Automotive Holiday Deals Books Holiday Gift Guide Shop Men's Athletic Shoes Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon Prime Music Sweepstakes egg_2015 All-New Amazon Fire TV Beauty Deals Gifts for Her Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Gift Card Offer cm15 cm15 cm15 $30 Off Amazon Echo $30 Off Fire HD 6 Kindle Cyber Monday Deals BestoftheYear Outdoor Deals on HTL
Customer Discussions > Zombieland [Blu-ray] forum

what's up with the 2.4:1 aspect ratio

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-16 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 17, 2010 8:15:27 AM PST
Bill Bradley says:
I'm annoyed by the releases in the 2.4:1 aspect ratio that don't match up to the native formats of most high definition home systems (1920 x 1080, or 16:9 or 1.8:1). Fussing with my settings is not what I need. Gee, it's like they expect us to have full blown movie theater systems in our homes. Yeah, right!

Posted on Feb 17, 2010 9:11:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2010 11:21:33 AM PST
They don't expect you to have a movie theater system in your home. But they want you to enjoy the movie at a theater experiences so they kindly provide the movie in 2.4:1 aspect ratio in native 1080P.

You can put your children pictures across the the top and bottom over the black bar if it bothers you so much.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2010 11:07:30 AM PST
KevinH1982 says:
Wow. Is this REALLY still a problem with people? *shakes head*

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2010 11:54:51 AM PST
Glen R says:
Wha Wha Imagine the movie industry not making movies to fit a television 16:9 aspect ratio. How dare they not bow to your silly whim. I bet you complained about movies not fitting your old style TV's 4:3 aspect too. If it bothers you so much then press the zoom button on your TV

Posted on Mar 13, 2010 2:25:54 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 10, 2015 5:57:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2010 6:48:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2010 9:32:36 PM PST
John says:
I know the reason for the 2.4.1 ratio. I get that it lets us see more to the sides. But i would prefer full screen and a bit less at the sides.

The person posting this agrees with me and it's just an opinion. Others who want the width, are also correct, according to their preference.

Instead of the 'two-sides' bickering and insulting one another, we should get the film-makers or tv manufacturers to work out a simply way that consumers can choose betwen the two options, as most dvd/tvs don't fit to full screen very well.

stop insulting everyone and email the tv manufactuer instead!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2010 8:26:09 PM PDT
Matt says:

There's ALREADY a way that you can choose between both options. Let me explain it to you. Choice 1, watch it the way it is intended, in this case, 2.4:1 ratio, and choice 2, use the zoom feature that either your Blu-Ray player or TV SHOULD have. Unless your TV is that old, it should have this option, and I believe all Blu-Ray player's have this option. And most DVD players do to. That's all the studio's would do if they did it for you, so just do it yourself. It takes a click of a button and then maybe you can stop complaining about something that's not an issue.

They aren't going to start releasing movies in three different aspect ratio's just because someone like yourself doesn't know how to use the zoom. For one, it would confuse consumers, and two, it just wouldn't work in terms of sales. It's doubtful the stores would correctly label them so there'd just be a stack of movies and you'd have to sort through to find the aspect ratio you want...sorry, not going to happen.

I agree with J. Ayala, this is a silly thread, and all of you should know by now you have a zoom button.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2011 3:42:24 AM PST
No not ALL bluray palyer have zoom!! Brand new Sony BDV-E370 doesn't, and the Sharp TV (also Brand) new, removes zoom options when a Blu-Ray is inserted. TV companys re-format films and so do some Blu-rays. It's very hit and miss. I bought 3 BD's the other day. 1 was 1.85:1 the other 2 2.4:1. The 1.85 is FAR better to watch!!! Looks like I'll be buying/renting far less Bds than the makers would like me to !!!!! 2.4:1 just wastes screen space that we pay hundred extra to have!!!

Posted on Aug 12, 2011 2:33:32 PM PDT
Personally I prefer to watch films in the aspect ratio that the director intended the film to be seen in. If you bought a famous oil painting to hang in your home would you trim the sides down to make it fit a particular picture frame that you liked? Really if you know how to get through the menus on your DVD/BD player and Television I would bet hard cash money that there's a solution to your quirky problem and suit your fetish for everything fitting the shape of your screen. I know there's at least 3 or 4 ways to do it on my system. Either using zoom on the TV or the DVD/BD player (the simplest way), or changing something in the set-up menu on your player or TV, or ,using the stretch function on your TV settings (used to view older 4:3 aspect ratio in a full screen 16:9 or 16:10 screen). They all have their advantages and disadvantages but if you learn to use all that expensive gear you've purchased you'll find you get more for your money and that the solutions are already there for your problems. If you can't figure it out there's lots of forums, and tech support on the internet for those who can't read the manuals that came with your equipment, or those afraid to change any settings in those set-up menus.

Posted on Jan 14, 2012 9:42:51 PM PST
L. Hansen says:
This is absolutley a problem and has been for years. Everyone I have known have had a problem with it and for you guys to dismiss it likes its not makes me wonder who you work for, if you are diconnected from the world or recently suffered some brain trauma.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2012 1:53:10 PM PDT
Turtle says:
I agree. I'm a late adopter of HDTV. I suffered in silence with letterbox on my 4:3 TV because I understood it was in HD format. I recently used my tax refund for an HDTV and Bluray player expecting to get the best in HD entertainment. Imagine my disappointment when I put on the movie Inception and got letterbox again. WTF!

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 10:39:02 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 19, 2013 8:10:52 AM PDT
D. A. Adams says:
Having 1.85:1 supported on the BR disc would just permit watching true 1080p with your 16:9 television screen completely filled by the image. "1080p" when 480 of that is just the letterbox feels cheap, as does "well just zoom" since now you're stretching 800 pixels to fill a larger space.

Even though it still wouldn't be 1080p, I'd love for BD publishers to somehow include a 1.85:1 "pan and scan" as an additional "camera angle" that can be selected in an otherwise 2.4:1 movie, so that in addition to being 1.85:1 they can subtly shift left or right when necessary to keep the important elements from the original 2.4:1 wide image. i.e. Not just a static zoom and crop of your television or BR player, but an actual editor's choice of what's important to see within a 1.85:1 edit.

More often than not, movies I can't buy in 1.85:1 are being shown 1.85:1 in HD on HBO, Showtime and similar, so someone is having to make these 1.85:1 edits even though they're not selling them.

Posted on Jul 5, 2013 6:34:22 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 6, 2013 1:10:27 AM PDT]

Posted on Aug 25, 2013 10:46:30 AM PDT
Suhr says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 19, 2013 10:20:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2013 10:21:32 AM PST
Suhr says:
Since this topic is not about personal preferences OR perceptions of "what the director intended you to see" or ANY opinions of any kind and IS a technical issue regardless of ALL else.... here is the SIMPLE in plain words.

1. The black bars present in letter boxed movies (2:39, 2:4) ARE HARMFUL to your TV display and create uneven wear commonly called "burn in". This technical physics fact is not subject to any debate proposed or imposed by any scientifically ignorant lunatic.
80 years, 8 decades of clipped movie materials have been shown and viewed on CRT televisions and in movie theaters without one person irrationally complaining about "missing part of the picture".
It was only with the invention of the widescreen TV that this exercise in lunacy has emerged and has produced a viewing audience that now claims that part of the picture is missing unless accompanied by black bars.
Reality check.... these black bars ARE NOT what the director saw when filming and ARE proof positive that "part of the picture is missing", AND required to eliminate viewing the sound and lighting equipment involved, AND reduce the size of the picture on your widescreen TV to that of an obsolete CRT television thus creating a Loss of Detail afforded by High Definition.
(shrinks the picture)

2. Here is the problem.
Those of us who are "technical" simply zoom these movies to fit the screen for two reasons.
One, we get a bigger picture with hardly any loss of movie material and certainly no loss great enough to miss the "intent" of the movie.
Two, our TV is not damaged by uneven wear or burn in.
The problem is.... ENCODING.
You see, REGARDLESS if your TV or blu ray player has a zoom function or fit to screen aspect function, the Disc itself MUST be ENCODED to allow this function to work.
If the disc is not encoded for these functions, these functions will not work and you are forced to watch movies in a G-String aspect ratio at two thirds the "normal size" the Director originally intended.

3. The ONLY solution to this Technical Problem that makes EVERYONE happy is.... a 2:39 aspect ratio TV instead of a 16:9.

Meanwhile.... back on the loony farm.... fools argue about how movies should look based upon nothing but an opinion.
‹ 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:  15
Total posts:  16
Initial post:  Feb 17, 2010
Latest post:  Nov 19, 2013

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

Search Customer Discussions