Support NeoGAF

[EricDiesel]

... colorblindness has no bearing on any of this discussion.

OP are you colorblind or something? That's the only excuse I can think of for not noticing the difference between SD and HD, and even then it's a stretch.

Learn to read, please. I said it was unlikely in my post. And "or something" means I was just asking if he had any vision problem, not just colorblindness. Read between the lines, dude.

 

[DoomGyver]

I have a question that actually relates to the topic title... I bought Socom Confrontation the other day and when I have it set to 1080p on my monitor I have nasty black bars on top and bottom (with 1:1 pixel mapping) part of the image is actually cut off. If I set it to 720p it displays fine.

Now the kicker is if I play it on my HDTV in 1080p it displays perfectly. Is this a problem with the game? Are some screens just not compatible? Coding error?

 

[PjotrStroganov]

I have a question that actually relates to the topic title... I bought Socom Confrontation the other day and when I have it set to 1080p on my monitor I have nasty black bars on top and bottom (with 1:1 pixel mapping) part of the image is actually cut off. If I set it to 720p it displays fine.

Now the kicker is if I play it on my HDTV in 1080p it displays perfectly. Is this a problem with the game? Are some screens just not compatible? Coding error?

16:10 screen?

 

[thrasher]

Wonder how many poor PS3 souls must be playing like this

 

[DoomGyver]

16:10 screen?

Yes, but it has 1:1 pixel mapping, all other games display fine in 1900x1080.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Yes, but it has 1:1 pixel mapping, all other games display fine in 1900x1080.

Are those other games actually 1080p? Remember that most PS3 games don't get upscaled to the maximum res you have selected in your image settings. Maybe they are just 720p, and only 1080p games have this problem?

 

[65536]

Most monitors are 16:10 rather than 16:9 so it'll be 1920x1200.

1:1 mapping a 1920x1080 signal to that will result in small black bars top and bottom.

If you don't see this when sending 720p signals to the screen, they are probably being overscanned, so some of the image off the left & right will be getting cut off.

Either that or they'll be stretched to 16:10.

 

[Meier]

The irony of this is that people like the OP will talk about the Wii killing gaming and their hobby and yet they can't even figure out how to hook up their new system. How do you think the average consumer feels?

 

[FoxSpirit]

I believe I once read that actually 80% of the people with a HD console and a HD TV don't experience it in HD because the consoles don't come with the proper cables.

And I believe that.

 

[TheExodu5]

This thread is horrifying in so many ways. OP are you colorblind or something? That's the only excuse I can think of for not noticing the difference between SD and HD, and even then it's a stretch. I'm no videophile, but I think SD on an LCD looks like blurry garbage. It doesn't really show up too obviously in still pictures, but in motion you get all sorts of ghosting.

WTF does colorblindness have to do with anything? I'm colorblind, have 20/10 vision, and am nearly as big of a videophile as they come.

 

[dallow_bg]

WTF does colorblindness have to do with anything? I'm colorblind, have 20/10 vision, and am nearly as big of a videophile as they come.

If you're a videophile then why you want all directors to film in one standard ratio, constricting their creativity.

It's like saying there's should only be one kind of photograph size.

 

[TheExodu5]

If you're a videophile then why you want all directors to film in one standard ratio, constricting their creativity.

Because I'm a videophile, not an artist. I want the best picture possible. I don't think you understand what videophile means.

Also, I don't think restricting them to 16:9 would do anything to their creativity. I don't think 2.35:1 is particularly creative in any way.

A good example was brought up earlier, and that was The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray. When watching, it's just so much better when you're viewing the 16:9 IMAX video. It's a big WTF when it goes back to 2.4:1.

I don't think director's should be forced to use a certain ratio. No, I just wished they used 16:9 when 2.35:1 doesn't anything to their movie. There are a few movies where a video aspect ratio seems to have been necessary. Ben Hur is the best example I can think of, though it only seems to be an issue during the chariot race. If I had the choice though, I'd probably trade the wide screen aspect for 16:9 and end up with double the detail in my picture.

Also, take Wall-E. Another 2.35:1 movie. Can you point me to any particular scene that actually benefits from this ratio, rather than 16:9? Keep in mind this is a digitally created movie, so there's no such thing as image cropping and pan and scan in this case.

I guess you could say my issue is more with the half-assed use of wider than wide aspect ratios. If you've got no reason to use it, then don't.

 

[Meier]

Also, take Wall-E. Another 2.35:1 movie. Can you point me to any particular scene that actually benefits from this ratio, rather than 16:9? Keep in mind this is a digitally created movie, so there's no such thing as image cropping and pan and scan in this case.

I guess you could say my issue is more with the half-assed use of wider than wide aspect ratios. If you've got no reason to use it, then don't.

How about ohh any of the (many) sweeping landscape shots?

 

[dallow_bg]

Oh, sorry, I was thinking cinemaphile when I read videophile.

 

[ithorien]

How about ohh any of the (many) sweeping landscape shots?

Agree with this. Many movies that use 2.4 use it because of the panorama shots and trying to get as much into the frame as possible.

You have to remember, most of these films are blockbusters with their first audience being the theater audience. Screen is huge, aspect ratio isn't an issue especially with curtains that move, and you get the intended experience. The only way to replicate that at home is to buy the biggest TV/projector as possible, and install movable curtains so when you watch a 2.4 movie as opposed to 1.78, black bars won't bother you.

Movies aren't made so that your convenience at home is satisfied. They're made so that you get a kick ass experience at the theater, and spend that 10 dollars on a ticket.

And possibly do it again- case and point The Dark Knight.

 

[Kyo]

Uh, that's not what we're arguing. What if they released Seven Samurai in fucking color and cropped that shit to 16:9 so it would fit our widescreen tv's. That's the issue we have. Leave the original film the way it was shot.

No, actually the discussion we're having indeed seems to be close to "Seven Samurai can't be all that epic since it wasn't shot at an aspect ratio of 2.4:1". Of course that's idiotic, but it's the core of the whole "it's gotta be ultra-wide" thinking.

Agree with this. Many movies that use 2.4 use it because of the panorama shots and trying to get as much into the frame as possible.

People, get your logic straight. You don't get more into a frame just by using a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. One perfectly correct way of looking at it is this: If you framed the same scene in 16:9, you could fit in all that's in the 2.4:1 shot plus more at the bottom and at the top.

 

[Zoe]

People, get your logic straight. You don't get more into a frame just by using a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. One perfectly correct way of looking at it is this: If you framed the same scene in 16:9, you could fit in all that's in the 2.4:1 shot plus more at the bottom and at the top.

You might as well go 4:3! Then you'll get all of the 2.4:1 shot plus the extra view from 16:9 PLUS more at the bottom and at the top once again!

 

[ithorien]

People, get your logic straight. You don't get more into a frame just by using a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. One perfectly correct way of looking at it is this: If you framed the same scene in 16:9, you could fit in all that's in the 2.4:1 shot plus more at the bottom and at the top.

Let me rephrase. With the intended perspective and point of view, you get more things into the frame. You know, the whole idea of adding a second monitor to your PC.

 

[Fuzzy]

People, get your logic straight. You don't get more into a frame just by using a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. One perfectly correct way of looking at it is this: If you framed the same scene in 16:9, you could fit in all that's in the 2.4:1 shot plus more at the bottom and at the top.

Everything would be zoomed out in order to accomplish that.

 

[Xavien]

Oh god, what have i started :lol

I certainly didn't expect the thread to blow up over my thoughts on the issue.

You might as well go 4:3! Then you'll get all of the 2.4:1 shot plus the extra view from 16:9 PLUS more at the bottom and at the top once again!

That's just over the top, there is a visible difference between 4:3 and 16:9, but 2.35:1 is just extra wide for the sake of wideness, when i'm sitting here at home with my 42" plasma the extra-wide picture doesn't give me the feeling of "epic", it gives me the feeling of "oh great, space wasted on black bars".

And, what someone said earlier about there would be an outcry if there was 2.35:1 in games, i certainly agree, yet we seem to tolerate wasted screen-space when it comes to films, why?

 

[ithorien]

Oh god, what have i started :lol

I certainly didn't expect the thread to blow up over my thoughts on the issue.

At least your avatar is filled with awesome

But it's all just clashing points of views. Aspect ratio wars.

 

[dallow_bg]

I would love a game in 2.35

 

[AlphaTwo00]

I would love a game in 2.35

The original Perfect Dark had it.

 

[ithorien]

If my math is correct, it would take a 50" TV running in 2.35:1 in order to be just as tall but wider than my 16:9 40" bravia, which isn't as crazy as I originally thought.

 

[dallow_bg]

The original Perfect Dark had it.

On N64? Really? Hmm.

It had even a widescreen mode?
Or was the game letterboxed?

 

[AlphaTwo00]

On N64? Really? Hmm.

It had even a widescreen mode?
Or was the game letterboxed?

It has anamorphic Widescreen and Cinema (2.4:1)

 

[TheExodu5]

Everything would be zoomed out in order to accomplish that.

But having a 2.4:1 image makes it just as zoomed out. It's no different. The only difference is you need a camera with a higher fov capture. In the case of a digital movie like Wall-E, that's completely trivial.

Basically, the image would be zoomed out and 1.777/2.35 = 0.75 times the size. So the image is 25% smaller, right? But then you're displaying on your full 16:9 screen, rather than just a portion of it at 2.35:1. They chancel each other out, giving you that portion of the image at the exact same size.

If my math is correct, it would take a 50" TV running in 2.35:1 in order to be just as tall but wider than my 16:9 40" bravia, which isn't as crazy as I originally thought.

That's about right. You're losing $1000 worth of TV with 2.35:1 material.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

And, what someone said earlier about there would be an outcry if there was 2.35:1 in games, i certainly agree, yet we seem to tolerate wasted screen-space when it comes to films, why?

Games are made for TVs. Films are not.

 

[Meier]

And, what someone said earlier about there would be an outcry if there was 2.35:1 in games, i certainly agree, yet we seem to tolerate wasted screen-space when it comes to films, why?

This is not an accurate comparison because games are being played at either 4:3 or 16:9. There is never a situation where 2.35:1 would be their native size whereas that is frequently the case in a movie theatre.

 

[TheExodu5]

This is not an accurate comparison because games are being played at either 4:3 or 16:9. There is never a situation where 2.35:1 would be their native size whereas that is frequently the case in a movie theatre.

Huh? What's the difference? We're arguing about making 16:9 the native size for movies, not taking 2.35:1 source material and chopping it up.

Games are made for TVs. Films are not.

The cinema experience is evolving.

 

[Meier]

Huh? What's the difference? We're arguing about making 16:9 the native size for movies, not taking 2.35:1 source material and chopping it up.

Did you read what that was in response to? We "tolerate" black bars on film because their native size requires that to be the case. There's no reason for a game to be anything other than 4:3 or 16:9 because they're not going to be output at a resolution other than those since people aren't typically hooking their Xbox up to a movie projector.

They're apples to oranges.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

The cinema experience is evolving.

How?

Movies I see today are shot in the same ratio as the movies I saw when I was a kid.

The home theater experience is still secondary to the actual theater experience. Never forget that.

 

[TheExodu5]

How?

Movies I see today are shot in the same ratio as the movies I saw when I was a kid.

The home theater experience is still secondary to the actual theater experience. Never forget that.

My home experience is superior to the cinemas. Picture is just as good (Stewart FireHawk + Panasonic AE3000), and sound is far better. Add free food, no waiting in line, etc...

Did you read what that was in response to? We "tolerate" black bars on film because their native size requires that to be the case. There's no reason for a game to be anything other than 4:3 or 16:9 because they're not going to be output at a resolution other than those since people aren't typically hooking their Xbox up to a movie projector.

They're apples to oranges.

Listen. We're saying to make the native size 16:9. There's nothing in cinema that requires a movie to be 2.35:1. Movie theatre screens can adapt to any aspect ratio.

People are arguing that 2.35:1 is important for *artistic* purposes. If that were the case, why would we limit developers artistic design by forcing a 16:9 aspect ratio unto them? I'm saying it's pretty ridiculous to say it's for artistic purposes.

2.35:1 has been the cinema standard for a long time, and that's the main reason why it's still in use. Standards can change. There's nothing that makes either 16:9 or 2.35:1 superior to one another. There's no truly good justification to not adapt to a standard other than to differentiate the cinema and home theater experience.

 

[dallow_bg]

My home experience is superior to the cinemas. Picture is just as good (Stewart FireHawk + Panasonic AE3000), and sound is far better. Add free food, no waiting in line, etc...

That's your dad's stuff isn't it?
If you have a projector, than you should be able to get an anamorphic lense. No more black bars for you.

You're the guy who said uncompressed soundtracks on HD movies didn't sound any better than high res lossy tracks, or am I mistaken?

 

[Uncle]

2.35:1 has been the cinema standard for a long time, and that's the main reason why it's still in use.

What.

 

[TheExodu5]

That's your dad's stuff isn't it?
If you have a projector, than you should be able to get an anamorphic lense. No more black bars for you.

You're the guy who said uncompressed soundtracks on HD movies didn't sound any better than high res lossy tracks, or am I mistaken?

Good memory.

Never said uncompressed wasn't better (or at least didn't mean to), I was just saying the difference is pretty negligeable when taking into account the price in upgrading. It's not worth upgrading your receiver simply for uncompressed sound. I'd say the difference is akin to comparing 192kbps MP3 with CD quality sound. The difference is there, but it can be hard to pick out in a blind test.

Though, at home, my dad is the audiophile, and I'm the videophile.

Our Panasonic AE3000 is coming in soon...I don't think it has an anamorphic lens, though that would be amazing. I find the black bars really kill the imersion (since black bars still generate light).

edit: nope no anamorphic lens. Didn't realize anamorphic lenses had to be specific to an aspect ratio.

 

[M3wThr33]

Movies I see today are shot in the same ratio as the movies I saw when I was a kid.

Nope.

 

[Cdammen]

I feel like Comic Book Guy when I enter this thread, angry. Heart attack imminent.

 

[Meier]

Listen. We're saying to make the native size 16:9. There's nothing in cinema that requires a movie to be 2.35:1. Movie theatre screens can adapt to any aspect ratio.

You're missing the point here -- that does not change the reason why people accept black bars when watching a movie at home as opposed to playing a video game which is the crux of the post.

He asked why people tolerate it when watching movies at home. The answer is because the original source is in that format. Fine. End of story. There would be no reason for the original source of a video game to be anything but 4:3 or 16:9 because they would not be output on anything but that. That's the reason for the difference between the perception/acceptance. End of story/end of my point.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

Nope.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right.

 

[TheExodu5]

You're missing the point here -- that does not change the reason why people accept black bars when watching a movie at home as opposed to playing a video game which is the crux of the post.

He asked why people tolerate it when watching movies at home. The answer is because the original source is in that format. Fine. End of story. There would be no reason for the original source of a video game to be anything but 4:3 or 16:9 because they would not be output on anything but that. That's the reason for the difference between the perception/acceptance. End of story/end of my point.

The output doesn't matter. You're arguing something entirely different. They're arguing that the wide aspect is used to artistic purposes, not to match the aspect ratio of a specific device. Of course, my line of thought is, if you have a full screen to use, use it. Make cinema pictures a little bit higher, and presto, you have 16:9 without losing anything (well you'd lose room to hide the boom mics).

Take for example the OP. That's forced 16:9, when it's being output on a 4:3 screen. It's a shame it's being forced at 16:9 since games can dynamically render at any resolution. They either did it for (ugh) artistic purposes, or more likely they did it so they wouldn't need to redesign the interface to accomodate a 4:3 resolution.

 

[dallow_bg]

No, of course it doesn't have an anamorphic lense, you have to buy it seperately.

But, you'll be pleased to know this:

The AE3000's Lens Memory Feature

Leaving aside frame interpolation, the one other major feature that might cause you to opt for the Panasonic AE3000 over the Sanyo Z3000 is its Lens Memory. However, this is only relevant if you are interested in setting up a 2.35:1 super wide Cinemascope screen instead of the standard 16:9 screen. If you aren't, you can skip this section.

As discussed in the AE3000 review, Lens Memory lets you automatically set the zoom lens to a wide angle setting to fill a 2.35 screen, so that you can view a 2.35 format film in full frame without any black bars. Then when you switch to a 16:9 source such as HDTV or a 1.78 film, you can press a button, and the projector will automatically zoom the lens to a position where the 16:9 image fills your screen vertically. And, unless the projector is positioned exactly at a height equal to the middle of the screen, a vertical compensation adjustment is required to get the image to center vertically on the screen. The AE3000 automatically makes this adjustment as well. Essentially, this eliminates the expense of a separate anamorphic lens.

You can accomplish the same thing on the Z3000, but the zoom lens is manual. So for each change of material between 2.35 films and regular 16:9 material, you must manually adjust the lens to accommodate it. And, if necessary, you must then manually adjust the vertical height of the image as well. This can be a tedious procedure if you do it very often.

So in a nutshell, the situation is this: if you don't want to install a 2.35 format screen, the AE3000's Lens Memory is an irrelevant feature for you. If you want to install a 2.35 screen and want also to use an anamorphic lens, you can use it on either the AE3000 or the Z3000, so again the Lens Memory feature is irrelevant. However, if you want to get into 2.35 format and don't want to spend $4,000 to $7,000 on an anamorphic lens, the AE3000 gives you a very practical and easy to use alternative.

 

[Graphics Horse]

There would be no reason for the original source of a video game to be anything but 4:3 or 16:9 because they would not be output on anything but that. That's the reason for the difference between the perception/acceptance. End of story/end of my point.

Oh and

I could go on,
28 player Galaxian 3 with 360º wrap around screen?

 

[TheExodu5]

No, of course it doesn't have an anamorphic lense, you have to buy it seperately.

But, you'll be pleased to know this:

That's pretty sweet.

Too bad we're stuck with a 16:9 screen. The screen costs $5000...I don't think we'll be buying a second to get rid of black bars. :lol

 

[jett]

Nope.

What do you mean "nope"? It's the same aspect ratios, and before you mention IMAX, it has been around for 30 years.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

Nope.

The traditional proportions of a television screen match those of classic movies, with the height 3/4 of the width. We normally write that the other way around, 4:3. It's easier to compare to other screen shapes if we convert it to decimal form and make it 1.33:1. That is, the width is 1.33 times the height.

Technically, this matches the shape of silent movies. Sound 35 mm films through the early 1950s were slightly wider at 1.37:1. In the 1950s theatrical features started to be made in even wider proportions, with the standard eventually settling down to two shapes: 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. The latter is often incorrectly written 2.35:1 because that was for years the Cinemascope standard; it became 2.39:1 about 1970. Which is of course picky irrelevant trivia if you're shooting DV, because it's very hard to get a good 2.39:1 image out of DV.

Television production is currently moving in the direction of a wider screen shape as well. This was debated all over the place in the early 1980s (a lot of cinematographers wanted 2:1, for example), and eventually a standard of 16:9 (1.78:1) was adopted. This happens to be the geometric midpoint between silent movies and Cinemascope, so there's some logic to it. And it's also nearly identical to the theatrical standard 1.85:1 in which most feature films are shot.

You were saying?

 

[Fuzzy]

Let me throw in a whole new grenade. Theatres will eventually go the way of the arcade. Discuss.

 

[65536]

That's pretty sweet.

Too bad we're stuck with a 16:9 screen. The screen costs $5000...I don't think we'll be buying a second to get rid of black bars. :lol

What? You spent $5000 on a screen for an AE3000!? I think your money would have been better spent on a better projector (SXRD/LCoS) with less on the screen.

 

[Meier]

The output doesn't matter. You're arguing something entirely different. They're arguing that the wide aspect is used to artistic purposes, not to match the aspect ratio of a specific device. Of course, my line of thought is, if you have a full screen to use, use it. Make cinema pictures a little bit higher, and presto, you have 16:9 without losing anything (well you'd lose room to hide the boom mics)..

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, are you daft? I am not "arguing anything different." I am answering Xavien's question. THAT'S IT.

And, what someone said earlier about there would be an outcry if there was 2.35:1 in games, i certainly agree, yet we seem to tolerate wasted screen-space when it comes to films, why?

Answering this. NOTHING ELSE. My answer = reality. People accept black bars/2.35:1 on films because they can understand that is the original format of the film. You're arguing whether it SHOULD BE the original format. I'm not.

 

[Liabe Brave]

People are arguing that 2.35:1 is important for *artistic* purposes. If that were the case, why would we limit developers artistic design by forcing a 16:9 aspect ratio unto them?

There's no forcing going on; plenty of movies are shot in 1.85:1. Some directors choose wider formats.

There's nothing in cinema that requires a movie to be 2.35:1. Movie theatre screens can adapt to any aspect ratio. ...There's no truly good justification to not adapt to a standard other than to differentiate the cinema and home theater experience.

Actually, there are good reasons. For one, the human visual field is wider than it is tall, and wider screens help fill more of the peripheral field, increasing a sense of immersion. (They don't fill it entirely, since it's over 180 degrees, but they come closer than almost all home theater setups.)

Second, it is cheaper per seat to build wide theaters than tall ones, since the seating rake has to get very extreme--as in IMAX--before ergonomic spacing will allow greater capacity.

Finally, its logically identical to ask why TVs aren't manufactured in the 2.39:1 ratio. Then 1.85:1 films would be windowboxed, and we could all be arguing about how they should just film the movies in "true widescreen" so they wouldn't be wasting all those pixels with black bars at the sides.