Most of the time it squishes the picture from the top and stretches it from the side causing everyone and everything to look, well, fat. Get those black bars back when they are appropriate like non-HD stations. It takes a lot of work to be fit and trim like Anderson Cooper. There is a HUGE difference between standard-def and high-def. The appropriate HD package is generally extra and should require at least a call to your provider to get it running.
Most of the time it requires new equipment and cables, too. Big movie watchers should look into upgrading to Blu-ray players that can output movies at high-def resolutions. I mean that is the whole damn point of widescreen. What the heck else is point of widescreen if not to fit movies perfectly. Btw, DVDs are in 2. It is already filling the width nicely. Most TV's have all sorts of options for zooming and cropping i content, check the TV.
Very few allow changes to HD content tho. Why not make it 2. Showing it on a screen is already considerably better than on a , just get over it. I think it is "REALLY that bad" because the vertical space of the is not being used which makes the picture seem very small, even on a large size TV.
If Hollywood had any sense, they'd make the movies in but I think they don't intentionally to screw with consumers. Like the Wiki said, they made widescreen movies as a counter to the boom in home entertainment. It was meant to make people go to the theater because back then it was all Now widescreen is becoming common, so I wouldn't be surprised if all of a sudden all movies are shot in IMAX just to dick with us again.
So far we've been talking about movies. If not, then there's no question they're dicking with consumers. TV shows are not bound to the 'big screen'. They should be well and able to shoot in to match their audience's viewing device. Yes And movie theaters are NOT , why would they make a movie that wouldn't fit right in any theater?
I think you're just angry. Sit down, have a valium, and chill out. It isn't a conspiracy by the TV manufacturers to fuck you over. Most comedies and other light hearted fair tend to be 16x9. More epic and dramatic movies tend to be 2. There is no set standard for film If black bars on the top and bottom of your screen is the absolute worst thing in your life, I really wish I had your life. Put it into perspective and go and have a drink or something.
Sweet, so watching HD TV shows fills the screen. That helps. I meant they should make cuts of the movie to fit So you want them to just throw away parts of the horizontal image to make it fill top and bottom? IMHO Width is more important then height, they can't magically change the aspect ratio without getting rid of something. Yes, they would re-cut it to So it probably means they cut off the left-end and right-end.
Hey, if they can cut for then they can do it for I realize this is all subjective, but I would prefer more height than width. I find it is easier on the eyes, so it just feels more natural. Not to mention it's incredibly stupid to waste that space. I hate bad design.
Sure, these are subjective things, but I now I'm not alone on this. Any time I visit someone with a widescreen TV I ask their opinion on this and they're just as equally annoyed by this mess. And they're all surprised to see letter-boxing, because again, the perception is, right or wrong, that widescreen TVs are meant to eliminate letter-boxing.
Hypothetical: You are an artist. You have just had a brilliant idea, and have taken it from concept all the way up to starting the actual execution of it. The only problem is, the two colors that you have chosen to represent the message and evoke the desired response are red and green.
A significant percentage of males are colorblind, and may not be able to fully appreciate the final work. Do you: Compromise the final work, knowing that you are not achieving your artistic vision, in an attempt to satisfy the largest audience? Create the work as you intend it, possibly reducing the impact of your work on specific audience members? There's no one answer - the point is that the decision rests with the artist, and a wide ratio is just one of the tools at his or her disposal.
Go watch Gladiator and tell me Ridley Scott isn't putting all that width to good use. Not every director prefers wide ratios, either - Stanley Kubrick would be an example. Cutting part of the image out is a better solution that having small black bars? Doesn't sound like a great trade-off to me. But if it really bothers you that much it should be possible to reencode the DVD to chop the stuff you don't need out.
I think someone should make a "Best Of" for this type of rant Go watch Monsters Inc or Toy Story, or any of the hundreds of other 1. Animated movies are easy, they just re-render them in 1. The concept of "letterboxing" a video image first appeared in with the release of Federico Fellini's Oscar-nominated Amarcord on the short-lived RCA SelectaVision a. CED home video format. For the first time ever, a widescreen theatrical film could be watched in close to its Original Aspect Ratio on a TV by adding black bars above and below the movie image to fill the excess height of the screen.
Woody Allen's Manhattan followed several months later with a letterboxed edition on Laserdisc. According to legend perhaps apocryphal , viewers were so confused by this that they returned countless copies of both movies to retailers, complaining that the discs were "defective" for blocking out parts of the screen.
Letterboxing took a while to catch on, but by the mids the process was firmly established as the accepted standard on Laserdisc, which had become the home video format of choice for discerning film lovers and videophiles at that time. Even so, the Laserdisc collecting community was a small niche among the general populace, and most viewers still watched movies cropped to fill their TV screens when broadcast on television or released on VHS.
That finally started to change with the debut of the DVD format at the end of the decade. Most of the major home video studios supported the practice of letterboxing on DVD from its inception. The format's tremendous popularity and explosive growth made a huge impact in educating viewers about the importance of a movie's Original Aspect Ratio.
However, letterboxing was always a compromise. Preserving a movie's original composition and image shape came at the cost of shrinking it down to a smaller size on a TV screen. CinemaScope and Panavision films, which were designed to be large and immersive in the cinema environment, were now the smallest content when viewed at home. Big budget, epic movies were unavoidably diminished when watched on a screen where they were smaller than soap operas, game shows, and sitcoms.
Through all the evolution in the cinema landscape, the television medium largely remained unaffected. Even while theaters rushed to build wider CinemaScope auditoriums and screens in the s, TVs continued to be manufactured in the same 1. It would take several more decades before anyone pushed to change that.
Around the turn of the new century, television manufacturers and broadcasters finally made a major upgrade, away from the old NTSC and PAL standard definition formats up to the much better quality of high definition video.
With this also came a change in screen ratio, from to a new widescreen shape of 1. That number was chosen as a mid-way point between the presumed narrowest content likely to be watched on the TV and the widest 2.
While not an exact match for any theatrical aspect ratio, is very close to 1. This greatly helped to counteract the problems with shrunken image size on widescreen movies, though 2. Television series creators quickly moved to photograph their shows in the new aspect ratio. For a number of years, it was common for networks to broadcast many shows in both the for the standard definition feed and for HD formats simultaneously.
Over time, that practice diminished and everything settled into For another decade or so, that's where things sat. Movies in theaters might be projected at either 1. The rise of Netflix and the video streaming revolution disrupted the television and broadcast industry in a number of ways.
In its bid to compete with traditional television networks, Netflix developed and streamed its first original series, the political drama House of Cards , starting in Hoping to differentiate it from other TV shows, executive producer David Fincher the filmmaker behind Fight Club and The Social Network , among others composed and shot the pilot episode with an unusual aspect ratio of This made it wider than but not quite as wide as 2.
The pilot and all subsequent episodes streamed on Netflix with letterbox bars as part of the image. If not the very first TV series to do this, it was the first to gain widespread mainstream exposure. The choice of as the ratio served a dual purpose of making the series feel more grandiose and cinematic than typical broadcast fare while also, ironically, being a pretty good fit for small smartphone and tablet screens, which are usually a little wider than and are an important viewing venue for Netflix's distribution model.
Although Netflix did not enforce as a mandatory standard for all of its original programming Orange Is the New Black , for example, has conventional composition , the ratio quickly gained traction and proliferated both on that platform and on competing streaming services.
Many of them brought along artistic ideas that might have previously been considered unconventional for the small-screen. If viewers, for the most part, seemed to be fine with watching TV shows letterboxed to , would they object to even wider formats?
Over the next few years, the floodgates opened for experimentation with aspect ratios, to the point where there's little sense of a standard anymore.
0コメント