4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by bluearth

The 2.40:1 aspect ratio took over film completely when, the 60s?

When?

Never.

Frankly, your post is bizarre. I'm sorry to be so direct but I sense that you have no real concept of aspect ratios or film history.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

When?

Never.

Frankly, your post is bizarre. I'm sorry to be so direct but I sense that you have no real concept of aspect ratios or film history.

There seems to be a fairly even-ish split between scope and flat films nowadays.

I certainly wouldn't want a one size fits all approach. Just like there isn't one canvas ratio for paintings.

[ProjectBlu]

I don't mind black bars on my projector, they worry me on the plasma... Of course, my next TV won't be a plasma and will wind up 4K just because it won't be possible to buy a larger high image quality set without it being 4K, just like all the best image plasmas came with 3D regardless of whether I wanted that. I had active "3D" so I had to try it, and horrors, I actually liked it. So now all my "blockbusters" get bought with the 3D pack. When my beloved Panny dies as we all must someday, I'll cry for a bit, say a few kind words, and then wind up with new TV with 4K. I'll inevitably try it, and unfortunately probably go "OOOH! AAAH!".... So yes, if they offer 4K as part of multi-packs, and the Blu-Ray.com reviews of that release are good, then I'll give them the extra $5 to "future prep" my collection. And maybe that's what 4K is really about. They have the source sitting there already because new material is shot in 4K for theater projection, and it will cost maybe $0.50 cents to add a 4K disc they can charge an extra $5 for. It also helps that 3D and 4K are so huge that they're hard to stream, and neither is available from Netflix or Redbox. The cringe may be that to get a 3D copy you may HAVE to buy the multi-pack that includes a 4K, because that's the only way to minimize the floor display space pain of retail selling 4K. Stores already have to slot for a DVD, Single disk Blu-Ray, DVD/Blu-Ray bundle, plus a 3D bundle version of a single movie. Only true blockbusters will warrant allocating a fourth shelf spot for 4K. Sheer shelf space limitations may mean 3D and 4K come exclusively bundled - Or one may wind up being only available for online ordering. Since I am hooked, I hope the shelf space solution isn't simply adding 4K and abandoning 3D discs in bundles... but that may be what happens, at least with some vendors. (I'm still unhappy Disney released Maleficent 3D only in Europe!)

[Coenskubrick]

About half my movies are 1.85:1, and then I also have close to 10 4:3 movies and maybe 15 1.66:1 movies. It would be stupid for TVs to be generally 21:9.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

About half my movies are 1.85:1, and then I also have close to 10 4:3 movies and maybe 15 1.66:1 movies. It would be stupid for TVs to be generally 21:9.

My collection is about half and half with the odd ball 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 thrown in here and there.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It took over film completely? The hundreds of 1.78/1.85 movies in my collection (which is overwhelmingly weighted towards post-'90s films) would disagree. And these TVs are designed to receive broadcast TV (hence the name) for which 16:9 is the standard, so they can't just ignore that completely on an industry-wide scale no matter how much you'd like them to.

Completely was wrong wording. Of course I know there is still 16:9 non animated films being made, I just watched one the other night.

8 out of 10 of the highest grossing films from each of the past 3 years were 21:9. The only non 21:9 films in the top 10 from each year were animated. The vast majority of the bigger films are 21:9, thus I want a TV set that displays them in their full aspect ratio with no black bars. I do not like the idea of most of the big movies having black bars. If theres hundreds of 16:9 movies in your collection, then theres hundreds of 21:9 films as well. So do you prefer your TV to have the native aspect ratio of the 16:9 or 21:9 films in your collection? I'll take 21:9 every day please.

Which brings me to to your next point about much of broadcast TV being 16:9. Obviously for a time most broadcasts and broadcast cameras were 4:3 but moved to 16:9. Why did it stop there? I would prefer all cameras and broadcasts move to 21:9. I want to see soccer, football and other sports in 21:9. 21:9 would enhance news broadcast tickers and who knows what other applications it could have.

Im looking to a future where all cable broadcasts convert over to 21:9 etc, just like the transition from 4:3 to 16:9.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've actually owned a 21:9 TV so don't think of me as someone who's completely against the idea of a 'scope TV, but in the long run it proved somewhat impractical. Widescreen movies looked awesome and 16:9 was fine but 4:3 looked like a postage stamp, and that in itself is the point of the 16:9 ratio: it's a compromise which means that 4:3 doesn't look too isolated, 2.35 just has smaller black bars (I watched letterboxed movies on a 14" 4:3 set when growing up, so don't talk to me about black bars taking up the screen! ) and 16:9 is juuuuust right.

Why is 4:3 even considered in what future tech should accommodate? We have to look to the future, not the past.

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

21:9 TVs wouldn't make for larger screens in many set-ups. Where I have my TV I could easily fit a taller screen, but not a wider one. Therefore If I switched my 16:9 TV with a 21:9 one all the 21:9 content would be exactly the same size, but all the non 21:9 content would be smaller.

You'd have to have a pretty oddly shaped room for a 21:9 screen to use the space more efficiently than a 16:9 screen. And having empty space around your TV isn't any better than having black bars on your TV.

Even my local theater (which was built in 2013) uses 16:9 screens, there is rarely a space issue with making screens taller.

This is an interesting issue. However I feel the benefits of a 21:9 standard outweigh the negatives.

21:9 should be much more immersive then 16:9 when it comes to sports, games, and movies. People pay big money for curved TVs or triple monitor setups to try and surround themselves in the action. 21:9 sets are geared towards that but if mass produced to replace 16:9 would be available at a much lower price.

16:9



21:9

[Coenskubrick]

Dude, that all depends on your viewing angle. You can have a 16:9 image that has the same horizontal viewing angle as a 2.35:1 image. As mentioned, most people's rooms have a lot more headroom than room to the sides of the TV. If you're gonna have black bars somewhere, and you are, unless you have a transforming TV, who cares if it's one or the other? Only difference is if it's 2.39:1 you have a tiny view if you're watching anything thinner than 16:9.

And it might work okay for sports generally but a lot of TV shows are talking heads, 2.35:1 is a pain to frame for that kind of thing, even a lot of movies do a crappy job with it, close-ups and the like.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

There seems to be a fairly even-ish split between scope and flat films nowadays.

Well...I'd say more like 60-70% 2.40 to 1.85, at least for major studio releases. Even comedies...


Paper Towns and Trainwreck are 2.40, so is Ted 2 when Ted was 1.85.
Hell, the straight-to-digital/Netflix Staten Island Summer was shot anamorphic!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

And it might work okay for sports generally but a lot of TV shows are talking heads, 2.35:1 is a pain to frame for that kind of thing, even a lot of movies do a crappy job with it, close-ups and the like.

They've been framing conversations in 2.35 since the '50s. If the framing is crappy, that's on the director/cinematographer. Not the aspect ratio.

[richieb1971]

Would prefer borders on sides than on top bottom.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by bluearth

8 out of 10 of the highest grossing films from each of the past 3 years were 21:9. The only non 21:9 films in the top 10 from each year were animated. The vast majority of the bigger films are 21:9, thus I want a TV set that displays them in their full aspect ratio with no black bars. I do not like the idea of most of the big movies having black bars. If theres hundreds of 16:9 movies in your collection, then theres hundreds of 21:9 films as well. So do you prefer your TV to have the native aspect ratio of the 16:9 or 21:9 films in your collection? I'll take 21:9 every day please.

If it bothers you that much, get a projector. You can easily mask the black bars and arrange it how you wish.

You sound like all you really watch is 'big movies' so it would be perfect for that. I think 'big movies' take up about 2% of our viewing with the rest being a wide (ha!) range of aspect ratios. I don't think 21:9 would be any use at all for the majority of stuff we watch on TV - sit coms, the news, documentaries and so on.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bluearth

Why is 4:3 even considered in what future tech should accommodate? We have to look to the future, not the past.

So we should ignore decades and decades of film history just you can get your widescreen movies with no black bars? I've got about 50 4:3 movies in my collection, so there's that. And I wouldn't hold your breath for broadcasting to switch to 21:9. You really are an odd fellow.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by geoff d

so we should ignore decades and decades of film history just you can get your widescreen movies with no black bars? I've got about 50 4:3 movies in my collection, so there's that. And i wouldn't hold your breath for broadcasting to switch to 21:9. You really are an odd fellow.

Yes.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Derb

Yes.

[smileyousonofab****]

Thanks for answering my question.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bluearth

The 2.40:1 aspect ratio took over film completely when, the 60s? And here we are in 2015 and 2.40:1 aspect ratio television sets are nowhere to be found. Its not the black bars that bother me as much as the fact home video technology is still 50 years behind Hollywood. The transition from 4:3 to 16:9 to 2.40:1 should have been fast and painless. As it is we're still stuck on phase 2 and some people (yourself) seem to be more then happy and satisfied about it.

that is one of the most ignorant things I read

1) the movie industry is full of different ARs even today (and some films use multiple/shifting ARs in the same film)
2) even if at some point there was a fixed AR in the movie industry people like films of all ages so why would it matter?
3) TVs (most home displays) are multipurpose, yes movies is one of them but there are also TV shows and video gaming and the latter two don't tend to be in 2.40 AR

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

You'd have to have a pretty oddly shaped room for a 21:9 screen to use the space more efficiently than a 16:9 screen.

I don't see why you would assume it needs to be oddly shaped. my HT room in the basement is just under 8' tall and just over 12' wide. Now I know some people have floor to ceiling screens, but then you can't recline and it makes a second row hard to fit. So I can go a bit wider then my 10' wide screen (with an acoustically transparent one) but I can't go any taller or the site lines would not work.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is one of the most ignorant things I read

1) the movie industry is full of different ARs even today (and some films use multiple/shifting ARs in the same film)
2) even if at some point there was a fixed AR in the movie industry people like films of all ages so why would it matter?
3) TVs (most home displays) are multipurpose, yes movies is one of them but there are also TV shows and video gaming and the latter two don't tend to be in 2.40 AR

They don't but back when 4:3 televisions were the old standard most shows and video games tended to be in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio and not 1.78:1. That changed as the shift to 1.78:1 was being planned. If industry eventually changed the aspect ratio once again I wouldn't be surprise to see the two eventually follow suit.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bluearth

8 out of 10 of the highest grossing films from each of the past 3 years were 21:9. The only non 21:9 films in the top 10 from each year were animated.

please stop, you are just making yourself look worst by inventing your own fake statistics.

Im looking to a future where all cable broadcasts convert over to 21:9 etc, just like the transition from 4:3 to 16:9.

that will never happen

Why is 4:3 even considered in what future tech should accommodate? We have to look to the future, not the past.

because we are not idiots only interested in the next bad film but also interested in the great films of the past.


This is an interesting issue. However I feel the benefits of a 21:9 standard outweigh the negatives.

21:9 should be much more immersive then 16:9 when it comes to sports, games, and movies. People pay big money for curved TVs or triple monitor setups to try and surround themselves in the action. 21:9 sets are geared towards that but if mass produced to replace 16:9 would be available at a much lower price.

I disagree with that, in sports you need the whole person and they tend to be much taller then they are wider . look at your images, more or less the only thing you managed to do is include more of the useless people in the stands and empty space.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Would prefer borders on sides than on top bottom.

I am the other way around (if for no other reason that side borders tend to be more massive and horizontal borders mean the image is a bit higher on my screen (less chance of blockage)