What is your favorite Blu Ray aspect ratio???

[pappy97]

OAR of course, even if it's 4:3 (Gus Van Sant's Elephant, a movie I hope one day gets a blu ray release but I am not holding my breath).

Since I have a 100" 16:9 pull up screen and a painted on 180" 2.35:1 screen in the dedicated HT, I suppose I prefer 1.77:1 (16:9, but you never see any blu rays with this AR unless it's a TV show) and 2.35:1. 2.39:1 and 2.4:1 to one also work well on my 2.35:1 screen, but I can't say I am a fan of those old movies that go 2.5:1 or smaller.

So OAR first, filling up my screen(s) second.

P.S. I second and third and etc any comments about how 1.85:1 does not fill up 16:9 screens. I doesn't without overscan. Sure on my HDTV's it fills up the screen, but those automatically overscan to make 1.85:1 fit in 1.78:1. My PJ doesn't do that and I see very slim black bars on 1.85:1 material on my 16:9 screen.

[Digital Filmmaker]

My favorite widescreen aspect ratio is 2.35:1. It doesn't matter what media format it's on.

[mj79]

Originally Posted by Kynch

First reply pwns them all.

Seriously, I always want to watch a movie in the proper original aspect ratio. I hate it when movies are cropped in order to fill the screen more.

I think everyone was missing my point here, I thought it was clear but maybe not.. I was wondering what OAR you liked best, NOT changing it, just if you like the black bars of a 2.35 - 2.40/1 ... Or if you like it to fill up your whole screen... Didnt think it was gonna confuse so many ppl


Yea I like OAR, and its the only way to go , BUT I like when they use OAR in a 1.85.1 - 1.78.1 in transfers

[42041]

Originally Posted by mj79

I think everyone was missing my point here, I thought it was clear but maybe not.. I was wondering what OAR you liked best, NOT changing it, just if you like the black bars of a 2.35 - 2.40/1 ... Or if you like it to fill up your whole screen... Didnt think it was gonna confuse so many ppl


Yea I like OAR, and its the only way to go , BUT I like when they use OAR in a 1.85.1 - 1.78.1 in transfers

I prefer 2.35:1 in theaters, and 1.78:1 on my TV. So, can't really go either way here

[mj79]

Originally Posted by 42041

I prefer 2.35:1 in theaters, and 1.78:1 on my TV. So, can't really go either way here

which is why they need to come out with the new ultra widescreens, @ 21x9

[mj79]

http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team_...escreen+LCD+TV

[avexhype]

I dont know. All I know is that full screen and widescreen isnt still fully understood even these days. All aspect ratios will look different on different TVs. And that Fullscreen isnt yet being phased out, Saw 6 will be released on a fullscreen dvd also. Also that people say, " you see more with widescreen. Not always. IMAX movies are not shown in widescreen, you have to look up at the entire screen. With widescreen movies you have to move your eyes side to side to see more detail, and with FS you have to move your eyes up or down. Whats easier for our eyes?

[Rinzler]

1:78:1
1:85:1

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by Digital Filmmaker

My favorite widescreen aspect ratio is 2.35:1. It doesn't matter what media format it's on.

winner

[Canada]

The Original aspect ratio.

[Squozen]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

oar of any film is my favourite.

This.

I do think that 2.35:1 is a much more pleasing ratio, but I will always support the choice of the directors ratio, whatever he/she is happiest with.

[styl3s]

honestly it doesn't matter to me.. i mean sure i prefer wide to full but as far as like 1.78:1 and 2.40:1 etc goes i could care less long as its a good movie and looks good.

[garyrc]

If they had made the HDTV screens 2.39:1 we wouldn't be having all this trouble. Almost every film would fill our screens from top to bottom, yet would include virtually all of the information to the sides, except for the handful of films that used an Aspect Ratio that was wider. These exceptions would include the few CinemaScope films that came out before the AR was reduced to 2.35:1, the two films in CinemaScope 55, the two films in Camera 65, the ... what ... 10 or so films in Ultra, and (perhaps, see below) those in 3 panel Cinerama. Even these films would be bigger, although there would be small black bars top and bottom; the images would look a lot less like ribbons stretching across a pointlessly larger rectangle.

Back when HDTV was just coming out, I think I heard that Lucasfilm was urging a wider flatscreen shape, I think a 'scope shape. I think a quote from one of their guys was something like, "If you can't make it like 'scope, at least make it the shape of some movie, rather than narrower than any shape that was ever considered to be widescreen."

Now for Cinerama. From the earliest days of the process to now, I have occasionally seen the projected aspect ratio of Cinerama specified as being less extreme than the aspect ratio of the combination of the images on the three strips of film. On the other hand, I also heard that in some theaters in which the architecture limited the height of the screen, they cropped the top and bottom of the image to allow the center of the screen to be crammed into the proscenium arch, with the sides protruding out into space to provide a sufficiently large absolute width of image to provide Cinerama's legendary impact. I also heard that Cinematographers were warned to not include vital information at the top and bottom of the frame, to prevent it from being cropped out in these theaters.

In a 1952 article on Cinerama -- after the premiere and the initial audience reactions -- in American Cinematographer (available on the American Widescreen Museum site), John W. Boyle, ASC, cites the screen size as being 51 feet by 25 feet (2.04:1), but doesn't say whether the 51 feet is the chord of the arc, or the distance along the curved surface of the screen from left to right. I suspect it is the width of the chord. I'm convinced that the chord of the screen arc in the original San Francisco Cinerama theater (the Orpheum) was considerably wider, but not as wide as the much later Century 21 San Jose for "single lens 70 mm Cinerama," which was about 85 feet across the arc. The same AC article cited average human vision as being 180 degrees by 90 degrees (unlike the totally false 165 degrees wide often seen in the literature when an author was comparing the arc of vision to the Cinerama camera's 145 degrees) ... the 180:90 cited by Boyle for vision is obviously 2:1.

In a Home Theater article discussing ARs on disk, Smilebox -- created to simulate Cinerama from a specified seat -- was cited as being 1.96:1, but which of the methods of measuring height was used was not clearly specified, as I remember. Since Smilebox attempts to depict a curved surface on a (usually) flat surface, there is a problem in measuring the height to derive an AR. Does one measure the height in the center, at the sides, take an average of the two, or what? In any case, I agree with an individual, who happened to be a professional projectionist, quoted in the Home Theater article who had seen How The West Was Won many times in Cinerama; in a real Cinerama theater, sitting close, and below the center of the screen, Cinerama doesn't seem to dip down as much in the center as Smilebox does. Perhaps this is partly the effect of something like Object Constancy.

So, in a theater in which the architecture does not require top/bottom cropping to achieve width, what was the usual AR of Cinerama? About 2.04:1, as we might infer from Boyle's report of screen dimensions? This would be pretty close to HT's report of 1.96:1. Or the wider AR of the images on the three strips of film?

[Verner Delleholm]

I only like the aspect ratio that fits to my TV