This is the standard in the UK, where all homegrown material is now made in 16:9, even the news, but the programme makers are careful to frame the shots so they look OK in 14:9. People watching digital TV on widescreen sets can watch just about everything apart from US imports and old repeats in 16:9, while analogue viewers get the 14:9 compromise, which explains the narrow black bars that have appeared on British analogue broadcasts in recent years. Almost all TVs have considerable overscan (i.e the edge of the picture is outside the visible area), so the black bars are very thin.
You are accurate, but it’s a semantics issue. As the web link I provided points out, flat Academy is set at 1.85:1. Unless you have a ground glass that is masked, you do indeed see 1.33:1 in the eyepiece. The Super35 Format****** aside, one never uses all that is presented in the eyepiece anyway. Either by shading or etched/glowing framelines, one composes for a pre-determined aspect ratio.
The bitch is shooting for t.v. but being told, " Oh, protect High-Def". :rolleyes: Even if one sets a common top frame, it’s asking a lot to compose well in a square aspect ratio, but also compose well in a wide rectangular aspect ratio. Something suffers in the process.
Win2Kuser, you’re confusing a widescreen t.v. with a widescreen IMAGE. Your widescreen t.v. will simply pull an image to fit, and you think you’re watching a movie-like presentation. The brain adjusts to the slight distortion. Here is the issue.
If you are watching a movie on your 16:9 widescreen t.v. set ( It’s a 16:9 because that is the aspect ratio that’s been more or less agreed upon by the world’s developers of High Definition Television broadcasts and cameras), you may or may not be watching High Def. But, your t.v. can make it appear as such. Or, you may be lucky enough to watch a true High Def broadcast, or recorded program. However- many films are shot in an aspect ratio that is NARROWER than 16:9. 1.85:1 is fairly close, but 2.33:1 and 2.66:1 are not. If you watch a film shot in anamorphic aspect ratio, your 16:9 t.v. set must have black bars at the top and bottom- it’s unavoidable.
Instead of being angry at the black bars, why not revel in the fact that you can even AFFORD a huge widescreen t.v. set, and enjoy seeing a movie in the format in which it was originally filmed?
My dream is to sell the t.v. set, and buy a video projector and a new generation of silver screen, that has a contrast ratio that’s through the roof. I can easily imagine a screen 9 or 10 feet wide… 
****** Super 35 is a NON-anamorphic aspect ratio that uses a wider area of the physical film surface. It sacrifices the area just inside the sprocket holes that used to be used for the sound track, and instead uses it for image exposure. Therefore, you get to have a wider image without shooting anamorphic. Upside is that the spherical lenses are faster than anamorphic lenses, downside is that Super 35 requires an entire optical process not normally needed, to go to final print. -Shrug- I’ve shot all the formats, I hate Super 35 because the video taps provided rarely give me all of the side information. I’m essentially shooting blind sometimes. That’s when bad things can happen…
Saw Fellowship of the Ring in the theatre, rented VHS full screen and was unbothered until the fight with the Cave Troll–couldn’t quite appreciate the battle sceen where Gimli dodges the war hammer which then knocks a few orcs to bits. Rented wide screen EE, the scene was satisfying again.
But for a chick flick? Who needs the black bars over & under Meg Ryan’s lovely face?
I paid $740.94 freaken dollars (yes they actually were freaken I might have kept them if I liked gay porn, more then tv*) for my tv. Maybe I want every one of those 27 inches of that investment used.
I’ll have a wide screen dvd when you pry into my cold dead hand, or atleast get me a wide screen hdtv.
*not into gay porn just a joke, not there is anything wrong with that
It seems as though the people who prefer fullscreen can’t see anything but the matte bars when they look at a widescreen presentation. The television casing itself creates a frame around the picture–does that drive them crazy, too? I can just imagine people complaining about those annoying black plastic bars on all sides of the picture.
Even if it means you see less?
Live Better Electrically! has officially won my prestigious Post of the Day Prize.
Thats all very well, but I paid £2500 for my 42" tv, those black bars are the equivelent of £1000 of tube space.
A 32" widescreen would have cost me £1000, so those ‘few inches’ of black bars are rather expensive.
If you get my drift…
Wider is better.
That what I say to my missus 
I don’t recall seeing a full screen dvd and feeling there was something I did not see, I do recall annoyance at the wasted screen space those black bars inflict on me.
Since the casing it’s self is made of plastic and did little to raise the price where as the wasted pixle space does, no the casing does not bother me.
[sub]netscape 6 wrote:[/sub]
It’s hardly wasted. It’s preserving the original, intended presentation of the film.
The sad waste is cutting up films to make them fit your appliance. It’s like chopping off up to a third of a fine painting so it will fit the expensive frame you already own. IMO the focus should be on the film, not the television set.
I was making a joke.
If I had a 4:3 TV, then I should expect to see black bars in order to see the original aspect of the picture. The whole idea of buying a bloody big Widescreen tv is so that the picture fits the tv.
If they film these pictures in a different format, why arn’t widescreen tv’s wide enough to see the whole picture?
Or are we going to see a new generation of tv - Extended Widescreen?
I just bought a very good 4:3 CRT, so I’ll hold off on buying a new one until they start making 2.35:1 screens.
Good link.
Interesting that the examples they show, as well as the ones listed here by other posters (Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, Ghostbusters, etc), left out the 2 most obvious and ofter cited films
Ben Hur: Where now even on the fullscreen version they show on broadcast TV letterboxes the chariot scene
and
(I Think) The Royal Wedding: Where Fred Astaire dances on the walls and ceiling. The pan & scan is awful and destroys the whole sequence.
JohnBckWLD FYI, Royal Wedding was released in 1951, which is before the advent of widescreen movies.
It’s making my tv seem smaller and therefore diminishing the experance of the movie. I don’t care what intended presentation was I just care about how much I enjoy it or not.
Well as long as you can get movies in both formats we can both be happy, right?
Sorry about your joke by the way I guess I was whooashed.
So for you, the importance isn’t the movie but the size of the TV?
no the important thing on a movie is how many things blow up,
, or not. bet you thought you had me.
The most important thing for me in a movie is it is in english dum dum duuum or at least with english captions, followed by plot, special effects, and so on. Watching it on a large screen tv seems to enhance the viewing of the special effects. True you get to see more of the effects with wide screen but which you rather see set off? A pack of 200 fire crackers on a string or a single stick of dynamite? I personal would prefer the dynamite.
Also I should if it’s funny that trumps even langauge.
I have seen a few movies that have been digitaly enhanced for release on DVD in 2.35:1 format, now surly, they would cater for the majority of DVD buyers with widescreen tv’s and make them full screen in 16:9 ratio. In cases like this, I think it is bad encoding and nothing to do with ‘how the director intended’.
Another thing…
It’s all very well having DTS es discrete and THX digital etc, but it is somewhat lost when viewing a film 7" high by 2’ wide unless of course your sat 6" away from the tv :rolleyes:
I bought a 42" widescreen tv for big screen presentations, I expect to see the film filled to the edges on my purchase and not have half the screen wasted.
IMO of course, it’s what ever rocks ya boat.