Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Ask me if I'm dumb, but how would you show any film wider than 1.78:1 on a 16:9 screen WITHOUT black bars?    

Sorry, I may have missed the point of the OP.  I believe people want the image to be close to the original as possible -- so they don't want Ben Hur sqeezed somehow into the 16:9 format.

What's the point in having widescreen DVDs restricted to 16:9?  If you are going to do that, what, other than a little bit wider image, have you gotten as an improvement over the old Full Screen 1.33:1 image?

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I think whispering's point is that it might now be better for studios to master at 1.78:1 in anticipation of a home HD release, avoiding the crop/pan choice altogether.

Although they don't bother me, they do bother my parents, who suspected something was wrong with the setup of their new HD set when they still had black bars.

My point was, as Ken said, that it annoyes me that the studios dont make it to 16:9. I want it to be as close to the original as possible, like any other movie fan. But why isnt the original 16:9? Why would anyone make a movie that essentilly squeezes the screen size. Its irrational.

I watched e.g. Gilmore Girls (if i remember right) they shot the serie in 4:3, because it was what people used. At some point they changed to 16:9, because that started to be te norm. Thats common sence. Why everyone doesnt do that is what i'm wondering here?

When you watch 1:2.4 ratio on a 16:9 TV you are only using 74% of your TV's screen. If the director would shoot the movie in 16:9, you wouldnt have black bars. Why dont they do that?

Directors may shoot their film at a certain aspect ratio for a reason. Limiting them to 16:9 would be an insult to their creativity.

TomGaines has the main point. Movies shown in theaters are in competition with movies and everything else shown on TV. Color, stereo sound, widescreen, 3-D, surround sound -- all these things were developed to put paying customers into motion picture theater seats. Why would directors/producers/theater owners degrade their product to be always the same as what you have at home? This would give very little reason for people to leave their home and pay to see a film in a theater.

Some people enjoy the viewing of a film as a member of an audience of strangers. Some people enjoy seeing a film as soon as it is released. Others find that the unique presentation in a theater (the popcorn, the sound system, the size of the screen, the unique aspect ratio) drives them into theaters.

Anyway, do not expect to see theatrical films uniformly shot in 16x9 to match your TV screen until movie theaters die away completely.

This has been a very enlightening thread. I never owned a widescreen... never even knew anyone that had one to ever see a movie on one. So I was under the impression that as long as it was animorphic widescreen it filled the screen of a widescreen TV. At least now I know... I would have been like Ken's parents... thinking something was wrong in the hook-up or settings. 

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
This has been a very enlightening thread. I never owned a widescreen... never even knew anyone that had one to ever see a movie on one.

you have a 4:3 TV?

I didn't know anyone who still had that format TV anymore..

yup... just a standard 20" 4:3 TV. They are still very common in the US. The widescreen TVs are still to much on the expensive side. In my area I haven't seen one under $1000.00 yet.

Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
you have a 4:3 TV?

I didn't know anyone who still had that format TV anymore..

I still had one until two months ago. It is still pretty common here in Germany. In my opinion, widescreen TVs only became interesting for the mainstream customer about 1-2 years ago, and not everyone is in the habit to buy a new TV set every few years. Most are waiting for their 4:3 set to break down to switch to a widescreen TV.

I suppose the operative word is mainstream.. I bought a widescreen TV 6 years ago (and upgraded to plasma- HD, just last year).

For about two years now here in germany you either buy a relatively cheap CRT 4:3 TV or you buy an LCD or Plasma widescreen TV (classic or HDTV).

You rarely find 16:9 CRTs anymore. I bought my first one 8 years ago and my second one 5 years ago. I will use it until it breaks down and then I will look what's currently on the market.

When I moved to my own appartment I was determined to buy a 16:9 TV to watch movies properly.

This is my current TV:

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:

yup... just a standard 20" 4:3 TV. They are still very common in the US. The widescreen TVs are still to much on the expensive side. In my area I haven't seen one under $1000.00 yet.

I've just gone on to Amazon, and a good 42" Plasma, 1080P is less than $900. (and that includes free delivery up to the room you want).
(not that I'm saying you need to go to Amazon).

Thanks for the heads up. I hope to be able to upgrade in the next year or so. (I want to upgrade my computer first.)

But question... Which is better Plasma or LCD? I heard you can easily have problems with a Plasma screen.

If you are a purist, go with a Plasma. The colors are richer, skin tones are life-like, blacks are truely black and the overall picture quality is awesome. If you just want a widescreen and don't care too much about picture quality, then go with LCD. LCD colors, in my opinion, are exagerated, skin tones look plastic, blacks are not truely black, there is too much pixelation and motion blur. Granted, Plasmas are more expensive. A 42" 1080p Plasma will run you around $1,000.00, while a 42" - 46" 1080p LCD will run from $700-1,200. While there is a possibility of image burn-in with Plasmas, Anti image retention technology today has greatly reduced the chances of that happening. I own a 42" 1080p Panasonic Viera Plasma and simply love it.

Thanks