The Sound of Music - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 9 Old 03-05-2011, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
A question for you 2.35:1 AR screen users with or without A-Lenses.

Watched a bit of 'The Sound of Music', noticed it's a 2.20:1 AR as I had to raise my masking and lower the bottom of the screen to enable full AR viewing.

Do you guys n' gals zoom in to keep the AR of such films or crop the top and bottom maintaining full width?

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 Old 03-05-2011, 03:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Trogdor2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Unless if you have a scaler, we usually (with the A-lens) live with it cropped, or (with zoom) adjust the zoom lens to fit the 2.20:1 image. The shots should all look right. I also watch 2001 and South Pacific (both 2.20:1) and they are perfectly watchable when cropped in 2.35:1. Movies with player produced subtitles can be a problem, The Leopard (Criterion Italain version) is unwatchable when cropped in 2.35:1 because the movie's subtitles are cut by the cropping. Patton also has sections with German dialogue that are unwatchable and you'll miss certain important story cues. Those movies mentioned have properly placed subtitles in the pictured keep in mind.

The only method (other than the scaler) is to use a blu ray player with subtitle placement (like the Oppo BDP-93/83)
Trogdor2010 is offline  
post #3 of 9 Old 03-05-2011, 05:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Remember its constant image height . The correct way to show 2.20 films is to zoom the projector lens to fill the full height of your 2.35 screen, then bring the side masks in a little bit to correctly frame the image with zero cropping.
However, if I remember correctly, the Todd-AO 2.20 films like South Pacific and Sound of Music were exhibited on much taller screens than the 2.35 CinemaScope films of that period, so maybe a taller screen that is the same width as the 2.35 screen is really the correct way to show these films.
One thing for sure though, 4 -way masking is a boon, giving you maximum flexibility to show these films anyway you want.
taffman is offline  
post #4 of 9 Old 03-06-2011, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post


Do you guys n' gals zoom in to keep the AR of such films or crop the top and bottom maintaining full width?

Whilst not "artistically correct", I would scale for CIH and lose that little bit top and bottom. I do the same for BARAKA. If I owned a scaler like the Lumagen, I would custom scale the image to allow true CIH projection.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #5 of 9 Old 03-07-2011, 03:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Yeah, I like the thought of seeing all the information at the correct AR even if the width is slightly less.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #6 of 9 Old 03-07-2011, 06:46 AM
Senior Member
 
SteveHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pelham AL
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Yeah, I like the thought of seeing all the information at the correct AR even if the width is slightly less.

And here's the flip side: Saturday I watched "The Bridge On The River Kwai" (courtesy HDNM on Directv; bless their hearts for carrying movies in their native AR). The film has a 2.55:1 AR! Since I'm currently zooming, I blew it up to full 115" screen width, which gave me 2" letterbox bars but at least the full intended panorama width. I tried CIH but losing 5" on each side was worse. I suppose with an A-lens, I would have had to combine zoom-and-lens?
SteveHorn is offline  
post #7 of 9 Old 03-07-2011, 07:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
There's quite a stack of movies which were made with aspect ratios in excess of 2.35:1, and of course all the Todd AO films were about 2.2 :1. This is why flexible 3 or 4 way masking, combined with the necessary use of the projectors zoom lens, is essential for the very best presentation of these films. Locking yourself into a fixed 2.35 ratio screen, with the resulting grey bars, will definately compromise the look of these films in your HT. Use of an anamorphic lens on the 2.55 and above aspect ratio movies probably makes the problem even more difficult to work with.
taffman is offline  
post #8 of 9 Old 03-07-2011, 11:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Trogdor2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

There's quite a stack of movies which were made with aspect ratios in excess of 2.35:1, and of course all the Todd AO films were about 2.2 :1. This is why flexible 3 or 4 way masking, combined with the necessary use of the projectors zoom lens, is essential for the very best presentation of these films. Locking yourself into a fixed 2.35 ratio screen, with the resulting grey bars, will definately compromise the look of these films in your HT. Use of an anamorphic lens on the 2.55 and above aspect ratio movies probably makes the problem even more difficult to work with.

Don't forget about the Ultrapanavision films (Ben Hur 2.78:1), Cinerama (How the West Was Won, technically 2.59:1, but photographed in 2.89:1) or even polyvision (Napoleon, literally 4:1), but since those movies are pretty rare, I don't think have the occasional black bars is a traversy. Those movies weren't exactly made for our screens.
Trogdor2010 is offline  
post #9 of 9 Old 03-14-2011, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I would crop the top and bottom to get the full picture
amarshonarbangla is offline  
Reply 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