Can Apple TV HD 1080p go full screen?

[whooleytoo]

Thanks for eveyone's help. I guess I just didn't understand why the tv shows filled the screen and the movies weren't. I understand the widescreen concept I just thought it would be full screen 1080p content. If others have the same issue then I guess this is how it is. Remember I never had ATV before.

Thanks again everyone

If you have money to burn, there are a number of 21:9 aspect ratio TVs coming on the market, but then you'd have the issue of vertical bars when watching normal 16:9 content (some TVs can use the vertical bars for display apps or other content, rather than just a background colour.)

So your options are zoom, crop, horizontal bars or vertical bars.

 

[steve-p]

People who think that the zoom on modern TVs and built into the media player is the same thing then I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about.

Your argument appears to be that having a variable zoom is "better". You are talking about a specific implementation of it in WD TV Live, compared to fixed zoom implementations in TVs. Well, even if Apple did implement zoom in ATV, it still might not be variable. In fact, since Apple like to keep things simple, it would almost certainly just be a single Yes/No preference in settings, either zoom 2.35:1 to 16:9, or leave it alone. So you would still be complaining.

WD TV Live has a zoom feature purely for convenience, not for any reasons of picture quality. Anyone who is after the ultimate picture quality will be using 1:1 pixel mapping with no overscan anyway, and wouldn't touch the zoom. Yes, Apple TV could have a zoom feature, but does not. The TV can do it instead. Or an AVR with HDMI in and out can do it instead. It's hardly the end of the world to omit it, when there are other ways of doing it. Maybe it's less convenient, but that's all. If this is a deal breaker, then don't buy an Apple TV, it's pretty simple.

Going back to picture quality, there are no technical reasons why a media player is able to scale better than a TV. Both media player and TV have exactly the same digital source content to work with. Both are multiplying both dimensions of the picture equally, and cropping the ends in exactly the same way to make exactly the same size output picture. Therefore, what gives the best quality picture will be whichever of the two has the better realtime scaler and video processor chipset. Often, that will be the TV rather than a cheap media player box, but not always. This is one area that is still improving fast, and age matters.

You keep talking about zoom distorting the picture on a TV. Well, it doesn't, if you choose the correct zoom setting provided for exactly this purpose. It's exactly the same picture but expanded equally in both dimensions and with the sides cropped accordingly.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

OP, this thread: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=9502 includes a long list of movies shot 16:9. Check some of these and see if they fill your screen edge-to-edge, top-to-bottom. If not, I suspect you have a TV zoom mode setting in something other than "full" (or similar), though I can't think of a TV zoom mode (zoom out?) that would squeeze 16:9 content down to add the black bars at the top & bottom without adding them on the left & right.

I can assure you that the new TV3 "fills" the screen edge-to-edge, top-to-bottom on a 16:9 HDTV.

Are you perhaps using a 4:3 HDTV (which certainly would make a 16:9 video have black bars above & below the movie) while making 4:3 TV shows completely fill that screen? 4:3 HDTVs were still selling pretty well up to about 4-5 years ago.

Are you perhaps ripping your own movie content with a custom preset in which you've accidentally forced the vertical compression to create the black bars above & below on 16:9 video? Do movies you think are definitely 16:9 looked squashed (people look fat, faces look fat, etc)?

As others have implied, I suspect you are thinking certain movies are 16:9 when, in fact, they are wider aspect ratio movies. These should add the black bars so you can see the entire picture as intended. To help figure out the problem, you need to identify a few movies that are definitely 16:9 and try them. If they still add the black bars, you've got a setup problem outside of the TV3.

Do you run the connection directly from the TV3 to your HDTV or do you flow it through something else like a receiver? if the latter, does it have any zoom settings (and you might want to eliminate this possibility by temporarily connecting the TV3 directly to your HDTV... and then trying some movies for which you are certain about 16:9 aspect ratio)?

 

[here2rock]

steve-p, fixed zoom is better than no zoom. I understand that the JB ATV2 has a variable zoom. Why do you think the hackers implemented the variable zoom into their system? I am not complaining because I don't rely on ATV3 for my entertainment, I am just pointing out the flaws in it. Even the iPhone and iPad has simple tap and zoom function!

WD TV Live does not have a zoom function for convenience but for people who want to fill the screens on their HDTV without distorting the picture. Why did the OP started the thread, If he thought that the 2.35:1 movies were so good, why would he be looking to get rid of those bars? Those bars take about 30% of your total viewable screen area!

Why do I like variable zoom than a fixed zoom? The movies in a 2.35:1 format you lose about 9cm at top and bottom on a 50" TV, with a fixed zoom you are too close and lose too much from the side. My preferred option is to only have the bars at top and bottom about 2-4cm. It is a perfect compromise for me.

There are technical reasons as to why a media player is able to scale better than a TV and it is desirable to have it built into a media player. First of all not all TVs have it. Secondly not all TVs do it properly, I have seen some just stretch it form the top and bottom not the sides! I have never seen a variable zoom in a TV. It is easy to implement in the software in a media player as it require not additional hardware.

Now you could argue if your TV is too old then it is your problem or a get a new TV. I love my TV; I rather spend $100 on a media player which suits my needs than $5000 on a TV which I love.

Let's look at the argument from the other side now. I have seen posts where the users complain about 16:9 ratio movies and preferring to watch them in a 2.35:1 format. If apple had a simple zoom function then they would have made everyone happy. Apple failed in this regard.

 

[hipnetic]

Even the iPhone and iPad has simple tap and zoom function!

That's because they don't have 16:9 (1.78:1) screens. They have 4:3 (iPad) or 1.5:1 (iPhone/iPod Touch) screens. So even 16:9 content will have black bars, and Apple decided that they'd hear too much complaining about that, so they added the zoom feature which zooms out a 16:9 movie and lops off the sides. If you watch a 2.35:1 movie on an iPhone or iPad, I'm pretty sure that using the zoom feature will only expand it as if it was a 16:9 movie, so you will still have black bars.

Why do I like variable zoom than a fixed zoom? The movies in a 2.35:1 format you lose about 9cm at top and bottom on a 50" TV, with a fixed zoom you are too close and lose too much from the side. My preferred option is to only have the bars at top and bottom about 2-4cm. It is a perfect compromise for me.

There are technical reasons as to why a media player is able to scale better than a TV and it is desirable to have it built into a media player. First of all not all TVs have it. Secondly not all TVs do it properly, I have seen some just stretch it form the top and bottom not the sides! I have never seen a variable zoom in a TV. It is easy to implement in the software in a media player as it require not additional hardware.

Now you could argue if your TV is too old then it is your problem or a get a new TV. I love my TV; I rather spend $100 on a media player which suits my needs than $5000 on a TV which I love.

Let's look at the argument from the other side now. I have seen posts where the users complain about 16:9 ratio movies and preferring to watch them in a 2.35:1 format. If apple had a simple zoom function then they would have made everyone happy. Apple failed in this regard.

I can appreciate that this may be a desirable thing to do for some people, but it's still a specialty type of feature, that few devices offer, and it also adds to the complexity (since Apple would need to support multiple zoom methods - since some people would want to do what you do, while others would want the more standardized 16:9 zoom, and some might want something else altogether). Further, it's possible that there are TVs out there that do what you describe, and I could see the argument that this is a feature which belongs in the TV, not the Apple TV.

In any case, I personally wouldn't ever want to do what you're describing. You're looking to lop off part of the image. You want a larger image? Here's my solution: Sit closer to your TV when watching a 2.35:1 movie. You'll get the same height as you had before, but this time you'll also be getting the full width of the movie, rather than throwing that away.

I'd prefer that Apple add 24fps support before they spent money on what you're describing (i.e., cater to people who want the best quality picture rather than people who are looking to compromise and lop off picture information).

 

[marzer]

The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

The key words are "my" and "I". Your personal preferences are as arguable as anyone elses. Much as your opinion of a 50" screen being small, it's the viewing distance that drives the ideal screen size. Of course personal preference (such as immersion or "just gotta have it bigger") will always dictate variations from person to person.

Watching a movie in its "full glory" is watching it in the original screen aspect. A "source" device ideally puts out a clean unmodified signal leaving it to the receiving device to mody it to the users preference. Much like the DTS/digital modes available on an audio receiver. Why not expect the Apple TV to provide those as well?

So yes, I agree, everyone is not in the same boat therefore they have the option to exercise the selectable settings on their TV to alter the original source picture format to their desired preferences.

 

[paulrbeers]

There are technical reasons as to why a media player is able to scale better than a TV and it is desirable to have it built into a media player. First of all not all TVs have it. Secondly not all TVs do it properly, I have seen some just stretch it form the top and bottom not the sides! I have never seen a variable zoom in a TV. It is easy to implement in the software in a media player as it require not additional hardware.
.

What I don't get about this....

What is the true "technical reason" for a media player to have zoom and not a tv? You gave a "my tv doesn't have it" "technical reason"... That's not a "technical reason". Using your "technical reason", the "technical reason" that an AppleTV doesn't have zoom, is because a TV SHOULD have it.

A Technical reason is something like "you should use digital audio connections because analog connections can experience interference from various sources in your home such as electrical wires and poor grounding". This is a fact and no technological advancement can get around the statement I just made. Your "technical reasons" are limitations to your equipment. Many TV's have the ability to do proper zooms, so just because your tv does not, does not make it a limitation of the technology (i.e. Technical), it just means that the particular manufacturer of your tv chose not to include this feature just like Apple is choosing not include this feature on their AppleTV's.

Also, tv's have the ability for firmware updates so TV's can have their software upgraded just like a media player. I've done it many times on my tvs.

Something tells me, you are someone who also uses "literally" incorrectly like "I literally have a splitting headache"....

 

[dynaflash]

While I *kinda* get why you might want to zoom. Simple fact is no matter how you do it you are altering the original content whether it be its aspect ratio or cropping off some of its field of view. I personally cannot in any way , shape or form see why you would want to do that on a flatscreen tv. I can see it on an iPhone or an iPad simply due to 1. the very small size of the screen . 2. because the iPad or iPhone is typically used with its own native screen instead of a TV that *should* offer this function on the tv end ... or "downstream" as it were.

Point is for my vote ... the appletv has no business altering the aspect ratio or field of view (ie. crop off the sides so you can fill the screen vertically). Pan and Scan is best left dead in the 80's. Just my .02

 

[laurim]

While I *kinda* get why you might want to zoom. Simple fact is no matter how you do it you are altering the original content whether it be its aspect ratio or cropping off some of its field of view. I personally cannot in any way , shape or form see why you would want to do that on a flatscreen tv. I can see it on an iPhone or an iPad simply due to 1. the very small size of the screen . 2. because the iPad or iPhone is typically used with its own native screen instead of a TV that *should* offer this function on the tv end ... or "downstream" as it were.

Point is for my vote ... the appletv has no business altering the aspect ratio or field of view (ie. crop off the sides so you can fill the screen vertically). Pan and Scan is best left dead in the 80's. Just my .02

Totally agree. There's absolutely no logical reason to zoom a movie on a tv. It adds no value whatsoever and actually degrades the experience, both in image quality and aesthetic value. It's like editing out all the "offensive" parts of a movie to make it suitable for a general broadcast audience. Don't ask Apple to degrade movies for you. Find some other way to do it if that's what you need.

 

[dynaflash]

@laurim: windy out today eh ?

 

[laurim]

@laurim: windy out today eh ?

Yeah, I should get outside and fly a kite, lol. I know one person here who thinks we should go fly a kite, huh?

 

[here2rock]

Media players are low cost consumable type item. You can change your media player every year or so but not your TV. As I said I prefer not too zoom in too close but don't want to lose 30% of the picture to those ugly bars. 15-20% loss is a happy medium for me.

Why does Apple release some 2.35 format movies in a 16:9 format?

Why we do not not have TV shows in 2.35 format? They are ugly and no business on 50" and smaller screens. The only reason you want to keep this bars would be if you are sitting on top of your TV.

 

[dynaflash]

Media players are low cost consumable type item. You can change your media player every year or so but not your TV. As I said I prefer not too zoom in too close but don't want to lose 30% of the picture to those ugly bars. 15-20% loss is a happy medium for me.

Why does Apple release some 2.35 format movies in a 16:9 format?

Why we do not not have TV shows in 2.35 format? They are ugly and no business on 50" and smaller screens. The only reason you want to keep this bars would be if you are sitting on top of your TV.

Huh? The aspect ratio depends how the director wanted it shot .. especially with major motion pictures . if you keep the ar what 30% of the picture are you losing ? Are you referring to the fact that your 16:9 tv has black on top and bottom ? Well of course thats because you cannot fit a square peg into a round hole as it were. This has been discussed ad nauseum and it would be frankly stupid for apple to offer zoom on a device made to hook to a tv that if its worth its salt, already has it built in! If not one better then because you can watch the source the way it was intended to be seen. In its native aspect ratio with none of the content hidden or cut off.

Bit of trivia: do you know why video content is wider than it is high ? Answer: physiological. The human eye scans much faster horizontally than vertically. Therefore wider is better than taller.

If your tv can't zoom to your *liking* I might suggest you a get new tv or better yet learn to just deal with the fact that its actually showing you what the director meant for you to see straight from the AppleTV which is honoring the original sources content.

Just sayin'.

 

[steve-p]

Why does Apple release some 2.35 format movies in a 16:9 format?

I expect they can only release the format the studio gives them.

 

[simsaladimbamba]

What happens if you watch 4:3 content, you know, those TV shows, that aired until the 2000s?
What about those big black bars on each side? Do you zoom in then?

 

[here2rock]

I expect they can only release the format the studio gives them.

I am told same movies are released as 2.35:1 format on Blu Ray discs.

 

[MarkG21]

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/764

An interesting read for some who has questions regarding this topic.

 

[here2rock]

What happens if you watch 4:3 content, you know, those TV shows, that aired until the 2000s?
What about those big black bars on each side? Do you zoom in then?

Your comments show that you don't know how the zoom function works. When you zoom in with a 4:3 content you are losing the top and bottom in the middle part of your screen (Where normally the main characters in the scene are) not the sides. Zooming would mean losing the heads of the characters in the scene. It would be silly to zoom, having said that variable zoom can still work to some extent.

Normally the sides do not have a significant part of the scene the director is intending to show.

 

[Irishman]

The key words you used "I" and "me". My point is that not everyone is in the same boat. There are a lot of people who don't want to have black bars on their tiny 50" screens (That's right 50" is no longer big anymore).

If apple had some sort of zoom adjustment then everybody would have been happy, you would have got your ultra wide angle and I would have got my full coverage of the screen, both happy! What is wrong with that option? Better sill if I like the movie I could watch it again in it's full glory.

Apple screwed it up in my mind.

Apple didn't NEED to do it because it duplicates a feature found on most modern TVs. Plus, if the aspect gets out of whack, the user has to remember that both devices offer AR controls, and has to remember which one is causing the problem. Barring that, they have to fiddle with both controls until they fix it.

That's not the experience Apple was trying to create, I'm thinking.

 

[hipnetic]

Your comments show that you don't know how the zoom function works. When you zoom in with a 4:3 content you are losing the top and bottom in the middle part of your screen (Where normally the main characters in the scene are) not the sides. Zooming would mean losing the heads of the characters in the scene. It would be silly to zoom, having said that variable zoom can still work to some extent.

Normally the sides do not have a significant part of the scene the director is intending to show.

No, there's just as much important/non-important visual stuff in the left/right portions as there is in the top/bottom portions.

As I mentioned before, if you're bothered by losing out on some of the height, you can sit closer. Or you can buy a larger TV. Lopping off part of the image should be the last thing you decide to do.

Also, FWIW, there once was a time when people had 4:3 (1.33:1) TV sets and some movies that were shot in a wider ratio (e.g., 1.85:1) were actually shot with a film format that captured more height, but the director intended to chop off the top/bottom sections, because he wanted it to be wider when displayed in theaters. When filming the movie, sometimes there would be boom microphones that would be recorded on film in that top section - the director didn't care because he knew that would be cropped off when displayed in the theater. When the movie eventually came out on VHS or DVD, the movie studio thought that it made sense to fill the entire screen, rather than show it in the format the director intended. The result was a presentation that filled the screen, but contained a lot of visual "crap" in the top/bottom sections (e.g., the boom microphone was visible).

 

[here2rock]

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/764

An interesting read for some who has questions regarding this topic.

Very nice article MarkG21. However it does not touch the concept of variable zoom. The idea behind 2.35:1 format movies is to preserve the theatrical version of the movies but most of the times you are not actually watching it in a theatre set up at home.

There is a nice example of what the cropping does in the article from a scene in the movie 'Once Upon a Time in the West.' As you your further go down to look at the same scene with 16:9 cropping, the two characters in the scene are not in the view. I'm not advocating 16:9 ratio but variable zoom. The two characters on the scene could have preserved to some extent with 10-20% zoom.

----------

Apple didn't NEED to do it because it duplicates a feature found on most modern TVs. Plus, if the aspect gets out of whack, the user has to remember that both devices offer AR controls, and has to remember which one is causing the problem. Barring that, they have to fiddle with both controls until they fix it.

That's not the experience Apple was trying to create, I'm thinking.

Tell me one TV which has a vaiable zoom function?

 

[simsaladimbamba]

Your comments show that you don't know how the zoom function works. When you zoom in with a 4:3 content you are losing the top and bottom in the middle part of your screen (Where normally the main characters in the scene are) not the sides. Zooming would mean losing the heads of the characters in the scene. It would be silly to zoom, having said that variable zoom can still work to some extent.

Normally the sides do not have a significant part of the scene the director is intending to show.

Your comment shows me, that you don't understand sarcasm.

I am a follower of the OAR, I even bought 2.35:1 VHS tapes of movies in the 90s, when 4:3 TVs were dominant and 16:9 TVs were a novelty. I don't mind the black bars, I understand why they are there.
If one needs a bigger picture, god damn it, get a bigger TV.

 

[steve-p]

Tell me one TV which has a vaiable zoom function?

I don't know of any. So I guess no-one really wants it after all. If they did, it would be common.

 

[here2rock]

I don't know of any. So I guess no-one really wants it after all. If they did, it would be common.

There are plenty of people who don't want those bars regardless of the intentions of the movie studios to preserve the the theatrical version of the movie.


50" screen is more like a 35" screen with those black bars!

 

[Irishman]

I don't know of any. So I guess no-one really wants it after all. If they did, it would be common.

I think he means "variable". And if that's the case, that would look awful! It would jack up the proportions in both the x an y directions in mathematically different ways. All just to get rid of black bars???

Nah. Count me out of that train wreck.