No OAR for some beautiful stuff. :mad:

What a darn waste. No lossless on many titles (not this title) and going away from OAR. WTF is Warner doing to our beloved formats?

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/imax_blueplanet.html

I can't believe Bracke would so willingly accept this sin. :rolleyes:

Bracke is an a$$.

Bracke is an a$$.

Truer words have never been said. Why do people keep bringing up reviews from that site?

It's also funny reading about Kenneth Brown talk about the subletleties of audio with his Best Buy Klipsch Synergy speakers. :p

I just watched the BLU-RAY version of this disc last night and it looked VERY good, a very clean transfer with a lot of 3d pop, well worth the price. The second feature on the disc is also in HD.

i refer to hidefdigest fairly often for no reason other than that they are the only review site where you can consistently find out what bitrate a DD+ track is, and what resolution a lossless track is. on the down-side, they seem to like, oh, i don't know, EVERYTHING they see. but on the up-side, that information is essential. with so much variance in the quality of DD+/True HD/ DTS MA and HD, you'd think they'd list that stuff on the boxes.

OAR?

With the announcements of the Kubrick Boxset, Blade Runner Boxset, upcoming announcement for Harry Potter and so on, I can let this slide.

WB is doing a GREAT job imo.

OAR?
Original Aspect Ratio

---

I was considering picking up this title, but if it's not OAR, then that's a dealbreaker, however good the transfer might be.

Well this is one case where I appreciate that they strayed from OAR... 1.44 is just too narrow on my 2.35:1 screen....

With the announcements of the Kubrick Boxset, Blade Runner Boxset, upcoming announcement for Harry Potter and so on, I can let this slide.

WB is doing a GREAT job imo.


Ditto! WB's flack is undeserved. People are never happy on this site.

I suspect the people complaining about this haven't seen it and are simply the sort of knee-jerk reactors that haunt these forums.

I have watched The Dream Is Alive and I find the 1.78:1 framing is just fine. Very fine, actually. And I would take issue with the linked review on the audio comments, at least on the program I watched. The TrueHD track is really quite good with some very well done directional cues in the mix, even some discrete back channel stuff if you are using a 7.1 rig.

I have watched The Dream Is Alive and I find the 1.78:1 framing is just fine. Very fine, actually.

It may be fine, but which is better and most represents the film's intentions? That is far more important than "fine".

Most of reviews I've read of IMAX films having both aspects on the disk prefer the 4:3 version considerably.

Given the short runtime of these clips, having both aspects on the disks or making them two disk releases seems acceptable as well.

I'm tired of the "good enough" attitude for supporters of both formats. They need to get better not remain in mediocrity.

We just finished watching both features on the disc, and they look amazingly good. Had I not known about the AOR issue from this thread, I would never have known. The truth is that if people realized the features on this disc were 17 and 23 years old, respectively, they probably wouldn't pay too much attention to this release. Normally I'm with you with the OAR argument, but I think it works out fine in this case.

It may be fine, but which is better and most represents the film's intentions? That is far more important than "fine".

This could get complicated, but I'll try to be brief.

OAR, as it applies to presenting a film on video, is primarily about preserving the compositional balance of a film. Slavish devotion to a two-decimal place aspect ratio both misses the point and sets one up for disappointment. As an example, films shot flat and composed for 1.85:1 projection are going to be seen in just about any framing from 1.66:1 in many European theaters to 2:1 in some US theaters. Filmmakers know this and they compose their shots accordingly.

In the case of IMAX, filmmaker's intent takes on a different meaning. The primary focus in IMAX photography is size. IMAX filmmakers are expecting their films to be seen on 70 foot high IMAX screens. If one has been to any of the modern IMAX theaters, you will know that the human eye has a real hard time taking in an image that high at the viewing distance in an IMAX theater. I happen to live in an area with an IMAX theater. I have seen many documentary features in IMAX (no "regular" movies play at this theater). Rarely does any of the primary action take place at the extremities of the frame.

From a numbers standpoint, the 1.44:1 IMAX frame cropped to 1.78:1, assuming minimal or no cropping of the sides of the frame, is really a fairly minor trim of the top and bottom of the frame. And considering the IMAX photography is intended to be seen as large as possible, I would contend that framing an IMAX show at 1.78:1 for HDTV is actually closer to the intent of the filmmaker than losing a portion of the sides of the video frame.

OAR, as it applies to presenting a film on video, is primarily about preserving the compositional balance of a film. Slavish devotion to a two-decimal place aspect ratio both misses the point and sets one up for disappointment. As an example, films shot flat and composed for 1.85:1 projection are going to be seen in just about any framing from 1.66:1 in many European theaters to 2:1 in some US theaters. Filmmakers know this and they compose their shots accordingly.That's terrific and all but IMAX films were meant to be projected on IMAX screens in IMAX theaters only which have a uniform aspect ratio.

In the case of IMAX, filmmaker's intent takes on a different meaning. The primary focus in IMAX photography is size. IMAX filmmakers are expecting their films to be seen on 70 foot high IMAX screens. If one has been to any of the modern IMAX theaters, you will know that the human eye has a real hard time taking in an image that high at the viewing distance in an IMAX theater.The same could be said for Cinerama presentation in the 1950s, but that doesn't mean that cutting the sides off How the West Won is an acceptable compromise for home theater viewing. If size is at issue, sit closer to the tv screen.
I happen to live in an area with an IMAX theater. I have seen many documentary features in IMAX (no "regular" movies play at this theater). Rarely does any of the primary action take place at the extremities of the frame.I happen to live in an area with three IMAX theaters and have been attending IMAX presentations for almost 30 years. As you make it sound, the tops and bottoms of the images contain dead space similar to what is seen on an open matte dvd. This is simply not true. The 1.44:1 images are generally beautifully composed.

From a numbers standpoint, the 1.44:1 IMAX frame cropped to 1.78:1, assuming minimal or no cropping of the sides of the frame, is really a fairly minor trim of the top and bottom of the frame.1.44:1 to 1.78:1 is a "minor trim"!!! Hilarious.
I would contend that framing an IMAX show at 1.78:1 for HDTV is actually closer to the intent of the filmmaker than losing a portion of the sides of the video frameDid you happen to produce Kung Fu: The Complete First Season for DVD?

It's also funny reading about Kenneth Brown talk about the subletleties of audio with his Best Buy Klipsch Synergy speakers. :p

I just had tea come out of my nose. Great post. I need a napkin. :eek: :D

The same could be said for Cinerama presentation in the 1950s, but that doesn't mean that cutting the sides off How the West Won is an acceptable compromise for home theater viewing. If size is at issue, sit closer to the tv screen.

Your analogy is weak, at best. Not even in the same ballpark. And now I'm being lectured on sitting closer to me TV by someone with 13 posts.

1.44:1 to 1.78:1 is a "minor trim"!!! Hilarious.

Glad I could provide you with some entertainment.

I happen to live in an area with three IMAX theaters and have been attending IMAX presentations for almost 30 years.

Really? All that time and yet you still have the manners of an 8 year-old. I'll bet you are the life of the party. Well, if you ever get invited to any.

Even though I'm pissed at Warner I just blew a load of cash with their 25% deal. I even bough Alexander even though I really want lossless. I'm a sucker. :(

still couldn't pick this one up though, OAR is far more important than lossless to me.

It may be fine, but which is better and most represents the film's intentions? That is far more important than "fine".

The intention of the film is to be projected on a screen so large that it exceeds the field of view of human vision. That can't be duplicated at home, no matter which aspect ratio they use.

The intention of the film is to be projected on a screen so large that it exceeds the field of view of human vision. That can't be duplicated at home, no matter which aspect ratio they use.

I claim it depends on your home! ;-)

Your analogy is weak, at best. Not even in the same ballpark. And now I'm being lectured on sitting closer to me TV by someone with 13 posts.


Really? All that time and yet you still have the manners of an 8 year-old. I'll bet you are the life of the party. Well, if you ever get invited to any.


Wow, Geremia's post was a reasoned argument.

Your's is the one that has "the manners of an 8 year-old".

Why would you want to OAR IMAX? It's virtually 4:3?

I am a big OAR supporter, but in this instance, I'd rather watch Blue Planet (which I do own BTW) cropped for widescreen presentation, than OAR in 1.44:1.

I'd also like to ask how many of the people complaining about the cropping on this title have actually seen it? I don't think this title was lacking anything by being cropped and is an excellent presentation if you like discovery channel type imformative programming.

Why would you want to OAR IMAX? It's virtually 4:3?

I am a big OAR supporter, but in this instance, I'd rather watch Blue Planet (which I do own BTW) cropped for widescreen presentation, than OAR in 1.44:1.

I'd also like to ask how many of the people complaining about the cropping on this title have actually seen it? I don't think this title was lacking anything by being cropped and is an excellent presentation if you like discovery channel type imformative programming.

I have not seen it (and have not complained). I'm just wondering, though, how can you say you don't think the title was "lacking anything" and have "cropped" in the same sentence? Isn't it lacking stuff by definition?

Bring on more IMAX cropped to 16:9, I say! (Until I get a 7-story spherical screen installed in my house)

I'm just wondering, though, how can you say you don't think the title was "lacking anything" and have "cropped" in the same sentence? Isn't it lacking stuff by definition?

Technically, if you want to be like that, yes, some small part of the top and bottom of the frame are "missing". I'm sure what the Guru meant was this presentation is not lacking any of the artistic intent (other than the obvious difference in screen size).

i refer to hidefdigest fairly often for no reason other than that they are the only review site where you can consistently find out what bitrate a DD+ track is, and what resolution a lossless track is. on the down-side, they seem to like, oh, i don't know, EVERYTHING they see. but on the up-side, that information is essential. with so much variance in the quality of DD+/True HD/ DTS MA and HD, you'd think they'd list that stuff on the boxes.
True. I don't always agree with Bracke's or Brown's taste in movies, and there are some technical flaws that they let past them, but they do give enough technical information to help me make an informed purchase based on my own standards.

There's two sides of the coin on this arguement. Personally, I would prefer to see both the OAR and the cropped 1.78:1 on the disc. As a fan of The Dream is Alive, I'll probably pick this up, but if it were available in 1.44:1, I would have gotten that one.

I have not seen it (and have not complained). I'm just wondering, though, how can you say you don't think the title was "lacking anything" and have "cropped" in the same sentence? Isn't it lacking stuff by definition?I just meant that it doesn't take away from the integrity of the title.

Example: The narrator isn't discussing continental plate seperations that were located in the frame area that was cropped. I agree with Josh Z, that the intention of IMAX film can never be duplicated in a home theater setup. I don't think the intention of this film was to give anyone the sense of Imax effect. Only to bring a well filmed and high quality PQ documentary to HD.

As a fan of The Dream is Alive, I'll probably pick this up, but if it were available in 1.44:1, I would have gotten that one.

The Dream Is Alive is a supplement on the Blue Planet disc. You'll get both.

Really? All that time and yet you still have the manners of an 8 year-old. I'll bet you are the life of the party. Well, if you ever get invited to any.Wow. You really tore down my argument!
And now I'm being lectured on sitting closer to me TV by someone with 13 posts.He's criticizing my post count. Too funny!

OAR for me, boys.

I completely agree with you Geremia. I don't see how having more or less posts makes you more or less right about the issue in question? Also the insults from Robert is just in very poor taste. You would think someone with 2,755 posts would know better. If the number of posts had anything to do with it, that is... :rolleyes:

Regarding the topic, I find it pretty strange (almost shocking) that many of the normally so OAR outspoken Avsforum crowd suddenly seem to prefer a cropped AR, just because it's an IMAX film. Apparently because the film happens to be shot in ~4:3 format.

Could it be that so many people crying for OAR in movies aren't REALLY crying for OAR per se, but 16:9 format, so they won't get those 'black bars' on their 16:9 TV's. How hypocritical wouldn't that be? :p

I completely with Geremias previous post as well, OAR is OAR. If the movie was shot in 4:3, OAR is 4:3. Just as much as I wouldn't want a 1.85:1 cropped to 1.78:1, or 2.35:1 cropped to 1.85:1. I thought that was what pretty much everyone on this board has been advocating on years on the DVD format.

The intention of the film is to be projected on a screen so large that it exceeds the field of view of human vision. That can't be duplicated at home, no matter which aspect ratio they use.


Not true at all. If I sit very close to a large 4:3 screen with my PJ the vertical and horizontal scopes are easily beyond my comfortable field of vision and I'm getting a huge image mathematically and perceptually similar to the real IMAX. The only problem is that the audio of course isn't set up for such a close seating position. There is still great value in OAR for IMAX films IMO. Besides, given the incredibly short runtime there is no reason not to include both. That's a situation everyone could live with and Warner should recognize. Warner seems to have no interest in keeping PQ/AQ enthusiasts happy. It's a shame because their catalog is amazing. Wouldn't you be happier if Warner encodes were more like the Buena Vista encodes?

PS - In almost every review I've seen where both aspects are included the reviewer prefers the OAR version. ;)