Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Heh, it's not just you (see HBO broadcasts), but for, uh, just me, I'm pleased you're in the minority.

I got into this damn hobby for OAR, and you'll have to pry my cold, dead hands from any 16:9 redux of a wider aspect. But, yeah, you're of course welcome to your opinion, and I respect you're right to share it. I just think that the preference is, erm, "misguided".

HBO broadcast use pan and scan and that is what i am NOT in favor of. I am ONLY in favor of opening a 2.35:1 ratio to 1.78:1 frame if it reveals the most of the image that was physically able to be filmed. I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT in favor of CROPPING a 2.35:1 image to fit 1.78:1. I AM in favor of the aspect ratio that reveals the most onscreen information. A lot of times (Avatar being the most recent example and a lot of Super 35 films) a film is shot with enough info (open matte) on the film cells to fill a 16x9 screen when but the director might intend to make the aspect ratio 2.35:1 for theatrical presentationwhich means he would end up CROPPING some information off to make that aspect ratio.

Now I am not going to throw a fit ever when a film that might have been shot open matte if the director or gives us a 2.35:1 ratio since that is how he intended his film to be presented. I'm ok with that, but Im just saying I would rather them open up a little more of the image to accommodate the entire 16x9 image, unless that cropped info has stuff that we aren't intended to see (microphones , etc.) The keywords are OPENED UP and not cropped.



In the above frame for example I would love to have that little bit of extra info that would allow me to fill my TV.

Now, I am not going to complain when that doesn't happen, since I am always going to be ok with director preference.

The only time I OK with pan and scan is when a 1.33 film (or TV show) was protected for 16x9 then Im ok with getting the widescreen version.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Now I am not going to throw a fit ever when a film that might have been shot open matte if the director or gives us a 2.35:1 ratio since that is how he intended his film to be presented. I'm ok with that, but Im just saying I would rather them open up a little more of the image to accommodate the entire 16x9 image, unless that cropped info has stuff that we aren't intended to see (microphones , etc.) The keywords are OPENED UP and not cropped.

What about films like Independence Day where the live action was open matte but the visual effects are rendered at 2.35?

A lot of Super35 films with visual effects are that way. ILM protects to 2:1, not much more.

[Nick Graham]

Any word as to the reasoning the new Escape From New York BD is totally feature free? The old MGM two disc set, while being two single layer discs if I recall (which I thought was odd), had plenty of features. I thought the would-be remake was dead in the water, so I'm not sure what they are waiting on in regards to releasing all the goodies.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

What about films like Independence Day where the live action was open matte but the visual effects are rendered at 2.35?

A lot of Super35 films with visual effects are that way. ILM protects to 2:1, not much more.

Was this a serious question? Or are you just trying to be funny? I like you Peter, but would you honestly expect me to say that "Yes, I would like to see a screen with half of the image have special effects while the other half doesnt?!!"

Original Quote:

Originally Posted by merrick97

I would rather them open up a little more of the image to accommodate the entire 16x9 image, unless that cropped info has stuff that we aren't intended to see (microphones , etc.)

Let me rephrase that:
I am NOT against opening up the image as long as the viewing experience isn't compromised. Missing special effects would represent a compromise in the viewing experience. A major one at that. And no, I would NOT expect the studios to redo the special effects to accomodate a different aspect ratio.

Anyone, I'm done commenting on my personal preference. It is what it is and it does NOT in anyway affect my enjoyment of the film. If the director wants to open the image to accomodate 16x9 then by all means, but if he prefers to keep it at 2.35:1 (which is 99.9999999999% of the time) hey thats great too.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Was this a serious question? Or are you just trying to be funny? I like you Peter, but would you honestly expect me to say that "Yes, I would like to see a screen with half of the image have special effects while the other half doesnt?!!"

Original Quote:


Let me rephrase that:
I am NOT against opening up the image as long as the viewing experience isn't compromised. Missing special effects would represent a compromise in the viewing experience. A major one at that. And no, I would NOT expect the studios to redo the special effects to accomodate a different aspect ratio.

Anyone, I'm done commenting on my personal preference. It is what it is and it does NOT in anyway affect my enjoyment of the film. If the director wants to open the image to accomodate 16x9 then by all means, but if he prefers to keep it at 2.35:1 (which is 99.9999999999% of the time) hey thats great too.

Honestly, the viewing experience is almost always compromised when the OAR isn't used. You might think that it looks better because it's opened up, but the composition that the director and cinematographer use suffers nonetheless. Opening up an image is the same as cropping to me, since you're trying to fit an image into a shape that it isn't.

[Musashi]

Hey Jeff, how was the weekend?

Is anything concrete known about the evac on Saturday? I heard some things, but I think they were made up.

Had a great time at HMK. I know they want to come back, but I suspect in the interest of variety it can't be next year.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Honestly, the viewing experience is almost always compromised when the OAR isn't used. You might think that it looks better because it's opened up, but the composition that the director and cinematographer use suffers nonetheless. Opening up an image is the same as cropping to me, since you're trying to fit an image into a shape that it isn't.

In one!

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

For me personally, I want as much of the image that was filmed as possible even if the director intended for a different ratio. If enough was filmed to cover a 1.78:1 ratio then I would prefer to see all that information to fill up my screen even if it was intended to be 2.35:1 unless of course that image opening leads to things being seen that don't belong. Thats just me though.

If it's not OAR, any opening of the image is going to show things that don't belong.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

If it's not OAR, any opening of the image is going to show things that don't belong.

Thats your opinion and is not always the case. Avatar is proof that a movie can be filmed with the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in mind and then the director decide later to open up the image and look FABULOUS as a result. Josh Zyber disagrees with my view and gave his opinion in his Avatar review. He feels the film should have been kept 2.35:1

All of you want to convince me that this is a bad thing and I recognize why you all think that and I want to be clear that I am ONLY in favor of it if there is a way it can be done in which more image can be seen, but does NOT compromise the viewing experience.

For the record, OAR will NEVER be WRONG, it just may not be the "most" right as for what I want.

For real, this is my last comment on the subject. I'm not going to polute this thread any further on this. If you want to continue lets do it via PM

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

If it's not OAR, any opening of the image is going to show things that don't belong.

Just a quick comment from the peanut gallery. I also prefer open matte 16:9 over 2:35 when available as evidenced by Xylon's first screen shot. I think everything that you see that's extra....."belongs."

Originally Posted by Xylon

[Bobby Henderson]

I have kind of stayed out of the Gladiator debate (the 1st BD had a terrible quality video transfer yet more appropriate colors while then 2nd BD has far superior quality yet inappropriate colors). There is a point I would like to make about how this is being framed.

A number of people keep referring to "how Gladiator looked in theaters" and recommending the BD look like the theatrical presentation. This is a VERY SHAKY ARGUMENT. I'm not in favor of degrading Blu-ray image quality to where it looked as crappy as it did in average movie theaters. Many or even arguably most first run theaters practice film done wrong. If someone can remember how Gladiator looked to him in a theatrical showing 10 years ago chances are rather strong he watched a showing with poor presentation quality standards.

In 2000, digital projection use was in its infancy. I'm not even sure if Gladiator had a digital version. Even if a digital version was available it would have only been shown in the first generation TI DLP 1280 X 1024 pixel format, which was not very good at all. Video encoding standards were not standardized at the time which led to some shows looking pretty bad.

Then you have all of the various factors that hurt film projection quality. Many theater chains didn't spend the money required to properly maintain booth equipment. Projection bulbs are run well past their recommended life span and below proper power levels to save money. Even auditorium designs can badly affect projection quality. I've seen a number of theaters locate the projector port far too high on the back wall causing keystone and focus issues. Improper decor near the screen leads to unwanted reflections on the screen image. Curved screens have all sorts of problems with focus and light reflections (which kills color and contrast). Ever visited old theaters that have been twinned and sub-divided again and again? A common problem with those is projector ports in a rear corner of the room instead of the center of the back wall.

Even in regard to a presentation where film done right was practiced you still have other factors. 35mm release prints produced en masse at high speed are at least a good 3 or even more generations removed from the original negative. Given Gladiator was a Super35 movie generational loss would definitely have made an impact on the image shown in theaters. Lab errors do occur with release prints from time to time as well.

Any Blu-ray release of a catalog title should have the appropriate color timing used. The original camera negative won't have that; it's shot to record the best color & contrast possible -nevertheless it is the best image source for the Blu-ray because it has no generational loss and the best levels of detail. A new scan and master has to be created and its color referenced against the elements used in the movie's color timing stages. Those are elements movie-goers do not see in theaters. Sometimes those elements don't survive. So the director or someone close to him has to come in and supervise the color work. Overall, every catalog title has its own challenges. There is no simple, broad brush-stroke solution to this important issue.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Thats your opinion and is not always the case. Avatar is proof that a movie can be filmed with the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in mind and then the director decide later to open up the image and look FABULOUS as a result.

According to Cameron, the movie was filmed for 1.78:1 and the scope image was extracted afterwards.

In most super35 movies, the area outside the scope frame is simply not part of the movie as it was presented in any "proper" way (not the case for Avatar with its dual aspect ratio theatrical prints). Leave it out.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Thats your opinion and is not always the case. Avatar is proof that a movie can be filmed with the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in mind and then the director decide later to open up the image and look FABULOUS as a result. Josh Zyber disagrees with my view and gave his opinion in his Avatar review. He feels the film should have been kept 2.35:1

All of you want to convince me that this is a bad thing and I recognize why you all think that and I want to be clear that I am ONLY in favor of it if there is a way it can be done in which more image can be seen, but does NOT compromise the viewing experience.

For the record, OAR will NEVER be WRONG, it just may not be the "most" right as for what I want.

For real, this is my last comment on the subject. I'm not going to polute this thread any further on this. If you want to continue lets do it via PM

For me OAR and Directors intent go hand in hand. I disagree when it comes to WB insisting that Kubrick wanted 4x3 even after his death - when I think he would have changed his mind @ the advent of larger widescreen televisions... but in an instance where Cameron released Avatar variably in the theater, it can be argued for either AR as being the OAR or the correct AR. Opening up a print that is clearly OAR 2.35 will always reveal information that isn't intended. This isn't an opinion. If it was intended, it would have been released flat.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I have kind of stayed out of the Gladiator debate (the 1st BD had a terrible quality video transfer yet more appropriate colors while then 2nd BD has far superior quality yet inappropriate colors). There is a point I would like to make about how this is being framed.

A number of people keep referring to "how Gladiator looked in theaters" and recommending the BD look like the theatrical presentation. This is a VERY SHAKY ARGUMENT. I'm not in favor of degrading Blu-ray image quality to where it looked as crappy as it did in average movie theaters. Many or even arguably most first run theaters practice film done wrong. If someone can remember how Gladiator looked to him in a theatrical showing 10 years ago chances are rather strong he watched a showing with poor presentation quality standards.

In 2000, digital projection use was in its infancy. I'm not even sure if Gladiator had a digital version. Even if a digital version was available it would have only been shown in the first generation TI DLP 1280 X 1024 pixel format, which was not very good at all. Video encoding standards were not standardized at the time which led to some shows looking pretty bad.

Then you have all of the various factors that hurt film projection quality. Many theater chains didn't spend the money required to properly maintain booth equipment. Projection bulbs are run well past their recommended life span and below proper power levels to save money. Even auditorium designs can badly affect projection quality. I've seen a number of theaters locate the projector port far too high on the back wall causing keystone and focus issues. Improper decor near the screen leads to unwanted reflections on the screen image. Curved screens have all sorts of problems with focus and light reflections (which kills color and contrast). Ever visited old theaters that have been twinned and sub-divided again and again? A common problem with those is projector ports in a rear corner of the room instead of the center of the back wall.

Even in regard to a presentation where film done right was practiced you still have other factors. 35mm release prints produced en masse at high speed are at least a good 3 or even more generations removed from the original negative. Given Gladiator was a Super35 movie generational loss would definitely have made an impact on the image shown in theaters. Lab errors do occur with release prints from time to time as well.

Any Blu-ray release of a catalog title should have the appropriate color timing used. The original camera negative won't have that; it's shot to record the best color & contrast possible -nevertheless it is the best image source for the Blu-ray because it has no generational loss and the best levels of detail. A new scan and master has to be created and its color referenced against the elements used in the movie's color timing stages. Those are elements movie-goers do not see in theaters. Sometimes those elements don't survive. So the director or someone close to him has to come in and supervise the color work. Overall, every catalog title has its own challenges. There is no simple, broad brush-stroke solution to this important issue.

Excellent post. How does ANYBODY other than the director or cinematographer know what the color of a film should be? Which makes all of these color complaints...baseless.

The ONLY exception for me in regards to a director making a film look worse was The French Connection. We are all hoping that mistake won't be made for the Exorcist.

[KubrickFan]

Regarding Avatar, if you look at any shot of two or more people, you'll see that there's an abundance of space there that wouldn't (or shouldn't) be there if it was in 2.35:1. I believe Cameron said that he 'fell in love with the 1.78:1 when preparing the Blu-ray', so he more or less changed his mind about it. That happens sometimes, but I believe that the movie looks better in 2.35:1.

Originally Posted by Taffy

Just a quick comment from the peanut gallery. I also prefer open matte 16:9 over 2:35 when available as evidenced by Xylon's first screen shot. I think everything that you see that's extra....."belongs."

Well, you could cut off the sides of the 2.35:1 and have a good looking image as well, so that doesn't really mean anything.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Thats your opinion and is not always the case. Avatar is proof that a movie can be filmed with the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in mind and then the director decide later to open up the image and look FABULOUS as a result.

But the 1.78:1 framing wasn't an afterthought: it was the target for IMAX and HD screens from the onset of production, with the 2.35:1 image being targeted towards standard theaters. Both images were "correct" and "OAR" from the onset.

What was perhaps an afterthought was that Cameron said that he *prefered* the 1.78:1 presentation. Early on he reportedly said he prefered the 2.35:1 framing.

But regardless of his preference for one over the other if he had to choose, both were legitimately OAR.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

For me OAR and Directors intent go hand in hand. I disagree when it comes to WB insisting that Kubrick wanted 4x3 even after his death - when I think he would have changed his mind @ the advent of larger widescreen televisions... but in an instance where Cameron released Avatar variably in the theater, it can be argued for either AR as being the OAR or the correct AR. Opening up a print that is clearly OAR 2.35 will always reveal information that isn't intended. This isn't an opinion. If it was intended, it would have been released flat.

Agreed.

A Director's intent can never be truly divorced from the concept of OAR. In the case of AVATAR for instance, Cameron wanted the "most immersive image" for 3D... and so he opted for the image with the largest image given the mutlipe venues: when 2.35:1 was "bigger" in that theater he opted for that, and when 1.78:1 was "bigger" he opted for that.

Since most homes are constant width 16x9, 1.78 is "bigger" at home so he opted for that. The principle was consistent, and makes sense when you understand the concept behind the various aspect ratios given Cameron's intent.

I also agree with you regarding Kubrick, who's "1.33:1" home-video preferences were driven by a paradigm of small 4x3 television screens he seemed unable to realize weren't going to typify the future of HT. When he offered explanations, it was clear he was *also* trying to maximize impact for a more imerssive image at home. large screen 16x9 HD sets would accomplish that best with widescreen, but that wasn't on his radar of experience.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by meckel

Bill,

My wife got me a iPad for Fathers Day. It's pretty cool so far. I have had an issue or two with no flash support, ESPN3 uses flash. I now have a use for all the digital copies I have. Feel free to PM an questions you have.

Thanks Meckel - sounds like a tablet computer of some kind if definitely in my future. I'm using a tiny little netbook now - I love the light weight and very easy portability of it. But a tablet would just perfectly bridge the gap for me between smart phone, book reader and netbook. I personally think the category is really going to take off over time.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

Any word as to the reasoning the new Escape From New York BD is totally feature free? The old MGM two disc set, while being two single layer discs if I recall (which I thought was odd), had plenty of features. I thought the would-be remake was dead in the water, so I'm not sure what they are waiting on in regards to releasing all the goodies.

No official word, but I think this - for the studio - represents a compromise between the desire to get catalog product out there and the need to do it inexpensively in a tough economy. By including a movie-only Blu-ray with the existing DVD, the studio gets an inexpensive-to-produce package that STILL includes all the previous extras. My own feeling is that, while I would certainly much rather have all those extras on the BD disc and some new ones as well, in this tough catalog release climate I'm just happy to have the movie in HD at all. It's a compromise I'm willing to accept for the time being.


By the way to all the rest of youhere : I just wanted to say that I've been enjoying your discussion about aspect ratio, etc. And I appreciate that you guys are all debating it respectfully and thoughtfully. Carry on!

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

A number of people keep referring to "how Gladiator looked in theaters" and recommending the BD look like the theatrical presentation. This is a VERY SHAKY ARGUMENT. I'm not in favor of degrading Blu-ray image quality to where it looked as crappy as it did in average movie theaters. Many or even arguably most first run theaters practice film done wrong. If someone can remember how Gladiator looked to him in a theatrical showing 10 years ago chances are rather strong he watched a showing with poor presentation quality standards.

The average movie theaters in my two areas (San Francisco Bay Area, and Corvallis, Oregon), whether using photochemical or digital, display far greater PQ than I see on BD, in all ways except brightness. The increased resolution and acutance I usually see in the theaters is especially obvious since I sit fairly close to both theatrical and (most) home screens (about one screen width away). The color values also seem better in the theater.

A long time ago, in the '60s, there were sometimes (5 or 10% of the time) what we called "bad prints," with poor color values and soft images, which we suspected were made on inferior stock, or made carelessly, but they seem to have virtually vanished. In double bills, the same theater would sometimes follow a "bad print" with a superb print, ruling out their equipment as the problem. I have seen only one 70mm bad print, which was an ill-advised and cropped blow-up of Gone With the Wind in the '60s, with color inferior to several 35 mm prints of GWTW I've seen. Otherwise, I've never seen a 70 mm print that was not spectacularly better than the BD versions (when there is a BD version).

Was the theatrical print of Gladiator you saw noticeably worse than average?