POTR:DMC 16x9

[Gouletor]

Pirates of the Carribeanead's man chest was on tv (in hd) the other night, in a full 16x9 ratio. I made comparisons with the blu-ray disc in 2.35:1 (the theatrical aspect ratio) and found out something surprising: the version on tv was not a zoom on the 2:35 version, but expended on it! It added previously unseen details, mostly in the bottom part of the image.

I contacted a friend who worked on the movie at ILM and he confirmed that the version they sent to DI was 16x9, and the 2:35 was cropped from it.

So, knowing that the director approved (but might not prefer) a full 16x9 version that fills the black bars, what would you rather see?

[nerdboyrockstar]

The 16x9. I know everyone is all about preserving the sacredness of the Theatrical Aspect Ratio.. but I have to say, I think when a movie fills my screen, it makes for a more immersive movie-watching experience.

[neo_reloaded]

I'd much rather see the director approved version. Shots are composed for a certain aspect ratio and size - just having more information on the sides or top & bottom is not necessarily good. Often times, the stuff in this "extra" information is just empty space, and can sometimes even be things that take you out of the movie (like filming equipment). It can also completely mess up the composition of the shot - symmetry, focus, contrast, etc. can all be screwed up.

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

Scroll down to the bottom, under the heading "The Issue of Open Matte." The Dark City shots show how beautiful composition and geometry can be lost by having too much unintended info on the top and bottom.

While I'm sure there are some cases where the change in aspect ratio has little effect, I still would defer to the director's original composition just to be consistent. I gain no more enjoyment from my TV being "filled" - it's simply not something that registers for me. The TV is simply a tool to display an image, and a taller image is not somehow inherently more attractive to me.

[4K2K]

They should have options for both on the same disc where two versions of films (eg. 2.35:1 and 1.85:1) are available. Perhaps a button that can toggle between the different versions.

[stargazeruk]

Originally Posted by Gouletor

Pirates of the Carribeanead's man chest was on tv (in hd) the other night, in a full 16x9 ratio. I made comparisons with the blu-ray disc in 2.35:1 (the theatrical aspect ratio) and found out something surprising: the version on tv was not a zoom on the 2:35 version, but expended on it! It added previously unseen details, mostly in the bottom part of the image.

I contacted a friend who worked on the movie at ILM and he confirmed that the version they sent to DI was 16x9, and the 2:35 was cropped from it.

So, knowing that the director approved (but might not prefer) a full 16x9 version that fills the black bars, what would you rather see?

Alot of films today are filmed on Super 35 at a aspect ratio of 1.37 and then cropped to 2.35:1 which is the directors intended aspect ratio all the pirates of the carribeans were.

The rest of the 2.35:1 movies are true 2.35:1 (anamorphic) movies which I prefer and call true OAR.

Please note I do not call super 35 that are not anamorphically filmed true OAR and call it IAR.

Anyway most movie I seen look far better in (OAR or IAR) and prefer the ratio the director wants. There has only been five movies where I have to say I prefer it open matted not sure why probally the framing does'nt sit with me which is rare but over all leave it as it was intended.

Luckly for the UK (not sure about the rest of the EU) 4:3 dvds stopped selling along time ago and mostly has been OAR or IAR for super35 movies.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by nerdboyrockstar

The 16x9. I know everyone is all about preserving the sacredness of the Theatrical Aspect Ratio.. but I have to say, I think when a movie fills my screen, it makes for a more immersive movie-watching experience.

Thankfully these decisions aren't up to you.

[nerdboyrockstar]

Originally Posted by GGX

Thankfully these decisions aren't up to you.

I know right?

And black bars on the sides for older movies are going to be the death of me. I can't do it..

[GGX]

Originally Posted by nerdboyrockstar

I know right?

And black bars on the sides for older movies are going to be the death of me. I can't do it..

Thats to bad. Its how it was created.

[JadedRaverLA]

To the OP:

Welcome to the forum. Others have already explained about most current movies being shot in Super35 for theatrical projection in anamoprhic 35. In most cases the 2.39:1 AR is the intended one for presentation, though a "taller" AR is often protected as certain cable networks (cough* HBO HD, Comcast HD VOD, etc *cough) want to butcher the film as they see fit. That doesn't make the 16:9 version the correct one, just as movies shot full frame 35mm intending to be soft-matted to 1.85:1 aren't "correct" in a fullscreen 1.33:1 presentation. In both cases, the reformatting may not be as obtrusive as "old school" pan and scan, but you are changing the composition of the entire film from that which was intended.

So, yeah, my vote for Super35 presentation is for the IAR (which would be the theatrical AR unless the director or DP specified otherwise). If I could vote twice, though, my second vote is for Super35 to be relegated to filming commercials and TV shows and for Hollyeood to return to higher quality methods (ana35, ana55, 65mm, VistaVision, IMAX, whatever). But that seems to be largely a losing battle.

Originally Posted by GGX

Thats to bad. Its how it was created.

It's how it was created (or at least intended in the case of the Super35 formatting)... but its hardly "too bad!"

[cajmoyper]

The more the better and that is what 2.4:1 entails.

[redlikefire02]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

They should have options for both on the same disc where two versions of films (eg. 2.35:1 and 1.85:1) are available. Perhaps a button that can toggle between the different versions.

agreed with ya

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

They should have options for both on the same disc where two versions of films (eg. 2.35:1 and 1.85:1) are available. Perhaps a button that can toggle between the different versions.

So you want to try to cram two copies of the movie on every disc just so that you can watch a version that fills your screen? That'll do wonders for the bitrates.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

So you want to try to cram two copies of the movie on every disc just so that you can watch a version that fills your screen? That'll do wonders for the bitrates.

Who said it was just so I can have one that fills the screen?
I just want both versions on the same disc. Doesn't Blu-ray allow something like 40mbit/sec for the video? Aren't most movies encoded at an average of about half that? (if that's not possible they could have 2 discs in the case - 1 for each version).

Perhaps there's another way, like for this movie, say they filmed it with the whole 1.78:1 frame containing the image, but for the cinema release they decide to put black bars on as the director intends it to be put on cinema release at 2.35 or 2.39:1, but the whole 1.78:1 frame contains proper footage (no microphones/lights) - the answer might be to encode just the 1.78:1 version for Blu-ray but have the black bars on the Blu-ray be a graphics layer (if that's possible - using BD-J?) - so the 2.35:1 version on the Blu-ray disc would look exactly like it would if you had encoded it at 2.35:1 with the black bars encoded in the picture instead of as a graphics layer. And the 2.35:1/1.78:1 toggle button would just make the graphics layer visible/invisible?

[matthewrounds]

Originally Posted by Gouletor

So, knowing that the director approved (but might not prefer) a full 16x9 version that fills the black bars, what would you rather see?

I'd rather see threads like this not made. Where is the guy who has the signature about grain, aspect ratios, and morons...

[Schwin!!]

No movie since the 70's has been shot 2.35:1, they're all 2.39:1 which sometimes gets rounded to 2.40:1.

[Schwin!!]

WHy is grain good? Wouldn't you want a film to not be grainy?

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Who said it was just so I can have one that fills the screen?
I just want both versions on the same disc. Doesn't Blu-ray allow something like 40mbit/sec for the video? Aren't most movies encoded at an average of about half that? (if that's not possible they could have 2 discs in the case - 1 for each version).

Regardless, you're always up against a 50GB cap. Unless your movie is 20GB in size and the extras are only 10GB in size (leaving you 20GB free), you just don't have the space available without lowering the bitrate for both versions of the movie.

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Perhaps there's another way, like for this movie, say they filmed it with the whole 1.78:1 frame containing the image, but for the cinema release they decide to put black bars on as the director intends it to be put on cinema release at 2.35 or 2.39:1, but the whole 1.78:1 frame contains proper footage (no microphones/lights) - the answer might be to encode just the 1.78:1 version for Blu-ray but have the black bars on the Blu-ray be a graphics layer (if that's possible - using BD-J?) - so the 2.35:1 version on the Blu-ray disc would look exactly like it would if you had encoded it at 2.35:1 with the black bars encoded in the picture instead of as a graphics layer. And the 2.35:1/1.78:1 toggle button would just make the graphics layer visible/invisible?

Well, the original frame is NOT 1.78:1 in typical 4-perf Super35 anyway... it's roughly academy ratio (1.37:1). All potential versions are "cropped" in some way from the originally captured area. But, the composition of the film is still most often designed for 2.39:1, as that's virtually always the desired theatrical release AR. As for your idea for "masking" the image, it just doesn't work. The 2.39:1 composition includes information that isn 't included in the 16:9 version and vice versa. Also, the chosen theatrical composition within the fully captured frame can vary from shot to shot so you can't simply program in a masking. You would never be able to simply mask off the intended display area.

Even if there was unlimited space on the disc (which there definitely isn't) what's the purpose in watching a film with a composition other than that favored by the director and DP? That intended composition is as much a part of the film as the script, the sets, the actors, etc. If you want to make your own movie feel free... for other people's movies, how about we trust their judgment? The fact that the crappy Super 35 format makes such nonsense possible doesn't mean anyone serious about film would ever consider watching a "reframed" (that's the kind term for such butchering) version of a film.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Even if there was unlimited space on the disc (which there definitely isn't) what's the purpose in watching a film with a composition other than that favored by the director and DP? That intended composition is as much a part of the film as the script, the sets, the actors, etc. If you want to make your own movie feel free... for other people's movies, how about we trust their judgment? The fact that the crappy Super 35 format makes such nonsense possible doesn't mean anyone serious about film would ever consider watching a "reframed" (that's the kind term for such butchering) version of a film.

If you look at the top of this thread,

Originally Posted by Gouletor

So, knowing that the director approved (but might not prefer) a full 16x9 version that fills the black bars, what would you rather see?

the 1.78:1 version is the one they gave to broadcasters, they did the CGI at that ratio, they approved that version for use by broadcasters. Obviously broadcasters can see why people might want to see a particular version.

I'm not asking for a 1.78:1 version, I voted for both using a toggle button, with black bars as a graphics layer as one of my suggested methods. I'm all for director's intent - have that be the default setting, but why are you so against giving people the option to enjoy the media they purchased for their own entertainment in whatever way suits them. Do we remove pause buttons because the director doesn't want us to pause and get some coffee at that point in the film? Do we remove brightness, colour & backlight controls on our TV because the director wants to control those and not give us any control? Motion interpolation (120hz & 240hz) are options on TVs that company's like Sony (who are also a movie studio who release movies on Blu-ray and also build Blu-ray players) and Samsung build but they're totally against a director's intent but Sony/Samsung put those as options to give the consumer the option to use them. Consumers who have bought their movies on Blu-ray should be allowed to watch them in whatever way they want to. Why do you want to restrict how people watch the films they have bought so much?

Watching a movie with a director's/film-maker's/stars commentary instead of the normal audio is not the same film experience as watching it with the normal audio, but the film-makers sometimes put those on releases. Same with PiP commentaries/documentaries - it's not the same as watching the movie normally without PiP but those are sometimes provided as options for the consumer. Is watching a feature film with a director/stars talking all the time instead of the movie soundtrack and a big PiP box constantly on okay but watching the same film with the standard feature film audio track on, and slightly more picture area so wrong? Even some studios release discs with an incorrect aspect ratio or framing.

In fact my black bar using graphics layers idea could also work on films like The Dark Knight - some people want the film in 2.35:1 for the whole film, others want the aspect ratio to change to 1.78:1 during the Imax sequences, both versions have appeared in cinemas (well with the Imax one having the Imax scenes at Imax ratio - 1.44:1?). With my method using a graphics layer, the people who want the normal (non-Imax) theatrical version can have 2.35:1 during the whole film and people who want the expanding aspect ratio for the Imax sequences can have that - at no extra bitrate cost - other than a few lines of Java code for the black bars.