Blu Ray - how do you get rid of these cinemascope black bands?

Yes it sucks....

zoom zoom...

option 1. Buy films that have an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (16:9)
option 2. Buy 2 other television sets one with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (4:3) and one with an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 (21.5:9)
option 3. Get a projector
option 4. relax and be happy that you are able to afford a new flat screen television while lots of other people are losing their jobs or are struggling to find food, walking 45 minutes a day to find drinking water etc...

Yes it's annoying and I wish all films were made in 16:9 format as I don't really notice the extreme left and right edges anyway. Your TV should have some sort of aspect control which lets you zoom into the central part of the picture and get rid of the black bands. Obviously you'll lose the extreme left and right, and perhaps also the top and bottom edges depending on the shape of the source picture, and on the level of zoom your TV provides. For some reason an HDMI image can't be manipulated to the same extent as an RGB-type image. My old Panasonic could produce just about any shape of image you wanted.

It is all to do with the original aspect ratio of the film.

This has settled down into two most used ratio's
16:9 and 21:9.

All modern flat screens have a ratio of 16:9 so when a director has chosen the 21:9 format to shoot his film the result will be black bars top and bottom when played back on a widesceen panel tv.

As a purest I like to see the film in its original aspect ratio so the black bars don't bother me and I do prefer films shot in the 21:9 format.

Unfortunately it's all a bit messy and there's no way to get rid of the lines (at the top or side) in all cases without distorting the picture to some extent. If I'm seriously watching a movie I'll leave it in the original aspect ratio. Other times I'll zoom or watch in smart mode which stretches the edges to fit the screen.

I've just checked a few movies I've watched recently and they're generally 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 with Ben Hur at 2.76:1 the narrowest I could find. I'd guess something like How the West Was Won would be even narrower. Even "16:9" varies a bit between 1.78 and 1.85:1. And the old classics like Gone With the Wind and Casablanca are 1.33:1 i.e. 4:3.

No it's never straightforward is it.

Thanks for the comments, guys, I also got a friendly dealer in London emailing me with clarification and I'm very grateful to him for this too!

Wouldn't it be ideal, though, if they reorganised the ratio for 16:9??!!

Also, does anyone recommend a really good Blu Ray film with regard to its stunning picture?

I've watched a few so far in 1080p on my 50" TV and none have really struck me yet.

I'd be really grateful for your suggestions!!!

Jon

Try Band of Brothers. I've not watched it all yet in Blu Ray but what I've seen so far looks spectacular. Hell Boy as well if scifi/fantasy is your thing.

This is a topic that gets under my skin. Sorry, but ....

A simple question, do you not want to watch the original film?

The director, and director of photography made a decision about what shape the work would be, just as an artist makes a decision about the size and shape of the canvas on which they paint.

For example, if you watched a documentary about the 'Mona Lisa', would you expect that images of the painting were cropped to fit the screen? All you would see of the painting is from the her nose, to the bottom of her neck.

Once a decision has been made about the shape of the film, the the shots are framed to fit that. 'Pan and scan' was used used to fit feature films to 4:3 monitors in the past, but what you got were jumpy edits that didn't make sense, and strange picture moves.

Another example, Woody Allen, often has dialogue sequences with the actors right at the edges of a wide frame, long unedited shots that are gentle in pace, and allow you to follow the dialogue and appreciate the acting. Once these have gone through a 'pan and scan' they end up being edited like an action sequence from a Steven Segal movie.

Before DVD I did not buy copies of many films that I had seen in the cinema because what was for sale on VHS was not that film, but a bastardised version, part of it, and chopped up at that.

I was very pleased when on set with a director a couple of weeks ago, and I asked if the shot needed to be picture safe (conforming to shapes for TVs) in any way, and he replied 'f*** them'.

I certainly do not think it would be ideal if everything was shot in 16:9, just as I do not think it would be ideal if every piece of music were edited down to four minutes, or all artists to only paint pictures in portrait (vertical canvases).

The artistic process requires variation, and one of those variations is the choice of the blank canvas on which you start, in this case the frame of the camera.

Sorry to not be positive in reply, but this is something I feel strongly about.

Jamie

If you've shelled out a grand or two on kit and then twenty quid on a BD it's up to you to decide how you want to watch it. As it happens for the most part I agree with you but there are times when I prefer to watch 4:3 stuff in smart mode. Doesn't make me a bad person. Also not every director works like Woody Allen. There are plenty of movies where there's absolutely nothing going on in the extreme edges of the picture and it's obviously been filmed to convert to 16:9 with no significant loss. Why not shoot it in 16:9 to begin with?

I am not saying that people should not have the choice to watch something in the manner in which they want to, but it was said, or implied, that there is something wrong with films being shot in any screen ratio other than 16:9.

Many films have nothing happening at the edge of the screen, as the director has chosen to bow to the pressure of TV resale and restricted how the shot is created. This often leads to badly shot, and visually uninteresting films. That is not a problem if the film is strongly narrative and has little visual impetus, but other film makers wish to make films that have a strong visual statement.

In effect this is the same argument as the one over compression of audio recordings, like the recent topic on the sound quality of the new Metallica album. Are films and recordings made to fit the lowest common denominator, or is quality and expression allowed to shine through?

I watch films on a TV and a projector. As has been rightly said, with 2.35:1 you get black bars at top and bottom, with 4:3 you get black bars at each side. This preserves the original (theatrical) aspect ratio as appropriate. Why is this a problem? As long as the image is large enough then all should be well. Zooming in with a cinema-scope film will fill the screen but lose image information (left and right) and also obviously lose the intended aspect ratio. A good way to ruin the intended look of the film. As for viewing in smart mode, if you prefer to watch a grossly distorted image just so that it fills the screen then good luck!

I don't know what sort of smart processing your TV does but smart mode on my Bravia produces a very watchable 4:3 picture which is perfectly adequate for many programmes. It's noticeable if there's lots of camera movement but that's not the case in your typical sitcom, e.g. Frasier, where the action generally takes place in the centre of the screen. It's certainly not grossly distorted and I would never use it if it was.

And yes I confess I find the bands to be a distraction. I can't watch in pitch dark so I can always see that there's more surrounding the picture than there should be. Although I always watch a movie in its original aspect ration I don't like the bands being there. When are we going to get 2.35:1 TVs?

Gosh I must make my comments.

I understand your point Jamie about the directors intentions to have their artwork in their screen ratio, but for those amongst us who have to watch that in its original form, they can go to the cinema for that.

I don't do that as I enjoy having my own cinema at home. Granted I cannot afford a good projector and its associated screen, so I bought a good quality 50" plasma. Now the engineers behind the 16:9 format were the ones who chose 16:9 from 4:3 so I guess these are the ones to target blame at - if it annoys you that the directors version isnt preserved.

You see, I'd personally like to see as much of the screen as I can and thats why the black lines annoy me. I know there is nothing I can do about this, so I just have to lump it.

Regards

JOn

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
I understand your point Jamie about the directors intentions to have their artwork in their screen ratio, but for those amongst us who have to watch that in its original form, they can go to the cinema for that.
JOn

That is not a possibility for most films, there are many good films being released at the moment, but to see some of the greats from the past DVD or Blu-Ray is the only way.

Having these in their original format is something worth preserving. I have no problem with people watching films and TV however they want in their own home, but to go back to the travesty of how films were only available in 'pan and scan' 4:3 in VHS days (or a cropped 16:9) is something I would hate to see.

16:9 is a good resolution for TVs, there is no standard screen ratio that would dispense with black bars on all films or TV programmes. Zooming, or stretching those shows that do not conform to your screen shape is the only option to avoid the bars, and this seems to be a common option.

Programmes are still made in 4:3 for TV today (depending on where they come from mostly), so those will have side bars. Films use a number of different screen ratios still, when working on a film in post production, you are sent a 'graticule' which is essentially the mask that creates the shape of the frame.

When television became popular in the 1950's film makers looked for something that would make cinema something different, and so retain their audiences. Choosing to make films bigger and wider was one of those things. There was no standard then, and films like Ben Hur used incredibly wide screens in order to make them as impressive as possible. At the same time films continued to be made in 4:3, and people have even experimented with squarer formats (Pink Floyd 'Live at Pompei' is pretty much square in its original format, I think, I haven't seen that at a cinema for over 25 years).

Interestingly, many people today are quite comfortable watching any stretched image on TV screens, you only need to look at sports shown in pubs to see that many really do not care that football is being played by short squashed players.

I have also found that when showing images to students that if the output monitor is set wrongly, there is no reaction, as they are again used to seeing distorted images. I myself spend most of my working time looking at anamorphic stretched images while I work on them, and am sometimes surprised how thin actors are when I see the finished result projected, or broadcast.

Having the option to see films from the whole history of their production is a luxury that was not possible, when I first became fascinated with film. Now having the opportunity to see films as they were intended by the director is even better, and especially with digital formats to have commentaries and out-takes.

I also think that whether you view film as art or entertainment is a major part of thoughts behind the different views in this thread. Both are valid viewpoints.

Jamie

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
Having these in their original format is something worth preserving.


Interestingly, many people today are quite comfortable watching any stretched image on TV screens, you only need to look at sports shown in pubs to see that many really do not care that football is being played by short squashed players.

I have also found that when showing images to students that if the output monitor is set wrongly, there is no reaction, as they are again used to seeing distorted images.

Now having the opportunity to see films as they were intended by the director is even better, and especially with digital formats to have commentaries and out-takes.

I also think that whether you view film as art or entertainment is a major part of thoughts behind the different views in this thread. Both are valid viewpoints.

Jamie

one of the things i love best about my 52" bravia is that i can watch everything in its native format, and the image is still big enough.

i never upsample anything :-)

some film is art, some is entertainment - just like music ...

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
Thanks for the comments, guys, I also got a friendly dealer in London emailing me with clarification and I'm very grateful to him for this too!

Wouldn't it be ideal, though, if they reorganised the ratio for 16:9??!!

Also, does anyone recommend a really good Blu Ray film with regard to its stunning picture?

I've watched a few so far in 1080p on my 50" TV and none have really struck me yet.

I'd be really grateful for your suggestions!!!

Jon

Get the Star Wars I, II and III movies.

For a stunning picture, try this:

http://www.blu-ray.com/search/?action=search§ion=movies&keyword=baraka

quote:

Originally posted by Tuan:

Get the Star Wars I, II and III movies.

And if you find them please order a set for me as well.

These are not the BDs you're looking for....

.....move along.

The Planet Earth series from BBC is a show-off set for picture quality.

Oh, and any of the Pixar Blu-ray movies.

Wonderful, cheers for that Winky!

I bought my other half that robot film whats it called? Wally I think. Yeah I got that for Xmas and I believe that is Pixar blu ray....

Regards

Jon

Yep, that's a good one - "Wall-E". "Not a pixel out of place" was one comment I heard.

I am a big fan of modern animation art (i.e. I like cartoons). I think the Pixar movies are all incredible pieces of visual art. I am waiting impatiently for "The Incredibles", my favourite Pixar movie to be released on Blu-ray. Hopefully in 2009.

"Casino Royale" is also an impressive looking disc.

The Dark Knight

Beware:

There is aspect switching in the Bluray version of the film as Nolans prefered cut has the sequences for Imax, so certain scence are full 16:9 with the rest of the film in 21:9.

Reference PQ and AQ.

How often does it switch ratios? Does it switch in a way that distracts from the story? i.e. Does it switch during scenes from a single set, or only when the movie itself switches sets?

It switches for big establishing shots, e.g. showing cityscapes. These were done for Imax and were shown in standard widescreen in the cinema release. I was surprised to see this and frankly it's pleasantly effective. Another reason to watch a movie in its proper ratio.