1st time bluray owner with questions

[REDSKINSFAN47]

i bought a vizio bluray player for $98 bucks at walmart.and 2 bluray movies for 10 bucks each.the 1st was the remake of the wizard of oz,it seemed to be 4x3 ratio and looked really good,2nd was the day after tommarrow it looked good also,but black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.do most bluray movies play full screen.

[Shades228]

http://gizmodo.com/5132065/philips-ultra+widescreen-219-cinema-lcd-moves-the-letterbox-bars-to-the-side

[sigma1914]

http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/

[harsh]

Most Blu-ray movies have some sort of borders.

This comes from the fact that most movies weren't shot in 16:9 aspect ratio.

Any of the television series or made for TV movie shot in HD should fill the display.

[Chuck W]

From my experiences, movies that are 1.85:1 should fill a wide screen TV fully. Anything above that say 2.35:1 will have bars top and bottom. With that you will see the FULL picture in all it's glory, not a zoomed picture that is missing portions of it like you see with a so called "full screen" regular DVD version.

[Stuart Sweet]

I always feel like I have to weigh in on this topic. I agree that any film made prior to the 1980s, the aspect ratio should be considered sacrosanct. You should watch the film as it was intended to be seen.

However, starting in the mid-1980s with the rise of cable TV, cinematographers purposefully shot with multiple safe zones in mind. The important stuff always fit in the 4:3 zone. With the rise of widescreen TVs in the 2000s, it became even easier to make sure the really important stuff was in the 16:9 zone.

In the end don't presume you know the filmmaker's "intent" just because you are watching a particular aspect ratio. And certainly, don't presume that you're missing something because you prefer to zoom so the screen is filled. It's your TV, use it as you wish.

I always bring up the example of one of my favorite films, Casino, which has more picture information in the 4:3 presentation than in the widescreen presentation. It would seem that the top and bottom of most shots were cropped for the theatrical presentation.

[BattleZone]

I always bring up the example of one of my favorite films, Casino, which has more picture information in the 4:3 presentation than in the widescreen presentation. It would seem that the top and bottom of most shots were cropped for the theatrical presentation.

Casino is one of the relatively *few* films shot in Super35mm (it is much more common for shooting film intended for TV, meaning TV shows and commercials), where instead of being shot widescreen and later cropped to 4:3, it was shot in 4:3 and later cropped (mostly by chopping off the bottom) to 16:9. But Super35mm is specifically framed with that in mind. See an example here:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml

And despite making "safe areas", directors wouldn't choose 2.35:1 if they didn't want their films displayed that way. In fact, the few directors who have real control over their films often require them to be shown "letterboxed" to maintain the aspect ratio.

[MysteryMan]

I always feel like I have to weigh in on this topic. I agree that any film made prior to the 1980s, the aspect ratio should be considered sacrosanct. You should watch the film as it was intended to be seen.

However, starting in the mid-1980s with the rise of cable TV, cinematographers purposefully shot with multiple safe zones in mind. The important stuff always fit in the 4:3 zone. With the rise of widescreen TVs in the 2000s, it became even easier to make sure the really important stuff was in the 16:9 zone.

In the end don't presume you know the filmmaker's "intent" just because you are watching a particular aspect ratio. And certainly, don't presume that you're missing something because you prefer to zoom so the screen is filled. It's your TV, use it as you wish.

I always bring up the example of one of my favorite films, Casino, which has more picture information in the 4:3 presentation than in the widescreen presentation. It would seem that the top and bottom of most shots were cropped for the theatrical presentation.

I always thought the filmmaker's "intent" ment milking the cash cow! ;)

[Stuart Sweet]

And there's the thing, "intent-wise." Is it the director's intent or the cinematographer's? And what if the director is just smart enough to realize that most of the time his stuff won't be seen in a theatre, and simply plans ahead for that.

Forgive me, but that's a pet peeve, people who think they know with metaphysical certitude what the filmmaker's intent was.

[spartanstew]

the 1st was the remake of the wizard of oz,

The Wiz is out on Blu Ray?

[Stuart Sweet]

Actually it is:

http://www.amazon.com/Wiz-Blu-ray-Michael-Jackson/dp/B0040QTNT4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1294865473&sr=8-1

[BattleZone]

Is it the director's intent or the cinematographer's? And what if the director is just smart enough to realize that most of the time his stuff won't be seen in a theatre, and simply plans ahead for that.

It would be incredibly rare for a cinematographer to make the decision of the format a project is shot with. That's the director's job in almost all cases, at least for principle photography. Special effects and other small sub-projects may be in other formats as needed. No doubt any smart director will consult with his cinematographer, and many directors start out as cinematographers so as to better learn how the camera works (film stocks, lenses, filters, etc.), but the director makes the ultimate decision.

I get what you're saying, and certainly there are many examples where your points are correct, but by-and-large, TV networks ha had a long history of reformatting for the TV screen, and in *most* cases (but certainly not all), this is to the detriment of the film.

A couple of extreme examples (2.35:1 cropped down to 1.33:1 [4:3]):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Pan_and_scan_2.jpg

http://www.cduniverse.com/images/pan_scan.jpg

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/80/PanScan7BridesPan.gif

[Stuart Sweet]

Look, I completely agree with you as regards pre-'80s films. I just think that there was a lot more attention paid to the "pan-and-scan-ability" of newer films, and I'm not completely sure it's fair to say that in any case you know what's going on in the director's head. Is he saying, "well, filth it any way, because most people are going to see this on VHS or HBO!" Perhaps in the '80s he was. And I know, it gets me in trouble with my cinephile friends but in the end you, the viewer, are the ultimate arbiter of how you best connect with a film, and you, the owner, are the ultimate arbiter of how you want to use your A/V equipment.

For the record I prefer original aspect ratio to cropped 16:9, and I prefer cropped 16:9 to cropped 4:3. But someone else I know, who I have loads of respect for, likes huge-elbow-vision (anamorphic stretching of 4:3) or at the very least having the image fill the screen. So that makes her happy and then, everyone's happy.

[REDSKINSFAN47]

i have got more movies from netflix and they all have the bars on the top and bottom i am getting used to watching them like that they look really good,with a 37 in tv it seems a little small,this tv has a wide button that does not do anything,i want to try getting it to full screen to see what it would look like,the full screen hd movies on tv look good also,but from what i am reading is they have the sides cut off to fill the screen,unless they are made for tv, i was just looking into hughes net for internet for the bluray i don't know if it will work or not.i don't have many choices here just have an air card.i have learned alot from what i read here lots of good info.thanks to all.

[BattleZone]

Your cellular internet will likely give you better performance (assuming you are in a 3G service area) than satellite internet would. Satellite internet is a LAST RESORT.

[dpeters11]

i have got more movies from netflix and they all have the bars on the top and bottom i am getting used to watching them like that they look really good,with a 37 in tv it seems a little small,this tv has a wide button that does not do anything,i want to try getting it to full screen to see what it would look like,the full screen hd movies on tv look good also,but from what i am reading is they have the sides cut off to fill the screen,unless they are made for tv, i was just looking into hughes net for internet for the bluray i don't know if it will work or not.i don't have many choices here just have an air card.i have learned alot from what i read here lots of good info.thanks to all.

To be perfectly honest, I have never really seen any Internet content on a bluray that was worth the effort. It's good for making sure your players firmware is up to date though.

Also remember aircards and satellite Internet have data caps.

[Hoosier205]

Oh good lord...this is one issue where multiple opinions should not be allowed. There is right and then there is wrong. Filmmaking is art. The filmmaker is an artist. Respect that and respect the aspect ratio. A film is not intended to be seen in any other aspect ratio than the one chosen by the filmmaker.

In case you were wondering how bad a 2.40 film looks on standard-size HD channels, our national vice president explains it all. And, he’s taken a photo of himself to prove his point.

While there’s always an abundance of ugly things going on in the Actual World, there’s also something ugly going on in the Hi-Def World, and it isn’t just post-traumatic stress from the (pointless) Bluray/HD-DVD smackdown. It is another in a series of situations in which the default mode is an unnecessary compromise, and it won’t get fixed unless everyone gets on the same page. And it is precisely because this is not an Actual World problem that I believe there is hope—and a solution.

For half a century filmmakers have watched, helplessly, as their films were recomposed for the 4:3 format of television. A fortunate few were able to prevent their works from being altered, and the birth of channels like TCM, IFC, and Sundance provided a small, safe haven for old and new films alike, but the general rule was everything got its limbs severed to fit into the box.

Like many format fiends, I saw the advent of hi-def broadcast TV as the Holy Grail. Finally, the larger screens, greater detail, and more film-friendly 16:9 ratio would mean all films could live on forever with their extremities intact. Meet Steven Soderbergh, the DGA’s reigning Pollyanna.

Since the 16:9 image is now the shape of television, only one format remains to distinguish television from the movies: the 2.40:1 aspect ratio. Because of that, I now believe shape matters more than size, and I say that knowing full well the number of jokes I just unleashed.

Television operators, the people who buy and produce things for people to watch on TV, are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio. They are taking the position that the viewers of television do not like watching 2.40 films letterboxed to fit their 16:9 screens, and that a film insisting on this is worth significantly less—or even nothing—to them. They are taking the position that no one will dare challenge them and risk losing revenue. The logic used to make you, the filmmaker, conform to this belief makes a pretzel look like a ruler: you are told you shouldn’t care whether your 2.40 film is turned into a 1.78 film because there really isn’t that much of a difference, while in the same breath you are told viewers notice the difference enough to complain about it.

The end result is we have a better chance of seeing a 2.40 film from 1959 in its proper format than a movie from 2009.

That’s weird, and sad.

Now, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this, because I have never believed that even a small portion of what happens in the entertainment industry matters that much, but it’s ****ing lame to watch Jaws—a film that uses the 2.40 ratio as well as any ever produced—in the wrong format on HBO. Does Universal so badly need a few extra pennies that it’s willing to ruin a classic? And does HBO really think its viewers are so stupid as to forget movies currently come in two sizes?

Apparently so. (No, I’m not forgetting the original, “golden” ratio of 1.33:1, it’s just that no one uses it anymore except the pretentious *******s who made The Good German.)

The easy solution is if everyone in the U.S. who sells television rights for movies insists on format retention, then the economic playing field remains flat. The hard way is to make filmmakers continue to negotiate this right individually, which is time-consuming and makes everyone on both sides feel like the worst version of themselves. (By the way, as a filmmaker, the best time to press for this is during the point in negotiations when they want you the most. Waiting until post or beyond is hopeless.)

As directors, we can decide to fix this, quickly, or let it continue down its gangrenous path until there is no longer any distinction on TV between movies and television. To change the industry mindset will demand a fusion of action and belief that seems impossible lately, but making the attempt is more laudable than widespread apathy, especially when it comes to reminding viewers that not every movie is identical.

As a test, flip around and find a movie in 2.40 on one of the HD movie channels that actually airs movies in their correct format. You’ll see that it feels very different than a full-frame 16:9 image. In fact, you might agree with my assessment that, ironically, the letterboxed 2.40 ratio actually makes the world of the movie look bigger.

Shape matters. Spread the word.

http://www.dgaquarterly.org/Portals/0/images/0902/SoderberghReportCard.jpg

http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Summer2009/InMyOpinion/tabid/720/Default.aspx

[Stuart Sweet]

Hoosier, I'd respect your opinion even more if I had sworn statements from every filmmaker whose movie I watch stating their intent.

[Herdfan]

In the end don't presume you know the filmmaker's "intent" just because you are watching a particular aspect ratio. And certainly, don't presume that you're missing something because you prefer to zoom so the screen is filled. It's your TV, use it as you wish.

In the extras of The Interpreter with Nicole Kidman, the director Stanley Kubrick goes through what the viewer is missing by not watching the film as he envisioned it. The scenes he uses as examples really show a difference it what the audience sees. So in this case, he is showing you what his intent is.

[Stuart Sweet]

And in this case, I agree. And BTW that was a fine film.