Yet another aspect ratio question

I am SO CONFUSED about all the aspect ratio information I've been
reading here - but I do have what I think is a simple question.
I have a Sony VPLVW12HT projector. The manual states that when the
"full" aspect ratio is selected "the 16:9 squeezed image is displayed
with the correct aspect." I have noticed, however, that many
widescreen films - Seabiscuit for one - appears stretched when viewed
in the Full Aspect Ratio. Is this because Seabiscuit was filmed and
transferred to DVD in a wider aspect ration than 16:9?
Whether my supposition is right or wrong, is there a way to adjust the
projector so that the picture is as close as possible to the correct
aspect ratio?
Elias

Elias

Elias wrote:

> I am SO CONFUSED about all the aspect ratio information I've been
> reading here - but I do have what I think is a simple question.
> I have a Sony VPLVW12HT projector. The manual states that when the
> "full" aspect ratio is selected "the 16:9 squeezed image is displayed
> with the correct aspect." I have noticed, however, that many
> widescreen films - Seabiscuit for one - appears stretched when viewed
> in the Full Aspect Ratio.

It may be because the aspect ratio selected within your dvd player's menu is
different from that of your pj.

Dave Bugg

"Elias" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> I am SO CONFUSED about all the aspect ratio information I've been
> reading here - but I do have what I think is a simple question.
> I have a Sony VPLVW12HT projector. The manual states that when the
> "full" aspect ratio is selected "the 16:9 squeezed image is displayed
> with the correct aspect." I have noticed, however, that many
> widescreen films - Seabiscuit for one - appears stretched when viewed
> in the Full Aspect Ratio. Is this because Seabiscuit was filmed and
> transferred to DVD in a wider aspect ration than 16:9?
> Whether my supposition is right or wrong, is there a way to adjust the
> projector so that the picture is as close as possible to the correct
> aspect ratio?

Set your DVD player for 16:9 "Widescreen" mode and leave it there. Never
think about this part again.

For any disc that is anamorphically-enhanced ("enhanced for widescreen
displays"), which the majority of widescreen studio titles are, set your
projector for its "Widescreen" mode as well.

For discs that are not anamorphically enhanced (either 4:3 or
non-anamorphic letterbox), you will have to adjust the aspect ratio
control on the projector, not the DVD player.

Not all movies are the same shape as one another. Some are wider and
some are narrower.

16:9 = 1.78:1. This is sort of a compromise middle-ground screen shape,
halfway between the narrowest aspect ratio (4:3 aka 1.33:1) and the
widest (2.35:1).

Movies that are 1.85:1 should come close to filling the screen. Movies
that are 1.33:1 should be displayed in the middle of the screen with
bars on the sides. Movies that are 2.35:1 should be displayed so that
the entire width of the screen is filled, but there are bars on top and
bottom.

Seabiscuit is a 2.35:1 movie. It should not look stretched. If your
settings are correct, objects in the picture should look proportionally
correct, but the picture will not fill your entire screen.

Joshua Zyber

>16:9 = 1.78:1. This is sort of a compromise middle-ground screen shape,
>halfway between the narrowest aspect ratio (4:3 aka 1.33:1) and the
>widest (2.35:1).
>

all true. and was all a big mistake by the electronics industry.

Most people that I know after seeing a widescreen hdtv set sy "why bother with
buying one. there's only a little bit of extra space at th sides, so it's not
much to miss. I'll stay with my regular tv set".

they are correct. People bought color tv sets when they first came out because
they gave them much more picture information than black and white sets did.
(the color info).

widescreen tv sets don't give people much more extra information on the sides,
they only give "a little bit of extra information on the sides".

the industry should have went with a 2.35 tv standard.

Then a lot more people would have been buying widescreen tv sets since it would
then give them a lot of extra picture information on the sides instead of "only
a litttle bit".

Waterperson77

Waterperson77, says...
> Most people that I know after seeing a widescreen hdtv set sy "why bother with
> buying one.

That's funny. Most people that I know who see my widescreen HDTV set say
"Damn! DVDs look so much better, and High Def is unbelievable...can we
watch more of Bikini Destinations?"

Mark Spatny

Waterperson77 wrote:
> Most people that I know after seeing a widescreen hdtv set sy "why
> bother with buying one. there's only a little bit of extra space at
> th sides, so it's not much to miss. I'll stay with my regular tv set".

Once again you are showing how water filled you are.

HDTV = 30% more than 1.33:1, which is quite a bit more.

I'm curious but how many people is "most people" here? 3-4
does not quality as a lot you know.

Demolition Man

Brian The Demolition Man Little

16:9 is a perfect compromise.

============
"Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
: >16:9 = 1.78:1. This is sort of a compromise middle-ground screen
shape,
: >halfway between the narrowest aspect ratio (4:3 aka 1.33:1) and the
: >widest (2.35:1).
: >
:
: all true. and was all a big mistake by the electronics industry.
:
: Most people that I know after seeing a widescreen hdtv set sy "why
bother with
: buying one. there's only a little bit of extra space at th sides, so
it's not
: much to miss. I'll stay with my regular tv set".
:
: they are correct. People bought color tv sets when they first came out
because
: they gave them much more picture information than black and white sets
did.
: (the color info).
:
: widescreen tv sets don't give people much more extra information on
the sides,
: they only give "a little bit of extra information on the sides".
:
: the industry should have went with a 2.35 tv standard.
:
: Then a lot more people would have been buying widescreen tv sets since
it would
: then give them a lot of extra picture information on the sides instead
of "only
: a litttle bit".
:
:

Richard C.

> all true. and was all a big mistake by the electronics industry.
>
> Most people that I know after seeing a widescreen hdtv set sy "why bother
> with
> buying one. there's only a little bit of extra space at th sides, so it's
> not
> much to miss. I'll stay with my regular tv set".
>

I wish I could get one of those circular screens like I've seen in old Flash
Gordon serials.

A round screen is - as all right thinking people will agree - the best
option and I can't understand why the industry didn't adopt it. Especially
after seeing it in all those Flash Gordon serials.

Mark W

Waterperson77 wrote:
> the industry should have went with a 2.35 tv standard.

There are many standards. 2.35 is just one of them.

Steve K.

"Elias" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> I am SO CONFUSED about all the aspect ratio information I've been
> reading here - but I do have what I think is a simple question.
> I have a Sony VPLVW12HT projector. The manual states that when the
> "full" aspect ratio is selected "the 16:9 squeezed image is displayed
> with the correct aspect."

Your projector has a 16x9 image, so they are saying that an anamorphic
(squeezed) image will be displayed correctly, as opposed to the squeezed
look it would have on an ordinary 4x3 screen.

> I have noticed, however, that many
> widescreen films - Seabiscuit for one - appears stretched when viewed
> in the Full Aspect Ratio.

By stretched, do you mean it has bars on the top and bottom or that circles
appear to look like ovals?

> Is this because Seabiscuit was filmed and
> transferred to DVD in a wider aspect ration than 16:9?

Yes.

> Whether my supposition is right or wrong, is there a way to adjust the
> projector so that the picture is as close as possible to the correct
> aspect ratio?

You may or may not be able to zoom in to remove the bars, but you will also
lose some content on the right and left.

Brad Houser

Brad Houser