After Avatar, will future BD of Cameron movies be 1.78 ? - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I know how all of this works, I've posted illustrations of this multiple times.

Yes and multiple times you've stated that the CinemaScope version of this film is vertically panned and scanned, so guess what? At some point, the process WILL include a centre crop and I'm betting about 90% of it is based on all the other screen caps I've seen. It might not be on the frame you choose to post, however it would have been done. So you take your "invalid way to watch this film" comments else where.

Quote:


Center cropping the 1.78 frame is an invalid way to view this film. As you say, it won't stop you from doing it, and that's fine. The irony here is fantastic though, as I've heard so many times from people zooming 2.39 to fit their 1.78 plasmas, "I'm not losing anything important, and now it fills my screen!".

Are we in the plasma forum? Who cares how owners of such displays watch their letter boxed BDs. The only things we have in common are:
1.we all love wide screen
2.we all hate black bars

If they want to chop the ends of their films, so be it. What are they actually achieving by doing this? They lose the black bars and get to use the FULL vertical pixel count of their displays.

This is the CIH forum and this film (AVATAR) was shown in CinemaScope for both 2D and 3D (at select cinemas) with a 1.78:1 version being shown on CIW cinemas (you know the ones that suck when they make Scope smaller).

Quote:


Your setup cannot properly display a 1.78 frame that is intended to be identical in width to a 2.39 frame, as this film is.

Care factor = ZERO! Your system can't display ANY CinemaScope film properly, so who cares about this ONE film? I don't, and as I have already stated, I have (as do all anamorphic lens users) the ability to display this film in TWO different ways and displaying it in CinemaScope means I get to watch this film closer to THE WAY I SAW IT AT THE CINEMA. You can not, even if you wanted to. Of course you went to see it in IMAX at 1.78:1. and the cinemas you go to even have seating arranged for each AR, or you posted a while ago.

The same could be said for TDK and TF2 (dual AR version) and possibly HP6 (not sure if the IMAX release had dual AR).

Quote:


Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39- CIH is compromised such that this is not a possibility.

Didn't I already reference your quacking to that of a duck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

Please don't quote me out of context. You added the bolded part; I imposed no conditions on the comparison, you did.

Yes I did add the bold, just to show others (the ones that you claim don't fully understand the concept) my point using your own words. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Quote:


Consider a 56 inch 21:9 TV and a 56 inch 16:9 TV. Does the fact that they both specify :9 mean they have the same height? This question isn't specifically directed to CAVX.

So? TVs (all direct view displays) have their sizes quoted in inches based on their diagonals. It means nothing in a forum that uses width or height for screen size. If the 21:9 manufacture really wanted to do it right, they would quote the screen as having the same size 16:9 area as TV x.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 04:34 PM
Senior Member
 
MoFoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Lots of European productions (early Bond films) were shot and presented in 1.66 over there (I'm here in the US) ... but, for us, the OAR was 1.85. Now, when those films are released on BD, they're in 1.66. But I watch them in 1.85 ... because that's how I originally saw them.

So is it possible the early James Bond films were projected/cropped incorrectly in the US? And you now have the ability to watch them in the correct aspect ratio (1.66:1). Yet you reject what you are given and choose your own aspect ratio?

Avatar is being brought to you in 1.85:1 on Blu-ray, why mess with it? Besides, if you centre crop the Blu-ray you may miss vital parts of the picture (presuming its true that it's not just a simple centre crop, but a vertically panned extraction from the original 1.85:1 photography).

Wouldn't you rather have a nicely presented, framed, 1.85:1 presentation (as it's being given to you), rather than a possibly severely compromised centre crop/extraction?

How do you think James Cameron wants you to see this film in the home?
MoFoHo is offline  
post #123 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:00 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Yes and multiple times you've stated that the CinemaScope version of this film is vertically panned and scanned, so guess what? At some point, the process WILL include a centre crop and I'm betting about 90% of it is based on all the other screen caps I've seen. It might not be on the frame you choose to post, however it would have been done. So you take your "invalid way to watch this film" comments else where.

A center crop presentation of this film was NEVER in theaters, NEVER produced, and NEVER intended to be seen.

Justifying it to yourself is amusing, but anyone could create a 2.39 portion of the film they want to see and say it's fine just because there was A 2.39 presentation in theaters.

If it's not THE same 2.39 presentation, it is 100% invalid. Not that I expect you to care. It's just hilarious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Are we in the plasma forum? Who cares how owners of such displays watch their letter boxed BDs. The only things we have in common are:
1.we all love wide screen
2.we all hate black bars

If they want to chop the ends of their films, so be it. What are they actually achieving by doing this? They lose the black bars and get to use the FULL vertical pixel count of their displays.

This is the CIH forum and this film (AVATAR) was shown in CinemaScope for both 2D and 3D (at select cinemas) with a 1.78:1 version being shown on CIW cinemas (you know the ones that suck when they make Scope smaller).

And that's all we need to know. CAVX has zero respect for OAR, and will hack any film to fit his screen.

What exactly is your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Care factor = ZERO! Your system can't display ANY CinemaScope film properly, so who cares about this ONE film? I don't, and as I have already stated, I have (as do all anamorphic lens users) the ability to display this film in TWO different ways and displaying it in CinemaScope means I get to watch this film closer to THE WAY I SAW IT AT THE CINEMA. You can not, even if you wanted to. Of course you went to see it in IMAX at 1.78:1. and the cinemas you go to even have seating arranged for each AR, or you posted a while ago.

Uh, what? My system can display any AR film properly. Just because my screen is 1.78 shaped doesn't mean it isn't wide enough for "scope" films. In fact, it's quite a bit wider than yours and most "scope" setups. But who cares? What are you trying to prove?

I can display it full width of any 2.39 film but taller, I can display it CIA in relation to 2.39 films, and I can also display it CIH in relation to other 2.39 films (but who the heck would want to?). No capabilities lacking here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Didn't I already reference your quacking to that of a duck?

Yep, and it still means .... absolutely nothing. But thanks for playing.
LilGator is offline  
post #124 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFoHo View Post

CAVX, wouldn't you prefer to watch this Blu-ray movie in its OAR?

As the image example I posted shows, I have the option to do so and no doubt I will watch it that way at some point.

Quote:


After all, thats what everybody strives to achieve mostly on these forums isn't it? Why would you even want to consider cropping the image (on the Blu-ray disc that I presume Cameron himself has signed off on), to make it fit your requirements?

Because when I saw it in the cinema (2D) it was CinemaScope. All I am wanting to do is replicate that experience in the home.

Quote:


Thats the same as me, 'zooming' a 'scope movie to eliminate the black bars top and bottom of the image, and would rightly be considered hearsay.

Zooming is one method to achieve a CinemaScope projected image. I just don't agree that it is the best method to do. I too used to zoom.

Quote:


I have a 16:9 projection screen. When me and my son watch Pinocchio on this screen, we watch it 1.33:1, with black bars down the sides. I respect and preserve the presentation (ie aspect ratio) given to me.

Yes as did I when I recently watched BAMBI on my Scope screen with massive pillars at the sides. The difference here is that BAMBI was 1.33:1 (1.37:1?) in Cinemas and is 1.33:1 on video. AVATAR was Scope for all 2D presentations in cinemas. I simply want to see this film the same way at home as I saw it in the cinema.

Quote:


Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a CIH setup, and I'm researching this as a possibility sometime in the future. But I'm pretty sure Avatar would look pretty stunning, presented in its 1.85:1 on ANY respectable setup.

The BD will be 1.78:1 so will fill your 16:9 screen or centre fill my Scope screen. Again, should I scale/optically expand, it will done to recreate the actual experience I had at the cinema.

Quote:


Do you crop other films?

Not really, though I have experimented with some films. Some give a better result, others do not. The beauty of my system is that I have the option to watch all films OAR, or more the point, the way they were shown in the cinema.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Technically, "CinemaScope" is obsolete and was abandoned by Fox in the late 60's.

Really? So why did FOX release so many films in Scope then?

Quote:


Either way, it has zero relevance to Avatar anyway.

quack quack quack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Since Cameron has not released the "scope OAR" to us

Oh so now you recognize the CinemaScope version as OAR?

Quote:


your only option is to watch in the 1.78 OAR, or create your own hack job of the film by center cropping it. This of course is not identical to the 2.39 presentation in theaters, and thus is not a valid OAR.

Then I shall hack away like I was chopping weeds out from under my porch. Know this, I won't lose any sleep over doing so either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

CAVX just has to use his anamorphic lens.

Given the amount I've invested, damn straight, I'll use it at every given opportunity and get my moneys worth out that hunk of glass and alloy.

Quote:


even when the original film is 16:9!

Taffman, please don't drop to lilgator's level. AVATAR was captured at 1.78:1. It was to be released in (hence why all the trailers are ) CinemaScope and Cameron decided that he needed more height during post production during 3D pre-screening and editing, so opened the matts to allow the full digital frame to be used. Now it seems he is having a regret about that. What is that saying > Follow your heart or you head will destroy you?

Quote:


I like scope too, but not to the extent of cropping my 16:9 movies and throwing away 33% of the original picture. For people who are so obsessed on maximizing PQ for scope presentations, it always suprises me how readily the A-lens people are to compromize the presentation of their 16:9 material.

This is ONE film, not all 16:9 material.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #125 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

A center crop presentation of this film was NEVER in theaters, NEVER produced, and NEVER intended to be seen.

And you know this because? I know, you were there during editing. So panning and scanning vertically never allows you to perform a centre crop? What a load of crap! Do you even know how panning and scanning works?


Quote:


Justifying it to yourself is amusing

Not as ammusing as your constant quacking.

Quote:


If it's not THE same 2.39 presentation, it is 100% invalid. Not that I expect you to care. It's just hilarious.

Hmm, must be lens envy.


Quote:


And that's all we need to know. CAVX has zero respect for OAR, and will hack any film to fit his screen.

No just this one and I'll do it and post screen caps just to tick you off.

Quote:


What exactly is your point?

Proving you have lens envy?


Quote:


Uh, what? My system can display any AR film properly. Just because my screen is 1.78 shaped doesn't mean it isn't wide enough for "scope" films. In fact, it's quite a bit wider than yours. But who cares? What are you trying to prove?

That you have lens envy and wish you had a Scope screen.



Quote:


I can display it full width of any 2.39 film but taller, I can display it CIA in relation to 2.39 films, and I can also display it CIH in relation to other 2.39 films (but who the heck would want to?). No capabilities lacking here.

A 16:9 shaped screen? So you never actually went through with the true CIA thing, you just choose to be a daily PITA to a lens owners in this forum. You sell CIA but don't actually use it yourself. Kind of a hypocritical wouldn't you say?

So how exactly do you do project CIA on a 16:9 screen when you know CIA requires a 2.05:1 screen? And you dare call me a "hacker"?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #126 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:36 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Because when I saw it in the cinema (2D) it was CinemaScope. All I am wanting to do is replicate that experience in the home.

You can't until Cameron releases that presentation on Blu-ray.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The BD will be 1.78:1 so will fill your 16:9 screen or centre fill my Scope screen. Again, should I scale/optically expand, it will done to recreate the actual experience I had at the cinema.

This is false. A center crop of the 1.78 frame is NOT the actual experience you had at the cinema. It's a new, inferior experience you are creating yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Not really, though I have experimented with some films. Some give a better result, others do not. The beauty of my system is that I have the option to watch all films OAR, or more the point, the way they were shown in the cinema.

Since you keep insinuating it, I'll keep repeating myself ... because I can. You cannot show Avatar the way it was showing in the cinema in 2.39 fashion. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Really? So why did FOX release so many films in Scope then?

Yes, really. CinemaScope lasted from '53-'67. "In Like Flint, a spy spoof with James Coburn, was Fox's final film in CinemaScope", according to Wikipedia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Oh so now you recognize the CinemaScope version as OAR?

Notice the quotes around that phrase? The poster I was responding to used OAR in relation to the 2.39 presentation. I would consider both the 1.78 and 2.39 presentations OAR as they were presented in theaters, but I prefer to call 2.39 a MAR, as it was modified from the 1.78 frame to fit a particular screen.

Because Cameron refers to the 1.78 presentation as the highest and best form of Avatar, I believe it is OAR.

However, should Cameron release the 2.39 presentation on Blu-ray, they'd both be valid. As it stands, only 1.78 is valid in the home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Given the amount I've invested, damn straight, I'll use it at every given opportunity and get my moneys worth out that hunk of glass and alloy.

Sounds great. Have to limit all films to a certain height. All 1.85 and 1.78 are forced to be smaller, no flexibility otherwise. On top of that, you have to crop other ARs down to 2.39 just so you feel like the money you spent on an A-lens was worth it.

Zach Galifianakis: "Classic."


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Taffman, please don't drop to lilgator's level. AVATAR was captured at 1.78:1. It was to be released in (hence why all the trailers are ) CinemaScope and Cameron decided that he needed more height during post production during 3D pre-screening and editing, so opened the matts to allow the full digital frame to be used. Now it seems he is having a regret about that. What is that saying > Follow your heart or you head will destroy you?

It's amazing the lies you come up with. All trailers are not in "CinemaScope" (obviously, CinemaScope is dead), or even 'scope as ~2.39 is referred to now. I just saw trailers in 1.78 last night on a heavily watched NBA playoff game, and they filled every pixel of my Kuro at the time.

Now also provide the source for your other stories. The ones with Cameron "opening mattes" in post production.

Newsflash, you can't "open mattes" if you never matted for 2.39 in the first place. They shot 1.78 and then derived a cropped 2.39 frame by panning vertically and finding the sweet spot. You have it bass-ackwards.
LilGator is offline  
post #127 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:47 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And you know this because? I know, you were there during editing. So panning and scanning vertically never allows you to perform a centre crop? What a load of crap! Do you even know how panning and scanning works?

Oh, I get your logic now: "If at some points in the film my hackjob matches up with the theatrical presentation, then it's all valid!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Not as ammusing as your constant quacking.

Hmm, must be lens envy.

No just this one and I'll do it and post screen caps just to tick you off.

Proving you have lens envy?

That you have lens envy and wish you had a Scope screen.

*Yawn*

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

A 16:9 shaped screen? So you never actually went through with the true CIA thing, you just choose to be a daily PITA to a lens owners in this forum. You sell CIA but don't actually use it yourself. Kind of a hypocritical wouldn't you say?

So how exactly do you do project CIA on a 16:9 screen when you know CIA requires a 2.05:1 screen? And you dare call me a "hacker"?

If you paid any attention at all in the CIA thread you'd know two things:

1) I was never selling anything, only attempting to see examples of CIA in action for consideration.

2) CIA can be done both with a 1.78 screen and a 2.05 screen. In fact CIH can be done on a large 1.78 screen. The point is the relationship between ARs, not the AR of the screen itself. That just allows for greater flexibility, as is useful in the case of Avatar.

What's hypocritical is creating your own 2.37 crop of a 1.78 film while at the same time claiming your setup is built to show films the way they were intended to be seen.
LilGator is offline  
post #128 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFoHo View Post

So is it possible the early James Bond films were projected/cropped incorrectly in the US?

How do you think James Cameron wants you to see this film in the home?

I suppose you think that we drive on the "incorrect" side of the road.

Good Lord.

And I don't care how Mr. Cameron wants me to see this film in my home. What I want is to see it the way I, and many many others, saw it in the theater. That's how I want it to work. It's called Home Theater!

Now, I understand that due to the pan&scan aspect of this dilemma, that simply may not be possible. But just because it isn't possible doesn't make me any more satisfied. I'll rent the BD and try it both ways ... and I'll try to see if it's possible to park the image a little towards the northside.

I didn't think the film was that great anyway.

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #129 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 05:49 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

I didn't think the film was that great anyway.

I love this justification.
LilGator is offline  
post #130 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 06:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Since Cameron has not released the "scope OAR" to us, your only option is to watch in the 1.78 OAR, or create your own hack job of the film by center cropping it. This of course is not identical to the 2.39 presentation in theaters, and thus is not a valid OAR.

OK ... You win the See-How-Many-Times-You-Can-Use-The-Word-"Valid"-In-One-Day contest.

Seriously, the larger question in my mind is where's the validity in this release. Again, I'm guessing ... but I'll bet more folks saw this film in 'Scope than in any other format. If that's the case, why aren't we being offered that experience. And since we're not, what's wrong ... or "invalid" as you would say ... about coming up with a presentation that is, as Mark said, perhaps 90% of the time a dead ringer for what we experienced in the cinema?

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #131 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 06:08 PM
Member
 
Max Gault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I love this justification.

Maybe but I agree with him.

Max

Definition of an alcoholic: Someone who drinks as much as you but you don't like them
Max Gault is offline  
post #132 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 06:11 PM
Member
 
Max Gault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

OK ... You win the See-How-Many-Times-You-Can-Use-The-Word-"Valid"-In-One-Day contest.

Seriously, the larger question in my mind is where's the validity in this release. Again, I'm guessing ... but I'll bet more folks saw this film in 'Scope than in any other format. If that's the case, why aren't we being offered that experience. And since we're not, what's wrong ... or "invalid" as you would say ... about coming up with a presentation that is, as Mark said, perhaps 90% of the time a dead ringer for what we experienced in the cinema?

Yes the 2D presentation was scope and this was a conscious choice on the part of the studio. The most"valid" presentation of the film for BD since it isn't 3D would have been scope.

Max

Definition of an alcoholic: Someone who drinks as much as you but you don't like them
Max Gault is offline  
post #133 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 06:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You can't until Cameron releases that presentation on Blu-ray.

Here is hoping he might in the near future.



Quote:


This is false. A center crop of the 1.78 frame is NOT the actual experience you had at the cinema. It's a new, inferior experience you are creating yourself.

We are talking P&S which as it passes through from the upper portion of the frame to the lower portion of the frame, will at some point have to pass the centre - IE a centre crop. The images posted in the BD section clearly show that centre cropping of this film can work.

Quote:


Since you keep insinuating it, I'll keep repeating myself ... because I can. You cannot show Avatar the way it was showing in the cinema in 2.39 fashion. Period.

No not exact, fairly close to though.



Quote:


Yes, really. CinemaScope lasted from '53-'67. "In Like Flint, a spy spoof with James Coburn, was Fox's final film in CinemaScope", according to Wikipedia.

So what are films like ALIEN (1979, including the 3rd in 1992 and 4th film in 1997), all 6 STAR WARS, all 4 DIE HARD films, 2 AVP films (and soon to be released PREDATORS in June 2010) if not FOX titles that were released in CinemaScope?

Oh and lets not forget TITANIC (James Cameron's film before AVATAR that won him some 11 Oscars).

Quote:


Notice the quotes around that phrase? The poster I was responding to used OAR in relation to the 2.39 presentation. I would consider both the 1.78 and 2.39 presentations OAR as they were presented in theaters, but I prefer to call 2.39 a MAR, as it was modified from the 1.78 frame to fit a particular screen.

And so what I intend to do is also MAR. It will be modified to fit my screen.

Quote:


Because Cameron refers to the 1.78 presentation as the highest and best form of Avatar, I believe it is OAR.

However, should Cameron release the 2.39 presentation on Blu-ray, they'd both be valid. As it stands, only 1.78 is valid in the home.

OK.

Quote:


Sounds great. Have to limit all films to a certain height. All 1.85 and 1.78 are forced to be smaller, no flexibility otherwise.

Only the width is less than full screen width. The height is the same. We discussed this with SPIDERMAN in 1.85:1 Vs the other 2 in Scope. Why should Spiderman be taller in the first the film?

Quote:


On top of that, you have to crop other ARs down to 2.39 just so you feel like the money you spent on an A-lens was worth it.

No, just AVATAR. I watched GAMER two nights back in OAR which is not Scope and felt no desire to see this film in Scope.

Quote:


All trailers are not in "CinemaScope" (obviously, CinemaScope is dead), or even 'scope as ~2.39 is referred to now. I just saw trailers in 1.78 last night on a heavily watched NBA playoff game, and they filled every pixel of my Kuro at the time.

Zoom it did you?

Post a link to a site that an AVATAR trailer presented in 1.78:1. All the trailers I've seen on both TV and the internet (U-Tube) are Scope. The 3D image I found are one example from U-Tube.

Quote:


Now also provide the source for your other stories. The ones with Cameron "opening mattes" in post production.

I read it on the internet, so it has to be true.

Newsflash, you can't "open mattes" if you never matted for 2.39 in the first place. They shot 1.78 and then derived a cropped 2.39 frame by panning vertically and finding the sweet spot. You have it bass-ackwards.[/quote]

When Lucas shot SW2 in digital, there was "safe action lines" denoting the Scope portion of the frame on the 1.78:1 displays used as monitors (there is footage of this on disc 2 of the DVD). He kept the "action" inside those lines. The full imaging chip is used for capture, and therefore he would have access to the material above and below the lines during post should he need it. Same would have been done for AVATAR.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #134 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 06:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Gault View Post

Maybe but I agree with him.

Max

Thanks ... really ... but I'm not justifying anything. I'm rather stating the simple fact that I don't much care about this particular issue ... and it's because it's with this particular film.

On the other hand, if more films that were say photographed in Super 35 start hitting theaters with a 'Scope frame that was acheived through selective panning and scanning ... and if those films are then only released on disc in 1.78 ... I might very well be extremely disappointed. I wouldn't want this to have happened with Apollo 13 or Titanic.

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #135 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 08:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Yes I did add the bold, just to show others (the ones that you claim don't fully understand the concept) my point using your own words. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

What bed are you referring to? My point was that your statement could be right or wrong depending on the choice of normalization factor. You consistently refuse to even acknowledge that other views exist and are as valid as yours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So? TVs (all direct view displays) have their sizes quoted in inches based on their diagonals. It means nothing in a forum that uses width or height for screen size. If the 21:9 manufacture really wanted to do it right, they would quote the screen as having the same size 16:9 area as TV x.

Again, you constantly point to the common ":1" as irrefutable proof that 2.39:1 is bigger than 1.78:1 with no qualification. My point is it needs to be qualified.

In this thread I have not once said or implied that your statements are incorrect. I'm not trying to convince you to reverse any of your opinions (I realize the futility of that). I seek only to provide background info to put your statements into perspective. This background info may be painfully obvious to you so you feel no need to state it, but it may not be obvious to others without your experience.

The level of hostility seems to be increasing exponentially in the past day. I hope I'm not contributing to that.
ilsiu is offline  
post #136 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 08:13 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

We are talking P&S which as it passes through from the upper portion of the frame to the lower portion of the frame, will at some point have to pass the centre - IE a centre crop. The images posted in the BD section clearly show that centre cropping of this film can work.

No not exact, fairly close to though.

And... you finally admit it.

I never knew home theater enthusiasts to be happy with "not exact" and "fairly close", especially the crowd so precisely set on each AR being presented the same height relative to one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So what are films like ALIEN (1979, including the 3rd in 1992 and 4th film in 1997), all 6 STAR WARS, all 4 DIE HARD films, 2 AVP films (and soon to be released PREDATORS in June 2010) if not FOX titles that were released in CinemaScope?

Oh and lets not forget TITANIC (James Cameron's film before AVATAR that won him some 11 Oscars).

Is "Panavision" what you're looking for? CinemaScope is dead. In Like Flint (1967) was the last film made in CinemaScope. Do some research.

The abbreviated term 'scope is slang and presently refers to anything in the AR range of ~2.35.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And so what I intend to do is also MAR. It will be modified to fit my screen.

Yep, the difference is your "MAR" is creating a presentation of the film never OK'd by anyone involved in producing the film.

I could zoom the 1.78 frame 20% and it would result in a 1.78 presentation. Well, since it's "not exact" but "fairly close", and even shows more image than the 2.39 presentation, it must be valid! Pffft....

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Only the width is less than full screen width. The height is the same. We discussed this with SPIDERMAN in 1.85:1 Vs the other 2 in Scope. Why should Spiderman be taller in the first the film?

No, just AVATAR. I watched GAMER two nights back in OAR which is not Scope and felt no desire to see this film in Scope.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. CIH setups restrict all 1.78/1.85 films to being smaller than 2.39 ones, even when they should actually be larger. You also feel extremely compelled to chop the film so you can pretend that Avatar was meant to be shown on a CIH setup with an A-lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Zoom it did you?

Post a link to a site that an AVATAR trailer presented in 1.78:1. All the trailers I've seen on both TV and the internet (U-Tube) are Scope. The 3D image I found are one example from U-Tube.

Sorry, my Kuro is set to Dot to Dot mode so the Avatar trailer was a full 1920x1080.

But since you asked, here is proof exposing your lies (took a whopping 2 secs to locate):



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

When Lucas shot SW2 in digital, there was "safe action lines" denoting the Scope portion of the frame on the 1.78:1 displays used as monitors (there is footage of this on disc 2 of the DVD). He kept the "action" inside those lines. The full imaging chip is used for capture, and therefore he would have access to the material above and below the lines during post should he need it. Same would have been done for AVATAR.

This may or may not be true. They may have shot 1.78 and had some safe lines knowing they'd have a 2.39 presentation later. However, this wasn't really followed much or they wouldn't have needed to pan'n'scan later, they would have just cropped down to the safe action lines.

Then they finished the full 1.78 frame and derived a working 2.39 frame from that afterwards. Cameron said this himself.

1.78 3D was the primary intention, 2.39 was built as a compromise to work best in CIH theaters.

Far cry from shot for 2.39, and later "opened the mattes" for some added height.
LilGator is offline  
post #137 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 08:45 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Sorry, my Kuro is set to Dot to Dot mode so the Avatar trailer was a full 1920x1080.

I was under the impression you had a projector setup!!

_________________________

Frank
Franin is offline  
post #138 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 09:14 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I was under the impression you had a projector setup!!

I do, I just happened to see that trailer watching TV- different room.

I actually just saw another trailer for the BD, this time for Target. Also 1.78, so again the idea that all trailers are "scope" is just plain false.
LilGator is offline  
post #139 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 09:17 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I do, I just happened to see that trailer watching TV- different room.

I actually just saw another trailer for the BD, this time for Target. Also 1.78, so again the idea that all trailers are "scope" is just plain false.

Over here in australia the trailer was scope. The alvin and the chipmunks Region A version(U.S) trailer showed it in scope, thats why I mentioned it before.

_________________________

Frank
Franin is offline  
post #140 of 148 Old 04-21-2010, 09:49 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post




looking forward watching this its going to look great regardless the AR.

_________________________

Frank
Franin is offline  
post #141 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 12:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

here is proof exposing your lies

Are you always an ******* or is just on forums like AVS where you can hide behind your keyboard under the name "LilGator"?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #142 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 05:22 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,308
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I've not payed attention to the traliers but the theaters around here were scope if they showed it in 2D.

I saw it presented both ways. The thing that got me was not the AR but the lack of pop of the 3D presentation compared to the 2D. I personally had trouble making out fine detail in the image in the 3D version such that it took a lot away. I do believe to take maximum advantage of 3D they need to solve the fL issue.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #143 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 06:10 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,308
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
MSN is showing a trailer for the BD right now that's 2.2:1 not sure what that's about ?

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #144 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 08:45 AM
Senior Member
 
MoFoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

I suppose you think that we drive on the "incorrect" side of the road.

Good Lord.

And I don't care how Mr. Cameron wants me to see this film in my home. What I want is to see it the way I, and many many others, saw it in the theater. That's how I want it to work. It's called Home Theater!

Now, I understand that due to the pan&scan aspect of this dilemma, that simply may not be possible.

No need to get hostile. Please.
I was just asking.
By centre cropping you WONT be seeing it as you did in the cinema. You may get close though, we'll have to see...

I think (but may stand corrected!) that one of the Terminator 2 DVD/laserdiscs showed the vertical panning (and perhaps even small horizontal pans! ) used when extracting a 2.40:1 'scope aspect ratio, from the original Super35 photography. It was pretty interesting!
MoFoHo is offline  
post #145 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 08:47 AM
Senior Member
 
MoFoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Only the width is less than full screen width. The height is the same. We discussed this with SPIDERMAN in 1.85:1 Vs the other 2 in Scope. Why should Spiderman be taller in the first the film?

You didn't use this centre crop/extraction method with the 1st Spiderman film did you...?
MoFoHo is offline  
post #146 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 11:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFoHo View Post

No need to get hostile. Please.
I was just asking.
By centre cropping you WONT be seeing it as you did in the cinema. You may get close though, we'll have to see...

I think (but may stand corrected!) that one of the Terminator 2 DVD/laserdiscs showed the vertical panning (and perhaps even small horizontal pans! ) used when extracting a 2.40:1 'scope aspect ratio, from the original Super35 photography. It was pretty interesting!

None intended. Just trying to make a point ... and express some frustration ... admittedly at your expense.

I just watched much of this film. Seems to me the best way to watch it is with a 1080p projector (mine is 720p) with no ALens ... and sit up close ... closer than you probably normally do ... making it a, sort of, IMAX experience.

Second best way is with the ALens in 2.39 AR using all the image you can. Normal seating if your theater is set up for CIH.

Just my opinion. The fact that the 2.39 slice isn't consistantly taken from the center is, as Mark predicted, not a big deal a vast majority of the time.

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #147 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 02:19 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Are you always an ******* or is just on forums like AVS where you can hide behind your keyboard under the name "LilGator"?

Real name's Matt; don't know how that changes anything.

So I'm being called an ******* by someone who was just called out and proven a liar- or a "fact exaggerator" if we want to be nice. Beautiful!
LilGator is offline  
post #148 of 148 Old 04-22-2010, 02:24 PM
Administrator
 
Mike Lang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 12,573
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 357
enough...

Mike Lang
Administrator
Please use the report post button to alert staff to problematic posts. Never quote or respond to them yourself.
Join the AVS Club and help support the site. Help Support AVS Forum Sponsors.
Mike Lang is offline  
Closed Thread 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off