HD 101: Why there are black bars on HDTVs

It never fails, one of the first thing just about every new HDTV owners asks is; why are there black bars on my new widescreen TV? And this is the reason why just about every HD discussion forum has a sticked thread at the top of the forums explaining why this still happens. So in this edition of HD 101, we figured we'd have our go at trying to give a simple answer to an age old question. The most basic explanation is because the image you want to watch isn't the same shape as the your TV. Of course that seems too obvious and now you're thinking; but why not, they're both widescreen? But rather than getting into the why are there so many shapes -- called aspect ratios from here on out -- we'll show you the various formats and the different ways they might be displayed on your HDTV.
Just about all HDTVs have an aspect ratio of 16x9, or 1.78:1. This basically means that if the screen was 16 inches wide, then it would be 9 inches tall. This is much wider than older TVs which were 4x3 or 1.33:1. Things would be complicated enough if there were only two aspect ratios, but life is just not that simple. The most obvious examples that break out of these two are the ones used for most films; 1.85:1 and its wider brother 2.35: -- the only other one worth mentioning here is usually used for computer monitors, which is 1.6:1. Now It is pretty obvious that when we watch 4x3 content on a 16x9 HDTV -- or vica versa -- that we'd see black bars to make up the difference. But obviously this isn't the only scenario, because not only does it matter what the original aspect ratio of the material is, but it also matters what it was optimized to be displayed on.
4x3 on a 16x9 HDTV
Pillar box

We'll start out with an easy one. We've all seen this right, turn on your brand new HDTV switch to an SD channel and you are greeted with black bars on each side to make up the difference. Sure it isn't ideal, but at least the part of the image that is full doesn't look out of wack.
Stretching
Ok, so you paid all that money for a TV, you want to use up the whole thing right? So you hit the stretch button and now you can see how fat this women just got because it's all stretched out. Although this might seem like a good idea at first, the fact that everything looks out of proportion starts to get to most people.
Non-linear stretch
If you hate black bars, then at this point you're thinking, "now we're talking." Sure it seems great at first because her face doesn't look bad at all. But just wait, because as soon as the camera pans from right to left you might just lose your lunch. Just stretching the edges seems like a great idea because most of everything you care about is in the middle, but it isn't worth it either.
Cropping
In this example, the image is simple cropped on the top and bottom -- some TVs call this zoom because the image is zoomed in on, which effectively cuts off the top and bottom. At least with this one though you won't feel sick when the camera pans and no one looks fat, but who knows what you might be missing. Just look at the logo for a glimpse of how much of the image is lost.
A combination of two
We don't have a good example of this one, so we'll just explain it. Basically this is what some channels like TNT HD do. The image gets cropped and at the same time a non-liner stretch is performed. On top of this, sometimes little black bars might be left on the sides which will either be not noticeable or won't be seen at all since most TVs have a little overscan. This is without a doubt the most tolerable of all the modified ways to show 4x3, but for us, when we do watch 4x3 content, we'd just as soon see the black bars.
Widescreen optimized for 4x3 and then displayed on a 16x9 HDTV
This is the most annoying example ever. Here we have a widescreen image optimized for a 4x3 TV and then displayed on a 16x9 TV. Believe it or not this is how all early DVDs were done, but luckily it's hard to find new ones like this. There really isn't any excuse for this these days, but it isn't hard to find. The only consolation is that it is the easiest to deal with, because all you do is activate the crop or zoom feature on your TV to eliminate the black bars. Of course the image will probably still look terrible since it isn't HD and now it's been zoomed.
2.35:1 framed in 16x9
This is the best example that gets new HDTV owners in a tizzy. Here they are trying to enjoy their brand new HDTV and now they are faced with the realization that even though they thought life with black bars was over, it isn't. This can be avoided very easily by using the crop feature, and since the bars aren't that big, most won't notice. That being said there are many out there -- present company included -- that can't stand it when 2.35:1 is cropped to 16x9. So when you see the term OAR used online, this is what they want to see. It basically means, black bars or not, they want to see everything in its Original Aspect Ratio.
1.85:1 framed in 16x9

4x3 on a 16x9 HDTV
Pillar box

Stretching

Non-linear stretch

Cropping

A combination of two
We don't have a good example of this one, so we'll just explain it. Basically this is what some channels like TNT HD do. The image gets cropped and at the same time a non-liner stretch is performed. On top of this, sometimes little black bars might be left on the sides which will either be not noticeable or won't be seen at all since most TVs have a little overscan. This is without a doubt the most tolerable of all the modified ways to show 4x3, but for us, when we do watch 4x3 content, we'd just as soon see the black bars.
Widescreen optimized for 4x3 and then displayed on a 16x9 HDTV

2.35:1 framed in 16x9

1.85:1 framed in 16x9

The last example is one you'll almost never even notice. The reason is that because 1.85:1 is so close to 1.78:1 (16x9) that the very small black bars on the top and bottom usually get cropped off in overscan. On top of this, most movie channels will crop 'em out anyways. The easiest way to see an example of this is to pop in a 1.85:1 Blu-ray Disc and disable your display's overscan -- every manufacturer seems to have its own name for this, Samsung calls it 'Just Scan' while Pioneer calls it 'Dot by Dot,' for example.
So these are the examples of why you'd see black bars on your HDTV. Ultimately the black bars aren't the end of the world and in fact they allow you to enjoy the image the way it was intended to be consumed. So rather than fight them, just kick back and enjoy the part of the image that is there -- we prefer to think of the image as twice as wide, rather than half as tall. The only other thing we'd like to point out is that HD comes in many different aspect ratios and although content specifically created for HDTVs is 16x9, an old movie shot at 4x3 can have just as much detail as a newer movie can.
Got a basic HD topic that you'd love for us to explain? Tired of Google's complicated answers when you asked for a simple explaination? Hit us up at ask at engadgethd dawt com and keep an eye on this space -- your topic could be next.
So these are the examples of why you'd see black bars on your HDTV. Ultimately the black bars aren't the end of the world and in fact they allow you to enjoy the image the way it was intended to be consumed. So rather than fight them, just kick back and enjoy the part of the image that is there -- we prefer to think of the image as twice as wide, rather than half as tall. The only other thing we'd like to point out is that HD comes in many different aspect ratios and although content specifically created for HDTVs is 16x9, an old movie shot at 4x3 can have just as much detail as a newer movie can.
Got a basic HD topic that you'd love for us to explain? Tired of Google's complicated answers when you asked for a simple explaination? Hit us up at ask at engadgethd dawt com and keep an eye on this space -- your topic could be next.





















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Evan @ Feb 19th 2009 11:10AM
My questions are: why is there overscan on flat panels? Many HDTVs take a 1920x1080 image, upscale it to about 2016x1134, and crop out the center 1920x1080. Absolutely stupid!
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 11:11AM
Great question, maybe it'll be the next question addressed.
Jeff @ Feb 19th 2009 11:39AM
Blame closed captioning. With analog video, closed captioning is sent as data at the very top of the picture. This appears as white blocks moving around the top. With analog TVs, the over scan was enough to hide this data, but with digital TVs you have the ability to actually display the entire picture including this annoying noise at the top. Most viewers don't like seeing moving noise at the top of the screen, so manufactures naturally set the TV to crop it out. This is becoming less of an issue with more video sources being digital and never having the analog CC data added to the picture in the first place.
John @ Feb 19th 2009 11:47AM
@Jeff
that white noise you see on top of a analog signal is not just CC as that happens on line 21 on analog TV and on line 9 on HD tv.
That bar will always be their because it not only hold close caption content but it will hold the AFD. It also hold time code and other information the networks need to know that is their as a quick reference.
Ironhide @ Feb 19th 2009 12:05PM
I'm a Home Theater Rep at a big box store. One of the Toshiba reps came by one day and mentioned the 'native mode' that Toshiba TVs have available to them. The overscan is simply a throwback (on other tvs) to how images were displayed on crt televisions, where as native mode takes the entire image and displays it as is, without the overscan. I did ask why it wasn't a standard feature on lcd tvs then, but he couldn't answer that.
Gunnar @ Feb 19th 2009 1:57PM
This is helpful stuff, Ben. It would be good to have more of these kinds of primers in the future.
So am I correct in understanding that a Blu-ray disc will look best when displayed on a 1080p flat panel with the overscan feature turned off? It sounds like there won;t be any unnecessary upscaling and cropping this way.
GBot @ Feb 22nd 2009 9:02PM
Indeed. I was really blown away by the difference I saw when I calibrated XBMC to display without overscan on my 51" 1080i screen. As if Comcast's low-bitrate "HDTV" isn't crappy enough, we have overscan to contend with...
Andy @ Feb 19th 2009 9:28PM
That is correct gunnar. 1080p and no overscan means no altering of the image on the disc.
My question is why didnt they use a better image to show this off, one where edge stuff would get cut off in zoom levels and it would be easy to say "see, the monkey on the edge is now not visible".
Mike @ Feb 19th 2009 11:28AM
Good explanations but too bad you didn't edit the post or run it through a spell checker...
"But rather then getting" s/be 'than'
"you might just loose your lunch" s/be 'lose'
"just assume" s/be "just as soon"
"in it's Original Aspect Ratio" s/be "its"
"have it's own name" s/be "its"
differnent s/be different
Skot @ Feb 19th 2009 11:43AM
I found another one:
"even though they though life with black bars was over"
Who edits these posts anyway?
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 11:43AM
You two do, evidently. ;)
Thanks for the corrections.
Ivan @ Feb 19th 2009 1:28PM
Too bad you appear to have holes in your English as well. You can't have a 'spell checker', unless you're a Wizard of Oz or Merlin. A better (and correct) way would be to say 'spelling checker', because it checks your spelling, unlike a 'spell checker' that checks your spells. Now if you must flame about how pedantic I was then here is your chance...
Jason Schmucker @ Feb 19th 2009 3:11PM
Yeah, this article was full of little spelling and grammar gems. The first paragraph alone is a debacle.
Scuubs @ Feb 20th 2009 11:48PM
Why do people do this? What in the world does it add to the conversation? It is actually uite annoying.
John B @ Feb 19th 2009 11:32AM
I've owned/run widescreen.org for over ten years, and I predicted long ago that the pan-and-scan crowd would never be satisfied after 16:9 took over. I knew that once 16:9 came into play people would bitch about either the still-there bars on the top and bottom for movies with an AR greater than 1.78:1 or else they'd complain about 4:3 pillarboxing because they "can't use their whole screen".
Lo and behold -- just last month I got yet another e-mail from some guy bitching that all movies should be made in 1.78:1 so that they can fit on this 16:9 TV. (I'm sure that his argument five years ago was that they should all be made in 4:3.)
Sorry, Ben, but your statement about "So rather than fight them, just kick back and enjoy the part of the image that is there" will never happen. As long as people have the mentality that their $20 DVD purchase gives them the right to supersede the planning and vision of the entire filmmaking crew, they will always complain about "black bars".
That, sadly, is the reality about "the dreaded black bars".
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 11:33AM
No doubt you are right. I kinda laughed when I saw that my new Blu-ray player had cropping features built in for the various aspect ratios, but the sad part is that I'm sure at least a few people will choose it for that vary reason.
Charles @ Feb 19th 2009 11:50AM
Very good point, John. After having a Toshiba 37" tube TV for over a decade I recently got a Panasonic 50" plasma and love re-watching all my favorite movies on it again. Letterboxing never bothered me on my old CRT and it certainly doesn't bother me on my new plasma. I get tired of people complaining about the bars and their willingness to accept the sometimes crucial picture info lost in pan and scan. I want ALL the picture and never even notice the bars anymore unless someone mentions it.
That being said, I was a little irritated watching "Star Trek Enterprise" on Sci-Fi HD yesterday. Huge black bars framing and surrounding a relatively tiny "HD" picture in the middle. It was a bit bizarre.
Tara @ Mar 12th 2009 3:41PM
I hate the black bars, family hates them, my cousin's boyfriend's mailman hates them. Everyone hates them.
I pay for a 50" widescreen TV, I want all the movies I buy to fit them.
It's like buying a large pizza: you open the large box and only find a medium pie! And I still payed for the large box!
Why do filmmakers *need* so many aspect ratios?
I liked my Betamax player and I liked the betamax tape format. But VHS won and we are all better for it. Same with Bluray. Same with widescreen TVs.
We need an aspect ratio standard. Sure some fringe filmmakers can use whatever, but for mainstream movies we need a standard and TVs to match.
I hate the black bars *and* I hate to crop the HD picture!
I don't care if it's 1.85, 2.35, whatever. Movies and TV shows should all match up.
If a filmmaker is using 2.35 to "say something to the audience" maybe he/she should be using other techniques. Using the aspect ratio seems like a artsy crutch.
I don't make films, I just enjoy them but hate explaining why the black bars are there. ugghh
vypergts @ Feb 19th 2009 11:37AM
Gah I hate the widescreen optimized for 4x3! It looked like crap on my SD set and is absolutely a sin on an HD set. Curse you Travel channel!
kash @ Feb 20th 2009 8:37AM
And the fucking Discovery Channel! >:|
Kyle @ Feb 19th 2009 11:48AM
It might not make any sense to us 'normal' people out here but there IS a good reason for over-scan. Over-scan is mostly used because when shows are broadcast, even in HD have information that is transmitted on the very top few lines of the video. You can sometimes see this occur if you watch an HD program and set you TV to display in the 'Zoom 1', 'Pixel-to-Pixel' mode or whatever your TV calls it. When you set the TV to over-scan, that information is cut off the top of the screen and all you see is the video intended.
Shack @ Feb 19th 2009 11:49AM
So my 1080p blu-ray that is 2.35:1 aspect ratio is really only ~820p? Is that right?
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 11:52AM
Right, it is displayed at 820p. But the picture quality is the same as if it was 16x9 because the other bars are black so the pixel density is the same as a 16x9 1080p image. I'm pretty sure the movie is still stored on the disc at 1080p (without the bars), but honestly I'm not 100% on that one, I'd have to research it.
Gunnar @ Feb 19th 2009 2:51PM
Would there be any benefit to a HD version of anamorphic widescreen similar to the method used on DVD's? Instead of including the black bars as part of the picture information just let the player do the decoding based on your zoom settings. When you watched it in widescreen you would still be getting the same resolution but when you zoom the image to fit the screen you would get a full 1080 lines of information.
I have a couple of those early DVD's before the widespread use of anamorphic widescreen and they look like crap on my 46" flat panel because a third of the 480 lines of resolution are being wasted on black. It seems a shame to do the same with HD content.
Miggity @ Feb 19th 2009 3:36PM
@Kevon27
Wow! That was either the stupidist thing I've seen posted at Engadget or a brilliant troll!
Christian Wolff @ Feb 19th 2009 6:17PM
No, the movie on a blu-ray is stored in a 16:9 1080p frame, with the black bars.
And, yes, it would be a great idea to allow 1080p frames in anamorphic 4:3 and 64:27 aspect ratios as well. This would allow to store 1.33:1 and 2.40:1 movies in more pixels than with the current 16:9 frame.
Colin Robertson @ Feb 19th 2009 8:22PM
@Gunnar:
I have been wondering the same exact thing for a while now, and was just about to pose the question when I saw that you had beaten me to the punch! Can we hear from an expert as to why there is no equivalent of "Enhanced for widescreen TV's" in regards to 2.35:1 films on blu-ray? Some folks are already going with 2.40:1 screens using buying anamorphic lenses in order to have a constant height screen. Why not be able to take advantage of the full resolution of blu-ray for films that do not conform to 1.78:1 as DVD did with 16:9?
johan @ Feb 20th 2009 8:48AM
So you lose a few lines of resolution. But, since black bars compress well, the bit in the middle will be encoded at a higher quality compression ratio. Basically, the whole image needs to come it at a bitrate of 40 Mb/s (that probably includes audio as well, which I'm ignoring). IF you encode 1080 lines you need to spread that 40 Mb/s over the whole area ~ 37 Kb/s per line. However, if you only need to worry about the middle 820 lines, you can allocate ~ 48 Kb/s for each line.
On another topic, does anyone know whether the conversions to dvd or blu-ray allocate compression bandwith differently to different parts of the screen? It would probably have to be done manually, but you could tell the compressor to do a worse job on the background buildings in order to allocate more bits to the action in the middle.
kevon27 @ Feb 19th 2009 11:53AM
Why not do this.. When a movie "requires" a wide screen shot of a scene, then and only there evoke the black bars. But when the scene does not require a wide angle view, use the entire freaking screen.
Really, I can care less about those sissy-artsy-f artsy director's vision.
I spent damn good money on a 52in samsung and I want 52inches of picture. So with this black bars thing I have to go to a 65 inch ($4000 tv) to get 52 inches of picture?!? Heck no.
Only idiots will be 'ok' with black bars.
Those directors need to start thinking that a movie only has a very, very short life in the movie theater, then it's off to bluray and dvd, where 16:9 and 4:3 rule.
So cut the BS and give people what they want, FULL STINKING SCREEN.
And those who are okay with black bars and side with the "preserve the director's vision", can kiss my 16:9 behind.
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 11:55AM
Actually in the Blu-ray version of The Dark Knight they did exactly this, but the other way around. Almost the entire movie was 2.35:1, but the few Imax sequences were in 16x9 cropped. I didn't find it distracting, but others were not happy at all.
John B @ Feb 19th 2009 12:33PM
Ah, you must have been the guy who sent me that e-mail last month.
It must be nice to think that your $20 purchase gives you better judgment than an entire team of creative writers, cinematographers, producers, and so forth who have hundreds of collective years of experience under their belts and who do this for a living.
Franssu @ Feb 23rd 2009 5:39PM
I have a solution for you.
Don't buy any movie that doesn't use the wonderful 16:9 ratio that so elegantly fills the screen you paid so much for, and restrict yourself to TV series.
Seriously, some are very good, and nearly every one is produced in full 16:9 HD.
Oh, and never, ever buy movies like Casablanca and other classics of that period. Not only the image aspect ratio is 4:3 or 1.37:1, but these morons dared releasing their movies in black and white (as in : no color), and the sound is mono. It would be terribly frustrating to have this kind of crap only using a portion of your hard-earned HDTV.
There's another solution if you don't want to spend 4000$ on a 65-inch TV. Buy a 2000$ projector and project a gorram 100-inch 16:9 image. Buy a 2:40:1 screen and zoom the image to fill the screen when you're watching 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 content.
Matthew Brundage @ Feb 19th 2009 11:55AM
Ben D: "1.34:1" should be "1.33:1."
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 11:56AM
I went back and forth on that. I've seen it both ways. It is actually 1.333333333333 (and on and on) so I just rounded up. But to your point it makes sense to round up 1.77777 and not 1.333.
Joshua @ Feb 19th 2009 1:09PM
To further this point 2.35:1 has not been used in cinemas since 1970. The actual ratio is 2.39:1. What is interesting is that if you look at modern Blu-Ray discs the aspect ratio is either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 never 2.39:1. For some studio based information look into the Digital Cinema Initiatives (http://www.dcimovies.com/DCIDigitalCinemaSystemSpecv1_2.pdf) their specification calls out these items.
The one question I have always had is what is the actual ratio of these Blu-Ray discs? I don't have a dot-by-dot capable display device to be able to test. 2.35:1 is still what most people say when referring to scope, but this is only out of old habit. Are Blu-Rays just using that out of habit or actual formatting? This is important because if you are a projector user, because screens come in either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 so which do you buy?
Charles @ Feb 19th 2009 6:51PM
Actually standard Academy ratio is 1.37:1.
Darren @ Feb 19th 2009 11:59AM
Let me get this straight. Are all so-called 16:9 movies actually shot 1.85:1?
To at least negate one black bar issue, why wasn't 1.85:1 the wide-screen TV standard?
That would make sense.
Why is 16:9 (1.78:1) the standard?
Ben @ Feb 19th 2009 12:00PM
16x9 was designed with digital delivery in mind, while 1.78:1 was a film standard. The math just didn't work out.
Wikipedia does a great job of explaining it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
kevon27 @ Feb 19th 2009 12:05PM
Hey Ben, you actually have time to "nurse" this post.
You got the day off?
daxiang12 @ Feb 19th 2009 12:09PM
Rounding up 1.3333333.... should still be 1.33, not 1.34.
This is like 3rd grade math in elementary school. Jeez.
Scott @ Feb 19th 2009 3:01PM
Rounding up 1.3333333.... should still be 1.33, not 1.34.
I was taught that rounding OFF would always go to the closer whole number, rounding DOWN would always go to the lower number and rounding UP would always go to the higher number.
daxiang12 @ Feb 19th 2009 3:14PM
I never thought you can round things anyway you like.
maybe I am ignorant.
Harley3k @ Feb 19th 2009 12:25PM
With the super-wide format movies, it's kind of like you're not getting your whole resolution... ie. a 1080i picture is really something like 875i, because the top and bottom are just black.
It does make for smaller divx files ;)
Brent @ Feb 19th 2009 12:25PM
Thanks for writing this article. I've referred my wife to it so she'll hopefully stop asking me this very question :)
Reggie @ Feb 19th 2009 12:34PM
Most of the people I have seen who complain have too small of a screen - my SXRD 60" has not given me any thoughts of caring about "smaller" picture - and to me what is most important is viewing the movie how the director wanted it to be shown.
Thanks for the explanation as this will provide a great link for those who question the black bars
Miggity @ Feb 19th 2009 12:47PM
What cracks me up is these schmucks that bought 4:3 "FULLSCREEN" DVDs for years arent gonna be happy when they try to play that shit on their new widescreen HDTV in 16:9!
Actually who am I kidding. Theres about a 0% chance these peopl have their DVD or Bluray player hooked up right and its probably also set in 4:3 mode anyway.
squiggleslash @ Feb 19th 2009 1:55PM
Nah, they'll just watch them in glorious stretch-o-vision...
The scary thing is, you know I'm right.
apple89 @ Feb 19th 2009 5:15PM
@squiggleslash
You just restated what the original poster said and you told him "you know I'm right". What was the point of you comment?
BigBrasky @ Feb 20th 2009 2:43PM
That would be my sister. She lent me her dvd collection while she was away and I was saddened to see that I could only watch a handful of her movies since they were in 4:3.
Watching that on my widescreen is so irritating. Maybe I shouldn't be so picky?
Patrick @ Feb 19th 2009 2:15PM
What always confused me was why 720p displays have a native resolution of 768 lines. Why wouldn't they just make them to the standard content resolution?
BTW, 4 divided by 3 = 1.3333333, and NEVER rounds up to 1.34! Math fail.