Home audio & video: Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV
Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV
by boxfresh151 - 4/28/08 2:20 AMWho else hates the black bars on the top and bottom of the 16X9 HD TV screen when the dvd or blu-ray is in a different format? What is the point of having a 1080p TV when the studios are wasting space on the screen with black? Don’t tell me that it’s the way the director wanted it; the studios strong arm the creative people about everything else. Its time to cut out the pretentious crap and give us what we want.
All 16x9 TV's I know of have a zoom function
by minimalist - 4/28/08 5:17 AM In reply to: Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV by boxfresh151If you want to fill your screen so badly then have at it.
I bet theater owners who have invested in large screen for their 2.35/1 blockbusters would like their screens filled too so who whose aspect ratio wins? And don't forget the hundreds of thousands of back studio back catalog that ranges in different aspect rations from 4:3 all the way to 3:1 that would allhave to be modified. Old TV shows and movies before 1952 all have pillar boxing so I guess we can just whack off the top and bottom of the information to fill the screen.
By leaving them the way they are at least we get a choice to zoom or stretch if we want. If you reformat them the information is just gone.
if you are zooming then the 1080p is pointless
by boxfresh151 - 4/28/08 11:02 AM In reply to: All 16x9 TV's I know of have a zoom function by minimalistI was thinking more about the future releases than the old ones. And I do use the zoom on my tv; it’s a waste of resolution on a dvd. The majority of a films revenue comes from sales and rentals in this day and age and not ticket sales. They should give the customers what they want. I want a movie to look great on my plasma.
What "people"?
by minimalist - 4/28/08 2:32 PM In reply to: if you are zooming then the 1080p is pointless by boxfresh151“Give the people what they want”? What people? The movie-going public who want to see a really big image on a really big 2.35:1 widescreen? The 4:3 television owners? The HDTV owning movie purists who do care about the movie more than they care about using every single pixel on their TV? Because altogether these peo way outnumber you.
DVD sales and rentals account for about 46% of the overall rental for a film (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/business/windows.html). As of 2008, only 25% of US households have an HDTV. http://www.betanews.com/article/HDTV_now_in_one_quarter_of_US_households_but_whats_on/1209051854.
Which means even IF (and that a big “if”) every single HDTV owner wanted their screens “filled” with motion picture content that would mean that the studios would be tailoring their movies for an audience that only represented 11.25% of their total gross revenues. My guess is that the no-black-bars contingency maybe half of HDTV owners which means you are letting 6% of your customers drive your decisions. That just is not a smart business move.
The studios would be better off giving the 75% of TV owners who still have 4:3 sets “what they wanted” and then we’d have window boxing which would waste even MORE of your widescreen TV than the less severe letterboxing associated with 2.35:1 content.
So be careful what you wish for.
Easy enough to relate to that 25% having HDTV will increase
by NM_Bill - 4/28/08 6:37 PM In reply to: What "people"? by minimalistrapidly. That's a major trend. Of course no individual represents all possible segments.
It is now a given that the widescreen aspect is the overwhelming focus of those TVs on dealer shelves now. The makers will not be looking back, but they will be looking forward.
Of the numbers you toss about, it seems the 11.25% & 6% numbers are yours. The black bars issue can not be avoided because of the many aspect ratios used. Widescreens will not be filled, but black bars have to lived with.
As to some version of "give the 'people' what they want," perhaps the current more divisive concern is whether or not to jump into Blu-Ray. Time may have HD prices become the average disk price. In the mean time, does each individual need the admittedly much higher resolution for around 50% more money than a SD DVD?
Things do evolve & will. I remember 9 inch round television pictures, pitifully grainy from cconsiderable playing around with rabbit ears, a la 1949. American TV makers were all too content to pace themselves making TVs. In time the Japanese makes pushed them out of domestic production by means of technological superioriity which no individual had defined. In 1949, we wanted the great neighborhood fascination of that type picture. Things sure changed.
Business moves are not particularly focused on some 6% segment now, but makers rush towards any perceived next profitable trend. No need to be concerned with some "what they want."
lies, damn lies, and stats.
by boxfresh151 - 4/30/08 9:09 AM In reply to: What "people"? by minimalistbox office is only 26% of revenue. almost evey other bit of money comes from the people that are watching on a 4x3 or a 16x9. and the studios do release "full screen" (4x3) dvd's. people do buy them. most of the movies on hbo are pan and scan or zoomed down to 4x3. no counting hbo-hd of course.
16x9 is the best because that is how humans see.
most of the movie-going public do want to see a really big image on a really big widescreen. but i dont think most of them could tell you what movies are in 2.35:1 or not.
do you have any stats on what percentage of people
by minimalist - 4/30/08 7:44 PM In reply to: lies, damn lies, and stats. by boxfresh151actually give a crap about a perfect 16:9 image filling their screen? Cause I guarantee the studios do. And their inaction on the issue speaks volumes.
There is a reason pan and scan and widescreen version of movies exist. Two different markets. If you reduce it all to fit into one markets square holes you miss out on the other market completely.
Interestingly its not art or indie films that use 2.85:1
by minimalist - 4/28/08 6:43 AM In reply to: Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV by boxfresh151aspect ratios (The 1.85:1 ratio they most often use is less expensive and works better in smaller theaters where they are shown).
Its the big Hollywood blockbusters that go for the wow factor of 2.35:1 aspect ratios (and larger) to fill up the large widescreens at the multiplexes. And this decision has less to do with "pretension" than money. Having a big movie on a big screen is a way to get people into the theater.
what "we" want?
by jostenmeat - 4/28/08 11:50 AM In reply to: Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV by boxfresh151you mean, what "you" want.
I want as much of the original video as the movie gives. you should stick to dialogue based chick flicks, since its easy to fit shots of a face or two into 16:9.
if you like huge battlefield scenes, its pretty nice to have the wide shots. I think of LOTR particularly.
maybe you'll have your wish someday, and all modern movies can be shot into 16:9. I personally love movies that are shot in wider aspects. I find its easier to sit closer. Greater vertical discrepancies, IMO thus far, are more difficult to deal with in trying to immerse oneself.
How big is your tv, and far away do you sit? Are you even getting any benefit of 1080? THX recommends 36 deg viewing angle, and I myself actually prefer closer than that.
gimmie what i want.
by boxfresh151 - 4/29/08 8:00 PM In reply to: what "we" want? by jostenmeati am all about huge battlefield scenes. sitting closer so i can see them is stupid to me. if there was an option to get a plasma and a dvd player in 2.35:1 to match movies like lotr i would buy them both.
and i have a 50 inch 13 feet from the sofa.
but you are right..............
by boxfresh151 - 4/29/08 8:11 PM In reply to: gimmie what i want. by boxfresh151...chick flix and comedies do look much better then epics with the zoom on.
You said
by jostenmeat - 4/30/08 11:45 AM In reply to: gimmie what i want. by boxfresh151"What is the point of having a 1080p TV when the studios are wasting space on the screen with black?"
"...sitting closer so i can see them is stupid to me.
and i have a 50 inch 13 feet from the sofa."
Unless you have incredible vision (waaaay better than 20/20), you are getting zero benefit with 1080p, ANYWAYS.
This means that all of your ranting has zero significance for you. You are creating an unnecessary headache for yourself, because you have little recourse anyways.
To get the full benefit of 1080p on a 50" screen wit 20/20 vision, you should be sitting exactly HALF your present distance away.
Since sitting closer is stupid to you, you may opt for a bigger screen. After all, THX recommends a 102" screen (if 16:9 aspect) at 13 ft viewing distance. So, if you also think that getting a 116" screen is stupid... what are your options? Perhaps you don't need THX-style immersion, well SMPTE's recommendation at that viewing distance for a 16:9 screen is 96".
After hearing of your particular complaints, and usage (of which you have a specific unwillingness to compromise), I don't think you're going to find your holy grail. Even if all movies henceforth came as 16:9.
If your whole point is that 1080p is useless as is, maybe you should be reconsidering your own setup, not everyone else's...
Me? I am getting full benefit of 1080p. In fact, even 1440p would be beneficial to me at this point.
Theaters formats are separate from TV
by Dan Filice - 4/28/08 3:35 PM In reply to: Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV by boxfresh151Screens in theaters vary in size, both height and width. Film formats vary quite a bit and film is shot to satisfy the movie screen, not our lousy 16:9 TV screens. 16:9 TV screens were made to match HD video and have nothing to do with actual, true film aspect ratios. Film is shot in 2.35:1, 2.40:1 and other aspect ratios, and none of them fit perfectly into a 16:9 screen. For these film ratios to fit perfectly into a 16:9 screen, some of the content would need to be cropped during the Telecine process (the process where film is transferred to video). During the film-transfer process, the colorist can choose to crop for 16:9, but this would cut off some image. The only way to solve your dilemma is for directors to shoot film but only allow for a much smaller 16:9 aspect ratio.
I think this guy knows that.
by minimalist - 4/28/08 4:30 PM In reply to: Theaters formats are separate from TV by Dan FiliceHe seems to be asking that studios demand that film makers use nothing but 16:9 aspect ratios for all movies henceforth to satisfy a small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage of the overall pie. Seems like the tail wagging the dog to me.
I have a better question...
by stuntman_mike - 4/29/08 11:49 AM In reply to: Black Bars on top and bottom of 16X9 TV by boxfresh151will when TV manufacturers give me what I want and make widescreen TVs wider lol?
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
