Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

And it doesn't mean it's better either. See . . . I can play the game too!

I can't possibly know whether the 1.33 aspect ratio benefits Justice League or Batman v Superman until I watch them (when they are released on Blu-ray). It's absurd to make blanket statements that any aspect ratio is better or worse than any other, they should be judged on a case by case basis.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I can't possibly know whether the 1.33 aspect ratio benefits Justice League or Batman v Superman until I watch them (when they are released on Blu-ray). It's absurd to make blanket statements that any aspect ratio is better or worse than any other, they should be judged on a case by case basis.

Please answer me this . . . How many superhero/comic book movies have been shown in 1.33 AR?

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Please answer me this . . . How many superhero/comic book movies have been shown in 1.33 AR?

Are you saying that all superhero/comic book movies should be the same?

Isn't that attitude what caused Justice League to become such a failure in the first place?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Are you saying that all superhero/comic book movies should be the same? Isn't that attitude what caused Justice League to become such a failure in the first place?

Blah, Blah, Blah

The answer to my question is . . . none. Other than ZSJL

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Blah, Blah, Blah

The answer to my question is . . . none.

Incorrect. As of today the answer is... one.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Incorrect. As of today the answer is... one.

I included that - you were too fast in quoting me - go back and see.

[PenguinInfinity]

I still don't see your point. Why is automatically worse because it is different?

[PenguinInfinity]

I still don't see your point. Why is it automatically worse because it is different?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I still don't see your point. Why is it automatically worse because it is different?

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. People's opinions on movies are totally subjective:

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

When two opinions differ, no matter how much discussion, people will rarely if ever change their opinion.

Let's leave it at that.

[JohnAV]

Almost time to watch Falcon and the Winter Soldier in a hour.

Thought this was another MCU movie quality series directed towards a introduction to Sam Wilson/Falcon and the Bucky/Winter Solder. More Sam this first episode, time was several months after the blip. A lack of hero’s exists.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

And it doesn't mean it's better either. See . . . I can play the game too!

Actually you started that game.

The director composes shots. There was 133:1 for most tv and tons of movies. Feeling "cramped" is only if it wasn't designed that way like falsely masking what was widescreen. The rest is you or Steeldeeels opinion. Unlike said poster you pass it off as some kind of fact even piggybacking because he happens to agree with you.

In Snyder's case we are trying to get back to director's intent. This seems to be of no importance to you if it doesn't fit your tv screen the way you like.

You got this group mentality that art/distribution/opinions should be dictated by what is popular. Why not just think on your own?

If we had only that, there would be no unique choices. I trust the artist not what the joe public group think wants and especially not just the studio profits. There are more important things to consider.

[bhampton]

2.40:1 screen, projector, curtains.

I don't see black bars unless it's VAR.

It seems pretty clear to me that Justice League was a total flop last time and this time they are doing anything they can think of to try to generate interest.

If it results in another Gal Gadot in a mini skirt movie then I'll buy it even if it's not good .... she's quite cute.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Actually you started that game.

The director composes shots. There was 133:1 for most tv and tons of movies. Feeling "cramped" is only if it wasn't designed that way like falsely masking what was widescreen. The rest is you or Steeldeeels opinion. Unlike said poster you pass it off as some kind of fact even piggybacking because he happens to agree with you.

In Snyder's case we are trying to get back to director's intent. This seems to be of no importance to you if it doesn't fit your tv screen the way you like.

You got this group mentality that art/distribution/opinions should be dictated by what is popular. Why not just think on your own?

If we had only that, there would be no unique choices. I trust the artist not what the joe public group think wants and especially not just the studio profits. There are more important things to consider.

Yeah, I am fine with it being the artists preference but in this case, it’s a odd choice. It was shot for IMAX but people are watching this at home. For films that want to create Intimate scenarios and claustrophobic, tense atmospheres, it works a treat.
However, this is a huge comic book team up of epic proportions.

Slim, it’s Steedeel mate.

[Ender14]

I understand the argument Lee is making. Every other movie made with IMAX cameras released on disc or digital to date has expanded the image to 16:9 for IMAX sequences which does make the image larger. In this instance the IMAX scenes (actually the entire movie) have been shrunk to 4:3. It makes the image feel cramped compared to other IMAX VAR movies.

As to which one is technically correct I don't know, but I like the 16:9 IMAX sequences much better because it does feel as though the image is expanding instead of shrinking.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Why are black bars on the sides of the picture so much worse than black bars on the top and bottom?

Originally Posted by bhampton

2.40:1 screen, projector, curtains.

I don't see black bars unless it's VAR.

Same as Brian except mine is 2.35 (very small difference) and a motorized mask for 1.78.

Arguments about home video aspect ratios have been going on since 2.39 movies were released with OAR on LaserDisc. I am OK with 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.0, 2.20, 2.39, etc. as long as the ratio is clearly labeled. I do not like VAR.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Same as Brian except mine is 2.35 (very small difference) and a motorized mask for 1.78.

I saw an automated add on for curtains. Looked pretty neat and was homekit compatable.

Hey siri

Seems good for TV people too.

[Show spoiler]

https://youtu.be/Cle2yvJAqHI

Switchbot. Could be turn key automated masking for me. And I could script it for VAR. (Just kidding.) (But really, seems do-able)

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Ender14

I understand the argument Lee is making. Every other movie made with IMAX cameras released on disc or digital to date has expanded the image to 16:9 for IMAX sequences which does make the image larger. In this instance the IMAX scenes (actually the entire movie) have been shrunk to 4:3. It makes the image feel cramped compared to other IMAX VAR movies.

As to which one is technically correct I don't know, but I like the 16:9 IMAX sequences much better because it does feel as though the image is expanding instead of shrinking.

It’s a first, we have Lee (me) agreeing with Lee Stewart!

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Ender14

I understand the argument Lee is making. Every other movie made with IMAX cameras released on disc or digital to date has expanded the image to 16:9 for IMAX sequences which does make the image larger. In this instance the IMAX scenes (actually the entire movie) have been shrunk to 4:3. It makes the image feel cramped compared to other IMAX VAR movies.

As to which one is technically correct I don't know, but I like the 16:9 IMAX sequences much better because it does feel as though the image is expanding instead of shrinking.

Did you prefer "full screen" versions of movies when you had a 4:3 TV? It's pretty much the same scenario: people wanted 16:9 movies cropped to 4:3 to fill their 4:3 TVs and now you want 4:3 movies to be cropped to 16:9 to fill your 16:9 TV.

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Did you prefer "full screen" versions of movies when you had a 4:3 TV? It's pretty much the same scenario: people wanted 16:9 movies cropped to 4:3 to fill their 4:3 TVs and now you want 4:3 movies to be cropped to 16:9 to fill your 16:9 TV.

No, I preferred OAR which is why I invested in a laserdisc player. In this instance though you have several filmmakers which indicate the OAR for IMAX shot content is 16:9 and release their content that way. Then you have one filmmaker saying his movie is shot in IMAX and the correct AOR is 4:3 and that is why it was released that way. So which one is correct?

If someone can provide definitive proof for one or the other then fine. But since IMAX content is supposed open the frame and be a larger image I tend to favor the 16:9 framing. It feels more expansive which is how IMAX should feel.

[sapiendut]

Rant of the week:

I find that Too many people still need the education of what Original Aspect Ratio is. On the flip side, it doesn’t help that although the Snyder cut is in 4:3, the framing tend to look like it was framed for 16:9 and only open matted to 4:3