Can I change native 2.35:1 format pictures to fit my 1.78:1 screen?

[avab]

I was playing T3 the other night and noticed that the picture was stretched out...(as 2.35:1 probably should).

But my question is...is there any way to reconfigure the picture so I fill up the whole screen???? It looks kinda funny with those 2 large black areas above and below the projected image.

Thanx.

 

[MDS]

Although some people really dislike the black bars you are watching the movie in its intended aspect ratio. The black bars are there because the aspect ratio of the movie is wider than the aspect ratio of the TV.

But if you really want to get rid of them, your TV probably has a Zoom mode that will fit the picture to the TV. It will stretch the vertical dimension of the image so people may look slightly fat.

 

[Rob Babcock]

You can do it, but you shouldn't. Yes, you can probably set your display (depending on what you have) to crop it, but then you're losing part of the picture plus losing resolution. OAR is the way to go.

 

[ruadmaa]

Can I Fill Up The Whole Screen?

I was playing T3 the other night and noticed that the picture was stretched out...(as 2.35:1 probably should).

But my question is...is there any way to reconfigure the picture so I fill up the whole screen???? It looks kinda funny with those 2 large black areas above and below the projected image.

Thanx.

In a word "NO". If you blow up the picture to fill the top and bottom of the screen, you will be cutting off picture at the sides.

 

[Bluesmoke]

I was playing T3 the other night and noticed that the picture was stretched out...(as 2.35:1 probably should).

But my question is...is there any way to reconfigure the picture so I fill up the whole screen???? It looks kinda funny with those 2 large black areas above and below the projected image.

Thanx.

You need a bigger tv friend.

 

[Nick250]

You need a bigger tv friend.

Ummmmm, how would that help, just larger black areas. Right?

Nick

 

[larry7995]

Sort of my theory too, if I am going to lose some top and bottom then my 42 becomes about a 35 so I have to buy a 46 or 50 to make up for how small the movie becomes after losing part of the screen.

 

[Rob Babcock]

The best solution performance-wise is to go with the OAR and mask the unused portions of the screen. There are automatic screens that have motorized masks but they're very expensive. I've seen pics of several DIY masks that are cheap to make if you're handy.

 

[Diapason]

Just stop looking at the black bars! Ignore them and watch the picture. You'll get used to it.

Si

 

[MACCA350]

Think of it this way, you're not loosing the top and bottom of the picture, you're gaining the sides of the picture.

OAR is the only way to see any movie. Movies are filmed with a specific AR in mind and scenes, distances, camera angles, etc are setup to have the greatest impact when viewed at that ratio

cheers

 

[MDS]

The digital bits website: http://www.thedigitalbits.com has a great series on widescreen vs fullscreen complete with pictures to show the difference and what you are missing by using fullscreen.

Just click on The Ultimate Guide to Anamorphic Widescreen DVD in the top left corner of the page.

 

[BMXTRIX]

2.35 asepect ratios and what you will miss...
http://www.avintegrated.com/aspect_ratios

The reality is that what is said above by Rob Babcock - if you don't like the black bars, install a screen masking system and get rid of them (if you have a front projector), do NOT restretch and screw up the film because the black bars bug you a bit. It isn't just a big no-no - it really does degrade the image in many ways.

For front projection, there is also the option of going with an anamorphic setup and using an anamorphic lens with a 2.35:1 screen. But, then what happens when you are viewing non 2.35:1 material? Black bars on the sides!

I recommend you just get used to it.

 

[mjhamre]

2.35 followup

Do any of the modern front projectors have preconfigured settings that change the projected screen size easily. If so, could you have a 2.35 screen, set your projector to cover more than the screen, and let the black bars on top slop onto black cloth or something above the screen (or would that be noticable). Then if the movie was 16:9 have some curtains on the side that cover part of the screen and use a smaller projected screen size. I guess that would presumably make your 16:9 movies brighter, but presumably you could calibrate that as well. If all of that was easily able to be set on the remote it seems like it would not be too bad.

A previous post mentioned 2.35 anamorphic, let's say that a new 1080p blue ray disk is of a movie that was shot 2.35, and they released it in it's native aspect ratio. Are there 1080 useful lines of info encoded on the disk or is it something more like 750 lines that are useful and 330 lines of black? Seems like it must be the latter or you would not get pixel representations that were of uniform height, so if you tried to show it without scaling on a plasma for example you would be out of luck.

Hopefully this rambling makes some kind of sense (pretty new to all this). I am planning to get a front projector sometime in the next 6 months and I don't remember seeing the above covered in a review that I have read... Do 95% of people just get 16:9 screens and have a slightly smaller screen when watching other aspect ratio movies?

 

[WmAx]

All this love for the 'original aspect' is interesting. Personally(and I would wager most people) do not care if some of the picture is chopped off to fill up the entire screen. I personally wish they would not release any 2.35:1 DVDs except for the 'collector editions' that purists can purchase, if they so desire. Too much resolution is lost when trying to zoom in the picture(optically or digitally) to compensate for the 2.35:1 letter-boxed DVD that is already low in resolution to begin with.

-Chris

 

[Martiad3]

In my opinion, what you're saying is the equivalent of cutting off portions of the Mona Lisa to make it fit in a smaller space. The director spent years of his life filming a movie for that original aspect ratio; working his *** off to show us exactly what he wants. To me, to release anything in any aspect ratio other than OAR is just plain wrong.

Look at the examples here, and tell me if you would prefer to not see all of the extra material.

 

[WmAx]

In my opinion, what you're saying is the equivalent of cutting off portions of the Mona Lisa to make it fit in a smaller space. The director spent years of his life filming a movie for that original aspect ratio; working his *** off to show us exactly what he wants. To me, to release anything in any aspect ratio other than OAR is just plain wrong.

Look at the examples here, and tell me if you would prefer to not see all of the extra material.

I can assure you, my opinion was formed knowing all of these things. I even prefer the full-screen version on 4:3.

I don't care what original perspective the director used. I care about what pleases me most; this is entertainment, after all. It does NOT please me to waste a substantial part of my display. If HD media was prevalent, this would not even be an issue, since their is plenty of resolution to pan & scan on the playback side for those (like me) whom prefer a filled screen. But on SD DVDs, the resolution is too low to do this with satisfactory results.

-Chris

 

[AVRat]

mjhamre, some people use that approach, though I don’t know if there are any projectors that have a memory settings feature.

 

[Jedi2016]

I think some people are getting a bit miffed over a tiny little thing.

What "large" black bars? What "significant" wasted space? When I finally upgraded to widescreen, I was actually surprised at how small the bars were on 2.35:1 films. I was expecting them to be quite a bit larger. When I'm watching a 2.35 film, I actually have to look for the bars in order to see them.

For the complainers, doesn't your TV include a zoom function? There you go. Enjoy. I'll be over here watching the ENTIRE film frame, thanks very much.

 

[WmAx]

For the complainers, doesn't your TV include a zoom function? There you go. Enjoy. I'll be over here watching the ENTIRE film frame, thanks very much.

I already explained this. The already low resolution of a SD DVD does not lend itself to zooming with satisfactory results. The image becomes fuzzier, by a substantial degree(at least on HD displays).

-Chris

 

[Jedi2016]

You're right. But it's the only option you have. So which is worse? A fuzzy picture or those horrible black bars?

If you're that picky about it, just do your research and buy only films in 16:9. That'll solve your problem, too.