Bluray owners. Full screen or Zoom?

[tk149]

Original Aspect Ratio always and forever...the main reason I don't watch movies on network TV.

Since I consider movie making an art form, I want to see it how the artist intended me to see it. Would it make sense to buy an expensive painting and trim it to make it fit your frame at home? No, of course not.

Couldn't have said it better myself, although I can appreciate the OP's point of view as well.

For OP, I'd say use zoom. But I also think that OP should check out some of the websites showing the difference between zoom and Original Aspect Ratio shots. For 95% of most movies, there's no real difference, but for the other 5%, it's all the difference in the world.

 

[prism]

Won't zooming a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV cut off part of the top and botom of the picture?

 

[techs]

Won't zooming a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV cut off part of the top and botom of the picture?

I'm talking about a bluray disk which is in an aspect ratio somewhat equivalent to the actual movie aspect ratio.

 

[techwanabe]

Won't zooming a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV cut off part of the top and botom of the picture?

It does. But for some reason it works. I watched Harry Potter the other day and it was a 4:3 DVD which I zoomed in so it filled nearly all the screen. I didn't see headless bodies or anything.

 

[kalrith]

It does. But for some reason it works. I watched Harry Potter the other day and it was a 4:3 DVD which I zoomed in so it filled nearly all the screen. I didn't see what the director intended.

Fixed.

The only thing I zoom are torrents of 16:9 shows recorded in letterboxed 4:3. Zooming fills the screen with the picture, and absolutely nothing is cut out. Of course, the quality is crap, but at least nothing intended to be seen gets cut out.

 

[techwanabe]

Fixed.

The only thing I zoom are torrents of 16:9 shows recorded in letterboxed 4:3. Zooming fills the screen with the picture, and absolutely nothing is cut out. Of course, the quality is crap, but at least nothing intended to be seen gets cut out.

Originally Posted by techwanabe
It does. But for some reason it works. I watched Harry Potter the other day and it was a 4:3 DVD which I zoomed in so it filled nearly all the screen. I didn't see what the director intended.

Fixed.

If you are so worried about what the director intended, a movie cut down to 4:3 is NOT what the director intended already, but it was what editors did to re-format for a tube TV aspect ratio. So me zooming in a 4:3 is zooming something already bastardized as far as the "director intends holy writ" crowd. In the end, its the viewer (me) who has to be pleased.

 

[kalrith]

If you are so worried about what the director intended, a movie cut down to 4:3 is NOT what the director intended already, but it was what editors did to re-format for a tube TV aspect ratio. So me zooming in a 4:3 is zooming something already bastardized as far as the "director intends holy writ" crowd. In the end, its the viewer (me) who has to be pleased.

Ah, I missed the part about it being a widescreen movie edited to 4:3. I read it as being originally produced in 4:3. I don't remember the last time I watched a 4:3 movie. It was probably in high school and even then it had to have been someone else's movie because I've never bought any non-OAR VHS, DVD, or BD.

 

[techwanabe]

Of course prior to the advent of 16:9 TV's, we all watched movies reformated for 4:3 tube TV's for the last 30+ years which were not as the director intended. Somehow we survived.

The reason I watched this one is that is what my sister had upstairs and wanted to watch. If I had my choice, I'd watch non 4:3 movies every time. Like you, I would never buy a non-OAR movie.

 

[Leyawiin]

Original aspect ratio. The IQ of any movie that is "cut" to zoom or totally fill the screen is horrible. Just watched one last night and it bugged me that I couldn't see the movie in the fine, sharp aspect ratio it was originally filmed in. Colors were dull, images too soft - really detracts from the enjoyment of watching it.

 

[techwanabe]

Original aspect ratio. The IQ of any movie that is "cut" to zoom or totally fill the screen is horrible. Just watched one last night and it bugged me that I couldn't see the movie in the fine, sharp aspect ratio it was originally filmed in. Colors were dull, images too soft - really detracts from the enjoyment of watching it.

Its easy to say how horrible it is. But in the last 10 years we have been spoiled with large screen TV's. Back when small tube TV's were the norm, the picture would have seemed unacceptably small to the average public viewer if shown in full OAR and it would have filled about 30% of those small CRT screens more than likely. Its a different age now and on my 46-inch 1080P, a full OAR movie looks pretty good.

 

[JackBurton]

Its easy to say how horrible it is. But in the last 10 years we have been spoiled with large screen TV's. Back when small tube TV's were the norm, the picture would have seemed unacceptably small to the average public viewer if shown in full OAR and it would have filled about 30% of those small CRT screens more than likely. Its a different age now and on my 46-inch 1080P, a full OAR movie looks pretty good.

I've been watching wide screen movies ever since the VHS days. And ALL my DVDs were wide screen. The only thing different now is that there are no black bars, or the black bars are smaller.

 

[kalrith]

I've been watching wide screen movies ever since the VHS days. And ALL my DVDs were wide screen. The only thing different now is that there are no black bars, or the black bars are smaller.

Same here. At 11 feet from my 27" SD CRT, I still wanted a 2.35:1 movie to be displayed OAR with big black bars rather than only seeing 57% of what the director intended.

 

[techwanabe]

I tried LOTR at OAR wide screen on my 27 inch SD CRT and it was pretty small and that was a DVD. For me OAR needs a sizable TV or the picture overall is too small.

I'm all for seeing what the director intended, but I don't consider directors "gods" in that sense. Because so many movies were viewed later on CRT TV's with 4:3 aspect ratio for many years, I imagine directors have had to allow for that when shooting movies. Don't their camera view finders have reference boxes so as to keep their subjects mainly within the 4:3 area for that purpose? Rarely have I noticed action happening outside that box that was critical to a movie plot or story. Now that I have the tools to enjoy the full picture, I do feel like any 4:3 content gives the feeling of a horse with blinders on or no peripheral vision.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Original aspect ratio. I can't imagine someone who is tech savvy enough to embrace Blu-ray, HDTV and high-def content, but then intentionally manipulates the image so they don't see the full picture. A 2.35:1 film on a 50" TV is still fairly massive in scope; it's not like you can't see it (and if you can't, you may consider a visit to your optometerist).

But I'm a purist that way.

 

[techwanabe]

I've always been a bit of a rebel, so my parents say - maybe it comes from having grown up near the end of the hippy generation. =P But that having been said, I am really enjoying a sharp picture picture after years of crappy SD; and yes, AOR is nice when its "fairly massive in scope".

 

[BassBomb]

original aspect ratio, but I do whatever scaling I need, maintaining the ratio

 

[BurnItDwn]

Never ever zoomed. Never will.

Now, if something is on TCM and they show it in 4:3 instead of 2.35:1, then I'll watch it, but if I have the ability to see the unbutchered version, I'll watch it at it's original aspect ratio.

 

[Tegeril]

::moves palm towards face::

 

[Hulk]

I just love all the people that go widescreen to watch the movie "as the director intended." Now that's funny!

You do realize that the Director is shooting so that the movie works in movie theaters right? 2.35 widescreen movies are cut all the way down to 4/3 for TV and believe it or not people still "get" the movie. In fact most are shot to preserve 4/3 from the start so that might actually be how the "director intended!"

Going 16/9 using zoom hardly cuts much at all off the sides and you definitely gain that big screen cinematic experience. Of course it's totally up to the viewer.

But the "as the director intended" stuff is just laughable.

So that means I have to listen to my music on the same speakers the engineer mixed? Or should it be the ones that the mastering engineer used? Do I have to actually be in that room too so I get the same acoustics?

Also I guess the Director "intended" us to be in a movie theater right? Not in a home theater on a puny 120" or whatever screen?!

LOL!!!

 

[PurdueRy]

I just love all the people that go widescreen to watch the movie "as the director intended." Now that's funny!

You do realize that the Director is shooting so that the movie works in movie theaters right? 2.35 widescreen movies are cut all the way down to 4/3 for TV and believe it or not people still "get" the movie. In fact most are shot to preserve 4/3 from the start so that might actually be how the "director intended!"

Going 16/9 using zoom hardly cuts much at all off the sides and you definitely gain that big screen cinematic experience. Of course it's totally up to the viewer.

But the "as the director intended" stuff is just laughable.

So that means I have to listen to my music on the same speakers the engineer mixed? Or should it be the ones that the mastering engineer used? Do I have to actually be in that room too so I get the same acoustics?

Also I guess the Director "intended" us to be in a movie theater right? Not in a home theater on a puny 120" or whatever screen?!

LOL!!!

http://plum.cream.org/HP/poa.htm

Ignore the 4:3 crops as we're talking 16:9 here. However, you can fairly easily see that many of these screenshots have some sort of detail going on on the borders that personally I wouldn't want cut off. Especially when you're talking a picture that's only a few inches bigger measured diagonally. Not worth it.

 

[erwos]

Of course prior to the advent of 16:9 TV's, we all watched movies reformated for 4:3 tube TV's for the last 30+ years which were not as the director intended. Somehow we survived.

But, unfortunately, this practice of "going fullscreen" does affect movies in a negative way. Directors often become reluctant to put important stuff on the parts of the screen most likely to get cut off, and wider aspect ratios don't get effectively used. This isn't the end of the world, but you can tell which movies do it and which ones don't.

So, regardless of director intent, this practice makes the world a worse place.

 

[techwanabe]

But, unfortunately, this practice of "going fullscreen" does affect movies in a negative way. Directors often become reluctant to put important stuff on the parts of the screen most likely to get cut off, and wider aspect ratios don't get effectively used. This isn't the end of the world, but you can tell which movies do it and which ones don't.

So, regardless of director intent, this practice makes the world a worse place.

A tiny bit worse, but insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We are talking entertainment here, not feeding hungry children in Africa.

It was interesting PurdueRY's Harry Potter website showing the dilemma of the person who formats a movie for CRT TV's. The movie I watched with my sister would have had all those details chopped out - so I better ask her to take the DVD and demand her money back - might be a grarage sale she bought it at. (should be interesting her trying to explain that to the family who sold it to her). Anyway, I enjoyed the movie well enough and the story telling didn't seem to be that diminished. Some how the director was skillful enough to get all the important points across in each sceen with me missing the thing chopped out on the right or the left. The way I see it, there are a lot of cool details that can be seen even in 16:9 format, let alone full OAR. I've found myself watching OAR movies and looking specifically for the things I might have missed and often find myself having a hard time - but certainly do see things. Mostly I just enjoy the panaramic view because I think we as humans are used to paying attention to sideways periphery much more than up/down periphery.

 

[Tegeril]

...snip...

LOL!!!

LOL indeed at the amazing contradiction after your post.

 

[kalrith]

I just love all the people that go widescreen to watch the movie "as the director intended." Now that's funny!

You do realize that the Director is shooting so that the movie works in movie theaters right? 2.35 widescreen movies are cut all the way down to 4/3 for TV and believe it or not people still "get" the movie. In fact most are shot to preserve 4/3 from the start so that might actually be how the "director intended!"

Going 16/9 using zoom hardly cuts much at all off the sides and you definitely gain that big screen cinematic experience. Of course it's totally up to the viewer.

But the "as the director intended" stuff is just laughable.

So that means I have to listen to my music on the same speakers the engineer mixed? Or should it be the ones that the mastering engineer used? Do I have to actually be in that room too so I get the same acoustics?

Also I guess the Director "intended" us to be in a movie theater right? Not in a home theater on a puny 120" or whatever screen?!

LOL!!!

Well, we go widescreen and watch the movie in 2.35:1 with much smaller black bars than with 4:3. I hate watching 2.35:1 movies on HD channels that crop them to fill the screen.

I don't think the "as the director intended" stuff is laughable. There's a difference between chopping off parts of the picture of a movie and using the same speaker setup as the mastering engineer used. A better comparison would be to crop a 5-minute-long song down to about 3 minutes, or to completely cut out the left channel.

If we can get the same viewing angle in our home as we can in a movie theater, then we are capturing a very similar (and sometimes better) experience than we can get from watching it in a movie theater.

OK, you can go back to watching your 4:3 pan and scans now.

 

[erwos]

A tiny bit worse, but insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We are talking entertainment here, not feeding hungry children in Africa.

Sure, but then again, it wouldn't be necessary if people just did the right thing and viewed movies as they were meant to be watched.