This is almost exclusively seen on double-sided DVDs, and seems to occur more often with DVD releases of older movies. I suppose, with the advent of widescreen releases, the greedy bastards in the movie industry figured they could pull one over on the public; they'd release an older film on DVD and claim it to be a widescreen release. In fact, it was a cropped version of the original squarish format. So, instead of widescreen showing you more, it actually showed you less. Whenever you're watching an older film on one of those double-sided discs, you're almost certainly better off watching the "standard" side.

Not always.

Most things filmed for the theater were wide angle, where things filmed for tv were narrow view. Pan-and-scan was used to convert the images from film to TV.

Many theaters back in the day had adjustable curtains on the sides to cover the excess screen allowing for different aspect ratios, if needed.

It's not uncommon to find Blu-Ray disks with theatrical versions that still result in black bars on the top and bottom of the screen due to the 1.85:1 film aspect ratio viewed on a 16:9 screen.

Unfortunately more people complain about the black bars than they do about seeing the full image, so we get the P&S version cropped to either 16:9 or 4:3.

I didn't say always. I am aware of most of what you said in your post; I was referring solely to the instances I specifically described. Widescreen being touted as a feature, but actually being a gimmick that gives you LESS is where my problem lies. In the film I started last night, switching to the widescreen side was especially bad as, not only did it crop out the top and bottom, it did so by ADDING black bars in those locations, instead of removing them on the sides, and automatically filling the screen. I suppose I could play with the settings on my TV, and perhaps make it fill the screen, but you're still getting less of the image.

Back when the first DVDs came out, 16x9 TVs were extremely rare and expensive, so studios did what they did for widescreen VHS: Give you the full widescreen image with black bars on top and bottom formatted to a 4x3 screen. It wasn’t until several years later that DVD wasn’t going the way of Laserdisk and 16x9 TVs were cheaper that anamorphic widescreen DVDs were released.

From Day 1, when the widescreen versions came out, or were an option to the 4x3 ratio, I always bought the widescreen and; I never found one as the OP describes.

I am wondering which title(s) may be the crux of this thread...

What prompted me to post was Run Silent Run Deep. I wouldn't be scared to say I have encountered this no less than three other times, although I can't recall the titles. That being said, it certainly represents a minority of films (or versions of films).

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Run Silent Run Deep.

That was filmed in 1.85:1 which is closer to the 16:9 than is is 4:3.

I would double check your player/TV settings to be sure there isn't a digital "stretching" or other manipulation going on.

In true aspect you should have thin black lines at the top and bottom of the screen. Many TV's will stretch this out cutting a little off the ends to make it fill the 16:9 screens.

4:3 is really cutting a lot off the sides to fill the screen, otherwise you'd have big black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

This is also commonly seen on half-assed rereleases of older TV shows, where they'd zoom/crop the original 4:3 footage into 16:9 widescreen format, cutting off the top and bottom of the image in the process.

For example, there was much backlash about this when all the seasons of The Simpsons first hit streaming. The first 50+% of the seasons had been animated in 4:3, and then later just sloppily cropped into 16:9 for the streaming release. As a result, lots of gags relying on stuff at the very top or very bottom of the screen became nonsensical.

Nothing looks "stretched".

Could it be that the particular edition I am viewing is not using proper footage from the "source material", in the correct aspect? I'll play with the settings tonight, as I have to finish watching the movie. My wife and I take up to three days to watch a movie nowadays.

A lot of early WB DVD releases had this problem. The first copies of Blade Runner and Batman 89 had the same menu as each other. Outland never got a DVD release in anamorphic just like 2010, and I think Heat had the same problem. About 99% of DVD releases during this time had a re-release fixing those problems when studios saw that people were interested in Special Editions with documentaries and commentaries on the movie, but some were never updated.

The Digital Bits had an article about this in 1996, but a lot of the pictures don’t work:

http://archive.thedigitalbits....namorphic/page2.html

The top half of this image is what the OP is talking about compared to the bottom half which covers about 100% of DVDs released after 2000. It’s the worst of both worlds with black bars on the top, bottom, and sides. You can use the zoom function on the TV, but your image quality with look like a 5th generation VHS recording.

Most movies were 4:3 until the advent of Cinearama in the 1950's. There were some other widescreen formats before that, and a limited number of movie, but most were 4:3.

Anything originally shot in 4:3 cannot have a widescreen version without stretching or zooming the image, and zooming will cut off material at the top and bottom. I believe this is what the OP means.

TV shows that were shot before HD are usually native 4:3, but some of them are now in 16:9, either because the film print was widescreen and the broadcast version was pan & scan, or because they have zoomed in as above. Why? Some people cannot stand having black bars on the sides. I had a friend that would always stretch 4:3 to fit 16:9 and I hate the resulting geometric distortion. I always prefer native format with the full image and whatever black matting is need. If I want to zoom I can do that on my player.

DanH, that is 4:3 letterbox which was common on VHS masters that got dumped to DVD without remastering. Kind of like RIAA EQ'd vinyl masters that got dumped to CD in the 80's and sounded thin and strident, because RIAA masters have boosted treble and reduced bass to get past the limitations of vinyl, then the opposite EQ is applied during playback. But only on a record player, not a CD player. Hence the accusation of "digital" sounding worse than analog because of the A/D and D/A process, which never seems to die...

Looks like we answered each other at the same time.

"a cropped version of the original squarish format"

This is often the correct way to display a film, most often with the the 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratios. Most of the time movies intended for these ratios were shot on 35mm film, flat, as in with standard non anamorphic lenses. In order to be displayed in the proper wider aspect ratio they were "matted" during projection. Many perceived "goofs" in movies, such as boom mics being seen at the upper edge of a frame are a result of this, as they were intended to be matted out on screen.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
The top half of this image is what the OP is talking about compared to the bottom half which covers about 100% of DVDs released after 2000. It’s the worst of both worlds with black bars on the top, bottom, and sides.

Kind of. In the graphic you included, you at least actually see more of the image in the bordered version. What I am referring to you get all the black borders, but see LESS of the actual image than the version that occupies the entire screen.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Anything originally shot in 4:3 cannot have a widescreen version without stretching or zooming the image, and zooming will cut off material at the top and bottom. I believe this is what the OP means.

That seems the likely culprit. I feel like I have experienced it with some movies plenty newer than that 1950s threshold as well though.