Yet another aspect ratio question

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Elias, Jun 15, 2004.

  1. Elias

    Elias Guest

    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, Jun 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Elias

    Dave Bugg Guest

    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, Jun 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Elias

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Elias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Jun 16, 2004
    #3
  4. >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, Jun 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Elias

    Mark Spatny Guest

    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, Jun 16, 2004
    #5
  6. 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, Jun 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Elias

    Richard C. Guest

    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., Jun 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Elias

    Mark W Guest


    > 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, Jun 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Elias

    Steve K. Guest

    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., Jun 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Elias

    Brad Houser Guest

    "Elias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Jun 17, 2004
    #10
  11. >16:9 is a perfect compromise

    and very faint color is a perfect compromise between "black and white" and
    "color".

    how many people do you think would have bought color tv sets when they were
    brand new if the color on them was very faint that it was almost black and
    white anyways?

    not very many.

    the reason people bought color tv's is because there was a huge difference
    between them and "black and white"

    there's not a huge difference between 1.33 and 1.77

    there is a huge difference between 1.33 and 2.35
    Waterperson77, Jun 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Elias

    Richard C. Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : >16:9 is a perfect compromise
    :
    : and very faint color is a perfect compromise between "black and white"
    and
    : "color".
    :
    : how many people do you think would have bought color tv sets when they
    were
    : brand new if the color on them was very faint that it was almost black
    and
    : white anyways?
    :
    : not very many.
    :
    : the reason people bought color tv's is because there was a huge
    difference
    : between them and "black and white"
    :
    : there's not a huge difference between 1.33 and 1.77
    :
    : there is a huge difference between 1.33 and 2.35
    :
    =========================
    The difference between 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 is almost EXACTLY the same as
    the difference between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1.

    That sure makes for an excellent compromise in almost any books.

    But aren't you the person who has seen 2.35:1 tvs in your "county"?
    =========================
    Richard C., Jun 18, 2004
    #12
  13. >The difference between 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 is almost EXACTLY the same as
    >the difference between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1.
    >


    but the difference between 1.33 and 2.35 is NOT almost exactly the same, which
    is what my original statement was

    that "there's a huge difference between 1.33 and 2.35"

    not that there's a huge difference between 1.78 and 2.35

    learn how to read.
    Waterperson77, Jun 18, 2004
    #13
  14. Elias

    Richard C. Guest

    So what is your point?

    1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!
    ====================
    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : >The difference between 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 is almost EXACTLY the same
    as
    : >the difference between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1.
    : >
    :
    : but the difference between 1.33 and 2.35 is NOT almost exactly the
    same, which
    : is what my original statement was
    :
    : that "there's a huge difference between 1.33 and 2.35"
    :
    : not that there's a huge difference between 1.78 and 2.35
    :
    : learn how to read.
    :
    :
    Richard C., Jun 18, 2004
    #14
  15. Richard C. wrote:
    > So what is your point?
    >
    > 1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!


    He doesn't have one, yet by the amount he types in his
    posts you sure would think he had one. ;-)

    Demolition Man
    Brian The Demolition Man Little, Jun 18, 2004
    #15
  16. Richard C wrote:

    >> 1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!

    >


    and color so faint that it's almost black and white is STILL the best
    compromise between "black and white" and "color"

    so what's your point?

    nobody wants color tv so faint that it's almost black and white.
    Waterperson77, Jun 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Waterperson77 wrote:
    > Richard C wrote:
    >
    >>> 1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!

    >>

    >
    > and color so faint that it's almost black and white is STILL the best
    > compromise between "black and white" and "color"
    >
    > so what's your point?
    >
    > nobody wants color tv so faint that it's almost black and white.


    What the hell does this have to do with aspect ratios?

    Demolition Man
    Brian The Demolition Man Little, Jun 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Elias

    Richard C. Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Richard C wrote:
    :
    : >> 1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!
    : >
    :
    : and color so faint that it's almost black and white is STILL the best
    : compromise between "black and white" and "color"
    :
    : so what's your point?
    :
    : nobody wants color tv so faint that it's almost black and white.
    :
    ==================
    Once again, you spout meaningless things.

    What is your point?
    Richard C., Jun 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Elias

    Richard C. Guest

    "Brian The Demolition Man Little" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Waterperson77 wrote:
    : > Richard C wrote:
    : >
    : >>> 1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!
    : >>
    : >
    : > and color so faint that it's almost black and white is STILL the
    best
    : > compromise between "black and white" and "color"
    : >
    : > so what's your point?
    : >
    : > nobody wants color tv so faint that it's almost black and white.
    :
    : What the hell does this have to do with aspect ratios?
    :
    : Demolition Man
    :
    ==================
    It has the same relevance to aspect ratios that dvdguywaterbrain77 has
    to humanity.
    Richard C., Jun 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Elias

    Smaug69 Guest

    (Waterperson77) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Richard C wrote:
    >
    > >> 1.78:1 is STILL the best compromise!

    > >

    >
    > and color so faint that it's almost black and white is STILL the best
    > compromise between "black and white" and "color"


    Color is color no matter how faint it is. There is either color or
    there is black & white(and the various greys).

    > so what's your point?
    >
    > nobody wants color tv so faint that it's almost black and white.


    This is irrelevant to a discussion about aspect ratios, but then most
    things you post are irrelevant anyway.

    1.78:1(16:9) was chosen because it is essentially the halfway point
    between academy ratio(1.37:1)/NTSC TV(1.33:1) and the most common wide
    aspect ratio(2.35:1). They didn't just pull that 16:9 ratio out of a
    hat.

    If 2.35:1 was the standard then all older films would have to be
    zoomed/cropped to fit the screen or they would only cover about 60% of
    the screen. Either way they wouldn't look all that good. And we
    already know what 2.35:1 films look like on 4:3 TVs.

    So that's where 1.78:1 comes into the picture. Unless you can come up
    with a television set that can morph its ratio to fit the image that
    is displayed then this is the best compromise we have.

    Smaug69
    Smaug69, Jun 22, 2004
    #20
    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. ed
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,163
    Rafe B.
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. ed

    camera aspect ratio vs. print size question

    ed, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    947
    Robert E. Williams
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

    Lion King aspect ratio question

    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Sep 22, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    874
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
    Sep 24, 2003
  4. Elias

    Yet another aspect ratio question

    Elias, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    446
    Caloonese
    Jun 17, 2004
  5. Bill Davison
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    Bill Davison
    Jan 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page