List of Fullscreen 16:9 1.66-1.85 Blu-rays - Page 22 - Blu-ray Forum

RocShemp · 08-05-2009, 11:55 PM

Well the OP doesn't seem to be advocating non-OAR presentations of movies on BD. He's simply expressing a preference for the "taller" aspect ratios. I see no problem with that.

I myself prefer films that are shot in scope but I wouldn't dream of demanding they all be shot that way. The photography in Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds wouldn't have been as effective in demonstrating height of the dinosaurs and tripods had they been shot with a scope aspect ratio. On the other side of the spectrum, the robots in Transformers wouldn't have felt as massive had they been shot with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Either aspect ratio was the right choice for the particular effect the director and the DP were going for. However, I tend to gravitate more to images presented in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It's just personal preference. I don't really see the harm in making a list of movies that are shot in the aspect ratio you might prefer.

wallendo · 08-06-2009, 12:07 AM

My pet peeve about this whole thing is the use of the term "full screen". For many years, "full screen" has meant 4x3 (1.33:1). The term was probably never a really good term for what it was intended for (widescreen movies "modified to fit your screen"), but that is the name the marketing people came up with. Now blu-ray users are using the term for 16:9 video. It makes little sense to use a phrase to mean something different that the other 90% of the population uses it for. Maybe a better term would be "Full Widescreen".

Deciazulado · 08-08-2009, 07:57 AM

Full Screen means the screen is Full.

Conans Rage · 08-12-2009, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rik1138

That's fine, but again I must point out that the shape of the rectangle the image fits into has absolutely no affect on how the picture looks, how the Special FX look or how the audio sounds... That's the only point I was trying to make.

True, but if you were asked what looks better, a stamp-size picture of a nude Megan Fox, or a 3 story billboard with the same exact nude Megan Fox on it, which one would you be more impressed with (assuming you find Megan Fox attractive)?

Not really agreeing with either side, just pointing out a different way of placing worth and value on media.

I.Flores · 08-12-2009, 05:34 PM

Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles - 16:9
Monsters INC. 1:85:1

goldenrod · 08-12-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conans Rage

True, but if you were asked what looks better, a stamp-size picture of a nude Megan Fox, or a 3 story billboard with the same exact nude Megan Fox on it, which one would you be more impressed with (assuming you find Megan Fox attractive)?

Not really agreeing with either side, just pointing out a different way of placing worth and value on media.

It's not about the size of the image, but the shape of it. What's better? Watching the love scene between Clarence and Alabama in Widescreen where you see Patricia Arquette's assets or full screen where you don't?

simplepinoi177 · 08-12-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.Flores

Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles - 16:9
Monsters INC. 1:85:1

thanks for your contribution Flores! Unfortunately I can't input Monster Inc. in because my list consists (or at least tries to consist) of movies that were physically seen displaying fullscreen. As the movie has not even been released yet, there's no way to know for sure if it displays fullscreen or not. Thank you anyways though! And i'll add the Sarah Connor Chronicles! It's a shame they cancelled the show...it was just starting to get good......

RocShemp · 08-12-2009, 09:44 PM

Unless PIXAR intends to crop Monsters, Inc, I think it's safe to give it a tentative spot on the list. That movie was produced with an intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

simplepinoi177 · 08-12-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocShemp

Unless PIXAR intends to crop Monsters, Inc, I think it's safe to give it a tentative spot on the list. That movie was produced with an intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

yeah...it's a most likely. And there will be a spot for it when it's released...we'll just wait for a confirmation to be sure...
thanks for the info and suggestion though!

I.Flores · 08-12-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplepinoi177

thanks for your contribution Flores! Unfortunately I can't input Monster Inc. in because my list consists (or at least tries to consist) of movies that were physically seen displaying fullscreen. As the movie has not even been released yet, there's no way to know for sure if it displays fullscreen or not. Thank you anyways though! And i'll add the Sarah Connor Chronicles! It's a shame they cancelled the show...it was just starting to get good......

Well, I got the Mexican version (Same disc as the US release in Nov, just different packaging) and I can confirm that the image completely fills my 46" Bravia. Tech specifications on the box say 1:85:1

hendersd · 08-12-2009, 11:02 PM

The question should be why do cinematographers/directors choose to shoot films in extremely wide formats. It made sense in the 1950's when movies were in competition with television. It also makes sense when it's a decision based on real artistic concerns. Directors such as John Carpenter, David Lean, and Stanley Kubrick (of course the list goes on) used aspect ratios in very specific and creative ways. IMHO too many films simply default to 2.4:1 without really exploiting the format to its fullest advantage. I wouldn't mind one bit if 1.85:1 became more common as a native format. Of course I feel compelled to add: NEVER CROP AN EXISTING FILM. Whenever a film is cropped on cable, I simply pass it by. When the heck are the "movie channels" going to wise up and stop cropping films?

mozen_1ne · 08-13-2009, 03:31 AM

My Cousin Vinny 1.85:1

scorpion83 · 08-14-2009, 12:25 AM

Monsters Inc - 1:85:1

Looks absolutely amazing !!

simplepinoi177 · 08-14-2009, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.Flores

Well, I got the Mexican version (Same disc as the US release in Nov, just different packaging) and I can confirm that the image completely fills my 46" Bravia. Tech specifications on the box say 1:85:1

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorpion83

Monsters Inc - 1:85:1

Looks absolutely amazing !!

Alright Monsters Inc seems to be confirmed but the US version has yet to be released. So i'll put it up as an "import" for now...that should do it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mozen_1ne

My Cousin Vinny 1.85:1

thanks for the contribution!

syncguy · 08-14-2009, 12:32 AM

The Indian movie Monsoon Wedding is 1.85:1 to be released in October (Criterion Collection).
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=6372

KubrickFan · 08-14-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hendersd

The question should be why do cinematographers/directors choose to shoot films in extremely wide formats. It made sense in the 1950's when movies were in competition with television. It also makes sense when it's a decision based on real artistic concerns. Directors such as John Carpenter, David Lean, and Stanley Kubrick (of course the list goes on) used aspect ratios in very specific and creative ways. IMHO too many films simply default to 2.4:1 without really exploiting the format to its fullest advantage. I wouldn't mind one bit if 1.85:1 became more common as a native format. Of course I feel compelled to add: NEVER CROP AN EXISTING FILM. Whenever a film is cropped on cable, I simply pass it by. When the heck are the "movie channels" going to wise up and stop cropping films?

Which movies 'default' to 2.40:1, exactly? I'd like to hear some examples.
I think the aspect ratio is always an artistic concern, made either by the director or the DP. The directors you posted do that, why wouldn't the filmmakers of today?

boxterduke · 08-14-2009, 08:51 PM

This is very impressive work you guys have done here.
Subscribed to the thread as I love having my screen full of movie goodness.

simplepinoi177 · 08-14-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxterduke

This is very impressive work you guys have done here.
Subscribed to the thread as I love having my screen full of movie goodness.
I bought Big Trouble in Little China yesterday and watched a few minutes of it. I think it is full screen. I'll check when I get home and post back.

Thanks for your praise! I'm glad you're enjoying the list and it's helping you out. Even flattered that you've subscribed to the thread.

And that movie would be a good addition to the list if you can confirm it so thanks for that as well!

RocShemp · 08-14-2009, 09:14 PM

Big Trouble In Little China was shot in scope. So it has a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It doesn't qualify for the list.

Diesel · 08-15-2009, 06:46 PM

A new feature has been added to the search on the site allowing you to search by aspect ratio

Will be useful for those who want their screen filled

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

Aspect ratio + original aspect ratio added to search functionality

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php

08-12-2009, 11:02 PM	#431
hendersd Active Member Member since:Feb 2008 Blu-ray collection:112 Blu-ray reviews: 3	Why The question should be why do cinematographers/directors choose to shoot films in extremely wide formats. It made sense in the 1950's when movies were in competition with television. It also makes sense when it's a decision based on real artistic concerns. Directors such as John Carpenter, David Lean, and Stanley Kubrick (of course the list goes on) used aspect ratios in very specific and creative ways. IMHO too many films simply default to 2.4:1 without really exploiting the format to its fullest advantage. I wouldn't mind one bit if 1.85:1 became more common as a native format. Of course I feel compelled to add: NEVER CROP AN EXISTING FILM. Whenever a film is cropped on cable, I simply pass it by. When the heck are the "movie channels" going to wise up and stop cropping films?

08-14-2009, 08:51 PM	#437
boxterduke Power Member Member since:May 2009 Location:The Fissure of Woe Blu-ray collection:193 DVD collection:70 Trading Score:8	This is very impressive work you guys have done here. Subscribed to the thread as I love having my screen full of movie goodness. Last edited by boxterduke; 08-14-2009 at 08:54 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Is there a list of Blu-rays with 7.1 track	Blu-ray Movies - North America	cantinflas	2	02-04-2010 03:59 PM
List of Blu-rays with known issues	Feedback Forum	Crème Blu-ray	2	04-10-2009 03:35 AM
What Blu Rays are on your Xmas list?	General Chat	Forrestandjen07	24	12-09-2008 09:59 PM

08-05-2009, 11:55 PM	#421
RocShemp Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Jul 2009 Blu-ray reviews:2	Well the OP doesn't seem to be advocating non-OAR presentations of movies on BD. He's simply expressing a preference for the "taller" aspect ratios. I see no problem with that. I myself prefer films that are shot in scope but I wouldn't dream of demanding they all be shot that way. The photography in Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds wouldn't have been as effective in demonstrating height of the dinosaurs and tripods had they been shot with a scope aspect ratio. On the other side of the spectrum, the robots in Transformers wouldn't have felt as massive had they been shot with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Either aspect ratio was the right choice for the particular effect the director and the DP were going for. However, I tend to gravitate more to images presented in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It's just personal preference. I don't really see the harm in making a list of movies that are shot in the aspect ratio you might prefer.

08-06-2009, 12:07 AM	#422
wallendo Power Member Member since:Feb 2008 Location:Southeastern NC 4K collection:100 Blu-ray collection:1027 DVD collection:7 MA collection:3 iTunes collection:1 Blu-ray reviews:4	My pet peeve about this whole thing is the use of the term "full screen". For many years, "full screen" has meant 4x3 (1.33:1). The term was probably never a really good term for what it was intended for (widescreen movies "modified to fit your screen"), but that is the name the marketing people came up with. Now blu-ray users are using the term for 16:9 video. It makes little sense to use a phrase to mean something different that the other 90% of the population uses it for. Maybe a better term would be "Full Widescreen".

08-08-2009, 07:57 AM	#423
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1161 Blu-ray collection:7055 DVD collection:4063	Full Screen means the screen is Full.

08-12-2009, 05:34 PM	#425
I.Flores Active Member Member since:Sep 2007 Blu-ray collection:122 Trading Score:25	Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles - 16:9 Monsters INC. 1:85:1

08-12-2009, 09:44 PM	#428
RocShemp Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Jul 2009 Blu-ray reviews:2	Unless PIXAR intends to crop Monsters, Inc, I think it's safe to give it a tentative spot on the list. That movie was produced with an intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

08-13-2009, 03:31 AM	#432
mozen_1ne Active Member Member since:Feb 2009 Blu-ray collection:78	My Cousin Vinny 1.85:1

08-14-2009, 12:25 AM	#433
scorpion83 Special Member Top contributor Member since:May 2009 Location:In my own world ! Home Theater Gallery:8 4K collection:206 Blu-ray collection:826 Blu-ray reviews:14 Trading Score:157	Monsters Inc - 1:85:1 Looks absolutely amazing !!

08-14-2009, 12:32 AM	#435
syncguy Blu-ray Guru Member since:Mar 2008	The Indian movie Monsoon Wedding is 1.85:1 to be released in October (Criterion Collection). https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=6372

08-14-2009, 09:14 PM	#439
RocShemp Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Jul 2009 Blu-ray reviews:2	Big Trouble In Little China was shot in scope. So it has a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It doesn't qualify for the list.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals