# How do you handle 1.85:1 movies on a 16:9 screen?



## VTPete

A 16:9 aspect ratio turns out to be 1.77. 1.85 movies (a whole heck of them) are leaving me with small black bars at the top and bottom of my screen.


Last night I tweaked my Prismasonic lens and projector's zoom to force-fit the 1.85 movie into the 1.77 space of my 'scope screen. When I watch 1.77 or 2.35:1 movies, I'll be tossing more picture onto my black border than I would like... feels bad to me.


There were a couple of threads lamenting this slight difference between the two "wide screen" aspect ratios, but they eventually got so far off topic that it was never clear what the best approach was to handle this problem.


What do you guys do? Am I missing a big picture item here? I don't have a video processor that will handle this for me. Hoping to hear some clever thoughts from you clever people!


----------



## usualsuspects

I just live with the small black bars. I could scale/crop the image from 1.85:1 to 16x9, but I don't want to scale HD media for that small a difference, not worth the image degradation. Generally "films" are 1.85:1 and HDTV is 16x9, but the authoring of SD dvd's is all over the place. Many of them that are supposed to be 1.85:1 are actually cropped to 16x9. HD media appears to be better in this regard, most 1.85:1 AR films are actually encoded that way on the disk.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Yes, I've wondered the same thing. No doubt the authoring and labeling is inconsistant at best. Even 1.33:1 films are all over the place. Some are inside my masking some are even wider than the masking bars.


For 1.85:1 I'm accepting the bars top and bottom as well at this point.




Art


----------



## smitty

I don't like black bars. With a 110" diagonal, I think the 1.85 ratio puts about an extra 1 1/2 inch of the picture onto the black border on each side. I don't really even notice this. Also, I have yet to find a movie that had anything important going on in that 1 1/2 inch.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smitty* /forum/post/12385684
> 
> 
> Also, I have yet to find a movie that had anything important going on in that 1 1/2 inch.



Comforting to know.










Art


----------



## Daniel Hutnicki

Not missing a 1.5 inches, well will if you watch the last five minutes of Boogie Nights, that 1.5 inches can make a big difference


----------



## elmalloc

dont know what happens in last 5minutes but could guess


----------



## Nasty N8

Not right Just plain not right.


----------



## Josh Z

I am honestly amazed by the things that people get obsessed over.


Here's what the black bars look like on a 1.85:1 movie projected on a 16:9 screen.











Turn off your lights. You'll never notice them.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Yes, too much obsession here. HTphiles seem to spend more time worrying about that 1.5" than the people who make the films.


Directors and DOPs know that their movies will be shaped and cropped to fit existing screen maskings when projected in cinemas. Aperture plates installed at the focal plane in projectors pre-crop everything that goes out through the lens anyway. The films are shot to account for this.


I often commit the most cardinal of sins: watching "16x9" (1.78 and 1.85) movies in 2.37 format. Generally, you miss very little of the action (except some of the titles at the start if they're particularly cute) or the artistic impact of a movie and you don't have to be continually adjusting your anamorphic lens. Lens-in-lens-out-lens-in-lens-out... it's a drag. Just enjoy the movie.


Cases in point: _The World's Fastest Indian_ was exhibited in cinemas as 2.35 'scope. Yet on the DVD it's 16x9, with titles presumably re-done. It was plainly shot for both formats. _Battle Of The Bulge_ was shot at 2.76 Ultra Panavision, _2001: A Space Odyssey_ was shot at 2.21:1 Super Panavision. Both claimed to be Cinerama films (I saw them - wide eyed - in Sydney, Australia at the same Cinerama theatre). Both are on DVD in their native aspects. I'm not sure the directors cared all that much as long as bums were on seats. If you wanted to see them in all their glory you could always go to the (very few) roadshow presentations in the big city theatres. Even among HTphiles, who projects _2001_ on a 146 degree curved screen?


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Well maybe too much obsession but this is the constant height forum.










A lot like criticizing someone in church about too much talk about the Bible.


Art


----------



## smitty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/12387359
> 
> 
> I am honestly amazed by the things that people get obsessed over.
> 
> 
> Here's what the black bars look like on a 1.85:1 movie projected on a 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off your lights. You'll never notice them.



I have a light controlled room and I still notice the bars. I don't like them.


And if we can't obsess over things, there will be about 95% fewer threads on this forum.










EDIT: BTW, your picture does *not* show what the bars look like, because they don't show the lighter black bar imposed by the 1:85 ratio just above and below the screen border, which is slightly blacker -- and that's one of the things I find distracting (i.e., the two different shades of black).


----------



## kgveteran




> Quote:
> I often commit the most cardinal of sins: watching "16x9" (1.78 and 1.85) movies in 2.37 format. Generally, you miss very little of the action (except some of the titles at the start if they're particularly cute) or the artistic impact of a movie and you don't have to be continually adjusting your anamorphic lens. Lens-in-lens-out-lens-in-lens-out... it's a drag. Just enjoy the movie.



Me too


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/12387359
> 
> 
> I am honestly amazed by the things that people get obsessed over.



Oh, what I have been thinking! Josh, thanks to you and your 12,000 posts, I'll be able to sleep tonight without obsessing! Thanks!


----------



## Vern Dias

This is just one example of why a constant height setup is not complete without an external scaler and or HTPC with Theatertek for DVD and YXY for HD DVD and BD.


For those of us that obsess over displaying the proper AR (yes that's me as well) a simple projector stretch does not begin to handle the multitude of AR's out there today.


Anyone who thinks that the only AR's on various media today are 1.33:1, 1.77:1, and 2.35:1 are not living in the world of film







. I have, in my collection, the foloowing AR's:


1.20:1

1.33:1

1.66:1

1.77:1

1.85:1

2.0:1

2.20:1

2.35:1 - 2.40:1

2.55:1

2.76:1

and, to really counfound the issue, a number of MGM Laserdiscs (titles which have never been released on DVD) that have a slight image squeeze to fit a 2.35:1 image into anywhere between a 2.0:1 and 2.20:1 frame.


I have said this before in this forum, but it bears repeating:


If you really want a true constant height setup that doesn't involve compromise or manual intervention (zoom), you need a scaler and or HTPC in your system.


Having a movable lens really doesn't address these issues, either.


Vern


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/12392717
> 
> 
> This is just one example of why a constant height setup is not complete without an external scaler and or HTPC with Theatertek for DVD and YXY for HD DVD and BD.
> 
> 
> For those of us that obsess over displaying the proper AR (yes that's me as well) a simple projector stretch does not begin to handle the multitude of AR's out there today.
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the only AR's on various media today are 1.33:1, 1.77:1, and 2.35:1 are not living in the world of film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I have, in my collection, the foloowing AR's:
> 
> 
> 1.20:1
> 
> 1.33:1
> 
> 1.66:1
> 
> 1.77:1
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 2.0:1
> 
> 2.20:1
> 
> 2.35:1 - 2.40:1
> 
> 2.55:1
> 
> 2.76:1
> 
> and, to really counfound the issue, a number of MGM Laserdiscs (titles which have never been released on DVD) that have a slight image squeeze to fit a 2.35:1 image into anywhere between a 2.0:1 and 2.20:1 frame.
> 
> 
> I have said this before in this forum, but it bears repeating:
> 
> 
> If you really want a true constant height setup that doesn't involve compromise or manual intervention (zoom), you need a scaler and or HTPC in your system.
> 
> 
> Having a movable lens really doesn't address these issues, either.
> 
> 
> Vern



Vern ,

I think you are obsessing.










Art


----------



## smitty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/12392717
> 
> 
> This is just one example of why a constant height setup is not complete without an external scaler and or HTPC with Theatertek for DVD and YXY for HD DVD and BD.
> 
> 
> For those of us that obsess over displaying the proper AR (yes that's me as well) a simple projector stretch does not begin to handle the multitude of AR's out there today.
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the only AR's on various media today are 1.33:1, 1.77:1, and 2.35:1 are not living in the world of film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I have, in my collection, the foloowing AR's:
> 
> 
> 1.20:1
> 
> 1.33:1
> 
> 1.66:1
> 
> 1.77:1
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 2.0:1
> 
> 2.20:1
> 
> 2.35:1 - 2.40:1
> 
> 2.55:1
> 
> 2.76:1
> 
> and, to really counfound the issue, a number of MGM Laserdiscs (titles which have never been released on DVD) that have a slight image squeeze to fit a 2.35:1 image into anywhere between a 2.0:1 and 2.20:1 frame.
> 
> 
> I have said this before in this forum, but it bears repeating:
> 
> 
> If you really want a true constant height setup that doesn't involve compromise or manual intervention (zoom), you need a scaler and or HTPC in your system.
> 
> 
> Having a movable lens really doesn't address these issues, either.
> 
> 
> Vern



On the other hand, if you watch only 1.85:1 movies and 2:35 movies, which is the format for the overwhelming majority of first run new releases that many of us watch in our HT, you can have a constant height setup that looks great with virtually no compromise of any significance -- without any external scaler or an HTPC.


I don't drive in snow her in So. Cal., so I consider my automobile "complete" even though it does not have snow tires.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> if you watch only 16:9 movies and 2:35 movies



No movies are 16x9. That is not a theatrical AR standard. They would be 1.85:1 rather than 16x9 (1.77:1). There is a 1.75:1 theatrical standard, but it is rarely used any more.


I'm pretty sure that's what this thread is all about. How do you deal with the small black bars on 1.85 sources? (of course, if you don't have an accurate display, they would be hidden in the overscan)










Vern


----------



## smitty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/12398204
> 
> 
> No movies are 16x9. That is not a theatrical AR standard.



Yeah, I meant 1.85:1. I edited my post so it made more sense (sort of).


----------



## thebland

Liek Vern, my scaler (Radiance ) handles it..no black bars.


----------



## Slash1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smitty* /forum/post/12385684
> 
> 
> I don't like black bars. With a 110" diagonal, I think the 1.85 ratio puts about an extra 1 1/2 inch of the picture onto the black border on each side. I don't really even notice this. Also, I have yet to find a movie that had anything important going on in that 1 1/2 inch.



Exact same here. 110", I let 1.5 overhang. I actually never realized I did this until you mentioned it, but now that I checked it out, I do have a little on each side that hangs over, but my screen is forward a foot from black velvet curtains that absorb it all, so I didn't notice.


And I've had my projector running for over 4 years now! lol.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/12398204
> 
> 
> No movies are 16x9. That is not a theatrical AR standard. They would be 1.85:1 rather than 16x9 (1.77:1). There is a 1.75:1 theatrical standard, but it is rarely used any more.



To further complicate matters, studios like Warner and Paramount open the mattes on all 1.85:1 movies to 16:9 by default.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12389966
> 
> 
> Oh, what I have been thinking! Josh, thanks to you and your 12,000 posts, I'll be able to sleep tonight without obsessing! Thanks!



All I'm saying is, there are things worth stressing over, and things not worth stressing over. The miniscule black bars on a 1.85:1 movie fall into the latter category.


----------



## VTPete

Josh,


The point of these forums is to help everyone get the best image quality possible. And, while it may not matter to you, it does matter to many of us. The nice thing about these threads is that if you don't care about something, you need not post.


My response was more than a bit sarcastic and for that I apologize... but please understand that we in the CIH forum care about keeping a constant image height. We don't lose sleep about it, but we do care. To say we shouldn't obsess about an issue of quality is like saying we shouldn't care about contrast ratio, or color accuracy, or mosquito noise reduction, etc. We do care, and that's why we participate in these discussions. If you don't care, then you're free to remain silent on the issue.


Respectfully,

-VTPete


----------



## R Harkness

Count me in as one who _does_ care about the small black bars with 1:85:1 material on a 16:9 screen. Of course they are not as intrusive as the larger black bars on scope films, but I still see them. I've done lots of experimenting with masking, especially on my Panasonic plasma and have found a benefit to masking - that is having pure black begin from the edge of the picture information outward - in every case, including getting rid of those small black bars we are discussing. It just cleans up the viewing experience.


And there is a difference between not _being able to see_ the black bars - which may well be the case an a very few HT set ups - and not _noticing_ the black bars (but you can see them when you are looking for them). A lot of people live happily with the black bars for scope movies in their HT in that they believe they don't _notice_ them when concentrating on watching a movie. But it's only when you actually see a perfectly masked image that the difference is apparent.


It's sort of like dust in your house. It adds a subtle patina to everything that you don't really notice day to day. But just give your house a dusting and THEN you notice the difference between a slightly dusty house and a dusted house.


I find the black bars of both scope films and even 1:85:1 films to be like that in terms of getting rid of them. In a before-and-after, I always prefer the look of getting rid of them.


----------



## hrotti

I dont have CIH yet, but for the 1.77:1/1.85:1 issue I made a 1.85:1 screen and make without the top and bottom 1,5" when watching tv.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12406997
> 
> 
> The point of these forums is to help everyone get the best image quality possible. And, while it may not matter to you, it does matter to many of us. The nice thing about these threads is that if you don't care about something, you need not post.
> 
> 
> My response was more than a bit sarcastic and for that I apologize... but please understand that we in the CIH forum care about keeping a constant image height. We don't lose sleep about it, but we do care. To say we shouldn't obsess about an issue of quality is like saying we shouldn't care about contrast ratio, or color accuracy, or mosquito noise reduction, etc. We do care, and that's why we participate in these discussions. If you don't care, then you're free to remain silent on the issue.



Believe me, I'm not new to this. I have a 2.35:1 screen, but I remove the lens for 16:9 and 1.85:1 content, and only leave it in place for ratios 2.0:1 or wider. The difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1 is so negligible that the tradeoffs in terms of scaling (you lose a lot of horizontal resolution to scale a 1.85:1 image on a 2.35:1 screen) and the loss of sharpness that comes with adding extra glass in the light path are not worth the effort. It does become worth the effort at wider ratios.


If those miniscule slivers of black are so bothersome to you, applying a small amount of overscan will knock them right off the screen, and the picture you lose off the sides will be insignificant.


----------



## smitty

Another option is to devise your side masking such that you can move it apart a little bit when a 1.85:1 movie is presented. I don't do this, because my masking hooks onto little hooks above the screen and hence, is fixed at 1.77:1, but at one point I was considering something that would have hooked over and rested on the top of my screen frame, which would have allowed me to adjust the side masking to give me any ratio I wanted. Much cheaper than a scaler or HTPC. I ended up not going this route only becuase the 1.5" on either side that is absorbed into the border is so miniscule (to me).


----------

