Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 2 Collection 3D (Blu-ray)
$174.99
Insurgent 3D (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Strike Back: Season Three (Blu-ray)
$22.99
Insurgent (Blu-ray)
$17.99
Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight (Blu-ray)
$22.99
How to Train Your Dragon (Blu-ray)
$10.00
Ghostbusters 1 & 2 (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Home 3D (Blu-ray)
$24.99
X-Men: Days of Future Past (Blu-ray)
$14.90
Mad Max: Fury Road 3D (Blu-ray)
$29.99
The Walking Dead: The Complete Fifth Season (Blu-ray)
$44.99
The Salvation (Blu-ray)
$8.49
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)
COLLECT WATCH TRACK RATE REVIEW APP
Manage your own movie collection and always keep it with you with our Apps. Price track movies and get price drop notifications instantly. Become a member to take full advantage of all site features.
GET STARTED

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Displays > Display Theory and Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2015, 11:36 PM   #381
Roy_Batty Roy_Batty is offline
Active Member
 
May 2010
Canada
Default

I never mentioned resolution, the image on the 4x3 frame is slightly squeezed
vertically. If you overlaid both images in photoshop and scaled them to the same
size, they would probably be the same size. You would have to compare the anamorphic dvd with the anamorphic blu-ray to see if there is any difference
in the aspect ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2015, 10:30 PM   #382
alphadec alphadec is offline
Expert Member
 
alphadec's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Norway
6
471
16
36
Send a message via MSN to alphadec
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy_Batty View Post
I never mentioned resolution, the image on the 4x3 frame is slightly squeezed
vertically. If you overlaid both images in photoshop and scaled them to the same
size, they would probably be the same size. You would have to compare the anamorphic dvd with the anamorphic blu-ray to see if there is any difference
in the aspect ratio.
Okey I give up.

But if anyone finds the same movie try watching it, and u see the picture and compare (aspect ratio ) and u see that we have lost LOTS on the bd release compared to the TCM source.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2015, 01:56 AM   #383
ZoetMB ZoetMB is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
May 2009
New York
167
27
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphadec View Post
I had a schoking expereince since I thought blu-ray movies did include ALL picture in a movie.

The movie I have checked is Kellys heros:

I did watch it on TCM (europe) but thought the picture did look strange so I check with my Blu-ray, so here is the screen grab I have made og the same scene diffrent source.

1. TCM

Attachment 119481

2. Blu-ray source

Attachment 119482

So my question is this, why cannot studios release bd's with ALL PICTURE. ?
I dont want to cut out anyhting.
The first image appears to be compressed vertically. Either TCM made an error when they presented it or there was something wrong with your TV setting. Both images have just about the same image area. There appears to be the slightest bit of cropping on the left side of the BD, but this is either because your TV is overscanning (get a BD test disc and display the screen that has a rectangle representing the screen area. Make sure you can see the entire rectangle) or because when they scanned for the BD, they cropped the image slightly differently. Negative dimensions and projection dimensions are different from each other and there's always a bit more image than they intend for you to see. While a film might have been shot for say 1.85:1, it was also protected for 1.75:1, 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 (for SDTV).

But believe me when I say that 95% of BDs have more accurate framing than the way these films were shown in most theatres. Very few theatres projected films accurately due to the physical dimensions of the theatre, projection lenses only being available in certain focal lengths, parallax distortion, etc.

"Kelly's Heroes" was shot in 35mm Panavision and blown up to 70mm. In 70mm, since the projected AR was 2.2:1 vs. the 35mm AR of 2.35:1, the sides would have been slightly cropped anyway, even though 70mm is considered the superior presentation. Same is true for films like Star Wars.

When this film was made, the SMPTE standard for 35mm negative area for Panavision was a background aperture of .980" x .735" and a negative area of .868" x .735". The camera finder would be marked with the equivalent 70mm area of .753 x .668, so nothing important was placed outside that area. This would result in a 35mm print of .839" x .715", but the full height was not projected because it would reveal lab splices. (And don't forget that the anamorphic lens would project this at the equivalent of 1.678" x .715" when it unsqueezed during projection.) The 70mm spherical print would have a dimension of 1.913" x .868".

So basically what I'm saying is don't get too hung up about the very edges of the frame. The director and the cinematographer didn't.

When 1.85:1 films are scanned for Blu, they're generally presented at the full 16:9 AR (1.78:1) of the TV, rather than the original 1.85. It's only a few pixels difference, but they open the vertical up and show you a bit more vertical. This used to bug me, but Robert A. Harris, the famous film restorer, told me this was no big deal and I shouldn't worry about it, so I stopped complaining.

Quote:
But if anyone finds the same movie try watching it, and u see the picture and compare (aspect ratio ) and u see that we have lost LOTS on the bd release compared to the TCM source.
No there isn't. Look at the objects at the edges of the frame. Both images are very close. You're getting thrown off by the fact that the TCM image is vertically distorted for some reason.
loose="not tight", lose="can't find it, doesn't have anymore" or the opposite of "win".
their="belongs to", there="place", they're="they are", there's = "there is"
it's="it is", for everything else use "its"
then="after", than="compared with"
"a lot" not "alot"

A Guide to Spelling and Punctuation

Last edited by ZoetMB; 07-18-2015 at 02:00 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
PeterTHX (07-18-2015)
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Displays > Display Theory and Discussion

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
understanding resolution and aspect ratios Newbie Discussion Andy in NY 2 08-09-2010 08:35 PM
anamorphic lenses + aspect ratios Projectors Erman_94 32 11-19-2009 12:49 AM
Aspect Ratios - Why Not More Customizable? Blu-ray Movies - North America solott55 23 11-13-2009 09:08 PM
Toshiba 42RV530U Aspect Ratios Display Theory and Discussion cj-kent 1 03-25-2008 07:42 PM
Blu-ray 'Aspect Ratios' Blu-ray Movies - North America TheDavidian 6 10-15-2007 10:32 PM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:11 PM.