DS Forums

 
 

"Letterbox" format - why so popular


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-09-2004, 17:54
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037

Having had a couple of DVD players now along with a Widescreen tv, I am amayzed they still make movies in the narrow letterbox format. Problem is, you get black bars top & bottom of the screen - even on a Widescreen tv. Why are they still making movies in this format? I thought 16:9 was the new standard.


Dave
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-09-2004, 18:52
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
It may be for domestic TV production both hardware and media but movies are made for the big screen and directors want a nice wide image to work on safe in the knowledge that their work will be seen as intended at the cinema.

Those with enough muscle/reputation will also see their creations in the correct aspect ratio on DVD as well otherwise the movie will be cropped for 16:9 anamorphic presentation, some movies of course will be made with this ratio in mind or on an open matter format which is more flexible.

Personally, if a movie is made in 2.35:1 ratio that is the way I want to see it, if it was in 16:9 then that's what I want, 4:3 material likewise should be broadcast as such not cropped to create a 16:9 image losing vertical resolution.
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2004, 15:28
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
I only watch movies with the lights dimmed so after a few minutes you don't see the black strips top and bottom.

I agree I want the film in its original format which for big blockbusters will not be 16:9, but wider.

The TV widescreen of 16:9 is a manufacturing and production compromise which suits for most of the time...
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2004, 15:43
TheCableGuy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Herts
Posts: 5,316
Its nice to watch films in their original format. I tend to get DivX movies from the net and most are 2.35:1. Its no problem watching them on my widescreen tv, but on my bedroom 21'inch 4:3 it looks a bit small (still watchable though).

Some movies i have got recently have been 4:3 Pan&Scans of widescreen films, and you can really see what has been hacked off to get it 4:3. If i had known they were P&S i wouldnt have downloaded them.
TheCableGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2004, 16:03
heckbulb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newton Abbot, Devon
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by TheCableGuy
Some movies i have got recently have been 4:3 Pan&Scans of widescreen films, and you can really see what has been hacked off to get it 4:3. If i had known they were P&S i wouldnt have downloaded them.
What films have you been watching? All the films I have seen from Robocop, to The Matrix, to Jabberwocky, all have more picture in the 4:3 picture, with the widescreen version (whether it be 16:9 or wider) being the one that is cropped - off the top and bottom!

Just watch the Matrix films on VHS next to the DVD version to see what I mean - The video version shows the actors feet and hair in some scenes, but the DVD version has them cropped off.

Maybe it is how the director intended, but some films just look better in 4:3 in my opinion, when it means you get the whole picture.
heckbulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2004, 16:09
TrevorPH
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,561
Just watch the Matrix films on VHS next to the DVD version to see what I mean - The video version shows the actors feet and hair in some scenes, but the DVD version has them cropped off.
You sure you have your DVD player configured correctly? My copy of the Matrix is in 16:9 format and looks like it did at the cinema.
TrevorPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2004, 19:13
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
You'll find that this topic has ben discussed to death on these pages before.

It's true to say a few directors shoot in 'Academy' format - the old 4:3 aspect - and the films are later 'matted' for widescreen presentation.

This can give the impression that 4:3 has more content.

Most people given the choice in a cinema would choose widescreen so I'm not sure what these directors are trying to achieve, except to please a US TV market which doesn't so far like widescreen.
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2004, 23:05
monkey75
 
Posts: n/a
yep, I would actually rather see the scene as it was intended to be shown, ie 2.35:1 etc. I dont care if you see more in 4:3, the intended way or nothing. Anyway, they didnt just pic those ratios by chance, our eyes are much better at absorbing information horizontally, so thats why wider ratios are picked. the day we go to dumbing all films down to 4:3 is the day i give up on films, although luckily most directors would do all they can to stop their films being altered from the version they intended.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 10:12
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
I really don't understand the need to fill the screen up with picture, even if it means distorting the programme.

It's like, "I've paid for this TV and I want it full at all times with lots of colours and the sound full up too..."

Baffling.
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 18:05
heckbulb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newton Abbot, Devon
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by TrevorPH
You sure you have your DVD player configured correctly? My copy of the Matrix is in 16:9 format and looks like it did at the cinema.
Yes. It is identical to what was shown in the cinima. I just think it makes the film feel rather claustrophobic in widescreen.

Having said that, the 4:3 version does cut out some interesting little details to the sides, like the room number on Neo's apartment.

This can give the impression that 4:3 has more content.
Well, it does.

Some directors just do a better job of framing things. The Matrix directors didn't (IMHO). The director of the Mummy, on the other hand, did a very good job, which is a film that I think looks great in 2.35:1.
heckbulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 20:22
meltcity
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,770
It's interesting to compare the UK region 2 DVD market to the American region 1.

Here in the UK almost all DVD movies are OAR (original aspect ratio), due to the decision taken many years ago to change the aspect ratio of UK broadcast TV to 16:9.

In the US you can always get DVD movies in 4:3 format because widescreen only applies to HDTV, and most people still have 4:3 TV sets (and non-HDTV programming is still 4:3). Sometimes 'fullscreen' and theatrical versions are sold seperately. Sometimes they're sold together on a double-sided disc, with a different version on each side.

I think our OAR-only releases are a good thing. There may have been some grumbling at first, but most people are perfectly happy with it now. 2.35:1 does look a bit small on a 4:3 TV, but you can always zoom it in a little if it annoys you. 2.35:1 looks fine on a 16:9 set, once you get used to it. By the time we all have 40" flicker-free flat panel TVs, I think that anything other than OAR will be increasingly unacceptable (and that includes broadcast movies).
meltcity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 23:22
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
Let's face facts...

Traditionally, the US has favoured big 4:3 sets - some projection, others not.

The US folk with cash also like to build in their TVs into wall units which hide their gear when it's not being used.

Here, we like to show off our stuff and lots of us like widescreen, so we have many more WS sets per head than the Yanks.

HDTV in the US will bring WS into people's houses in due course, but here as the digital pictures we currently get are much better than NTSC, we will have many more WS sets running off Freeview, Sky and DVD, before HDTV eventually arrives here too.

So DVDs here will be WS and in the US a mix.

It's all about serving the markets and making bucks.
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 23:43
monkey75
 
Posts: n/a
I do know a few yanks who prefer the OAR version, partly because their massive 4:3 screen with unused space will still be bigger than our WS sets anyway. The price of actual WS sets as well is coming down in price in a big way over there, so hopefully it wont be long before they become a lot more common place, then, like with here, its going to be a case of convincing the general public that OAR is better than fullscreen 4:3.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 07:55
Abit
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California USA
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jim Rae
You'll find that this topic has ben discussed to death on these pages before.

It's true to say a few directors shoot in 'Academy' format - the old 4:3 aspect - and the films are later 'matted' for widescreen presentation.

This can give the impression that 4:3 has more content.

Most people given the choice in a cinema would choose widescreen so I'm not sure what these directors are trying to achieve, except to please a US TV market which doesn't so far like widescreen.
I don't know of any typically used process of filming in 4:3 and latter cropping to widescreen. In fact, I have never heard of such a thing.

What typically happens is filming occurs either in 4:3 or for movies for the cinema they are filmed in widescreen, of which there are normally two different formats that do not fit 16:9. Now depending on the particular TV station that chooses to show the movie it will be shown either in its original format or cropped left and right to 4:3. I would say more movies these days are left intact and shown in their original aspect ratio.

As for the American market not liking widescreen I have to ask where did you hear that? Most popular TV shows are filmed in HD, which is of course widescreen and those are the TVs that people are buying much more of. Even if you watch the SD 4:3 feed of a network show, whether analog or digital, many of the networks will still present the 16:9 version.
Abit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 08:10
Abit
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California USA
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by meltcity
It's interesting to compare the UK region 2 DVD market to the American region 1.

Here in the UK almost all DVD movies are OAR (original aspect ratio), due to the decision taken many years ago to change the aspect ratio of UK broadcast TV to 16:9.

In the US you can always get DVD movies in 4:3 format because widescreen only applies to HDTV, and most people still have 4:3 TV sets (and non-HDTV programming is still 4:3). Sometimes 'fullscreen' and theatrical versions are sold seperately. Sometimes they're sold together on a double-sided disc, with a different version on each side.
Actually, the way it works depends on the studio releasing the film. It is up to the studio to decide how they wish to release their DVDs. Nearly all American DVDs maintain the proper widescreen format or as you say, they may offer a full screen version on the flip side of the DVD or, sell a separate fullscreen DVD. To say that you can always gets a DVD in 4:3 is incorrect. In fact, that is usually the exception to the norm. Even the relatively new practice of selling some separate fullscreen versions is not very popular and they certainly don't rent well.


Also, whether a DVD movie is released in its original widescreen format or a full screen version has nothing to do with HDTV. Widescreen does not only apply to HDTV.
Abit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 08:17
Abit
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California USA
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jim Rae
Let's face facts...

Traditionally, the US has favoured big 4:3 sets - some projection, others not.

The US folk with cash also like to build in their TVs into wall units which hide their gear when it's not being used.

Here, we like to show off our stuff and lots of us like widescreen, so we have many more WS sets per head than the Yanks.

HDTV in the US will bring WS into people's houses in due course, but here as the digital pictures we currently get are much better than NTSC,

It's been happening for years now. HDTV is available to nearly all Americans and most shows are filmed in HD. Of course, I will not even mention the "picture quality.
Abit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 12:00
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
No that's not true.

HDTV is only avalable to a very small number of Americans.

Many US viewers still prefer large 4:3 sets and only the introduction of HDTV will change that.

The Olympics in the US was watched in HDTV by a relatively small number of people - only 9% of homes can actually see HDTV.

And they are not happy because of the recent poor Olympic coverage with broadcasts running 24 hours behind conventional ones and without the star commentators being involved.

Yes the studios are making HD programmes, but so is the BBC.

But we still can't see them yet...
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 13:06
Abit
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California USA
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jim Rae
No that's not true.

HDTV is only avalable to a very small number of Americans.
Sorry my friend but I am speaking from experience if you look at my location.

All three satellite services carry HD programming, including one that specializes in HD. Nearly all cable providers carry HD programming and all the networks broadcast HD programming free over the air.

Originally Posted by Jim Rae
Many US viewers still prefer large 4:3 sets and only the introduction of HDTV will change that.
Jim, HDTV was introduced here years ago and widescreens are definitely much more popular than 4:3 since the majority of HDTVs are in 16:9 format.

Originally Posted by Jim Rae
The Olympics in the US was watched in HDTV by a relatively small number of people - only 9% of homes can actually see HDTV.
I have no idea what the figures are for people that are actually viewing it. You said "HDTV is only avalable to a very small number of Americans" and that is simply false.

Originally Posted by Jim Rae
And they are not happy because of the recent poor Olympic coverage with broadcasts running 24 hours behind conventional ones and without the star commentators being involved.
I watched the coverage and all of it was behind, HD and SD.

Originally Posted by Jim Rae
Yes the studios are making HD programmes, but so is the BBC.
British production of HD programming is very limited compared to the American market and the little that is produced are often co-productions with American studios.

Originally Posted by Jim Rae
But we still can't see them yet...
I can.
Abit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 13:27
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
I am very conscious of your location!

That's why I checked my figure of 9% actual viewing of HDTV with NBC...

Indeed Sony, who were in trouble for irritating viewers with showing the same WEGA advert throughout the games by mistake, reckon the HDTV audience for the Olympics was 'in the high tens of thousands...'

That's not many in the context of the total US TV audience.

Sure there are HDTV broadcasts and TVs in the US, but who actually is watching them?

Not many according to the industry...
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 14:01
Abit
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California USA
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jim Rae
I am very conscious of your location!

That's why I checked my figure of 9% actual viewing of HDTV with NBC...

Indeed Sony, who were in trouble for irritating viewers with showing the same WEGA advert throughout the games by mistake, reckon the HDTV audience for the Olympics was 'in the high tens of thousands...'

That's not many in the context of the total US TV audience.

Sure there are HDTV broadcasts and TVs in the US, but who actually is watching them?

Not many according to the industry...
As I said, I don't know the actual number of people that are watching HD programming just as I don't know the actual number of people watching CNN or HBO, or Ren and Stimpy for that matter. The number of people watching it doesn't prevent me, the many people I know, and most Americans from watching it, if they choose to.

Millions of American households have HDTVs. How many of those homes are actually watching HD programming, I don't know. As it is, people that I know that do not already have an HDTV all plan on getting one soon as it is affordable to do so.

You said "HDTV is only avalable to a very small number of Americans" which, like I said, is obviously false.
Abit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 16:00
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
OK let's put it another way...

Why are people in the US buying HDTVs if they don't watch HDTV?

The bottom line is no matter what's in the shops, only a tiny number of the population are tuning in - ie less than 9%!

Are they really using HDTVs to watch ordinary transmissions?

I'm confused...
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 17:22
Abit
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California USA
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jim Rae
OK let's put it another way...

Why are people in the US buying HDTVs if they don't watch HDTV?
So they too can watch HDTV?

Originally Posted by Jim Rae
The bottom line is no matter what's in the shops, only a tiny number of the population are tuning in - ie less than 9%!

Are they really using HDTVs to watch ordinary transmissions?

I'm confused...

For the last time, you claimed "HDTV is only avalable to a very small number of Americans" and you are obviously wrong. Now you wish to question how many are actually watching HD programming and earlier you even went on to suggest Americans are not interested in widescreen TVs (HDTV). You also mentioned superiority over NTSC and some other things.

I'm getting the distinct impression that this is somehow some contest for you and that you simply wish to deflate the American HDTV balloon.

My friend, it's just TV. Don't worry, you'll eventually have HDTV too.
Abit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 18:00
Jim Rae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 4,125
No you have absolutely misunderstood what I'm trying to say.

My contention is that only a few hundred thousand US viewers watched the Olympics on HDTV - the official figure is 9% of all viewers.

The industry is saying that's all that are signed up to watch HDTV at present in the US - surely you are not saying NBC and SONY have got it wrong?

You are also saying HDTV is available everywhere in the US.

So I ask again, why if sales of HDTV are apparently so high and transmissions so widely available as you suggest, are so few people watching it.

Are people buying HDTVs and then not signing up to receive it?

It doesn't make sense.

My observation that many US viewers preferred large 4:3 sets until recently, was based on sales figures.

As the US didn't have the same amount of widescreen programming as Europe - particularly the UK - until HDTV arrived, there was no demand except from DVD viewers.

Even then, some of them preferred 4:3.

In the UK, the five main terrestial channels have broadcast in widescreen for some time, as well as the Sky Movies and Sports Channels amongst others.

So that stimulated the demand for WS sets here long before HDTV and has changed the nature of the market compared with the US.

The consequence of all this is that we have two generations of WS sets here which won't ever get HDTV - and that's the real point behind it all.

Personally, I can't wait to get HDTV and expect to be signed up as soon as the price is right - even though my existing TVs will be redundant!

I am struggling to make the statistics match your observations, even though I accept your local knowledge.

Please enlighten me...
Jim Rae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 18:42
heckbulb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newton Abbot, Devon
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Abit
I don't know of any typically used process of filming in 4:3 and latter cropping to widescreen. In fact, I have never heard of such a thing.

What typically happens is filming occurs either in 4:3 or for movies for the cinema they are filmed in widescreen, of which there are normally two different formats that do not fit 16:9. Now depending on the particular TV station that chooses to show the movie it will be shown either in its original format or cropped left and right to 4:3. I would say more movies these days are left intact and shown in their original aspect ratio.
.
No No No No No! Look at the 'making of ' documentaries of many recent films (Matrix trilogy, Spiderman etc) and you will see the directors viewing the filming being done on 4:3 monitors, with a widescreen 'Safe' area drawn on the screen.

Again, look at the Matrix on VHS next to the DVD and you will see that the film was originally recorded onto 4:3 film, and then cropped into a widescreen shape for the cinima and W/S DVD versions. It's the way they've done it for years.
heckbulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2004, 19:41
ghedley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,136
Originally Posted by Abit
I don't know of any typically used process of filming in 4:3 and latter cropping to widescreen. In fact, I have never heard of such a thing.
If you have "never heard of such a thing" then you clearly don't have a clue.

The process is called soft matting - and is very widely used.

http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/film.html

Indeed super35 is the same sort of thing - except the original 4:3 aperture image is rarely used for the 4:3 transfer.
ghedley is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:37.