Pirates 1 & 2 - Black Bars??

[Banjo]

Geez. So much drama in here.

OAR for me.

[TJandBLU-RAY]

Originally Posted by blukrank

I'm sick and tired of hearing about people complain about the black Bars on Widescreen movies.I been watching movies this way for so long that I dont even notise the black bars anymore.Trust man Widescreen Letterboxing what ever you want to call it the movies look so mutch better this way.Movies like Ghostbusters,Star Wars,and yes The Pirate movies look the best in the 2.35.1format.

Great post.

I don't even notice anymore, since I got 96 inches of 'TV' to watch...but even when I had a 'small' HDTV, I barely noticed the bars. What I notice now, is when there are 'bars' on the left and right; I.E. when I watch 'normal' TV.

[ra1024]

Originally Posted by miked924

People not getting there money's worth on their resolution?? Give me a break

You seem to have no tolerance for other people's opinion. I think AVS would be a better forum for you.

Originally Posted by Garconis

I'm an artist (yes, with a 4 year degree) so thats probably why I consider each frame to be a work of art, and wouldn't want to get rid of any of the artists vision for the film.

You are absolutely correct. I'm not an artist though and don't have the same appreciation that you have. I enjoy great looking detail that HD provides. I won't double dip or buy new titles where the PQ is tier 2 or lower (unless it's a really good movie ).

Originally Posted by shido

Can't you just zoom in then?

Yes but that's the same thing as upconversion and not near as great as a native resolution of 1080.

The point everyone seems to miss is that the OAR versions are encoded with a portion of the 1080 lines used just for black. You are left with only around 800 lines for the actual picture (depending on ar). This is about the same as watching a 1.85 movie on a 768 native set.

Most of us abhor HD DVD because it doesn't offer the same capacity for sharpness and detail that BR does. If you don't mind trading off a little sharpness for OAR, would you not also mind trading off a little shaprness for a cheaper format? I know there's more to it than that but we fight for BR to get the best PQ possible and OAR takes that a small step back. It's really a matter of personal taste and I don't see why there is such a harsh reaction to those who are on the other side of the fence. Think about watching Ben Hur in OAR. That would be really cool but at the same time you would have about 695 lines of resolution for the picture which is definitely low for HD standards.

[dentalrep]

Originally Posted by blushiz

I DISPISE widescreen cut offs AND sidebars.

Why?

You bought a good sized TV and you want to use it, why only use a small portion in the center of the damn tv? It's such a waste. Widescreen helps the picture become widescreen format but if your TV is already widescreen then why do you need it? You just squish the picture more and more until you have 2 inches of tv frame around the picture and about 10 inches on all sides boxing the image in the center of the screen.

Pretty soon your 72" becomes a 50".

Who wouldn't be a little upset?

I agree with you completely. I did not buy a 60 inch TV to only use a portion of the screen. You pay a premium for every inch and I want every inch used. I am the one that purchased fullscreen movies until buying into Blu-ray. Now I catch myself looking for only movies that fill my screen. I hate the fact I have to zoom and lose detail but I do it because the black bars annoy me.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by ra1024

The point everyone seems to miss is that the OAR versions are encoded with a portion of the 1080 lines used just for black. You are left with only around 800 lines for the actual picture (depending on ar). This is about the same as watching a 1.85 movie on a 768 native set.

Most of us abhor HD DVD because it doesn't offer the same capacity for sharpness and detail that BR does. If you don't mind trading off a little sharpness for OAR, would you not also mind trading off a little shaprness for a cheaper format? I know there's more to it than that but we fight for BR to get the best PQ possible and OAR takes that a small step back. It's really a matter of personal taste and I don't see why there is such a harsh reaction to those who are on the other side of the fence. Think about watching Ben Hur in OAR. That would be really cool but at the same time you would have about 695 lines of resolution for the picture which is definitely low for HD standards.

Originally Posted by dentalrep

I did not buy a 60 inch TV to only use a portion of the screen. You pay a premium for every inch and I want every inch used. I am the one that purchased fullscreen movies until buying into Blu-ray. Now I catch myself looking for only movies that fill my screen. I hate the fact I have to zoom and lose detail but I do it because the black bars annoy me.

Please forgive me for saying this, but the point you seem to miss then is that most cinemas give you less than that, so what you consider low for HD is considered high definition 35mm film. Take the Ben Hur example. So how do you propose we fit that on HighDef if we are to get more than 700 lines out of it, chop off one third of the width, losing 3 of the 8 horses? Or anamorphically code it squeezed for 21:9 displays that no one has except for the very few that have anamorphic projection lenses on their front projectors, so everybody else will get anorexic horses and humans on their TVs?


Battle Of The Bulge (same format as Ben Hur) looks good on BD. I think I might prefer this presentation to the one I saw of Batman Begins in Imax which looked rather soft.

Blu-ray is a consumer format that can do at least justice to these wide movie formats at home at last. Even letterboxed, if enough care is taken in the transfer.

If you need to see very wide ratio movies with much much better resolution than average 35mm film, I'm afraid you might have to wait till UV-ray, with 2160 x 3840, becomes a standard. And they'll still be letterboxed there!



Or you'll have to avoid all the CinemaScope/Panavision/70mm films that have been made in the last 50 years (STAR WARS, Bonds, Sound Of Music, Jaws, Close Encounters Of The 3rd Kind, Mad Max, Indiana Jones, 2001, Superman, Mission: Impossible, Dr Zhivago, Lawrence, Planet Of the Apes, Blade Runner, Pulp Fiction etc etc etc, and ALL the movies made before 1955, and all the TV shows made in the 20th century, because they won't fill the screen. An endless list.




If you want to see CinemaScope, Panavision, Technirama, 70mm and UltraPanavision movies, all the pre-1955 ones, all of last century's TV programs, like they are, and see all their image you have to deal with black areas. Or buy a front projector with variable zoom and movable curtains, just like they do at theaters.

[ra1024]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Please forgive me for saying this, but the point you seem to miss then is that most cinemas give you less than that, so what you consider low for HD is considered high definition 35mm film. Take the Ben Hur example. So how do you propose we fit that on HighDef if we are to get more than 700 lines out of it, chop off one third of the width, losing 3 of the 8 horses?

It's not a matter of whether we're getting less than the local theater, it's that we're getting less than our home system is capable of. I've seen a lot of posts recently where people say they now see a big difference between their home BR system and the local cinema. I would rather films be presented with max detail with a little loss on the ends personally. I know those who don't would be upset if most films were released that way but I think the majority of the consumers wouldn't care.

Ben Hur certainly would be a challenge to do any other way and I'm not suggesting it would be best cropped to fit.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

If you need to see very wide ratio movies with much much better resolution than average 35mm film, I'm afraid you might have to wait till UV-ray, with 2160 x 3840, becomes a standard. And they'll still be letterboxed there!

I'm not against letterboxing, I just hate to sacrifice detail with it. I don't think most people will be able to see the difference as resolution goes above 1500 lines. If we were to get a format with over 2000 lines, then OAR would have the best of both worlds and I think both sides would be happy. The only thing to consider at that point is how big of a screen you need to get an OAR film to be the size you want.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by ra1024

It's not a matter of whether we're getting less than the local theater, it's that we're getting less than our home system is capable of. I've seen a lot of posts recently where people say they now see a big difference between their home BR system and the local cinema. I would rather films be presented with max detail with a little loss on the ends personally. I know those who don't would be upset if most films were released that way but I think the majority of the consumers wouldn't care.

So are you proposing that now that we finally have a format that can do scope films justice as intended, we reformat most of them to gain a little extra quality in the parts that we don't chop off, so we never get to see them whole as they were made till the next higher resolution bump? (I can't wait that long man I've already waited years )

Or that filmmakers now make all films in 1.78 since that's the shape of current displays?

Originally Posted by ra1024

I'm not against letterboxing, I just hate to sacrifice detail with it.

Yes but there's no other way around it. The engineers chose 1080 x 1920 as the HDTV container, and Scope films will be 800 x 1920 and Academy will be 1080 x 1485. At least we got 24p on Blu-ray discs instead of HDTV's 1080i! (40% increase over material optimized for interlaced displays)!

Originally Posted by ra1024

I don't think most people will be able to see the difference as resolution goes above 1500 lines. If we were to get a format with over 2000 lines, then OAR would have the best of both worlds and I think both sides would be happy. The only thing to consider at that point is how big of a screen you need to get an OAR film to be the size you want.

I agree and have said so many times (2000p being the practical limit for narrative film etc) with 70mm film being more of a match for that.

But that's not what we have. We have 1080p 1.78. I think very few films are reaching the potential that 1080p has even the 1.78 ones. I have 1080 x 1920 jpgs sharper than discs. So optimizing the 1080 "container" will yield even better 800p movies. And even if they encoded Scope movies "anamorphically" in 21:9 for 1080 BD, the end resolution would be equivalent to 930p, not much of an increase from 800p So it's either watch 74% of the image at 1080p, or see 100% of the image at 800p. And don't think going to 1080 cropped increases the image quality that much. Get 74% of the image for 2 JNDs of difference. (Meaning that if it's 930p you can just notice that is sharper than 800p, and if it's 1080p you can notice that is just sharper than 930p and that's it. But you only see 74% of the movie). Also be aware that on even that Scope print itself which might reach around 1500p, those 1500 lines or "pixels" are almost fading fast into nothingness (nearing 0% contrast) and merging into the noise (grain), plus our own eyesight might not even detect much of anything of those faint 1500 pixels (Well certainly not at 10' from a 60" TV!) (Have you tried the link i posted recently with a pixel checkerboard pattern to see how far away can you be and still see it?) At lower resolutions 35mm details start to have strong enough contrast. (A quick check of one answer print's MTF chart I have, has 35mm 800 lines resolution be around >30%, 1100 lines be <20%, and at 1500 <5%.

A big change is going from 1080p to 2160 or going from 35mm to 70mm

Right now I think with optimum equipment you can fill any size screen with BD if the transfer is great (Pirates on BD certainly looks better than 98% of prints you'll ever see on a giant theater screens, and I watched it at 2PH with no problem, that would be a 165" screen if you watch your discs from 10 feet away) and believe me, after perfectly focusing 35mm 100% area Scope prints myself, no other format had ever satisfied me till now. At 1 cent the price!

[WriteSimply]

The studios REALLY NEED to start educating BD consumers about OAR in the HD era, if discussions like these are any indication. Start with OAR shorts about the benefits of OAR.

Otherwise, the STUDIOS and the RETAILERS are going to suffer when J6P demands Pan&Scan version of Scope movies and they have to double stock. And this is AFTER the war is over.


fuad

[dillycheeze]

anyone notice on the previews in the pirates discs...they show a couple quick flashes of pirates along with other new blu rays coming out...and the pirates scenes are 1.78:1....i guess the aspect ratio of the movie will always be director's choice...but it is kinda funny that theres no standard....ive seen some weird ratios.....from 1.77:1 to 2.40:1...either way...pirates 1&2 look sick on blu-ray....and so do the previews for cars!
have you noticed that when a movie is put on HBOHD....they get the 1.78:1 version no matter what the movie is.....if a movie is 2.35:1 on dvd and blu-ray....it will be 1.78:1 on HBOHD.....i guess HBO has the power...lol

[shido]

Originally Posted by ra1024

You seem to have no tolerance for other people's opinion. I think AVS would be a better forum for you.



You are absolutely correct. I'm not an artist though and don't have the same appreciation that you have. I enjoy great looking detail that HD provides. I won't double dip or buy new titles where the PQ is tier 2 or lower (unless it's a really good movie ).



Yes but that's the same thing as upconversion and not near as great as a native resolution of 1080.

The point everyone seems to miss is that the OAR versions are encoded with a portion of the 1080 lines used just for black. You are left with only around 800 lines for the actual picture (depending on ar). This is about the same as watching a 1.85 movie on a 768 native set.

Most of us abhor HD DVD because it doesn't offer the same capacity for sharpness and detail that BR does. If you don't mind trading off a little sharpness for OAR, would you not also mind trading off a little shaprness for a cheaper format? I know there's more to it than that but we fight for BR to get the best PQ possible and OAR takes that a small step back. It's really a matter of personal taste and I don't see why there is such a harsh reaction to those who are on the other side of the fence. Think about watching Ben Hur in OAR. That would be really cool but at the same time you would have about 695 lines of resolution for the picture which is definitely low for HD standards.

Well you're gonna have to zoom if you don't want letterboxing, cause cropping the image is gonna piss even more people off. What we're seeing is the exact representation of the original masters, and how the films were presented in the theater. Why bother with hd if you're going to compromise that? But this is a tired argument. Dvd was exactly the same way, so I can't can't understand why people are acting like this is the first time they've seen this.

[theknub]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

The studios REALLY NEED to start educating BD consumers about OAR in the HD era, if discussions like these are any indication. Start with OAR shorts about the benefits of OAR.

Otherwise, the STUDIOS and the RETAILERS are going to suffer when J6P demands Pan&Scan version of Scope movies and they have to double stock. And this is AFTER the war is over.


fuad

have this instead of the stupid fbi / copyright ad or even any other preview

be quite impressive to have bruckheimer / ridley/ spielberg / jackson / lucas etc there in front of you explaining what oar really is and what it does for your movie experience.

[_xk_]

Originally Posted by kiddtigger

I'll be honest, I didn't use to like bars on 2.35 movies when I had a 36" 4:3 television. You could barely see the movie, but once I got my 50" pioneer, nothing but the OAR will do.

50" isn't big enough to compensate. The black bars are the evil.

The only solution is to get a 65" plasma or a 103" plasma. You can then enjoy the black bar movies since the picture will still be big enough. I just wish ALL movies are recorded in 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 ratio. If I was the movie president, I fire everyone who releases 2.35 or 2.40+:1 ratio movies... Just make the 1.78 (16:9) the world class STANDARD.


OR,

Make the damn HDTVs the 2:40 ratio as a standard. Or at least make that version available to us. There are a few 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 ratio plasmas out there, but they are rare now. I would personally love to own a 2.40:1 plasma screen, with the latest technology and performance. It also looks better too. Nicely stretched sexy and all great lookin'.

[theknub]

post 1 and shot callin. explain or leave

[_xk_]

Originally Posted by theknub

post 1 and shot callin. explain or leave

I already explained. You don't get to tell a person to leave just because the person has 1 post.....

You leave.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by theknub

post 1 and shot callin. explain or leave

If black bars really bother people, you have to get some advanced front projection hardware that constantly adapts for all the varying screen aspect ratios.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by theknub

have this instead of the stupid fbi / copyright ad or even any other preview

be quite impressive to have bruckheimer / ridley/ spielberg / jackson / lucas etc there in front of you explaining what oar really is and what it does for your movie experience.

Actually, Spielberg did, if I recall correctly, on the Criterion Close Encounters Of The Third Kind Deluxe CAV Laserdisc more than half a generation away. I guess there's a new generation among us

Originally Posted by dillycheeze

anyone notice on the previews in the pirates discs...they show a couple quick flashes of pirates along with other new blu rays coming out...and the pirates scenes are 1.78:1....i guess the aspect ratio of the movie will always be director's choice...but it is kinda funny that theres no standard...

There are standards (about 15 or so ), but that was a 1.78 preview so many shots are reformatted to fill the preview. Same thing happens when you watch many 1.85 trailers of Scope movies on theaters, they've been cropped to 1.85. (There are few that letterbox the Scope image inside the 1.85 frame) Then when the Scope movie finally comes to your theater, and after the 1.85 trailers of other coming movies finish, the curtains open, the screen widens, and you're sucked into the CinemaScope/Panavision stargate

By the way a movie's Aspect Ratio is chosen before filming begins. Now for broadcast and some video transfers, the film may be reformatted to "fit your screen" (There was even an 1.85 Laserdisc of the 2.40 Abyss once )

Originally Posted by _xk_

OR,

Make the damn HDTVs the 2:40 ratio as a standard. Or at least make that version available to us. There are a few 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 ratio plasmas out there, but they are rare now. I would personally love to own a 2.40:1 plasma screen, with the latest technology and performance. It also looks better too. Nicely stretched sexy and all great lookin'.

Originally Posted by theknub

post 1 and shot callin. explain or leave

Originally Posted by _xk_

I already explained. You don't get to tell a person to leave just because the person has 1 post.....

You leave.

Now now.
Hey maybe he wanted you to explain about those 2.40 wide plasmas

btw I'll do the killing around here, after all my name is dez

[Balian]

The most painful experience is watching Gladiator on a 4:3 screen. They cut out so much of the screen, you can hardly tell what the characters were doing in some of the action scenes. I always feel cheated when I am watching a NON-OAR movie ...there's always this nagging knowledge that I am missing out on the cinematography.

[_xk_]

Originally Posted by Balian

The most painful experience is watching Gladiator on a 4:3 screen. They cut out so much of the screen, you can hardly tell what the characters were doing in some of the action scenes. I always feel cheated when I am watching a NON-OAR movie ...there's always this nagging knowledge that I am missing out on the cinematography.

You need a TV such as this.



That's hell lot wider than just 2.40:1. That screen is close to 2.74:1 ratio.

[discipline]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

I am kinda upset, more disappointed than anything. Got my POTC 1 and 2 in today and popped in number 1 and to my shock, I have black bars. I was expecting the movie to fill the screen.

Is this normal?

BEFORE ANYONE SAYS IT - I READ THE STICKY!

However, on the back of pirates it says - 2.35:1

What I don't understand is, Night At The Museum is ALSO 2.35:1 and it filled the entire screen.

What am I missing?

HELP!

OMG! This is 2007 and there are still posts about this
Why would anyone want to see a pan&scan?
I can't believe what I am reading..

[_xk_]

and obviously, if people don't want to see black bars top and bottom, you can just only search for 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 movies... there are quite a lot of movies in this format.

For me though, since I have lots of widescreen movies I use a zoom feature that "simply" stretches the picture vertically, so the side of the pictures don't get cropped. I am willing to deal with stretched picture to fill up the entire screen. You get a bigger picture that way.