DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**bonyrek** · 09-05-2009, 04:53 AM

Buy a big 16:9 wide screen so that the image area is large enough even with black bars. Maybe something like 100 inches?

2.35:1 or even 2.66:1 over 1.78:1 (16:9) exists probably because home screens were rare or non-existent, when "living picture" took its first steps for large audience. If you imagine a 16:9 screen in cinema instead 2.35:1 or 2.66:1, you will understand the reason for this. Well, it is matter of taste, but it should give more perspective.

This doesn't help at all, if you want to get rid of black bars. There is simply no movies or any "real" videos which support higher width than 1920 pixels. Film movies (if re-mastered) have much higher resolution than 1920x1080, but I'm not sure, if anyone is interested to offer higher resolution version for tiny minority because it is not profitable. This 21:9 screen just bring more black bar problems, if the image source is not 2.35:1

Blu-ray (dunno about HD-DVD) doesn't even support anamorphic videos so you can't get any extra vertical resolution for wider than 16:9 videos, even if you have wider than 16:9 display. All stand-alone players won't stretch the image prorperly, if it is anamorphic. It was probably left out because 16:9 HDTV is the most common (almost the only one) aspect ratio for HDTV displays.

2.35:1 vs 16:9 is artistic and "for the cinemas" issue. I hate black bars too, but there is no way that I would cut/distort anything from the image to get some other aspect ratio. Directors like certain aspect ratios and they think cinemas (huge screen) as main target.

09-05-2009, 04:53 AM	#55
bonyrek Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 435 Senior Member	Buy a big 16:9 wide screen so that the image area is large enough even with black bars. Maybe something like 100 inches? 2.35:1 or even 2.66:1 over 1.78:1 (16:9) exists probably because home screens were rare or non-existent, when "living picture" took its first steps for large audience. If you imagine a 16:9 screen in cinema instead 2.35:1 or 2.66:1, you will understand the reason for this. Well, it is matter of taste, but it should give more perspective. This doesn't help at all, if you want to get rid of black bars. There is simply no movies or any "real" videos which support higher width than 1920 pixels. Film movies (if re-mastered) have much higher resolution than 1920x1080, but I'm not sure, if anyone is interested to offer higher resolution version for tiny minority because it is not profitable. This 21:9 screen just bring more black bar problems, if the image source is not 2.35:1 Blu-ray (dunno about HD-DVD) doesn't even support anamorphic videos so you can't get any extra vertical resolution for wider than 16:9 videos, even if you have wider than 16:9 display. All stand-alone players won't stretch the image prorperly, if it is anamorphic. It was probably left out because 16:9 HDTV is the most common (almost the only one) aspect ratio for HDTV displays. 2.35:1 vs 16:9 is artistic and "for the cinemas" issue. I hate black bars too, but there is no way that I would cut/distort anything from the image to get some other aspect ratio. Directors like certain aspect ratios and they think cinemas (huge screen) as main target.
	Quote