Back up a Widescreen to make it Full Screen?

[mstpaintball]

Ok, I'm not a big fan of the whole Widescreen thing, and since it seems that most dvd's are first released in Widescreen only then later released in Full Screen (or maybe its just hard for me to find Full Screen dvds sometimes).
I would like to covert my Widescreen DVD's to Fullscreen, is this possible? And would the coversion still allow it to be compatible with my non-chipped PS2?
Also, would the Full Screen require more disc space, so then I would have to compress/lessen the quality of the DVD even more to fit it on disc?
Thanks 8)

[Craig Tucker]

You have 2 options

1. stretch the movie vertically, this way everyone will look tall and skinny.

2. Crop the edges off to change the aspect ratio to 4:3.

I would not want to do either of these options as it will ruin the movie IMHO. But if you are determined to do so you can encode with TMPGEnc and either set it to encode to full screen or crop the sides off.

[Gurm]

The problem is that fullscreen movies aren't just "widescreen with the edges cut off". They're "pan & scan", which means that someone whose sole job it is to decide which parts of a scene are most important has gone through the movie and for each and every frame decided where the screen should be centered.

The amount of time it would take you to do this so it doesn't appear hideous is so extraordinarily large that it's more cost-effective to just buy the fullscreen versions.

But seriously, just get a bigger tv, huh?

- Gurm

[mstpaintball]

I've got like a 36" tv, but still. Thanks for the info guys, I may try and stretch it and see how it turns out. Learn something new everyday....well almost everyday. Lol
Thanks 8)

[methos_de]

If youre thinking of stretching its a waste of time. Just set the player up for a 16:9 TV and on your 4:3 TV you'll get the same effect as if youd stretched the picture.
Cropping the sides would be a catastrophe. When 2 people for example are talking the picture moves from left to right so as to allow you to see both people. By cropping off the sides you would effectively see neither. You would see the space in between them and only hear them.

Methos.

[dap]

Why on earth would you want to do that? I mean you wouldn't read 3/5th of a book would you? Why butcher your widescreen video? Square is dead.

[FulciLives]

I would like to believe that people who do not like WIDESCREEN movies but instead prefer FULL SCREEN movies feel this way because they are either uninformed and/or have not seen any good examples.

So if you do not like WIDESCREEN I urge you to read the following articles with an open mind:

Articles that explain it in words and/or pictures:

1.) http://www.technofile.com/articles/widescreen.html

2.) http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml

3.) http://www.davisdvd.com/Miscellaneous/faq/wsprimer.htm

Please note that the first one is very short. The second one is a short FLASH example that is a great visual aid in understanding and the third is a very in depth long article with superb information.

The LINKS below are example screen shots that compare the same scene in the same movie but one is from the FULL SCREEN release and the other from the WIDESCREEN release. Very EYE OPENING stuff here

1.) A FEW EXAMPLES FROM VARIOUS MOVIES

2.) STAR WARS IV - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

3.) INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

4.) THE MUMMY (THE REMAKE)

5.) MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL

6.) ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK

Hope this helps and thanks for checking it out

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[logannsan]

Okay, I looked at the star wars screenshots and even though I dont have a widescreen tv yet..I'll probably start buying widescreen. But, one question..why does the top and bottom still have black? Just wondering..later

[FulciLives]

Okay, I looked at the star wars screenshots and even though I dont have a widescreen tv yet..I'll probably start buying widescreen. But, one question..why does the top and bottom still have black? Just wondering..later

Well the best thing to do would be to follow LINK 3 under the articles. That explains that there are many different aspect ratios and a 16x9 WIDESCREEN Television is 16x9 which is the same as saying 1.77:1 so most movies will still have black above and below them on a 16x9 TV but NOT AS MUCH as when viewed on a 4:3 (1.33:1) TV.

Basically it boils down to this ... most movies are 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 so on a 16x9 TV a 1.85:1 movie would have very little (almost none) black above and below the picture whereas a 2.35:1 movie will still have a noticeable amount of black but NOT AS MUCH as on a 4:3 TV.

Or think of it this way. With a 2.35:1 movie on a 4:3 TV about 43% of the screen is black with the image centered in the remaining 57% of the TV screen BUT on a 16x9 TV with a 2.35:1 movie there would only be about 25% black with the image centered in the remaining 75% of the TV screen.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

*** EDIT ***
I just wanted to add this to give you a frame of referrence ... the STAR WARS films all have an aspect ratio of 2.35:1

[FulciLives]

Found this link which is pretty kewl.

It shows what the same aspect ratio will look like on a 4:3 vs a 16x9 TV

So for instance you can see what the 2.35:1 image will look like (as far as the amount of black above and below the picture) on both types of televisions.

http://www.davisdvd.com/Miscellaneous/faq/oar.htm

I just only recently discovered the DAVIS DVD webiste and I must say it has a lot of good info on it.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
The only drawback to a 16x9 TV is that when you watch "normal" 4:3 programs (such as most TV shows) you will be filling the screen from top to bottom but will have black on the sides. Looks a bit odd after watching years and years of widescreen movies with the black only on the top and bottom of the image hehehe

[bmiller]

If you get a good widescreen tv that stretches the 4:3 properly,you will never notice it.I had a Panasonic,and it was terrible.The Toshiba 50" that i have now does the stretch so well you never even notice.
A properly calibrated set can't be beat.
Brad

[Ejoc]

I loved your links to the pan-scan vs widescreen comparisons, I was rollin on the comments for the Star Wars comparisons. "Oh Han was in this sceen"

[FulciLives]

I loved your links to the pan-scan vs widescreen comparisons, I was rollin on the comments for the Star Wars comparisons. "Oh Han was in this sceen"

I'm on a roll today between this thread and that other thread you posted in hehehe

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Ejoc]

Should merge em into a single thread.

Oh yea! Han was getting slapped with a dead fish in this scene!

[logannsan]

Thanks for all the info FulciLives, looks like the 1:85:1 is the best ratio for widescreen. I wasnt even thinking about regular tv viewing, but that "banding" will definitely be hard to get used to..thanks.

[FulciLives]

If you get a good widescreen tv that stretches the 4:3 properly,you will never notice it.I had a Panasonic,and it was terrible.The Toshiba 50" that i have now does the stretch so well you never even notice.
A properly calibrated set can't be beat.
Brad

Stretching a 4:3 image to fill a 16x9 image is about as stupid as wanting to cut off the sides of a widescreen movie to fit the (roughly) square shape of a TV

I mean really now!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Gurm]

logansann,

It really won't. A friend of mine has a LARGE widescreen, and you don't even notice the side bars. You just see the image in the center. Side bars are WAY less noticeable than top&bottom bars, and even those you get very much used to after a while.

- Gurm

[bmiller]

FulciLives,you obviously haven't availed yourself with the latest technology.4:3 tv's are going the way of the DoDo bird.Some manufacturers don't even make the old style tv's anymore.
With the increasing ammount of HDTV which is produced in 16:9 and is 720p or 1080i,widescreen tv's will be the norm.Try going to a good electronics store sometime.You can be sure they won't be showing 4:3 programing with the black bars on a 16:9 tv. You will be very surprised.I'm sure you have seen stretched video,and you didn't even realize it.
I couldn't go back to an old 4:3 tv if i wanted to.The protests around here would be endless.There are are a few more people around here who have seen the light,and will agree.
Brad

[FulciLives]

FulciLives,you obviously haven't availed yourself with the latest technology.4:3 tv's are going the way of the DoDo bird.Some manufacturers don't even make the old style tv's anymore.
With the increasing ammount of HDTV which is produced in 16:9 and is 720p or 1080i,widescreen tv's will be the norm.Try going to a good electronics store sometime.You can be sure they won't be showing 4:3 programing with the black bars on a 16:9 tv. You will be very surprised.I'm sure you have seen stretched video,and you didn't even realize it.
I couldn't go back to an old 4:3 tv if i wanted to.The protests around here would be endless.There are are a few more people around here who have seen the light,and will agree.
Brad

Dude like DUH I know about what's up and what's up is that you watch a 4:3 image as 4:3 on a 16x9 screen with black on the sides ... you don't "stretch" it to fit as that screws up the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio).

So get a clue

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[energy80s]

Even though I like a lot of stuff in widescreen, I still only own a 4:3 telly (and don't intend changing anytime soon). Why not do the BBC thing of 14:9, this gives small black bars top and bottom of the screen (usually half cut off in the overscan anyway) without cropping too much of the sides. True 4:3 fullscreen is properly "panned and scanned" to give the best view of any action. Just lopping off the left and right sides of a picture can sometimes be disasterous.

Incidently, 16:9 broadcasts are only starting to make an impact in Europe, most broadcasters still use 4:3, and of course HDTV is only a pipe dream and won't happen for many, many years.

[bmiller]

The 14:9 aspect ratio is likely a good compromise for the time being,although we don't have that in north america.I have noticed a lot of programming from BBC shown here is 16:9 as the small black bars on the top and bottom are the same size as our ntsc programming and dvd widescreen videos produce.
Both satellite provders in Canada now have quite a number of HDTV channels available,with more coming on as the year progresses.Most of the sports channels,PBS,and the major networks show their primetime programming in HDTV.The discovery channel,and UPN,later this year,are also in Hi-Def.Football and baseball in widescreen HDTV is amazing to watch.
Although it's mandated in U.S. that all transmition be digital, it's still a little slower to catch on here in Canada.tThere have been more applications for HDTV broadcasting by the major Canadian broadcasters.All of them will broadcasting some of their programming by this time next year.One of our sattelite companies now has 16 HDTV channels,and the rest are catching up fast.
I was in Portugal last summer,and visted an electronics store in Lisbon.99% of the tv's on display were widescreen.Prices for widescreen HDTV'S have dropped dramatically in the last 18 months.The local dealer in the small town i live in,only sells widescreen tv's now.He had so much trouble selling 4:3 tv's he gave up on them.He had 2 large screen 4:3 tv's he had to sell at cost after they sat in the in the store for a year
Once you have gone to the other side, there's no going back.Price is still a stumbling block for a lot of people,and that's understandable.

For all those who have a widscreen tv here is a link to a website regarding burn-in.Lots of other great info too.
http://sitelevel.whatuseek.com/query.go?crid=20ac5bff6a6ae41b&query=burn+in&B1=Search
Brad

[energy80s]

The BBC have actually been pioneers for widescreen in the UK and Europe. Only within the last year have other UK commercial broadcasters started to broadcast fully in widescreen and most European TV stations still don't. In electrical shops here you would still have more 4:3 TV's than widescreen sets, but that figure will probably soon change with the advent of DVD - very few DVD's here are released in fullscreen so it's either put up with black bars on a 4:3 TV or fill it with a picture on a 16:9 TV. Also you won't get screen sizes above 32" in most homes as the living rooms are just too small. My 4:3 set is only 21" and that's big enough in a 12x12 foot living area.

As for HDTV, that will not be a reality here for many years. There are no HD cameras in the BBC, so any programming has to be made by an independant company. I have actually played about with a Sony HD Betacam (the tapes alone cost £49 each!) and although the picture is stunning, the operation of the camera is not very straight foward compared with a Digibeta 790 (viewing progressive scan images on an interlaced viewfinder would soon give you a headache). The first official HDTV Europe test channel launched last week, but very few satellite receivers can actually access the channel as it broadcasts at 19.5Mbps! Maybe in 10 years time we will start to have an HDTV service as it would just cost too much to implement any sooner.

[bmiller]

Satellite companies have the hardest time with HDTV as it takes up so much bandwidth,and with limited transponders,they have to allocate carefully,or launch more satellites.Cable companies don't have the same problem and have a big advantage that way.Customers also have to buy an HDTV decoder which adds to the total cost.
R&d in the tech sector have been working on a compression for the transmition of HDTV signals,which will be a big advancement for the whole industry as the number of transponders and equipment to transmit data will be reduced greatly.Our CBC or state owned broadcasting corporation has purchased HDTV cameras,and the speculation is they will be used for hockey broadcasts.As you might be aware of,hockey is to Canada,what "soccer" is to you in europe.There are a lot of people looking forward to it.
Brad

[bmiller]

Here is another link regarding "stretching" and dvd's.By the way FulciLives,i was in an electronics store yesterday looking at a 50" lcd tv and mentioned your remarks about watching 4:3 video on a 16:9 tv.Not one of their 16:9 displays were showing a strictly 4:3.He mentioned he would never sell any if he did,and not once in all the years he has been in business has any one complained or mentioned a wonky looking picture.Although he was not selling panasonic,which i have to admit was noticable.My understanding is they have corrected this problem from their original sets.
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm

[FulciLives]

Here is another link regarding "stretching" and dvd's.By the way FulciLives,i was in an electronics store yesterday looking at a 50" lcd tv and mentioned your remarks about watching 4:3 video on a 16:9 tv.Not one of their 16:9 displays were showing a strictly 4:3.He mentioned he would never sell any if he did,and not once in all the years he has been in business has any one complained or mentioned a wonky looking picture.Although he was not selling panasonic,which i have to admit was noticable.My understanding is they have corrected this problem from their original sets.
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm

Most people do not understand video aspect ratio. It is the sad truth. Electronic stores often adjust the televisions they are selling so that they look "GOOD" to the uninformed Joe such as upping the contract too much etc.

The simple truth of the matter is when you make a 4:3 image fit a 16x9 TV display you are in some way altering the original 4:3 aspect ratio by either chopping off the top and/or bottom or by stretching it.

I'm sorry but you will never convince me that altering the aspect ratio of the original source video to better fit the aspect ratio of the display device is a "correct" method.

It simply is not.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[j1d10t]

My Sony wide screen TV has 4 settings: 4:3 (with the bars on the sides to frame it), 16x9 Wide (stretching the image to make it fill the screen), Zoom (to actually zoom in on the image, cutting off the top and bottom of the image), and Wide Zoom (stretching the image horizontally, but compressing the top and bottom). The Wide Zoom setting does stretch a 4:3 image to fill the 16x9 space, but it "compresses" the top and bottom of the image to make the image look better on the 16x9 display. The only thing is watching something like CNN, where they have the headlines running along the bottom - those are hard to read with that setting, but since you can switch settings with the push of a button on the remote, it doesn't really matter. Granted, you are altering the OAR, but it's not really noticeable. And since you've already got over-scan, why not take a little more off the top and bottom? I'd rather fill the screen (with the Wide Zoom setting) then watch something with bars on the sides, making the image much smaller.
But to each his own

[bmiller]

You are right about adjusting settings.Most people have become used to high contrast and brightness settings on tv's,but a properly calibrated set has settings quite different than what they have been used to.Adjusting the colour temp. with a colour analyzer to. i believe it is 6900k, will give you a picture as close to "hollywood standard" tv's that are used in post production.A lot of movies and tv shows are produced in a darker format than most people are used to seeing,and it takes a while to get used to.It's true,it's not for everyone.
I don't know if lcd and plasma require the same setup as rpt sets,and maybe calibration won't be an issue with them.Nice sharp picture though.

[Gregg]

Hi,

Here's what happened when I tried to put subtiltes on THE TRANSPORTER 4:3 DVD.
I joined all vobs /I don't remember which program I used/ but at the end I got a wide screen movie. Any ideas what happend?

Enjoy!

[FulciLives]

Hi,

Here's what happened when I tried to put subtiltes on THE TRANSPORTER 4:3 DVD.
I joined all vobs /I don't remember which program I used/ but at the end I got a wide screen movie. Any ideas what happend?

Yes I have an idea. It's called hijacking a thread.

Make your own THREAD about your problem with backing up THE TRANSPORTER and be sure to include a lot more info than you did here as it would be a shot in the dark for anyone to offer anything remotely helpfull with so little information as provided (or rather not provided) by you.

The more you tell us what you did in detail the more someone can figure out what went wrong and offer a possible solution.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[overloaded_ide]

All the talk about changing displays for ratio's.

Although it might look ok, common sences will tell you something has to change somewhere!

Take a photogragh, scan in into any program, now change it from 4"tall and 6"wide to say 6"tall and 6" wide. Somehow something is going to change right! You either stretch it, so it is tall and thin looking, or you let the sides expand to 8"wide by keeping the aspect ratio and cut them off to fit the 6"width.

Sure you can play with half streching it, half widen and cut the sides to fit, it will look better than doing either one by itself, but it still is not right!

Finding the best balance can be done, lose aspect ratio, make it 6" tall and 7"wide, then clip the sides. You get a small stretch and lose half as much on the sides, but still not right! Will look better and maybe not be too noticeable.

Since video is nothing more than moving pictures like a photograph, how can a TV fit a 4"x6" picture into a 6"x6" frame without changing the image?? It does the same as the phot example most likely, half stretch and half cut! Not as noticeable, and you get rid of the black bars, but it still cannot be right!
Same with going the other way.

Yes doctor, hand me my drill and I CAN put that square peg in the round hole for you. Ok doc, you don't want the empty space, well I got some wood putty here :P Let me fill in the dead space, see I told you I could put a square peg in a round hole!!
Ya can't trick me Doc, round peg square hole, heck let me get the lathe set up, no problem, see it fits too!!