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
17 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
13 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
 
Wonder Woman 1984 (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Rad (Blu-ray)
$19.99
 
Hammer Films: The Ultimate Collection (Blu-ray)
$45.99
 
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 07-06-2015, 02:13 PM   #1
Coenskubrick Coenskubrick is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Apr 2015
3
498
Default Shifting aspect ratios for IMAX, can they not?

You know what I mean, they shoot all the Imax stuff in Imax but then go shoot the rest in 2.35:1. WHY do they do this? It's so irritating. Nolan is the biggest perpetrator. If you want to fill up the vertical space for IMAX stuff why would you not want to for the rest of the film?
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
sapiendut (02-06-2020)
Old 07-06-2015, 02:21 PM   #2
singhcr singhcr is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
singhcr's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Apple Valley, MN
11
4
26
4
31
Default

IMAX cameras are expensive. The film is also very expensive, and the cameras make a lot of noise. It is considered impractical to shoot an entire movie with an IMAX camera, hence the shifting aspect ratios.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 02:23 PM   #3
imsounoriginal imsounoriginal is offline
Blu-ray Grand Duke
 
imsounoriginal's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
DMV
211
806
81
2
53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by singhcr View Post
IMAX cameras are expensive. The film is also very expensive, and the cameras make a lot of noise. It is considered impractical to shoot an entire movie with an IMAX camera, hence the shifting aspect ratios.
This, plus the whole point of IMAX is to enhance the spectacle of certain sequences by giving them a larger-than-life quality; you lose this effect when the entire film is presented in IMAX aspect ratio rather than just select portions expanding to fill up the entire screen.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 02:30 PM   #4
Dynamo of Eternia Dynamo of Eternia is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
Dynamo of Eternia's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
238
1680
1527
3
Default

While I don't let it bother me too much, I do find the shifting aspect ratios kind of annoying. I'd rather the entire film be in the same aspect ratio, even if only certain scenes are filmed using Imax cameras.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
in2video2 (07-07-2015), sapiendut (02-06-2020)
Old 07-06-2015, 03:25 PM   #5
Petra_Kalbrain Petra_Kalbrain is offline
Blu-ray Prince
 
Petra_Kalbrain's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Vancouver, BC
1
545
3
17
Default



It really doesn't bother me at all. In fact, the first time that I actually noticed it was in Hunger Games: Catching Fire. And it was done brilliantly!



That transition is epic.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Canada (01-30-2020)
Old 07-06-2015, 04:10 PM   #6
Coenskubrick Coenskubrick is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Apr 2015
3
498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by singhcr View Post
IMAX cameras are expensive. The film is also very expensive, and the cameras make a lot of noise. It is considered impractical to shoot an entire movie with an IMAX camera, hence the shifting aspect ratios.
All they have to do is not shoot anamorphic. Unless you're watching it in true IMAX (which is taller than a regular screen), a regular 1.78 or 1.85 ratio will make the segments line up to the viewer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain View Post


It really doesn't bother me at all. In fact, the first time that I actually noticed it was in Hunger Games: Catching Fire. And it was done brilliantly!



That transition is epic.
That does look epic, but most of the time it just seems to cut in and out of IMAX footage arbitrarily.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 09:53 PM   #7
singhcr singhcr is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
singhcr's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Apple Valley, MN
11
4
26
4
31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coenskubrick View Post
All they have to do is not shoot anamorphic. Unless you're watching it in true IMAX (which is taller than a regular screen), a regular 1.78 or 1.85 ratio will make the segments line up to the viewer.
That's true. Good point.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 12:44 AM   #8
Geoff D Geoff D is offline
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

I like shifting aspects when they're done well, like with the above Catching Fire or Star Trek Into Darkness. But the damned near random stuff you get in a Nolan movie or the last Transformers really ticks me off. And don't get me started on simply opening up 2.35 films to fit the digital IMAX screen as a permanent aspect change, I hate that shit.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
sapiendut (02-06-2020)
Old 07-07-2015, 02:53 AM   #9
PenguinMaster PenguinMaster is offline
Banned
 
May 2009
1800
380
Default

While I don't mind the aspect ratio change, I think it would make more sense to frame the rest of the movie in 1.85 instead of 2.35. This shouldn't be done in post-production, they should plan for the movie to be mostly 1.85 with 1.44 IMAX scenes from the beginning. That way there would be a much less drastic change (with likely no change for the Blu-ray version as the entire movie would be 1.78).
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 03:36 AM   #10
sandman slim sandman slim is offline
Blu-ray Knight
 
sandman slim's Avatar
 
Aug 2013
TN
64
3795
26
3
8
Default

I don't really mind this when its done properly, with a whole scene in a different ratio. But that "big screen" edition of one of the Transformers movies is nearly unwatchable. A two second IMAX shot, and back to 2.40. Fourteen seconds... and back to 2.40. Completely ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
in2video2 (07-07-2015)
Old 07-07-2015, 06:26 AM   #11
MrsMiniver MrsMiniver is offline
Active Member
 
Sep 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coenskubrick View Post
You know what I mean, they shoot all the Imax stuff in Imax but then go shoot the rest in 2.35:1. WHY do they do this? It's so irritating. Nolan is the biggest perpetrator. If you want to fill up the vertical space for IMAX stuff why would you not want to for the rest of the film?
I personally love it, as long as the IMAX sequences are shot in IMAX. The great cinematic experiences were Interstellar, Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall (not shot in IMAX) and Hunger Games 2.

I know the new IMAX is not the same as the 70MM but I still think it is best experience possible outside of the home.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 08:39 AM   #12
bailey1987 bailey1987 is offline
Special Member
 
Sep 2009
200
Default

Personally I think it is just a symbolic way of saying "it won't be long before the entire film is filmed that way".
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 10:03 AM   #13
in2video2 in2video2 is offline
Special Member
 
in2video2's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
Green Valley, AZ
150
757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey1987 View Post
Personally I think it is just a symbolic way of saying "it won't be long before the entire film is filmed that way".
Or it won't be long before 70MM and IMAX technologies merge.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 10:40 AM   #14
Derb Derb is online now
Blu-ray Duke
 
Derb's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Vancouver, B.C.
11
46
3278
4
3
7
1
2
51
Default

Have no idea about this imax stuff.

I was watching Interstellar 4K up scaled & when ever the imax scene appeared it blew the crap out of any image I've seen on BD period. I went back & then looked at the compression. To my surprise the MB/S didn't jump at all when going from 2.39 to 1.78.

So space ain't an issue..

Why can't they release both a 2.35 & IMAX only version BD?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 04:55 PM   #15
Spike M. Spike M. is offline
Special Member
 
Spike M.'s Avatar
 
Feb 2014
Los Angeles, CA
Default

There was a pretty big online uproar when M:I4 wasn't released with shifting ratios. Big enough that it drew Bird's attention on twitter. Can't win.

I can't imagine watching TDK/R or Interstellar entirely in 2.40. After seeing Interstellar in 15/70, I was barely okay with the crop to 16:9. Clearly, that's the frame Nolan intended for home viewing, though.

Long live the intended aspect ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
warrian (07-07-2015)
Old 07-07-2015, 06:24 PM   #16
Geoff D Geoff D is offline
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

Bah, I'd love to have Interstellar on Blu-ray in fixed 2.40, just like the version I saw in the cinema. Nolan's IMAX stuff is a literal waste of space IMO.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
dr. wai (08-23-2015)
Old 07-07-2015, 08:05 PM   #17
Spike M. Spike M. is offline
Special Member
 
Spike M.'s Avatar
 
Feb 2014
Los Angeles, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
Bah, I'd love to have Interstellar on Blu-ray in fixed 2.40, just like the version I saw in the cinema. Nolan's IMAX stuff is a literal waste of space IMO.
You can always join team VLC and click that little "2.40:1" option under "crop". You can even tweak the color while you're at it.

The space sequences, particularly in that 25 minute full frame stretch from the docking crash to the tesseract, were stunning filling a proper IMAX screen. Seeing it in 16:9 isn't the same, but it's certainly better than 2.40.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2015, 10:33 PM   #18
Geoff D Geoff D is offline
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

The 2.40 version wasn't just a straight centre crop, it was repositioned in certain shots. I saw it in 15/70 as well BTW, but I just don't like the way that Nolan uses IMAX. He shoots his stuff widescreen safe instead of going full tilt and it feels like I'm watching an open matte version rather than something that's genuinely composed for that 1.44 frame. (Same reasoning why I don't like those fixed 1.90 IMAX versions that other movies have gotten.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2015, 12:33 AM   #19
Derb Derb is online now
Blu-ray Duke
 
Derb's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Vancouver, B.C.
11
46
3278
4
3
7
1
2
51
Default

The IMAX shots upconverted to 4K from Interstellar look better then Netlix's House of Cards in Semi-Native 4K.

So basically if it ain't in politically correct aspect ratio, nobody needs to bother with it. Memba the days when Universal introduced us to Full Screen DVDs?.. Those were the days.

Ps,

iOS from Apple needs to go. I mean literally every single word I type is auto corrected. their, nope.. There, nope.. Tied, nope.. The, Yes!! Thank you apple for letting me type THE

Last edited by Derb; 07-08-2015 at 12:38 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2015, 12:40 AM   #20
Geoff D Geoff D is offline
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
661
1963
5
28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derb View Post
The IMAX shots upconverted to 4K from Interstellar look better then Netlix's House of Cards in Semi-Native 4K.
Because compression. Even the BDA have privately admitted that a well-mastered 2K source on disc will beat the average 4K stream.
  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 12:55 PM.