Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$79.96
18 hrs ago
John Wick: Chapters 1-3 4K (Blu-ray)
$25.60
 
Supernatural: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$289.99
 
My Hero Academia: Season Four: Part Two (Blu-ray)
$34.34
14 hrs ago
Wonder Woman 1984 3D (Blu-ray)
$28.99
 
Monster Hunter 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Bad Boys for Life 4K (Blu-ray)
$14.99
 
Men in Black Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.99
 
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (Blu-ray)
$29.49
 
Hammer Films: The Ultimate Collection (Blu-ray)
$45.99
 
Wonder Woman 1984 (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Rad (Blu-ray)
$19.99
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-11-2015, 02:52 PM   #41
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

IMAX certainly do their own stuff, using the full 2048x1080 res (which is 1.90, or near as damn it) to do their bespoke open matte/alternating aspect digital presentations, but regular theaters have to make do with either 1.85 or 2.40 DCPs, so all other ratios have to fit inside one or the other. When Tarantino gets done with Hateful Eight I should imagine we'll get the 2.76 ratio letterboxed inside a 4K scope container, so it'll have an effective resolution of 4096x1480.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2015, 06:09 PM   #42
Spike M. Spike M. is offline
Special Member
 
Spike M.'s Avatar
 
Feb 2014
Los Angeles, CA
Default

Part of me thinks Tarantino might pull a Nolan and only keep the 2.76 ratio in 70mm theaters, crop to 2.40 for everyone else. He seems aware of the issue with presenting 2.76 in a conventional theater, masking and screen size and the such.

I'm not sure about the other chains, but Regal hasn't been masking at all for the last year or two. A 2.76 image on a 16:9 theater screen will look almost comical to the average viewer, I think.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2015, 06:13 PM   #43
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
I know why he liked his taller IMAX version, but do tell why he chose 2.20.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
Aw, I thought it was something more complicated (and less obvious) than “Brad wanted to honor the old 65mm format” as noted in the ASC article below.
http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/Ju...land/page1.php
Well, that’s ^ bottom line correct, but a magazine article doesn’t have the luxury of getting into the nitty-gritty sequence of events leading up to it, like a forum does. So, to tell thee whole story, originally Brad was going to do the Tomorrowland scenes in IMAX film but at the time the movie was being conceived, IMAX was transitioning from film to digital laser projection and it didn’t appear that transition would be completed by the time the motion picture was to be released… which thusly caused some production issues.

So, it looked like that if the movie was shot in IMAX film, it wouldn’t be able to be projected much of anywhere. So, that given scenario made Brad change his plans and the scenes were bordered for different aspect ratios….and then they had to be changed…..then Brad become frustrated with the whole thing and he wanted something to remain of the BIG image feeling as a lot of his favorite movies had been filmed in 70mm and he really liked the shape of 2.20:1 aspect ratio thinking that Tomorrowland should be wider than 1.85, but not as wide as Panavision.

That’s the long of it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2015, 06:51 PM   #44
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike M. View Post
Part of me thinks Tarantino might pull a Nolan and only keep the 2.76 ratio in 70mm theaters, crop to 2.40 for everyone else. He seems aware of the issue with presenting 2.76 in a conventional theater, masking and screen size and the such.

I'm not sure about the other chains, but Regal hasn't been masking at all for the last year or two. A 2.76 image on a 16:9 theater screen will look almost comical to the average viewer, I think.
Aye, there's a good chance they'll crop it down to regular scope for regular theaters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2015, 06:56 PM   #45
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post
Well, that’s ^ bottom line correct, but a magazine article doesn’t have the luxury of getting into the nitty-gritty sequence of events leading up to it, like a forum does. So, to tell thee whole story, originally Brad was going to do the Tomorrowland scenes in IMAX film but at the time the movie was being conceived, IMAX was transitioning from film to digital laser projection and it didn’t appear that transition would be completed by the time the motion picture was to be released… which thusly caused some production issues.

So, it looked like that if the movie was shot in IMAX film, it wouldn’t be able to be projected much of anywhere. So, that given scenario made Brad change his plans and the scenes were bordered for different aspect ratios….and then they had to be changed…..then Brad become frustrated with the whole thing and he wanted something to remain of the BIG image feeling as a lot of his favorite movies had been filmed in 70mm and he really liked the shape of 2.20:1 aspect ratio thinking that Tomorrowland should be wider than 1.85, but not as wide as Panavision.

That’s the long of it.
It does basically say that in the second paragraph of the ASC article. Bird says they wanted to shoot on 65mm but they weren't going to be able to project it as such, and although they thought about doing different formats (as with Ghost Protocol) and did extensive tests it became too much of a logistical headache when tying it all together in 4K. So he picked the Sony cameras and chose 2.20 as a vestigial nod to the intended large format acquisition which didn't come to pass.

Last edited by Geoff D; 07-11-2015 at 07:23 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2015, 07:00 PM   #46
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
It does basically say that in the second paragraph of the ASC article.
Well, perhaps *basically*, but I’ll tell one thing for sure the article doesn’t reveal is how Brad sounds when imitating chat room projectionists in being unhappy about the non-standard aspect ratio of T-land and trying to school him about what's *proper*.

He sounds something like this in attempting to imitate their whining….http://www.make4fun.com/audios/Voice...Funny-chipmunk

If you enjoy free lenser articles, care of Local 600 - https://www.cameraguild.com/Home.aspx , here’s another (competing) source….http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/ which also covers some of dem movies.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2020, 07:26 AM   #47
Flixster Flixster is offline
Member
 
Flixster's Avatar
 
Jul 2017
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
There we are then; you're annoyed with the Blu-ray image because it's not tall enough, I'm annoyed with it because it's not narrow enough. It'd be nice if you could just accept that instead of lecturing me on how "dangerous" it is, like this is 1995 and I'm some mook who wants his 4:3 screen filled.

Nolan strikes me as being a bit like Kubrick with all his aspect ratios and whatnot: he exerts such a huge amount of control over how his work is presented in whatever format you see it in that I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with the 2.40 version. I might still have to get the 2.40 DVD just to fill that gap, so to speak.
Couldn't agree more. That stupid aspect shifting is soooo annoying, especially with Interstellar. I had to get the DVD just so that I can watch it in 2.4, just as I saw it and way preferred it in the cinema.

To my way of thinking anything shot in space looks so much better using that super wide scope, as opposed to a 'supposed' IMAX 1.78, which looks more like a 1.85 on a regular wide screen TV.

I am still looking for a 2.35/2.40 version of this movie on BD. The French steelbook release seems to indicate that it is only 2.40, hopefully this is the case.

Nolan is an annoying muppet, he should allow consumers the choice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2020, 10:57 AM   #48
slimdude slimdude is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
slimdude's Avatar
 
Apr 2009
-
-
-
8
Default

It's very irritating to me when the aspect ratios switches, and it's a stupid idea.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2020, 09:30 PM   #49
antennahead antennahead is offline
Special Member
 
antennahead's Avatar
 
Apr 2014
Charleston, SC
14
904
12
2
Default

Not that my opinion matters, but I too hate switching aspect ratios in a film.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
kurtis21 (01-30-2020)
Old 01-29-2020, 10:35 PM   #50
AmishParadise AmishParadise is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
AmishParadise's Avatar
 
Dec 2009
Central Florida
23
1
Default

I own a 150" 1.78:1 projector screen and use black velvet masking, horizontal masking for aspect ratios north of 1.78:1 and vertical masking for aspect ratios south of 1.78:1. The end result, a black hole surrounding the visible image area.

Not interested in leaving large portions of my projector screen unmasked, because for a few minutes during a scene or two in a scope film the aspect ratio opens up and is taller. It's not worth the trade-off for me.

My solution, using BD Rebuilder I re-author the given Blu-ray creating a version with a fixed aspect ratio, i.e. enabling the "Use AVS Filters during encoding" option adding the command to crop each frame down to the widest of aspect ratios used followed by the command to add the black bars back to the given frame.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2020, 12:16 AM   #51
SillyG SillyG is offline
Expert Member
 
Aug 2019
Sydney, Australia
13
166
20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slimdude View Post
It's very irritating to me when the aspect ratios switches, and it's a stupid idea.
It strikes me as rather pompous device unless the shift is to accommodate a necessary change in aspect ratio, such as through the use of archive footage.

I occasionally film events, and there was one that I had done for a relative, and at one point in the video, I narrowed the 16:9 aspect ratio to 4:3, threw in a brief clip of VHS static, followed by a montage of archive footage of their family that I had in my possession (dating back up to 25 years) as a little surprise.

Likewise, I hate when archive 4:3 footage is cropped to a wider aspect ratio, be it in the news, (especially) long-running television series, or documentaries as it diminishes the quality of the production in my eyes, and a lot of the time, the editor has neglected to reframe the footage to accommodate the shift in aspect ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2020, 12:21 AM   #52
SillyG SillyG is offline
Expert Member
 
Aug 2019
Sydney, Australia
13
166
20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slimdude View Post
It's very irritating to me when the aspect ratios switches, and it's a stupid idea.
It strikes me as rather pompous device unless the shift is to accommodate a necessary change in aspect ratio, such as through the use of archive footage.

I occasionally film events, and there was one that I had done for a relative, and at one point in the video, I narrowed the 16:9 aspect ratio to 4:3 and threw in a brief clip of VHS static to serve as a transition, followed by a montage of archive footage of their family that I had in my possession (dating back up to 25 years) as a little surprise. To my eyes, the footage would have been unwatchable if I had cropped the 4:3 footage to 16:9 instead.

Furthermore, I hate when archive 4:3 footage is cropped to a wider aspect ratio, be it in the news, (especially) long-running television series, or documentaries as it diminishes the quality of the production in my eyes, and a lot of the time, the editor has neglected to reframe the footage to accommodate the shift in aspect ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 PM.