PDA

View Full Version : Can Apple TV HD 1080p go full screen?




Dstopsie
Mar 24, 2012, 06:59 PM
Hi everyone. I am new to apple tv and I just purchased the 3rd generation. I have a 1080p tv and when I rent a movie in HD it is in 1080p but I don't understand why it does not fill up the screen. It seems to be widescreen and not full screen? Like when u way pitch a DVD in widescreen mode.

Is there anyway to have the full screen in HD? I hope this makes sense.

Thanks in advance for ur help



simsaladimbamba
Mar 24, 2012, 07:02 PM
It depends on the aspect ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)) of the film, if it is 2.35:1 and not 16:9 (http://www.cnet.com/1991-7874_1-5140690-4.html), then you will have black bars on top and bottom, as your HDTV has a 16:9 aspect ratio (1920/1080 = 16/9).

chiefpavvy
Mar 24, 2012, 07:02 PM
I know what you are saying/asking, answer is, depends on the film and the aspect ratio. If you are watching a movie in a wider aspect ratio it will not fill the screen and will be letterbox just like DVD.

Dstopsie
Mar 24, 2012, 07:03 PM
Its 16:9. And I have the black bars on top and bottom of the screen

simsaladimbamba
Mar 24, 2012, 07:05 PM
Its 16:9. And I have the black bars on top and bottom of the screen

What movies exactly? Have you looked at your TV's and Apple TV's settings?

Dstopsie
Mar 24, 2012, 07:14 PM
Any movie I rent. My apple tv is set to 1080p. I never had this when I rented movies on demand through my cable service. Don't get me wrong the pic is great but I want it full screen.

simsaladimbamba
Mar 24, 2012, 07:30 PM
Any movie I rent. My apple tv is set to 1080p. I never had this when I rented movies on demand through my cable service. Don't get me wrong the pic is great but I want it full screen.

Is the image on the TV distorted or cropped?

Dstopsie
Mar 24, 2012, 07:33 PM
No distortion. I just dont get a full screen picture.reminds me when u rent widescreen movie and it doesn't fill up the entire screen. Picture looks perfect just not full screen.

simsaladimbamba
Mar 24, 2012, 07:36 PM
No distortion. I just dont get a full screen picture.reminds me when u rent widescreen movie and it doesn't fill up the entire screen. Picture looks perfect just not full screen.

Is it every movie, and if so, can you tell us some titles?

Dstopsie
Mar 24, 2012, 08:12 PM
It's all movies. But tv shows play fine in full screen.

Chundles
Mar 24, 2012, 08:18 PM
Pretty much every TV show now is 16:9. Most movies are wider so you'll get letterboxing.

steve-p
Mar 24, 2012, 08:43 PM
Any movie I rent. My apple tv is set to 1080p. I never had this when I rented movies on demand through my cable service. Don't get me wrong the pic is great but I want it full screen.

If it bothers you then your TV most likely has a zoom mode which will expand the picture so it fills a 16:9 screen (by cutting off the ends).

Cameron500
Mar 25, 2012, 05:35 PM
Try the Dark Knight movie. On my tv, playing the bluray through the PS3, it was letter boxed until it was an outside shot when he was rapelling to the building in Japan. Then it went full screen. It went back to letterbox when it was filmed inside.

Clark Kent
Mar 25, 2012, 05:45 PM
There is nothing wrong with the movies or your TV.

This is how the movies are supposed to be. It's how they were made, how they are shown in a theater, and how they are released on DVD/Blu Ray. If you want them zoomed in so it fills your screen, you either need to use a zoom mode on your TV if it has one, or go back to watching movies on cable where they cut the sides off.

The Dark Knight switches aspect ratios depending on whether the scene was filmed with IMAX cameras or not, and that happened in theaters as well, so it's normal to change during the movie.

here2rock
Mar 25, 2012, 05:55 PM
You are talking about 2.35:1 movies. Unfortunatly there is not any option in Apple TV 3 to zoom in. Using your TV's zooming capabilities usully distortes the image quality. It is really poor on Apple's part. WD TV Live does allow you that option and it is great. I believe the JB Apple TV2 also allow you to change it maybe just wait for the JB.

omyard
Mar 25, 2012, 06:16 PM
You are talking about 2.35:1 movies. Unfortunatly there is not any option in Apple TV 3 to zoom in. Using your TV's zooming capabilities usully distortes the image quality. It is really poor on Apple's part. WD TV Live does allow you that option and it is great. I believe the JB Apple TV2 also allow you to change it maybe just wait for the JB.

Why is it poor on Apples part? Why would you want to zoom in any content? Are we still at the point where black bars bother people?

simsaladimbamba
Mar 25, 2012, 06:19 PM
Why is it poor on Apples part? Why would you want to zoom in any content? Are we still at the point where black bars bother people?

I had the same thought, but I guess it is still a remnant of the good old Betamax/VHS days. I always preferred the widescreen edition, the black bars never bothered me. That format is how the director/cinematographer decided to tell their story, and it was framed for that.

BeachChair
Mar 25, 2012, 06:21 PM
Why is it poor on Apples part? Why would you want to zoom in any content? Are we still at the point where black bars bother people?

Yes. Some people sometimes still prefer a cropped full screen picture over a full letterboxed picture.

Dstopsie
Mar 25, 2012, 06:27 PM
Thanks for eveyone's help. I guess I just didn't understand why the tv shows filled the screen and the movies weren't. I understand the widescreen concept I just thought it would be full screen 1080p content. If others have the same issue then I guess this is how it is. Remember I never had ATV before.

Thanks again everyone

here2rock
Mar 26, 2012, 12:22 AM
I had the same thought, but I guess it is still a remnant of the good old Betamax/VHS days. I always preferred the widescreen edition, the black bars never bothered me. That format is how the director/cinematographer decided to tell their story, and it was framed for that.

The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

waw74
Mar 26, 2012, 12:58 AM
Try the Dark Knight movie. On my tv, playing the bluray through the PS3, it was letter boxed until it was an outside shot when he was rapelling to the building in Japan. Then it went full screen. It went back to letterbox when it was filmed inside.

Dark Knight was shot partially in IMAX, the IMAX scenes (several throughout the movie) are shown in full-screen 16:9, the standard scenes are in a letter-boxed format (2.40:1). so you get roughly the same experience as seeing it in IMAX theatre where it would fill the screen for those scenes.

IMAX is natively 1.44:1 (or 13:9) so there is some image that is lost on the sides when they expand it to full screen for the blu-ray

i'm not sure if the version available in the iTunes store does this, I'm guessing probably not.

----------

The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

50 is pretty big, i've got a 47, and if i upgrade, i'll need a bigger living room.

if you've got a 50" screen, you have a zoom function on your TV.
and you'll have to have your regular TV remote out anyway, since the aTV has no volume control built in.

laurim
Mar 26, 2012, 01:09 AM
The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

Seems like most tvs nowadays have a zoom option on them. My 2008 46" tv does. So why would Apple need to get involved? I would never use it because I want to see the entire movie. Do you really want to watch people talking to people you can't see because they are off your screen? You watch these wide movies in the movie theater no problem, right? If your room was darker you wouldn't even notice the black bars. I really don't get the whole "I've been gypped because the movie isn't filling my screen" thing. But then, I'm constantly trying to explain to my clients why their 4:3 powerpoint slides need to be reformatted because they ordered 16:9 screens for their meeting :mad:

steve-p
Mar 26, 2012, 02:55 AM
You are talking about 2.35:1 movies. Unfortunatly there is not any option in Apple TV 3 to zoom in. Using your TV's zooming capabilities usully distortes the image quality. It is really poor on Apple's part. WD TV Live does allow you that option and it is great. I believe the JB Apple TV2 also allow you to change it maybe just wait for the JB.

TVs do not generally distort the image when zooming, unless maybe you are talking about an old or crap TV. Most HD TVs have several zoom modes, one of which is designed specifically for the purpose of expanding 2:35:1 to 16:9. Why would Apple duplicate a function which belongs in the TV set? Just because someone else does it is not a compelling reason. My satellite box doesn't do it either.

here2rock
Mar 26, 2012, 08:08 AM
People who think that the zoom on modern TVs and built into the media player is the same thing then I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about.

BTW my 50" is Pioneer Kuro not a cheap Korean built Samsung.

Zoom built into your TVs is crap (They either distort the pircture too much or zoom in too close), why would ruin your movies? If you don't have the option in the media player then just watch with the black bars. Proper zoom built into the media player is so much better, try WD Live TV for a change.

Having a proper variable zoom built into the system allows you to lose a little on the sides but gain a lot more of your screen therefore a more enjoyable movie experience at home.

ohio.emt
Mar 26, 2012, 09:19 AM
People who think that the zoom on modern TVs and built into the media player is the same thing then I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about.

BTW my 50" is Pioneer Kuro not a cheap Korean built Samsung.

Zoom built into your TVs is crap (They either distort the pircture too much or zoom in too close), why would ruin your movies? If you don't have the option in the media player then just watch with the black bars. Proper zoom built into the media player is so much better, try WD Live TV for a change.

Having a proper variable zoom built into the system allows you to lose a little on the sides but gain a lot more of your screen therefore a more enjoyable movie experience at home.

I don't see any distortion when I turn on the zoom on my Samsung, it also doesn't have a problem with over zooming.

whooleytoo
Mar 26, 2012, 09:30 AM
Thanks for eveyone's help. I guess I just didn't understand why the tv shows filled the screen and the movies weren't. I understand the widescreen concept I just thought it would be full screen 1080p content. If others have the same issue then I guess this is how it is. Remember I never had ATV before.

Thanks again everyone

If you have money to burn, there are a number of 21:9 aspect ratio TVs coming on the market, but then you'd have the issue of vertical bars when watching normal 16:9 content (some TVs can use the vertical bars for display apps or other content, rather than just a background colour.)

So your options are zoom, crop, horizontal bars or vertical bars. :)

steve-p
Mar 26, 2012, 09:34 AM
People who think that the zoom on modern TVs and built into the media player is the same thing then I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about.

Your argument appears to be that having a variable zoom is "better". You are talking about a specific implementation of it in WD TV Live, compared to fixed zoom implementations in TVs. Well, even if Apple did implement zoom in ATV, it still might not be variable. In fact, since Apple like to keep things simple, it would almost certainly just be a single Yes/No preference in settings, either zoom 2.35:1 to 16:9, or leave it alone. So you would still be complaining.

WD TV Live has a zoom feature purely for convenience, not for any reasons of picture quality. Anyone who is after the ultimate picture quality will be using 1:1 pixel mapping with no overscan anyway, and wouldn't touch the zoom. Yes, Apple TV could have a zoom feature, but does not. The TV can do it instead. Or an AVR with HDMI in and out can do it instead. It's hardly the end of the world to omit it, when there are other ways of doing it. Maybe it's less convenient, but that's all. If this is a deal breaker, then don't buy an Apple TV, it's pretty simple.

Going back to picture quality, there are no technical reasons why a media player is able to scale better than a TV. Both media player and TV have exactly the same digital source content to work with. Both are multiplying both dimensions of the picture equally, and cropping the ends in exactly the same way to make exactly the same size output picture. Therefore, what gives the best quality picture will be whichever of the two has the better realtime scaler and video processor chipset. Often, that will be the TV rather than a cheap media player box, but not always. This is one area that is still improving fast, and age matters.

You keep talking about zoom distorting the picture on a TV. Well, it doesn't, if you choose the correct zoom setting provided for exactly this purpose. It's exactly the same picture but expanded equally in both dimensions and with the sides cropped accordingly.

HobeSoundDarryl
Mar 26, 2012, 10:13 AM
OP, this thread: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=9502 includes a long list of movies shot 16:9. Check some of these and see if they fill your screen edge-to-edge, top-to-bottom. If not, I suspect you have a TV zoom mode setting in something other than "full" (or similar), though I can't think of a TV zoom mode (zoom out?) that would squeeze 16:9 content down to add the black bars at the top & bottom without adding them on the left & right.

I can assure you that the new :apple:TV3 "fills" the screen edge-to-edge, top-to-bottom on a 16:9 HDTV.

Are you perhaps using a 4:3 HDTV (which certainly would make a 16:9 video have black bars above & below the movie) while making 4:3 TV shows completely fill that screen? 4:3 HDTVs were still selling pretty well up to about 4-5 years ago.

Are you perhaps ripping your own movie content with a custom preset in which you've accidentally forced the vertical compression to create the black bars above & below on 16:9 video? Do movies you think are definitely 16:9 looked squashed (people look fat, faces look fat, etc)?

As others have implied, I suspect you are thinking certain movies are 16:9 when, in fact, they are wider aspect ratio movies. These should add the black bars so you can see the entire picture as intended. To help figure out the problem, you need to identify a few movies that are definitely 16:9 and try them. If they still add the black bars, you've got a setup problem outside of the :apple:TV3.

Do you run the connection directly from the :apple:TV3 to your HDTV or do you flow it through something else like a receiver? if the latter, does it have any zoom settings (and you might want to eliminate this possibility by temporarily connecting the :apple:TV3 directly to your HDTV... and then trying some movies for which you are certain about 16:9 aspect ratio)?

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 06:03 AM
steve-p, fixed zoom is better than no zoom. I understand that the JB ATV2 has a variable zoom. Why do you think the hackers implemented the variable zoom into their system? I am not complaining because I don't rely on ATV3 for my entertainment, I am just pointing out the flaws in it. Even the iPhone and iPad has simple tap and zoom function!

WD TV Live does not have a zoom function for convenience but for people who want to fill the screens on their HDTV without distorting the picture. Why did the OP started the thread, If he thought that the 2.35:1 movies were so good, why would he be looking to get rid of those bars? Those bars take about 30% of your total viewable screen area!

Why do I like variable zoom than a fixed zoom? The movies in a 2.35:1 format you lose about 9cm at top and bottom on a 50" TV, with a fixed zoom you are too close and lose too much from the side. My preferred option is to only have the bars at top and bottom about 2-4cm. It is a perfect compromise for me.

There are technical reasons as to why a media player is able to scale better than a TV and it is desirable to have it built into a media player. First of all not all TVs have it. Secondly not all TVs do it properly, I have seen some just stretch it form the top and bottom not the sides! I have never seen a variable zoom in a TV. It is easy to implement in the software in a media player as it require not additional hardware.

Now you could argue if your TV is too old then it is your problem or a get a new TV. I love my TV; I rather spend $100 on a media player which suits my needs than $5000 on a TV which I love.

Let's look at the argument from the other side now. I have seen posts where the users complain about 16:9 ratio movies and preferring to watch them in a 2.35:1 format. If apple had a simple zoom function then they would have made everyone happy. Apple failed in this regard.

hipnetic
Mar 27, 2012, 10:20 AM
Even the iPhone and iPad has simple tap and zoom function!That's because they don't have 16:9 (1.78:1) screens. They have 4:3 (iPad) or 1.5:1 (iPhone/iPod Touch) screens. So even 16:9 content will have black bars, and Apple decided that they'd hear too much complaining about that, so they added the zoom feature which zooms out a 16:9 movie and lops off the sides. If you watch a 2.35:1 movie on an iPhone or iPad, I'm pretty sure that using the zoom feature will only expand it as if it was a 16:9 movie, so you will still have black bars.

Why do I like variable zoom than a fixed zoom? The movies in a 2.35:1 format you lose about 9cm at top and bottom on a 50" TV, with a fixed zoom you are too close and lose too much from the side. My preferred option is to only have the bars at top and bottom about 2-4cm. It is a perfect compromise for me.

There are technical reasons as to why a media player is able to scale better than a TV and it is desirable to have it built into a media player. First of all not all TVs have it. Secondly not all TVs do it properly, I have seen some just stretch it form the top and bottom not the sides! I have never seen a variable zoom in a TV. It is easy to implement in the software in a media player as it require not additional hardware.

Now you could argue if your TV is too old then it is your problem or a get a new TV. I love my TV; I rather spend $100 on a media player which suits my needs than $5000 on a TV which I love.

Let's look at the argument from the other side now. I have seen posts where the users complain about 16:9 ratio movies and preferring to watch them in a 2.35:1 format. If apple had a simple zoom function then they would have made everyone happy. Apple failed in this regard.I can appreciate that this may be a desirable thing to do for some people, but it's still a specialty type of feature, that few devices offer, and it also adds to the complexity (since Apple would need to support multiple zoom methods - since some people would want to do what you do, while others would want the more standardized 16:9 zoom, and some might want something else altogether). Further, it's possible that there are TVs out there that do what you describe, and I could see the argument that this is a feature which belongs in the TV, not the Apple TV.

In any case, I personally wouldn't ever want to do what you're describing. You're looking to lop off part of the image. You want a larger image? Here's my solution: Sit closer to your TV when watching a 2.35:1 movie. You'll get the same height as you had before, but this time you'll also be getting the full width of the movie, rather than throwing that away.

I'd prefer that Apple add 24fps support before they spent money on what you're describing (i.e., cater to people who want the best quality picture rather than people who are looking to compromise and lop off picture information).

marzer
Mar 27, 2012, 10:55 AM
The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

The key words are "my" and "I". Your personal preferences are as arguable as anyone elses. Much as your opinion of a 50" screen being small, it's the viewing distance that drives the ideal screen size. Of course personal preference (such as immersion or "just gotta have it bigger") will always dictate variations from person to person.

Watching a movie in its "full glory" is watching it in the original screen aspect. A "source" device ideally puts out a clean unmodified signal leaving it to the receiving device to mody it to the users preference. Much like the DTS/digital modes available on an audio receiver. Why not expect the Apple TV to provide those as well?

So yes, I agree, everyone is not in the same boat therefore they have the option to exercise the selectable settings on their TV to alter the original source picture format to their desired preferences.

paulrbeers
Mar 27, 2012, 11:25 AM
There are technical reasons as to why a media player is able to scale better than a TV and it is desirable to have it built into a media player. First of all not all TVs have it. Secondly not all TVs do it properly, I have seen some just stretch it form the top and bottom not the sides! I have never seen a variable zoom in a TV. It is easy to implement in the software in a media player as it require not additional hardware.
.

What I don't get about this....

What is the true "technical reason" for a media player to have zoom and not a tv? You gave a "my tv doesn't have it" "technical reason"... That's not a "technical reason". Using your "technical reason", the "technical reason" that an AppleTV doesn't have zoom, is because a TV SHOULD have it.

A Technical reason is something like "you should use digital audio connections because analog connections can experience interference from various sources in your home such as electrical wires and poor grounding". This is a fact and no technological advancement can get around the statement I just made. Your "technical reasons" are limitations to your equipment. Many TV's have the ability to do proper zooms, so just because your tv does not, does not make it a limitation of the technology (i.e. Technical), it just means that the particular manufacturer of your tv chose not to include this feature just like Apple is choosing not include this feature on their AppleTV's.

Also, tv's have the ability for firmware updates so TV's can have their software upgraded just like a media player. I've done it many times on my tvs.

Something tells me, you are someone who also uses "literally" incorrectly like "I literally have a splitting headache"....

dynaflash
Mar 27, 2012, 11:31 AM
While I *kinda* get why you might want to zoom. Simple fact is no matter how you do it you are altering the original content whether it be its aspect ratio or cropping off some of its field of view. I personally cannot in any way , shape or form see why you would want to do that on a flatscreen tv. I can see it on an iPhone or an iPad simply due to 1. the very small size of the screen . 2. because the iPad or iPhone is typically used with its own native screen instead of a TV that *should* offer this function on the tv end ... or "downstream" as it were.

Point is for my vote ... the appletv has no business altering the aspect ratio or field of view (ie. crop off the sides so you can fill the screen vertically). Pan and Scan is best left dead in the 80's. Just my .02

laurim
Mar 27, 2012, 12:31 PM
While I *kinda* get why you might want to zoom. Simple fact is no matter how you do it you are altering the original content whether it be its aspect ratio or cropping off some of its field of view. I personally cannot in any way , shape or form see why you would want to do that on a flatscreen tv. I can see it on an iPhone or an iPad simply due to 1. the very small size of the screen . 2. because the iPad or iPhone is typically used with its own native screen instead of a TV that *should* offer this function on the tv end ... or "downstream" as it were.

Point is for my vote ... the appletv has no business altering the aspect ratio or field of view (ie. crop off the sides so you can fill the screen vertically). Pan and Scan is best left dead in the 80's. Just my .02

Totally agree. There's absolutely no logical reason to zoom a movie on a tv. It adds no value whatsoever and actually degrades the experience, both in image quality and aesthetic value. It's like editing out all the "offensive" parts of a movie to make it suitable for a general broadcast audience. Don't ask Apple to degrade movies for you. Find some other way to do it if that's what you need.

dynaflash
Mar 27, 2012, 12:36 PM
@laurim: windy out today eh ? ;)

laurim
Mar 27, 2012, 12:47 PM
@laurim: windy out today eh ? ;)

Yeah, I should get outside and fly a kite, lol. I know one person here who thinks we should go fly a kite, huh?

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 04:31 PM
Media players are low cost consumable type item. You can change your media player every year or so but not your TV. As I said I prefer not too zoom in too close but don't want to lose 30% of the picture to those ugly bars. 15-20% loss is a happy medium for me.

Why does Apple release some 2.35 format movies in a 16:9 format?

Why we do not not have TV shows in 2.35 format? They are ugly and no business on 50" and smaller screens. The only reason you want to keep this bars would be if you are sitting on top of your TV.

dynaflash
Mar 27, 2012, 05:30 PM
Media players are low cost consumable type item. You can change your media player every year or so but not your TV. As I said I prefer not too zoom in too close but don't want to lose 30% of the picture to those ugly bars. 15-20% loss is a happy medium for me.

Why does Apple release some 2.35 format movies in a 16:9 format?

Why we do not not have TV shows in 2.35 format? They are ugly and no business on 50" and smaller screens. The only reason you want to keep this bars would be if you are sitting on top of your TV.
Huh? The aspect ratio depends how the director wanted it shot .. especially with major motion pictures . if you keep the ar what 30% of the picture are you losing ? Are you referring to the fact that your 16:9 tv has black on top and bottom ? Well of course thats because you cannot fit a square peg into a round hole as it were. This has been discussed ad nauseum and it would be frankly stupid for apple to offer zoom on a device made to hook to a tv that if its worth its salt, already has it built in! If not one better then because you can watch the source the way it was intended to be seen. In its native aspect ratio with none of the content hidden or cut off.

Bit of trivia: do you know why video content is wider than it is high ? Answer: physiological. The human eye scans much faster horizontally than vertically. Therefore wider is better than taller.

If your tv can't zoom to your *liking* I might suggest you a get new tv or better yet learn to just deal with the fact that its actually showing you what the director meant for you to see straight from the AppleTV which is honoring the original sources content.

Just sayin'.

steve-p
Mar 27, 2012, 05:34 PM
Why does Apple release some 2.35 format movies in a 16:9 format?
I expect they can only release the format the studio gives them.

simsaladimbamba
Mar 27, 2012, 05:37 PM
What happens if you watch 4:3 content, you know, those TV shows, that aired until the 2000s?
What about those big black bars on each side? Do you zoom in then?

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 05:56 PM
I expect they can only release the format the studio gives them.

I am told same movies are released as 2.35:1 format on Blu Ray discs.

MarkG21
Mar 27, 2012, 05:57 PM
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/764

An interesting read for some who has questions regarding this topic.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 06:02 PM
What happens if you watch 4:3 content, you know, those TV shows, that aired until the 2000s?
What about those big black bars on each side? Do you zoom in then?

Your comments show that you don't know how the zoom function works. When you zoom in with a 4:3 content you are losing the top and bottom in the middle part of your screen (Where normally the main characters in the scene are) not the sides. Zooming would mean losing the heads of the characters in the scene. It would be silly to zoom, having said that variable zoom can still work to some extent.

Normally the sides do not have a significant part of the scene the director is intending to show.

Irishman
Mar 27, 2012, 06:07 PM
The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

Apple didn't NEED to do it because it duplicates a feature found on most modern TVs. Plus, if the aspect gets out of whack, the user has to remember that both devices offer AR controls, and has to remember which one is causing the problem. Barring that, they have to fiddle with both controls until they fix it.

That's not the experience Apple was trying to create, I'm thinking.

hipnetic
Mar 27, 2012, 06:21 PM
Your comments show that you don't know how the zoom function works. When you zoom in with a 4:3 content you are losing the top and bottom in the middle part of your screen (Where normally the main characters in the scene are) not the sides. Zooming would mean losing the heads of the characters in the scene. It would be silly to zoom, having said that variable zoom can still work to some extent.

Normally the sides do not have a significant part of the scene the director is intending to show.No, there's just as much important/non-important visual stuff in the left/right portions as there is in the top/bottom portions.

As I mentioned before, if you're bothered by losing out on some of the height, you can sit closer. Or you can buy a larger TV. Lopping off part of the image should be the last thing you decide to do.

Also, FWIW, there once was a time when people had 4:3 (1.33:1) TV sets and some movies that were shot in a wider ratio (e.g., 1.85:1) were actually shot with a film format that captured more height, but the director intended to chop off the top/bottom sections, because he wanted it to be wider when displayed in theaters. When filming the movie, sometimes there would be boom microphones that would be recorded on film in that top section - the director didn't care because he knew that would be cropped off when displayed in the theater. When the movie eventually came out on VHS or DVD, the movie studio thought that it made sense to fill the entire screen, rather than show it in the format the director intended. The result was a presentation that filled the screen, but contained a lot of visual "crap" in the top/bottom sections (e.g., the boom microphone was visible).

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 06:24 PM
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/764

An interesting read for some who has questions regarding this topic.

Very nice article MarkG21. However it does not touch the concept of variable zoom. The idea behind 2.35:1 format movies is to preserve the theatrical version of the movies but most of the times you are not actually watching it in a theatre set up at home.

There is a nice example of what the cropping does in the article from a scene in the movie 'Once Upon a Time in the West.' As you your further go down to look at the same scene with 16:9 cropping, the two characters in the scene are not in the view. I'm not advocating 16:9 ratio but variable zoom. The two characters on the scene could have preserved to some extent with 10-20% zoom.

----------

Apple didn't NEED to do it because it duplicates a feature found on most modern TVs. Plus, if the aspect gets out of whack, the user has to remember that both devices offer AR controls, and has to remember which one is causing the problem. Barring that, they have to fiddle with both controls until they fix it.

That's not the experience Apple was trying to create, I'm thinking.

Tell me one TV which has a vaiable zoom function?

simsaladimbamba
Mar 27, 2012, 06:25 PM
Your comments show that you don't know how the zoom function works. When you zoom in with a 4:3 content you are losing the top and bottom in the middle part of your screen (Where normally the main characters in the scene are) not the sides. Zooming would mean losing the heads of the characters in the scene. It would be silly to zoom, having said that variable zoom can still work to some extent.

Normally the sides do not have a significant part of the scene the director is intending to show.

Your comment shows me, that you don't understand sarcasm.

I am a follower of the OAR, I even bought 2.35:1 VHS tapes of movies in the 90s, when 4:3 TVs were dominant and 16:9 TVs were a novelty. I don't mind the black bars, I understand why they are there.
If one needs a bigger picture, god damn it, get a bigger TV.

steve-p
Mar 27, 2012, 06:34 PM
Tell me one TV which has a vaiable zoom function?
I don't know of any. So I guess no-one really wants it after all. If they did, it would be common.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 06:42 PM
I don't know of any. So I guess no-one really wants it after all. If they did, it would be common.

There are plenty of people who don't want those bars regardless of the intentions of the movie studios to preserve the the theatrical version of the movie.


50" screen is more like a 35" screen with those black bars!

Irishman
Mar 27, 2012, 06:47 PM
I don't know of any. So I guess no-one really wants it after all. If they did, it would be common.

I think he means "variable". And if that's the case, that would look awful! It would jack up the proportions in both the x an y directions in mathematically different ways. All just to get rid of black bars???

Nah. Count me out of that train wreck.

laurim
Mar 27, 2012, 06:51 PM
[QUOTE=here2rock;14623117]... go down to look at the same scene with 16:9 cropping, the two characters in the scene are not in the view. I'm not advocating 16:9 ratio but variable zoom. The two characters on the scene could have preserved to some extent with 10-20% zoom.

Would you repeatedly zoom in and out of a movie while you watch it? How could you possibly anticipate what zoom you need as camera shots are rapidly changing? Or would you pre-watch the movie, analyze what zoom is best and go watch it again? Crazy!

The movie "Puss in Boots" is 2.35:1 and uses several sequences of split screen effects ala spaghetti westerns. Zooming in any would ruin this. I believe "Sliding Doors" does split screens as well. Many movies utilize the entire width and offset action in creative ways that zooming would ruin. Not to mention the use of subtitles. How many horror movies have the monster come at you from unexpected directions, or simply lurking in the corner (Like in "The Descent")? If you've only seen "Close Encounters.." in 16:9 you're really missing out. Just watch the damn movie, as it is. After a while, you won't notice the bars anymore. You are holding yourself back unnecessarily.

MarkG21
Mar 27, 2012, 06:57 PM
I can't really explain it well in words, but I absolutely love watching movies in 2.40 aspect ratio. I really do appreciate the wider picture as compared to a 16:9 movie. It's very hard for me to watch a 2.40 movie in "full screen" on TV. With that said, I'm fine if a movie is 16:9 if that is what it was intended to be.


Remember, with a 2.40 movie with black bars on the top/bottom, you are seeing more of a picture. You'd be losing picture if they put a 2.40 picture to 16:9. Less is definitely not better.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 07:06 PM
I think he means "variable". And if that's the case, that would look awful! It would jack up the proportions in both the x an y directions in mathematically different ways. All just to get rid of black bars???

Nah. Count me out of that train wreck.

I did not mean that at all. I meant variable zoom so you don't go from 2.35:1 to 16:9 but you find a happy medium between those two formats. I will try to demonstrate it later for you once I get the chance. Maybe you have never used it in your life so you are perhaps not in a good position to comment.

Irishman
Mar 27, 2012, 07:09 PM
I did not mean that at all. I meant variable zoom so you don't go from 2.35:1 to 16:9 but you find a happy medium between those two formats. I will try to demonstrate it later for you once I get the chance. Maybe you have never used it in your life so you are perhaps not in a good position to comment.

No, I have used it, but I do not like it.

I am an OAR (original aspect ratio) guy. I think we should respect the director's intent for the picture, pixel for pixel (not mucking with that by doing - variable zoom, Motionplus, overly saturated color - in ways that get away from that intent.

I hope that makes it clear.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 07:16 PM
I can't really explain it well in words, but I absolutely love watching movies in 2.40 aspect ratio. I really do appreciate the wider picture as compared to a 16:9 movie. It's very hard for me to watch a 2.40 movie in "full screen" on TV. With that said, I'm fine if a movie is 16:9 if that is what it was intended to be.


Remember, with a 2.40 movie with black bars on the top/bottom, you are seeing more of a picture. You'd be losing picture if they put a 2.40 picture to 16:9. Less is definitely not better.

What is your set up? How close do you sit fron the screen.

----------

No, I have used it, but I do not like it.

I am an OAR (original aspect ratio) guy. I think we should respect the director's intent for the picture, pixel for pixel (not mucking with that by doing - variable zoom, Motionplus, color saturation - in ways that get away from that intent.

I hope that makes it clear.

What is it? From yor comments on the previous few posts it appears that you don't know it.

2.35 ratio movies the director intended for the cinemas, they are not best suited for smaller screens.

Irishman
Mar 27, 2012, 07:47 PM
What is it? From yor comments on the previous few posts it appears that you don't know it.

2.35 ratio movies the director intended for the cinemas, they are not best suited for smaller screens.

Ah, I can tell by your comment about the larger size intended for cinemas that you've been in more than one debate about aspect ratio on HDTV (as have I). Suffice it to say that I'm not looking for another one of those debates, so the line I draw is where it comes to the characteristics of the asthetics of the image that the director intended. Size notwithstanding, (because as we both know, there is variation from cinema to cinema with regard to screen size - which one did the director intent for us to see?) my position and my preference is that if I took pictures with a professional-level DSLR and put them up side by side on the computer screen, I want the visual qualities of BOTH images - the cinema and my home display - to be identical, down to the amount of peripheral viewing angle I have when watching. This is why I sit 6 feet away from my 50" Pro-111FD when I want to do any critical viewing. The apparent size of the image comes closest to mimicking the cinema screen as allowed by the constraints of my room.

Okay, I'm done. :)

paulrbeers
Mar 27, 2012, 08:33 PM
Dude give it up. No one here supports your opinion that you should EVER zoom regardless if it is the tv or media device. You might as well give up.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 09:13 PM
This is why I sit 6 feet away from my 50" Pro-111FD when I want to do any critical viewing. The apparent size of the image comes closest to mimicking the cinema screen as allowed by the constraints of my room.

You are not sitting that far from your TV Set. If you double the difference those bars really start to look bad.

chiefpavvy
Mar 27, 2012, 09:17 PM
In my opinion 'ZOOM' in its various implementations is the worst thing they ever made. Watch the film as it was intended I don't understand folks who prefer to muck it all up just because every pixel of your display isn't filled!

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 09:24 PM
Dude give it up. No one here supports your opinion that you should EVER zoom regardless if it is the tv or media device. You might as well give up.

It does bother a lot of people including myself. The OP was bugged by the bars that is how it started. I have found the way which gets around this problem. I don't care too much of a theatrical version of the movie. I go to theatres to watch the full version or rewatch it in it's full format. At home I want to recover as much of my screen as possible.

The point I am trying to highlight is that Apple has not given any choices to the end user which is very poor in my opinion. It would have been very easy for them to keep everybody happy. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Not having this option only keeps the OAR guys happy not everyone else.

Why TV shows are not shot in 2.35:1 format?

BTW I am enjoying this thread very much and I mean no disrespect to anyone.

Irishman
Mar 27, 2012, 09:35 PM
You are not sitting that far from your TV Set. If you double the difference those bars really start to look bad.

I'm pretty certain that I know better than you do how far back I sit from my TV.

Unlike you, I don't look at the BARS. I look at the amazing content of the film I'm trying to view.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 09:49 PM
I don't look at the bars then get in my view unlike cinemas where the screens are wide.

laurim
Mar 27, 2012, 09:50 PM
It does bother a lot of people including myself. The OP was bugged by the bars that is how it started.

The OP thought something was wrong until people explained about aspect ratios. They were fine with it once they knew the reason for it. I think you're alone on this board.

The point I am trying to highlight is that Apple has not given any choices to the end user which is very poor in my opinion.

Apple is not known for catering to every potential customer's whim. They do what they think is best for the user's experience and are right in most cases. Change-resistant people often kick and scream but they eventually come around and realize it was the best thing to do. That's why floppy discs are dead. That's why flash is dying. If they pandered to everyone's wants their products would be a hodgepodge of little-used features and not the elegant, easy-to-use experiences they are known for. But you're a Windows guy so maybe you don't understand Apple's philosophy like Mac people do. Besides, would a company tied to Pixar really advocate bastardizing movies?


Why TV shows are not shot in 2.35:1 format?

Maybe because it's more expensive. TV shows only recently got into 16:9 HD because those cameras are expensive.

simsaladimbamba
Mar 27, 2012, 10:07 PM
@ blackbarsdislikers:

So you accept the blow up of 817 vertical pixel (of a 2.35:1 film) to 1080 vertical pixel and also the loss of a fourth of visual information, just because the black bars seem to you to show less information and thus you recover the "unused" black space?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10644330/MR_Image_Hotlinks/MR_screenshots/MR_screenshots_2012_03/2012_03_28_pA1_AspectRatioShit.png

I never understood it, but I guess it comes from different perspectives and how a films looked upon. As far as I can gather, people who see films just as entertainment, don't like bars (very rough generalisation), but people who can also enjoy the artistic aspect of film making, and lets face it, there is some art out there besides the Hollywood dreck, fully accept those bars, as director/cinematographer are either known or at least their roles understood.
Again, this is just what I have seen, thus my opinion, which is subjective, as no real objective data about the correlation of aspect ratio and its importance with film watchers. Maybe once we defeated the evil on this planet, we can send someone to write some paper about it. Until then, we will have to speculate. Which reminds me, yesterday/today was Tuesday. Didn't the new Mac was supposed to be released?

MarkG21
Mar 27, 2012, 10:18 PM
It does bother a lot of people including myself. The OP was bugged by the bars that is how it started. I have found the way which gets around this problem. I don't care too much of a theatrical version of the movie. I go to theatres to watch the full version or rewatch it in it's full format. At home I want to recover as much of my screen as possible.

The point I am trying to highlight is that Apple has not given any choices to the end user which is very poor in my opinion. It would have been very easy for them to keep everybody happy. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Not having this option only keeps the OAR guys happy not everyone else.

Why TV shows are not shot in 2.35:1 format?

BTW I am enjoying this thread very much and I mean no disrespect to anyone.

I'd have to agree with the poster above. I don't think Apple would be accommodating to anybody by adding a zoom feature in. Movies are not meant to be zoomed in just to fill the TV. There is really no benefit zooming in. It's worse. I'm not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but that's how it's supposed to be.


TV shows are shot in 16:9 because that it pretty much standard nowadays for the TV industry. TV shows and movies are very different. Generally, you don't need as much space in a TV show as compared to a movie. For movies, directors choose which aspect ratio they see best fit for their movie, be it 4:3, 16:9, or 2.40.


To go a bit further, TV shows are meant to be shown on TVs, hense why the standard is 16:9. Movies aren't made to be displayed on TVs, rather on screens that can accomodate how they are filmed. Obviously, you can watch movies on a TV, but it will adjust accordantly.

here2rock
Mar 27, 2012, 10:40 PM
The OP thought something was wrong until people explained about aspect ratios. They were fine with it once they knew the reason for it.

Maybe because it's more expensive. TV shows only recently got into 16:9 HD because those cameras are expensive.

The OP thought something was wrong, yes, the bars! He is forced to accept it because there is no option. I don't think he accepted the decision with a smile on his face.

TV shows are desinged for smaller screens, the 2.35:1 format is not desireable because of the size constraint. It makes no sense for TV producers not to use the full screen.

It does not matter whether I am the only one arguing the case. Everybody else thought the Orville and Wilbur Wright brothers were insane. BTW they invented the first airplane.

steve-p
Mar 28, 2012, 03:00 AM
The OP thought something was wrong, yes, the bars! He is forced to accept it because there is no option. I don't think he accepted the decision with a smile on his face.

TV shows are desinged for smaller screens, the 2.35:1 format is not desireable because of the size constraint. It makes no sense for TV producers not to use the full screen.

It does not matter whether I am the only one arguing the case. Everybody else thought the Orville and Wilbur Wright brothers were insane. BTW they invented the first airplane.
We have already established that the OP is not forced to accept it at all. TVs generally have a perfectly good zoom function which will scale the 2.35:1 picture automatically to completely fill a 16:9 frame and lose picture information from the sides, if he so chooses to do. TV manufacturers realise that some people don't like the bars. Apple realises that TV manufacturers are already providing a solution. The fact that neither black bars nor a full frame zoom are acceptable to you is your issue, not Apple's, or the TV manufacturers.

The analogy with the Wright brothers is hilarious by the way. I personally don't see any connection between inventing something radically new and complaining because you don't like black bars and won't accept the fixed zoom solution that TV manufacturers provide either.

here2rock
Mar 28, 2012, 05:01 AM
steve-p, I won't quote you but I still like my movies zoomed in, not all the way to 16:9 but enough so the black bars are not annoying. If you like to watch your movies in full 2.35:1 then good luck to you. I don't have trouble with it.

I am just hoping someone will JB it soon so I can it have it my way!

Wright brothers was just a joke, I am surprised you took it seriously!

Beerstalker
Mar 29, 2012, 01:22 PM
I haven't seen it posted yet, so I figured I could at least add this bit of information. When they were coming up with the HDTV/ATSC standard they came up with the 16:9 format and created it for that standard. They did this to create a happy medium between all of the different aspect ratios that they knew were out there. TV was almost 100% shot in 4:3 aspect at the time. Movies were divided up between a few different ratios but the most common were 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. 16:9 is very close in size to 1.85:1 (it's 1.78:1). It's so close in fact that some studios actually will crop their 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 for blu-ray/DVD and most consumers/directors don't complain too much about it. 16:9 is also a happy medium between 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1. By using 16:9 they were able to minimize the black bars on the sides of 4:3 content and on the top/bottom of 2.35:1 content so you were able to use as much of your screen as possible to view both.

That is how/why the 16:9 standard was created.

here2rock
Mar 29, 2012, 03:27 PM
Very interesting it backs up my argument that 16:9 is kind of a happy medium. I go one step further I chose my own ratio and go between 2.25:1 to 16:9. I still have bars at the top and bottom but not to such an extent.

dynaflash
Mar 29, 2012, 03:42 PM
Geesh, this is still going on ? it is what it is. might be best not chasing unicorns :rolleyes: