Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can Apple TV HD 1080p go full screen?
- Thread starter Dstopsie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't really explain it well in words, but I absolutely love watching movies in 2.40 aspect ratio. I really do appreciate the wider picture as compared to a 16:9 movie. It's very hard for me to watch a 2.40 movie in "full screen" on TV. With that said, I'm fine if a movie is 16:9 if that is what it was intended to be.
Remember, with a 2.40 movie with black bars on the top/bottom, you are seeing more of a picture. You'd be losing picture if they put a 2.40 picture to 16:9. Less is definitely not better.
Remember, with a 2.40 movie with black bars on the top/bottom, you are seeing more of a picture. You'd be losing picture if they put a 2.40 picture to 16:9. Less is definitely not better.
I did not mean that at all. I meant variable zoom so you don't go from 2.35:1 to 16:9 but you find a happy medium between those two formats. I will try to demonstrate it later for you once I get the chance. Maybe you have never used it in your life so you are perhaps not in a good position to comment.
No, I have used it, but I do not like it.
I am an OAR (original aspect ratio) guy. I think we should respect the director's intent for the picture, pixel for pixel (not mucking with that by doing - variable zoom, Motionplus, overly saturated color - in ways that get away from that intent.
I hope that makes it clear.
What is your set up? How close do you sit fron the screen.
----------
What is it? From yor comments on the previous few posts it appears that you don't know it.
2.35 ratio movies the director intended for the cinemas, they are not best suited for smaller screens.
Ah, I can tell by your comment about the larger size intended for cinemas that you've been in more than one debate about aspect ratio on HDTV (as have I). Suffice it to say that I'm not looking for another one of those debates, so the line I draw is where it comes to the characteristics of the asthetics of the image that the director intended. Size notwithstanding, (because as we both know, there is variation from cinema to cinema with regard to screen size - which one did the director intent for us to see?) my position and my preference is that if I took pictures with a professional-level DSLR and put them up side by side on the computer screen, I want the visual qualities of BOTH images - the cinema and my home display - to be identical, down to the amount of peripheral viewing angle I have when watching. This is why I sit 6 feet away from my 50" Pro-111FD when I want to do any critical viewing. The apparent size of the image comes closest to mimicking the cinema screen as allowed by the constraints of my room.
Okay, I'm done.
Dude give it up. No one here supports your opinion that you should EVER zoom regardless if it is the tv or media device. You might as well give up.
You are not sitting that far from your TV Set. If you double the difference those bars really start to look bad.
In my opinion 'ZOOM' in its various implementations is the worst thing they ever made. Watch the film as it was intended I don't understand folks who prefer to muck it all up just because every pixel of your display isn't filled!
It does bother a lot of people including myself. The OP was bugged by the bars that is how it started. I have found the way which gets around this problem. I don't care too much of a theatrical version of the movie. I go to theatres to watch the full version or rewatch it in it's full format. At home I want to recover as much of my screen as possible.
The point I am trying to highlight is that Apple has not given any choices to the end user which is very poor in my opinion. It would have been very easy for them to keep everybody happy. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Not having this option only keeps the OAR guys happy not everyone else.
Why TV shows are not shot in 2.35:1 format?
BTW I am enjoying this thread very much and I mean no disrespect to anyone.
Last edited:
I'm pretty certain that I know better than you do how far back I sit from my TV.
Unlike you, I don't look at the BARS. I look at the amazing content of the film I'm trying to view.
The OP thought something was wrong until people explained about aspect ratios. They were fine with it once they knew the reason for it. I think you're alone on this board.
Apple is not known for catering to every potential customer's whim. They do what they think is best for the user's experience and are right in most cases. Change-resistant people often kick and scream but they eventually come around and realize it was the best thing to do. That's why floppy discs are dead. That's why flash is dying. If they pandered to everyone's wants their products would be a hodgepodge of little-used features and not the elegant, easy-to-use experiences they are known for. But you're a Windows guy so maybe you don't understand Apple's philosophy like Mac people do. Besides, would a company tied to Pixar really advocate bastardizing movies?
Maybe because it's more expensive. TV shows only recently got into 16:9 HD because those cameras are expensive.
Last edited:
@ blackbarsdislikers:
So you accept the blow up of 817 vertical pixel (of a 2.35:1 film) to 1080 vertical pixel and also the loss of a fourth of visual information, just because the black bars seem to you to show less information and thus you recover the "unused" black space?
I never understood it, but I guess it comes from different perspectives and how a films looked upon. As far as I can gather, people who see films just as entertainment, don't like bars (very rough generalisation), but people who can also enjoy the artistic aspect of film making, and lets face it, there is some art out there besides the Hollywood dreck, fully accept those bars, as director/cinematographer are either known or at least their roles understood.
Again, this is just what I have seen, thus my opinion, which is subjective, as no real objective data about the correlation of aspect ratio and its importance with film watchers. Maybe once we defeated the evil on this planet, we can send someone to write some paper about it. Until then, we will have to speculate. Which reminds me, yesterday/today was Tuesday. Didn't the new Mac was supposed to be released?
So you accept the blow up of 817 vertical pixel (of a 2.35:1 film) to 1080 vertical pixel and also the loss of a fourth of visual information, just because the black bars seem to you to show less information and thus you recover the "unused" black space?
I never understood it, but I guess it comes from different perspectives and how a films looked upon. As far as I can gather, people who see films just as entertainment, don't like bars (very rough generalisation), but people who can also enjoy the artistic aspect of film making, and lets face it, there is some art out there besides the Hollywood dreck, fully accept those bars, as director/cinematographer are either known or at least their roles understood.
Again, this is just what I have seen, thus my opinion, which is subjective, as no real objective data about the correlation of aspect ratio and its importance with film watchers. Maybe once we defeated the evil on this planet, we can send someone to write some paper about it. Until then, we will have to speculate. Which reminds me, yesterday/today was Tuesday. Didn't the new Mac was supposed to be released?
I'd have to agree with the poster above. I don't think Apple would be accommodating to anybody by adding a zoom feature in. Movies are not meant to be zoomed in just to fill the TV. There is really no benefit zooming in. It's worse. I'm not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but that's how it's supposed to be.
TV shows are shot in 16:9 because that it pretty much standard nowadays for the TV industry. TV shows and movies are very different. Generally, you don't need as much space in a TV show as compared to a movie. For movies, directors choose which aspect ratio they see best fit for their movie, be it 4:3, 16:9, or 2.40.
To go a bit further, TV shows are meant to be shown on TVs, hense why the standard is 16:9. Movies aren't made to be displayed on TVs, rather on screens that can accomodate how they are filmed. Obviously, you can watch movies on a TV, but it will adjust accordantly.
The OP thought something was wrong, yes, the bars! He is forced to accept it because there is no option. I don't think he accepted the decision with a smile on his face.
TV shows are desinged for smaller screens, the 2.35:1 format is not desireable because of the size constraint. It makes no sense for TV producers not to use the full screen.
It does not matter whether I am the only one arguing the case. Everybody else thought the Orville and Wilbur Wright brothers were insane. BTW they invented the first airplane.
We have already established that the OP is not forced to accept it at all. TVs generally have a perfectly good zoom function which will scale the 2.35:1 picture automatically to completely fill a 16:9 frame and lose picture information from the sides, if he so chooses to do. TV manufacturers realise that some people don't like the bars. Apple realises that TV manufacturers are already providing a solution. The fact that neither black bars nor a full frame zoom are acceptable to you is your issue, not Apple's, or the TV manufacturers.
The analogy with the Wright brothers is hilarious by the way. I personally don't see any connection between inventing something radically new and complaining because you don't like black bars and won't accept the fixed zoom solution that TV manufacturers provide either.
steve-p, I won't quote you but I still like my movies zoomed in, not all the way to 16:9 but enough so the black bars are not annoying. If you like to watch your movies in full 2.35:1 then good luck to you. I don't have trouble with it.
I am just hoping someone will JB it soon so I can it have it my way!
Wright brothers was just a joke, I am surprised you took it seriously!
I am just hoping someone will JB it soon so I can it have it my way!
Wright brothers was just a joke, I am surprised you took it seriously!
I haven't seen it posted yet, so I figured I could at least add this bit of information. When they were coming up with the HDTV/ATSC standard they came up with the 16:9 format and created it for that standard. They did this to create a happy medium between all of the different aspect ratios that they knew were out there. TV was almost 100% shot in 4:3 aspect at the time. Movies were divided up between a few different ratios but the most common were 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. 16:9 is very close in size to 1.85:1 (it's 1.78:1). It's so close in fact that some studios actually will crop their 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 for blu-ray/DVD and most consumers/directors don't complain too much about it. 16:9 is also a happy medium between 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1. By using 16:9 they were able to minimize the black bars on the sides of 4:3 content and on the top/bottom of 2.35:1 content so you were able to use as much of your screen as possible to view both.
That is how/why the 16:9 standard was created.
That is how/why the 16:9 standard was created.