VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Search Comp PM
    Yeah,
    I hate to admit it, though (despite my interest/tinkering over the years) I still have no clue what certain things mean. I know that 4:3 vs 16:9 is full vs widescreen but why is it that when even a professional movie studio releases a film fullscreen in 1080, it still needs to be pillarboxed? If they rescan the print, shouldn't they then be able to display it widescreen?!
    Quote Quote  
  2. The programs are being presented as originally intended.

    Pre-1954 there was no such thing as widescreen movies (with a very few exceptions.) Until the late 1990's all television was 4:3. To display it any other way would crop off part of the picture.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    IIWY, I'd stop using the term "fullscreen". A "widescreen" (aka 16:9) title plays FULL SCREEN on a 16:9 TV (which most are these days). A "fullscreen" (aka 4:3) image never plays as a FULL SCREEN on a 16:9 unless some doofus has set the display to stretch things out. Would make more sense to call it "narrow screen" or "square-ish screen".

    Or better yet, call it 4:3 and 16:9. Then everyone knows what you're talking about.

    As smrpix mentioned, a 4:3 image cannot be displayed correctly AND fully on a 16:9 display (and vice-versa). It can either be displayed fully and incorrectly (stretching, and/or cropping) or correctly but not fully (letter/pillar-boxing).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Search Comp PM
    Okay, but this had a wide theatrical release in '89. Why are the DVDs and even the iTunes version still in 1080 4:3? Yes, it's pillarboxed so it doesn't distort, but if rescanning why not just use the proper... eh, I don't think I even know what I'm trying to say or how to make it understood :/
    Quote Quote  
  5. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Some movies were shot in 4:3 and others in 16x9,end of story.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member netmask56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Not sure but maybe do you mean the few theatrical wide screen typical widescreen 2.35 films that have been released as a cut down 4:3 version, sometimes seen on TV. But this would be a long long time ago. Sometimes a blockbuster is released on DVD that was shot as 2.35 is cropped to fill the 16:9 home TV frame rather than have black bars top and bottom, terrible practice but it does happen.
    BeyonWiz T3 PVR ~ Popcorn C200 and A-500 ~ Samsung ES8000 65" LED TV ~ Windows 7 ~ Yamaha RX-A1030 ~ QnapTS851-4G
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by takearushfan View Post
    eh, I don't think I even know what I'm trying to say or how to make it understood :/
    Can you post a screenshot of the video in question?
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Search Comp PM
    The IMDB reports it as "Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1 "
    You know how VLC lets you choose between fitting in the window or keeping the original resolution? The first shot is of the original resolution, the second if I make it fit the app's window.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	vlcsnap-2014-08-27-05h14m28s85_NOFIT.png
Views:	68
Size:	1.29 MB
ID:	27103
    Click image for larger version

Name:	vlcsnap-2014-08-27-05h14m28s85_FIT.png
Views:	65
Size:	1.49 MB
ID:	27104
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Search Comp PM
    Yeah, that didn't work. This is what it actually looks like in VLC before fitting, which appears to be a zoom...?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled-1.png
Views:	75
Size:	1.75 MB
ID:	27105
    Quote Quote  
  10. Prior to the advent of HDTV virtually nothing was shot at 16:9. Common theatrical widescreen movie formats were wider than 16:9. The closest being 1.85:1, many at ~2:35:1. Since DVD and Blu-ray only support 4:3 and 16:9 DAR, any movie that doesn't have one of those aspect ratios will be cropped, pillarboxed or letterboxed.

    Less popular movies are often mastered from old 4:3 studio video tapes. Hence they are pan-and-scanned to 4:3.

    If you're downloading torrents -- who knows what was done to them.
    Last edited by jagabo; 27th Aug 2014 at 07:19.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Search Comp PM
    *shrug* That's how it's presented from iTunes.
    Quote Quote  
  12. I don't know exactly what you're showing in those screen caps. In the last one, the image is very close to 16:9 after removing the black borders.

    Do you realize that when viewing video in a full screen WINDOW on a 16:9 display, after leaving room for the Start bar, the window's borders, the title bar, the menu bar, and VLC's transport controls you don't have a 16:9 view port? You disproportionally lose space at the top and bottom of the screen so the view port is wider than 16:9.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Search Comp PM
    It would've been too easy for that to occur to me *blush*
    Quote Quote  
  14. A Member since June, 2004 Keyser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Westernmost point of Europe
    Search Comp PM
    Maybe it's just me, but I really have a hard time trying to understand why people make such confusions about aspect ratios.

    If the original material is 4:3 then it is IMPOSSIBLE to properly display it in 16:9 without pillarboxing it or cropping it at the top and/or bottom. It's not rocket science!
    "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
    Quote Quote