1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1 Quality Difference - Blu-ray Forum

djluis2k6 · 01-09-2009, 01:28 AM

Is it just me, or does anybody else see a better picture quality from a movie displayed with an Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1? Take for example Get Smart (1.85:1) and Righteous Kill (2.35:1). Both movies shot with the intent that it would be released on Blu-Ray when it hit the streets. Get Smart looks great and crystal clear. Righteous Kill does too, but it's not immediately as noticeable as Get Smart is because of the black bars. Anyone else agree or have a better comparison?

ckent22 · 01-09-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Is it just me, or does anybody else see a better picture quality from a movie displayed with an Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1? Take for example Get Smart (1.85:1) and Righteous Kill (2.35:1). Both movies shot with the intent that it would be released on Blu-Ray when it hit the streets. Get Smart looks great and crystal clear. Righteous Kill does too, but it's not immediately as noticeable as Get Smart is because of the black bars. Anyone else agree or have a better comparison?

I disagree with you. The aspect ratio that it was shot in has nothing to do with the quality of how the actual image looks. I don't own Righteous Kill because to me it doesn't warrant spending 25 dollars for considering I saw it in the theater and it was way too predictable. But with that said, I've seen many 1.85:1 that are terrible transfers.

steveland · 01-09-2009, 01:38 AM

There's no correlation between picture quality and aspect ratios (of two different movies on top of that).

The only comparison would be to compare Get Smart 1.85 vs. Get Smart 1.85 where you mask the top and bottom to give you a 2.35..

hanumang · 01-09-2009, 01:39 AM

I've seen neither of the films you've mentioned on Blu-ray but this doesn't sound like an issue of framing - 1.85:1 vs 2.35:1 - but of compression (and all issues involved with compression).

Some of the best looking films (for argument's sake, non-computer animated pictures) are 2.35:1 ratio. I, Robot is one that comes to mind right away. Since it was released in 2004 - before Blu-ray was in the picture - it renders your theory moot, at least in my mind.

dvd_mazter · 01-09-2009, 01:53 AM

I don't think aspect ratio as anything to do with the quality of the transfer. I mean Hellboy II looks fantastic as does day Wanted yet HB II is 1:85:1 and Wanted is 2:35:1. I have seen both excellent and bad transfer from both ratios.

ckent22 · 01-09-2009, 02:02 AM

The beauty of the images and how well they leap off the screen really has nothing to do with the aspect ratio. Look at Tinkerbell. It leaps off the screen and looks wonderful.

My favorite aspect ratio however is 2.4:1

Dotpattern · 01-09-2009, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Both movies shot with the intent that it would be released on Blu-Ray when it hit the streets.

I'm pretty sure filmmakers don't shoot in 1:85 "with the intent" of releasing their movies on Blu-ray. The 1:85 ratio has been around for a long time, and filmmakers have different reasons for using different aspect ratios - the last reason on their list, I'm sure, is release on BD or DVD.

PowellPressburger · 01-09-2009, 03:15 AM

This thread is the biggest waste of space and some people need to go to film school.

Sussudio · 01-09-2009, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

This thread is the biggest waste of space and some people need to go to film school.

hey now, while i happen to agree there are WAY too many aspect radio threads, if you don't have anything nice to post don't post anything at all

djluis2k6 · 01-09-2009, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

This thread is the biggest waste of space and some people need to go to film school.

Oh yeah, I'm sure this is a lot bigger waste of space than the 1 million Dark Knight threads right?

I wasn't referring to this in a technical manner, I was just speaking from personal view, if you personally felt you saw a difference. Everyone here so far is strictly going off technical facts and that's not what I was asking. So forget it then, delete this thread then. Forgive me for trying to actually bring an interesting topic for once to this forum.

draejr · 01-09-2009, 03:44 AM

Personally, I prefer the 1.85:1 ratio when watching a movie. Way back when with VHS, I always wanted 2.35:1 ratio movies, but now with my 50" Plasma, I prefer 1.85:1.

To each his own...

spolcyc · 01-09-2009, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Is it just me, or does anybody else see a better picture quality from a movie displayed with an Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1? Take for example Get Smart (1.85:1) and Righteous Kill (2.35:1). Both movies shot with the intent that it would be released on Blu-Ray when it hit the streets. Get Smart looks great and crystal clear. Righteous Kill does too, but it's not immediately as noticeable as Get Smart is because of the black bars. Anyone else agree or have a better comparison?

i, Robot and I Am Legend are two of the best PQ transfers I have seen and they are both 2:35:1 ratio. It all depends on the transfer. Some companies give a darn and other just wan your $

spolcyc · 01-09-2009, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by draejr

Personally, I prefer the 1.85:1 ratio when watching a movie. Way back when with VHS, I always wanted 2.35:1 ratio movies, but now with my 50" Plasma, I prefer 1.85:1.

To each his own...

1:85:1 ratios are good for dramas and comedies, but for action movies you need the 2:35:1 or 2:40:1 ratio. But as long as you enjoy the movie it don't matter.

saprano · 01-09-2009, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Is it just me, or does anybody else see a better picture quality from a movie displayed with an Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1? Take for example Get Smart (1.85:1) and Righteous Kill (2.35:1). Both movies shot with the intent that it would be released on Blu-Ray when it hit the streets. Get Smart looks great and crystal clear. Righteous Kill does too, but it's not immediately as noticeable as Get Smart is because of the black bars. Anyone else agree or have a better comparison?

I agree and know exactly what your talking about, but i feel its the other way around

Anklefoot · 01-09-2009, 04:12 AM

Well, it is undeniable that 1.85:1 is a higher resolution image. All 1080 (or 720, or 768) lines of resolution are image, none being wasted on black bars.

I am not saying that it is better- to each their own. But if the top 200 lines, and the bottom 200 lines are black, then the image is only 680 lines tall. The fineness of resolution (dpi) is still the same on a 2.35:1 image, but the individual parts of the picture are (obviously) smaller, and in a sense, less detailed.

On Get Smart - closeups of Anne Hathaway have many more pixels than they would if it was framed in 2:35 to 1.

Again : I am not suggesting for a moment that 1.85:1 is preferable. Just that it is easy to understand why it might seem to have a better image in some cases - it simply has more pixels.

Squozen · 01-09-2009, 04:14 AM

If you wanted to say, 'I hate the black bars', why didn't you just say so?

raven1138 · 01-09-2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squozen

If you wanted to say, 'I hate the black bars', why didn't you just say so?

sorry but thats what i was thinking too. aspect ratio does not effect PQ.

Jenksu · 01-09-2009, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by draejr

Personally, I prefer the 1.85:1 ratio when watching a movie...

Aspect ratio, IMO, has nothing to do with picture quality...

The ratio number that u see is only too inform you of whether the picture is fullscreen at 1.85:1 or widescreen at 2.35:1 that have black bars top and bottom. I think many people would prefer a fullscreen ratio when watching a movie, with widescreen you see more of whats inside a picture!!!

draejr · 01-09-2009, 04:45 AM

I agree aspect ratio has nothing to do with picture quality - it's just a personal preference for people. There is no right answer. Same goes for calibrating your set. What looks good to one person looks like crap to the other.

As long as I see the movie in it's OAR - I'm fine.

saprano · 01-09-2009, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anklefoot

Well, it is undeniable that 1.85:1 is a higher resolution image. All 1080 (or 720, or 768) lines of resolution are image, none being wasted on black bars.

Actually 1.85:1 movies are still encoded with only 800 lines.

So its 1920x800p.

01-09-2009, 01:28 AM	#1
djluis2k6 Power Member Top contributor Member since:Feb 2007	1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1 Quality Difference Is it just me, or does anybody else see a better picture quality from a movie displayed with an Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1? Take for example Get Smart (1.85:1) and Righteous Kill (2.35:1). Both movies shot with the intent that it would be released on Blu-Ray when it hit the streets. Get Smart looks great and crystal clear. Righteous Kill does too, but it's not immediately as noticeable as Get Smart is because of the black bars. Anyone else agree or have a better comparison?

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Quality cable make a huge difference......	Receivers	budkole	21	01-30-2009 08:14 PM
HELP - New to Blu - What is the difference in Sound Quality	Audio Theory and Discussion	KingLeonidas300	6	07-12-2008 04:16 AM
Anyone notice a difference in HD broadcast quality?	TV Shows	jbeuchert	8	05-14-2008 12:40 AM
Blu-ray difference in quality....	Newbie Discussion	rybev	26	02-25-2008 11:36 PM
800x600 vs 1280x720 image quality difference	Newbie Discussion	redsvt	3	01-04-2008 12:55 PM

01-09-2009, 01:38 AM	#3
steveland Active Member Member since:Aug 2008 Trading Score:13	There's no correlation between picture quality and aspect ratios (of two different movies on top of that). The only comparison would be to compare Get Smart 1.85 vs. Get Smart 1.85 where you mask the top and bottom to give you a 2.35..

01-09-2009, 01:39 AM	#4
hanumang Member Member since:Sep 2008 Blu-ray collection:17 Blu-ray reviews:1	I've seen neither of the films you've mentioned on Blu-ray but this doesn't sound like an issue of framing - 1.85:1 vs 2.35:1 - but of compression (and all issues involved with compression). Some of the best looking films (for argument's sake, non-computer animated pictures) are 2.35:1 ratio. I, Robot is one that comes to mind right away. Since it was released in 2004 - before Blu-ray was in the picture - it renders your theory moot, at least in my mind.

01-09-2009, 01:53 AM	#5
dvd_mazter Power Member Member since:Mar 2008 Location:Winnipeg, Manitoba Home Theater Gallery:9 4K collection:10 Blu-ray collection:740 Blu-ray reviews: 146	I don't think aspect ratio as anything to do with the quality of the transfer. I mean Hellboy II looks fantastic as does day Wanted yet HB II is 1:85:1 and Wanted is 2:35:1. I have seen both excellent and bad transfer from both ratios.

01-09-2009, 02:02 AM	#6
ckent22 Banned Member since:Jun 2008 Location:Hollywood, California VIA Smallville, Kansas Home Theater Gallery:15 Blu-ray collection:266 Blu-ray reviews: 15	The beauty of the images and how well they leap off the screen really has nothing to do with the aspect ratio. Look at Tinkerbell. It leaps off the screen and looks wonderful. My favorite aspect ratio however is 2.4:1

01-09-2009, 03:15 AM	#8
PowellPressburger Blu-ray Count Top contributor Member since:Aug 2007 Location:DIFFERENT PLACES! Minneapolis 4K collection:991 Blu-ray collection:3676 DVD collection:359 Blu-ray reviews: 51 Trading Score:297	This thread is the biggest waste of space and some people need to go to film school.

01-09-2009, 03:44 AM	#11
draejr Active Member Member since:Dec 2008 Location:Wisconsin Blu-ray collection:1294 DVD collection:47 Trading Score:54	Personally, I prefer the 1.85:1 ratio when watching a movie. Way back when with VHS, I always wanted 2.35:1 ratio movies, but now with my 50" Plasma, I prefer 1.85:1. To each his own...

01-09-2009, 04:12 AM	#15
Anklefoot New Member Member since:Dec 2008	Well, it is undeniable that 1.85:1 is a higher resolution image. All 1080 (or 720, or 768) lines of resolution are image, none being wasted on black bars. I am not saying that it is better- to each their own. But if the top 200 lines, and the bottom 200 lines are black, then the image is only 680 lines tall. The fineness of resolution (dpi) is still the same on a 2.35:1 image, but the individual parts of the picture are (obviously) smaller, and in a sense, less detailed. On Get Smart - closeups of Anne Hathaway have many more pixels than they would if it was framed in 2:35 to 1. Again : I am not suggesting for a moment that 1.85:1 is preferable. Just that it is easy to understand why it might seem to have a better image in some cases - it simply has more pixels.

01-09-2009, 04:14 AM	#16
Squozen Senior Member Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Melbourne, Australia Home Theater Gallery:17 Blu-ray collection:80	If you wanted to say, 'I hate the black bars', why didn't you just say so?

01-09-2009, 04:45 AM	#19
draejr Active Member Member since:Dec 2008 Location:Wisconsin Blu-ray collection:1294 DVD collection:47 Trading Score:54	I agree aspect ratio has nothing to do with picture quality - it's just a personal preference for people. There is no right answer. Same goes for calibrating your set. What looks good to one person looks like crap to the other. As long as I see the movie in it's OAR - I'm fine.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals