DVD HD Hook Up...

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Martin S., Nov 1, 2008.

  1. Martin S.

    Martin S. Guest

    Hello all,

    Just hooked up my first HD televison and everything looks good, however...
    my DVD is set to output 16:9, the DVD menu's fill the entire screen and look
    great, but when the movie starts there are still black bars at the top and
    bottom of the screen, is this normal?

    Thanks,
    Marty.
    Martin S., Nov 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Martin S.

    Jim Reid Guest

    If it's an anamorphic widescreen movie with an aspect ratio of 2:35 it
    will still have the black bars, only much smaller than on a regualr
    4x3 set. If you want a film that fills the screen, look for movie with
    a 1:85 aspect ratio. Most newer films are 1:85, but most of the big
    action films are 2:35.
    Jim Reid, Nov 2, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Martin S." <> writes:
    >Hello all,
    >
    >Just hooked up my first HD televison and everything looks good, however...
    >my DVD is set to output 16:9, the DVD menu's fill the entire screen and look
    >great, but when the movie starts there are still black bars at the top and
    >bottom of the screen, is this normal?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Marty.
    >


    yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Aspect_Ratio

    scott
    Scott Lurndal, Nov 7, 2008
    #3
  4. On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:04:12 -0600, Chet Bosco <>
    wrote:

    >A ratio of 16:9 is 1.78:1. If a movie uses a wider ratio, especially
    >2.35 or wider, you can expect to see black bars. Black bars are your
    >friend. Do not be afraid of black bars. If a program has a ratio less
    >than 1.78:1, such as regular 1.33:1 TV then the black bars will be on
    >the sides of the picture. These are good black bars too. There are no
    >black bars. Do not zoom your TV to fill the screen if the original
    >programming wasn't made in exactly the same shape. Who's your friend?
    >That's right, it's black bars.
    >
    >CB
    >


    All very nice, except that you were too goddamned lazy to put it where
    it belongs, as in beneath the text you are responding to.

    This ain't email. In Usenet, replies go UNDER the quoted text (or
    interspersed), and the quoted text should be snipped (as I did) not
    merely a quotation of the entire post being replied to.

    As you learned so much about audio and video, is it really too much to
    ask that you also lean about communication forums you decide to
    invade/interlope into? Because unless you follow the accepted
    conventions, all it really is is an invasion or interloping. Following
    conventions should be the rule everywhere. Follow the flock mentalities
    is what got our economy in the shape it is in. This isn't email. Mice
    have scrollers, and there are scroll bars on the side of the browser
    window, so learn how to structure a Usenet post the way Usenet posts have
    been written for decades. Not too much to ask. I am surprised to find
    you on a news client instead of Outhouse Express, which is what I
    expected to see.
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, Nov 7, 2008
    #4
  5. Martin S.

    Richard C. Guest

    Top posting is easier to read!

    The guy gave a good response.
    You just shit all over him and yourself.

    Get some kind of real life, DarkMatter!

    ============================
    "StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 00:04:12 -0600, Chet Bosco <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>A ratio of 16:9 is 1.78:1. If a movie uses a wider ratio, especially
    >>2.35 or wider, you can expect to see black bars. Black bars are your
    >>friend. Do not be afraid of black bars. If a program has a ratio less
    >>than 1.78:1, such as regular 1.33:1 TV then the black bars will be on
    >>the sides of the picture. These are good black bars too. There are no
    >>black bars. Do not zoom your TV to fill the screen if the original
    >>programming wasn't made in exactly the same shape. Who's your friend?
    >>That's right, it's black bars.
    >>
    >>CB
    >>

    >
    > All very nice, except that you were too goddamned lazy to put it where
    > it belongs, as in beneath the text you are responding to.
    >
    > This ain't email. In Usenet, replies go UNDER the quoted text (or
    > interspersed), and the quoted text should be snipped (as I did) not
    > merely a quotation of the entire post being replied to.
    >
    > As you learned so much about audio and video, is it really too much to
    > ask that you also lean about communication forums you decide to
    > invade/interlope into? Because unless you follow the accepted
    > conventions, all it really is is an invasion or interloping. Following
    > conventions should be the rule everywhere. Follow the flock mentalities
    > is what got our economy in the shape it is in. This isn't email. Mice
    > have scrollers, and there are scroll bars on the side of the browser
    > window, so learn how to structure a Usenet post the way Usenet posts have
    > been written for decades. Not too much to ask. I am surprised to find
    > you on a news client instead of Outhouse Express, which is what I
    > expected to see.
    Richard C., Nov 7, 2008
    #5
  6. Martin S.

    Justin Guest

    Richard C. wrote on [Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:13:07 -0800]:
    > Top posting is easier to read!


    No, it's not, idiot.
    Justin, Nov 7, 2008
    #6
  7. On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:13:07 -0800, "Richard C." <>
    wrote:

    >Top posting is easier to read!
    >
    >The guy gave a good response.
    >You just shit all over him and yourself.
    >
    >Get some kind of real life, DarkMatter!
    >
    >============================


    No, you retarded ****. The FIRST thing I stated was that it was a good
    response, you illiterate, top-posting fucktard! If you could read, you
    would have noted that fact, but you are to much of a simpleton for even
    that.
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, Nov 8, 2008
    #7
  8. Martin S.

    Richard C. Guest

    "Chet Bosco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:13:07 -0800, "Richard C." <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Top posting is easier to read!
    >> >
    >> >The guy gave a good response.
    >> >You just shit all over him and yourself.
    >> >
    >> >Get some kind of real life, DarkMatter!
    >> >
    >> >============================

    >>
    >> No, you retarded ****. The FIRST thing I stated was that it was a good
    >> response, you illiterate, top-posting fucktard! If you could read, you
    >> would have noted that fact, but you are to much of a simpleton for even
    >> that.
    >>

    >
    > Here, I'll let everyone read your intelligent response before mine.
    > Okay?
    >
    > You are extremely presumptuous. I have been working with film, video,
    > and computers for about 30 years. I have yet referred to anyone as a
    > fucktard, though you do make it seem awfully tempting. People that want
    > to argue about top versus bottom posting bore the living shit out of me.
    > I'll do it however the **** I want. And I don't always do it the same
    > way, it depends on my intent.
    >
    > Remember what Thumper's father said?
    >
    > CB


    =======================
    Well stated!
    Richard C., Nov 8, 2008
    #8
  9. On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:28:14 -0600, Chet Bosco <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:13:07 -0800, "Richard C." <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Top posting is easier to read!
    >> >
    >> >The guy gave a good response.
    >> >You just shit all over him and yourself.
    >> >
    >> >Get some kind of real life, DarkMatter!
    >> >
    >> >============================

    >>
    >> No, you retarded ****. The FIRST thing I stated was that it was a good
    >> response, you illiterate, top-posting fucktard! If you could read, you
    >> would have noted that fact, but you are to much of a simpleton for even
    >> that.
    >>

    >
    >Here, I'll let everyone read your intelligent response before mine.
    >Okay?


    I knew that you would be too goddamned retarded to grasp the meaning of
    the post.
    >
    >You are extremely presumptuous.



    No, I am not. Top posting in Usenet is 100% retarded. You top post.
    You are retarded. Pretty simple.

    > I have been working with film, video,
    >and computers for about 30 years.


    Whoopie fuckin' doo, dipshit.

    > I have yet referred to anyone as a
    >fucktard,


    I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, fucktard.

    > though you do make it seem awfully tempting.


    Just re-read the post, and see that I credited your for your info, but
    banged you for not knowing Usenet conventions, despite your "30 years of
    experience" claim. One, the other, or both are obviously bullshit.

    > People that want
    >to argue about top versus bottom posting bore the living shit out of me.


    So what, you fucking retard. Just because you decide what YOU think is
    important and is not does not preclude you from getting railed by folks
    when YOU INVADE OUR group with YOUR lazy fucktard attitude toward DECADES
    established convention. You dig, you retarded ****?

    >I'll do it however the **** I want.


    Yes, fucktards like you are around every turn in Usenet now. It's a
    goddamned shame that retards like you cannot eat e-lead.

    > And I don't always do it the same
    >way, it depends on my intent.



    Yeah... more retarded baby bullshit logic to give you the "right" to
    ignore convention. Do you also run red lights? If not, ask yourself
    why. Then apply that answer to other conventions, particularly those
    that you have decided to shit on in your life.

    Are you starting to get it, dumbfuck?

    >Remember what Thumper's father said?


    You're a goddamned retard, boy.

    Post how you like. End up on 70% of folks filter lists. I don't care.
    I WILL, however, continue calling you the piece of shit that you are for
    blatantly ignoring the convention, you lazy fucking retarded bastard.
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, Nov 8, 2008
    #9
  10. On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:27:07 -0800, "Richard C." <>
    wrote:

    >"Chet Bosco" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:13:07 -0800, "Richard C." <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >Top posting is easier to read!
    >>> >
    >>> >The guy gave a good response.
    >>> >You just shit all over him and yourself.
    >>> >
    >>> >Get some kind of real life, DarkMatter!
    >>> >
    >>> >============================
    >>>
    >>> No, you retarded ****. The FIRST thing I stated was that it was a good
    >>> response, you illiterate, top-posting fucktard! If you could read, you
    >>> would have noted that fact, but you are to much of a simpleton for even
    >>> that.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Here, I'll let everyone read your intelligent response before mine.
    >> Okay?
    >>
    >> You are extremely presumptuous. I have been working with film, video,
    >> and computers for about 30 years. I have yet referred to anyone as a
    >> fucktard, though you do make it seem awfully tempting. People that want
    >> to argue about top versus bottom posting bore the living shit out of me.
    >> I'll do it however the **** I want. And I don't always do it the same
    >> way, it depends on my intent.
    >>
    >> Remember what Thumper's father said?
    >>
    >> CB

    >
    >=======================
    >Well stated!



    Bullshit, He is almost even more retarded than you, but you still have
    the belt for that one.
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, Nov 8, 2008
    #10
  11. Martin S.

    BlueBuyYoo Guest

    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt :

    > No, you retarded ****.
    > top-posting fucktard!
    > I knew that you would be too goddamned retarded to grasp the meaning of
    > the post.
    > You are retarded. Pretty simple.
    > Whoopie fuckin' doo, dipshit.
    > I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, fucktard.
    > So what, you fucking retard.
    > Yeah... more retarded baby bullshit logic
    > Are you starting to get it, dumbfuck?
    > You're a goddamned retard, boy.


    > Post how you like. End up on 70% of folks filter lists. I don't care.
    > I WILL, however, continue calling you the piece of shit that you are for
    > blatantly ignoring the convention, you lazy fucking retarded bastard.


    Well done. And you wonder why this group does quiet?

    Every time someone starts a thread, you drag it into the gutter with
    your adolescent attacks.

    As T.B. said, wait for it and the twit will implode pretty soon. The
    proof will be in the completely ignorant reply, lacking in any kind of
    rational thought other than the standard fucktard response.
    BlueBuyYoo, Nov 9, 2008
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Writer R5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
    Writer R5
    Sep 12, 2003
  2. Bob Newman

    Will DVD hook to this TV?

    Bob Newman, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,637
  3. P Novak

    DVD Hook Up Problem

    P Novak, Jun 25, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,927
    P Novak
    Jul 1, 2004
  4. weft2
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    56,735
  5. Markus Winter

    How can I hook up my DVD player?

    Markus Winter, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    649
    Roger Johnstone
    Aug 3, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page