Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon Chi-Raq Bose SoundLink AE All-New Amazon Fire TV Valentine's Day Cards Create an Amazon Wedding Registry Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Prime Exclusive Savings in Video Games Shop Now DOTD

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-19 of 19 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 2, 2007 1:13:32 PM PDT
Augi says:
On the back of this Blu-Ray disc, it specifically says "16x9 Widescreen Version."

I prefer the 16x9 widescreen because it "fills" the entire screen on a 16x9 screen -- bigger picture. And in my opinion, allows for a greater appreciation of detail.

Yet it doesn't fill the screen, you still get those black bars at the top and bottom, and the smaller widescreen picture. Then I looked at the back again, and at the bottom, it says "2.35:1" widescreen. So which is it, 16x9 or 2.35:1?

Perhaps I've got it confused, and it is "16:9 aspect ratio" that ensures that your entire screen is filled.

Personally, I think all Blu-Ray/HD-DVD's should have the 16:9 widescreen format, since you'll most likely be viewing high-definition movies on a 16x9 HDTV. I think if you're spending $10 more on a "high definition" disc, you should get your money's worth. That's all I'm saying. And they shouldn't mislead you on the box information.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2007 1:45:17 PM PDT
DAW says:
16x9 means that the video has been processed anamorphically to work on a widescreen HDTV and to fill the TV from vertcal side to vertical side...The 2.35:1 you mentioned is the aspect ratio of the actual film as it was shown theatrically...This is not the same thing..The current aspect ratios of theatrical films is either 1.85:1 (which is called "flat" and will fill your screen since it is close to the 16x9 ratio of an HDTV...The HDTV ratio of 16x9 converts to an aspect ratio of about 1.78:1...simply divide 16 by 9 to get this answer) and the aforementioned 2.35:1 (called "scope") will still create some black bars because that was simply how the movie was filmed and released to the theaters.Hope this helps.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 9:47:36 PM PDT
Augi says:
Wow! Thanks a lot! You sure know your stuff! :)

I understand it better now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2007 12:14:40 PM PDT
DAW says:
Thanks for the compliment..I have to admit that I'm a bit of cheater since I have worked in a movie theater as a projectionist for about 13 years and much of this stuff is second nature... But I'm the first to say that a lot of what is written on DVD/Blu-ray packages are misleading and sometimes just plain incorrect.And considering all the confusion and misinformation out there about HDTV and Hi-Def disc formats,It's no wonder they are a hard sell to consumers.But if you are really interested in learning more about aspect ratios and and HD in general,I would recommend checking out this websites archives: www.the digitalbits.com. But either way I'm glad to have been of help.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2008 5:43:04 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2009 10:15:53 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2008 10:55:58 AM PST
DAW says:
That is correct.But how many people,other than movie lovers and film makers,talk about aspect ratios on a day to day basis or even know what they are?..My experience has been that up until the arrival of DVD,most people simply bought full frame VHS tapes and didn't know or care that they could be missing up to 50% of the film...And for the most part,widescreen VHS tapes were a joke because few people bought them and they actually cost more than a full frame version.Aspect ratios and HDTV are confusing to many people,but it will be a viewing standard in the future.Helping others understand is a good thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 12:50:24 AM PDT
JG says:
Well, of course this discussion has been going on since laser discs were the rage, but I personally think it's an issue that needs to be revisited. The technology of television has changed considerably since pan & scan was declared enemy #1... Also, the way films are photographed and presented has changed.

Certainly, it's only one man's opinion here but I don't consider home theater to be the equivalent viewing experience to watching a film projected in a movie theater. I happen to have a larger HD display (w/BD and HD DVD players) than most and sit about 10' away from the screen... despite this, I can safely say my home theater in no way compares to the 60' screen at my local theater. In fact, it's generally accepted that a home theater screen will not fill the average viewer's field of vision the way a full-sized movie theater screen will. Even today's large plasma and lcd displays are not intended to. And yet, there are still those that insist on shrinking the film image down to a tiny fraction of its intended size to accomodate the aspect ratio presented in full-sized movie theaters. It doesn't make sense to me and I see no real reason for it.

For one, the vast majority of films today are photographed in "Super 35"... basically a large, 4x3 aspect ratio negative that is cropped down to make widescreen prints. In fact, you might be surprised to know that most films are actually intended to be shown at more than one aspect ratio... I happen to work in the film industry and most motion picture cameras adjusted for Super 35 are equipped with a ground glass that has frame lines that accomodate both a 2.35:1 frame and 1.85 frame at the same time. This allows the studio to distribute a film anamorphically or spherically. The 1.85 frame actually uses more of the original negative than 2.35... however, 1.85 uses less of the available print frame than anamorphic so 2.35 prints are generally regarded as slightly less grainy than "flat" prints (This is why most of today's IMAX theaters use digital projectors for their spherical image rather than analog prints). Digital intermediate technologies also make anamorphic prints more attractive than in the days of optical printing and effects.

As a result, more films are being presented anamorphically than ever before... in fact, 1.85:1 is becoming the exception rather than the rule. More 2.35 films means more letterboxed discs for home video... in spite of the fact that most films could be presented 16x9 with virtually no cropping whatsoever.

There are other issues at work, of course... CGI for two aspect ratios would add expense, and there are still films photographed anamorphically that make 16x9 presentation problematic... but I think there are better solutions than taking a smaller-than-intended image and cropping it down to use about 65% of the available screen. Perhaps some hybrid of subtle cropping, opening the matte slightly, and less obtrusive letterboxing might make all parties equally happy or unhappy as the case may be.

As a matter of fact, I haven't taken any measurements but I've noticed many recent films released on HD disc are listed as 2.35:1 but the image comes much closer to filling a 16x9 display than previous releases. I have a feeling studios are quietly doing exactly what I've described to keep the peace... To keep both those seeking the "theater experience" and those wanting to maximize that beautiful 1080p image buying their discs.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2008 7:15:11 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
All I know is I want the film in the original aspect ratio, or I feel cheated...

although honestly I also watch stuff I don't care about quite as much off of TV that's often pan and scanned, and it's usually done very well...not that I'd want to watch a movie/show I really really loved in that format.

But I don't want anything altered in any way generally. If it's 4:3, display it like that. 2.35:1, display it like that, etc.

Although the whole Super 35 thing sort of introduces a complication, but presumably the director/cinematographer was framing it for a particular aspect ratio, and I've heard you can often see mics and the like if you see the full thing that was technically put on to film.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 4:05:30 AM PST
All of you are missing a huge point. The black bars, matting, whatever you want to call it, DAMAGES LCD and Plasma TV's. Every one knows that. It is called screen burn. The theater experience is going away, as we see complex after complex fail. So how 'bout filming everything in 1:85 and be done with it. What the projectionist failed to get across is that he just adds a lens to correct whatever comes into his theater.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 9:02:56 AM PST
WolfPup says:
It doesn't damage LCDs, just plasma, which is one of many reasons I don't buy plasma screens. And box office receipts are huge...there might be some theaters failing in some areas, but certainly not everywhere. It's not going away anytime soon, and it's still a lot of fun.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 10:02:28 AM PST
DAW says:
A couple problems with what you posted Ms.Laidig:
1. The "burn-in" issue is not a problem with most newer Plasma TV's the way it used to be and there has never been an issue with LCD.Check some A/V forums to confirm this.
2. As the "projectionist" you referred to,I seriously doubt the "theater experience" is ever going away completely.You simply can't have a 60 foot screen and a 4000 watt sound system in your house.Also,there are plans being made for a digital projection transition within the next decade between theater chains and hardware companies...Although,overall,the movie business has taken a downturn in the last 5-6 years,there can be many factors for this including illegal downloading,the amount of theaters trying to compete for your business and the quality of films recently.For every "Dark Knight" and "Wall-E" there are a multitude of bad films that people don't want to waste $10 on or will wait until it goes to a discount theater.
3. Filming everything at 1.85 :1 (FLAT) compared to 2.35 :1 (SCOPE) may make everyone who hates black bars on their widescreen TV happy,but defeats the artistic purpose of the director to choose how they film their movie and how it will appear at a theater.Believe me,a "Star Wars" film or any other effects-laden film would not look nearly as impressive on a smaller screen.
4. As to what you said about "adding a lense",I think you have your facts incorrect.A projectionist does not add a lense to another lense...There is a separate lense for FLAT and SCOPE films.The FLAT lense simply magnifies the image on the film while the SCOPE lense un-stretches,expands and magnifies the image for a wider screen...There is no difference in the physical film between FLAT and SCOPE,but there is one on how the frame images are printed on the film...What would look like a circle on a Flat frame of film would look more like a vertically elongated ellipse on a scope film.As I said,the scope lense will process that image and make it look like a normal circle when it hits the screen.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 10:07:58 PM PST
WolfPup says:
I really hope they never switch from film to video. I know that was really being hyped a few years back, but all the industry people I respect really slammed it, and when I've had the misfortune to see it, it's just awful compared to film.

What would be great is if instead of downgrading to video, they upgraded to that super 48 or whatever it's called film format. The differences with that are supposed to be amazing, and they don't even have to use it for an entire film, they can speed up during scenes it would benefit from.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2008 11:11:48 PM PST
If you sit toward the back row of a theater the screen hardly fills the viewer's field of vision. A good director of photography true to his or her art form will always take composition into consideration when framing a shot or shots within a scene. Therefore, to get the true experience from a film, if you care to, you must see that film in its original aspect ratio. Viewing, say, one of the "Matrix" films at the 2.40:1 aspect ratio, as it was composed for, gives the viewer and entirely different "sensation" than if it were cropped for 16x9 whether it's on a 60 foot screen or within a 60 inch wide-screen television. This may be a subconscious reality for most, but it is there none-the-less. It could be likened to watching a movie that is meant to be heard with the volume at an optimum level, yet being forced to experience it with the volume at a much lower level. The impact and reality available from the film will be lessened. Personally, I am bothered by the course of HD pay channels, like HBO, Starz, Cinemax and Showtime, that find it necessary to crop the sides of a film to fill a 16X9 screen. These are "movie" channels and should deliver as much of the movie experience as is possible. The movie experience is much more than story. If you're looking for just a story, then pick up a book and create the visuals and sound yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2008 10:38:52 AM PST
Mark Strand says:
BD movies are not "processed anamorphically". A Cinemascope-ratio movie (i.e. 2.35:1) has black bars printed above and below the video image. The BD player does NOT do any stretching out of the image. The images are stored at 16:9 but with black bars above and below.

Posted on Apr 6, 2014 7:01:05 PM PDT
You all seem to be missing the point! You all sound like a bunch of film students. NEWS FLASH! NO ONE CARES about the directors vision! What they do care about is when you buy a 60" tv, you want to see 60" worth of tv, Not 52" of your 60" tv. 98% of all Blu Ray's sold are going to be viewed on HDTV's. So big whoop, you arent going to see the insignificant person who has no bearing on the movie to the left of the main character, and the fake tree to the far right. Oh my god! What am I going to do? I don't see them with 16:9. If all that means so much to you go ahead and pay $50 between tickets and popcorn to sit next to the jerk who texts all night long, and the guy behind you who doesn't shut up. Those of us who purchase Blu ray players and large screen HDTV's do so to whatch a picture in th best quality and a large picture. The whole tv. Instead of selling combo packs with a digital copy, save that money and offer blu ray in 16:9.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2014 7:24:28 PM PDT
DAW says:
You are the one missing the point. Many people who enjoy films do care about the director's visual intentions and don't want to see a cropped picture that's been artificially bloated to fill a 16x9 screen when the original format was 2.35 to 1. If you feel differently, good for you. Go back to using your zoom button on your bluray/dvd player so you don't have to see the horrible black bars. You don't need to come here and slam and insult people who do care about seeing a film as it was meant to be viewed. You added nothing to this discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2014 6:43:00 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Wow...I didn't know there was anyone left who wanted pan and scan. I can't believe someone's getting mad about getting the whole movie LOL. I can see getting mad over NOT getting the whole movie if it's something you liked, but...

I want the original aspect ratio regardless of what it was.

I forgot about those zoom features DAW mentioned...yeah, do that if small black bars bother you...

Posted on Apr 7, 2014 6:44:49 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Wow, my last post was from SIX years ago, where I was hoping they'd never switch from film to video... well unfortunately they're doing just that most everywhere.

Really disappointed, but its their loss as I can get high quality video at home...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2015 4:26:45 AM PDT
L. May says:
So true. Why spend so much money on a tv to fill a 1/3 of it with black space. Oh because that's what the director wanted. Bs. I payed for my tv and my blu-ray now show it to like I want it.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  10
Total posts:  19
Initial post:  May 2, 2007
Latest post:  Mar 24, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Terminator 2: Judgment Day by Arnold Schwarzenegger (DVD - 1997)
4.4 out of 5 stars (2,095)