The Fountain Aspect Ratio ?

[voiz]

Deciazulado, all I want is to have the movie on my TV screen keeping its original aspect ratio. I don't mind black bars, as long as I don't loose any of the Image.

So i was afraid that The Fountain in 1.85:1 was filling my 16x9 screen only because there was an automatic cropping that i didnt ask for, thus loosing part of the image.

[jermwhl]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

That is only gonna happen with movies shot in the 1.66 to 1.85 widescreen ratios which have a shape very close to 1.78. They be from 1080 x x 1794 (1.66) to 1038 x 1920 (1.85) and with a little overscan on the set they will fill a 16:9 screen. (With less overscan, or on a 1:1 pixel mapping no-overscan display (for example, a computer monitor) you'll still see thin bars on those)

Some 1.66 to 1.85 movies might be transfered at 1.78 instead (see post above) and of course there's HDTV programming shot natively in 1.78 wide 1080 x 1920 too.

With old movies (pre mid fifties) (1.18, 1.33, and 1.375), TV programs (1.33), and with "Scope" type and 70mm movies (various aspect ratios ranging from 2.00 to 2.75) you'll have black bars because they would be, for example, 1080 x 1485 pixels for an Academy Sound 1.375 movie, or 803 x 1920 pixels for an analog sound Panavision 2.39 movie from the 70's on, etc, etc.

Wouldn't want you to be disappointed if you put in STAR WARS and saw the Star Destroyer in Panavision because it'll have black bars

(Unless you buy a Constant Height projector but that's another story)

Good Lord man! What do you do for a living? How do you know these things! LOL!

[Blu Tiger]

See? Dec is the man. I aspire to be like him. So Dec, are you saying that a small part of the picture missing or cropped on anything that isn't 1.78, albeit only marginally?

[Croweyes1121]

The simple answer is this:

The Fountain is SUPPOSED to be 1.85:1, but the studio opted to fill your TV, so they just went ahead and made it 1.78:1 instead. You're barely missing anything. Personally, I don't think there's any excuse for this on an HD format. It's pointless. Obviously, people with displays like most of us are using would rather have that tiny black bar on 1.85:1 films and know that we're seeing the entire image than have things fill our screens completely. This was a trend on DVD and, unfortunately, it's carried over into the HD realm as well. On the other hand, the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is so slight that it really doesn't make much of a difference. I'm not even sure if this was your question to be honest, but it is the right answer. lol

[voiz]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

The simple answer is this:

The Fountain is SUPPOSED to be 1.85:1, but the studio opted to fill your TV, so they just went ahead and made it 1.78:1 instead. You're barely missing anything. Personally, I don't think there's any excuse for this on an HD format. It's pointless. Obviously, people with displays like most of us are using would rather have that tiny black bar on 1.85:1 films and know that we're seeing the entire image than have things fill our screens completely. This was a trend on DVD and, unfortunately, it's carried over into the HD realm as well. On the other hand, the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is so slight that it really doesn't make much of a difference. I'm not even sure if this was your question to be honest, but it is the right answer. lol

Well yes, this answer is pretty good. But where did you get that information? Do you have any source saying that the blu-ray version is actually in 1.78:1?

Cuz the DVD version is definitly in 1.85:1..

[Croweyes1121]

I work with AutoCAD. I just created this diagram to help you understand this issue:

http://www.cleocrazy.com/disingenuou...1.85vs1.78.pdf

The image on the top represents how much picture you're missing if a studio opts to force a 1.85:1 movie to fill your widescreen television. The Fountain is an example of this.

The image on the bottom represents how a movie SHOULD look if it's letterboxed correctly at 1.85:1 on a widescreen TV. Ice Age 2: The Meltdown is an example of this.

Hope this helps! Outta here. )

[Croweyes1121]

Well, no, I don't have "proof", per se, but I am watching this film on an LCD monitor, running it dot by dot...films letterboxed at 1.85:1 have a slight bar on the top and bottom. Ice Age 2 comes to mind. But this movie does not. That's all the proof I need, really. It's been reformatted.

By the way, I created this in AutoCAD...

http://www.cleocrazy.com/disingenuou...1.85vs1.78.pdf

The top shows what you're missing if a 1.85:1 movie is reformatted to 1.78.
The bottom shows how a 1.85:1 movie should look if properly letterboxed on a widescreen set.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by voiz

Well yes, this answer is pretty good. But where did you get that information? Do you have any source saying that the blu-ray version is actually in 1.78:1?

Cuz the DVD version is definitly in 1.85:1..

Didn't you read my post (#19)

To think I ripped up a shrinkwrap for you and it was in vain.

[Deciazulado]

Keeping within this topic.

Originally Posted by voiz

Cuz the DVD version is definitly in 1.85:1..

Well, if you have the DVD, take a screenshot with VLC and the 480 x 720 image reshaped to 480 x 875 and post it with the timing, and I'll tell you if the 1.78 BD is cropping 3.9% of the sides of it or if on the other hand the BD is showing any extra image vertically (open matte), or a combination of the two, etc etc. (Select an image with detail in the 4 edges, not a plain background one! )

Originally Posted by voiz

Deciazulado, all I want is to have the movie on my TV screen keeping its original aspect ratio. I don't mind black bars, as long as I don't loose any of the Image.

So i was afraid that The Fountain in 1.85:1 was filling my 16x9 screen only because there was an automatic cropping that i didnt ask for, thus loosing part of the image.

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I work with AutoCAD. I just created this diagram to help you understand this issue:

http://www.cleocrazy.com/disingenuou...1.85vs1.78.pdf

The image on the top represents how much picture you're missing if a studio opts to force a 1.85:1 movie to fill your widescreen television. The Fountain is an example of this.

The image on the bottom represents how a movie SHOULD look if it's letterboxed correctly at 1.85:1 on a widescreen TV.

Well, if the Blu-ray's 1080 pixel height is showing the exact 0.446" (11.33mm) height of the Projector Aperture of an 1.85 film, and the BD is 1.78, you're losing 3.9% of the 0.825" (20.96mm) width.

In other words, you still get 98% of the image.

But things can be fuzzier than that.

It could be opening the matte (déjà vu doesn't ever leave me!) a little to show a little more image, a height of 0.464" (11.79mm) while still showing the whole 0.825" width. Then you get about 4% extra height, (102%) of what you should be seeing. (If you have problems with 2% , don't watch Apocalypse Now on video (2.00 vs 2.39) which shows about 84% of the width, losing almost 9% of the anamorphic image!)


But things can be fuzzier than that.

You can see I mention the Projector Aperture. That is what's supposed to be seen. But there exists the Camera Aperture. It's a safety area of about 5% more on the negative. To protect from various mechanical and optical errors (35mm film travels at 90 feet per minute, and for example, in some projectors it can weave (move sideways) and jitter (move up ad down), or the optic path be misaligned etc etc)

So the actual Camera Aperture image can be 1.05 by 1.94 of the 1.00 x 1.85 image.

But things can be fuzzier than that.

Most 1.85 films' live action scenes are photographed in cameras that have an standard 1.37 aperture. So the image exposed on the negative can be 0.600" (15.24mm) tall (or more if you take the Camera Aperture into account, or the 1.33 Silent Aperture, etc etc)(told you, things would get fuzzzzy)

But things can get fuzzier than that.

There's also an allowance for error in the other direction: A theater can show a little less than a 100% of Projector Aperture. This croppig "allowance" is like an overscan factor on a TV. Haven't checked the latest standards but they go more or less like this: " 5% of the Projector Aperture dimensions (3% recommended) "

So cropping 3 to 5% of the width (Or the height. Or both), is within "allowances".

Of course, that shouldn't be the aim in pixel accurate transfers

Perhaps Croweyes1121 can make a PDF of all the stuff I wrote above!

Anyway, I watched The Fountain in the name of science , and on first watch, I didn't find the image height to look loosely framed (which would be more of an indication of an open matte transfer). There's also a shot where the camera pulls back over a painting and that painting seems to be in 1.85, and you see a sliver of wall above and below because the disc frame is 1.78 (The painting is slightly off-center too.) (I watch with no overscan). But if the image is cropped 3.9% on the sides to achieve 1.78, there's not anything I think you might be missing, just 2% of image area "scope" . Maybe it was shot with 1.78 in mind and projected at the theater in 1.85 and the 4% loss is within allowance. Or maybe it was shot in an average 1.75, having US 1.85 and European 1.66 exhibition in mind. This is more like an art house film and is full of SFX shots in some sections.

So where's that 1.85 DVD screencap?



__________________
(btw 480DVD could be cropping 6 vertical pxels from a 486 NTSC master) (PAL has no such fuzziness)

[HDJK]

^^ Dezi has spoken

[C6 Z06]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

As for the last post who said this movie was bad, I'd agree this movie is not for everyone. However, it is about as far from bad as you can get.

This movie is not for me then!

[karbon]

As long as you don't see small black bars ontop and below the picture you have overscan set to on.

This movie is 1.85:1, and the AR of 16:9 displays are 1.78:1, meaning you WILL see black bars in the picture.

Some sets don't let you adjust the overscan, it's on by default.

If you do have overscan enabled, you will lose some of the picture, the bars wil be gone and 1:1 pixel mapping won't be correct.

Look for a way to turn overscan off, problem solved.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Originally Posted by voiz

Ok, I think i understand now.

I set my DVD player to 16:9, which was never done. It was 4:3 letterbox, so this is why i had the black bars up and down. I just stretched the image.

So basically, there shouldnt be any black bars in a 1.85:1 ratio.

That makes alot of sense now.

if ur set is calibrated properly then u should see small black bars with 1:85 movies, u shouldnt see black bars with 1:78 movies

i see black bars on my tv

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by karbon

As long as you don't see small black bars ontop and below the picture you have overscan set to on.

This movie is 1.85:1, and the AR of 16:9 displays are 1.78:1, meaning you WILL see black bars in the picture.

Some sets don't let you adjust the overscan, it's on by default.

If you do have overscan enabled, you will lose some of the picture, the bars wil be gone and 1:1 pixel mapping won't be correct.

Look for a way to turn overscan off, problem solved.

WB opened up the image (like they do with pretty much every single one of their 1.85 releases) to fill the 1.78 screen. It's not overscan, it's the encode.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by karbon

As long as you don't see small black bars ontop and below the picture you have overscan set to on.

This movie is 1.85:1, and the AR of 16:9 displays are 1.78:1, meaning you WILL see black bars in the picture.

Some sets don't let you adjust the overscan, it's on by default.

If you do have overscan enabled, you will lose some of the picture, the bars wil be gone and 1:1 pixel mapping won't be correct.

Look for a way to turn overscan off, problem solved.

Originally Posted by iceman_mw21

if ur set is calibrated properly then u should see small black bars with 1:85 movies, u shouldnt see black bars with 1:78 movies

i see black bars on my tv

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

WB opened up the image (like they do with pretty much every single one of their 1.85 releases) to fill the 1.78 screen. It's not overscan, it's the encode.

Why are you guys trying to solve a 3 year old problem?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Why are you guys trying to solve a 3 year old problem?

lol I was wondering why this thread was brought up like that. But I just had to correct him (even though it was already stated in the thread).

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Why are you guys trying to solve a 3 year old problem?

lol wow, had no clue, made a rookie mistake and didnt look at the date

my bad!