2.35:1 and 1080. Can they ever coexist?

[mpalm887]

Just been looking at my DVD's and ripped Blu-ray's as I dump them into handbrake for encoding. I realize that handbrake is nicely auto-cropping out the black lines top and bottom from my 2.35:1 films. Why on earth would the original studio encode the movie to DVD with the black lines? I always thought my TV was letterboxing the 2.35:1 film when in fact the DVD is actually a 2.35:1 movie shrunk to fit in 1.85:1 frame. So all of my so-called 1080p Blu-ray's are actually more like '752p' right?

So the only way for a 2.35:1 film to have 1080 lines of vertical res' is to have more than 1920 lines of horizontal res.'

So why all the fuss over $100k home theater projectors with anamorphic lenses? You aren't actually getting better res after all. Why not just cover the black lines top and bottom?

Just looking for some correction, affirmation, and/or education.

[poisondeathray]

Because that's the blu-ray standard - 1920x1080 frame size. You can't play non-standard frame dimensions on standalone players. The only way to preserve the aspect ratio is to use the borders and that reduces the active image area.

Just like NTSC DVD is 720x480, but the active image area is smaller on widescreen DVD's, and it's not 480p of active pixels when you take the borders into account. And you can't play anything but that full 720x480 frame size on NTSC DVD standalone players either

So yes, the only way is to have more resolution or use a different standard. You would need a 2538x1080 full frame size (no borders) , which of course exceeds blu-ray resolution and HDTV. If you had access to the studio master , you could transfer it and play it back on a 30" monitor (2560x1600) or 4K projector (4096 x 2160)

[Starman*]

Regarding DVD video with black lines, there are two basic aspect ratios for DVD video which is (almost without exception) 720x480 or 720x576
4:3 16:9
There is no 2.35:1 as such

Typically 720x480 video (NTSC) is stretched to 4:3 or 16:9 and any minor variations in aspect catered for with SMALL black bars on the video.

A 2.35:1 movie is usually mounted on 720x480 video which is stretched to 16:9 when played. To get the narrower aspect, SMALL black bars are added top and bottom to the actual video (not by the player).

I don't think there are any movies where the video is directly stretched to 2.35:1 (if there are it's rare). I do video captures at native size and I have never seen one.

In the old days, some 2.35:1 movies were put on 4:3 video which meant that nearly half the video was wasted black bars. Total crap.

Regarding 2.35:1 Full HD movies shown on widescreen players and tvs, the amount of letterboxing is minimal (assuming the player or tv is full HD resolution) since the screen aspect is already 16:9. If the video format is larger than the screen, the effect may not be true HD but the picture will still SEEM to be cleaner and sharper than from a smaller format video due to the downsizing.

[guns1inger]

What you want is one of these

and for the studios to change the current standards for Bluray and DVD to incorporate support, of course

[mpalm887]

What you want is one of these

and for the studios to change the current standards for Bluray and DVD to incorporate support, of course

Now that's wicked!

So since the black lines are hard coded onto a 2.35:1 DVD and the frame is 16:9 anyway, I'm assuming a Cinema TV would zoom the effective portion of the frame for a perfect fit? Otherwise it would have two black lines on the sides and the hard coded black lines on top and bottom right? Or it would just be squished!

Still don't understand why people spend tens of thousands of dollars on adjustable anamorphic projectors/lenses. Tech moves too quick to spend that kind of money imo. Even if I had gagillions....yes...gagillions.

So I think I'm getting it. In the end it's just too bad that we don't have a universal standard. I personally enjoy the 2.35:1 the most, but I'd side on whatever as long as we could start getting the most out of the fantastic High-definition hardware out there today.

[guns1inger]

All it can do is zoom, as 16:9 is the agreed upon standard, not something wider. Personally I don't understand your gripe. The shape of the frame is not important, only how it is used. That is why Pan and Scan is such an abomination. I don't care if the frame is 1.33, 1.37, 1.66, 1.778, 1.85, 2.0, 2.20, 2,35, 2.40, or even 2.60, so long as I get to see all of it the way it was filmed. I have been enjoying some old Bogart movies of late. All shot 1.37 : 1, and all good. I don't see how they could have been better in widescreen. At the same time, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly would not be what it is had it been shot in 1.66 : 1.

Variety is the spice of life, and that goes for aspect ratios as well.

[mpalm887]

All it can do is zoom, as 16:9 is the agreed upon standard, not something wider. Personally I don't understand your gripe. The shape of the frame is not important, only how it is used. That is why Pan and Scan is such an abomination. I don't care if the frame is 1.33, 1.37, 1.66, 1.778, 1.85, 2.0, 2.20, 2,35, 2.40, or even 2.60, so long as I get to see all of it the way it was filmed. I have been enjoying some old Bogart movies of late. All shot 1.37 : 1, and all good. I don't see how they could have been better in widescreen. At the same time, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly would not be what it is had it been shot in 1.66 : 1.

Variety is the spice of life, and that goes for aspect ratios as well.

I agree that varying aspect ratios is not the end of the world by any stretch. I just wish I could get a full 1080 lines of res on my favorite movies. It seems like the best movies are usually filmed in 2.35:1. i just wish it was the horizontal res that varied, not the vertical res. I'd rather watch a 16:9 with black bars on the side than a 2.35:1 with black bars on top and bottom. Of course 'best' is a matter of opinion.

Furthermore, a 'common' ratio isn't worth going to for film/tv/photo because we still have all the historical footage filmed in all kinds of shapes and sizes. So in a way I see your point as well. At least Planet Earth uses up my full 1080 lines of res!

[guns1inger]

A large proportion of movies are shot/presented in 1.85:1, which is very close to 16:9 (1.778:1). Close enough that on many TVs the overscan hides the small bars. And better than half of all movies in existence are still 1.33 or 1.37:1. At least we now get to them how they shot them.

[BozQ]

2.35 movies and 1080p is most likely not possible this generation, with Blu-ray.
In order to have 2.35 full frame, you will need a much wider display screen.
As of right now, 16:9 HDTVs are slowly (but very painfully) penetrating mainstream market. Other than the Phillips 21:9 Cinema TV mentioned above, there are virtually no other models around. Not for a long time.

1080i and 1080p will be here to stay for at least a decade or more. It will at least be twenty or so years from now before the next generation comes down to an affordable price, but even that will be a super niche market.

[pumpford]

Hello, I know this thread is very old. I just can't resist. I find it somehow perplexing that so many on this forum would be so clueless where aspect ratios are concerned. With that said let's start from the beginning so this remains logical for everyone.

Any non-linear video editors should be familiar with how 4:3 & 16:9 aspect ratios are created in digital video. As a start DV is labeled 4:3 with a pixel resolution of 720x480 pixel aspect ratio 0.9 - shown on a 4:3 TV fills the screen. When DV 720x480 is used to create 16:9 widescreen the pixel aspect ratio is 1.2 - the picture still has the same pixel resolution, but the wider pixel aspect is what creates the widescreen. Your TV, whether 4:3 or 16:9 just handles fitting the picture horizontally.

The very same thing is true with HD 16:9 & 2.39:1 as it relates to 1080p. In both cases there are 1920 horizontal pixels & 1080 vertical pixels. In the 16:9 picture the pixel aspect is square. In the 2:39:1 picture the pixel aspect ratio is approximately 2:1. When shown on a 16:9 TV the picture is naturally fitted horizontally as with the above mentioned 720x480 1.2 pixel aspect ration video on a 4;3 TV.

There is no manipulation of the video where they have intentionally placed black bars anywhere within the encoded video. True, there have been instances that can be found where the video WAS intentionally cropped, but it is truly rare.

Everything I have said here can be duplicated for yourself by looking through the encoding parameters within any non-linear video editing software - whether for SD or HD video. Anyone with a copy of Adobe Photoshop can also find the ability to apply several pixel aspect ratios to photos by looking at the 'Image>Pixel Aspect Ratio' menu. Don't believe it? Download a trail version can check it out for yourself.

I have a Cinemawide screen and know for a fact the video is NOT being zoomed in any way, shape or form.

[Cornucopia]

What I find perplexing is how you were clueless by not reading correctly the posts of veteran members of this forum, who DO understand how these things work.

Also, you are totally incorrect WRT the Blu-ray standard. It DOES NOT support anamorphic 2.35:1 HD* video in its 16:9 screen! All instances of 2.35:1 movies shown on BD are using the standard square pixels and with letterboxing added into the encoded image. You are probably mistaking this with source camera footage (such as HDV, etc) which DOES support anamorphic HD. That kind of footage is common in pro post/edit suites, but the resulting distribution masters should NOT be anamorphic (if they expect to be compliant with the BD standard). Since the original poster's questions ALL are regarding DVD and BD rips, the possibility of supposed source camera (or intermediate) footage being anamorphic is tangential to the topic.

Don't believe me? Pick up a copy of "Blu-ray Demystified", a thorough & well-written reference on the subject of DVD & BD.

Scott

*Notice, I said "HD" - SD assets on BD can still follow the DVD ability of 720x480 or 720x576 to be anamorphic (but even THEN, only for 4:3 or 16:9 frame sizes). Not true with HD. BD DOES support one form of anamorphic HD: 1440x1080 with 4:3 PAR and 16:9 DAR (as likely sourced from the aforementioned HDV). But this is the ONLY exception for HD material; doesn't include existing 960x720 semi-pro HD camera frame sizes, for example.

[jman98]

I'm amazed that once again we have a one post wonder newbie who joined us mistakenly believing that for over 4 years the entire thousands of members here have been unable to figure this out and we've all been waiting for him to join and educate us.

[manono]

I'm amazed that once again we have a one post wonder newbie who joined us mistakenly believing that for over 4 years the entire thousands of members here have been unable to figure this out and we've all been waiting for him to join and educate us.

+1

[sanlyn]

It seems like the best movies are usually filmed in 2.35:1....

?

Furthermore, a 'common' ratio isn't worth going to for film/tv/photo because we still have all the historical footage filmed in all kinds of shapes and sizes.

..Which includes a great many of the "best" ever made, all the way back to the silent era.

So in a way I see your point as well. At least Planet Earth uses up my full 1080 lines of res!

You haven't seen a movie until you see it in a cinema house on the big screen. Puts TV to shame.

[Cornucopia]

Reminds me of the times I got to see special showings of Cinerama or UltraPanavision70 prints at the Americana Theatre in Austin in the '80s.

I'm talking W-----I-----D-----E-----! (2.65:1 up to almost 3:1).

That, and Imax/OmniMax are pretty exhilarating, when shown correctly!

Scott

[BozQ]

Geez, wow. I was surprised when I received an email notification for this subscribed thread. Dammit! It's been four years and I was the last poster here. Hell, even my last post was in 2009! Whew! That's...a really long time ago.

And I was expecting a noob asking a question. What we got was misinformation. LOL!