Few questions on 16 x 9 aspect ratios...

[gsandan]

I have a few questions on aspect ratios so please bear with me. I have a 16 x 9 LCD TV. When I watch some DVDs in widescreen format the whole screen is not filled. However, when I watch Apollo 13 (IMAX version) and Band of Brothers DVDs, the whole screen is filled.

Why is that most DVDs I own are either 1.78:1, 2.40:1, 2.35:1, or 1.85:1 but are "Widescreen" which don't fill up the screen?

Why are the Band of Brothers DVDs shown fullscreen on my 16 x 9 TV?

On the back of the Apollo 13 cover, the aspect ratio of the IMAX version is 1.66:1. Is this the correct aspect ratio for 16 x 9 TVs so that the whole screen is filled?

I know you can get rid/reduce the black bars but usually that kills most of the picture.

Thanks for any help!

[axlish]

1.85:1 is the ratio of your screen, and that is what will fill it, assuming it is enhanced to do so. 2.35:1, you will see black bars. 1.66 and 1.78 should overlap your screen a little, no black bars at all, again assuming it is enhanced and you don't have to zoom.

[MysticE]

Basically the 16 X 9 format is for HDTV, as you've noticed movies come in all ratios. It's odd though that in years past there did seem to be quite a few 1.85:1 DVDs.

[Cornucopia]

16x9 IS 1.78:1. Since you state yourself that the LCD TV is 16x9, a 1.78:1 movie should fill it up (assuming the disc flag, dvd player setting, and tv zoom control setting are all set correctly).

The other displayed ratios are ACTUALLY 16x9 also, but additional black letterbox bars have also been encoded along as part of the video, so that you'll get the correct aspect ratio displayed on your 16x9 (or 4x3) TV. This highly depends on the individual movie/producer/distributor.

Scott

[edDV]

For ref:

[axlish]

16x9 IS 1.78:1. Since you state yourself that the LCD TV is 16x9, a 1.78:1 movie should fill it up (assuming the disc flag, dvd player setting, and tv zoom control setting are all set correctly).

Hey, thanks! Ya learn something new everyday.

[celtic_druid]

That 16/9 = 1.78? Surely they still teach long division?

[NiteLite]

Why is that most DVDs I own are either 1.78:1, 2.40:1, 2.35:1, or 1.85:1 but are "Widescreen" which don't fill up the screen?

They had to choose "one."
I'm curious as to what major studio film is in 1.78:1 ratio? I've been looking one.

The real problem is 16x9 was the wrong aspect ratio choice for Widescreen TV. It was fought but the battle was lost. Same as the wrong OTA HDTV delivery system was chosen even though it was proven substandard. (politics + greedy decision makers + ignorance) etc...
I've seen 1.66 and 1.85 and the 2.'s but really would like to know of an 1.78 (16X9) non enhanced.
NL

[guns1inger]

1.78 is pretty much just used for TV shoots, however because of the backlash against the black bars (primarily, but not restricted to, US viewers) a number of 1.85:1 movies are slightly cropped and zoomed and released as 1.78:1. It's sad and wasteful, but the world is full of idiots.

[edDV]

They had to choose "one."
I'm curious as to what major studio film is in 1.78:1 ratio? I've been looking one.

The real problem is 16x9 was the wrong aspect ratio choice for Widescreen TV. It was fought but the battle was lost.

16x9 resulted from the Japanese and MIT reseach of the 80's. It was decided based on TV production and home display requirements more than optimized movie display. 2.35:1 would require people to sit closer to the screen than they felt comfortable or would require overly wide screens for the typical house. 2.35:1 was rejected for studio and sports production.

Same as the wrong OTA HDTV delivery system was chosen even though it was proven substandard. (politics + greedy decision makers + ignorance) etc...

Are you talking about the Zenith proposal?
http://www.atsc.org/granda.html

[edDV]

1.78 is pretty much just used for TV shoots, however because of the backlash against the black bars (primarily, but not restricted to, US viewers) a number of 1.85:1 movies are slightly cropped and zoomed and released as 1.78:1. It's sad and wasteful, but the world is full of idiots.

Most HDTV displays and better DVD players offer a zoom option to fill the vertical. This can be just a vertical stretch (tall people) or h+v resulting in side crop.

[Cornucopia]

(Sorry, OT) What do you think of that center-optimized zoom idea?

[4:3 is stretched to widescreen 16:9, but stretch is weighted to the sides, so that center looks normal. Kinda like a horizontal slice of spherical distortion]

That could end up being a popular option.

Scott

[guns1inger]

Most HDTV displays and better DVD players offer a zoom option to fill the vertical. This can be just a vertical stretch (tall people) or h+v resulting in side crop.

Unfortunately, this seems to be beyond most people, and hence the studio shift to fill the bars for them.

What do you think of that center-optimized zoom idea?

Horrible. Anything that distorts the image to fill the screen is unacceptable. I still have a 4:3 TV (with 16:9 switching capabilities), and many of my favourite films are 2.35:1. I haven't seen the black bars in years, not because they aren't there, but because I watch the movie, not the screen.

[manono]

Hi-

I'm curious as to what major studio film is in 1.78:1 ratio? I've been looking one.

Toy Story:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/technical

As guns1inger said, there aren't many released to theater in that ratio. There are a ton more (848 by the IMDB count) cropped from 1.85:1 or other ratios to 1.78:1 for DVD release (it also includes the ones originally 1.78:1):

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/AspectRatios/1.78_:_1/

[festmaster]

Why are the Band of Brothers DVDs shown fullscreen on my 16 x 9 TV?

Band of Brothers was originally produced for broadcast on HBO and they film most of their programming in 16x9 for their high definition feed.

[NiteLite]

1.78 is pretty much just used for TV shoots, however because of the backlash against the black bars (primarily, but not restricted to, US viewers) a number of 1.85:1 movies are slightly cropped and zoomed and released as 1.78:1. It's sad and wasteful, but the world is full of idiots.

My thoughts exactly.

Are you talking about the Zenith proposal?
http://www.atsc.org/granda.html

Not sure edDV...I remember a Documentary a long time back maybe on PBS or BBC about basically a guy disputing the carrier wave used to transmit the signal.
In what looked like a small room in a New York office the antenna used to collect the signal for the FCC approved wave had to be placed exactly on the window at a very specific spot to collect the signal and provide the picture on the TV in the room.
A gentleman with another wave sent and a different but comparably type of antenna walk virtually all around the room constantly moving the hand held antenna and never lost the signal while the approved antenna if moved an inch or so lost all signal and the TV went black.
This other guy in brief stated the signal and reception antenna was based on a type of setup the military used and was proven far superior to the accepted one.
He admitted it was late in the game to get the FCC to change it's mind but tried to appeal to them by demoing the vastly improved and less costly and consumer friendly his company's setup would be. No more having to perfectly position antenna, no drop outs, a receiving range far superior in distance from transmitter,and some other benifits that escape me due to being a decade or so ago.
He also hinted at the politics of the decision and how his smaller company and backers didnt have a shot when going up against the conglomerate of FCC friendliy names.
The demo was relly amazing and informative as to, even in TV reception, money and politics decided the outcome. His presentation blew away the standard used today so bad it was laughable and drew looks of utter astonishment from even the competition.
Wish I could remember more but so long ago.

Hi-
As guns1inger said, there aren't many released to theater in that ratio. There are a ton more (848 by the IMDB count) cropped from 1.85:1 or other ratios to 1.78:1 for DVD release (it also includes the ones originally 1.78:1):

Thanks manono for the link. Being that 16X9 was not even a thought when some of these were released theatrical and some newer ones, knowing the standard for HD was 1.85:1, I find it hard to think that any if maybe a few were shot for theatrical release in 1.78 with the intent to properly fill the 16X9 HDTVs.
From the info on IMDB link I'm not sure if they were refitted for DVD in that ratio or actually shot on film for the theater.(?)
Anyway, nice catch on the question I posted. I'll research some more on that. Thanks for the lead.

Lots of good info here. Very interesting thread. Thanks, gsandan for the original post.
I hope you find this as interesting as I do.
edtv, You always supply excellent reads along with others here. Sorry I dont have more info to back up my statement. I wish everyone could have seen the demo.
Regards,
NL

[guns1inger]

I also suspect that quite a few of the films released theatrically as 1.85 were actually shot on Super 35, which would allow them to be reframed to 1.78 without sacrificing the width, however it still seems to be pandering to an ill informed public, rather than respecting the artist's wishes. I find it ironic that the MPAA scream about artist's rights when it comes to piracy, but are willing to trample them when it comes to revenue, even if it is just for a few extra millimetres of screen real estate.

[edDV]

Are you talking about the Zenith proposal?
http://www.atsc.org/granda.html

Not sure edDV...I remember a Documentary a long time back maybe on PBS or BBC about basically a guy disputing the carrier wave used to transmit the signal.
In what looked like a small room in a New York office the antenna used to collect the signal for the FCC approved wave had to be placed exactly on the window at a very specific spot to collect the signal and provide the picture on the TV in the room.
A gentleman with another wave sent and a different but comparably type of antenna walk virtually all around the room constantly moving the hand held antenna and never lost the signal while the approved antenna if moved an inch or so lost all signal and the TV went black.
This other guy in brief stated the signal and reception antenna was based on a type of setup the military used and was proven far superior to the accepted one.
He admitted it was late in the game to get the FCC to change it's mind but tried to appeal to them by demoing the vastly improved and less costly and consumer friendly his company's setup would be. No more having to perfectly position antenna, no drop outs, a receiving range far superior in distance from transmitter,and some other benifits that escape me due to being a decade or so ago.
He also hinted at the politics of the decision and how his smaller company and backers didnt have a shot when going up against the conglomerate of FCC friendliy names.
The demo was relly amazing and informative as to, even in TV reception, money and politics decided the outcome. His presentation blew away the standard used today so bad it was laughable and drew looks of utter astonishment from even the competition.
Wish I could remember more but so long ago.

Well all the tests are well documented on the net. The FCC choice of 8VSB over COFDM (later used in DVB-T) was for the following reasons:

- Better performance beyond 30 miles. Fewer repeater transmitters required.
- Lower transmitter power consumption for the same distance.

Disadvantages were poorer "rabbit ear" type indoor reception performance. A roof top antenna works best. Also more susceptibility to urban multipath interference. The multipath problem was thought to be solvable with DSP and finally in 4th to 6th generation tuner chips, this problem is being reduced.

Bottom line, 8VSB was thought to be better in the USA where widely spaced high powered transmitters are used to reach many suburban and rural customers. This was at the expense of urban indoor antenna performance. Cable penetration in the cities is near 95% so the bias went to rural reception.

COFDM was better suited to Europe where many distributed lower power transmitters are used and indoor antennas are preferred (more apartments and multiunit housing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8VSB
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/archives/mstvtestsum.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB