Aspect ratio and a zoom use

[LCSHG]

Recently I have been dubbing LD disks to DVD most are 1:35 and 1:85 but many are
2:35 (letter-box)

The 1:35 and 1:85 are OK but the 2:35 leaves too much of a border on the top and bottom. I thought using a zoom might be an answer but in all the units I checked the zoom went from 1x to 2x and larger. This was really more than necessary and did degrade the picture. I felt a zoom of - 1.2x to 1.5x (max) would be Ok for viewing and not visually degrade the picture. I was hoping, not to use a PC and the hassle.

Is there a DVD player or/and a TV that could solve this issue

[guns1inger]

The 1:35 and 1:85 are OK but the 2:35 leaves too much of a border on the top and bottom

Actually, it leaves just the right amount of border at the top and bottom.

Don't you like seeing the whole image ?

[LCSHG]

Sure -- I like the whole image but what is the right amount of border

I don’t get the whole image with 1:33 (4x3) but would rather have that than the 2:35 letterbox.
I get most of the image with 1:85 and a small border top and bottom and that’s fine (16x9 is 1:78 widescreen. With 2:35 the border is larger making the vertical, height smaller. I am not looking to solve major aspect ratio issues or problems but a slight boast is vert size when using 2:35 would make it more to my liking
The vertical height is more important to me than the horizontal view. A slight increase in the vert. would not decrease the horz view by that much (for my use and view)
I had felt that a 42” wide-screen was a good size for my use and would provide the vert size I wanted as used with 1:85

Again I would rather watch a 1:33 (4x3) picture than a 2:35 or smaller letterbox. but that is for my liking. True, I’m not going to go to great lengths in this issue using a wide-screen TV but on a 4x3 CRT or LCD ---Forget It
I guess someone could say dump any 4x3 TV and get another widesreen even if I did I would still like to have the 2:35 given a little boast to be more in line with a 1:85

So again is there a 1.2 to1.5 zoom. If not or it becomes a problem --- I can Live With It

[samijubal]

Last I knew Panasonic players zoomed in small steps. Older Toshiba players did too. My JVC zooms 1.8 times, perfect for a 1:85 movie to just fit a 4x3 TV or a 2:35 movie to perfectly fill a 16x9 TV.

[guns1inger]

I happily watch 2.35 : 1 material on a 4:3 that is nowhere near 42 inches. If you zoom in to fill the screen then you are throwing way 60% of the image. Even zooming to 1.85 is throwing away 15% or so. More to the point, on many films that use the full image area properly, you will miss action or plot devices. The end of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, the husky scene in John Carpenter's The Thing. These all suffer if they are cropped.

[samijubal]

I zoom everything that doesn't fill the screen, wheather I'm watching my widescreen TV or my 4x3 TV. On 2.35:1 movies I don't have a player that will zoom all of the black out, but at least it will get rid of some. It's really up to the watcher to watch movies however they want to.

[jagabo]

I happily watch 2.35 : 1 material on a 4:3 that is nowhere near 42 inches. If you zoom in to fill the screen then you are throwing way 60% of the image. Even zooming to 1.85 is throwing away 15% or so.

Watching letterboxed is throwing away part of the movie too. You are losing resolution.

[guns1inger]

With anamorphic encodes, the difference is not that great, and still better than losing actual picture.

[lordsmurf]

The notion that you have to "fill the screen" with picture is as asinine as insisting every square inch of a piece of paper be covered in ink.

I constantly tell people to quit resizing photographs to paper, resize the damned paper to the photograph.

Content matters most, not the box or page it fits in.

If you don't want to see black bars, put duct tape over it.

[LCSHG]

My error. I had left out the 1 in the aspect ratio but instead of the dot, like 1.85 I wrote 1:85 using the simicolon.

I do understand what --- guns1inger --- is saying, but for me I would sacrifice what I also estimate, as a 15% loss of picture for a zoom in a 2.35 to about that of a 1.85 which I estimate at no greater than a .5x zoom

I do agree with – samijubal--- that a user should have the system as they feel is best for them. If I have a 16x9 TV I would like the picture to reasonably fill the screen but I didn’t want to go out to 1.8 zoom. The border of the 1.85 does not bother me but the 2.35 does

The reason I asked was that a number of posts, both this site and others, have indicated that their units have a 1.2x and/or a 1. 5 x zoom but I get no response when I ask what the unit is.

My son in law has an older Toshiba. I will check it out along with some others. Hopefully someone would say – I have one and this is the make and model.
A number of TVs say they can resize the picture but this seems to distort the picture

I would like to zoom a 2.35 picture a little. Just a little

As to resolution and bit-rates. If the source has reasonable resolution, than a recording on a disk should also be OK. In dubbing from a VHS tape, all to often the tape is not that good (Garbage out garbage in). LD , while also analog (on video) seems somewhat better than a tape but that may be thinking because its on a disk. When many LD were cut from tapes
I have a flick Water-World that is on a commercial DVD disk, a LD disk and a VHS tape. If you didn't know what the source was you couldn't tell the difference.

PS I really don't want to fill the screen, justexpand a 2.35 a little so my poor ole eys are not strained As to putting tape on the border. Thats not a solution the tape becomes the border

I DO NOT LIKE THE BORDER ON A 2.35:1 LETTERBOX ON ANY SET 16x3 OR 4x3

[manono]

The reason I asked was that a number of posts, both this site and others, have indicated that their units have a 1.2x and/or a 1. 5 x zoom but I get no response when I ask what the unit is.

Oppos have 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.0, etc., if I remember correctly. I'm too lazy to go and look just now. Still a stupid idea, though.

By zooming in a 2.35:1 movie to 1.85:1, you lose more than 15% of the picture. It's more like 21%(1.85/2.35=.787). And since most so-called 2.35:1 movies are really closer to 2.40:1, you lose even more than that if you zoom to 1.85:1.

[LCSHG]

Why is it a stupid idea

I DO NOT LIKE THE BORDER ON A 2.35:1 LETTERBOX ON ANY SET 16x9 OR 4x3 BeCaUSE OF MY PREFERENCE

I know that 15% or 20% of a picture Horizontal. will be lost, but thats ok with ME

The Oppus would seem to have the zoom range needed and I will look into them THANKS for the lead

[guns1inger]

I know you won't be convinced by any logical argument, but this is worth a look : http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

[lordsmurf]

Is there a list of films shot in full, but theatre released wide? And then available as full-as-shot?

Also, that page failed to warn us about widescreen films cropped to full, and then matted from there to produced fake "widescreen" releases. I think MGM was the one who did this a few years ago.

[samijubal]

MGM is still doing it today. What's asnine is people here telling other people how they should watch movies in their house on their TV. How people choose to watch movies is up to them, period.

[jagabo]

I never understood why some people here are so concerned about how others want to watch their movies.

[lordsmurf]

We are concerned because studios pay attention to trends and try to please customers too much sometimes. They will butcher movies because people want it that way (even when thos folks are a minority, not a majority). Some of us are anti-butcher, and do not appreciate movie studios appealing to demands that are quite silly.

Again, insisting an image "fill the screen" is as silly as insisting a piece of paper be "filled with ink". It's not intended to be filled in that manner, it's simply there to display the content. By "filling" either screen or paper, you lose part of the original message.

[LCSHG]

(guns1inge)r
It’s not a matter of being – (convinced) or by your view, a logical argument.
I looked at the link you provided. It was interesting and convinced me that I would NOT loose, (what I considered) that much of a 2.35 if I expanded it to 1.85.
[THANKS]


(lordsmurf)
I think you have been --- Yonder and afar --- (way to long.)

I don’t think that page was to warn any one about anything. It was just info

You constantly say a lot of things. They are your opinion and some do not make sense

Content does matter but if it can’t be seen (my point of view) what good is it?

Duct Tape. That’s very close to the dumbest thing ever said. Who said anything about not wanting to see the black boarders One user wants to fill the screen another wants to get the picture a little larger? ITS THEIR CHOICE not yours

Who Is (WE and Some of Us)? --- Who elected you or some of us? Your last post was most disturbing
You must feel that you are in the majority but are You? I don’t think the media folks care what you or I think. They are going to produce a film any way they can to sell it.
I can only hope that they realize that larger than 1.85 is not wanted on a TV 16x9 or 4x3
It also seems that a real effort (by the media) is being made to provide 1.78 so as to properly fill a 16x9 TV screen



(monono)
In your reference to the Oppos DVd player
I cannot find any info on its use of a fractional zoom or if it exists. I think your post indicates that you have such a unit
If you could post a model number I will pursue it further

------------------------------------------


samijubal and jagabo

BOY --- do I agree with your posts.

When one says they understand the issue.
Are willing to forgo one thing to gain another to improve something they feel is best for them. (Full screen. No borders, little borders, etc). What’s the problem? It’s a question of preference and is there equipment that will do so

Why is it that there are some that feel their preference is the only way and everyone else’s is Stupid and/or Asinine.

[manono]

I never understood why some people here are so concerned about how others want to watch their movies.

Don't you want to teach people how to do things right? Teach them to encode the best way possible? Teach them to view their encodes the way they were meant to be viewed and with the respect they deserve? Decades of forced "fullscreen" pan-and-scan garbage force fed us by the TV networks have ruined the American sense of how a movie should be watched. Because that's all they've ever seen, they think that's the way it's supposed to be. You don't have the Europeans coming here whining that they see black bars on their nice new widescreen TV sets. They've been brought up, for the most part, viewing their films, except for children's movies sometimes, in the original aspect ratio, black bars and all. When you have ignoramouses wanting to be taught how to chop off the sides of movies, other people get the idea it's OK and perfectly normal to do such things. It's not OK. It's not normal. Once people learn properly, then they stop the foolishness. They're like children. They don't know any better, and they have to be taught how to do things right.

I can only hope that they realize that larger than 1.85 is not wanted on a TV 16x9 or 4x3

Speak for yourself. I want it in its original aspect ratio (OAR), even if it's 2.76:1 (Ben Hur). The wider the better.

If you could post a model number I will pursue it further

I've had 2. I had the Oppo DV-971H, and now the Oppo DV-981HD. They both have the same zooms; .25, .33, .5, 1 (normal), 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4. I just went and checked for you.

[jagabo]

I never understood why some people here are so concerned about how others want to watch their movies.

Don't you want to teach people how to do things right?

Not unless that's what they're asking for. If someone doesn't seem to understand that converting a wide screen video to fullscreen involves cutting off the ends I'll mention it to them. If they are aware of the consequences and still want to do it that's their business.

You guys should be applauding the OP's original question. If all DVD players and/or HDTVs had incremental zoom features there'd be no need for fullscreen releases.

[lordsmurf]

"Don't you want to teach people how to do things right?"

My answer is "YES!" and is why I answer so many questions with "don't do it that way, do it this way". Helping somebody go down the wrong path really is not help.

LCSHG, I have a DVD player with about 6 zoom settings. It's an older Toshiba. On my smaller set that it's connected to, I hit zoom once, and it fills more of the screen, but it's not "fullscreen". That's so I can see it better.

I didn't actually read your original question, I came into this thread much later, and was reading more recent replies when I replied.

Yes, there are DVD players that only do varied levels of zoom.

In fact, most of my comments have been directed at this statement (and others who think the same or would make similar statement): "I zoom everything that doesn't fill the screen, whether I'm watching my widescreen TV or my 4x3 TV. "

So clearly I can see a reason to want to zoom in, such as having a smaller tv set where 2.35:1 is too tiny. But on the other hand, people who insist the image "fill the screen" are sending the wrong message to studios.

The duct tape comment was southern satire. It's supposed to be very dumb.

Don't take any offense LSHSG, none was intended. The Toshiba players are something you might want to check out. I know the 2800 model has what you want, but it's about 5 years old. I've seen it on newer ones too, but I don't have models for you.

[tac7]

I do agree with – samijubal--- that a user should have the system as they feel is best for them. If I have a 16x9 TV I would like the picture to reasonably fill the screen but I didn’t want to go out to 1.8 zoom. The border of the 1.85 does not bother me but the 2.35 does

I feel exactly the same. I can easily watch a 1:85 movie with small borders, but would NEVER watch a 2:35 aspect ratio movie with the thick borders. As a result, I returned a half a dozen DVD players which either didn't have the right zoom adjustments, or they left a symbol on the screen indicating the zoom was activated (this was a few years ago where sales people didn't know what an aspect ratio was, so I had to try the players at home first).

Right now I use a Samsung, a Nova, and a Cyberhome DVD player that have the right zoom adjustments so I can watch a movie with any aspect ratio or any size borders I like.

For those who insist that by cropping the movie, one loses a certain percentage of the picture, well - if you compare widescreen and fullscreen versions of most movies side by side, you will notice that with the widescreen versions, you actually miss part of the picture on the top and bottom that is visible in the fullscreen version, while the fullscreen version obviously misses parts on the sides. This doesn't happen with all of them, but the majority. Either way you lose.

Some brands of players (e.g. Samsung) advertise their ability to adjust the aspect ratio in just the right increments. You should be able to either see that feature right on the box, or simply try to find a salesperson that will direct you to a brand that will.

[guns1inger]

This doesn't happen with all of them, but the majority. Either way you lose.

It actually happens with very few, and they are shot specifically this way, so no-one loses. It's called SUPER-35. Most movies are not shot this way.

[LCSHG]

(samijubal and jagabo)

Thanks for the posts.
They were to the Point and in direct response to my original post and question.
They did not deserve the Crap that was thrown



(tac70 )

Thanks for your comments. It sounds as you like the Samsung. I will look into them.



(lordsmurf)

I think we both let ourselves get carried away and off subject. This happens most often with a post that is much older. I feel that what has happened and for some is still happining, To them I say. --- START ANOTHER THREAD, PONTIFACATE. RANT OR WHATEVER ON THAT.

Let me explain
I have a problem with focus on detail and written words especially if the program is in 2.35 or smaller. This is even on a large TV sitting some 9 ft away and I don’t want to sit closer My wife feels a 2x zoom fuzzes the picture, and is not necessary, but feels a zoom to 1.85 is ok and this works ok for me. Everyone is happy.
Recently I picked up some 450 LD disks and a Pioneer player for $175. The disks are ones I would like with only about 20 duplicates of what I have. About 70 disks are in 2.35.
Some are duplicates of what I have in 1.33 and that’s great.
If I zoom them to 1.85 I get what I want and gain the extra width.
I have a number of Liteon/ilo recorders. (great units but lack some features) My thinking was. I would play the LD disks to a liteon/ilo units DVD disk, than play the disk in the player with the proper zoom, than back to a liteon/ilo HDD, Edit it and copy it to a disk and I would have a 1.85 flick. Some minor issues such as CP could come up

It may sound cumbersome but really isn’t as I can start the process and walk away and not have the problems in using a PC. I do not want to use a PC
Please tell me if you see a problem

[samijubal]

LDs don't use CP, at least not any I've seen, so that shouldn't be a problem.

[lordsmurf]

LSCHG, I'd suggest recording it 16:9 to a 2.35:1 DVD (tes, it has some black bars still), and then play it on the zooming player to 1.85:1. Someday you may have a much larger television, so it won't be as big an issue. I never thought I'd have a 55" set, but the price was right. Luckily I've always been very careful with my videos, so I'm having no troubles with high quality playback. Had I taken shortcuts like so many others do, I'd be looking at crappy video.

I left 16:9 alone on 4:3, and now I can actually enjoy it full 16:9.

[LCSHG]

(samijubal)

I also have not run into any LD disks that have CP. in this batch or the ones prior.
I had a good tape of the Terminator in 1.35 that was CP. and was burned to a DVD disk The new LD disks had the terminator in 2.35 and Terminator 2 in 1.35 and in wide-screen 2.35
Its my understanding that LD disks are analog with the video.
Both the LD and Tape, in 2.35 looked the same and I felt were very good. The same in comparing the LD Terminator 2 disks.
The flicks were made in what I’ll call 2.35, so the 1.35 had to be cropped but was well done and they looked very good. Granted the 1.35 did loose horz information but the basic view and message was present
If I had to chose between the 1.35 and 2.35, I would go for the 1.35
If the pictures maintained a decent similar resolution at or about 1.85 and I think they would, I would go for the 1.85. To go any further I feel does result in such a loss.


(Lordsmurf)

You are right and that crossed my mind after my post. While my idea, as posted, should work, but after seening it in the written word. I thought, that’s a lot of screwing around. The disks are already in 2.35, get another good player that will zoom them to 1.85 ---

Hears the rub.

I have two liteon 5045 and three 5005 units also two ilo RHD04 and a R04 (that’s 8).
I have been called a hoarder and my wife says I can’t and don’t use them all, if I get another unit she is going to get another sewing machine (she has 3} even if she doesn’t need it,

But any player will play any disk once run through the liteon /ilo. I think I should leave the disks at 2.35 and go with a player that can zoom to 1.85. It would really be the best way to go. I have been looking at a 46” LCD and did try one out. The 2.35 was not as bad as with a smaller set or a 4x3 but I would most likely zoom them to about 1.85.

Now I have to talk my wife out of the sewing machine.


Edit
The black areas (bars) of the 1.85 don't bother me but the 2.35 did

[lordsmurf]

Consider selling off the LiteOns, or put some away in a closet or attic for spare parts. I've got a 5045 where the drive just died. I'm probably not going to fix it, instead give it away to somebody who needs it for parts. My 5001 is still good, use it as a PAL player, although it gets pickier as it ages.

[LCSHG]

I use One RHD04 for pecording and play, that I was cosidering to replace along with a new TV. I would like a unit the has a Good 21/2 hr mode at full D1and also has a zoom to get a 2.35 to1.85
I use both 5045s and the two 5005 for recording. The R04 will most likely go to my son in law to use in conjunction with his Accurian DVD. The RHD04 and 5005 are shelved

I might, but doubt, I would let any 5005 go.
The RHD04 and 5045 will most likely will be buried with me
They all work very well and most have replaced DVD drives

If you have a 5045 that that you no longer want, I would be interested