Customer Discussions > high definition discussion forum

fullscreen or borders

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 67 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Jun 2012 08:06:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2012 08:09:10 BDT
Now THE AVENGERS is available to order i was disappointed to see it's a fullscreen picture.I prefer 2.35 or 2.40,the screen just shrinks to me.I can alter my player settings to letterbox so it's not a problem but having seen reviews on amazon for fullscreen films like JURRASIC PARK,BACK TO THE FUTURE and VAN HELSING,[ive got these ]a lot of people seem to prefer fullscreen so i was wondering if i'm in the minority .Also does any1 know if the special features for AVENGERS is on the 3d version or both sets thanks.
Your reply to D. I. Whiteley's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 13:45:29 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
How odd! Most people buy the biggest TV they can afford, and the 1.78:1 ratio gives you the biggest picture you can possibly get on your TV.

Why do you prefer 2.35/2.40:1? Is it because you are used to it? Or do your eyes find it easier to look left/right rather than up/down?

As for 2.35/2.40:1 films being cropped to 1.78:1... well, that's a whole different ball game.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 14:52:13 BDT
JURASSIC PARK, VAN HELSING and also the AVENGERS were all filmed in the 1.85:1 film ratio. This is why they appear to fill the screen of your TV. They haven't been cropped. This is exactly the same width and height the picture was screened in at your local cinema. If you go to it usually lists the film's screen ratios. Films come in various ratios including 1.78:1 & 2.35:1 & 1.66:1 and others. It's all down to the director and how he thinks the image will look best. Spielberg often jumps between 1.85:1 on films like JURASSIC PARK , E.T.-THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL , WAR OF THE WORLDS and has used 2.35:1 on films like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK , TINTIN and WARHORSE.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 15:32:41 BDT
Shazzerman says:
I don't think he was saying they were cropped...but pointing out that some films are indeed cropped from 2.35/2.40:1 to 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1). Many people do not have a difficulty with this, but film fanatics (like me!) of a certain type (i.e. film is an art form, every part of the frame is important, etc) will cry havoc...

I prefer the 2.35/2.40:1 ratio myself, and welcome the black bars. Call me mad, but I find that framing more aesthetically pleasing.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 15:36:12 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 15:44:49 BDT
i wasn't referring to the films being cropped,shazzerman is on the same lines as me,i just prefer watching films like this .my tv is 42''.if u really want know .

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 15:46:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2012 16:45:26 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Films aren't made in full screen anymore. The odd exception: "The Artist", "Meek's Cutoff". It's not the director's fault - how can it be?
(Edited) - Sorry, my idea of fullscreen is wrong: have a "4:3 Fullscreen" setting on my TV. I presume by fullscreen you mean the ratio that will fill your screen (usually 1.78:1 - but 1.85:1 just about does the trick too).

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 17:34:44 BDT
John Morris says:
To be fair I don't mind either aspect ratio as long as it's the correct one.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 17:36:32 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Of course. As long as it the correct one (I'm looking at you, Region 2 "The Birds"). I love the 2.35:1 aspect ratio above all others though.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 17:46:40 BDT
John Morris says:
" Of course. As long as it the correct one (I'm looking at you, Region 2 "The Birds"). I love the 2.35:1 aspect ratio above all others though "


I remember buying the canadian aliance version of se7en it was presented in 185:1 and 1080i picture,the picture and sound were very good to be fair,but the aspect ratio was just so wrong for the movie.

As soon as the official new line version came out I snapped it up.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 19:06:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2012 19:06:35 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
It's weird having a discussion about aspect ratios. Judging by the "does this post add to the discussion" votes, it's obvious that most people are dead against the 1.78/1.85:1 ratio (not just in this thread, but others of the same ilk). Why? What's so good about 2.35/2.4:1? Is it really more aesthetically pleasing? Would be interested to know if there is a scientific reason we prefer a shorter wider frame.

Would something like Avatar or Avengers REALLY have looked better in 2.35/2.40:1? Or are we just so used to seeing the old classics in widescreen we just can't adapt. A kind of cinematic snobbery?!

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 20:43:58 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Why do you want to know the reason behind totally subjective preferences? I also think "Prometheus" is a better film than "Aliens". Go figure.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 21:28:25 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
"He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever"

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 22:39:41 BDT
John Morris says:
J .Yasimoto,

It's not a case of cinematic snobbery and as I have already said I have no preference for either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 typr ratios,but as a movie fan I wan't the movie to be as it was made,I am not against a picture being restored or improved but if a movie was shot in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 it should be presented that way on blu-ray.

In the movie making world the 2.35:1 ratio is far more common as it is a more natural field of vision,for a perfect example of this I remember watching john carpenter's halloween on t.v,it was shown in a 4.3 ratio and a lot of what made the movie work was lost as you just could not see the full frame,on blu-ray and dvd you get the full frame and the movie gives you the directors vision.

I think peoples main issue with 2.35:1 type ratios on blu-ray,is the fact that they feel they are not getting or using their full displays size,but this is a price you have to pay to get the correct ratio as blu-ray is intended to deliver the movie as close to what the director intended as possible.

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 00:41:36 BDT
Shazzerman says:
I'd also question your use of quotations to question my questionable stance on questioning: you're not in "The West Wing".

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 06:31:38 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 06:37:14 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
Most of your post seems to be addressing the cropping issue. We are not talking about that at all.

The original question was: You would prefer new films to be shot in the 2.4:1 or 1.78:1 ratio.

I would prefer 1.78:1. Most other people (including the OP) prefer 2.4:1. I just wondered why.

You state that 2.4:1 is a more natural field of vision. Perhaps this is the answer. It would be interesting to know the exact aspect ratio the human eye sees.

[Edit: a quick rough and ready experiment has revealed that, holding my eyes still, I can see about twice as much left and right as I can up and down. Which puts the ideal ratio bang in the middle of 1.78:1 and 2.4:1. Typical!]

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 10:10:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 10:13:12 BDT
John Morris says:
J. Yasimoto,

A lot depends on the movie that is being made as some films are fine with a 1.85:1 ratio while others benefit from the wider scope,bear in mind moviemakers make films in mind for theatrical release so the wider ratio is not an issue.

If you take the movie avatar for example this movie is digitaly created within the 1.85:1 type ratio,so the director can incorporate everything into the frame he intends you to see,the movie is not shot in a real location so there are no real framing issues.

If you are shooting a movie in a real location then the director will consider what he wants you to see and will then decide the ratio to use,most will use a 2.35.1 ratio because it gives a wider range of view.

Some diredtors prefer to shoot movies in 1.85:1 type ratios wheras some only use the wider aspects,some directors don't favor either and decide based on what movie they are making.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 11:45:24 BDT
The op states that he alters his player setting to "letterbox" for 2.4:1 movies- thus i think he is cropping them to fit his screen. This is where the cropping issue is coming from as most people want the film in its original aspect ratio as the director intended. As for the other question raised on preference for new films to be shot in the 2.4:1 or 1.78:1 ratio, i think the 2.4:1 gives a more natural field of vision in the cinema but if you watch all your movies at home on tv then i can see why you would prefer the fuller aspect ratio.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 16:13:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 16:44:30 BDT
i dont alter my settings for 2.40 its the 1.78 and 1.85 i alter it for.i like the wide effect(some may think im weird)if my tv was as large as a cinema screen i probably wouldnt do it.all i was asking was what ratios other people prefered

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 16:35:16 BDT
Shazzerman says:
For me, it's not about the frame coming as close as possible to the natural field of vision. When I look at a painting, I don't think, hmm, this would be better/more beautiful if it conformed more to the natural field of vision. I view films a lot like paintings - and here's where the shape of the image comes into play. I love the shape of a moving image when it is presented in the wider aspect ratios.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 17:42:23 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 18:56:09 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
Good point. Painting does have similarities with film. But even in art there is a "golden ratio" which is considered the most aesthetically pleasing. It's 1.62:1 in case you were wondering - which is a lot closer to 1.78:1 than 2.4:1 :-).

Strangely, a study of great painters/paintings found the average ratio was 1.34:1 - almost exactly the 4:3 ratio used in the early days of cinema and then TV!

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 18:57:03 BDT
Bluelava says:
I'd certainly prefer all 3D films to be filmed at the 1.78:1 ratio. I'm always a little narked when 3D films are released in 2.35/2.40:1.

I'd even go as far as saying I wished all 3D films made in 2.35/2.40:1 ratio were cropped for 3D tv's when released on Blu Ray (it just makes the 3D more immersive when it fills the screen). Of course the obvious thing to do would be to include the original and a cropped version in each package..that way everyone is happy (but that's too easy obviously).

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 19:24:51 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Yep, I know all that. I go my own way.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 20:43:21 BDT
movie buff says:
I know this sounds nuts but two pieces of black card top and bottom of the screen works a treat,Aliens,predator,avatar look amazing.Just avoid the card touching the screen.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 22:49:36 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Yep, that's nuts. Those films are 1.85:1 and that, as they say, is that.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the high definition discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Participants:  17
Total posts:  67
Initial post:  9 Jun 2012
Latest post:  20 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions