View Single Post
Old 09-27-2011, 12:24 PM   #6
dobyblue dobyblue is offline
Super Moderator
 
dobyblue's Avatar
 
Jul 2006
Ontario, Canada
46
614
13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Brown View Post
It's simple math. Divide the number of pixels in the available screen width (1920, 1280, etc.) by the aspect ratio width (1.85, 2.0, 2.35, 2.40, etc.).
I think what's being asked is what is being encoded. Are 2.35:1 Blu-ray's encoded anamorphically so that they're actually 2538x1080 for example? So for 2.39:1 TV's would you set your player to be 2.39:1 and you'd get the benefits of the extra resolution on a pixel by pixel basis or would you simply be stretching the 1920x817 signal, in essence gaining no resolution.

It's an interesting question for those that think 2.35:1 monitors are the next best thing.
The first thing I try to communicate to my crew is that there will be no shaky-cam and no rack zooms, because those techniques are only used to hide the fact that there is no energy. When you eliminate those gimmicks you’re confronted with the reality of the shot you have in front of you, and nine times out of 10 you say to yourself: “This just isn’t working.”
~Christopher McQuarrie (Director, Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation)
  Reply With Quote