I Have Had It !!!

[Craig Tucker]

In all respect, your statistic doesn't state that 25% of home screens are widescreen. It claims that, in the UK, one quarter of households have widescreen. Why don't you check out the proportion of widescreen sales and consider the number of existing sets. It is pretty easy to see that with a mean life of ten years, less than 5% of televisions will be widescreen.

You could make the assumption that if someone is going to sit down and watch a DVD they are likely to do it on their best/most expensive TV set. This will most probrably be the widescreen set assuming they own multiple sets. So 1 in 4 households in the UK are likely to watch DVD's on a widescreen TV.

[FulciLives]

Look at it this way...remember widescreen still cameras? this was supposed to be a big hit. It wasn't. It is not a natural composition.

Actually this isn't true.

I read an article once that made perfect sense ...

Widescreen (especially 2.35:1 aspect ratio) is more pleasing to our eyes because it more correctly "captures" the world as we see it.

Our eyes are on the same horizontal level but are spaced apart on the veritcal level (or is that the other way around).

The point is both of our eyes see the same from top to bottom but one eyes sees more to the left and one eye sees more to the right so both eyes together we get a more rectangle view of the world in that we see more from left to right then we see from top to bottom.

This is one reason my widescreen compositions look so nice to us.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[proxyx99]

Since movies are shot with theatre audience in mind it comes as no surprise that widescreen has taken over. It fills the space between the walls quite nicely plus creates substantial size virtual world. What if instead of watching movies on big screen one would put say 80 inch plasma in front of the audience (for the whole movie theatre to enjoy).
Would a widescreen be equally appealing?
As I mentioned be4, it makes sense only if its large enough to simulate theatre screen (must be substantial). Widescreen was not developped for TV but TV was adjusted to allow for such simulation. That is why it's called "home theatre". Following that logic it is crazy to push watching widescreen when your center piece is 20 inch.

[Ripper64]

This is third DVD player I bought (and will be returning) in the past week and a half !!!!

By the way so everyone else knows this, the APEX AD-2600 and the Philips 727 had the same software loaded on their machines.

Hopefully someone can make a recommendation as to what I am looking for in a DVD player.

I want something that will play whatever is thrown into it (The Philips 727 and Apex AD-2600 does) but when when you hit the zoom button this annying box appears throughout the entire dvd playback and does not go away !!!! How annoying can you get ???

Please help...

This box goes away on my DVD727 in about 2 seconds after I hit the zoom button.I tried it after reading your post.I tried all the zoom modes and that box always went away on its own.I use component connection.

[maek]

This post HAS degenerated into pure madness.

Let's stop this now, shall we?

Otherwise, I will recommend a new format called THINSCREEN. It's like WIDESCREEN, but it's more visually appealing to your average male whose eyes naturally have a visual scan pattern of checking women out up and down.

In order to be more true to the male visual pattern, the ratio is actually 1:1 at the top, 1.85:1 at the chest area, 2.35:1 at the hip area, back to 1:1 at the foot to follow certain aspects shall we say.

On a serious note, I think that we have heard arguments from both sides and let's just agree to disagree. Neither side is going to be swayed regardless of who thinks what is intellectually superior (egos alone are starting to cause explosions here).

[jimmalenko]

There's always 1 wannabe moderator in every post !

You want widescreen ? Buy a widescreen TV. Why compromise the supposedly "superior" quality by using the Zoom function ?

[maek]

Just a historical point of interest, Fucilives. While I agree about your point regarding widescreen, let's not forget that its birth came about for one important reason:

The movie industry was afraid of another similar device displaying a "squarish" image called the TELEVISION. Hence, terms like CINEMASCOPE and other fancy terms were being thrown around to let people know that films like Lawrence of Arabia can be seen in huge sweeping landscapes compared to its little upstart brother, the TV.

Ever wonder why you don't see Casablanca in a widescreen format? BECAUSE IT DID NOT EXIST. And if it weren't for the TV, the movie industry wouldn't have pushed for a gimmick to get people to come back.

[aero]

You could make the assumption that if someone is going to sit down and watch a DVD they are likely to do it on their best/most expensive TV set. This will most probrably be the widescreen set assuming they own multiple sets. So 1 in 4 households in the UK are likely to watch DVD's on a widescreen TV.

I see that as a reach and illogical. Why wouldn't you watch anything on your best set? I might venture to say you don't have kids. there is a reason why the average television set is kept for 10 years.

Again the zoom question is perfectly logical.

[aero]

Widescreen (especially 2.35:1 aspect ratio) is more pleasing to our eyes because it more correctly "captures" the world as we see it.
Our eyes are on the same horizontal level but are spaced apart on the veritcal level (or is that the other way around).

Not a very good biology lesson and not true. we have two eyes that look forward (like most all predetors). this gives us some peripheral or wide vision to perceive movement (as needed by prey), but is primarily desigened to allow us to concentrate and focus on a center area. The only real reason our eyes are apart at all is to perceive distance, somthing that does not occur at all with a two dimensional object like a television or movie screen. Driving with one eye closed is problematic, watching a movie with oen eye closed isn't.

You are still processing the image with a round eyeball and a visual system in your brain whcih brings the images of thoes two round balls together. Your brain actaully perceives visual information best in 1:1 ratios.

the only reason why biology didn't develop eyes one over the other is that most higher life is symetrical side to side.

You are also ignoring the simple fact that extant visual compositions for a few thousand years before television or films were overwhelmingly closer to 4:3 when their creators did not have the constraints of lenses or televisions. Yes you can find the rare widescreen analog in murals and tryptics. But the simple fact is you must sit further back from a widescreen image to enjoy and properly perceive it.

Since most film material made over the past few years is widescreen becasue of a commerical decsion to set movie theaters apart from television then there is an argument for widescreen, ie the stuff is in that format...not that it is better.

[macleod]

I'll apologize if the original posters question has been answered already (I didnt read all of the responses).

I own an apex 1100W and an apex 1225 (the 1225 is still being sold in wal-marts and ultimate electronics for $30-$40) and it will allow you to zoom and then turn off the zoom icon.

Personally, I watch the majority of my weidescreens as full screen. I look at it like I purchase the WS version and if I want, I can make it pseudo FS. The 1225 actually has an option (button push) that allows you to make a widescreen into a full screen on the TV (I still prefer the zoom option though).

To "turn off" the zoom icon after it is pressed, press display twice and then it all disappears. The 1225 (changed from 1100W) is if you press next/back, it DOESNT change the aspect ratio back to the original. The 1100W would "switch" back.

Good luck

[lordsmurf]

My TOSHIBA 2800 can do this. ZOOM with no stuff added.

[Roderz]

Wow I just wasted 1/2 hour reading this crap - funny though.
Where can I get a THINSCREEN tv from.

BTW watched a prog that stated the bBC when starting out wanted a res that exceeds anything we have today (and it was widescreen)

[Craig Tucker]

I see that as a reach and illogical.

A reach, sure, Illogical - why. Family bloggs has shiney new 32" Widescreen TV set in the living room, and a couple of 14" portable sets in the bedrooms. They go out and buy a DVD player and some widescreen DVD to watch on it. Which set do you think they are going to hook the DVD player up to.

I might venture to say you don't have kids.

Now who's reaching, I have 2 girls aged 16 and 11, but I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

[nexus123]

I also returned 3 dvd players. The first one (also the first dvd player I ever owned) was an apex. I loved it, it played ne thing I put into it (almost), I returned it because it started only wanting to play about 85-90% of my dvds. My next was an emerson bah damn thing wouldn't play nething but a dvd. Next was an RCA plays dvd and vcd's but alas had to go back won't touch an svcd. Alas back to the APex and wal-mart will prob. be getting it back in a year and a half. btw I to think it is pretty pointless to zoom in on a movie to watch it in full screen though I would be more annoyed by missing the offscreen action than the zoom symbol but hey different strokes for different pokes right

[smearbrick1]

Pioneer 434, 343, and 333. Plays everything thrown at them.

[aero]

Family bloggs has shiney new 32" Widescreen TV set in the living room, and a couple of 14" portable sets in the bedrooms. They go out and buy a DVD player and some widescreen DVD to watch on it. Which set do you think they are going to hook the DVD player up to.

I think you are proving my point. Have you watched a widescreen film on a 14" set?

Look the poster asked about dvd players that zoomed and did not keep the icon. Many people answered as if he was suggesting tearing up the mona lisa. I venture to say that not many people have tried a 1.2x or 1.4x (that is not 2 or 4x, but just a bit of a zoom). For a widescreen film on a small to moderate sized television this is a perfectly valid feature to have as an option.

[FulciLives]

PLEASE let this thread die ... it's been a month we don't need to start it back up again.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[indolikaa]

PLEASE let this thread die ... it's been a month we don't need to start it back up again.

Wishful thinking...

[Skynet107]

What I can't believe is the purest screaming that the aspect ratio HAS to be EXACTLY like it was on the big screen or some of the film will be lost. I hate to break it to you, but when you watch a movie on video ALL THE FILM IS LOST! Every last shred. It is on video, you have to deal with the limitations of the format, and there are many.

A heavily letterboxed video sacrafices 50% or more resolution at the expense of "preserving" the original film. I like letterbox to an extent, but anything over 16:9 can really cut down on the fidelity of the image no matter how good your equipment. Some directors film with T.V. in mind but not many. A 2.5:1 movie can be reproduced for video at say 16:9 if the movie was filmed with video in mind. A close in shot can be pulled back slightly, or pulled back more if needed and become a medium shot etc. Either way don't bash someone if they don't like letterboxing it has its problems just like panscan.

[jimmalenko]

Keeping this thread alive....

The whole point is making your DVD player do something it was not intended to do. If you want widescreen, buy the widescreen DVD. If you want fullscreen, buy the fullscreen DVD.

Otherwise, STFU.

[proxyx99]

I like your 16x9 Logo with some moving parts (battery operated?).

[jimmalenko]

I like your 16x9 Logo with some moving parts (battery operated?).

WTF ???

[indolikaa]

I'd pay real money to see this thread get locked.

[FulciLives]

I'd pay real money to see this thread get locked.

I got a yellow card for this here thread hehehe

It's still going on though at this point we are just beating it to death

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[jimmalenko]

@Defcon:

Have you found a solution after all this ?

[indolikaa]

I'd pay real money to see this thread get locked.

I got a yellow card for this here thread hehehe

It's still going on though at this point we are just beating it to death

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Dude! I never read Page 1 of this thread.


Even Alan69 whipped out some rough-edged commentary. Sweet! The world is beginning to spin in the proper orbit around here.

[Defcon]

Damn !!!! I didn't even realize this was still going on

@Defcon:

Have you found a solution after all this ?

BTW Jimmalenko, I did find a solution...... It was a JVC XV-N55SL

I also learned (through this thread) that some people take serious offense to enlarging 16x9 formatted DVD's. This is what I have to say in the end.....

Some widescreen formats I can deal with like House of 1000 Corpses isn't that narrow, but X-Men 2 is like a ticker tape movie as proxy99 put it, And I that I think sucks even on my 51" tv. I never see any quality loss when I zoom in at 1.5

I am sure there are great aspects of the "true widscreen" format as mother nature intended and all that stuff, but it all comes down to prefrence man.

I know this thread started off pretty crazy, and if I offened anybody I apologize, I didn't take any of it personal & I can appear to brash at times. But all things being equalled you probably had it comming to ya

[dragonkeeper]

Personally i dont agree with all the wise ass remarks but. Seeing as how in 2006 (a meer 2 years away) the miragtion to wide screen will all but be done and said. Why are you holding on to the leagcy format. Which suck at best but was all we had till now.
When someone offers u a t-bone stake do you say thats alright i perfer a ground round and do you still perfer 8-track tapes over cd.
I'm not attacking u here but the above sceneros would appear insane to the average joe. And insite a few wise ass cracks, but a bigger person would relize this and not pour gasoline on the fire. You are entitle to your opinion but u seemed to attack them just as much as they attaked you for stating there's albiet the did so in a most distasteful and annoying manner.
Btw i wouldn't dream of doing what ur doing but check out the JVC's they seem to do what u want.

[Defcon]

Personally i dont agree with all the wise ass remarks but. Seeing as how in 2006 (a meer 2 years away) the miragtion to wide screen will all but be done and said. Why are you holding on to the leagcy format. Which suck at best but was all we had till now.
When someone offers u a t-bone stake do you say thats alright i perfer a ground round and do you still perfer 8-track tapes over cd.
I'm not attacking u here but the above sceneros would appear insane to the average joe. And insite a few wise ass cracks, but a bigger person would relize this and not pour gasoline on the fire. You are entitle to your opinion but u seemed to attack them just as much as they attaked you for stating there's albiet the did so in a most distasteful and annoying manner.
Btw i wouldn't dream of doing what ur doing but check out the JVC's they seem to do what u want.

Jeeez !!!!! Had **** up my perfectly good apologetic ending there didn't you dragondork.......

This is beyond beating a dead horse, this is molesting a dead horse

[aero]

Personally i dont agree with all the wise ass remarks but. Seeing as how in 2006 (a meer 2 years away) the miragtion to wide screen will all but be done and said.

I would just like to point out this is not really correct. If you look at any of the buyng trends combined with data on how long people keep their monitors, most screens will be still NOT be widescreen in 2010!

For anyone knowing electronics for the past 30 years comparisions with 8-track or betamax are obviously off base. a) Televisions persist in the average family for ten years; b) backwards compatability for TV's is mandated in practically every nation on earth; and c) widescreens are not accelerating as much as thought.

This will be true longer for inexpensive tube and for almost all lcd monitors.

It is and will remain a perfectly logical option to zoom and lose 10% of the side data with the benefit of a 20% increase in effective resolution. I prefer a reasonable 1.2 zoom on 16:9 and a 1.3 zoom on 2.35:1. This is about a 50% comprimise between full effective pan and scan and loss of screen space from doing nothing.