2.35 vs 2.40 Question - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
  • 2 Post By Josh Z
  • 1 Post By gravi
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-16-2014, 07:56 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gravi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
2.35 vs 2.40 Question

I recently set up a 2.35 screen paired with a JVC RS46 projector using lens memory. I set up the 2.35 memory using the built-in image pattern - JVC has two vertical lines and they suggest the outer line to just barely cross the frame on the sides. I watched a 2.35 formatted movie (Star Wars) and it was perfect. When i put in a 2.40 format movie (Indiana Jones) I was expecting tiny black bars on the top and bottom, just barely visible. But the image completely filled the screen. Does this means I overscanned the 2.35 setting?
gravi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-16-2014, 08:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jautor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,308
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked: 379
More likely the transfers are not 2.40 and the disc's packaging just lists them incorrectly... There's pre-70's history on the 2.35 vs. 2.40 - someone will chime in with facts there.

Rock Creek Theater -- CIH, Panamorph, Martin Logan, SVS PB2000, Carada Masquerade, Grafik Eye, Bar table, Green Glue, JVC RS50 
Theater build photos: http://photobucket.com/autor-ht
jautor is online now  
Old 06-16-2014, 10:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 133
There is a 3-year-old thread here on the subject.

The thumbnail explanation is that in the industry 2.35 and 2.40 were often used interchangeably (especially by the marketing department) so if you get a film marked 2.40, you don't know if it is 2.35:1, 2.39:1, really 2.40:1, or even 2.41:1.

My very humble setup:
Man Cave:Vizio E500i-A1 "Smart TV" (50-in 1080p 120Hz LED/LCD, has Netflix app.), Blu-ray players (Sony BDP-S3100, old LG BD390), Roku (the original model: N1000), PC (Windows 7), Comcast Internet (25Mbps/5Mbps).
Bedroom:LG 32LV3400-UA TV (32-in 768p 60Hz LED/LCD), HD DVR (Motorola RNG200N), Xfinity Comcast cable (Digital Starter Package), DVD/VHS player.
Mark12547 is offline  
Old 06-17-2014, 11:15 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gravi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Thanks for the explanation. I did not know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
There is a 3-year-old thread here on the subject.

The thumbnail explanation is that in the industry 2.35 and 2.40 were often used interchangeably (especially by the marketing department) so if you get a film marked 2.40, you don't know if it is 2.35:1, 2.39:1, really 2.40:1, or even 2.41:1.
gravi is offline  
Old 06-17-2014, 11:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked: 420
This is a common point of confusion. I wrote an article on the subject last year:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/co...er-2013-part2/
ellisr63 and Mark12547 like this.

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 online now  
Old 06-17-2014, 06:57 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gravi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Excellent article, very informative and a great concise history of cinematic aspect ratios. So thank you for the link.

I had no idea that from a production standpoint both 2.35 and 2.40 meant the same thing, at least from 1970 onwards. What I don't get is, despite the mis-labeling, why commercial vendors (video processors, screen manufacturers, etc.) did not adopt the actual 2.3942 ratio, regardless of what it was called.

I would also be curious to know if someone has actually measured blu ray releases over the last several years and charted if the vast majority are also closer to 2.40.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This is a common point of confusion. I wrote an article on the subject last year:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/co...er-2013-part2/
ellisr63 likes this.
gravi is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 05:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravi View Post
I had no idea that from a production standpoint both 2.35 and 2.40 meant the same thing, at least from 1970 onwards. What I don't get is, despite the mis-labeling, why commercial vendors (video processors, screen manufacturers, etc.) did not adopt the actual 2.3942 ratio, regardless of what it was called.
What do you mean by "adopt"? My Lumagen can be set to just about any AR you can think of.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 08:44 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gravi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
But not the stretch implemented on projectors. Similarly, screen vendors sell 2.35 format screens unless you explicitly customize. What I meant was that regardless of the nomenclature, if the vast majority of recent movies were indeed 2.39 why is the ratio that is most commonly implemented in products 2.35. Surely the industry knew 2.35 was actually 2.39 in most cases?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
What do you mean by "adopt"? My Lumagen can be set to just about any AR you can think of.
gravi is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 10:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 156
What's usually on projectors is a 1.33x stretch, which is the exact match for a 1.33x anamorphic lens, and comes out to be right about 2.37:1 actually.

The reality is "2.35:1" is the term everyone understands (whether it's technically accurate or not), and the difference between, 2.35:1, 2.37:1, 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 is within the noise.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 11:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 69
My guess is the industry knows very well there is variance and the screen manufacturers just picked a ratio and went with it. It's not really worth trying to make multiple screens or figuring out the most common of the 2.x aspects and building multiple screens when the differences when projected are very small.

While I understand the desire to be accurate, the reality is that simply over-scanning the left and right boarders by an inch or so has made every scope film fit my 2.35:1 screen fine. Unless that isn't an option or you simply must have it exactly right, that would be my suggestion. Then you can just relax and enjoy.

jeahrens is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 02:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravi View Post
I would also be curious to know if someone has actually measured blu ray releases over the last several years and charted if the vast majority are also closer to 2.40.
I don't know of anyone who has systematically charted this, but I can tell you that it's a total crapshoot what you'll get, and you cannot rely on the disc packaging to be accurate.

Some studios are pretty good about transferring at 2.40:1 (Warner, Paramount, Sony). Others are hit-and-miss. With Fox, you'll typically get 2.40:1 for brand new movies (though there are exceptions), but 2.35:1 for catalog titles, even those movies made well after 1970.

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 online now  
Old 06-18-2014, 03:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 156
It would be interesting if one could get Kaleidescape to part with that info. My understanding is they actually "measure" each disc so they can store the exact metadata to allow precise placement of automated masking systems.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 06:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 451
Yeah, newer releases I've watched lately have all been 2.40 it seems, yet catalogs always 2:35.

DavidHir is online now  
Old 06-25-2014, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 5,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked: 333
And just when get your 2.37:1 screen installed, you'll watch Ben Hur ( 2.75:1 ) and Lawrence of Arabia ( 2.19:1 ) and you're back to square one !

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is online now  
Old 06-28-2014, 01:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 451
True, Craig. I've been wanting to watch Ben Hur just to see what it looks like on my screen. Lawrence is on my soon-to-watch list too.

I went with a 2:35 screen over 2:40 for the simple fact it makes 1:78-1:85 and 2:35 content look very slightly, yet noticeably larger to my eyes having tested it out. My zoom on my projector is already maxed out and so I do see very thin horizontal bars on 2:40 material if I look for them, but it's a total non-issue as they are so black especially on my JVC RS4810.

DavidHir is online now  
 
Thread Tools


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