why 2.35:1 ?

A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to height,
so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and bottom
of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and also
significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9 widescreen
TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they produce it?

def456

The last movie theater I visisted had a screen that didn't look anything
like my T.V. Or any T.V. - for that matter. Could this be a clue for
your mystery?

- Winf


def456 wrote:
> A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to height,
> so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and bottom
> of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and also
> significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9 widescreen
> TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they produce it?

WinField

On Apr 23, 9:39 am, "def456" <def...@none.none> wrote:
> A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to height,
> so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and bottom
> of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and also
> significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9 widescreen
> TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they produce it?

Because that's how the movies were made.

There's a strategy for dealing with this: don't look at the black
bars. Look at the picture.

R

Rich Clark

def456 wrote on [Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:39:46 -0500]:
> A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to height,
> so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and bottom
> of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and also
> significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9 widescreen
> TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they produce it?

Because movies aren't made for TVs. They're made for movie screens,
which ARE 2.35:1

Justin

"def456" <> wrote in message
news:Vy3Xh.888$.. .
>A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to
>height, so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and
>bottom of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and
>also significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9
>widescreen TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they
>produce it?
>
>



because that's how they were made, and they consider it better to show you
the film as made rather than cropped.

having said that, there's nothing to stop dvd makers putting a crop signal
on the dvd so that those people who dont care for authenticity can have the
film chopped to 16:9 - i really dont know why this isnt used as standard -
no need to put effort into panning, just crop and be damned.



--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

the dog from that film you saw

Rich Clark wrote:

> On Apr 23, 9:39 am, "def456" <def...@none.none> wrote:
>
>>A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to height,
>>so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and bottom
>>of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and also
>>significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9 widescreen
>>TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they produce it?
>
>
> Because that's how the movies were made.
>
> There's a strategy for dealing with this: don't look at the black
> bars. Look at the picture.

Or turn off your lights, and watch the "black bars" disappear.

Derek Janssen

Derek Janssen

"the dog from that film you saw" <> wrote
in message news:...
>
> "def456" <> wrote in message
> news:Vy3Xh.888$.. .
>>A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to
>>height, so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top
>>and bottom of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs,
>>and also significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9
>>widescreen TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they
>>produce it?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> because that's how they were made, and they consider it better to show you
> the film as made rather than cropped.
>
> having said that, there's nothing to stop dvd makers putting a crop signal
> on the dvd so that those people who dont care for authenticity can have
> the film chopped to 16:9 - i really dont know why this isnt used as
> standard - no need to put effort into panning, just crop and be damned.

I agree. My DVD player has that option, but it doesn't work. I asked the
company that made the DVD player and they said that depends on the DVD, and
the makers of the DVDs need to add that option to the coding. It wouldn't
cost them anything extra. Why don't they?

def456

def456 wrote on [Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0500]:
>
> "the dog from that film you saw" <> wrote
> in message news:...
>>
>> "def456" <> wrote in message
>> news:Vy3Xh.888$.. .
>>>A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to
>>>height, so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top
>>>and bottom of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs,
>>>and also significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9
>>>widescreen TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they
>>>produce it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> because that's how they were made, and they consider it better to show you
>> the film as made rather than cropped.
>>
>> having said that, there's nothing to stop dvd makers putting a crop signal
>> on the dvd so that those people who dont care for authenticity can have
>> the film chopped to 16:9 - i really dont know why this isnt used as
>> standard - no need to put effort into panning, just crop and be damned.
>
> I agree. My DVD player has that option, but it doesn't work. I asked the
> company that made the DVD player and they said that depends on the DVD, and
> the makers of the DVDs need to add that option to the coding. It wouldn't
> cost them anything extra. Why don't they?

Yes it would, and it doesn't work like you think it would.

Justin

"def456" <> wrote in message
news:Vy3Xh.888$.. .
>A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to
>height, so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top and
>bottom of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs, and
>also significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9
>widescreen TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they
>produce it?
>
=======================
Because they are movies!

Richard C.

"def456" <> wrote in message
news:rO5Xh.931$. ..
>
> "the dog from that film you saw" <>
> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "def456" <> wrote in message
>> news:Vy3Xh.888$.. .
>>>A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to
>>>height, so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the top
>>>and bottom of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary 4:3 TVs,
>>>and also significant black bands at the top/bottom with the newer 16:9
>>>widescreen TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1 properly, why do they
>>>produce it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> because that's how they were made, and they consider it better to show
>> you the film as made rather than cropped.
>>
>> having said that, there's nothing to stop dvd makers putting a crop
>> signal on the dvd so that those people who dont care for authenticity can
>> have the film chopped to 16:9 - i really dont know why this isnt used as
>> standard - no need to put effort into panning, just crop and be damned.
>
> I agree. My DVD player has that option, but it doesn't work. I asked the
> company that made the DVD player and they said that depends on the DVD,
> and the makers of the DVDs need to add that option to the coding. It
> wouldn't cost them anything extra. Why don't they?
=========================
Just watch the movie!

Richard C.