|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $34.96 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $49.99 29 min ago
| ![]() $36.69 15 hrs ago
| ![]() $39.99 20 hrs ago
| ![]() $47.99 9 hrs ago
| ![]() $37.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $32.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $80.68 1 day ago
| ![]() $23.99 7 hrs ago
| ![]() $79.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $30.72 1 day ago
| ![]() $38.02 1 day ago
|
|
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 |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#21 |
Super Moderator
![]() Nov 2006
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | Deadguy2322 (12-20-2017) |
![]() |
#23 | |
Active Member
Aug 2006
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | Deadguy2322 (12-20-2017) |
![]() |
#24 |
Senior Member
Jan 2005
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Blu-ray Guru
May 2006
|
![]()
AV, thanks for the input. good and informative
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
Banned
|
![]() Quote:
lose! |
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | Deadguy2322 (12-20-2017) |
![]() |
#27 |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Junior Member
Dec 2006
|
![]()
Thank Deci for the detailed info. That's awesome. I guess 25% would be a pretty substantial loss.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Member
Dec 2006
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
Blu-ray Ninja
|
![]() Quote:
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Site Manager
|
![]() Quote:
Think it over. Think it over. scoped,jpg.jpg Last edited by Deciazulado; 11-23-2012 at 10:47 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Power Member
Aug 2005
Sheffield, UK
|
![]()
Intended Aspect Ratio.
Nuff said! |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Member
Dec 2006
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | ||
Blu-ray Ninja
|
![]() Quote:
From a budgetary standpoint however, rendering above and below the matte is not something tighly-budgeted films can do. Quote:
fuad |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Blu-ray Knight
Jan 2006
www.blurayoasis.com
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Site Manager
|
![]() Quote:
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. 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. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Member
Dec 2006
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |||
Site Manager
|
![]() Quote:
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:
![]() ![]() 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:
You'd prefer this: ![]() to this: ![]() I get you. I only prefer the one I posted 8 posts above ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Member
Dec 2006
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
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 |
|
|