3D Blu-rays with expanded or variable aspect ratio & frame breaking effects [IMAX]

[cinerama]

Originally Posted by njdevil254

I have a question regarding this topic. I've just bought myself a projector with an Elite Vmax Dual screen, which is actually two screens, one that is 16x9 and the other is 2.35:1. I'm sure that for the movies that have changing aspect ratios, I just have to watch the entire movie in 16x9 and "suffer" through the black bars, but what happens with movies with the frame breaking effect? Does that information get lost in the masking on the 2.35:1 screen?

Yes, you would not see it masking for 2.35. I just project on a wall so I don't miss anything.

[Tonppa]

Spinned few 3D discs from my collection and updated the list with nice details. Thank you for the contributors!

V1.17 now out!

[Tonppa]

By the way, have you noticed the "frame tilt" in Ghostbusters? Any other 3D blu-rays with that kind of effect?

[Ultra-Magnus]

Personally, I hate changing AR's. I think its stupid. I know why directors say they do it, but I just dont like it. If you want to convey more horizontal height to a scene, then shoot it in such a manner that objects on the left and right of the screen convey that intention. I think its a lazy way for a director to achieve a "look" or "feeling" without doing it within the confines of the AR the movie is being shot in. I can understand why some movies are shot in a narrower AR. Me personally, I feel a real artist will find a way to convey the mood or emotion they are looking for while staying in one AR. Thats just my 2 cents. Plus, its a pain in the ass for HT to watch those movies.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Ultra-Magnus

Personally, I hate changing AR's. I think its stupid. I know why directors say they do it, but I just dont like it. If you want to convey more horizontal height to a scene, then shoot it in such a manner that objects on the left and right of the screen convey that intention. I think its a lazy way for a director to achieve a "look" or "feeling" without doing it within the confines of the AR the movie is being shot in. I can understand why some movies are shot in a narrower AR. Me personally, I feel a real artist will find a way to convey the mood or emotion they are looking for while staying in one AR. Thats just my 2 cents. Plus, its a pain in the ass for HT to watch those movies.

I know a big part of why I was annoyed with Civil War 3D was that due to having to leave it open for the 1.78:1 portion I ended up having to watch over 2 hours of unmatted scope, which I have not had to do ever since I got my projector and could matte for aspect ratios. I agree re: consistent aspect ratio being preferable except in the case of Brainstorm where Trumbull made really great use of multiple ARs. If something is going to change aspect ratio for effect I suppose I find opening up the sides more appealing than opening up the top and bottom.

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by Ultra-Magnus

Personally, I hate changing AR's. I think its stupid. I know why directors say they do it, but I just dont like it. If you want to convey more horizontal height to a scene, then shoot it in such a manner that objects on the left and right of the screen convey that intention. I think its a lazy way for a director to achieve a "look" or "feeling" without doing it within the confines of the AR the movie is being shot in. I can understand why some movies are shot in a narrower AR. Me personally, I feel a real artist will find a way to convey the mood or emotion they are looking for while staying in one AR. Thats just my 2 cents. Plus, its a pain in the ass for HT to watch those movies.

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

I know a big part of why I was annoyed with Civil War 3D was that due to having to leave it open for the 1.78:1 portion I ended up having to watch over 2 hours of unmatted scope, which I have not had to do ever since I got my projector and could matte for aspect ratios. I agree re: consistent aspect ratio being preferable except in the case of Brainstorm where Trumbull made really great use of multiple ARs. If something is going to change aspect ratio for effect I suppose I find opening up the sides more appealing than opening up the top and bottom.

I have a projection HT and I absolutely LOVE changing ARs! Those who complain probably have Scope screens which cause the IMAX scenes’ image to become SMALLER when the director intends them to get Larger!

I guess if I had a Scope screen I would be kicking myself too.

[benji888578]

Originally Posted by Freakyguy666

I have a projection HT and I absolutely LOVE changing ARs! Those who complain probably have Scope screens which cause the IMAX scenes’ image to become SMALLER when the director intends them to get Larger!

I guess if I had a Scope screen I would be kicking myself too.

That has to be the real reason. How is this any better than the people who don't like letterboxes, so they zoom & crop the image to fit 16:9? Or widen 4:3 to fit 16:9?

Cinematography is an ART form. A true artist does not like to be restrained/constrained into a box. (though, I personally, like the 2.0 aspect the best)

If someone wants to use different aspects for artistic reasons, I say, go for it!

If someone wants to use a bigger format, but, it costs too much or takes too long to produce all of a film in that bigger format, so changing aspects, I say go for it! ...In this case, opening the entire film would make the footage filmed with the smaller format look crappy...like when current TV reformats everything to fit (cropped & zoomed to) 16:9. And, no, if you use a larger format, do not crop it into 2:39:1 because you think that's the "proper" aspect, (really because you have a scope matt and don't want to open it up).

You know, if you are from North America, apparently, many films made in Europe, for many years, were in 1.67:1 format in cinemas. So, please just get over it.

In cinemas the screens used to be constant height with curtains by the sides to hide the edges, ...It used to be, when you'd go to a cinema, if a film in 2.39:1 would have the curtains opened all the way. If it was 1.85:1, the curtains would be closed part way to hide the left/right edges. (This was before IMAX or Dolby or 4DX was used for films.) Most films were done in either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1. Until IMAX expanded beyond short specialty documentaries in science museums and aquariums.

I will never understand film snobs that think films all need to fit one aspect, or need to be in only one aspect. Again, it is an art form, not a fundamentalist religious cult. If you only want watch films in 2.39:1, then only get films that are made that way. Otherwise come up with a way to deal with everything not fitting into your box.

I don't have a home theater yet, but, I prefer the IMAX format for going to the cinema, so, since IMAX doesn't follow the rules of "be this far from screen" etc., but, puts you into the action by getting you close to the screen and the screen goes from floor to ceiling, my home theater won't fit into normal rules either.

[Regislive]

Originally Posted by Freakyguy666

I have a projection HT and I absolutely LOVE changing ARs! Those who complain probably have Scope screens which cause the IMAX scenes’ image to become SMALLER when the director intends them to get Larger!

I guess if I had a Scope screen I would be kicking myself too.

I don't like the changing ratios because I use masking panels and find it annoying having to watch a movie with the black bars.

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by Regislive

I don't like the changing ratios because I use masking panels and find it annoying having to watch a movie with the black bars.

Then you must really hate blockbuster movies shown in IMAX theaters!

[Interdimensional]

Finally got around to watching Minions, which I'd had for a while, but hadn't been particularly inclined to check out.

Given the general concept, and as a franchise spinoff, it's about as good a movie as you could hope for, and a lot better than I was expecting. I thought the overall 3D presentation was solid. There were a number of visual gags that felt as if they were specifically conceived, or at least deliberately framed for 3-D effect.

So I was happy with it, but there is a post-credit sequence that puts all of that to shame.

I counted about 5 instances of frame-breaking, including 2 very strong popouts that made it seem like they'd been holding back the whole time during the actual movie. This is a studio that clearly has people who appreciate what 3-D can add to the experience.

[Smaugone]

This is only slightly related, but...when Disney showed The Jungle Book 3D trailers last year, there was frame breaking all through it, to make 2D seem more 3D. The movie itself is in 1.85:1 ratio, so there's not much frame to break. Just a little disappointed ��.

[toasted]

There was a brief sequence in The LEGO Batman Movie 3D where the aspect ratio got slightly wider and there was some frame break that will likely carry over to the 3D BD.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by toasted

There was a brief sequence in The LEGO Batman Movie 3D where the aspect ratio got slightly wider and there was some frame break that will likely carry over to the 3D BD.

The LEGO Ninjago Movie also features a short sequence where the aspect ratio gets noticeably wider and weaponry is thrust out over the expanded frame.

[Tonppa]

Originally Posted by the13thman

The LEGO Ninjago Movie also features a short sequence where the aspect ratio gets noticeably wider and weaponry is thrust out over the expanded frame.

Can you please tell me the time when this happens?

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Tonppa

Can you please tell me the time when this happens?

I've lent out my 3D disc but I checked on a friend's DVD - it's the "ultimate ultimate weapon" scene about an hour and 13 minutes in (it may be a little later on the blu-ray as I think the DVD was PAL).

The frame briefly widens five times as each character thrusts out a weapon over it.

[Tonppa]

Bump.

I've been updating the list, but there hasn't been any new messages. I'm still sure there are other 3D blu-rays with changing aspect ratios or frame breaking effects! Please let me know of 'em!

[grodd]

Star Trek: Into the Darkness has a shot or two in the beginning. The cable that Spock is on breaks out of frame. And maybe an arrow around the same time.

[Tonppa]

Originally Posted by grodd

Star Trek: Into the Darkness has a shot or two in the beginning. The cable that Spock is on breaks out of frame. And maybe an arrow around the same time.

I checked the beginning of the movie (including the scenes you mentioned) but didn't notice any frame breaking effects. Yes, there are nice 3D effects, but it's not the same as frame breaking.

If you are sure there are frame breaking effects could you please mention the exact time frame they are present? Thank you!

[grodd]

Originally Posted by Tonppa

I checked the beginning of the movie (including the scenes you mentioned) but didn't notice any frame breaking effects. Yes, there are nice 3D effects, but it's not the same as frame breaking.

If you are sure there are frame breaking effects could you please mention the exact time frame they are present? Thank you!

Yes, I'll see if I can get a photo. Its really quick.
Edit: You were correct. The pop out was really strong, so strong I thought it was frame breaking.

[Damon1281]

Mojin: the lost legend has changing AR. There are probably dozens that do this that I just didn't notice until it was mentioned. I wish they were all in 1.78. I would buy the 2.35 argument if the tops of everybodys' heads weren't cut off. Annoying, particularly so if it was just phony 2.35 just to get a frame breaking effect in.