Hunger Games - Catching Fire - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 Old 03-08-2014, 09:20 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Kevin Snyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shorewood, MN
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I watched Hunger Games - Catching Fire last night on my 2.35:1 screen with Anamorphic lens.

As you know, this is another of the films using hybrid 2.35:1 and 1.78 IMAX ratios. I don't think the film suffered by losing the top and bottom information on the IMAX scenes. Once or twice, a scene may have felt slightly 'closed in', but it didn't seem that atypical given the usual style of filming for this picture. In fact, it felt very appropriate given the situations being filmed.

Next, I will watch the movie using a special feature of my Kaleidescape system. This performs the appropriate scaling for the 2.35 portions with the lens in place, and then electronically scales the 1.78 portions to fit in the center of the 2.35 screen, with the lens remaining in place. I just can't imagine this as a satisfactory way to view the film, as the 1.78 portions of this movie were meant to be larger and more grand than the 2.35 portions. This method of viewing would reverse that.

We'll see.

Kevin
Kevin Snyder is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 Old 03-09-2014, 02:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 116
I watched it last night with the lens in place and it looked just fine to me. These dual AR movies have been a non-issue for my setup thus far. I hope it stays that way. smile.gif

blastermaster is offline  
post #3 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 04:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Sounds like you both watched it just the way it was presented in the theater when I saw it there. I never even knew it was a multiple AR film until I read it here, some time after I saw it.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #4 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 07:17 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Kevin Snyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shorewood, MN
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Sounds like you both watched it just the way it was presented in the theater when I saw it there. I never even knew it was a multiple AR film until I read it here, some time after I saw it.

Not sure that is entirely accurate. I do believe there is a version of the movie that was formatted in its entirety for 2.35:1 screens, including the appropriate formatting of the IMAX scenes. We were not provided with this version on the BluRay. We are assuming the center portion of the IMAX frame is what we are supposed to be seeing, cutting off the same amount on top and bottom. This is not definitely the way these portions of the movie were formatted on the true 2.35 cut.

Kevin
Kevin Snyder is offline  
post #5 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 11:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder View Post

We are assuming the center portion of the IMAX frame is what we are supposed to be seeing, cutting off the same amount on top and bottom. This is not definitely the way these portions of the movie were formatted on the true 2.35 cut.

What do you base this on?

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #6 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 11:48 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Kevin Snyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shorewood, MN
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

What do you base this on?

This is why I said 'not definitely' and NOT 'definitely not'.

It is very possible they took the IMAX print and merely lopped off the top and bottom for the widescreen theatrical presentations. We just don't know. And we won't know without inside information or perhaps if somebody illegally recorded the theatrical presentations with which to compare.

Kevin
Kevin Snyder is offline  
post #7 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 01:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder View Post

This is why I said 'not definitely' and NOT 'definitely not'.

Ah, I read your post too quickly and thought you said "definitely not." Sorry.
Quote:
It is very possible they took the IMAX print and merely lopped off the top and bottom for the widescreen theatrical presentations. We just don't know. And we won't know without inside information or perhaps if somebody illegally recorded the theatrical presentations with which to compare.

I didn't see this movie in the theater, IMAX or otherwise. When it was released, one of the readers of my blog insisted that the picture had a lot of critical info at the top of the IMAX frame, but that may have just been his perception based on a first viewing. He didn't see the movie in scope to compare.

I picked up the Blu-ray this weekend but haven't had a chance to watch yet. If the actors' heads are awkwardly cropped, I think it's safe to say that the framing isn't right for scope. However, if that's not the case and the framing generally looks acceptable, I don't think it's worth fretting over.

Avatar, for example, was shot with a high top-line for 2.35:1 on the camera sensor. If you do a straight zoom/crop on the (16:9) Blu-ray, character heads are frequently lopped off right above the eyes. It looks awkward. However, if you can back the zoom out to 2.20:1 with a video processor, it looks fine. That may not be the exact framing that was seen on the scope-formatted copies of the movie, but it's good enough that framing issues are not noticeable.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #8 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Kevin Snyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shorewood, MN
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Good points, Josh. I did feel like a few of the scenes were a little closed in. I'm sure not accurate, but certainly acceptable. I don't have the ability to scale to 2.2:1. I believe I would much prefer this than to have the IMAX scenes formatted smaller in the middle of my 2.35 screen.
Kevin Snyder is offline  
post #9 of 33 Old 03-10-2014, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,751
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder View Post

I just can't imagine this as a satisfactory way to view the film, as the 1.78 portions of this movie were meant to be larger and more grand than the 2.35 portions.

This is kind of a misnomer. They're presenting it like this on blu-ray because the VAST majority 99.999% of people watching it are not using an anamorphic scope setup to make the anamorphic image larger than the 1.78:1 image. They know this and the effect you get on your TV or projector when showing the "IMAX" footage is the opposite effect of what would happen with someone who had a scope set up and showing the image as 1.78:1 (by removing the scaling and lens). On an HDTV you're getting a bigger image simply because it takes up more room (using more pixels) on your screen but when you display the anamorphic content correctly by doing the vertical stretch and adding the lens, the scope image is larger than the 1.78:1 image as it should be and if you wanted to display that 1.78:1 content on this setup it would actually be smaller, unless you were utilizing a dual screen setup. But I don't think anyone would employ a system like that to take advantage of a few blu-rays with variable aspect ratios.

It's nice that Kaleidescape provides a solution for you to keep that scope look when viewing the film. The rest of us are SOL it seems.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #10 of 33 Old 03-11-2014, 12:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Just my $0.02 worth on these dual AR discs. It seems the only real difference here is that they have gone back in after and opened the mats. Given that D-Cinema fully supports CinemaScope means that they would have framed it for the way they wanted it seen by the masses. The whole IMAX experience is a bit of a toss given IMAX no longer uses 70mm film.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #11 of 33 Old 03-11-2014, 06:52 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Kevin Snyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shorewood, MN
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Thanks for the input Dylan. I understand your description and get what you are trying to say. I completely agree that in most cases, it is highly desirable for the scope image to be larger than the 1.78 images. That's why I also went in that direction. I just don't know if that applies in this situation.

You mention that the only reason the 1.78 image is larger in Hunger Games has to do with people's home sets having a 1.78 aspect ratio. I have never watched a 'normal' movie at an IMAX theater. It was my understanding that when displayed at an IMAX theater, the 1.78 portions of the movie are indeed larger than the 'scope' portions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong! Just was my understanding!) This would indicate that the intent for this version, then, was for the 1.78 formatted scenes to indeed be larger than the scope scenes. Thus, if I used my Kscape to display the 1.78 scenes in the center of my scope screen, I would be doing the EXACT opposite of the intended presentation.

Thanks, Mark. "the only real difference here is that they have gone back in after and opened the mats." Do you know this to be the cases? If so, it would certainly support our displaying these scenes the width of our scope screens. I understand that D-Cinema supports CinemaScope. My thought is that some actual work has gone into paring down the IMAX screens to scope ratio, rather than simply matting down. If so, would be awfully nice to have that version!

Kevin
Kevin Snyder is offline  
post #12 of 33 Old 03-11-2014, 11:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder View Post

I have never watched a 'normal' movie at an IMAX theater. It was my understanding that when displayed at an IMAX theater, the 1.78 portions of the movie are indeed larger than the 'scope' portions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong! Just was my understanding!)

Catching Fire is one of a tiny handful of movies that had selected scenes shot on IMAX 15/70 film stock, which has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1. In the few remaining IMAX theaters capable of projecting 15/70 film, the picture opened up to fill the whole 1.44:1 screen. Digital IMAX theaters, however, have a wider screen aspect ratio of 1.9:1. In those theaters, the movie shifted from 2.40:1 to 1.9:1, which is a much smaller difference. Most people in the audience probably never noticed.

On Blu-ray, the IMAX scenes open to fill the 1.78:1 frame of that format. In both digital IMAX theaters and Blu-ray, the top and bottom of the movie's IMAX scenes are partially cropped.

In all theaters other than IMAX, the movie played at a constant 2.40:1 aspect ratio. The IMAX scenes were more heavily cropped there.

The only other movies to have selected scenes shot with IMAX film like this are:

The Dark Knight
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
The Dark Knight Rises
Star Trek into Darkness
Interstellar (upcoming)

Tron Legacy and The Amazing Spider Man were both shot digitally, but were formatted so that selected scenes would open up from 2.40:1 to 1.9:1 in IMAX theaters.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #13 of 33 Old 03-11-2014, 07:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,751
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 144
In addition to what Josh has already said regarding 1.78:1 and 2.35:1, I'll say simply look at the difference between those numbers. Taking constant image height into consideration, 2.35 is a larger number than 1.78 which means the scope image is supposed to be larger and presented as such. To keep the original aspect ratio on a 1.78:1 HDTV you need to make the scope 2.35:1 image smaller and use black bars on top and bottom even though the image is meant to be presented larger than the 1.78:1 image.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #14 of 33 Old 03-12-2014, 07:33 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Kevin Snyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shorewood, MN
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

In addition to what Josh has already said regarding 1.78:1 and 2.35:1, I'll say simply look at the difference between those numbers. Taking constant image height into consideration, 2.35 is a larger number than 1.78 which means the scope image is supposed to be larger and presented as such. To keep the original aspect ratio on a 1.78:1 HDTV you need to make the scope 2.35:1 image smaller and use black bars on top and bottom even though the image is meant to be presented larger than the 1.78:1 image.

I'm confused as to why you continue to make the generic argument that 2.35 images should be larger than 1.78. I completely understand the concept, and have had scope screens for many years for that very reason. No need to explain further. I've been at this game quite a while!

What you don't seem to be grasping is the concept of image size as it pertains to the IMAX presentation of these few films. For these PARTICULAR films, the IMAX portions (be it 1.78 or 1.9 or 1.44) are meant to be, and ARE projected as larger than the 2.35 images for these particular films. This has nothing to do with the home TV ratio. The fact that these films are being ported to BluRay with the IMAX cuts (rather than the cinema scope versions) probably does have to do with home TV ratio. This does not change the fact that the IMAX portions of these films are projected as larger than the 2.35 portions. Thus, by centering these portions of the films in the middle of my scope screen, I am doing the exact opposite of the intended presentation. (Shrinking the IMAX portions in relation to the 2.35 portion) I'm thinking I'm probably better off leaving it be, and lopping off the top and bottom sections of the IMAX portions of the films.

Kevin
Kevin Snyder is offline  
post #15 of 33 Old 03-12-2014, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Regarding the IMAX 1.44 being larger. I find it easier to think of it like 'open matte 4:3'. Which is to say its as if the letterboxes were peeled off so as to reveal the information that was blacked out by them.
mo949 is offline  
post #16 of 33 Old 03-12-2014, 09:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder View Post

I'm thinking I'm probably better off leaving it be, and lopping off the top and bottom sections of the IMAX portions of the films.

I think that's what most of us in this forum do. You are correct that switching to a 16:9 pillarbox for the IMAX scenes makes those scenes smaller than the rest of the movie, which is the opposite of the intention. All of these movies were composed with 2.40:1 safety in mind and played that way in all non-IMAX theaters.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #17 of 33 Old 03-12-2014, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,751
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder View Post

I'm confused as to why you continue to make the generic argument that 2.35 images should be larger than 1.78. I completely understand the concept, and have had scope screens for many years for that very reason. No need to explain further. I've been at this game quite a while!

What you don't seem to be grasping is the concept of image size as it pertains to the IMAX presentation of these few films. For these PARTICULAR films, the IMAX portions (be it 1.78 or 1.9 or 1.44) are meant to be, and ARE projected as larger than the 2.35 images for these particular films. This has nothing to do with the home TV ratio. The fact that these films are being ported to BluRay with the IMAX cuts (rather than the cinema scope versions) probably does have to do with home TV ratio. This does not change the fact that the IMAX portions of these films are projected as larger than the 2.35 portions. Thus, by centering these portions of the films in the middle of my scope screen, I am doing the exact opposite of the intended presentation. (Shrinking the IMAX portions in relation to the 2.35 portion) I'm thinking I'm probably better off leaving it be, and lopping off the top and bottom sections of the IMAX portions of the films.

Kevin

I'm talking specifically about those who utilize a CIH setup. In that scenario the image will be smaller if displayed without scaling or a lens in place, like it's supposed to be considering the AR of the content. My whole point is that hollywood knows that almost everyone doesn't use a CIH set up so when they're watching it on their HDTV or 1.78:1 projection screen the illusion that the image gets "larger" because it takes up more pixel space on screen. In that scenario it does get larger and I don't think you understand that I understand that the IMAX footage is supposed to be presented as a huge, larger, image. I'm simply saying, in the context of how the blu-ray was released, us CIH users got shafted on the presentation because unless we have two screens or some type of scaling like your Kaleidescape we can't get the IMAX image to be bigger like it's supposed to be.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #18 of 33 Old 03-14-2014, 04:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post

I watched it last night with the lens in place and it looked just fine to me. These dual AR movies have been a non-issue for my setup thus far. I hope it stays that way. smile.gif

I agree I watched it last night. Didn't even notice the change.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #19 of 33 Old 03-22-2014, 08:47 PM
Member
 
chane2k1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Unfortunately the presentation isn't Scope safe when the top and bottom are cropped. During the IMAX sequence if cropped to 2.35:1 a lot of the scenes are not appropriately framed, I watched side by side with the dvd to check this. I noticed that one shot in the 2.35:1 version actually has more image area than the IMAX presentation, there could be more but I didn't watch the entire sequence as it was getting a little dizzying.

Mis-framed


2.35:1 has a nicer panoramic.


Edit: Apparently the Japanese Blu-ray set has the HD 2.35:1 version along with the IMAX version, I'll be picking it up.
chane2k1 is offline  
post #20 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 07:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Although it does make the picture smaller this film is very friendly to those of us that zoom for scope. There's just one switch to IMAX and then one back to scope. We just paused and switched lens memory. Unlike the last 2 Batman films which constantly change. The Batman movies you will also have framing issues as the scope versions are not simply derived from cutting out the center. Still if I was using a lens I would probably just opt to crop it and deal with it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #21 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 08:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by chane2k1 View Post

Edit: Apparently the Japanese Blu-ray set has the HD 2.35:1 version along with the IMAX version, I'll be picking it up.

Where did you hear this? If you buy it, please be sure to post in this thread to confirm that it has both aspect ratios in HD.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #22 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 08:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by chane2k1 View Post

Mis-framed

I assume that's the DVD on the left and the Blu-ray on the right. If anything, they both look misframed to me. The 2.35:1 transfer is cropped too low for a medium shot like that. It should be moved up a little so that the entire top of his head brushes against the top of the frame. Meanwhile, zooming the 16:9 transfer leaves you with far too much headroom.

Even so, both look workable to me.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #23 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 09:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 115
I didn't notice any of that this weekend when I watched it on Blu-ray, cropped with my Lumagen. Guess that's what happens when you just sit down and watch the movie wink.gif
John Schuermann and chane2k1 like this.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #24 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 10:06 AM
Member
 
chane2k1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I assume that's the DVD on the left and the Blu-ray on the right. If anything, they both look misframed to me. The 2.35:1 transfer is cropped too low for a medium shot like that. It should be moved up a little so that the entire top of his head brushes against the top of the frame. Meanwhile, zooming the 16:9 transfer leaves you with far too much headroom.

Even so, both look workable to me.

The 2.35:1 follows the rule of thirds pretty well when it's in motion, his eye line is close to the right spot and the bangle on his arm isn't cut off.

Also none of the Australian editions have the IMAX version so that's a safe bet too.

The Japanese set has Imax on separate disc, lol the link is long [URL=http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.jp%2F%25E3%2583%258F%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2582%25AC%25E3%2583%25BC%25E3%2583%25BB%25E3%2582%25B2%25E3%2583%25BC%25E3%2583%25A02-%25E3%2583%2597%25E3%2583%25AC%25E3%2583%259F%25E3%2582%25A2%25E3%2583%25A0%25E3%2583%25BB%25E3%2582%25A8%25E3%2583%2587%25E3%2582%25A3%25E3%2582%25B7%25E3%2583%25A7%25E3%2583%25B3-Blu-ray3%25E6%259E%259A%25E3%2580%2581DVD2%25E6%259E%259A%25E3%2581%25AE5%25E6%259E%259A%25E7%25B5%2584-%25E5%2588%259D%25E5%259B%259E%25E9%2599%2590%25E5%25AE%259A%25E7%2594%259F%25E7%2594%25A3-%25E3%2582%25B8%25E3%2582%25A7%25E3%2583%258B%25E3%2583%2595%25E3%2582%25A1%25E3%2583%25BC%25E3%2583%25BB%25E3%2583%25AD%25E3%2583%25BC%25E3%2583%25AC%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2582%25B9%2Fdp%2FB00ICBQSDC%2Fref%3Dsr_1_26%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1392917512%26sr%3D8-26%26keywords%3Dcatching%2Bfire[/URL]
mo949 likes this.
chane2k1 is offline  
post #25 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 11:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by chane2k1 View Post

The 2.35:1 follows the rule of thirds pretty well when it's in motion, his eye line is close to the right spot and the bangle on his arm isn't cut off.

I'm sure it looks different in motion as he walks around. All I have is that one still frame to judge by, and his eyes look too high in the frame in that example.
Quote:
Also none of the Australian editions have the IMAX version so that's a safe bet too.

Good to know. Was this confirmed somewhere? I'd hate to import only to find that it's the same alternating ratio transfer we got here.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #26 of 33 Old 03-24-2014, 01:08 PM
Member
 
chane2k1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yeah I found the information from the Bluray.com forums. This post is where it starts, there are other threads over there, with more collected information but it appears that all Aussie releases are 2.35:1. I still want the Jap set just because IMAX has it's own disc with no special features on it, hopefully a better bitrate, there was a bit of banding when Katniss looks at the fog which I can't un-see in our release frown.gif
chane2k1 is offline  
post #27 of 33 Old 03-31-2014, 05:55 PM
Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Just my $0.02 worth on these dual AR discs. It seems the only real difference here is that they have gone back in after and opened the mats. Given that D-Cinema fully supports CinemaScope means that they would have framed it for the way they wanted it seen by the masses. The whole IMAX experience is a bit of a toss given IMAX no longer uses 70mm film.

While it's true that most IMAX locations have converted to digital projection, there are still some 15/70 film systems in place. The arena sequences in Catching Fire were shot with 15/70 IMAX film cameras, and presented as such in those few theaters that still have film-based IMAX systems. Nolan will be doing the same with Interstellar.
dschulz is offline  
post #28 of 33 Old 04-02-2014, 03:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post

While it's true that most IMAX locations have converted to digital projection, there are still some 15/70 film systems in place. The arena sequences in Catching Fire were shot with 15/70 IMAX film cameras, and presented as such in those few theaters that still have film-based IMAX systems. Nolan will be doing the same with Interstellar.

And that "few" are sadly becoming fewer. 10 years ago there was two 70mm IMAX cinemas within 45mins (either direction) of where I live and today they are both 2K digital. Sorry, 2K does not cut it on screens that big. They changed them out so they could present digital and 3D. At that size and rez, they are less impressive than the conventional multiplexes. I went to see ROBOCOP a few weeks back at a older cinema that has recently converted their film projectors to digital. I think it was 4K because it was sharp as a tack with real pop to the picture The last 2D D-Cinema film I had seen before that was OBLIVION and it was like watching a BD on a really screen. A nice image but not wow.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #29 of 33 Old 04-02-2014, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And that "few" are sadly becoming fewer. 10 years ago there was two 70mm IMAX cinemas within 45mins (either direction) of where I live and today they are both 2K digital. Sorry, 2K does not cut it on screens that big. They changed them out so they could present digital and 3D. At that size and rez, they are less impressive than the conventional multiplexes. I went to see ROBOCOP a few weeks back at a older cinema that has recently converted their film projectors to digital. I think it was 4K because it was sharp as a tack with real pop to the picture The last 2D D-Cinema film I had seen before that was OBLIVION and it was like watching a BD on a really screen. A nice image but not wow.

Hi Mark -

True enough about 2K not cutting it on screens that big, but 4K should definitely do the trick. I thought I would share this info from the Digital Cinema Society, about a controlled shootout between 70mm IMAX and 4K digital. There was also a rather large study done a few years back that actually measured the resolution of projected 35mm film, at state of the art theaters using premium quality prints. I thought some of the folks here on this forum might enjoy reading about what the projected resolution of film actually is, and also read thoughts on 70mm vs. digital from an actual IMAX cinematographer:

http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

As you can see from reading the results, even the best 35mm projection topped out at a resolution of about 800 lines. Compare this to Blu-ray at 1080, or 4K at 2160.

But what about IMAX or 70mm? Digital bests that as well:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?57068-Digital-Cinema-Symposium-4K-digital-vs-IMAX-15-70mm-shootout-DCS-report

Most interesting are these comments by Howard Hall, IMAX / 70mm cinematographer. He attended the linked to above Digital Cinema Society shootout between IMAX and 70mm split screened with 4K digital:

'In my opinion the split screen comparison showed that 4K projection is equal to or better than 70mm projection in all respects save one. The digital images appeared as sharp or sharper, they appeared to have more contrast in addition to equal or better resolution, and the color saturation and fidelity was equal or better...When the audience was asked which image they liked best, the overwhelming response was that they preferred the digital projection. As an IMAX 70mm veteran, I found that quite astounding."

If you want to find out what the "save one" aspect is, you'll have to click on the link. wink.gif

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #30 of 33 Old 04-02-2014, 03:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 116
It was a while back that I watched the movie, "Side by Side" where they compared digital vs film. However, iirc, there were a few directors that chose film because they felt it had a better dynamic range than digital. I'll watch it again to validate...

blastermaster 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