2:35:1 Ratio on DVD's

[ThomasGore3rd]

Hello Everyone!
I was wondering if someone can please explain to me why in the heck DVD's are released using the 2:35:1 ratio or letterboxed. I have a widescreen 51" TV and DVD's that are in 2:35:1 ratio still show black bars. I am not just talking about an inch or two or black bars on top and bottom, but on some DVD's (like Broken Arrow, U-571, Dead Presidents, Any Given Sunday) most of the screen is filled up with annoying black bars hardly any of the screen is used for the movie. Even if the video is 16X9 enhanced, the only difference there seems to be is that you can watch it in 16X9 mode instead of 4:3. The DVD's claim that this preserves the original theatrical aspect ratio. Funny, I dont remember seeing black bars in the movie theater when I saw the following movies that I mentioned above. There are some movies that are letterboxed that only have a slight amount of black bars, and I am OK with that, but having half your screen filled with the bars is absurd. If I see a DVD that is letterboxed or 2:35:1 most of the time I will buy it full screen (if avaiable) or on used VHS. I know that people will tell you that you see more of a picture even in this mode, but I rather watch the images streched to fill the screen and lose a couple inches of the picture, then have to sqint to see the movie. I belive they should release everything in 1:85:1 ratio, since has no black bars. It seems that they are doing away with most letterboxing and 2:35:1 DVD's, but they are still out there on some releases. Any feedback from anyone with knowledge on this subject would be great!!!!

[edDV]

Some films are shot in aspect ratios wider than 16:9.

Maybe this picture will help.

Funny, I dont remember seeing black bars in the movie theater when I saw the following movies that I mentioned above. ...

Yes you did, the black bars were curtains or mask plates that were used to mask the white screen to 1.85:1, 2.35:1 or the even wider CinemaScope. Take a job as a theater projectionist and you will learn how to set the screen masks for each feature.

Refs:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm

[Shocker Milwaukee]

If I see a DVD that is letterboxed or 2:35:1 most of the time I will buy it full screen (if avaiable) or on used VHS.

Why stop there? Go for the gusto and watch it in black & white!

[manono]

Any feedback from anyone with knowledge on this subject would be great!!!!

You don't really want to read what most of us around here think of your opinions.

[TBoneit]

Since it doesn't bother you to not see the sides of the picture you should only buy full screen versions where they have trimmed off both sides of the movie.

Or IOWs it is being released in 2.35:1 since that is the way the video was shot and the choices are lop of part of the screen for full screen or preserve the entire image and leave it 2.35:1 since the people that buy the widescreen version are buying it to see the entire film as it is originally shot. If it really bothers you go here and read about how to get 2.35:1

2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117

and
Certified product list for constant height 235:1 use
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=537491

Be prepared for sticker shock however since it bother you this may be what you want/need.

[creakndale]

I suggest you read through this excellent source of information on this topic:
http://www.widescreen.org/index.shtml

[ThomasGore3rd]

Thanks To everyone for the post and the links. Lots of great info about this subject out there! The curtain effect is interesting.

[FulciLives]

KILL BILL VOL. 1

This movie has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 so I decided to use it as an example.

Below are image from the movie.

First is the image as it appears on a normal 16x9 TV
Second is the same image but "blown up" to fit the 16x9 TV

The first has black on the top and bottom thus preserving the original aspect ratio. This is how a commercial 2.35:1 widescreen video will look on a 16x9 WS TV.
The second is blown up to fit from top to bottom leaving no black but the sides get chopped off. This is what happens when you make a 2.35:1 widescreen video "fit" the screen size of a 16x9 WS TV.

Hopefully this will help illustrate the importance of proper aspect ratio because as you can see if the image is made to fit the screen ... well ... you are not getting ALL of the image.

CAT FIGHT



CAT FIGHT - CONTINUED



A SILENT DEATH? [SPLIT SCREEN]



BOSS ARGUMENT



SHOWDOWN AT HOUSE OF BLUE LEAVES



ULTRA CLOSE-UP [OR A NOD TO DIRECTOR LUCIO FULCI]



A BLUE WORLD OF DEATH




THAT REALLY WAS A HATTORI HANZO SWORD



As you can see a movie with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 will have black above and below the image in order to preserve not only the correct aspect ratio but also so that the entire FILM FRAME is visible.

If you alter the image to fit the screen then you are not getting ALL of the image.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[FulciLives]

Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference between DVD Videos that are "normal" widescreen and those that are 16x9 widescreen anamorphic.

Using a 16x9 WS TV here is what a "normal" widescreen 2.35:1 image will look like:



As you can see there is a lot of black on the top and bottom of the image. Also in my example the image is centered with gray bars on either side. Most CRT Rear Projection televisions use gray instead of black so as to avoid "burn in" issues. If the TV uses black instead then it would look like this:



This unfortunate situation is known as the "postage stamp" effect since you are getting a "small" image inside the overal "big" picture (or TV frame). Again this happens when you have a "normal" widescreen movie. Some call this 4:3 Letteroboxed.

Now 16x9 WS televisions usually have one if not more "picture modes" to account for this. If you are lucky you will have a mode that blows the image up proportionally. This means that the top and bottom get cut off so that the image fits from side to side. In this mode the aspect ratio is not altered and you end up with this:



This is exactly what you get when a 2.35:1 aspect ratio DVD Video is 16x9 WS anamorphic. The difference is that the image quality will be better as a 16x9 WS anamorphic DVD does not need the TV to "blow it up". When you have a 4:3 Letterboxed image and you have the TV "blow it up" then you will loose some picture quality. Thus most widescreen movies are 16x9 WS anamorphic for optimal quality on a 16x9 WS TV. Alas many older DVD release are 4:3 Letterboxed. Even today the occassional widescreen movie gets released 4:3 Letterboxed instead of 16x9 WS anamorphic.

It is important to note that you must use a picture mode that blows up the image in a proportional way to keep the aspect ratio. However most 16x9 WS televisions also have various "stretch" modes and those are to be avoided with 4:3 Letterboxed videos. Basically the "stretch" modes are made so that you can make Full Screen 4:3 video fit the 16x9 WS frame. Last but not least there are a few 16x9 WS televisions that sadly lack a proportional "blow up" picture mode.

Just for the record ... if you were watching this kind of DVD Video on a standard 4:3 TV then you would see this:



Yes there is alot of black on the top and bottom but at least the image fills the TV from side to side. So there is no drawback to a 4:3 Letterboxed movie on a 4:3 TV but you do take a quality hit on a 16x9 WS TV when watching a 4:3 Letterboxed movie.

BTW the image above is the same for a 4:3 TV even if the DVD Video is 16x9 WS anamorphic. This is because the DVD player is made to reside a 16x9 WS anamorphic DVD to fit a standard 4:3 TV when the DVD player is set up correctly.

Now when watching a 16x9 WS anaomphic DVD Video on a 16x9 WS TV the DVD player will resize the image correctly but unfortunately when watching a 4:3 Letterboxed DVD Video on a 16x9 WS TV you must rely on the TV to resize correctly. Most 16x9 WS televisions can do this properly but there are some that cannot.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
It is true that KILL BILL VOL. 1 is a 16x9 WS anamorphic DVD Video but thanks to PhotoShop I can make it look like a 4:3 Letterboxed DVD Video and that is what I did in this post. It was easier doing this with PhotoShop than taking all new screen grabs from a real 4:3 Letterboxed DVD Video release since afterall I already had the KILL BILL VOL. 1 screen grabs.

One "famous" 4:3 Letterboxed DVD Video release that comes to mind is the original DVD Video release of John Carpenter's remake of THE THING. This DVD is chock full of extras and is a fine example of what the format is capable of sans one problem ... it is not 16x9 WS anamorphic!

Thankfully there has since been a re-issued version that is 16x9 WS anamorphic for the DVD Video format. There is also a HD-DVD release of the movie now that is 16x9 WS anamorphic.

[Jim44]

Great synopsis, FulciLives!

And unfortunately, the 27" Westy I have is one of those that does not have the "proportional" blow up. Not a problem with DVDs (no player hooked up to this TV ), but is an issue with some of the SciFi Channel stuff I watch (for example), which is sometimes 4:3 letterboxed and thus I'm postage-stamped.

Ah well. The rest of the HD stuff I watch on it looks fine, and it's sufficient as a bedroom TV (i.e it was inexpensive at the time ).

Jim

[FulciLives]

Great synopsis, FulciLives!

Thank you

By the way can you tell I have too much time on my hands these days?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Jim44]

By the way can you tell I have too much time on my hands these days?

At least you did something useful with that time

Jim

[festmaster]

FulciLives,

I have to say that you found some truly excellent shots to demonstrate your point. On one of the extra features on The Interpreter, Sydney Pollack shows examples of why he favors the 2.35:1 format. Interestingly, he said that he used 1.85:1 for many years because he wanted only minimal damage to his movies when they were shown on TV, and TV rights presented too much revenue to ignore to stand by his vision.

I am usually amused at the passion people on this board show when threads concerning pan and scan editions of movies are discussed. Many people here firmly believe they have a right to make back-up copies of the DVD's, even though it has questionable legality but they don't believe people should be allowed to watch fullscreen versions of movies shot in a different format because it compromises the director's vision. I think there is value in choice and if people want to watch compromised edits of a film, let the production of fullscreen DVD versions continue

[manono]

I am usually amused at the passion people on this board show when threads concerning pan and scan editions of movies are discussed. Many people here firmly believe they have a right to make back-up copies of the DVD's, even though it has questionable legality but they don't believe people should be allowed to watch fullscreen versions of movies shot in a different format because it compromises the director's vision. I think there is value in choice and if people want to watch compromised edits of a film, let the production of fullscreen DVD versions continue

Chuckle all you want. Just be aware that when some idiot comes to a forum asking how to convert a widescreen DVD to fullscreen (NOT fullscreen on my TV, though), he can't even create a true Pan-And-Scan. All he can do is crop, something very different and way inferior even to Pan-And-Scan. He can do all he wants with his DVD. I don't have to watch it, but I do believe he should be taught the error of his ways. Have you ever wondered why it's only the US people that even want to watch Pan-And-Scam versions of widescreen movies? The Europeans, for the most part, aren't asking how to do this, as they've been brought up on a diet of OAR films on TV. Only the Americans have been force-fed a diet of fullscreen movies on TV. They have to be weaned away from that, and retaught how to watch movies. But like I said, I don't have to watch these atrocities, and couldn't care less what others do with their DVDs.

Besides, as soon as the people that prefer fullscreen get their first widescreen TV set, they'll be singing a different tune.

Edit: misspelled a word.

[FulciLives]

Well it isn't so simple as a matter of choice.

There are things in this world that are choice or opinion where neither option is right per se.

Then there is just "dumb ass".

Yeah OK that may be a rude and crude way of putting it but it is the truth.

Watching a movie FULL SCREEN instead of in the proper aspect ratio (or OAR for Original Aspect Ratio) falls into the dumb ass catagory.

It's that simple.

This is not oh I prefer Fuji apples to Granny Smith apples. This is not I prefer Earl Grey tea to Green tea. This is not I prefer my coffee black to I prefer my coffe with cream and sugar.

Those are valid choices or options.

Watching a movie FULL SCREEN instead of OAR (when the OAR is not FULL SCREEN of course) is just dumb ass because you are essentially DESTROYING the integrity of the film.

You might like your coffee black. I might like my coffe with cream and suger. But would either of us drink coffee with say mustard added as a flavor? No of course not because that's dumb ass.

Same principal applies to PAN & SCAN FULL SCREEN vs WS OAR.

Oh you could go on and on about how your TV is too small and you don't like the small image and that the "black bars" bother you into some form of mental derangement but it's all bullshit dumb ass antics.

So deleting portions of the film frame just to make it fit the TV screen is fundamentally DUMB ASS.

And that's as simple an explanation as it gets. 8)

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[guns1inger]

If the image doesn't fill the screen then I am not getting the whole picture and I am not getting value for money. Simple as that.

My name is Tom, and I'm a dumb ass.






Please note. The name in the above post has been changed to protect the identity of said dumb ass. My brother-in-law isn't likely to visit these forums, but you never know . . .

[FulciLives]

If the image doesn't fill the screen then I am not getting the whole picture and I am not getting value for money. Simple as that.

My name is Tom, and I'm a dumb ass.






Please note. The name in the above post has been changed to protect the identity of said dumb ass. My brother-in-law isn't likely to visit these forums, but you never know . . .

LOL

This is funny especially since I know it is tongue-in-cheek. If I thought you were serious though ...

Anyways this reminds me (story time!) ...

I once had a boss send me a somewhat "nasty" e-mail about the "fact" that I seem to be "away from my desk on break" way too often for his liking. He sent this to me while I was away from my desk getting breakfast (hey I started at 7am but the cafeteria didn't open until 8am so ... everyone would "leave their desk" to go get breakfast). Anyway I read the e-mail and never said a word about it to him or anyone else. It was either very late that day or maybe even the 2nd day when he asked me "so how come you never mentioned that e-mail I sent you?" ... to which I responded ... "Oh well I figured it was tongue-in-cheek".

I think he was confused as to be mad at me or just laugh. I think he was a bit of both. For days and days he would end sentaces with, "yeah well you know that's tongue-in-cheek"

We generally got along but it always "bugged" him that I wasn't like glued to my chair all the time even though I always got my shit done so ... *shrug*.

I'm sure I just bored the snot out of anyone still reading this thread LOL

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[manono]

This is funny especially since I know it is tongue-in-cheek.

I'm not so sure it's tongue-in-cheek, although it is funny. My brother-in-law told me the exact same thing, about being feeling cheated when the picture doesn't fill the screen. So, when I go to his house, and there's some 1.33:1 show on the widescreen TV set, it's stretched horizontally, making everyone look fat and short. I ask them about it, and they say they're used to it now.

[FulciLives]

My brother-in-law told me the exact same thing, about being feeling cheated when the picture doesn't fill the screen. So, when I go to his house, and there's some 1.33:1 show on the widescreen TV set, it's stretched horizontally, making everyone look fat and short. I ask them about it, and they say they're used to it now.

I so hate that ... I always watch 4:3 stuff on my 16x9 TV the "normal" way with the image centered and grey bars on either side.

Having everything stretched is as bad as cropping the image to fit.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[guns1inger]

Go into any consumer electronics store (not the specialists, just general retail chains) and you will see widescreen TVs set up to either stretch horizontally, as you have described, or stretch vertically to hide the bars on 2.35:1 material. The retailers go out of their way to try to hide the fact that there will still be black bars for some widescreen material, and there will be pillarbox bars for 1.33 material. And so people get pissed off when they get their new telly home, and adjust it (badly) to fix a problem they don't actually have.

The comments I posted above were actually used to justify pan and scan versions of DVDs. He was convinced that his widescreen DVDs had in fact had the tops and bottoms chopped off. If they didn't, then why did his VHS tapes fill the screen. Obviously he was getting ripped off. So very sad.

[TBoneit]

Great synopsis, FulciLives!

And unfortunately, the 27" Westy I have is one of those that does not have the "proportional" blow up. Not a problem with DVDs (no player hooked up to this TV ), but is an issue with some of the SciFi Channel stuff I watch (for example), which is sometimes 4:3 letterboxed and thus I'm postage-stamped.

Ah well. The rest of the HD stuff I watch on it looks fine, and it's sufficient as a bedroom TV (i.e it was inexpensive at the time ).

Jim

hmmm.... 32" Westinghouse here, same reason, it was inexpensive.

Are you on cable or satellite TV?

Not sure about Cable boxes, however my Satellite HD DVR, has zoom built in that remembers two zoom settings so that it will zoom the same as the last time for SD or HD.

So for example for Sci-Fi I just hit the zoom button on the DVRs remote and choose a mode that zooms both horizontal and vertical until it fills the screen. On the LB Sci-Fi stuff I've paused the image and compared zoomed vs unzoomed and maybe I'm lucky but the only part of the image being cut off is the Sci-Fi logo that descends below the LB image. Possible that your HD source has zoom modes you can find that will fill the screen better. Good Luck

[Jim44]

Are you on cable or satellite TV?

Cable (don't hate me )

Not sure about Cable boxes, however my Satellite HD DVR, has zoom built in that remembers two zoom settings so that it will zoom the same as the last time for SD or HD.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the "zoom" capability is there, since that button on the remote did nothing initially and has been re-purposed for the 30-sec skip

It's been a while, so I may have to revisit this. But the LB/postage-stamp is live-able for now; it's no worse than on the 21" tube that the Westy replaced.

Jim

[edDV]

Are you on cable or satellite TV?

Cable (don't hate me )

Not sure about Cable boxes, however my Satellite HD DVR, has zoom built in that remembers two zoom settings so that it will zoom the same as the last time for SD or HD.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the "zoom" capability is there, since that button on the remote did nothing initially and has been re-purposed for the 30-sec skip

It's been a while, so I may have to revisit this. But the LB/postage-stamp is live-able for now; it's no worse than on the 21" tube that the Westy replaced.

Jim

Post the HD cable box model number. Somebody with the same model might be able to help.

[Jim44]

Post the HD cable box model number. Somebody with the same model might be able to help.

Thanks; I hadn't 'cause I figured I'd just go research it myself

It's a Comcast 6412 (Motorola) - I *believe* it's a Seres I or possibly II, but I'd have to go check.

Between here, AVSForum and the Comcast forums, I can usually find the info I'm looking for - although if someone here is familiar, I'd love to hear about it

Jim

[A_T]

Go into any consumer electronics store (not the specialists, just general retail chains) and you will see widescreen TVs set up to either stretch horizontally, as you have described, or stretch vertically to hide the bars on 2.35:1 material. The retailers go out of their way to try to hide the fact that there will still be black bars for some widescreen material, and there will be pillarbox bars for 1.33 material. And so people get pissed off when they get their new telly home, and adjust it (badly) to fix a problem they don't actually have.

In the UK nearly all pubs with widescreen TVs have them set up wrong - usually stretching a 4:3 image. Noone seems to notice

[ThomasGore3rd]

Ask a simple question, and get people being rude and insensitve. Suprised with all the replies to the topic, and most of the people have been helpful and intelligent. When people post comments such as wanting to watch a widescreen movie in fullscreen "dumbass" or comments that we are "idiots" is insensitive and shows you the lack of sensitisitivy and intelligent thinking on their part. LETS be realistic. Most of us grew up with smaller TV sets and the only way we could experience the magic of the movies was to go to the theater. Widescreen TV's are still newer technology and I am sure most of us still have standard TV's in our homes. Sure I love watching my movies in widescreen, but I only have one widescreen TV in the house. I cannot afford to throw away my two 27" TV's, and replace them with widescreen TV's as of yet, and when you watch the 2:35:1 ratio on a standard TV, even though you are technally seeing more of the film, its still annoying. Why do you think they use masking in the movie theaters to cover up the black bars? Even on my widescreen, I feel like the black bars are getting in the way of my movie, (i can take minimal bars, such as on 1:85:1 letterbox, since it pretty much blends in with my widescreen TV, but the other are annoying) Just because I want to watch a full-screen movie when I am on my smaller screen TV doesnt make me an idoit. I am sure that you have been doing the same thing for years until this newer technology (for the home) was invented. Were you an idiot when you didnt have letterboxing avaiable, and became a non-idiot when letterboxing and widescreen became avaiable. We aren't dumbass or idiots because we can't either can't afford to have a widescreen TV in every room, or that we dont feel like sqinting to see a movie. This is a post to help people and give information, not to rip us for our opinions or likes. If you want to do that, do it so in private amoung your friends.

[guns1inger]

Your original post wasn't a simple "how do I crop my widescreen to P&S" question, but rather your opinion and complaint about the fact movies are now shipped as they should be, in their original aspect ratio. If you are going to use the forum to give out your opinion, you should be equally prepared to accept the opinion of others.

FWIW, I do not yet own a widescreen television, for a number of reasons, but will always choose the widescreen version because

a) I appreciate the visual aesthetic of a movie as much as plot, character etc. The aspect ratio is often very much a factor in how images are framed and the value they have. Cutting them down arbitrarily and artificially altering the camera movements to compensate only damages the impact and value.

b) For the same reason I used to go to the theatre - to see the whole movie, not just some cut down version for television. There are many, many instances where crucial plot points or actions are missing or truncated in the P&S versions - simply thrown away.

Before widescreen was widely available on VHS, I would grudgingly buy the P&S version simply because there was no other choice. Once widescreen versions did start to become available, I would always seek these out in preference to P&S versions. This is long before DVD, and long before widescreen TVs were available over here.

So do I think P&S versions are butchery - in most cases yes. In some cases the director has shot to allow for fullscreen versions. Note : A fullscreen is different to a Pan and Scan version, although this distinction is often not made on DVD packaging.

So if you prefer watching half an image because it fills your screen, that is up to you. I certainly don't agree with it, and won't help you alter your films. But don't come around here with your narrow (pardon the pun) point of view, then get all upset when people don't agree with it.

[edDV]

Ask a simple question, and get people being rude and insensitve. Suprised with all the replies to the topic, and most of the people have been helpful and intelligent. When people post comments such as wanting to watch a widescreen movie in fullscreen "dumbass" or comments that we are "idiots" is insensitive and shows you the lack of sensitisitivy and intelligent thinking on their part. LETS be realistic. Most of us grew up with smaller TV sets and the only way we could experience the magic of the movies was to go to the theater. Widescreen TV's are still newer technology and I am sure most of us still have standard TV's in our homes. Sure I love watching my movies in widescreen, but I only have one widescreen TV in the house. I cannot afford to throw away my two 27" TV's, and replace them with widescreen TV's as of yet, and when you watch the 2:35:1 ratio on a standard TV, even though you are technally seeing more of the film, its still annoying. Why do you think they use masking in the movie theaters to cover up the black bars? Even on my widescreen, I feel like the black bars are getting in the way of my movie, (i can take minimal bars, such as on 1:85:1 letterbox, since it pretty much blends in with my widescreen TV, but the other are annoying) Just because I want to watch a full-screen movie when I am on my smaller screen TV doesnt make me an idoit. I am sure that you have been doing the same thing for years until this newer technology (for the home) was invented. Were you an idiot when you didnt have letterboxing avaiable, and became a non-idiot when letterboxing and widescreen became avaiable. We aren't dumbass or idiots because we can't either can't afford to have a widescreen TV in every room, or that we dont feel like sqinting to see a movie. This is a post to help people and give information, not to rip us for our opinions or likes. If you want to do that, do it so in private amoung your friends.

That is why 2.35:1 is rarely brodacast on a SD TV channel at least in the USA. So you are watching a DVD? Then you have a choice to buy or rent a "full screen" chopped version or buy a DVD player with a zoom control.

HD channels will always be widescreen and 2.35 will always be letterboxed in a 16:9 frame.

[FulciLives]

I am sure that you have been doing the same thing for years until this newer technology (for the home) was invented. Were you an idiot when you didnt have letterboxing avaiable, and became a non-idiot when letterboxing and widescreen became avaiable. We aren't dumbass or idiots because we can't either can't afford to have a widescreen TV in every room, or that we dont feel like sqinting to see a movie.

I first discovered WIDESCREEN movies in the late 1980's and it immediately made sense to me and was something that I totally and utterly and completely embraced.

Of course it was somewhat hard at that point to find WIDESCREEN movies so in 1990 I bought my first LaserDisc player since that format was more WIDESCREEN friendly.

At that point I always bought and/or rented a WIDESCREEN version when one was available.

As for my TV technology ... I've watched most movies in my lifetime on a 19" or 20" TV with some on a 26" and then a 27" TV.

It was not uncommon at all for me to watch a WIDESCREEN movie with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 on a 19"/20" TV and the "smallness" of the image never really bothered me because I would rather have the whole frame (i.e., WIDESCREEN) than a Pan&Scan Full Screen image.

I now have a 51" 16x9 HDTV but I only got that in December of 2005.

So let's see ... it's been about 18 years now since I saw my first WIDESCREEN VHS and about 16 years since I've been pretty much buying/renting nothing but WIDESCREEN videos of one sort or another.

Me thinks ThomasGore3rd that you are far behind the times

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[ThomasGore3rd]

John, at least you have a good sense of humor, Kudos for being a good sport, and I APPOGIZE for taking your comment 2 seriously....(: Behind the times?? Nahh, I just updated from Rabbit Ears to an outside antenna... :P GUNSLINGER, dude, you never even read my orginal question, because I didnt ask anything about cropping the image on my DVD. My orginal question was why I dont see black bars in the movie theaters, and then people were sending me images and a projectionist told me about masking, so that is why. Yes, its the way the film was intended to see. It look much better in the movies then on a little 27 inch TV, unless you like the preservation of the movie from the original negitive, as yourself, but dang nab it, getting ripped something I wasnt even really given a opinion on (it was more like a question of why the heck these black bars no in the movie theater and then I get them at home on my TV then I have to squint type of deal) SO I appogize if everyone thought I was ripping on bashing up on letterboxed on Widescreen DVD's. Sure I like them, but wouldnt it be great if we could have no Black bars..(such on 1:78:1 disc) is that better??????? LOL