As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Shin Godzilla 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.96
2 hrs ago
Hard Boiled 4K (Blu-ray)
$49.99
29 min ago
In the Mouth of Madness 4K (Blu-ray)
$36.69
15 hrs ago
I Know What You Did Last Summer 4K (Blu-ray)
$39.99
20 hrs ago
Daiei Gothic: Japanese Ghost Stories Vol. 2 (Blu-ray)
$47.99
9 hrs ago
The Sound of Music 4K (Blu-ray)
$37.99
1 day ago
Creepshow 2 4K (Blu-ray)
$32.99
1 day ago
Shudder: A Decade of Fearless Horror (Blu-ray)
$80.68
1 day ago
Army of Darkness 4K (Blu-ray)
$23.99
7 hrs ago
Batman 85th Anniversary Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$79.99
1 day ago
Together 4K (Blu-ray)
$30.72
1 day ago
Outland 4K (Blu-ray)
$38.02
1 day ago
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


View Poll Results: Do you prefer 16:9 or 2.39:1 movie viewing?
16:9 248 41.20%
2.39:1 354 58.80%
Voters: 602. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2006, 06:20 PM   #21
Maximus Maximus is offline
Super Moderator
 
Maximus's Avatar
 
Nov 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deciazulado View Post
Maybe at one point we'll have OAR editions and "FullFrame" editions. Sacre Blu!
I hope not, DVD was crippled by people in the states not understanding what OAR means, I hope that BD/HD DVD does not go the same way. In the UK we just accept the DVD for what it is, considering that most of the population on 16:9 TVs these days, they never bothered with FS releases.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Deadguy2322 (12-20-2017)
Old 12-08-2006, 06:57 PM   #22
phranctoast phranctoast is offline
Power Member
 
phranctoast's Avatar
 
Aug 2006
Long Island, NY;psn:phranctoast
78
Default

deci made my head explode. Thats knowing your stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2006, 08:07 PM   #23
shido shido is offline
Active Member
 
Aug 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugbynerd View Post
I know what original aspect ratio is, -BAD RUGBYNERD BAD- The issue is what I think looks best. Maybe if the PS3 did 24fps, then OAR would be a little more relevant (hm, looks like you don't know what you're talking about), or maybe if I had a gigantic 1080p tv then OAR would be ideal, but on a 37" 1080p flatscreen, 16:9 is the way to go for sure, regardless of OAR. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to cut off the outside 5% of the image? And what do you really miss by doing this? Nothing, but you gain a better image and full utilization of 1080p (do you even know what that is fuad?) What's more, how hard is it to make it so you can choose one option or the other on the same disc? Not hard. (And obviously on older movies you should not stretch them out... I'm only talking about movies that are 2.35:1 ratio-- would you rather have your HDTV display them in full 1080p 16:9 but lose the outside edges, or an effectively 720p OAR but retain the outside edges?
Dude, I watch 16:9 and 2.35:1 material on my 27" 4:3 HDTV, and you don't see me *****ing about wanting full screen to make a comeback. It's about understanding what's the better format, which you obviously don't. So really, if you can't understand this, you have no business buying either Blu-ray or HD-DVD movies.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Deadguy2322 (12-20-2017)
Old 12-08-2006, 10:11 PM   #24
AV_Integrated AV_Integrated is offline
Senior Member
 
AV_Integrated's Avatar
 
Jan 2005
Default

In fact... take a look at what you lose by watching scope films in non-OAR on your display:

http://www.avintegrated.com/aspect_ratios.html

There is no question that nobody should be losing all that detail and extra action just because they want to fill their 16:9 screen perfectly. Those that DO demand that should really look into projectors that allow for anamorphic lens additions for scope movies. Get a 2.35 screen, and then add masking to properly frame non scope films.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2006, 10:19 PM   #25
theknub theknub is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
theknub's Avatar
 
May 2006
Default

AV, thanks for the input. good and informative
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2006, 02:06 AM   #26
PeterTHX PeterTHX is offline
Banned
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
563
14
Default

Quote:
Actually if you zoom/crop a Scope image to fill a 16:9 screen you loose:
ARRRGH!!!!

lose!
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Deadguy2322 (12-20-2017)
Old 12-09-2006, 10:50 AM   #27
Konrad Konrad is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Konrad's Avatar
 
Jul 2006
Vienna, Austria
900
3060
15
10
1
Default

I cannot believe this discussion is actualy taking place today. Reminds of the time when widescreen presentations were introduced on Laserdisc 17 years ago and people complained about the black bars on top and bottom! It was customary then to butcher 2.35:1 movies to 1.33:1 in order to "fit them to your screen"! This process was called Pan & Scan.

Anyway: Projectors with Cinewide lenses combined with 21:9 screens solve the problem, no black bars on scope material. However, you will have black bars to the left and right on 1.85:1 material and smaller.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2006, 03:58 PM   #28
Rugbynerd Rugbynerd is offline
Junior Member
 
Dec 2006
Default Thanks

Thank Deci for the detailed info. That's awesome. I guess 25% would be a pretty substantial loss.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 05:20 AM   #29
CareyD1080p CareyD1080p is offline
Member
 
Dec 2006
Default

I believe movies that are presented in 2.40 "flat" (i.e. "Spider-Man 2", "Titanic", "Terminator 2" and others that are shot in Super 35 and are just "matted" to look like 2.40 scope, SHOULD BE in 16x9. However, TRUE anamorphic 2.35 or 2.40 movies should be shown in their ACTUAL aspect ratios, even if 300 lines or so of resolution are the BLACK BARS.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 08:11 AM   #30
WriteSimply WriteSimply is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Sep 2006
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Send a message via Yahoo to WriteSimply Send a message via Skype™ to WriteSimply
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
I believe movies that are presented in 2.40 "flat" (i.e. "Spider-Man 2", "Titanic", "Terminator 2" and others that are shot in Super 35 and are just "matted" to look like 2.40 scope, SHOULD BE in 16x9. However, TRUE anamorphic 2.35 or 2.40 movies should be shown in their ACTUAL aspect ratios, even if 300 lines or so of resolution are the BLACK BARS.
Why though? Especially since it was composed for theatrical viewing at 2.40. They may have shifted the camera virtually during the DI color timing process or editing but it was not meant for 1.78. It creates a lot more work for the DP and the director too.

Another thing to consider is that for Super35 movies that has little or no CGI/VFX, opening up the matte is possible. But for the movies you just listed, the CGI/VFX would have been contractually rendered at 2.40. Rendering at 1.78 would have been more expensive since the area exposed would also have to be rendered. At best you can hope for is the widescreen equivalent of "Fullscreen."


fuad
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 09:28 AM   #31
Deciazulado Deciazulado is offline
Site Manager
 
Deciazulado's Avatar
 
Aug 2006
USiberia
6
1161
7055
4063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
I believe movies that are presented in 2.40 "flat" (i.e. "Spider-Man 2", "Titanic", "Terminator 2" and others that are shot in Super 35 and are just "matted" to look like 2.40 scope, SHOULD BE in 16x9.
Stop! In the name of Love.
Think it over. Think it over.

scoped,jpg.jpg

Last edited by Deciazulado; 11-23-2012 at 10:47 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 12:08 PM   #32
Knight-Errant Knight-Errant is offline
Power Member
 
Knight-Errant's Avatar
 
Aug 2005
Sheffield, UK
Default

Intended Aspect Ratio.

Nuff said!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 01:08 PM   #33
CareyD1080p CareyD1080p is offline
Member
 
Dec 2006
Default

WRITESIMPLY...

Actually, my friend, I have compared these films. Their 2.40 DVD presentations to their 16x9 cable HD presentations. In ALL cases, their cable HD presentations had MORE "top to bottom" info (even on SPFX shots) and the "left to right" info was the same. On "Spider-Man 2", "Terminator 2", and "Titanic", the SPFX were rendered in 1.78, therefore the mattes cover EVEN the SPFX sequences.

I was disappointed with "Spidey 2" especially. All those great "Doc Ock" fight sequences (mostly CG), with twenty percent of it all, covered by black mattes. Why do the first movie in 1.78, then do the sequel in 2.40 flat? Personally, I think its LAZY for a director to do 2.40 flat. If you want a "scope" look for your movie, then DO THE WORK (lighting, blocking, etc) to achieve it. Shoot it 2.35 or 2.40 "anamorphic".

Sure, it's more work for your DP. Yeh, it's gotta be "pan and scanned" to death when it's released on DVD for your "full frame" customers, but hey, that why it's called....art. I think filmmakers do 2.40 flat because they are thinking about those DVD customers who, five decades later, still don't understand the difference between television and CINEMA. Movies were never meant to be shown on T.V. If I had MY WAY, there would be NO "full frame" versions of movies on DVD. That's why I thank God Blu-Ray came along. There is NO choice of "widescreen" or "full frame". (Not yet. Hopefully never.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying ALL movies should be shot 2.35 or 2.40 anamorphic. If a director shoots 35 with the intention of a 1.78 presentation in theaters and on DVD, God bless 'em. I'm just saying if you WANT the 2.40 "look", shoot it anamorphically. Do the work. Lucas does it. Peter Hyams does it. Richard Donner. Heck, even most of those dumb Columbia-Tri Star "J-Lo" romantic comedies are in 2.40 anamorphic.

Thanks for your time and attention.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 02:25 PM   #34
WriteSimply WriteSimply is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Sep 2006
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Send a message via Yahoo to WriteSimply Send a message via Skype™ to WriteSimply
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
Actually, my friend, I have compared these films. Their 2.40 DVD presentations to their 16x9 cable HD presentations. In ALL cases, their cable HD presentations had MORE "top to bottom" info (even on SPFX shots) and the "left to right" info was the same. On "Spider-Man 2", "Terminator 2", and "Titanic", the SPFX were rendered in 1.78, therefore the mattes cover EVEN the SPFX sequences.
Well that's good for you then. You can keep watching the cable HD presentation.

From a budgetary standpoint however, rendering above and below the matte is not something tighly-budgeted films can do.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying ALL movies should be shot 2.35 or 2.40 anamorphic. If a director shoots 35 with the intention of a 1.78 presentation in theaters and on DVD, God bless 'em. I'm just saying if you WANT the 2.40 "look", shoot it anamorphically. Do the work. Lucas does it. Peter Hyams does it. Richard Donner. Heck, even most of those dumb Columbia-Tri Star "J-Lo" romantic comedies are in 2.40 anamorphic.
Before online editing, directors who shoot Super35 would have to hope that the the performance captured could be readjusted into frame. With online, they could scan a 1.78 frame or the full frame to capture the performance by readjusting. You can only capture the magical moment once or twice. After that, you use the best take and hope your editor can make you look good.


fuad
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 02:33 PM   #35
JTK JTK is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
JTK's Avatar
 
Jan 2006
www.blurayoasis.com
Default

Wow, I never thought I'd have to use my ignore function here, but I just added someone who clearly has no idea WTF they're talking about.

I smell troll...or something. Maybe two of them. This looks like a troll thread right off the bat.

Last edited by JTK; 12-11-2006 at 02:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 06:09 PM   #36
Deciazulado Deciazulado is offline
Site Manager
 
Deciazulado's Avatar
 
Aug 2006
USiberia
6
1161
7055
4063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
Personally, I think its LAZY for a director to do 2.40 flat. If you want a "scope" look for your movie, then DO THE WORK (lighting, blocking, etc) to achieve it. Shoot it 2.35 or 2.40 "anamorphic".
I don't think you understand the process to shooting films too well.


All those Super-35 movies you mention are lighted, blocked, composed and shot for the 2.39 composition., So nobody is being lazy. Just ask anybody that's a good Cinematographer. You compose for 2.39, and "protect" for the taller frame for easier obligatory TV "FullFrame" transfers later on, but the 200 million spent on the movie are spent for the 2.39 MOVIE screen shape and composition. And if the 2.39 shot turns out to make it hard to protect the empty space above and below from boom mikes, skylines Telephone poles or dolly tracks, the director and cinematograpgher say screw TV! and shoot anyway, ensuring ALWAYS that the shot looks perfect on the 2.39 screen, and then THAT shot gets recomposed ON the FullScreen TV transfer while it remains untouched for the OAR version.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
Shoot it 2.35 or 2.40 "anamorphic".
The advantage of shooting with anamorphic lenses in true "Scope" is you get a sharper image and half the grain.

Composition (Cinematography) for the MOVIE image has nothing to do with it. BOTH Super-35 Flat lens photography and Anamorphic lens photography are composed for the same ratio: 2.39

Just different areas :
Super-35 : 10mm x 23.9mm = 239 square mm
Anamorphic: 17.5mm x 21mm =367 square mm

The down side of Anamorphic photography is that you have to amputate the image to do FullScreen transfers, while Super-35 gives you the option of not amputating by showing empty non-intended space above and below for those mass media transfers. So non-amputation is a better option and that's a reason Scope ratio movies are being made more in Super-35 : to offer a modified (but not crippled and mangled) version for people that don't like them black bars. And SFX are easier to integrate in flat lens photography (Try doing difficult squished SFXs :-P) So easier saves $$$

btw this happens too with most 1.85 films as they are shot in 1.375 Sound cameras and we get the same problem with people getting rabid because Disney finally did the right thing and showed Robin Hood in proper Widescreen for the first time in home video history (if you saw it on a theater, EVER, you saw it in widescreen) Same argument for A Hard Day's Night, that even has 1.85 projectionist framing guidelines burned into the negative, Kubrick widescreen films, etc etc. *waves at the guys from the HTF (I projected Dr. Strangelove )

That Neo pic in open matte 1.78 shows the blank wall above his head, and his lower body, and there's no SFX bullets there, cus they didnt "add" them there cus nobody watching the movie would be seeing those empty areas above and below. When a cameraman points a camera, he frames the dramatic action, not the set

talk to the hand
(the hand that focuses and frames. )
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 07:43 AM   #37
CareyD1080p CareyD1080p is offline
Member
 
Dec 2006
Default

DECIAZULADO...

Oh, I understand filmmaking QUITE well.
What I don't understand is...HYPOCRISY.

If a DP (shooting Super 35) lights and blocks his shots for 2.39, which I assume is the director's vision for the film, then why present the movie on full frame DVD and non-HD cable, with the mattes removed? Why not pan and scan the 2.39 image of the director's vision?

As I said, when I see a 16x9 cable HD presentation of such a film, it has MORE "top to bottom" info than the theatrical presentation or the widescreen DVD presentation. If a director wants me to see (vertically that is) ONLY what he blocked, then if I'm a person who only watches movies on non HD cable or full frame DVD, then I should see the SAME vertical info, NOT more.

THEREFORE, MY OPINION IS THIS...
full frame DVD and non-HD cable presentations of movies SHOT in Super 35, but BLOCKED for 2.39, should be panned and scanned. Hands down. This is my complaint, my argument, call it what you will. Take it or leave it. I won't lose sleep if you disagree, nor will I disrespect you if you do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 07:48 AM   #38
phloyd phloyd is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
phloyd's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
California
5
Default

Yeah, I don't really care how other people prefer their movies either...

They can fast forward and just watch the end for all I care

For me intended aspect ratio is the key. Opening the matte or cutting the sides - it is all evil.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 11:45 AM   #39
Deciazulado Deciazulado is offline
Site Manager
 
Deciazulado's Avatar
 
Aug 2006
USiberia
6
1161
7055
4063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
MY OPINION IS THIS...
full frame DVD and non-HD cable presentations of movies SHOT in Super 35, but BLOCKED for 2.39, should be panned and scanned. Hands down. This is my complaint, my argument, call it what you will.
I see what you mean. You want to preserve the framing (the long shots, the medium shots, the close ups correctly, the language of the film, which it the vertical framing) and using the full vertical resolution of the medium to do that. Which is the argument for Pan Scan. (otherwise the alternative is to letterbox 'hard matte" and true anamorphic photography films, or to open up the image and lose the language of the shots in "open matte" full frame)

I can see the pros of that argument, but the con is that it amputates the image by cutting the sides (Four 2.40 Ghostbusters become two in a 4:3 pan/scan and three in a 16:9 pan/scan.)

Letterboxing, and zooming the image (be it full into a 21:9 screen or cropped into a 16:9 screen) won't work for you cus you lose resolution that could be used in the cropped pan/scanned image (the increase is resolution would be approx. 1.78x)
Well apart from the obvious not to crop (loosing part of the movie), I just argue that 1080p letterboxed to 800 x 1920, if optimally transfered would give you an image that rivals most theaters , if not better in some respects. Wouldn't that be enough, and then use a zoom lens in a projector to fill the screen? (Of course youd need to have a projector which is not always an option) Then you'd get the full image and enough resolution/quality equivalent to a theater print? Isn't that enough?

Your argument has lots of validity for 4:3 NTSC and even 16:9 DVD, in which a Scope film has a quality of between 240p for interlace inside 4:3 to 330p if the DVD is optimally transfered for progressive 16:9 displays (very few).
But 800p Blu-ray Scope movies are 11 times more quality than in interlaced 4:3 TVs.. So I'd would think it should be enough quality, and better than to only see 75% of the film. Would this be unsatisfactory to you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
What I don't understand is...HYPOCRISY.

If a DP (shooting Super 35) lights and blocks his shots for 2.39, which I assume is the director's vision for the film, then why present the movie on full frame DVD and non-HD cable, with the mattes removed? Why not pan and scan the 2.39 image of the director's vision?
Well that's basically a studios decision, subjected to mass market business practices to appeal selling to people that want their TV movie filling his TV screen, plus I'm sure I'm sure some directors, or many consumers would prefer to show a little bit more than cut image or actors away, instead of preserving the language of the shots. And in any case, you can always crop a open matted video you buy to more or less it's OAR by using ectrical tape and masking (I know, I started doing that when I watched Psycho on it's first 4:3 open matte VHS (Talking about Psycho, I just saw it the other day in 35mm print . In 1.85 of course)

4:3 NTSC is bad for letterboxed Scope movies, one probably would feel more of the impact from most movies if watching a pan/scaned VHS with the proper original vertical framing of the shots (long, med, close up etc) than a tiny 240p swatch, but again, on 1080 x 1920 BD you'll have much more detail, you can always pull your chair closer, or zoom the projector, etc, as I've presented as solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareyD1080p View Post
As I said, when I see a 16x9 cable HD presentation of such a film, it has MORE "top to bottom" info than the theatrical presentation or the widescreen DVD presentation. If a director wants me to see (vertically that is) ONLY what he blocked, then if I'm a person who only watches movies on non HD cable or full frame DVD, then I should see the SAME vertical info, NOT more.
Yes I agree with that, I don't like open matte presentations at all, they lose the tension/drama of the movie (Psycho became less paranoid, less scary, etci., in its first 4:3 open matte VHS transfer, they did later one more pan scanned) but at least you have all the OAR image there (or most of it) and you can either watch it as is, cover it with "letterbox" tape to get the OAR, or zoom it to fill your screen by cropping the sides, on some TVs. With a pan/scanned version you have no options. You're stuck. Thats why I'd prefer myself OAR letterboxing

You'd prefer this:



to this:



I get you.


I only prefer the one I posted 8 posts above
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2006, 12:32 PM   #40
CareyD1080p CareyD1080p is offline
Member
 
Dec 2006
Default

You understand me PERFECTLY sir.

Thank you.

By the way, love your "Matrix Reloaded" demo frames.

How do you do that?

Also, define "OAR" for me. Is that an acronym?

Last edited by CareyD1080p; 12-15-2006 at 12:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
Sivaji the 1st Tamil Blu-ray with Scope friendly subtitles India syncguy 97 11-30-2017 02:29 AM
Rented Blu-Ray's showing up in letterbox? Blu-ray Players and Recorders na_willie 5 09-22-2009 04:50 AM
Is there a "4:3 letterbox Zoom function" for any of the existing Blu-ray players yet? Blu-ray Players and Recorders I-C-Blue 0 05-18-2009 06:23 AM
Smallville S 7 Blu-ray from Blockbuster/6 discs or 3 discs question Blu-ray Movies - North America connect42 22 09-05-2008 02:18 AM
FullFrame vs Letterbox Display Theory and Discussion g0odfellas 2 02-12-2008 05:22 AM



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 10:11 PM.