Screw widescreen - 4:3 is probably optimal for movies

[Nvidiaguy07]

Just saw the dark knight rises in IMAX last time (2nd time seeing the movie), and my god it was so much better this time.

RANT 1:
When i walked in i was skeptical, the screen was 6 stories high, but was probably taller than it was wide. I was thinking it was maybe an older IMAX theatre and they havent updated it yet. My god i was wrong. Every scene that was shown in IMAX was incredible. It takes a lot to really impress me and i was completely blown away.
EDIT: screen was the IMAX at the maritime aquarium in CT. http://www.maritimeaquarium.org/imax-movies/imax-movies cant find actual dimensions.

RANT 2:
Not sure how i would feel about that aspect at home, but i can tell you that i AM pretty happy with a 16:9 aspect ratio. What pisses me off is that you buy movies, and you still get the black boxes EVEN WITH A WIDESCREEN TV!!!!!!

Seriously WTF. When TV's were 4:3, they started coming out with widescreen movies because they were better - you could see more. Fine, adopt new standards that probably make more sense, and then they go even wider!!!!! Pisses me off so much.

I saw vizio or someone who came out with a super wide TV - i really hope this isnt the future. Start making everything on DVD 16:9 so i can start using the other 30% of my screen that i paid for....... FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah I don't get why they got rid of 4:3. Or at least, if they're going to change it, do it ONCE! There's like 20 different versions of wide screen now so no matter what kind of TV you have there's usually going to be black bars somewhere. The worse is movies that intentionally add black bars so it fits on a certain size TV but if you watch it on another size you end up with not only horizontal black bars but vertical ones too! I see lot of TV shows that do this.

For computers 4:3 is the most optimal, it's really too bad it's so hard to find a decent 4:3 monitor now days. I need vertical space as much as I need horizontal space. Wide screen is basically a 4:3 monitor with the top cut off, so you lose out on lot of real estate.

 

[darkxshade]

As an asian, I have to say, I love widescreen. :sneaky:

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

Yeah I don't get why they got rid of 4:3. Or at least, if they're going to change it, do it ONCE!.

Right! Every single fucking TV you can buy now is 16:9 (very few exceptions) so why in gods name are DVD releases so wide (cinema scope?).

Just seems so fucking stupid. Just was watching the dark knight blu ray, and only action scenes are 16:9. If action scenes look better in 16:9 - what other scenes wont? 😕 "oh its just dialouge, lets put some bars on top and bottom!" Idiots

 

[KeithP]

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Movies are shot in different aspect ratios. Learn to live with it or stop watching movies.

-KeithP

 

[darkxshade]

What you don't get is that the black bars on blu-ray these days is to condition you to the eventual transition to 24:9 so that you can buy more TVs and copies of movies you own on blu-ray that you already own on VHS... They too will have black bars :awe:

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Movies are shot in different aspect ratios. Learn to live with it or stop watching movies.

-KeithP

I understand your point, but if 16:9 is a standard viewing screen size - why not shoot in that? Or edit it to fit that? Doesnt make one bit of sense.

Last night the movie was 16:9 or maybe even more square when not shown in IMAX, when it was imax, it was a massive square. I can almost guarantee when it comes out on blu ray, itll have black bars except for action scenes.

What you don't get is that the black bars on blu-ray these days is to condition you to the eventual transition to 24:9 so that you can buy more TVs and copies of movies you own on blu-ray that you already own on VHS... They too will have black bars :awe:

yep, your probably right. This kind of bullshit is what makes people steam movies. I've already bought the matrix twice.....

 

[Red Squirrel]

What you don't get is that the black bars on blu-ray these days is to condition you to the eventual transition to 24:9 so that you can buy more TVs and copies of movies you own on blu-ray that you already own on VHS... They too will have black bars :awe:

Sadly I can see that happen. The industry seems to think "Wider is better" So they keep "improving" the experience by "remastering" (aka cropping) all the movies so you buy them again. D: You need to see batman in 24:9 it's so awesome!

 

[Childs]

What they should probably do is have a pan and scan option to view the movie in 16x9. You somewhat already have this with the different zoom modes on TVs, but you might miss some nice details if someone didn't frame the movie properly. Black bars on 4x3 TVs, and now we had them on 16x9. Moving to a 2.35:1 format TV isn't practical, cause then you'd get bars watching 16x9 content, which is what most HDTV is.

TVs just need to be big enough to fill our walls, that way it doesn't matter.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

TVs just need to be big enough to fill our walls, that way it doesn't matter.

I literally have that in my basement, and im still pissed about this issue. (150" projection screen)

These fucking idiots need to just start filming in the right aspect ratio - or crop it later when it comes to DVD. No reason why every movie that comes out is so much wider than any TV that you can purchase.

I would say yes its because they plan on selling us super wide TV's someday - but for some reason i dont see that happening. 16:9 is already more than wide enough.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

who cares about blackbars if your tv is big enough

 

[Phoenix86]

No.

Next?

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

No.

Next?

read the actual post - not just the title.

 

[Ronstang]

What are you whiners bitching about now? You are either uneducated on the issue are just want to complain. Widescreen encompasses many different aspect rations. The most common are 1.77:1 which is true 16X9 and 1.85:1 which is close. There are also ultra widescreen aspect ratios like 2.35 and 2.40:1 which started out as Cinemascope and then Panavision took over the industry. These were usually used for really big epic productions but many first tier movies to day still use these aspect ratios. You are going to get black bars on the top and bottom with them but who cares? It is the only way to see the whole movie the way the director intended. Most content is either 1.77 or 1.85:1 so most of the time you don't have to worry about bitching.

Movies shot for the big screen can have any aspect the director wants but they are not directly shot for the TV so you take what you get when you get a DVD or Blu-Ray. Made for TV movies these days are shot in 16X9 so those you don't have to worry about.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What are you whiners bitching about now? You are either uneducated on the issue are just want to complain. Widescreen encompasses many different aspect rations. The most common are 1.77:1 which is true 16X9 and 1.85:1 which is close. There are also ultra widescreen aspect ratios like 2.35 and 2.40:1 which started out as Cinemascope and then Panavision took over the industry. These were usually used for really big epic productions but many first tier movies to day still use these aspect ratios. You are going to get black bars on the top and bottom with them but who cares? It is the only way to see the whole movie the way the director intended. Most content is either 1.77 or 1.85:1 so most of the time you don't have to worry about bitching.

Movies shot for the big screen can have any aspect the director wants but they are not directly shot for the TV so you take what you get when you get a DVD or Blu-Ray. Made for TV movies these days are shot in 16X9 so those you don't have to worry about.

And that's the issue, why even shoot in all these different aspect ratios instead of just picking one and sticking to it, so we can actually fill our whole screen. People need to stop trying to make new standards and stick to what's there already.

This is very similar to the issue of Apple constantly changing their stupid little connectors instead of using the existing standard ones.

 

[Linflas]

What are you whiners bitching about now? You are either uneducated on the issue are just want to complain. Widescreen encompasses many different aspect rations. The most common are 1.77:1 which is true 16X9 and 1.85:1 which is close. There are also ultra widescreen aspect ratios like 2.35 and 2.40:1 which started out as Cinemascope and then Panavision took over the industry. These were usually used for really big epic productions but many first tier movies to day still use these aspect ratios. You are going to get black bars on the top and bottom with them but who cares? It is the only way to see the whole movie the way the director intended. Most content is either 1.77 or 1.85:1 so most of the time you don't have to worry about bitching.

Movies shot for the big screen can have any aspect the director wants but they are not directly shot for the TV so you take what you get when you get a DVD or Blu-Ray. Made for TV movies these days are shot in 16X9 so those you don't have to worry about.

Having grown up in the golden age of Cinemascope I can tell you that nothing was better than watching a Cinemascope movie on those huge curved screens they had then. Too bad that by the time the sound systems caught up all those big theaters were replaced or carved up into postage stamp sized Multiplexes.

 

[Phoenix86]

read the actual post - not just the title.

I did.

4:3 is not optimal for all the reasons you list 16:9 as being good at home. Everything should standardize around 16:9. Unless there's a really compelling reason for another ratio that's acceptable in movies, tvs and computers then so make it. I can kind of give movies a pass considering their main sales come from wider aspect ratios in theaters.

16:9 works well enough for the main three applications. What you have a problem with is a lack of standards, which causes all the dumb issues you stated. If everything was 16:9 you would never see black bars except on content created prior to the standardization. Supporting 4:3 for movies further exaggerates the problem.

In short, no.

 

[Childs]

I literally have that in my basement, and im still pissed about this issue. (150" projection screen)

I can understand the rant if you had a TV under 50" or so, but at 150" I'm surprised you even noticed it. I will admit, I have thought about manually reframing some 4x3 or 2.35:1 movies using a NLE so that it was 16x9. Then I think about the time involved and I get over it. 😛

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

I did.

4:3 is not optimal for all the reasons you list 16:9 as being good at home. Everything should standardize around 16:9. Unless there's a really compelling reason for another ratio that's acceptable in movies, tvs and computers then so make it. I can kind of give movies a pass considering their main sales come from wider aspect ratios in theaters.

16:9 works well enough for the main three applications. What you have a problem with is a lack of standards, which causes all the dumb issues you stated. If everything was 16:9 you would never see black bars except on content created prior to the standardization. Supporting 4:3 for movies further exaggerates the problem.

In short, no.

agreed with you there. I put that in the title as an attention grabber. My main issue - which i thought was apparent after reading the post and then my responses, is that 16:9 should be the standard, and its dumb to have all these other resolutions.

I used the the dark knight rises as an extreme example, of how that movie was basically a square the way i saw it/they edited it last night in imax, so why would they not do the same for a blu ray release?

I fully expect huge bars when it comes out, but from last night i see no reason why they should even be there - or that having a super wide picture (1,000,000:9 like these fucking movies come out in) adds anything to the experience. In fact maybe having a taller picture might be optimal (like i saw last night).

But what i can 100% get behind, is that 99% of viewing devices are 16:9, so I see absolutely no fucking reason why there should be bars in 2012...

I can understand the rant if you had a TV under 50" or so, but at 150" I'm surprised you even noticed it. I will admit, I have thought about manually reframing some 4x3 or 2.35:1 movies using a NLE so that it was 16x9. Then I think about the time involved and I get over it. 😛

Im not complaining for myself, rather just a general rant for the sake of anyone who owns a TV.

 

[Ronstang]

And that's the issue, why even shoot in all these different aspect ratios instead of just picking one and sticking to it, so we can actually fill our whole screen. People need to stop trying to make new standards and stick to what's there already.

This is very similar to the issue of Apple constantly changing their stupid little connectors instead of using the existing standard ones.

You are still missing the point. The ultra-widescreen formats are OLD. They are from the 1950s and many movies over the decades were shot in those aspect ratios before the the widescreen TV came out. !9X9 was picked because is is closest to the most common widescreen aspect. While there are new movies today being shot in ultra-widescreen formats they are not the norm. They are usually only used when the type of movie being made requires a very large canvas to convey what the director envisions. There are not many being made these days so you don't have to worry too much. The problem for people like you who are bitching is the ones that are using 2.35:1 are the big ticket movies like The Dark Knight Rises. The IMAX scenes are actually shot in 1.44:1 which is unique unto itself.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

You are still missing the point. The ultra-widescreen formats are OLD. They are from the 1950s and many movies over the decades were shot in those aspect ratios before the the widescreen TV came out. !9X9 was picked because is is closest to the most common widescreen aspect. While there are new movies today being shot in ultra-widescreen formats they are not the norm. They are usually only used when the type of movie being made requires a very large canvas to convey what the director envisions. There are not many being made these days so you don't have to worry too much. The problem for people like you who are bitching is the ones that are using 2.35:1 are the big ticket movies like The Dark Knight Rises. The IMAX scenes are actually shot in 1.44:1 which is unique unto itself.

Which brings me back to my original point. IMAX is fucking awesome, and its almost a square (i think the one i saw last night was less than 1.44:1) so whats the big deal with super wide screens? ALL the action scenes are not super wide screen - so why even make anything that wide? Its just dumb.

And i think the "bitching" is warranted, because almost every movie ive seen in blu ray has used it.

Standards - there for a reason.

 

[Sonikku]

The two big ratios are 2.35 and 1.85. Point is, why make televisions in 1.78? NOTHING had that aspect ratio before hdtv. As close as it is to 1.85 they might better have just adopted that and have half the movies perfectly fit high def displays without any cropping or bars. There was always going to be an aspect ratio that did not perfectly fit tv's, but now there are two common ratios that don't fit where there might have only been one otherwise.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

The two big ratios are 2.35 and 1.85. Point is, why make televisions in 1.78? NOTHING had that aspect ratio before hdtv. As close as it is to 1.85 they might better have just adopted that and have half the movies perfectly fit high def displays without any cropping or bars. There was always going to be an aspect ratio that did not perfectly fit tv's, but now there are two common ratios that don't fit where there might have only been one otherwise.

I dont have an issue with 1.85 movies - but 2.35 is just ridiculous. Yes it was based on nothing - but now we have STANDARDS - so why ignore them?

And these have been around for how long? How hard is it to to shoot a movie a certain way to fit the screen of the day? Or at least edit it for the blu ray?

 

[Childs]

I used the the dark knight rises as an extreme example, of how that movie was basically a square the way i saw it/they edited it last night in imax, so why would they not do the same for a blu ray release?

Whats funny is The Dark Knight on blu ray has imax sequences, and it looks great because it fills up the screen. Then it goes back to 2.4:1, and you get the bars. But the imax scenes had to be cropped, because its normally a more square picture. So the best looking scenes in The Dark Knight, on a modern 16x9 TV, were cropped.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

Whats funny is The Dark Knight on blu ray has imax sequences, and it looks great because it fills up the screen. Then it goes back to 2.4:1, and you get the bars. But the imax scenes had to be cropped, because its normally a more square picture. So the best looking scenes in The Dark Knight, on a modern 16x9 TV, were cropped.

Exactly my point. Make everything 16:9 and people will be happy. Crop it if you must.