Favorite aspect ratio on Blu-ray? - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

Spymaster · 01-25-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disky76

I would like it if we could have a choice in aspect ratio -- I like it best when the Hi-Def picture fills the screen at 16:9 -- it makes the experience, without the black bars, to me so much more cinematic.

So you want to make a 2.35:1 more cinematic by cutting off the edges so that it fits your 16:9 screen, thus making it LESS like it was in the cinema? How does that work?

I'm guessing the people that want everything in 16:9 are the same people that don't like film grain...?

ambientcafe · 01-25-2009, 08:02 PM

Possible answer....1.78 / 1.85 for 16:9 setups, and 2.40 for scope screen owners.

Blu As Hell · 01-25-2009, 08:11 PM

This thread needs to be locked before it truly explodes.

Sussudio · 01-25-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu As Hell

This thread needs to be locked before it truly explodes.

well it hasn't yet, and im sure mods are keeping an eye on it. no purpose in locking something until theres reason to do so.

Blu As Hell · 01-25-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sussudio

well it hasn't yet, and im sure mods are keeping an eye on it. no purpose in locking something until theres reason to do so.

So right you are, but I am waiting patiently for the fireworks.

Mr.Sparkle · 01-25-2009, 08:51 PM

I don't really care too much, but I guess I enjoy it when the whole screen has picture on it, just cause then everything is a little bigger and what not.

Sussudio · 01-25-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu As Hell

So right you are, but I am waiting patiently for the fireworks.

as am i

wait until the work week begins tomorrow

Gohanto · 01-25-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astalder

Now my understanding is with a conventional camera you lose your field of view if you use 16:9, so maybe that's epic scale with the 16:9 is something limited to IMAX cameras or movies that don't need huge fields of view? Like I said, I'm not a cinematographer, I just know that visually that looks better than anything else I've seen.

Am I right that it's for the wide field of view they usually use the 2.35:1? I hope that's the case and it isn't for some subjective "it feel's more epic" reason they stick black bars at the top and bottom of people's televisions.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Shooting 1.85 (closest to 16:9) all of the negative is used.

Shooting 2.35 it depends. On Super 35mm, they're basically shooting a 16:9 frame and then cropping it down in post to 2.35, this allows for re-framing of shots and better tracking for visual effects. Shooting anamorphic 2.35 is the hardest because you're using all the space on the negative (no re-framing in post) and 2.35 is notoriously difficult to frame because it's much more difficult to balance the frame.

IMAX is 4:3 naively.

KBZ · 01-25-2009, 10:11 PM

I'm down with whatever the director's intention was. But there's something I like about a movie being 16x9 and filling the whole screen.

Dexter Morgan · 01-25-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disky76

I would like it if we could have a choice in aspect ratio -- I like it best when the Hi-Def picture fills the screen at 16:9 -- it makes the experience, without the black bars, to me so much more cinematic.

How far off are 2.35:1 tvs, I wonder?

How about 2:40:1...

http://i.gizmodo.com/5132065/philips...rs-to-the-side

kev.s.lim · 01-26-2009, 06:54 AM

Director's intent for me.

krazeyeyez · 01-26-2009, 07:01 AM

how dare you ask!

im all for OAR but i do like when it is in the 1.7 range and fills the screen, that being said i wouldn't want to limit the artist to that in anyway. plus its fun watching my friends try to figure out why there new hdtvs have black bars mua haha

RiseDarthVader · 01-26-2009, 07:04 AM

Original Aspect ratio for me. But if I was shooting a movie I would go 2:35:1 because it is more closer to what our eyes see and I just like the look if it being nice and wide. And I don't get why people want it shot so it fills their HDTV. Wouldn't you rather have it shot so that it fills the whole screen at the cinema and fill your vision? And just turn off the lights and focus on the movie and you won't even notice the black bars.

demoni · 01-26-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disky76

How far off are 2.35:1 tvs, I wonder?

Not too far:

http://www.gadgetvenue.com/philips-c...atio-01153223/

demoni · 01-26-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Atlas

How about 2:40:1...

http://i.gizmodo.com/5132065/philips...rs-to-the-side

hehe, I was too late... Just posted similar link.

Sorry for the duplicate.

Spymaster · 01-26-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoni

http://www.gadgetvenue.com/philips-c...atio-01153223/

Ooooh this is VERY nice! Unfortunately you know what'll happen... everybody will be delighted with 2.35:1 ratio movies that fill the screen but will kick off over 1.85:1 (16x9) films because suddenly there will be black bars on the left and right!

And older 1.33:1 films and TV shows will have even bigger black bars.

Time to face facts guys. If you're watching a movie at home you're NEVER going to get a single TV that displays every movie properly whilst also filling your beloved 16x9 screen. You're either gonna need 3 different TVs or, like everybody else, live with it.

RiseDarthVader · 01-26-2009, 12:18 PM

I don't get how much people here that own Blu-ray and understand and embrace it's tech like lossless audio but simpy can't ever get their head around different aspect ratios and grain. Like some people here would rather destroy the directors vision by changing the aspect ratio so the picture can fit the screen. And wanting DNR to be applied to get rid of grain and losing detail or wanting DNR to be applied to 300 even though it is the directors intention. I know that over 80% of people on this site understand these things but that other 20% no matter how much you explain it to them they just keep denying it and want things to work their way even though it may destroy the original intent.

P@t_Mtl · 01-26-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

I don't get how much people here that own Blu-ray and understand and embrace it's tech like lossless audio but simpy can't ever get their head around different aspect ratios and grain. Like some people here would rather destroy the directors vision by changing the aspect ratio so the picture can fit the screen. And wanting DNR to be applied to get rid of grain and losing detail.

Grain is not something that is well understood. I got a friend who just can't understand it, no matter what I show him on film reference. For him grain is pure evil and mean's a bad transfert. I sort of gave up trying to explain it because truly after a while it just does not matter to me much. A person who continue to argue and ignore the facts will just never accept it nor understand it, just like OAR.

For many black bars & grain equal "the devil" and they will never accept it nor want to understand it.

LORDs_angellos · 01-26-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Time to face facts guys. If you're watching a movie at home you're NEVER going to get a single TV that displays every movie properly whilst also filling your beloved 16x9 screen. You're either gonna need 3 different TVs or, like everybody else, live with it.

I have a 16:10 laptop screen that I have downscaled to 16:9, and let me tell you I don't mind the 2.40:1 black bars at all. They actually add to the epic feeling of the movie. I like seeing as much of the theatrical print as possible. It doesn't matter that the image is smaller on my screen because more of the movie is represented.

bogo5 · 01-26-2009, 12:53 PM

1.78:1 all the way...

Screw 2.35:1. Hate it so so much, you lose too much image its hardly HD IMO.

01-26-2009, 12:18 PM	#37
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	I don't get how much people here that own Blu-ray and understand and embrace it's tech like lossless audio but simpy can't ever get their head around different aspect ratios and grain. Like some people here would rather destroy the directors vision by changing the aspect ratio so the picture can fit the screen. And wanting DNR to be applied to get rid of grain and losing detail or wanting DNR to be applied to 300 even though it is the directors intention. I know that over 80% of people on this site understand these things but that other 20% no matter how much you explain it to them they just keep denying it and want things to work their way even though it may destroy the original intent. Last edited by RiseDarthVader; 01-26-2009 at 12:27 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
What is your favorite Blu Ray aspect ratio???	Blu-ray Movies - North America	mj79	73	01-10-2010 08:28 AM
Searching for Blu-ray movies by aspect ratio.	Feedback Forum	zak88lx	16	08-16-2009 04:42 AM
Brideshead Revisited on Blu... aspect ratio?	United Kingdom and Ireland	DaViD Boulet	1	01-05-2009 07:54 PM
Which is the best Aspect ratio on Blu-ray?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	mugupo	70	11-26-2008 04:12 PM
Aspect ratio for Sharp Blu-ray	Blu-ray Players and Recorders	lj123	3	03-16-2008 03:13 AM

01-25-2009, 08:02 PM	#22
ambientcafe Senior Member Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Alberta Home Theater Gallery:26 Blu-ray reviews: 12	Possible answer....1.78 / 1.85 for 16:9 setups, and 2.40 for scope screen owners.

01-25-2009, 08:11 PM	#23
Blu As Hell Blu-ray Guru Member since:May 2007 Location:Macon Georgia 4K collection:120 Blu-ray collection:461 DVD collection:4 Blu-ray reviews: 1	This thread needs to be locked before it truly explodes.

01-25-2009, 08:51 PM	#26
Mr.Sparkle Senior Member Member since:Jul 2008 Blu-ray collection:54 DVD collection:78	I don't really care too much, but I guess I enjoy it when the whole screen has picture on it, just cause then everything is a little bigger and what not.

01-25-2009, 10:11 PM	#29
KBZ Active Member Member since:Mar 2008 Location:Chicago 4K collection:910 Blu-ray collection:1450 DVD collection:45 Digital collection:1016 Trading Score:7	I'm down with whatever the director's intention was. But there's something I like about a movie being 16x9 and filling the whole screen.

01-26-2009, 06:54 AM	#31
kev.s.lim Member Member since:Nov 2008 Location:Sacramento, CA Home Theater Gallery:7 Blu-ray collection:21	Director's intent for me.

01-26-2009, 07:01 AM	#32
krazeyeyez Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Dec 2007 Location:the guy on the couch Home Theater Gallery:18 Blu-ray collection:287 Blu-ray reviews:4	how dare you ask! im all for OAR but i do like when it is in the 1.7 range and fills the screen, that being said i wouldn't want to limit the artist to that in anyway. plus its fun watching my friends try to figure out why there new hdtvs have black bars mua haha

01-26-2009, 07:04 AM	#33
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	Original Aspect ratio for me. But if I was shooting a movie I would go 2:35:1 because it is more closer to what our eyes see and I just like the look if it being nice and wide. And I don't get why people want it shot so it fills their HDTV. Wouldn't you rather have it shot so that it fills the whole screen at the cinema and fill your vision? And just turn off the lights and focus on the movie and you won't even notice the black bars.

01-26-2009, 12:53 PM	#40
bogo5 Senior Member Member since:Jan 2009 Location:Australia	1.78:1 all the way... Screw 2.35:1. Hate it so so much, you lose too much image its hardly HD IMO.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals