Playing 2:35:1 movies on my widescreen monitor

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by don, May 5, 2007.

  1. don

    don Guest

    I recently bought a widescreen monitor (16:9 aspect ratio) and was
    dismayed to find out that most DIVX movie files are in 2.35:1, and
    thus leave a solid bar on the top and bottom of my screen when I play
    them.

    Is there a media player that can fit these movies to my 16:9 screen
    that involves cropping the extreme left and right portions of the
    picture?

    (I do not like the solution that some media players offer, which is to
    vertically stretch the picture and making everybody look anorexic).
     
    don, May 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. don

    dgates Guest


    I doubt you'll get much support from alt.video.dvd. As a general
    rule, we're guys who were THRILLED when laserdiscs first came out and
    we could see those solid bars on our TV sets (meaning that we were now
    seeing the whole movie)!

    Plus, the DivX part of the question doesn't imply that you're doing
    much to support the filmmakers who worked their asses off shooting the
    movie.

    That said, even if your goal is to have the picture fill your screen,
    I can't imagine why you'd want it just arbitrarily cropped a little
    bit each on the left and right sides. Wouldn't you prefer some
    network's 16:9 pan&scan conversion where at least someone made some
    effort to make sure that the film was cropped in as intelligent way as
    possible?

    Sometimes, with the pan&scan conversions, you actually get more
    picture than the "poor suckers" who saw it in the theater. Why, back
    in the 80s, I remember being surprised to see:

    - boom mikes,
    - black Xes made of electrical tape where they shouldn't be on Phoebe
    Cates,
    - the "endless bicycle chain" trick ruined in Peewee's Big Adventure,
    and
    - a little bonus Kelly LeBrock in The Woman in Red.

    Also, you generally just get to see a little extra ceiling & floor at
    the tops and bottoms of the frame. I'd take that over having the left
    & right sides blindly chopped off by a piece of software.


    Good luck to ya! Watch the final duel at the end of "The Good, The
    Bad and The Ugly," and let us know how you like it. :)
     
    dgates, May 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. just use vlcplayer and tell it to crop - if you must.
     
    the dog from that film you saw, May 5, 2007
    #3
  4. don

    Stuart Guest

    Most blockbuster movies are 2.35:1
    TV is 4:3 or 16:9
    get over it
     
    Stuart, May 6, 2007
    #4
  5. o_O You paid to get a widescreen TV and now you wanna cut the sides
    off? This boggles my mind.
     
    Jonathan Brisby, May 6, 2007
    #5
  6. don

    NRen2k5 Guest

    It makes sense to me. The movie is 2.35:1. The screen is 1.78:1. There
    are black bars at the top and bottom. But maybe somehow by cutting the
    sides off of the movie it can be made to fit the 1.78:1 screen.

    Myself, I wouldn’t mind too much. It wouldn't be as bad as watching the
    movie on a 1.33:1 screen.
     
    NRen2k5, May 6, 2007
    #6
  7. don

    def456 Guest

    What Zoom ratios does your DVD player offer? The least mine will do is 2X,
    but something less is needed. I really don't know which DVD players offer
    those smaller Zoom ratios, but would like to find out. With my 4:3 screen I
    believe 1.5X would be about right. Maybe with your 16:9 screen, 1.2X or 1.3X
    would work OK.
     
    def456, May 6, 2007
    #7
  8. don

    def456 Guest

    What Zoom ratios does your DVD player offer? The least mine will do is 2X,
    but something less is needed. I really don't know which DVD players offer
    those smaller Zoom ratios, but would like to find out. With my 4:3 screen I
    believe 1.5X would be about right. Maybe with your 16:9 screen, 1.2X or 1.3X
    would work OK.
     
    def456, May 6, 2007
    #8
  9. don

    Justin Guest

    don wrote on [5 May 2007 07:36:01 -0700]:
    Watch the movie, not the screen.

    Idiot.
     
    Justin, May 6, 2007
    #9
  10. don

    NRen2k5 Guest

    For some people, letterboxing detracts from the movie.

    Idiot.
     
    NRen2k5, May 7, 2007
    #10
  11. don

    Justin Guest

    NRen2k5 wrote on [Mon, 07 May 2007 10:52:17 -0400]:
    Yes, they are.

    Watch the movie. Not the screen. It not hard, unless you're an idiot.
     
    Justin, May 7, 2007
    #11
  12. don

    Jay G. Guest

    Actually, a lot of 4:3 versions of films *aren't* just "crop jobs." There
    are some movies for which 1.33:1 is the original aspect ratio, so those
    aren't cropped at all. In other cases, mostly 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 movies,
    the 4:3 reshaping may be done by opening up the viewable image, meaning
    that instead of cropping the image, more image is actually seen. Even
    2.35:1 films shot on Super35 usually use a combination of cropping the
    sides and opening up the top and bottom, producing results that can't be
    replicated by a home viewer cropping a DVD image.

    Even when a 4:3 version is a crop of the WS image with no additional
    vertical image, the professionally done ones usually pan across the image
    to keep pertinent information in frame, which isn't easily replicated at
    home.

    Finally, even given the differences in techniques used on the professional
    4:3 alterations, the resulting image is still usually inferior to the
    original WS image, with at the least the image composition being
    compromised.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., May 7, 2007
    #12
  13. don

    Rich Clark Guest

    If you're one of those people who consider movies to be nothing more
    than extruded product, I suppose you can. If you're someone who
    respects the work and rights of the people who create art, then you'll
    at least try to watch it in its "as created" form at least once before
    you pull out your shears.
    Setting aside all the instances where that's not true, let's just talk
    about the topic of the thread: arbitrarily cropping the sides off a
    2.35 movie to fit it to a 16:9 screen.

    Some movies that are shot anamorphically (eg, Cinemascope) are indeed
    cropped "professionally." The image is panned and scanned in an
    attempt to keep the focus of the action on the screen. But this can't
    be compared to using a zoom function to crop the image, because the
    cropping remains static; if action moves to the edge of the original
    frame, it's lost. So even if one could somehow defend "professional"
    pan-and-scanning, that defense doesn't apply to automated standard
    cropping.

    And then there are all the movies shot in Super35, framed and cropped
    by the director for 2.25 or 2.35 presentation. The 1.33 version of
    that film is created mostly by opening up the original Super35 frame.
    If you let your 16:9 TV zoom in on the widescreen video of such a
    film, you've now lost not only the part of the frame that was cropped
    for the widescreen version, but also the sides. You're left with much
    less than half of the original frame, and a version of the film that
    resembles nothing the filmmaker would ever want anyone to see.

    All of this because you insist that the picture be forced to fit your
    frame. That's the analogy, and it works for me.

    R
     
    Rich Clark, May 7, 2007
    #13
  14. don

    Richard C. Guest

    ======================
    Only for people who do not like movies.
    ======================
    ======================
    That is a correct term for people who want to hack up movies
    just to fit a TV screen.
     
    Richard C., May 7, 2007
    #14
  15. don

    Fake Name Guest

    If you're one of those people who consider movies to be nothing more
    Is the world of film as black and white as that?

    For my part, I consider there to be a wide spectrum of works on film.

    At one extreme there are purely artistic films while at the other
    there are films that are merely the result of skilled labor. The vast
    majority of product coming out of Hollywood falls into the spectrum
    near the "extruded" end. I've wondered for some time why people even
    bother going to see the summer romantic comedies. They are about as
    rarified as a 1998 Ford Taurus. They contain all the artistic effort
    of a Gene Marshall sit-com in its third season, when all other plot
    lines have been exhausted; they squeeze out a clip show.

    I do find joy in the smaller bits of artistic talent that are woven
    into even otherwise unremarkable films. I thought about this while
    watching "The Whole Nine Yards". Whoever did Natasha Henstridge's
    hair for that film is a master.

    Likewise I cringe when I find that someone is forcing the issue of
    artistic interpretation. For example, in "Cool Hand Luke" there is a
    scene after the eggs are eaten when Paul N. is laid out, arms
    out-stretched, legs crossed at the ankles. This, to me, was the
    cinematic equivalent of a large neon sign with an arrow pointing at
    Newman that reads "Here is your Christ symbol!"

    I have a humble collection of films that I insist upon watching with
    the lights dimmed, surround sound set, phones off, and in the crispy
    goodness of Laser Disk or DVD. But I will not mind "watching" a
    lesser film while I'm ostensibly reviewing status reports or sorting
    laundry.
     
    Fake Name, May 7, 2007
    #15
  16. don

    Rich Clark Guest

    You exercise your critical faculties, and that's a good thing. It's the
    people whose aesthetics end at "filled screen good, black bars bad" that
    should stick to watching TV shows.

    R
     
    Rich Clark, May 8, 2007
    #16
  17. don

    NRen2k5 Guest

    It depends on the movie. A lot of popular flicks aren’t really deserving
    of such respectful treatment.
    Good point there.
     
    NRen2k5, May 8, 2007
    #17
  18. don

    NRen2k5 Guest

    No. For people who have a screen of a different aspect ratio to that of
    the film and who are unaccustomed to watching movies letterboxed.
    And for much more than that.
     
    NRen2k5, May 8, 2007
    #18
  19. don

    Justin Guest

    NRen2k5 wrote on [Tue, 08 May 2007 16:40:49 -0400]:
    Then they need a lesson in respect.
     
    Justin, May 8, 2007
    #19
  20. I liked my response better. More respect for the film, less for the
    retard(s).
     
    The Great Attractor, May 9, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.