VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread
  1. Hi

    The movies which i see on my TV from an HD channel(e.g. Z Cinema HD) shows it with padding(black bars above and below the picture)... Sorry.. You might already knew that. Other english HD channels like Star Movies HD, PIX HD etc. don't use it. I just can't understand why is it used? I mean to say i have a 48" TV and when i am in the mood of watching movies, i see them on a small screen Is the thing behind this is that the movie itself has been recorded as that( but even our mobile phones record HD videos in fullscreen/ no padding) or does it depend on the channel which is broadcasting(to cut the cost...)?

    One more question. I haven't watched Blu-Ray movies but i wanna know do they have padding or not? I am asking this because internet downloaded movies say they are Full HD(1920*1080) but in reality, it is like 1920*800 or something like this. They say BRRip but have the padding.. I just can't understand why?

    Thanks and regards
    Dev
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Many movies are in 2:35:1 or wider. They should have padding at top and bottom.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member Krispy Kritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    St Louis, MO USA
    Search Comp PM
    Black bars are used to maintain AR (Aspect Ratio). No all material is 16:9 (the format of your TV).

    This applies to ALL video, whether it is broadcast, DVD, or BluRay.

    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29
    Google is your Friend
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    it is really simple
    cinema is NOT 16:9
    the broadcaster/streamer has a choice , cut off the sides (each end) of the picture to make the width correct and fill the screen
    or they can keep the full width and add black space"padding" top an bottom inside the frame, so the transmission is 16:9
    you have a 2.35:1 video inside a 16:9 frame
    when you DL a video, you get something the creator cropped off the top and bottom black space that was in the produced DVD which was 1080 with the black padding "in the frame" , the only reason they do it , is too make a smaller file size

    the PC player will play it, it still does not fill the screen top and bottom unless it was made for TV at 16:9

    PS: its usually referred to as Borders
    Last edited by theewizard; 10th Aug 2015 at 14:56.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by devvaibhav View Post
    I just can't understand why is it used?
    Because they want to show you the entire picture. You should be pleased when a television station shows you the complete movie rather than hacking off the sides just so it fills the screen.
    One more question. I haven't watched Blu-Ray movies but i wanna know do they have padding or not?
    Of course they do.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    OK, class, the problem for today:
    The top image is a 2.35:1 movie frame. The bottom image is a 16:9 display frame.
    Your assignment is to format the 2.35:1 image inside the 16:9 frame so that no part of the original image is lost. Note: you're not allowed to distort the image by squishing it.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	two frames.jpg
Views:	313
Size:	46.2 KB
ID:	33087

    Solution used by most consumers: hit the tv zoom control and lose almost half the image.

    Solution by users who appreciate movies the way they were created: live with letterboxing.

    Solution by a few well-heeled users: Buy a super-wide TV, wider than 16:9 (they do exist). Only problem with that: 16:9 TV shows will have black pillars on each side.
    Last edited by LMotlow; 10th Aug 2015 at 18:00.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member netmask56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Do they still teach geometry in primary school? It's not a big problem in Oz as TV stations have been showing original AR for years even back in analog 4:3 days. But not always.
    BeyonWiz T3 PVR ~ Popcorn A-500 ~ Samsung ES8000 65" LED TV ~ Windows 7 64bit ~ Yamaha RX-A1070 ~ QnapTS851-4G
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Krispy Kritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    St Louis, MO USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by netmask56 View Post
    Do they still teach geometry in primary school? It's not a big problem in Oz as TV stations have been showing original AR for years even back in analog 4:3 days. But not always.
    The problem here in the US, is that a majority of consumers want the image to fill the entire screen, regardless of what is done to the image to make it fit. It's more important to fill the screen than to actually see the entire movie as it was filmed and intended to be seen.
    Google is your Friend
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by Krispy Kritter View Post
    The problem here in the US, is that a majority of consumers want the image to fill the entire screen...
    And for that I would put the blame squarely on the television networks that have fed us panned-and-scanned versions of films since the beginning of television. As far as I know, in the US only the cable channel Turner Classic Movies is providing films in their original aspect ratio. Unlike in Europe and Australia where viewers got used to black bars very early, in the US people got used to the idea that something was wrong when they saw black bars on television, and that movies and television shows were supposed to fill the entire screen. The legacy of 60 or so years of ignorant US television executives is ignorant US television viewers. As a result, we get people here all the time asking how to get rid of black bars.

    The fact that devvaibhav is from India means the same problem exists there and Zee TV is to be commended for broadcasting their movies the way they were meant to be seen.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    i'm gong on memory
    but there were times when the network would broadcast in letter box format

    also i don't think pan & scan is Not correct term for what was done before digital back in the 50s and 60s analog days
    for a major motion picture, they did a specail copy with a traveling mat
    each frame was moved left or right, centered to show the most action or detail
    so you did not have off screen cast members during speaking or action scencs

    yes many networks and stations showed old black and white straight up telecine on the spot in the studio with out the effort of the traveling mat

    but pan & scan as it exist now di not exist then

    i had a pan $ scan mode on a previos TV, it looked terrible stretching and squishing the edges of the frame as the scene shifted left or right
    I would NEVER watch something like that
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    @theewizard, you may want to refresh your memory.

    Pan & Scan HAS existed since TVs started showing movies in the 50's (and that's what it has been called the whole time). At various times it has been done optically (analog), then electronically (analog), but now is done almost exclusively digitally. The methods are basically the same, regardless.

    Pan & Scan has always had difficulty with retaining on-screen cast during wide action shots, hence the term (as a method to partially compensate for the problem).

    BTW, "traveling matte" does not refer to what you speak of, that has to do with Greenscreen/Bluescreen overlay technique. What you describe is more like a "floating window".

    P&S is used for transfers much less these days, as many modern film-based features have been shot with soft mattes (which can be uncropped for FS transfer), though thought must have been taken to prevent window violations with booms, lights, etc.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  12. As it was originally intended? As it was created?

    Talk to the hand.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	182
Size:	20.7 KB
ID:	33111

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2.jpg
Views:	183
Size:	20.6 KB
ID:	33112

    Each to their own, but I think an image generally looks bigger when it fills the screen. That possibly has something to do with it being errrr....... bigger..... but it requires a player or TV with a zoom function that'll zoom without stretching. You lose some of the image off the sides, but it looks more cinematic to me, because it's errr..... bigger.... unless you happen to have a 150" TV.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    As it was originally intended?
    Yes.
    As it was created?
    Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of 2.35:1 movies created as 1.33:1 with the top and bottom later removed.
    ...but I think an image generally looks bigger when it fills the screen.
    Of course it's bigger. And blurrier. And worse, because it's not being viewed as it was framed and as it was intended. I don't care - you can watch them however you like. But by panning anjd scanning, or by cropping, or by zooming, the person or people doing these things are reframing the movie, setting themselves above the director and cinematographer and the others that created the movie in the first place. Pretty arrogant, if you ask me. Which you didn't.

    ...unless you happen to have a 150" TV.
    Or unless you sit closer to the TV you do have.

    I know, it's not that important and no one, neither me nor you, was asked for their stand on the issue. But devvaibhav came here asking about it as if it was some sort of a mistake on Zee TV's part. And it's definitely no error. My only complaint about Zee TV is the godawful logo they put on everything.
    Quote Quote  
  14. I wonder how many cinematographers get to decide on the aspect ratio of a movie they're working on? When James Cameron was making that horrible Avatar movie, I wonder if he said to the cinematographer, "Hey, you pick the aspect ratio. Surprise me!" Although didn't that one screen in 1.78 for 3D and 2.35 for 2D, or was it 1.78 for IMAX 3D and 2.35 for everything else, or maybe 1.33 for IMAX 3D, 1.78 for other 3D and 2.35 for 2D.....

    Could it be possible the director mightn't always get to pick the aspect ratio either? From the director of one of the world's most famous widescreen movies, when commenting on the widescreen format:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Hur_%281959_film%29#Cinematography
    "Nothing is out of the picture, and you can't fill it. You either have a lot of empty space, or you have two people talking and a flock of others surrounding them who have nothing to do with the scene. Your eye just wanders out of curiosity."

    I've got at least a few DVDs where the picture aspect ratio is narrower than the "intended" aspect ratio, not because there's picture missing from the sides, but because there's more picture top and bottom. I hadn't given it any thought until comparing them, but I was kind of miffed when I compared the Bluray version of T2 with the DVD version and discovered the Bluray version had more picture cropped top and bottom.

    I know home theater is a relatively new concept compared to movie making, but given 16:9 is the aspect ratio of by far the majority of home theater TV screens, I'm fairly sure a pretty good example of arrogance these days would be filming a movie without framing it so that it can be viewed in a 16:9 aspect ratio.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member Krispy Kritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    St Louis, MO USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    I wonder how many cinematographers get to decide on the aspect ratio of a movie they're working on? When James Cameron was making that horrible Avatar movie, I wonder if he said to the cinematographer, "Hey, you pick the aspect ratio. Surprise me!" Although didn't that one screen in 1.78 for 3D and 2.35 for 2D, or was it 1.78 for IMAX 3D and 2.35 for everything else, or maybe 1.33 for IMAX 3D, 1.78 for other 3D and 2.35 for 2D.....

    Could it be possible the director mightn't always get to pick the aspect ratio either? From the director of one of the world's most famous widescreen movies, when commenting on the widescreen format:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Hur_%281959_film%29#Cinematography
    "Nothing is out of the picture, and you can't fill it. You either have a lot of empty space, or you have two people talking and a flock of others surrounding them who have nothing to do with the scene. Your eye just wanders out of curiosity."

    I've got at least a few DVDs where the picture aspect ratio is narrower than the "intended" aspect ratio, not because there's picture missing from the sides, but because there's more picture top and bottom. I hadn't given it any thought until comparing them, but I was kind of miffed when I compared the Bluray version of T2 with the DVD version and discovered the Bluray version had more picture cropped top and bottom.

    I know home theater is a relatively new concept compared to movie making, but given 16:9 is the aspect ratio of by far the majority of home theater TV screens, I'm fairly sure a pretty good example of arrogance these days would be filming a movie without framing it so that it can be viewed in a 16:9 aspect ratio.
    Odd. There should be no difference. You can see comparison shots here: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/term2.htm
    Google is your Friend
    Quote Quote  
  16. James Cameron deliberately shoots full aperture 35mm and extracts different portions of the frame, and different aspect ratios, depending on the intended viewing environment, so 4:3 for old TVs (no longer used), 16:9 for widescreen tv viewing (See the differences in 3D and 2D Titanic for good examples) 2.35:1 for "normal" theatrical (the aspect ratio fanboys howl is correct for Titanic and T2 specifically) and 2.20:1 for 70mm blowup -- also mostly obsolete.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by Krispy Kritter View Post
    Odd. There should be no difference. You can see comparison shots here: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/term2.htm
    I'm curious now as I went looking for screenshots myself and couldn't find any evidence they're dramatically different. Only where they're just framed a little differently, like this. http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/terminator2-comp-sdhd-01.jpg

    Maybe only the PAL DVD had a slightly different aspect ratio but I distinctly remember it that way. Unfortunately I don't have the DVD disc here any more.... I'm pretty sure I gave it to my sister.... but I might have an encoded version burned to disc somewhere. I'll have a look later.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads