You cannot blame software (drivers) for the failings of the hardware
(monitor), and you have to consider the method of production. YOU are having
issues with wide screen format, but it appears that most of us are not. I
have a black line at the top and bottom that corrospond with where the Title
Bar goes at the top and the Status Bar goes at the bottom. When the video
starts, I get title information at the top, and when the mouse moves while
the video is playing, I get status information -- various play buttons and
the progress bar -- at the bottom. The space of the title and the status
exactly fills the black space.
"- Bobb -" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> Thanks folks .
> I now understand WHY it is the way that it is, but still ticked off. When
> widescreen first came out it was so we could "enjoy the movie as if in a
> movie theatre", right ? That's what we were told. We'd no longer be
> missing the left and right edges of the movie to fill up the height of the
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote in message
>> In message <jld93q$ed$>, SC Tom <> writes:
>>>"BillW50" <> wrote in message
>>>> "SC Tom" <> wrote in message
>>>>> There is no discernable black bar anywhere on my PC monitor, and
>>>>> nothing appears to be stretched. Go figure
>>>> I believe the problem is when you play video in full screen. Then you
>>>> get the black bars either on the top/bottom or left/right, or even
>>>I think that's because they aren't really 16:9 or 16:10. Anyone here work
>>>at a theater, and could measure the projected picture?
>> By "theater" I take it you mean movie theater (UK: cinema). The film
>> industry had lots of different ratios, under many trade names -
>> Cinemascope, Todd-AO (one of the wider [or shorter if you prefer!] ones -
>> the Sound of Music is in that one), Vistavision (I think), and many
>> others. Some were _very_ wide (or short if you prefer) - 2.35:1 or more.
>> Some were made by using anamorphic lenses (which made a picture on the
>> actual film that was squashed horizontally - but was unsquashed by being
>> projected back through such a lens), some by masking the image on the
>> film/camera (or in some cases just the viewfinder, and the film in the
>> projector - which means there can be material on the film not intended by
>> the director/producer to be seen). A film can exist in more than one of
>> these (i. e. there can be prints made for distributors who have differing
>> equipment). In at least one case a showing was done to the
>> censors/classifiers using masking in the projector which masked parts of
>> the film which the makers didn't wish the classifiers to see but fully
>> intended their customers to (I've seen the producer say so)!
>>>The point I was making is that with the resolution at 16:10 and the
>>>physical measurements at 16:9, there should be black bars, distortion, or
>>>clipping somewhere, but there doesn't appear to be any of those things.
>> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
>> I believe the cake has got to be sliced up to help those who are needy
>> you've got to keep someone there who's going to make the cake. Here we
>> destroy the people who make the cake. - Michael Caine (MM), RT, 7-13 Nov
Ken Springer wrote:
> Yikes, Bill, you made me go read the entire article I posted earlier!
> LOL And I discovered some very interesting tidbits or factoids.
> On 4/2/12 3:22 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
>> Ken Springer wrote:
>>> On 4/2/12 1:23 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
>>>> - Bobb - wrote:
>>>> It's too bad this isn't standardized to one, and only one, value
>>>> (16:9 or
>>>> 16:10 or whatever). I haven't checked out any widescreen TVs or
>>>> (are they really *that* rectangular?)
>>> I doubt a standard as far as aspect ratio would be worth the effort.
>>> You can't change the aspect ratios of things already made, especially
>>> movies. Which one would you pick?
>> One of what I had thought were only 2 standards. (Either 4:3, OR
>> widescreen). (I guess for movies being filmed it should be widescreen,
>> however (16:9 or 16:10).
Don't know about you, but I, reasonably regularly, go to the local
multiplex to watch a movie (cheap Tuesdays, usually). Many, if not all,
of the screens have curtains either side of the screen which can be
wound out of the way or not, depending on the aspect ratio of the movie.
So even the movies cannot settle on a standard!!
Not all widescreen PC monitors are 16:9; some are 16:10. Video drivers with good scaling will add(or remove) black pillars or bars(horiz) to preserve original AR without making people fat or skinny.
"- Bobb -" wrote in message news:jlc4k1$m8p$...
In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
screen on a TV / PC ?
Take this one for example - a great HD nature video:
Go to full screen and - right proportion, but still borders on top/bottom.
No borders to my monitor......
"Bigbazza" <> wrote in message
> "- Bobb -" wrote in message news:jlc4k1$m8p$...
> In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
> widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
> screen on a TV / PC ?
> Take this one for example - a great HD nature video:
> Go to full screen and - right proportion, but still borders on top/bottom.
> No borders to my monitor......
> Barry Oz
Not on mine, either. 22" ViewSonic...... LED, 1080p, Full HD.....
- Bobb -
That was the original point - "widescreen" is a variable.
It's been confirmed now.
"Chris S." <> wrote in message
> "Bigbazza" <> wrote in message
>> "- Bobb -" wrote in message news:jlc4k1$m8p$...
>> In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
>> widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
>> screen on a TV / PC ?
>> Take this one for example - a great HD nature video:
>> Go to full screen and - right proportion, but still borders on
>> No borders to my monitor......
>> Barry Oz
> Not on mine, either. 22" ViewSonic...... LED, 1080p, Full HD.....