16:9 aspect ratio and StarTrek movie in Blu Ray
Uncle_vito
resolution.
I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
Isn't this going to be a problem with all BD? After all, the sources are
typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
You go to the trouble of getting true 1080p with Blu Ray and then pixels are
thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true 16:9
screen.
This a correct analysis or am I off here.
Thanks for answers
Vito
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:JNydnfacfKMz6IzW...@linkline.com...
>I just bought a Samsung Plasma 50 in with 1080p capability. 1080 native
>resolution.
>
> I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
> movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>
like 2.35:1 is not a 16:9 aspect ratio (however 1.78:1 is a 16:9 aspect
ratio.)
> As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>
An unfortunate side effect of showing a movie in its original aspect ratio,
but this was also a problem with 4:3 screens and movies even in 16:9 aspect
ratio, so the problem isn't new, just revisited even with wider screens.
> Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
> 16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
> actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
>
It's definitely screen space not being used. The directors probably don't
care about how it will look on a TV screen and are more or less filming for
the cinema screen (that usually has the ability to move the black colored
cinema screen curtains up and down to adjust to different aspect ratios).
> Isn't this going to be a problem with all BD? After all, the sources are
> typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
It's been an issue since widescreen VHS, widescreen Laser Disc, widescreen
DVD, and so also with widescreen Blu-ray. Those who dislike black bars
prefer a fullscreen presentation, while those who advocate only original
aspect ratio prefer the widescreen presentation even with the black bars.
> You go to the trouble of getting true 1080p with Blu Ray and then pixels
> are thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true
> 16:9 screen.
>
Try using Zoom, which would cut off the ends of the frame but would also
more than likely best-fit to a 16:9 aspect ratio, or else hope that 16:9
fullscreen movies start appearing with Blu-ray like the 4:3 fullscreen
movies did with DVD.
> This a correct analysis or am I off here.
>
It is the correct analysis.
[snip...]
Charles Tomaras
>resolution.
>
> I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
> movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>
> As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>
> Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
> 16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
> actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
No different than purchasing a nice photo album for your family pictures and
discovering that the pictures don't fit the album perfectly and there is
some unused space around some of the pictures. Doesn't make the photo album
less nice and it doesn't make your pictures less precious. You buy an album
that will accommodate the majority of your photos.
You have purchased a very nice television that will display a wide variety
of video material at about the best resolution that you can display it at
without resorting to expensive high end solutions like projectors with
anamorphic lenses. Stop looking at the black bars and look at the picture
and all will be well!
John McWilliams
> "Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> You go to the trouble of getting true 1080p with Blu Ray and then
>> pixels are thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit
>> on a true 16:9 screen.
>>
> Try using Zoom, which would cut off the ends of the frame but would also
> more than likely best-fit to a 16:9 aspect ratio, or else hope that 16:9
> fullscreen movies start appearing with Blu-ray like the 4:3 fullscreen
> movies did with DVD.
Are pixels actually being thrown away, or being fully used but in a
smaller space than the screen real estate?
(I realized that some screen is being 'thrown away', and that can be
seen as objectionable).
--
john mcwilliams
Charles Tomaras
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hesasp$r5l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I hate to be the one of reason here but for many of us who have fought the
original aspect ratio battle since broadcast television, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD
and now Blue Ray....I've got to say that at this point with 1080p Blue Ray I
cannot perceive much of a loss of resolution in the actual picture when
watching a wider than 16:9 movie. I know it's mathematically there but it's
negligible compared to loosing ACTUAL composed picture by zooming and
cutting off the sides. I'm 50 years old and I'm sure I will see additional
advances in resolution and picture quality before I kick the bucket, but I
think we have arrived at a point with Blue Ray and 1080p televisions where
there are few valid resolution arguments left for hacking up an image to
make the center cut bigger!
QN
used. I much prefer 16:9.
Charles Tomaras
"QN" <hiding...@example.com> wrote in message
news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
So are you saying that you would choose a movie by aspect ratio instead of
content? That's like going to the art museum and only looking at the
paintings that are of a certain shape.
cjdayton...@cox.net
> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
I unsure of the percentages, but many dvd's have the
aspect ratio on the back. I don't know about Blu-Ray discs.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
UCLAN
> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio they
> used. I much prefer 16:9.
Who is "they"??
The rear of the BD case has that information.
The rear of the DVD case has that information.
Most places selling BDs and DVDs (like Amazon) list that information.
Online review sites list that information.
IMDB has that information.
Rental outlets such as Netflix have that information.
Who *doesn't* have that information?
Klaatu
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:jzjQm.60184$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
movie box or case, or see the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie means
its been chopped to fit your screen, and I wont watch it. "THIS MOVIE HAS
BEEN FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR SCREEN"
Messing with a 4:3 movie to fit a 16:9 screen should be illegal, IMO. Same
with chopping a 16:9 movie to fill up a 4:3 screen. Pan and scan is an
abomination.
Jan B
<tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:hesasp$r5l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>> "Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>>> You go to the trouble of getting true 1080p with Blu Ray and then pixels
>>>> are thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true
>>>> 16:9 screen.
>>>>
>>> Try using Zoom, which would cut off the ends of the frame but would also
>>> more than likely best-fit to a 16:9 aspect ratio, or else hope that 16:9
>>> fullscreen movies start appearing with Blu-ray like the 4:3 fullscreen
>>> movies did with DVD.
>>
>> Are pixels actually being thrown away, or being fully used but in a
>> smaller space than the screen real estate?
>> (I realized that some screen is being 'thrown away', and that can be seen
>> as objectionable).
>
>I hate to be the one of reason here but for many of us who have fought the
>original aspect ratio battle since broadcast television, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD
>and now Blue Ray....I've got to say that at this point with 1080p Blue Ray I
>cannot perceive much of a loss of resolution in the actual picture when
>watching a wider than 16:9 movie. I know it's mathematically there
... <snip>
No. The pixels in the material are exactly the same size as a
1820x1080 picture that fills the screen and of cource, the pixels in a
fixed pixel panel are the same size. You might actually get some more
details in the used picture area because the MPEG data reduction saves
bits in the black areas and can use that for better picture details.
/Jan
Charles Tomaras
"Klaatu" <move...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t_qdnSQFRpmsgI_W...@centurytel.net...
Well I agree with that in completely. What I mean was that I don't choose to
watch 16:9 movies merely because of the aspect ratio. It's like the early
days of HD broadcasting where people would watch ANYTHING if it was in HD,
content be damned.
Charles Tomaras
"Jan B" <nos...@nospam.se> wrote in message
news:qjn4h5p89d4shibmd...@4ax.com...
\>>I hate to be the one of reason here but for many of us who have fought
>>original aspect ratio battle since broadcast television, VHS, Laserdisc,
>>DVD
>>and now Blue Ray....I've got to say that at this point with 1080p Blue Ray
>>I
>>cannot perceive much of a loss of resolution in the actual picture when
>>watching a wider than 16:9 movie. I know it's mathematically there
> ... <snip>
>
> No. The pixels in the material are exactly the same size as a
> 1820x1080 picture that fills the screen and of cource, the pixels in a
> fixed pixel panel are the same size. You might actually get some more
> details in the used picture area because the MPEG data reduction saves
> bits in the black areas and can use that for better picture details.
>
> /Jan
Don't know if I entirely agree with that. Seems to me that if the centercut
is larger on screen, any detail within that center cut like someone's head
would be physically larger on screen and contain more pixels. I just think
that the resolution of the screens and the images now have reached a point
where the differences are negligible enough to not warrant affecting
anyone's decisions about aspect ratio. I have always been 100% in favor of
OAR but now there's even less of a footing for the black bar phobics to
stand on.
Klaatu
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-4A5C05....@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article <jzjQm.60184$rE5....@newsfe08.iad>,
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>> "QN" <hiding...@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
>> > they used. I much prefer 16:9.
>>
>> So are you saying that you would choose a movie by aspect ratio instead
>> of
>> content?
>
>
> "I *bought* all that screen real estate, I damn well will USE all that
> screen real estate! None o' them black bars for me, dammit! FILL MY
> SCREEN!"
>
> Because, as we all know, this is America--where MORE IS BETTER!
Let me clarify. Black bars top and bottom dont bother me. Its when they
start chopping off
the edges of a movie that I go ballistic.
The dog from that film you saw
>I just bought a Samsung Plasma 50 in with 1080p capability. 1080 native
>resolution.
>
> I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
> movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>
> As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>
> Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
> 16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
> actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
>
> Isn't this going to be a problem with all BD? After all, the sources are
> typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
are we to assume you went from vhs to blu ray? - most dvds present films in
whatever shape they started out as.
besides, what alternative is there? - would you like them to chop the edges
off the film so that you can 'fill your screen ' !?
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!
John McWilliams
>> are typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
>>
> are we to assume you went from vhs to blu ray? - most dvds present films
> in whatever shape they started out as.
> besides, what alternative is there? - would you like them to chop the
> edges off the film so that you can 'fill your screen ' !?
Raises question of what directors are doing or will be doing in the next
few years. It seems logical that they'll be shooting for a 16:9 critical
section, while filming in the normal cinema aspect. That way, it can be
readily chopped at the edges without losing anything of substance.
--
john mcwilliams
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
it occur, would still preserve the center of interest for 4:3 and 16:9
aspect ratio screens.
Doing that would more or less eliminate the need for any "fullscreen"
(currently, meaning panned and scanned to fill a 4:3 aspect ratio screen)
versions of the movie on disc. Then even if the customer used a one-button
black bar removal function (some DVD players) or zoom (most DVD/Blu-ray
players) if they wanted the movie to fill the screen, only the less
important edges of the scene, rather than the critical center of interest,
would be lost.
More than likely, they'll continue shooting at 2.35:1, or they might even
start using wider aspect ratios because a significant majority of home
theater viewers now have wide screen TV's (and some computer monitors are
actually 16:10 aspect ratio screens).
Charles Tomaras
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:tq-dnaRWoLwXWo_W...@nethere.com...
> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:heufg1$uhu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>>>
>>> "Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this going to be a problem with all BD? After all, the sources
>>>> are typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
>>>>
>>
>>> are we to assume you went from vhs to blu ray? - most dvds present films
>>> in whatever shape they started out as.
>>> besides, what alternative is there? - would you like them to chop the
>>> edges off the film so that you can 'fill your screen ' !?
>>
>> Raises question of what directors are doing or will be doing in the next
>> few years. It seems logical that they'll be shooting for a 16:9 critical
>> section, while filming in the normal cinema aspect. That way, it can be
>> readily chopped at the edges without losing anything of substance.
>>
> If they shot everything in a 14:9 critical section then any cut off,
> should it occur, would still preserve the center of interest for 4:3 and
> 16:9 aspect ratio screens.
>
> Doing that would more or less eliminate the need for any "fullscreen"
> (currently, meaning panned and scanned to fill a 4:3 aspect ratio screen)
> versions of the movie on disc. Then even if the customer used a one-button
> black bar removal function (some DVD players) or zoom (most DVD/Blu-ray
> players) if they wanted the movie to fill the screen, only the less
> important edges of the scene, rather than the critical center of interest,
> would be lost.
How's about we don't let the shape of a television screen dictate how
artists compose pictures. I've got better uses for DRM than merely
preventing the copying of movies, would be great if DRM could lock down the
aspect ratio as well to keep people from cropping the Mona Lisa. :)
Kimba W Lion
>You go to the trouble of getting true 1080p with Blu Ray and then pixels are
>thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true 16:9
>screen.
Even BluRay uses lossy compression. The way it works, the more changes there
are frame-to-frame in the movie, the more bits are required. Requiring more
bits than are available results in compression artifacts. The black portions
of the screen are constant, and so use very few bits. Thus there are more bits
available for the actual movie, so there are less compression artifacts, and
thus a sharper picture.
Or you could just stop watching the black bars and enjoy the movie.
--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/
The dog from that film you saw
> In article <3FvQm.58050$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>> It's like the early
>> days of HD broadcasting where people would watch ANYTHING if it was in
>> HD,
>> content be damned.
>
>
> And they'd defend their behavior using all sorts of wacko rationale.
i downloaded a few sony / pioneer / samsung etc etc demo loops to watch when
i first got my hdtv.
Unknown
Why would you care how others may care to view a video? Are you a
Republican?
Unknown
Here's my question: Since the movie industry video folk know that
aspect ratios vary and that more bits equal more quality, why do the
black bars require any bits per frame? As a matter of fact why not
have ALL video fill the frame and be morphed to the proper (or
customer desired) aspect ratio by the player? Not unlike 4:3 and 16:9
anamophic DVDs. Alocating a single bit among the billions of bits
available on the media is so Y2Kish;-)
Charles Tomaras
<CLicker> wrote in message
news:d9i6h5hevemdme1tj...@4ax.com...
No, I'm a staunch Democrat who pines for others to watch movies properly as
I do. Call me wrong but at least I admit I toss and turn at night out of
concern for my fellow man who may not have any cinematic knowledge or taste.
Jim
no anamorphic BD.
Rastamon
>I just bought a Samsung Plasma 50 in with 1080p capability. 1080 native
>resolution.
>
> I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
> movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>
> As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>
> Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
> 16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
> actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
>
> typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
> are thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true
> 16:9 screen.
>
>
> Thanks for answers
>
> Vito
Turn the surrounding lights off and you will not notice the black bars.
Is it just me or are Sharp Aquos LCD monitors wider in ratio than other HDTV
monitors?
Kimba W Lion
>Here's my question: Since the movie industry video folk know that
>aspect ratios vary and that more bits equal more quality, why do the
>black bars require any bits per frame? As a matter of fact why not
>have ALL video fill the frame and be morphed to the proper (or
>customer desired) aspect ratio by the player?
Because they didn't think of it, and now discs have to be compatible with the
millions of existing players.
Seriously, I wish video players and TV sets had user-variable zoom (and CD
players had user-variable dynamic compression) so that the "purest" form of
each recording could be put on the discs and people could play them any way
that suited them.
JBDragon
going to the movie theater as they have Curtains around that white screen
that they ADJUST to fit the aspect ratio of the movie your watching!!!
Your HDTV unless it's a "Front Projector" has a fixed Aspect Ratio. 16x9
or 1.78:1, a 4:3 SDTV is 1.33:1. A lot of movies are in 2.40:1 or Similar
Aspect ratio's that will give you a top and bottom black bar. I bet you
didn't even notice that that Black Bar size also Varies!!! Again it all
depends on the Aspect Ratio. You will notice that the Main Menu on DVD's
and Blu-Ray's are in 16x9 format!!!
Most ALL DVD's and Blu-Ray's will tell you what Aspect Ratio they are in on
the back. It it says 1.78:1, it's a FULL Widescreen movie. Same goes with
1.85:1 which is also common, since it's pretty close to 1.78:1, it will also
full the full screen!!! Anything else will NOT!!! To make a widescreen
movie in a different format fir a 16x9 screen, the MOVIE would have to be
modified from what you saw in the theater. Generally Blown up Larger and
then the sides cut off. I want to see the WHOLE movie and not a butchered
movie. I've always hated the so called FULL SCREEN DVD's and would NEVER
buy those then though I had large Black bars on the top and bottom of my
SDTV. Better then half the picture cut off.
A good example of Aspect Ratio's and showing a example with Star Trek is
this small quicktime clip.
Leonard Nimoy explains the letterboxing procedure and why he chose it to
film "Star Trek IV". This clip is from the Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home DVD
and the Director's Edition VHS
http://widescreen.org/multimedia/nimoy.mov
This is showing the Widescreen version compared to a so called FULL Screen
4:3 version using Pan& Scan. Good example though. Also why I so much
DESPISE FULL SCREEN 4:3 movies, and they ALL are using Pan & Scan. YUK...
Remysun
> No, I'm a staunch Democrat who pines for others to watch movies properly as
> I do. Call me wrong but at least I admit I toss and turn at night out of
> concern for my fellow man who may not have any cinematic knowledge or taste.
What about those of us who don't want the public option? : )
Charles Tomaras
"Remysun" <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:263a2e9e-1e00-4c7d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
As a nation, the US spends more on proper aspect ratio identification than
any other nation on earth yet we have a much higher percentage of people
watching full screen, pan & scan and with other aspect ratio abominations.
This is morally wrong. Our cinematic heroes should be neither tall and
skinny nor short and wide! Please, if you care at all about the American
viewing public vote for an option that provides everyone with the original
aspect ratio. The discrimination against black bars in this country has got
to end.
JBDragon
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-4A5C05....@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article <jzjQm.60184$rE5....@newsfe08.iad>,
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>> "QN" <hiding...@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
>> > they used. I much prefer 16:9.
>>
>> So are you saying that you would choose a movie by aspect ratio instead
>> of
>> content?
>
> People have been saying that for YEARS.
>
> "I *bought* all that screen real estate, I damn well will USE all that
> screen real estate! None o' them black bars for me, dammit! FILL MY
> SCREEN!"
>
> Because, as we all know, this is America--where MORE IS BETTER!
Now you don't need the Movie to be Pre-Butchered!!!! HDTV's can change
their Display mode from the Normal 16x9 and change it to Expand or whatever
to fill that HDTV screen up completely if they want. If they want to watch
it like that, Good for them. My HDTV setting has been left alone since day
one. All content shown in original Aspect Ratio. So if the Black bars
really annoy you, YOU CAN ADJUST THAT HDTV TO FIX IT you could say. Fix it
really isn't the right word, but you get the point.
JBDragon
news:015a8ee9$0$24631$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
PC Widescreen Monitors are generally 16x10, or 1920x1200, instead of 16x9 at
1920x1080. My 24" Monitor is this way!!! It's not a Sharp either.
JBDragon
news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
I'm pretty sure at least 99.9999 of my Blu-Ray's do, and also HD DVD's and
DVD's. I've been looking now for 5 years to see what Resolution since my
first HDTV. They almost ALWAYS say someplace on the back, usually on the
bottom, but not always. It'll say 1.78:1 which is 16x9, or 1.85:1 which is
so close that it will also fill your 16x9 screen. Others though will not,
like 2:40.1 and many others. All you have to do is look on the back cover.
Not hard to find.
JBDragon
news:7nee87F...@mid.individual.net...
> QN wrote:
>
>> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
>> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
>
>
> The rear of the BD case has that information.
> The rear of the DVD case has that information.
> Most places selling BDs and DVDs (like Amazon) list that information.
> Online review sites list that information.
> IMDB has that information.
> Rental outlets such as Netflix have that information.
>
> Who *doesn't* have that information?
I think 99.999999999 of my DVD's, HD DVD's, and Blu-Ray's list that info on
the back of the case. Very few don't. My Movie Disc Database is also on
my PC using DVD Profiler, and that Data is also listed along with many other
things. I buy Movies from Amazon all the time and yep, Aspect Ratio is also
listed there!!! Really, who's trying to hide it?!?!?!
JBDragon
"Klaatu" <move...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t_qdnSQFRpmsgI_W...@centurytel.net...
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:jzjQm.60184$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
>>
>> "QN" <hiding...@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
>>> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
>>
>> So are you saying that you would choose a movie by aspect ratio instead
>> of content? That's like going to the art museum and only looking at the
>> paintings that are of a certain shape.
>>
> I would, I have, and I do. Anywhere you see a disclaimer on the back of
> the movie box or case, or see the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie
> means its been chopped to fit your screen, and I wont watch it. "THIS
> MOVIE HAS BEEN FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR SCREEN"
> Messing with a 4:3 movie to fit a 16:9 screen should be illegal, IMO.
> Same with chopping a 16:9 movie to fill up a 4:3 screen. Pan and scan is
> an abomination.
YEP, I agree with you there!!!!! I have a LARGE DVD, Blu-Ray, HD DVD
collection myself, and have NEVER paid for a so called FULL Screen Movie.
Half the picture is CUT OFF. Pan & Scan is a joke. The whole movie is now
different. I want to see it in it's Original Aspect Ratio. This is a GOOD
example of this. A small Quicktime Video.
Leonard Nimoy explains the letterboxing procedure and why he chose it to
film "Star Trek IV". This clip is from the Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home DVD
and the Director's Edition VHS.
http://widescreen.org/multimedia/nimoy.mov
Alan
>Leonard Nimoy explains the letterboxing procedure and why he chose it to
>film "Star Trek IV". This clip is from the Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home DVD
>and the Director's Edition VHS.
>http://widescreen.org/multimedia/nimoy.mov
I don't remember whether it was ST IV or ST VI, but I came across the
widescreen and the "full screen" versions, and the widescreen turned out
to be a center cut of the "full screen" version, with the top and bottom
trimmed off.
Was that director's intent, or was director's intent to get the picture
so it worked well (and showed all the actors) on both formats. I suspect
the latter -- that the fullscreen version actually showed *more* (and I
don't mean parts with microphones hanging...). It added a good bit of the
view of the bridge of the Enterprise.
Alan
Kimba W Lion
> I don't remember whether it was ST IV or ST VI, but I came across the
>widescreen and the "full screen" versions, and the widescreen turned out
>to be a center cut of the "full screen" version, with the top and bottom
>trimmed off.
I don't know about these particular movies, but a lot of movies are filmed
full-frame in 35mm, but the composition of the picture is done with widescreen
in mind--the bottom and top of the picture is meant to be masked off to make
the widescreen image. The simplest way to produce a 4:3 video of such a movie
is to transfer it without the mask. Directors are surely savvy enough to keep
extraneous items out of the full frame, with such a transfer in mind.
One could argue then that both versions are the director's intended version.
Charles Tomaras
"Kimba W Lion" <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote in message
news:hajch5t6fq17lrn27...@4ax.com...
> nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu (Alan) wrote:
>
>> I don't remember whether it was ST IV or ST VI, but I came across the
>>widescreen and the "full screen" versions, and the widescreen turned out
>>to be a center cut of the "full screen" version, with the top and bottom
>>trimmed off.
>
> I don't know about these particular movies, but a lot of movies are filmed
> full-frame in 35mm, but the composition of the picture is done with
> widescreen
> in mind--the bottom and top of the picture is meant to be masked off to
> make
> the widescreen image. The simplest way to produce a 4:3 video of such a
> movie
> is to transfer it without the mask. Directors are surely savvy enough to
> keep
> extraneous items out of the full frame, with such a transfer in mind.
As a sound mixer for film and video I can tell you that needlessly
protecting the top of the frame causes boom microphones to be further from
the actors and is the bane of all sound people who strive to get the mic as
physically close to the actors as possible.
Unknown
wrote:
The principal reason I began donating videos to our library is that
the librarian, as she had with analog purchases, would always opt for
the 4:3 digital edition were it available. Although I suggested to
her that most players had a zoom button which would accomplish the
same thing or better, had she bought wide screen versions - thus
increasing the longevity of her/our collection - she did not believe
that our senior citizens could cope with that technical solution;-0)
10 years later she still believes that - thanks be to it that Blu-Ray
does not offer the option.
Charles Tomaras
"Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JNydnfacfKMz6IzW...@linkline.com...
>I just bought a Samsung Plasma 50 in with 1080p capability. 1080 native
>resolution.
>
> I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
> movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>
> As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>
> Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
> 16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
> actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
No different than purchasing a nice photo album for your family pictures and
discovering that the pictures don't fit the album perfectly and there is
some unused space around some of the pictures. Doesn't make the photo album
less nice and it doesn't make your pictures less precious. You buy an album
that will accommodate the majority of your photos.
You have purchased a very nice television that will display a wide variety
of video material at about the best resolution that you can display it at
without resorting to expensive high end solutions like projectors with
anamorphic lenses. Stop looking at the black bars and look at the picture
and all will be well!
Charles Tomaras
<CLicker> wrote in message
news:occdh5lji75ardmig...@4ax.com...
> The principal reason I began donating videos to our library is that
> the librarian, as she had with analog purchases, would always opt for
> the 4:3 digital edition were it available. Although I suggested to
> her that most players had a zoom button which would accomplish the
> same thing or better, had she bought wide screen versions - thus
> increasing the longevity of her/our collection - she did not believe
> that our senior citizens could cope with that technical solution;-0)
> 10 years later she still believes that - thanks be to it that Blu-Ray
> does not offer the option.
Does your library also purchase abridged editions of all the books?
JBDragon
news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
I'm pretty sure at least 99.9999 of my Blu-Ray's do, and also HD DVD's and
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:occdh5lji75ardmig...@4ax.com...
Except that the zoom button does not do the same thing as a 4:3 Fullscreen
DVD.
Use of zoom only helps to reduce or eliminate the black bars, and often
times it is not necessarily better unless all of the center zoom area
contains the center of interest for the majority of the movie. However, the
player does not do auto pan-and-scan to keep the center of interest within
the center of the zoomed area, and the viewer would have to manually do that
with their remote control.
In contrast, 4:3 fullscreen DVD's do have panning and scanning to keep the
center of interest mostly in the center of the 4:3 frame that fills the 4:3
screen.
The problem of course, is when someone does want to watch the widescreen
version of the disc either on a 4:3 TV or a widescreen TV. Then the 4:3
fullscreen DVD shows its limitations for sure.
Unknown
The a/v collection now nears 10,000 items including a large collection
of books on tape/CD - AFAIK, these are all abridged in some way -
though I've heard others suggest that some are word-for-word. We also
have large print versions of many books, periodicals, and of course
Reader's Digest. We've a modest Descriptive Video collection. Not
everyone in the community cares beyond the gist, some are glad to be
able to read, watch, or hear anything. Those who do care don't mess
with the abridged versions.
The purpose of the library is to serve the community, whose average
age is in the upper 70s. The wholly owned library is supported by a
resident fee included in the monthly maintenance charges. My
suggestion regarding wide screen vs. full screen versions was less
from aesthetics than economics, as the wide screen versions will serve
the community at large for a longer period of time as new blood
replaces the dead. The librarian could not see this.
A note inside the video jacket to "PUSH THE ZOOM BUTTON TO FILL YOUR
SCREEN" would be enough education in my view;-0) This would address
both 4:3 and 16:9 owners who can't abide black bars.
As to pan-and-scan vs. center cut, well the 0.000001 % of the time
that might be worth something - tough luck! One who really cared
could pause, unzoom, backspace, and resume to see the dog's tail which
was wagged off screen. Or simply watch the wide screen version in the
first place.
Edmund
> In article <JNydnfacfKMz6IzW...@linkline.com>,
> "Uncle_vito" <uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I just bought a Samsung Plasma 50 in with 1080p capability. 1080 native
>> resolution.
>>
>> I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
>> movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>>
>> As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>>
>> Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
>> 16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
>> actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
>
> bars at the top and bottom.
>
> If you don't like that, complain to the directors who choose to make
> films that way.
Better complain by the smart asses that dicided to make a screen
format that doesn't exist in any film studio in the world.
Edmund
Edmund
"Klaatu" <move...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t_qdnSQFRpmsgI_W...@centurytel.net...
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:jzjQm.60184$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
>>
>> news:hesg0t$jdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Hopefully, someday, they say on the Blu-Ray listing which aspect ratio
>>> they used. I much prefer 16:9.
>>
>> So are you saying that you would choose a movie by aspect ratio instead
>> paintings that are of a certain shape.
>>
> I would, I have, and I do. Anywhere you see a disclaimer on the back of
> the movie box or case, or see the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie
> means its been chopped to fit your screen, and I wont watch it. "THIS
> MOVIE HAS BEEN FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR SCREEN"
> Messing with a 4:3 movie to fit a 16:9 screen should be illegal, IMO.
> Same with chopping a 16:9 movie to fill up a 4:3 screen. Pan and scan is
> an abomination.
Most movies are wider then 16X9 and I very much would have an edited
version of a movie to make it fit on a HD TV. It means that a little will
be
chopped of but I gain the full vertical resolution which is much better then
filling half of the screen with black bars.
Edmund
John McWilliams
> Most movies are wider then 16X9 and I very much would have an edited
> version of a movie to make it fit on a HD TV. It means that a little will
> be chopped of but I gain the full vertical resolution which is much better then
> filling half of the screen with black bars.
Depending on the conversion, one might have more vertical resolution
WITH the black bars than without. This'd be a good thing for very large
screens, not so good for small ones. This is on the principle of the
more pixels in a given space, the higher the resolution; the black bars
decrease the space, therefor (possibly) the resolution increases.
--
john mcwilliams
Edmund
I don't think so.
The vertical resolution of an HD set is 1080 that includes
everything
including black bars. So a movie with black bars has less than
1080
vertical lines picture information.
However - I suppose- a cinema movie has a far better resolution
then
this 1080 lines. So a decent edited movie can have the full
vertical
resolution ( also fills your screen ) and can have a little
chopped off
from left and/or right had side. Then we make use of the full
potential
of our HD set.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
Edmund
Charles Tomaras
"Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SL3Sm.36002$cX4....@newsfe10.iad...
> However - I suppose- a cinema movie has a far better resolution then
> this 1080 lines. So a decent edited movie can have the full vertical
> resolution ( also fills your screen ) and can have a little chopped off
> from left and/or right had side. Then we make use of the full potential
> of our HD set.
What the heck is a "decent edited movie?"
Is the purpose of an HD set to make full use of the pixels or to allow you
to make the best use of the theatrical presentation? We are talking about
movies and not pixels. In the art world if you have a picture that's shaped
differently than the frame you have, you mat the art work. You don't blow it
up and crop it to fit.
Edmund
>
> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SL3Sm.36002$cX4....@newsfe10.iad...
>> However - I suppose- a cinema movie has a far better resolution then
>> this 1080 lines. So a decent edited movie can have the full vertical
>> resolution ( also fills your screen ) and can have a little chopped off
>> from left and/or right had side. Then we make use of the full potential
>> of our HD set.
>
> What the heck is a "decent edited movie?"
> Is the purpose of an HD set to make full use of the pixels or to allow you
> to make the best use of the theatrical presentation?
Well actually the best presentation is given when the whole screen
is used. I find it pretty much useless if I buy an big expensive HD set
and the next thing I do is filling halve of my screen with "nothing".
Edmund
John McWilliams
Then we simply disagree as to what is the best presentation, given that
much media is shot in a different ratio than 16:9. With few exceptions,
I'll always choose original aspect.
As to resolution, when the source material isn't high rez, regardless of
formatting, I prefer to view it on a portion of a large screen; it
simply looks better to my eye.
--
john mcwilliams
Charles Tomaras
> Well actually the best presentation is given when the whole screen
> is used. I find it pretty much useless if I buy an big expensive HD set
> and the next thing I do is filling halve of my screen with "nothing".
You are fixated on nothing. Stop looking at the black bars and watch the
movie. Your television's aspect ratio of 16:9 has been agreed upon to be the
best balance of size at this point in time allowing you to display a wide
variety of aspect ratios properly in thier original aspect ratio using as
much of the screens real estate as possible.
You can debate this aloud for as long as you want, nothing will change.
Hollywood will continue to make theatrical movies wider than your
television's aspect ratio and there will continue to be older 4:3 stuff
rebroadcast that will require some form of matting with black bars. Whine as
you will, it would be far more productive for you to stop watching the black
bars and enjoy the show.
Charles Tomaras
> In article <p2xSm.74690$W77....@newsfe11.iad>,
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uu5Sm.35784$Sw5...@newsfe16.iad...
>>
>> > Well actually the best presentation is given when the whole screen
>> > is used. I find it pretty much useless if I buy an big expensive HD set
>> > and the next thing I do is filling halve of my screen with "nothing".
>>
>> You are fixated on nothing. Stop looking at the black bars and watch the
>> movie.
>
Yes when faced with 2/3's movie and 1/3 black bars some people will always
see the screen as 1/3 empty instead of 2/3's full! The glass is in fact
2/3's full. Drink the water and not the air or you will end up very thirsty!
Unknown
<uncle_v...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just bought a Samsung Plasma 50 in with 1080p capability. 1080 native
>resolution.
>
>I am playing this new BD on my Blueray player. I find out that cinema
>movies are slightly wider than true 16:9
>
>As a result I get black bars above and below my picture.
>
>Isn't this throwing away many of my 1080 horizontal lines to enable this
>16:9 wide to totally fit the screen? Seems I would get more pixels with
>actual information if I had a true 16:9 cinema movie.
>
>Isn't this going to be a problem with all BD? After all, the sources are
>typically movies at (assumption here) wider than 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
>You go to the trouble of getting true 1080p with Blu Ray and then pixels are
>thrown away to the black bars to enable the picture to fit on a true 16:9
>screen.
>
>This a correct analysis or am I off here.
>
>Thanks for answers
>
>Vito
>
>
I suggest you just choose your video entertainment from among these
lists
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.85
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.77
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.78
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?16x9
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?16:9
and possibly
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.66
Some are available in Blu-Ray, some DVDs will also be excellently
presented on your 16:9 screen.
Edmund
> Edmund wrote:
>> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
>> news:JN4Sm.59491$%j4.3...@newsfe18.iad...
>>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:SL3Sm.36002$cX4....@newsfe10.iad...
>>>> However - I suppose- a cinema movie has a far better resolution then
>>>> this 1080 lines. So a decent edited movie can have the full vertical
>>>> resolution ( also fills your screen ) and can have a little chopped off
>>>> from left and/or right had side. Then we make use of the full potential
>>>> of our HD set.
>>> What the heck is a "decent edited movie?"
>>> Is the purpose of an HD set to make full use of the pixels or to allow
>>> you to make the best use of the theatrical presentation?
>>
>> Well actually the best presentation is given when the whole screen
>> is used. I find it pretty much useless if I buy an big expensive HD set
>> and the next thing I do is filling halve of my screen with "nothing".
>
> Then we simply disagree as to what is the best presentation, given that
> much media is shot in a different ratio than 16:9. With few exceptions,
> I'll always choose original aspect.
And so do I.
>
> As to resolution, when the source material isn't high rez, regardless of
> formatting, I prefer to view it on a portion of a large screen; it simply
> looks better to my eye.
Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I am
pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen size
and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3 content is
shown with black bars on the sides.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
Edmund
Charles Tomaras
> Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
> in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I am
> pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen size
> and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3 content is
> shown with black bars on the sides.
You keep using the term EDITED. We don't want movies edited (altered) for
television. We want the original vision of the film maker, not an edited
(altered, hacked up, squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc)
version of the film. The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is
preferable over loss of the actual picture composition. If you want to
adulterate your video do it on your own time but don't try to impose that on
the rest of us. We don't want FULL SCREEN versions of wide screen films. We
don't want dual media stocked in stores and we don't want to pay for
additional discs or additional version data on the discs we purchase.
Stop watching the black bars.
Edmund
>
> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5OJTm.47792$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
>> Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
>> in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I
>> am pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen
>> size and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3 content
>> is shown with black bars on the sides.
>
> You keep using the term EDITED.
I know, that is what one get if some smartasses select a new world wide
NON existing screen format. ( 16X9 )
> We don't want movies edited (altered) for television. We want the original
> vision of the film maker, not an edited (altered, hacked up, squeezed,
> adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc) version of the film.
You mean you want a miniaturized or in case of a wide anamorphic movie
a hardly visible version of the original, OK.
> The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is preferable over loss
> of the actual picture composition.
When a new movie is edited the way I suggest, you never know is
was edited in the first place, exept you would enjoy the full resolution
AND the full screen size.
> If you want to adulterate your video do it on your own time but don't try
> to impose that on the rest of us. We don't want FULL SCREEN versions of
> wide screen films. We don't want dual media stocked in stores and we don't
> want to pay for additional discs or additional version data on the discs
> we purchase.
There is no way for me to lay my hands on a full resolution cinema movie
and edit that,. All I can do is stretch the part with picture information
from
a disk but that would not give me full HD.
>
> Stop watching the black bars.
Let say we have an different opinion.
Edmund
>
>
John McWilliams
> You keep using the term EDITED. We don't want movies edited (altered) for
> television. We want the original vision of the film maker, not an edited
> (altered, hacked up, squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc)
> version of the film. The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is
> preferable over loss of the actual picture composition.
Leaving aside preferences for a moment, I am still thinking that a
properly formatted movie, originally shot in, say 2.3:1 and being shown
on 16:9 with black bars will be as high a resolution as possible. In
other words, the material is being shown on a reduced sized screen (due
to the bars) and this alone will increase the apparent resolution unless
the screen is so small that more pixels per inch won't matter.
--
john mcwilliams
UCLAN
> You mean you want a miniaturized or in case of a wide anamorphic movie
> a hardly visible version of the original, OK.
Exaggerate much?
Edmund
As I told you before, the HD format is 1080 lines and that includes
the black bars.
There is no way to squeeze in more lines on the disk by making the picture
smaller and there is no way a HD TV will produce a higher resolution on any
part of the screen.
Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.
Edmund
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
Do you have one iota of technical information to back up your assertion
as to resolution and picture information?
Clearly bars reduce apparent screen size, but the rest is your personal
preference, not fact.
--
john mcwilliams
Leonard Caillouet
I don't see the problem with what he said. The display has a fixed
resolution and if you only use part of it you ARE reducing the effective
resolution. If there are 1080 lines encoded, and they get displayed on
less, you get what you get. How the display handles that may vary
considerably, but the bottom line is that the vertical resolution of the
display is usually fixed in most modern displays.
Leonard
Unknown
Resolution, in the video display world, is pixels per square inch.
From that point of view only, you'd be right. A one square inch
picture will have the same resolution as a 1000 square inch picture on
the same screen. But digital pictures are also comprised of the
amount of information available per pixel. Regardless of the media in
use, there is a finite value that can be had.
A 100 minute Blu-Ray video could be 324 Gb in size, or 54 Mbps of play
time. At 40 Mbps of video we're still under 1 bit per pixel per frame
- or 19.3 bits per pixel per second / 24 fps, for a 1080p video from
film.
If the black bars take zero bits per pixel (certainly not true, but a
value much closer to zero than to one) then closer to, or even greater
than, 1 bit per pixel can be made available to the non-black-bar
portion of the image. Thus, picture quality per square inch could be
greater in a letter box or pillar box picture than even a 16:9 OAR
film image transferred to Blu-Ray.
Of course, that depends upon Hollywood wanting to produce the best
possible image rather than merely one considered good enough -or
acceptable quality per dollar spent. I've seen Blu-Ray videos here
that vary drastically in bits per pixel. They almost all look equally
great and seem none the less so for zooming the picture a tad.
I don't think I'd want to zoom a 2.4:1 video to 1.78:1, but I think
that few in the HT audience would notice it. I'm less inclined to
think I'd not enjoy some 4:3 images zoomed to 1.78:1. Let's not
forget that film creators in the 30s and 40s were not making artistic
decisions regarding aspect ratio. They might have made artistic
decisions regarding centering, framing, and ECUs which might influence
the subsequent cropping of their work.
John McWilliams
> I don't see the problem with what he said. The display has a fixed
> resolution and if you only use part of it you ARE reducing the effective
> resolution. If there are 1080 lines encoded, and they get displayed on
> less, you get what you get. How the display handles that may vary
> considerably, but the bottom line is that the vertical resolution of the
> display is usually fixed in most modern displays.
If 1080 lines are displayed on a smaller area, resolution increases. I
won't be noticeable on a small screen, but on a larger one it can be seen.
See Clicker's reply also.
--
john mcwilliams
Alan
>Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.
>
>Edmund
Not always true. The picture is mpeg encoded, and the mpeg coding
must at times compromise on resolution of parts of the image to fit in
its bit-rate budget. As a result, replacing part of the area of the
picture with black bars allows the coding to increase the resolution of
the remaining pictue.
The resolution limit is not always the 1920 by 1080 resolution of the
physical screen.
Alan
Charles Tomaras
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:vmPTm.102330$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>>
>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5OJTm.47792$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
>>> in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I
>>> am pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen
>>> size and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3
>>> content is shown with black bars on the sides.
>>
>> You keep using the term EDITED.
>
> I know, that is what one get if some smartasses select a new world wide
> NON existing screen format. ( 16X9 )
There isn't a world wide standard aspect ratio for theatrical movies for
television manufactures to match. No matter what aspect ratio you choose for
a television it's always going to be a compromise for everything except for
things shot in 16x9 which is pretty much what most television is shot in
these days. So, the majority of new material CREATED FOR TELEVISION is in
fact 16x9. The majority of movies meant for movie theaters is not. When
movies are "made for television" they are for the most part shot in 16x9.
>
>> We don't want movies edited (altered) for television. We want the
>> original vision of the film maker, not an edited (altered, hacked up,
>> squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc) version of the
>> film.
>
> You mean you want a miniaturized or in case of a wide anamorphic movie
> a hardly visible version of the original, OK.
So are you saying you want a larger TV's. I don't know what TV you have or
how far you sit from it but you can just buy a larger television or move
your chair closer and the picture will be just as big in comparison you�re
your head.
>
>> The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is preferable over loss
>> of the actual picture composition.
>
> When a new movie is edited the way I suggest, you never know is
> was edited in the first place, exept you would enjoy the full resolution
> AND the full screen size.
Look up the word edit in a dictionary then come back and tell us all how a
movie can be edited yet still be the same. If a new movie is edited as you
suggest is not some part of the picture missing? Are you just saying that
you don't find the sides or top and bottom of a frame to be worthy of
viewing? Would you go to an art gallery to see a cropped version of the Mona
Lisa?
>> If you want to adulterate your video do it on your own time but don't
>> try to impose that on the rest of us. We don't want FULL SCREEN versions
>> of wide screen films. We don't want dual media stocked in stores and we
>> don't want to pay for additional discs or additional version data on the
>> discs we purchase.
>
> There is no way for me to lay my hands on a full resolution cinema movie
> and edit that,. All I can do is stretch the part with picture information
> from
> a disk but that would not give me full HD.
I think if the HD standard resolution were doubled or tripled you would
still be complaining. You are not a movie lover, you are a resolution
junkie. You are the type of person who invites people over to "watch my HD
television" not "watch a movie."
>> Stop watching the black bars.
>
> Let say we have an different opinion.
No, I actually think you are under the illusion that that a screen full of
half the movie is better than half a screen filled with the entire movie.
I think you are so fixated on black bars that you cannot enjoy the art. Turn
down your lights, move your chair a few feet closer and relax.
Edmund
>
> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uHQTm.69838$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
>>
>> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
>> news:vmPTm.102330$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>>>
>>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5OJTm.47792$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
>>>> Jep but we talking HD content here and ALL cinema movies are available
>>>> in HD ( I guess ) So if these movies where edited the way I suggested I
>>>> am pretty sure you will appreciate that too. Max resolution, max screen
>>>> size and max movie experience, I could not care less if some 4 X3
>>>> content is shown with black bars on the sides.
>>>
>>> You keep using the term EDITED.
>>
>> I know, that is what one get if some smartasses select a new world wide
>> NON existing screen format. ( 16X9 )
>
>
> There isn't a world wide standard aspect ratio for theatrical movies for
> television manufactures to match. No matter what aspect ratio you choose
> for a television it's always going to be a compromise for everything
> except for things shot in 16x9 which is pretty much what most television
> is shot in these days. So, the majority of new material CREATED FOR
> TELEVISION is in fact 16x9. The majority of movies meant for movie
> theaters is not. When movies are "made for television" they are for the
> most part shot in 16x9.
Yes now they are, but at the time they choose fot the 16X9 format
it was non exising.
>
>
>>
>>> We don't want movies edited (altered) for television. We want the
>>> original vision of the film maker, not an edited (altered, hacked up,
>>> squeezed, adulterated, dumbed down, compromised, etc) version of the
>>> film.
>>
>> You mean you want a miniaturized or in case of a wide anamorphic movie
>> a hardly visible version of the original, OK.
>
> So are you saying you want a larger TV's. I don't know what TV you have or
> how far you sit from it but you can just buy a larger television or move
> your chair closer and the picture will be just as big in comparison you�re
> your head.
Great solution thanks.
>
>
>
>>
>>> The loss of a bit of resolution in this instance is preferable over loss
>>> of the actual picture composition.
>>
>> When a new movie is edited the way I suggest, you never know is
>> was edited in the first place, exept you would enjoy the full resolution
>> AND the full screen size.
>
> Look up the word edit in a dictionary then come back and tell us all how a
> movie can be edited yet still be the same. If a new movie is edited as you
> suggest is not some part of the picture missing? Are you just saying that
> you don't find the sides or top and bottom of a frame to be worthy of
> viewing? Would you go to an art gallery to see a cropped version of the
> Mona Lisa?
That is why I said " a NEW movie" most of us have seen the mona lisa
once in there life. I meant a movie which you haven't seen yet.
>
>
>>> If you want to adulterate your video do it on your own time but don't
>>> try to impose that on the rest of us. We don't want FULL SCREEN versions
>>> of wide screen films. We don't want dual media stocked in stores and we
>>> don't want to pay for additional discs or additional version data on the
>>> discs we purchase.
>>
>> There is no way for me to lay my hands on a full resolution cinema movie
>> and edit that,. All I can do is stretch the part with picture information
>> from
>> a disk but that would not give me full HD.
>
> I think if the HD standard resolution were doubled or tripled you would
> still be complaining.
LOL as long as it isn't perfect...
Edmund
Edmund
"Alan" <nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:hfq8ec$5c5$1...@usenet.stanford.edu...
I don't know all in's and out's of the blue ray format and I take it from
you
that it is or would be possible to increase the color dept or even
resolution
but I am sure that a TV cannot produce more then 1080 vertical lines.
So that means there is no way the resolution can be increased with the
black bars.
(Unless you build your own TV with a higher resolution.)
Edmund
Leonard Caillouet
>
> If 1080 lines are displayed on a smaller area, resolution increases. I
> won't be noticeable on a small screen, but on a larger one it can be seen.
>
> See Clicker's reply also.
> --
> john mcwilliams
If the display was capable of resolving infinitely small pixels, or if you
were using a variable scan rate CRT system with large enough CRT(s), this
might be so. For most display systems today, the display resolution is
fixed, and those 1080 lines in the source are displayed on less pixels.
What you are saying is the equivalent of trying to argue that you get higher
resolution on a smaller screen because those 1080 lines are displayed over a
smaller area.
One of the benefits of CIH systems is that you use the whole display area.
Certainly the source and how you accomplish it matters, but at the display
end, you have a fixed number of pixels and using more of them results in
higher resolution of the displayed image.
Leonard
Jan B
wrote:
Alans comment is based on the fact that you never get the full
1920x1080 resolution from the consumer HD distribution we have
(today), not even Blu-Ray. At least when the material is moving
pictures the MPEG coding always throws away picture details.
So the point is that the bits (bit rate) that is available is anyway
spent on the picture content, so the effective details per square unit
can be higher for letterboxed material.
The upper limit is of course set by either the fixed pixel screen or
the signal format. In fact, (if I have understood it correctly) the
signal formats we use for moving pictures never use the full 1920x1080
spatial resolution for colour information. That pixel resulution is
only available for luminance while the colour is sub sampled to lower
pixel resolution.
/Jan
Richard C.
: Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.
:
: Edmund
:===================================
Bull!
Without black bars, picture information WILL be reduced!
The resolution of the 25% of the picture that is discarded is ZERO
resolution!
Just watch the movies in whatever aspect ration they were filmed it and all
will be perfect!
Richard C.
news:d9i6h5hevemdme1tj...@4ax.com...
:
: Why would you care how others may care to view a video? Are you a
: Republican?
=========================
Boy do YOU have that backwards!
It is the f'n Democrats that keep coming up with nanny state ideas - NOT
Republicans!
Richard C.
news:263a2e9e-1e00-4c7d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 30, 12:01 am, "Charles Tomaras" <toma...@tomaras.com> wrote:
> No, I'm a staunch Democrat who pines for others to watch movies properly
> as
> I do. Call me wrong but at least I admit I toss and turn at night out of
> concern for my fellow man who may not have any cinematic knowledge or
> taste.
: What about those of us who don't want the public option? : )
===========================
What about those who don't want Government ruining health care?
UCLAN
> What about those who don't want Government ruining health care?
It isn't "ruined" already?
Thumper
Fruitcakes.
Thumper
Alan
What made you think that the screen filling picture actually had 1080
lines of resolution? If you feed it with a picture with less resolution,
those 1080 lines will show a lower resoluton image. If you feed it with a
complex image, the mpeg coding may well not show full resolution on every
frame.
The set cannot produce more than 1080 lines, but that doesn't mean it
always does even that.
Alan
Richard C.
news:XpdUm.54408$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
: Richard C. wrote:
:
: > What about those who don't want Government ruining health care?
:
: It isn't "ruined" already?
=============================
Actually, no!
Charles Tomaras
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:HJyUm.4723$o73....@newsfe27.ams2...
Well Richard, please expound upon the virtues of the current US healthcare
system as you see it, and why we should not try to change/improve it but
let it continue on it's current course.
Unknown
Just because Edmund has no idea what "resolution" means doesn't meant
that you should go along with it. Pixels per linear or square inch is
the only definition of resolution in regard to digital TV screens.
Thus 1920x1080 does not, in and of itself, define screen resolution
without knowing the screen's dimensions.
Repeat after me:
Smaller screens, of the same number of pixels, have higher resolution.
Larger screens, of the same number of pixels, have lower resolution.
Further, more bits dedicated to recreating a pixel means that the
pixel will have more definition or color depth (i.e. more closely
approximate the origin). At least one dictionary defines "definition"
as "clarity of outline," and "depth" as "strength" or "intensity." But
even 24 bits per pixel will not alter the resolution of the display
which presents it.
Jan B
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:36:44 +0000 (UTC), nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu
>(Alan) wrote:
>
>>In article "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.
>>>
>>>Edmund
>>
>> Not always true. The picture is mpeg encoded, and the mpeg coding
>>must at times compromise on resolution of parts of the image to fit in
>>its bit-rate budget. As a result, replacing part of the area of the
>>picture with black bars allows the coding to increase the resolution of
>>the remaining pictue.
>>
>> The resolution limit is not always the 1920 by 1080 resolution of the
>>physical screen.
>>
>> Alan
>
<sniped first part>
>Further, more bits dedicated to recreating a pixel means that the
>pixel will have more definition or color depth (i.e. more closely
>approximate the origin). At least one dictionary defines "definition"
>as "clarity of outline," and "depth" as "strength" or "intensity." But
>even 24 bits per pixel will not alter the resolution of the display
>which presents it.
What Alan and I pointed out is that the MPEG coding throws away
picture detail. That means that the screen resolution and/or 1920x1080
signal format resolution is only the upper limits.
In the context of letterbox picture, the encoder can then use more of
the available bits (per second) to encode the most essential picture
information and spend less on the black bars.
/Jan
Richard C.
:
: "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
====================================
The ONLY problems with current healthcare are two things.
1) Government interferrence and paperwork
2) Lack of insurance for poor.
Attack only those two problems and it will be improved.
The current legislation will destroy all the good aspects and MAYBE help
number 2).
There is no reason to demolish the parts that work, and that is exactly what
the Obamanators plan to do.
Elimination of Medicare Advantage programs will harm over 25% of the people
on Medicare and most of
them do not even know it is going to happen in 2013.
Creation of over 111 new Government agencies is also not the answer (it is
in the plan).
Get the Government OUT of health care and things will immediately improve
with the free market.
Have the government subsidize truely needy people and that will solve 2).
Right now, there are plans for health care for less than smokers pay each
month for their cigarettes!
Charles Tomaras
> "Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:MsEUm.56670$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
> :
> : "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> : news:HJyUm.4723$o73....@newsfe27.ams2...
> : > "UCLAN" <nom...@thanks.org> wrote in message
> : > news:XpdUm.54408$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
> : > : Richard C. wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > What about those who don't want Government ruining health care?
> : > :
> : > : It isn't "ruined" already?
> : >
> : > =============================
> : > Actually, no!
> :
> : Well Richard, please expound upon the virtues of the current US
> healthcare
> : system as you see it, and why we should not try to change/improve it
> but
> : let it continue on it's current course.
> :
> ====================================
> The ONLY problems with current healthcare are two things.
> 1) Government interferrence and paperwork
> 2) Lack of insurance for poor.
So how has government interference caused my single, self employed 50 year
old guy with no major problems health care plan to rise to over $500 per
month with a $750 deductible and $30 co-pays for every visit? It's the lack
of government interference that has allowed the insurance companies to to
soak me for so much. I'm scared to death to leave my current plan I've had
for 13 years for fear that something will go wrong in the switch and I will
lose coverage over pre-existing conditions. A little more governmental
interference on pre-existing conditions would be most helpful. I trust the
US Government far more than I trust Blue Cross to look out for my best
interests.
JBDragon
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:rBBVm.23298$_b5....@newsfe22.iad...
Name 1 thing that Government is running right? Post Office is Bankrupt, So
is Social Security, Medicare, and the list goes on!!! This whole
Government takeover was suppose to do a couple things, Lower Costs, and
cover EVERYONE, and yet it does NEITHER!!! Why is is that if the US
Heath care is so screwed up, people from other Countries with FREE Socialist
Heath care come to the U.S. to get their life saved? Want to know WHY
Healthcare costs is the U.S. has been skyrocketing. it's a few things.
First Government run Medicare. it doesn't cover the whole cost. Only a
small Fraction, I've heard as low as 30%. Guess who has to make up that
loss? Yep, the people with their own Insurance which Raises cost. So your
not only paying for yourself, but also those Government Medicare people!!!
The other reason is because of all the Expensive hardware in the U.S. that
we use. All the Cat Scan and other Machines, that are Millions of Dollars.
The U.S. has 1000 times more of that hardware then Canada for example.
Which is why your waiting in lines for 6-9 months!!! 10,20, 30+ years
ago, we didn't have all this fancy hardware that needed to be paid for!!!
You know what happens when you get the Government running Heath care,
because you have no one to complain to. What you get are LONG LINES and
LONG Waiting lists. Death Panels, already been proven. Cheaper to let a
old person Die when it costs the most money. I can go on., but what's
really funny, or SAD depending on how you look at it. TO make the HUGE
costs look better. Everyone will be paying into it for 3 years before it
even Starts. Why is that? So that the numbers look better? So what we
have crap heath care for 7 years, then another 4 years to pay ahead, then
another 7 years, or does it greatly increases in costs after the fist 10
years???
If the Government is running things and tell YOU how much you should get
paid, why spend all that time and money to get crap pay? So more people
into the system. The number of doctors doesn't go up, in fact will end up
going DOWN, your Costs will go UP still. All kinds of things are getting
TAXED!!! and yet still not everyone will be covered. I don't get it. Why
anyone would want this 2000+ page garbage that they won't even be bothered
to read is beyond me. It's completely unconstitutional!!!
This will end up hurting EVERYONE, well except the House and Senate for one
thing. They get to keep they're own really nice heath care plan!!! Really,
if this national heath care was so great, why have theirs??? I guess if
it's BAD for everyone at least it's FAIR!! I could go on forever. This
so called Heath Care Reform needs to DIE!!!!! It's nothing having to do
with better heath care at a lower cost, it's ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
If they really wanted to lower Costs, some cheap easy solutions, like TORT
Reform, and being able to buy Insurance from anyone over state lines just
like your Auto Insurance. 1 so called Government option is somehow better
then Thousands of Insurance company's? See no, they just want the
Government Option. Insurance company's can't compete when the Government
can set the rules and Subsidies the costs. There ends up being NO
competition, only the GOVERNMENT in the end.
>
Charles Tomaras
"JBDragon" <JBDr...@somplace.com> wrote in message
news:DZGVm.112$aj...@newsfe19.iad...
Well... to steer this back on topic... just how does FOX News look on your
HDTV? I can't seem to get it to tune in on my set at all...I have much
better luck with MSNBC.
Edmund
<CLicker> wrote in message
news:1l08i59drvmvkbhk4...@4ax.com...
All others know exactly what I mean and since english is not my
first language I don't know a better way of expressing it.
Have fun splitting hears with youre dictionaries and never mind the
discussion.
Edmund
Thumper
You're a real fruitcake.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
The post office runs just fine. You can have a letter delivered door
to door almost anywhere in the country for 44 cents. Do you know what
UPS or Fedex charges for that service?
> So is Social Security, Medicare, and the list goes on!!!
Funding needs to be addressed but they all run pretty good
>This whole
>Government takeover was suppose to do a couple things, Lower Costs, and
>cover EVERYONE, and yet it does NEITHER!!!
Do you want those things or not? You're arguing out of both sides of
your mouth. If we want everyone insured the government has to be MORE
involved. It's private industry that won't insure people.
Your solution seems to be "let the insurance companies continue to
screw us."
Thumper
Richard C.
:
: "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
=============================
Ask your doctor how many Federal regulations (and insurance regulations
required by the government) he has to follow.
Ask him how many people he now has doing paperwork required by those
regulations.
Ask your insurance company the same thing.
Government regulations and other crap are the main reason for increased
fees - not the insurance company.
I trust the insurance companies FAR more than the Government.
At least I can change insurance companies.
How do you like the plan for 5 years in jail if you don't get insurance
Free market is what has made this country great.
You will have no choice very soon.....
Richard C.
Richard C.
"Thumper" <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s4uei5tgj6c2dgjsp...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:41:45 -0800, "Richard C."
========================
The REAL fruitcakes are the ones who complain like crazy about Government
service (medicare, Social Security, Post Office, etc - etc..) and then want
the same Government to run our health care!
Actually that is the definition of insanity!
RickMerrill
I agree with you, Charles.
To those who don't I say that while no Govt project is perfect,
sometimes if a job is worth doing - it's worth doing poorly (rather than
doing nothing).
UCLAN
> <CLicker> wrote in message
> news:1l08i59drvmvkbhk4...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:36:44 +0000 (UTC), nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu
>>(Alan) wrote:
>>
>>>In article "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>Black bars only reduce picture information, screen size and resolution.
>>>
>>> Not always true. The picture is mpeg encoded, and the mpeg coding
>>>must at times compromise on resolution of parts of the image to fit in
>>>its bit-rate budget. As a result, replacing part of the area of the
>>>picture with black bars allows the coding to increase the resolution of
>>>the remaining pictue.
>>>
>>> The resolution limit is not always the 1920 by 1080 resolution of the
>>>physical screen.
>>
>>Just because Edmund has no idea what "resolution" means doesn't meant
>>that you should go along with it. Pixels per linear or square inch is
>>the only definition of resolution in regard to digital TV screens.
>>
>>Thus 1920x1080 does not, in and of itself, define screen resolution
>>without knowing the screen's dimensions.
>>
>>Repeat after me:
>>Smaller screens, of the same number of pixels, have higher resolution.
>>Larger screens, of the same number of pixels, have lower resolution.
>>
>>Further, more bits dedicated to recreating a pixel means that the
>>pixel will have more definition or color depth (i.e. more closely
>>approximate the origin). At least one dictionary defines "definition"
>>as "clarity of outline," and "depth" as "strength" or "intensity." But
>>even 24 bits per pixel will not alter the resolution of the display
>>which presents it.
>
> All others know exactly what I mean and since english is not my
> first language I don't know a better way of expressing it.
> Have fun splitting hears with youre dictionaries and never mind the
> discussion.
...your...
Thumper
Ask him how many rules and regulations from the insurance companies he
has to follow as well as ho many different insurance companies.
>Ask him how many people he now has doing paperwork required by those
>regulations.
>Ask your insurance company the same thing.
>Government regulations and other crap are the main reason for increased
>fees - not the insurance company.
>
>I trust the insurance companies FAR more than the Government.
Tel that to those of us who are made to jump- through hoops because of
insurance companies.
>At least I can change insurance companies.
>How do you like the plan for 5 years in jail if you don't get insurance
>Free market is what has made this country great.
>You will have no choice very soon.....
>
Unfortunately you are one of those that has bought into the corporate
lie so long that you can't see the truth.
Thumper
Thumper
<post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Insanity is repeating the lie that government can't do anything right.
Thumper
Unknown
In the 1950s I worked on Wall Street. My employer, a large financial
institution, had two resident physicians, three nurses, and an 8 bed
clinic available on premises and free of charge to all employees - at
least on first shift. The family GP would still make house calls;-)
The employee medical insurance benefits completely covered the three
occasions of prenatal, birth, meds, and the one 6 week
hospital-of-our-choice stay of our premie, without any paperwork, co
pay, or concern. Life insurance, commensurate with salary and
position, was a contributionless benefit, as was a retirement fund.
Stock options were available according to one's position and the
contribution was small and/or they were awarded as a bonus.
The insurance coverage and nursing, though not the on-site doctors,
remained similar at several employers through the early 70s, until I
relocated to California. Subsequent self employment changed all of
that, but it was one of the expected costs and tolerable.
Currently HMOs administer our Medicare benefits for no additional
monthly fee. While I've been very lucky with health issues, the other
half of the household hasn't. Aside from $125/day hospital stay co
pay (2.5x the co pay in my HMO), all her medical needs have been
tended to with great satisfaction for about $5 a pop.
The last contact I had with my HMO was the day I signed up for it.
After identifying myself the first time I visited my doctor, no one
has asked for anything other than cash of me since. I go, fork up my
$5, and get tended to. The one prescription drug I take is free of
charge.
I haven't read the "plan." I'm presuming that there is no way that it
will improve our lot.
A neighbor who is not yet 65 works on-and-off as a substitute teacher.
Her monthly medical insurance bill is over $400 with deductibles.
Sadly, she is also in great need of it. She can hardly wait to reach
65, but I've no idea now what "coverage" she'll then receive nor for
how much.
Do I care that there are so large a number of uninsured Americans?
Yes! Do I understand why illegals have been/will be entitled? Sadly,
no. Do I care that some Americans seem to get screwed by their
insurers? You betcha. Have any of my concerns, or my votes, brought
about change for the better? Nope. Am I apathetic? Yeah :(
As to mandatory insurance premiums, that's just taxes with a marketing
tag. The penalty for not paying taxes and that for not paying
mandatory insurance premiums should be the same. That said, should
mandatory insurance premiums be scaled according to income? Doh! But
what about those with zero or undeclared income? Ponderous subjects!