and would react to it and who wants to screw around with a movie that is bought or rented. Rental outfits mostly provide 2:35:1 or some fullscreen versions. Frankly I would rather watch a fullscreen than a 2.35:i
I have films that are wide-screen 1.78:1 and are excellent on wide-screen and very good on a 4:3 TV.
I have yet to find a flick, bought or rented that tells what the aspect ratio is.
Many try to state that wide screen is anything over full-screen in aspect ratio
If it says Wide-Screen I want it in 1.78:1--[1.85:1] OK --- 2.35:1 no way
If it was in 2.35:1 I take it back and I don?t care if the box says wide-screen
There is No Reason to provide these 2.35:1 movies for TV viewing on any TV, they belong in a cinema scope theater
|
