2:40:1 screen or 2:35:1 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 Old 06-25-2013, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
If you were starting all over again, would you still get 2:35:1 or go to a 2:40:1 screen.

If I am not mistaking, when you have a 2:40:1 screen and watch 2:35:1 material, you get tiny bars on top and bottom and on the side?

But when you watch 1:85:1 material on it, you get those tiny bars as well, so you need to zoom out the image a bit more to at least lose those bars while you have the bars on the side.


Now the flip side of the coin is having a 2:35:1 screen and watching 2:40:1 material, then the tiny bars on top and the bottom of the screen, am I correct?
Bardia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 Old 06-25-2013, 03:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

If you were starting all over again, would you still get 2:35:1 or go to a 2:40:1 screen.

If I am not mistaking, when you have a 2:40:1 screen and watch 2:35:1 material, you get tiny bars on top and bottom and on the side?

But when you watch 1:85:1 material on it, you get those tiny bars as well, so you need to zoom out the image a bit more to at least lose those bars while you have the bars on the side.


Now the flip side of the coin is having a 2:35:1 screen and watching 2:40:1 material, then the tiny bars on top and the bottom of the screen, am I correct?


A 2.37:1 screen might be a nice middle ground! wink.gif


...Glenn biggrin.gif
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #3 of 37 Old 06-25-2013, 04:59 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post

A 2.37:1 screen might be a nice middle ground! wink.gif


...Glenn biggrin.gif

Please explain why..
Bardia is offline  
post #4 of 37 Old 06-25-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Well for one, 1.78 (16:9) times 1.33 (anamorphic lens expansion) = 2.37.

It also minimizes any error which is good since the actual aspect ratio stored on a disc is basically a crapshoot, the difference between 2.35 and 2.39 is less than 2%.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #5 of 37 Old 06-25-2013, 06:05 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Well for one, 1.78 (16:9) times 1.33 (anamorphic lens expansion) = 2.37.

It also minimizes any error which is good since the actual aspect ratio stored on a disc is basically a crapshoot, the difference between 2.35 and 2.39 is less than 2%.

I see so if the screen is 2:37:1

where would the black bars be for 2:35:1, 2:40:1 and 1:85:1 formats?
Bardia is offline  
post #6 of 37 Old 06-25-2013, 11:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
2.35 no bars. 2.40 will have the smallest sliver if no over zooming is used. 1.85 with have side bars only with just a sliver of top/bottom bars if not slightly zoomed off screen.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coolrda is offline  
post #7 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 12:56 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Barida, what is your setup or planned setup? That would help us steer you in the right direction.

This was discussed pretty recently in another thread. See my comments in there.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40
biliam1982 is offline  
post #8 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 04:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

I see so if the screen is 2:37:1

where would the black bars be for 2:35:1, 2:40:1 and 1:85:1 formats?

OK, this get's a little complicated as it depends on the electronics/method you use.

Starting with the simple setup of a lens and built in electronic scaling (1.33x vertical stretch), you would get (lets assume a 100" wide screen for example):
  • 2.35:1 - no bars but a bit cut off the top/bottom (about 3/16")
  • 2.37:1 - no bars
  • 2.40:1 - small bars top/bottom (just about 3/16" each side)
  • 1.85:1 - large bars (about 12.5") each side, small bars (about 1/8") top bottom
  • 1.78:1 - large bars (about 12.5") each side, no bars top/bottom

Now if you go the "mac daddy" route with a video processor that can scale/stretch any aspect ratio:
  • - small bars top/bottom (just about 3/16" each side)
  • 2.37:1 - no bars
  • 2.35:1 - small bars (about 0.5") each side
  • 1.85:1 - large bars (about 11") each side
  • 1.78:1 - large bars (about 12.5") each side

If you were to zoom it could go either way, but my understanding of that method means that if you used lens memory it would be more like the first (since the memory only remembers 2 positions?), but if you do it manually you could achieve the second.

Of course the second method has the advantage of supporting "oddball" aspect ratios like 2.2:1 or 2.0:1 of some movies, and they could be displayed wider without bars top/bottom or cropping.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #9 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

OK, this get's a little complicated as it depends on the electronics/method you use.

Starting with the simple setup of a lens and built in electronic scaling (1.33x vertical stretch), you would get (lets assume a 100" wide screen for example):
  • 2.35:1 - no bars but a bit cut off the top/bottom (about 3/16")
  • 2.37:1 - no bars
  • 2.40:1 - small bars top/bottom (just about 3/16" each side)
  • 1.85:1 - large bars (about 12.5") each side, small bars (about 1/8") top bottom
  • 1.78:1 - large bars (about 12.5") each side, no bars top/bottom

Now if you go the "mac daddy" route with a video processor that can scale/stretch any aspect ratio:
  • - small bars top/bottom (just about 3/16" each side)
  • 2.37:1 - no bars
  • 2.35:1 - small bars (about 0.5") each side
  • 1.85:1 - large bars (about 11") each side
  • 1.78:1 - large bars (about 12.5") each side

If you were to zoom it could go either way, but my understanding of that method means that if you used lens memory it would be more like the first (since the memory only remembers 2 positions?), but if you do it manually you could achieve the second.

Of course the second method has the advantage of supporting "oddball" aspect ratios like 2.2:1 or 2.0:1 of some movies, and they could be displayed wider without bars top/bottom or cropping.

Thank you. That was very informative. Well the 4810 has 5 lens memories, so I was thinking to set them to 1:78:1 - 1:85:1 - 2:20:1 - 2:35:1 - 2:40:1
Bardia is offline  
post #10 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 07:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Just for the record, i love my 2.4. I would have been dissatisfied if I'd of gotten a 2.35.

Granted I spent a ton of money on the whole thing and that probably isn't the norm. but just saying!

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
post #11 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 07:45 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

Just for the record, i love my 2.4. I would have been dissatisfied if I'd of gotten a 2.35.

Granted I spent a ton of money on the whole thing and that probably isn't the norm. but just saying!

So when you watch 1:85:1 do you get some bars on top and bottom?
Bardia is offline  
post #12 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
 
tgrinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
When I made the decision, I went with 2.35 and am happy with it. We occasionally watch TV in the room and going with 2.35 vs. 2.4 gave me about an inch or so taller image. With the lens in front the tiny black bars are hardly noticeable at all. I think you'll be happy with either choice.
tgrinch is offline  
post #13 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 10:02 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgrinch View Post

When I made the decision, I went with 2.35 and am happy with it. We occasionally watch TV in the room and going with 2.35 vs. 2.4 gave me about an inch or so taller image. With the lens in front the tiny black bars are hardly noticeable at all. I think you'll be happy with either choice.

That's what I was thinking and plus, I just noticed Star Wars is 2:35:1, case closed for me!biggrin.gif
Bardia is offline  
post #14 of 37 Old 06-26-2013, 11:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

So when you watch 1:85:1 do you get some bars on top and bottom?

No, because I bought a projector that has lens memory. So it zooms it a tad and motorized masking takes care of the sides.

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
post #15 of 37 Old 06-27-2013, 04:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

That's what I was thinking and plus, I just noticed Star Wars is 2:35:1, case closed for me!biggrin.gif

But is it, or is that just the number they put on the case? There's really no telling from the labeling what the precise aspect ratio of the transfer is.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #16 of 37 Old 06-27-2013, 09:56 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

But is it, or is that just the number they put on the case? There's really no telling from the labeling what the precise aspect ratio of the transfer is.

Yes for Blu ray it's 2:35:1 but original aspcet ratio was 2:39:1
Bardia is offline  
post #17 of 37 Old 06-27-2013, 09:57 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

No, because I bought a projector that has lens memory. So it zooms it a tad and motorized masking takes care of the sides.

But your screen height is 1 inche shorter than 2:35:1, correct? I thought about that, and I rather have a taller 1:85:1 image.
Bardia is offline  
post #18 of 37 Old 06-27-2013, 11:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

Yes for Blu ray it's 2:35:1 but original aspcet ratio was 2:39:1

Did you measure this, or did you read it somewhere? In the film industry, the terms "2.35:1", "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" are used interchangably. The original theatrical ratio for "scope" movies was 2.35:1, but Panavision changed that to 2.39:1 in 1970. Technically, it's 2.39 and change, which many people round up to 2.40. Nevertheless, the term "2.35:1" continues to be used out of habit. Even though this doesn't make mathematical sense, it's the way things are.

How any particular movie will wind up transferred to home video is a crapshoot. Sometimes you'll get a precise 2.40:1, but other times the picture may be slightly cropped (or open matte) to 2.35:1, depending on how the telecine machine was calibrated. The disc packaging is no help in telling you what you'll actually get, because the marketing people who write that text don't understand the technical differences and just pick whatever number they like the sound of.

DVD and Blu-ray reviewers rarely measure this either, because the majority of them are watching on 16:9 screens and don't see the difference. Most will just recite whatever number is listed on the case (which, again, is frequently inaccurate). The only people you can trust to tell you the actual aspect ratio of a disc are CIH viewers who've played it on their scope screens.

The reality of the situation is that the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is so miniscule that it's not worth frettting over. Whichever aspect ratio screen you choose, zoom your projector out a smidge and the black bars will spill off onto your masking material anyway.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #19 of 37 Old 06-27-2013, 11:17 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Did you measure this, or did you read it somewhere? In the film industry, the terms "2.35:1", "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" are used interchangably. The original theatrical ratio for "scope" movies was 2.35:1, but Panavision changed that to 2.39:1 in 1970. Technically, it's 2.39 and change, which many people round up to 2.40. Nevertheless, the term "2.35:1" continues to be used out of habit. Even though this doesn't make mathematical sense, it's the way things are.

How any particular movie will wind up transferred to home video is a crapshoot. Sometimes you'll get a precise 2.40:1, but other times the picture may be slightly cropped (or open matte) to 2.35:1, depending on how the telecine machine was calibrated. The disc packaging is no help in telling you what you'll actually get, because the marketing people who write that text don't understand the technical differences and just pick whatever number they like the sound of.

DVD and Blu-ray reviewers rarely measure this either, because the majority of them are watching on 16:9 screens and don't see the difference. Most will just recite whatever number is listed on the case (which, again, is frequently inaccurate). The only people you can trust to tell you the actual aspect ratio of a disc are CIH viewers who've played it on their scope screens.

The reality of the situation is that the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is so miniscule that it's not worth frettting over. Whichever aspect ratio screen you choose, zoom your projector out a smidge and the black bars will spill off onto your masking material anyway.

No you're right, I just went with the 2:35:1 to have a 1 inch taller image than 2:40:1 But it's all pretty much the same at the ned of the day..
Bardia is offline  
post #20 of 37 Old 06-27-2013, 02:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

Yes for Blu ray it's 2:35:1 but original aspcet ratio was 2:39:1

FWIW, the two episodes I checked (I and IV) were 2.344:1

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #21 of 37 Old 07-07-2013, 08:50 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The reality of the situation is that the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is so miniscule that it's not worth frettting over. Whichever aspect ratio screen you choose, zoom your projector out a smidge and the black bars will spill off onto your masking material anyway.[/quote]

But wouldn't the sides of the pic be lost when you do that?
Bardia is offline  
post #22 of 37 Old 07-08-2013, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Yes, but only a tiny amount. As I posted in another thread here:

...the vast majority of UltraWide movies are going to be transferred to Blu-ray / DVD with a ratio somewhere between 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. Even though the standard has actually been 2.39:1 since 1970, directors and video transfer techs often mess with the picture framing when transferring to video. This explains why a film may have slightly different framing each time it gets transferred. Contrary to popular belief, the framing of an image is almost never calculated down to some kind of precise ratio when shooting. Both directors and DPs will take into account the fact that the film is eventually going to be projected or shown in something other than the original aspect ratio, so frame accordingly. 2001 is an excellent example. Kubrick shot 2001 in 70mm, which has an aspect ratio of 2.20:1. However, the only folks who ever saw 2001 in 2.20 where those who lived near a theater equipped to show 70mm (these theaters were usually only in the biggest cities). Everyone else got to see 2001 cropped down to 2.35:1, just like you experienced it with your system. When Kubrick composed the image, he knew full well that 80 - 90% of viewers would actually get to see it at the 2.35:1 ratio. For that reason, I can't imagine that he put any vital picture information at the very top and bottom of the picture.

Unlike panning and scanning - where it is obvious that a picture's original composition has been destroyed - what you are talking about here is pretty much SOP in the filmmaking world. I've been on numerous shoots, and its not like most filmmakers so precisely frame a shot that losing 8% of the top of bottom is going to make any difference at all. In fact, it's amazing how little you can tell about exact framing when you are looking through a tiny viewfinder or video assist monitor, which is that the DP or director are using for framing purposes when setting up a scene.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #23 of 37 Old 07-08-2013, 11:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
To add to what John just said, all cinematographers know enough to frame their shots with a little leeway around the edges. Most camera viewfinders actually have "safe action zone" markings, to account for projection variances in commercial movie theaters or the typical overscan on most TVs.

The next time you go to a movie theater, pay attention to the extreme edges of the screen. Odds are that you'll see a little bit of picture being projected off the screen onto the wall. This is extremely common. The cinematographer knows about this, and plans his shots to take it into consideration.

Besides which, we're literally talking about slivers of picture information here. Zooming out a tiny smidge won't affect the compositional intent of the photography.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #24 of 37 Old 07-08-2013, 12:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 144
To add a bit more, the difference we're talking about is less than 2%, on a 100" screen that's about 3/4" on the sides or about 3/8" top/bottom. I don't know about the rest of the folks here, but that's about within the error I get when trying to align everything. I'm not sure I've ever seen a screen and projector aligned well enough to where 3/8" top/bottom would matter.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #25 of 37 Old 07-08-2013, 02:20 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

To add a bit more, the difference we're talking about is less than 2%, on a 100" screen that's about 3/4" on the sides or about 3/8" top/bottom. I don't know about the rest of the folks here, but that's about within the error I get when trying to align everything. I'm not sure I've ever seen a screen and projector aligned well enough to where 3/8" top/bottom would matter.
Yeah I thought about it and I think I will stick with 2:35:1, that would also give me a taller 1:85:1 pic by 1 inch.
Bardia is offline  
post #26 of 37 Old 07-09-2013, 07:07 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

No, because I bought a projector that has lens memory. So it zooms it a tad and motorized masking takes care of the sides.

I see. So since the bluray covers are sometimes misleading and don't provide the correct ratio, do you have to wait until you play the movie and then zoom to the proper ratio?
Bardia is offline  
post #27 of 37 Old 07-09-2013, 08:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

I see. So since the bluray covers are sometimes misleading and don't provide the correct ratio, do you have to wait until you play the movie and then zoom to the proper ratio?

Yes, sometimes that is the case. I start with 2.4 and then go to 2.35 if needed.

The other aspect ratios are another button away.

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
post #28 of 37 Old 07-09-2013, 09:48 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I see. And what happens when Apple TV is showing a movie in 2:35:1 or 2:40:1? Does it fill the screen?
Bardia is offline  
post #29 of 37 Old 07-10-2013, 06:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'm guessing it'd be like any Bluray...

Lens memory setting.

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
post #30 of 37 Old 07-21-2013, 10:51 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
After thinking about this a bit, I am now leaning towards 2:40:1 screen.

I figured after going through all the trouble of going widescreen, I would hate to see any damn black bars on top and bottom no matter how small.

So with 2:40:1, I will have no bars for 2:40:1, small bars to medium to large on the side of the screen depending to the aspect ratio.

smile.gif
Bardia is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

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