Log in

View Full Version : Those Annoying Black Bars...


Jason Dunn
12-15-2006, 08:00 PM
Here's a quote from a company named Runco about their CineWide product (http://www.runco.com/cinewide.html), whom I hadn't heard of before today:

"Runco’s award winning development of CineWide™ and CineWide with AutoScope™ technology has created a revolution in faithful movie reproduction, for the first time transforming home theater into home cinema. This technology provides uncompromised widescreen reproduction of movies originally filmed in the CinemaScope™ 2.35:1 format. It maintains constant vertical height on the screen just as in a movie theater. When a viewer transitions from 1.78:1 (16:9) program material to superwide 2.35:1, the image simply gets wider while full screen height is maintained, eliminating black bars. This is done through an ingenious combination of software, electronics and precision anamorphic optics. With the AutoScope option, the anamorphic lens is motorized and remote controlled. With CineWide the projection system is able to use the full pixel array on its SuperOnyx™ DMD™ chips, thereby producing a 2.35:1 image with enhanced resolution and increased brightness. No resolution or image area is lost to useless black bars on the top and bottom of the screen that contain no picture information."

I was trying to figure out if this was real or just smoke and mirrors, until I saw this at the very bottom of the page "CineWide requires the use of a 2.35:1 or similar aspect ratio superwide format screen." That makes it an impractical solution for most of us - unless you're using a projector that is - but it's nice to see that someone can see a movie filling their entire screen. That's got to me my #1 complaint with DVDs, and now HD-DVDs: most don't fill up my screen. I bought a 61 inch TV for a reason, why can't I view movies at the full size? Yeah, yeah, I know the directors/studios have their own reasons for selecting the aspect ratio that they do, but as an end user I feel ripped off when I see some crazy-narrow aspect ratio that has me only using 60% of my TV. Using the "Zoom" aspect ratio on my TV works sometimes, but more often than not it results in horrible scaling issues and missing content from both sides.

Does that drive anyone else nucking futs?

ale_ers
12-15-2006, 08:17 PM
Agreed. The worst is when you suddenly get subtitles and have to scramble for the remote to pause, rewind, change the screen size.......

Timothy Huber
12-15-2006, 10:13 PM
I'm a bit confused... are you saying movies should only be produced in the 1.78 HDTV aspect ratio? What about all those amazing movies produced in widescreen?

I understand wanting to take full advantage of the big screen (I can barely stand watching SD channels). But personally, I feel ripped off when I know that content is missing from a film due to zooming/cropping done to make it fit the screen.

Timothy

Jason Dunn
12-15-2006, 10:21 PM
I'm a bit confused... are you saying movies should only be produced in the 1.78 HDTV aspect ratio?

In an ideal world? Yes. I want every DVD I put in my player to fill my screen just like every HD TV show does.

What about all those amazing movies produced in widescreen?

I love movies, but I'm not a "film" person so I guess I can only saw that I can't think of any movies specifically that are amazing because of a wide aspect ratio.

I understand wanting to take full advantage of the big screen (I can barely stand watching SD channels). But personally, I feel ripped off when I know that content is missing from a film due to zooming/cropping done to make it fit the screen.

Yes, I dislike the "pan and scan" stuff too - it's so obvious and badly done. What I'm talking about instead is the people making the movies shooting in 16:9 the same way TV shows are done now in HD. I know that's not very realistic, because you have all those movie theatres out there...but people are going to less and less movies every year. People are buying bigger and bigger TVs - the trend is there, and I know every owner would LOVE to have DVDs that actually FILL their TV set.

Timothy Huber
12-15-2006, 10:58 PM
In an ideal world? Yes. I want every DVD I put in my player to fill my screen just like every HD TV show does.
Okay. I can understand that.
I love movies, but I'm not a "film" person so I guess I can only saw that I can't think of any movies specifically that are amazing because of a wide aspect ratio.
To name a couple off the top of my head: Ben-Hur; Lawrence of Arabia.
Yes, I dislike the "pan and scan" stuff too - it's so obvious and badly done.
I'll never forget watching a lousy VHS copy of "East of Eden" in a HS film class and seeing James Dean appear to moonwalk when he reached the edge of the screen and the picture slid over to the other half of the film.
What I'm talking about instead is the people making the movies shooting in 16:9 the same way TV shows are done now in HD. I know that's not very realistic, because you have all those movie theatres out there...but people are going to less and less movies every year. People are buying bigger and bigger TVs - the trend is there, and I know every owner would LOVE to have DVDs that actually FILL their TV set.
There is a very different experience in watching a widescreen movie in a theater vs. a big-screen HDTV. Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia, for example -- in a good theater, with hundreds of other people, totally enveloped in the sound/picture/story -- it's an amazing experience. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE having a home theater. But I love the movie theater experience, too.

I get you though. In a perfect world, I'd have a high-end Runco projector with CineWide, a Faroujda line doubler, a 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen, and the motorized curtains to automatically adjust the screen to the correct size down to 1.85:1 or 4:3 as per the content. Hey, Santa!
:)

Timothy

Jason Dunn
12-15-2006, 11:25 PM
I get you though. In a perfect world, I'd have a high-end Runco projector with CineWide, a Faroujda line doubler, a 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen, and the motorized curtains to automatically adjust the screen to the correct size down to 1.85:1 or 4:3 as per the content. Hey, Santa!

HAH! Now THAT would be sweet. But of course I'd have to add some theatre-style seating to my TV room, a popcorn machine, etc. :wink:

Chris Gohlke
12-15-2006, 11:36 PM
I'd concur about Ben-Hur being a movie that really needs to be seen in its full ratio to be appreciated. If I am not mistaken, it is in something crazy like 2.76:1 widescreen.

Give the varying formats out there, I think 16:9 gives a fair compromise. The bars on the sides are not too big when watching standard TV and are not too big on the top and bottom for widescreen movies.

jeffd
12-16-2006, 02:34 AM
uhmm, yea, ok.

Jason Dunn
12-16-2006, 06:00 AM
uhmm, yea, ok.

Thank you for contributing in such a detailed fashion. 8)

jeffd
12-16-2006, 03:46 PM
Well its just, its the 4:3 argument all over. Why not instead ask why your tv is 16x9 instead of the ratio movie theaters use?

Jason Dunn
12-16-2006, 09:32 PM
Well its just, its the 4:3 argument all over.

What? No way - 4:3 and 2.35:1 (or whatever movie ratio you pick) are worlds apart. One is square, the other is rectangular. 16x9 and 2.35:1 are both rectangles...just with different aspect ratios. So the question is perfectly reasonable.

Why not instead ask why your tv is 16x9 instead of the ratio movie theaters use?

Ok, please tell me why my TV is 16x9 - I don't honestly know why they selected that aspect ratio.

Lee Yuan Sheng
12-17-2006, 03:21 AM
What? No way - 4:3 and 2.35:1 (or whatever movie ratio you pick) are worlds apart. One is square, the other is rectangular.


Wow, 4:3 is square. That's news to me. Did someone not inform me the new laws of mathematics? :P

jeffd
12-17-2006, 04:16 AM
Actually I'm not sure why they choose 16x9 either, maybe the same reason we have 16x10 monitors? so that there is still some verticle realestate for displaying 4x3 content?

It all boils down to there still being multiple standerds. Something we live with day in and day out, be it audio/video compressions, power outlets, and cars. ^^

Jason Dunn
12-17-2006, 07:51 AM
Wow, 4:3 is square. That's news to me. Did someone not inform me the new laws of mathematics? :P

Ok, ok, Mr. Smartass.... ;-) 4:3 is not a square, it's a rectangle, I was wrong. But it's ALMOST a square compared to 16:9. ;-)

Chris Gohlke
12-17-2006, 10:28 PM
Wikipedia knows all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29