Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[Caio92]

Hi there !

So I subscribed to Disney+ a few months ago and noticed this "IMAX Enhanced" label in some movies and decided to test it out. I tested the first Iron Man, comparing the test flight scene since it has plenty of HUD elements, and compared it to the regular Blu-ray that I have. I was shocked to notice how the Disney+ version has more things in frame compared to the "original" aspect ratio of the Blu-ray, which literally hides the top and bottom parts of the HUD and also some other stuff in the frame. I thought this IMAX Enhanced thing would be a cheap zoom in or something like that, but no.

So what gives ? Was Iron Man actually filmed in IMAX and they're only showing it on Disney+? Why doesn't the 4K Blu-ray feature the shifting aspect ratios as well? Was John Favreau's intention to cover the HUD?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Caio92

Hi there !

So I subscribed to Disney+ a few months ago and noticed this "IMAX Enhanced" label in some movies and decided to test it out. I tested the first Iron Man, comparing the test flight scene since it has plenty of HUD elements, and compared it to the regular Blu-ray that I have. I was shocked to notice how the Disney+ version has more things in frame compared to the "original" aspect ratio of the Blu-ray, which literally hides the top and bottom parts of the HUD and also some other stuff in the frame. I thought this IMAX Enhanced thing would be a cheap zoom in or something like that, but no.

So what gives ? Was Iron Man actually filmed in IMAX and they're only showing it on Disney+? Why doesn't the 4K Blu-ray feature the shifting aspect ratios as well? Was John Favreau's intention to cover the HUD?

Cinematographic Process: Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Super 35 (source format)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746...ef_=tt_spec_sm

[Caio92]

Thanks. Someone pointed the Super 35 process to me once when I said almost the same thing about Spider-Man 2, when it was airing on TNT and had more image on top and bottom compared to the Blu-ray.

So the whole point is that the director wants the 2.35:1 look, even if that crops some image? Like, aesthetically, he wants the wide look and that's it? And in the case of these Disney+ titles, why call it IMAX Enhanced if it wasn't filmed on IMAX? Sorry for being stubborn about it lol, it just boggles my mind.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Caio92

Thanks. Someone pointed the Super 35 process to me once when I said almost the same thing about Spider-Man 2, when it was airing on TNT and had more image on top and bottom compared to the Blu-ray.

So the whole point is that the director wants the 2.35:1 look, even if that crops some image? Like, aesthetically, he wants the wide look and that's it? And in the case of these Disney+ titles, why call it IMAX Enhanced if it wasn't filmed on IMAX? Sorry for being stubborn about it lol, it just boggles my mind.

IMAX Enhanced = 1.90 aspect ratio.

IMAX no longer produces IMAX 15/70 films. Yes a couple of directors will shoot in it ( C. Nolan) but there are very few IMAX theaters left that can actually show an IMAX 15/70 print which runs about $400,000 for a 2 hour movie.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by T. Warren Scollan

"Frequency Modulation Distortion", as you call it, is a made up name. The type of distortion you're describing which happens physically in speaker systems is formally called one of many types of "Phase Distortion". It can also happen in analog electronic amplifying systems and is referred to as "Intermodulation Distortion". Trust the knowledge of one who has a Master's degree in Audio Engineering and has worked in the sound reinforcement field for over 30 years.

I found in one of the last analog systems I built that one way to minimize this type of distortion in speaker systems was to limit each individual transducer to about a max of 2 1/2 octaves, necessitating a 4 way system. Of course having 3 crossover points created a host of other problems! One just can't make it perfect and one just has to find the best compromise.(LOL)

Everything else being equal, three way speakers often have less modulation (Doppler) distortion than two way, so I can see how your 4 way would be helpful.

In speakers, the presence of modulation distortion which creates sidebands that may not be harmonically related, be discordant, or be blurring, can be a problem, IMO.

Doppler distortion; an excerpt from Stereophile …
“The results were intriguing. Distortion of the flute was gross at 10mm peak diaphragm displacement and not in the least bit euphonic. On the contrary, Doppler made the sound as harsh as you might expect of a distortion mechanism that introduces intermodulation products. At 3.16mm peak displacement (below Fryer's suggested detectability threshold) the distortion level was obviously lower but still clearly audible; and even at 1mm it could still be heard affecting the flute's timbre and adding "edge."
"... these findings undermine the view, widely accepted in the last two decades, that Doppler distortion in loudspeakers is not something we should trouble about. Having done the listening, I side with Moir and Klipsch more than with Fryer, Allison, and Villchur on this issue—something that may come as no surprise to anyone who has heard the effects of low-level jitter and sees where the Fryer criterion appears in fig.2.

It has often been claimed that, with a two-way speaker, there are audible benefits to using a crossover frequency below the typical 3kHz, the usual explanation being that this removes the crossover from the ear's area of greatest sensitivity. But I wonder. Perhaps this not-uncommon experience Everyone who uses a two-way speaker (me included) can take heart from the fact that most actually has much more to do with the D word. A three-way solution is potentially even better. Three-way speakers bring new design challenges, of course, in particular the need to achieve another perceptually seamless handover between drivers. But from the Doppler perspective, having a crossover for the bass driver at 400Hz or 500Hz is, unquestionably, better” (https://www.stereophile.com/content/...peakers-page-3)

AES E-Library
Frequency-Modulation Distortion in Loudspeakers (Reprint)

A type of loudspeaker distortion which has not received general consideration is described. This distortion is a result of the Doppler-effect and produces frequency modulation in loudspeakers reproducing complex tones. Equations for this type of distortion are given. Measurements which confirm the calculated distortion in several loudspeakers are shown. An appendix giving the derivation of the equations is included.
Authors: Beers, George L.; Belar, H.
Affiliation: RCA Manufacturing Company, Camden, NJ
JAES Volume 29 Issue 5 pp. 320-326; May 1981
Publication Date:May 1, 1981 Import into BibTeX
Permalink: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3912
Click to purchase paper as a non-member or login as an AES member. If your company or school subscribes to the E-Library then switch to the institutional version. If you are not an AES member and would like to subscribe to the E-Library then Join the AES!
This paper costs $33 for non-members and is free for AES members and E-Library subscribers.