How do I watch a movie in itunes on my mac without 2 big black bars ?

[kolax]

This is leading to a lot of problems with HD content on Cable/satellite. HBO/Cinemax/etc are all showing 2.35:1 aspect movies at 1.78:1 in order to appease the 'I want my screen filled' crowd. Ugh.

I'm so sick of this fullscreen/widescreen argument, I could just puke.

If you have a big tele, what's the point in it being 16:9 if no movies or DVD's were altered to suit it?

It is wasted space - I like to fill my screen. Make the image larger, see more of what is going on. Make the experience better.

You'd complain right away if you went to the cinema and their screen was huge, but you were only using a proportion of it. The IMAX cinemas are not an example of that.

 

[MattA]

You'd complain right away if you went to the cinema and their screen was huge, but you were only using a proportion of it. The IMAX cinemas are not an example of that.

Um, no. No one complains about it. It happens all the time. The next time you go to the movies, look around the screen. You'll see lots of curtains. Those curtains can be maneuvered to create different aspect ratios. When you watch a widescreen movie at home, they are preserving this aspect ratio. Please, don't butcher it.

If you have a big tele, what's the point in it being 16:9 if no movies or DVD's were altered to suit it?

I have a 55" 16:9 television. I will never ever ever watch anything in a Modified Aspect Ratio. Ever. Period. When I watch 2.35:1 movies, they have black bars. That's the way it goes. And yes. They look fantastic.

It is wasted space - I like to fill my screen. Make the image larger, see more of what is going on. Make the experience better.

It isn't wasted space, it's unused space. It's space that wasn't supposed to be filled. If you need a larger image, get a larger screen. Personally, I think a maimed image is a worse experience.

Apparently, your mileage may vary.

 

[ftaok]

Wow! Not many helpful folks on this one.

The OP doesn't like the letterboxing on his movies. It's his preference. Let's not brow beat him into watching movies in OAR when it's obvious it's not his preference.

Either suggest a solution to his problem, or don't post. Unfortuneatly, unless you strip the DRM off and use VLC, I don't think there is a solution. Perhaps you can suggest to Apple that they allow for "cropped" viewing.

ft

 

[JNB]

It's called letterboxing (fig. 1), and unless you've been away from a TV in the last ten years, you should be familiar with it. It's used to preserve the entire filmed image without cropping (fig. 2) or distortion (fig. 3). To eliminate it on a standard TV or most monitors, you'll make for a lesser experience, simply in the name of "filling the frame". Maybe a picture would help.

 

[MattA]

Wow! Not many helpful folks on this one.

The OP doesn't like the letterboxing on his movies. It's his preference. Let's not brow beat him into watching movies in OAR when it's obvious it's not his preference.

Either suggest a solution to his problem, or don't post. Unfortuneatly, unless you strip the DRM off and use VLC, I don't think there is a solution. Perhaps you can suggest to Apple that they allow for "cropped" viewing.

ft

Yeah, my biggest fear is that there will always be panned/scanned copies of movies forever, which is a horrible thing. A cropped viewing selection would be good, in that people wouldn't need a second version. I'm surprised Apple didn't include this in iTunes (not that it's a bad thing )

 

[ChrisA]

I rented a movie on itunes and watched it on my imac (20inch)
I put it into full screen mode but the movie (iam legend) was still spoiled by 2 large black borders at the top and at the bottom of the screen

So the movie is wider than the screen. You only have 3 options:

1. Trim the edges off the movie and watch only the center of the picture
2. Show all of the movie but fill in the un-used part of the screen with black
3. Warp or stretch the movie so it's dimensions match your screens dimensions

You say you don't like #2. Which would you prefer #1 or #3? If you go and see the movie in the theater the projectionist always does #2 but because the theater is dark you don't notice the dark areas of the screen. Try turning off the room lights

 

[i0Nic]

I still can't believe people would prefer to watch a distorted or cut film just to fill up the space of the screen. When you go to the cinema, the curtains are blocking off a portion of the screen, do you also complain that the cinema isn't utilising the whole screen?

On the iPhone it works well, you watch a film in it's proper aspect ratio but for the times when you'd prefer a bigger picture (due to the size limitation of the iphone's screen) you double tap and it fills the screen with the centered image. On a TV, you have a big enough image to watch the movie in the proper aspect ratio, if you want a bigger picture get a bigger screen.

 

[kolax]

Um, no. No one complains about it. It happens all the time. The next time you go to the movies, look around the screen. You'll see lots of curtains. Those curtains can be maneuvered to create different aspect ratios. When you watch a widescreen movie at home, they are preserving this aspect ratio. Please, don't butcher it.

The cinemas here don't have curtains - the adverts before the show are in 16:9, then the actual film is in 2:35:1 or whatever other ratio it was shot in.

It isn't wasted space, it's unused space. It's space that wasn't supposed to be filled. If you need a larger image, get a larger screen. Personally, I think a maimed image is a worse experience.

Yes it is space that wasn't supposed to be filled in the cinema, but back at home, it looks much better filling the screen, rather than being a wee rectangle through the middle.

I have a big enough tele at the moment - why should I buy a bigger one just to view movies, when I can crop them and lose a wee bit off the sides, but make the actual image bigger and fill the screen?

Tbh there's no right/wrong answer to this argument, it is all personal preference. Until some point in the future, where you can adjust your TV's aspect ratio (rolled up OLED screens for example) or using a projector, it is always going to be an issue.

 

[Sdashiki]

Right answer: watching the film
Wrong answer: watching the film distorted or cropped


When you already have a pan/scan or fullscren version, fine, you cant create detail lost.

But, when you have something widescreen that doesnt quite fit YOUR widescreen monitors aspect ratio, the solution is NOT to distort the image.


Do you really think the right answer to playing full screen is FAT or TALL actors on screen? I dont think so.

Its not a personal preference to distort, its just a misinformed solution.

 

[kolax]

Do you really think the right answer to playing full screen is FAT or TALL actors on screen? I dont think so.

Its not a personal preference to distort, its just a misinformed solution.

You have missed it completely! That is changing the aspect ratio. Which will do that. Cropping is chopping off pixels, and in this case, from the sides, so the image fills the screen more. Everything will look the same, apart from you are loosing 50 pixels from the left and right (don't quote me on that, it varies from the source resolution, aspect ratio etc).

It is a personal preference. I was never "informed" by anyone to crop my videos and try to make them fill the screen as much as possible without cutting quality or vital parts of the movie.

I don't crop the whole movie to 16:9, but I crop it to an extent that the black bars at the top and bottom are much smaller, so the overall image is larger. I make sure when cropping that what I do crop is extra space, and doesn't contain any vital stuff to the scenes.

 

[i0Nic]

You have missed it completely! That is changing the aspect ratio. Which will do that. Cropping is chopping off pixels, and in this case, from the sides, so the image fills the screen more. Everything will look the same, apart from you are loosing 50 pixels from the left and right (don't quote me on that, it varies from the source resolution, aspect ratio etc).

It is a personal preference. I was never "informed" by anyone to crop my videos and try to make them fill the screen as much as possible without cutting quality or vital parts of the movie.

I don't crop the whole movie to 16:9, but I crop it to an extent that the black bars at the top and bottom are much smaller, so the overall image is larger. I make sure when cropping that what I do crop is extra space, and doesn't contain any vital stuff to the scenes.

With cropping you can lose quite a lot of the image depending on the aspect ratio, more than '50 pixels' which doesn't mean anything when talking about film. Scenes may lose their intended impact, any cinematographer would shudder at the thought of their carefully composed images being cut to suit the tv screen. Things that the director might want you to see may be cut out. Titles/credits/most writing will probably be cut short. Some people realise this and then, unfathomably, decide it's better to STRETCH the picture to fill the whole screen making everything look distorted so at least they can see the whole picture. All this is ridiculous, just watch the movie in the intended ratio.

edit- a lot of directors like to use very wide aspect ratio because it makes the movie more cinematic or epic. By cropping these films, you will lose A LOT of the picture, and completely ruin the cinematic/epic feel of the movie.

 

[ftaok]

Right answer: watching the film
Wrong answer: watching the film distorted or cropped

Wow! You sure have a mighty high opinion of yourself.

I can appreciate your preference, as it's the same as mine. But keep in mind that yours' is not the only preference. The OP prefers not to have letterboxing for his movies/shows. That's fine. Many people don't like letterbox presentations.

I understand the OAR purist's concerns. The more people complain about letterboxing, the more likely we'll be forced to watch 2.35 films cropped to 1.78. I think a better solution would be to encode all DVD/BD/iTunes movies in their OAR and allow for the player to do a center-crop (or pan-and-scan crop). That way, we can all get what we want.

The iPhone/iPod have center-cut capability and I think the OP would be satisfied with that same ability within iTunes.

ft

 

[kolax]

With cropping you can lose quite a lot of the image depending on the aspect ratio, more than '50 pixels' which doesn't mean anything when talking about film.

I didn't say the 50 pixels was accurate, it was merely an example. Might be less - I never said I cropped the movie to be 16:9, I said I cropped it to fill the screen more.

Cropping to 16:9 will cut off a lot, however cropping a bit from the left and right, you aren't missing anything.

If the Director wants you to see something, he's hardly going to position it right in the corner (if it were an SD movie, within 25 pixels from the edge). It would generally be missed by people, as your general concentration is on the centre of the picture.

 

[MacBoobsPro]

If you zoom/crop the magenta bits are the bits you are discarding and usually works out at about 25% of the screen.

The cyan bits are the bits you will see. The black bits are obviously the black bars.

 

[ftaok]

If you zoom/crop the magenta bits are the bits you are discarding and usually works out at about 25% of the screen.

The cyan bits are the bits you will see. The black bits are obviously the black bars.

The amount you lose to side-cropping depends on the aspect ratio of the original material. It's easy enough to calculate. In fact, I just did.

Assumptions: movie is 1280 pixels wide; viewing monitor is 16:10

A 2.35 movie will have a resolution of 1280x545. Center cropping it to fit a 16:10 ratio will make that 872x545. So you lose 408 vertical columns. It's about a loss of 32% of the horizontal resolution.

A 16:9 TV show will have a 1280x720 resolution. Center cropping will drop that to 1152x720. You lose 128 columns (10%).

I would think that a 32% loss would be objectionable to me, while I could live with a 10% loss for TV shows (and other 16:9 movies).

ft

 

[wildmilne]

For those trying to describe why they should watch it with the black bars, give it up, i spent years in these discussions, if they cant understand it in 5 mins they'll never get it.

 

[BOSS10L]

People who want to watch widescreen movies in 'full screen' are at fault for DVD having full screen releases. I really wish that crap would go away.

The black bars are NOT an aberration. The are unused space. They are black for low contrast. That is all. If you don't like it, go buy a square monitor, and watch fullscreen DVDs.

This is leading to a lot of problems with HD content on Cable/satellite. HBO/Cinemax/etc are all showing 2.35:1 aspect movies at 1.78:1 in order to appease the 'I want my screen filled' crowd. Ugh.

I'm so sick of this fullscreen/widescreen argument, I could just puke.

OAR or I ain't watchin' it.

If only there were a way to do constant height keeping OAR intact with everything. I can't for the life of me understand why people want to chop off as much as a 3rd of the screen simply because they don't like black bars.

 

[Topher15]

Watching the film as the director intended it to be seen it much better. Anyway, after a few minutes of watching a film in letterbox I don't even notice the black bars.

Why letterbox is better:
Sydney Pollack on pan and scan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw
Aspect ratios: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNcp49OdUao
Directors on pan and scan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcEtFcgfonY
Blade Runner - pan and scan vs. widescreen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETGfeSim1K4

 

[Topher15]

It is wasted space - I like to fill my screen. Make the image larger, see more of what is going on. Make the experience better.

Actually, you're seeing LESS, sometimes up to 50% less! What on earth makes you think you're seeing more?!

Pan and scan butchers the film, particularly in scenes with two or more people and/or when the environment is important to the scene. When a technician recuts the film for pan and scan they are redirecting it! Furthermore, in most cases the reactions of other characters are important as the person speaking, however in pan and scan you only see that person, thus the directors intentions have been removed. Same with the environment. Also, by zooming in to the frame the quality is reduced.

This problem will always remain. When the director shoots 16:9 you get letter box. When the director shoots 4:3 you get pillerbox.

I know it is ultimately preference, I used to prefer full screen, but when you actually think it through I cannot see how anyone can come to the conclusion that butchering the film is better in any way whatsoever.

I make sure when cropping that what I do crop is extra space, and doesn't contain any vital stuff to the scenes.

So do you watch the whole film as the director intended it to be seen in order to clarify no vital stuff is on the edge of the scene, and the crop it? What is there IS vital stuff?

The fact is if the film is in wide aspect ratio then the director chose it for a reason, so you're unlikely to find irrelevant stuff at the edges that can just be disposed of. If the director was just going to fill the edges with irrelevant stuff they would have just shot in 4:3 to begin with.

Cropping to 16:9 will cut off a lot, however cropping a bit from the left and right, you aren't missing anything.

If the Director wants you to see something, he's hardly going to position it right in the corner (if it were an SD movie, within 25 pixels from the edge). It would generally be missed by people, as your general concentration is on the centre of the picture.

Wrong. Watch the videos I posted above. These directors explain and show why.

The directors and the cinematographer design each shot for the aspect ratio they work in. Changing the aspect ratio ruins the information in the shot and/or the feel of the shot.

There may be important things on the sides... you may have important parts of the environment (such as in Lawrence of Arabia where the entire atmosphere of the films desert scenes are lost by cutting off the edges), you may have two characters whose faces are cut out (hence the need for pan and scan, and hence the problem I mentioned above where you loose character reactions by only focusing on one person at a time.)

 

[Veri]

I'm going to annoy most posters here by saying that I usually prefer my pictures to take up the whole screen, by either distortion or cropping.

My eyes are dumb - they can only take a picture and send it to my brain - so I want as much relevant information entering my brain as possible. Unless I have a monster screen in front of me, that's done by choosing as large an image as possible. I then leave it up to my head to un-distort the image, if I'm stretching, or guess the usually predictable detail on the edges of the screen, if cropping. And usually it does a good job of it.

Those who elect to stretch the image then say they "don't notice" that everyone looks wrong are merely confirming that the brain is doing the visual processing it's so good at. We're there to enjoy/learn from the film as we want, not as the director wants us to.

 

[Topher15]

so I want as much relevant information entering my brain as possible.

Some of which WILL be cut of by pan and scan. If the director chooses a wide aspect ratio then that story was designed to be told in that ratio, and so everything on the screen is relevant. Even if something is peripheral and not the point of focus it may be just as important (in fact when it relates to the atmosphere of the film then the everything on screen is important).

These two video that I posted above show this. I don't see how anyone can watch them and still think it is better to butcher the film.

Sydney Pollack on pan and scan
Directors on pan and scan

As mentioned in the second link... what if you cut the edges of Da Vinci's The Last Supper, leaving only six disciples. You're surely not going to say: "well, at least Jesus is still there!"

We're there to enjoy/learn from the film as we want, not as the director wants us to.

You can take away from that experience and interpret the film how ever you like; the director isn't forcing the interpretation on you, but that doesn't allow you to butcher their film! It's the directors work; you watch it how they intended it to be watched. Watch it any other way and you're no longer watching their film.

 

[0098386]

I don't really care much what the intention is or what directors and such have to say about it...

I don't stretch the image but I will hide the bars. I have a 20" monitor and sit about 8' away when watching a film or TV show on it and I'm not losing a couple of inches that far back. I just zoom into the vid, in VLC on the PC I use the 16:10 crop, or in DVD Player I just zoom in enough so the black bars vanish. If it's stupidly wide then I'll settle for some middle ground so I don't lose the edges too much. I never stretch the image though, I don't like people looking fatter or thinner than normal. Find it messes up perspective and such to the degree it makes me feel a little dizzy in fast scenes.

I'm quite happy with UK TV that on the living rooms 40" HDTV all broadcasts either fit perfectly or stretch old 4:3 footage. But thankfully everything new is widescreen w/o black bars on our lovely big TV.

 

[Topher15]

I don't really care much what the intention is or what directors and such have to say about it...

That's fine... but don't think you're watching their film.

 

[JNB]

Boy, I'd love to see how the "full-screen" crowd would've ever watched a Cinerama film.

 

[0098386]

That's fine... but don't think you're watching their film.

Eh, but I am. I walk away knowing the story of what just happened. I know and recall 100% of the events that took place...

What about people who use headphones to watch films, or who don't have 5.1 speakers? Are they also not "watching their film"?