Damn Black Bars!! Why are TV's 1920x1080? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 02:37 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
ShaQBlogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Damn Black Bars!! Why are TV's 1920x1080?

This drives me nuts.

  • Almost all movies are at a resolution of 1920x800. When viewed on 1080p TV sets there appears 280 rows of black bars on top and bottom.
  • I understand TV shows are made to cater to TV sets and hence many shows fit the screen well.
  • Some TV shows are zoomed in to fit the screen while cutting off the sides.
  • IMax are the sole exception which are at 1080p. Yet they are far few in number to even be considered.

So...Does it not make sense to make TV's at 1920x800. Hence the movie fits the screen completely while maintaining the original aspect ratio. (...and TV show creators hopefully create shows to cater to 1920x800 resolution)
ShaQBlogs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 02:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
glangford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaQBlogs View Post
This drives me nuts.

  • Almost all movies are at a resolution of 1920x800. When viewed on 1080p TV sets there appears 280 rows of black bars on top and bottom.
  • I understand TV shows are made to cater to TV sets and hence many shows fit the screen well.
  • Some TV shows are zoomed in to fit the screen while cutting off the sides.
  • IMax are the sole exception which are at 1080p. Yet they are far few in number to even be considered.

So...Does it not make sense to make TV's at 1920x800. Hence the movie fits the screen completely while maintaining the original aspect ratio. (...and TV show creators hopefully create shows to cater to 1920x800 resolution)
I'm hating the 2.4 aspect ratio. I had just gotten used to 2.25 and now studios are going to 2.4. I feel like I'm watching 16x9 on an old CRT. Avatar was released in 16x9 and filled the screen. I watched Anna Karina this weekend. It was 2.4 so I had my Oppo do a 1.2 times zoom on it. Comes out to an aspect of 2.0, with a much smaller black bar. The loss of resolution was inconsequential.
glangford is offline  
post #3 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 03:02 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 0
My guess would be marketability and cost of a cinemascope TV designed only for movies, would be nice though for those that can't consider a projector.
farr3ll is offline  
post #4 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked: 558
Just get yourself one of these: no black bars!

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...9-uhd-tv/16670
sage11x is online now  
post #5 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 09:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by glangford View Post
I'm hating the 2.4 aspect ratio. I had just gotten used to 2.25 and now studios are going to 2.4.
I assume you mean to say "2.35" in there, not 2.25. The actual theatrical aspect ratio has been 2.4:1 since 1970, but people in the industry continue to say "2.35:1" out of habit. Read this article to understand the actual, real-world difference between these two terms:

Where Movies and Home Theater Fail Math – How 2.35 = 2.40
John Schuermann likes 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  
post #6 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 03:59 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: 5,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaQBlogs View Post
This drives me nuts.

  • Almost all movies are at a resolution of 1920x800. When viewed on 1080p TV sets there appears 280 rows of black bars on top and bottom.
  • I understand TV shows are made to cater to TV sets and hence many shows fit the screen well.
  • Some TV shows are zoomed in to fit the screen while cutting off the sides.
  • IMax are the sole exception which are at 1080p. Yet they are far few in number to even be considered.
So...Does it not make sense to make TV's at 1920x800. Hence the movie fits the screen completely while maintaining the original aspect ratio. (...and TV show creators hopefully create shows to cater to 1920x800 resolution)

Get a projector with power zoom and focus, and use 2 electric screens like I do - one 16:9, one somewhat wider 2.35:1. Problem solved. Everything looks at it's best.


cardoski likes this.

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  
post #7 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 04:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Wow, black bars posts on AVS still, in 2014. Wild.

Yeah, this is where projection can really shine, it's so flexible you can actually turn a "problem" (shrunken 2:35:1 images) into a bonus (CIH projection system where those same scope films become bigger and even more immersive than your 16:9 image, with no black bars).
R Harkness is offline  
post #8 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Yep and what I love about my CIH system. I now have a choice as to how I want to watch something

What I find interesting is the number of adds on free to air that are now 21:9 letter boxed. I don't watch a lot of TV but during the last time I did, there was 4 of 5 adds presented this way. Also the number of music video clips that are 21:9 letter boxed right now is pretty amazing. And before any one suggests that the tuner must have been up incorrectly, no you can't change the AR on a TV with a built in DTV decoder. It runs 1920 x 1080 all the time.

Back in the 1990's this was starting to happen with 4 x 3 TV where a few adds (odd MTV clip) would be shown as 16:9 letter box. The first movie I remember to be shown in widescreen on TV was THE COLOUR PURPLE in about 1996 (the same year the US got HDTV?).

Australia's HDTV network didn't turn on until Jan 1, 2001 and for the first few years it was great just to see a full screen without side pillars. Now it seems history is repeating itself and we are once again seeing letter boxed images.

Slightly OT, I was involved in the shooting of an add recently and the camera operator informed me that this add would be 16:9 at 1080. He then went on to say that many adds shot are actually captured in 4K. When I asked why, he said it better to have too much data and throw it away than to not have enough and 4K allows them to crop the frame or zoom in without losing rez.

I openly welcome 21:9 as the next TV format. CinemaScope has been around since the 1950's and changed the way we watched movies. Why not TV? The best demo I had seen for why widescreen TV was better than 4 x 3 TV was sports. Less panning! Image how much more of the field you could see in the frame for 21:9 image!

What is interesting is how many think the cinema industry will change their aspect that fit someones 16:9 TV. On that thought pattern, why don't we all go back to 4 x 3
John Schuermann likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #9 of 153 Old 08-04-2014, 06:32 PM
Senior Member
 
TKNice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
It's often more about which aspect ratio the director/creator decides will best suit the content. People think they are missing content (and they are in number of pixels) but you are experiencing it exactly how it was intended.

Tv manufacturers will probably be supporting 16:9 for a long time.

Projector & Screen: Panasonic AE7000u 3D w/HTB Anamorphic Lens & 130" 2.35:1 CIH Screen
Video: DVDO Edge Audio: Emotiva XMC-1 / XPA-3 / UPA-7
Speakers: eD Custom 6T6 Towers, Emotiva UAC-8.2, Emotiva ERD-1s
Subwoofer: eD A3-300 12" 350w Sensory: Aura Pro Bass Shakers
Visit My Theater

Last edited by TKNice; 08-04-2014 at 06:36 PM.
TKNice is offline  
post #10 of 153 Old 08-05-2014, 04:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 151
As Josh usually points out, there's been a consistent (approximately) 50/50 split of movies produced in 1.85:1 vs 2.39:1, and that trend shows no signs of changing. If most of what you watch is scope (like is the case for me) that's more about the movies you like that what's being produced.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #11 of 153 Old 08-05-2014, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I assume you mean to say "2.35" in there, not 2.25. The actual theatrical aspect ratio has been 2.4:1 since 1970, but people in the industry continue to say "2.35:1" out of habit. Read this article to understand the actual, real-world difference between these two terms:

Where Movies and Home Theater Fail Math – How 2.35 = 2.40
and what was missed in that article is our HD PJ's 1920 x 1080 image chip(s) ratio , then those that use anamorphic lens to stretch the image optically do so at 4/3 ratio, which gives 2.37037 image ratio.....
Hence some build their screens to 2.37 .... in the end I slightly overscan into the black velvet border and just watch and enjoy the movie
mtbdudex is online now  
post #12 of 153 Old 08-05-2014, 02:10 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: 5,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
As Josh usually points out, there's been a consistent (approximately) 50/50 split of movies produced in 1.85:1 vs 2.39:1, and that trend shows no signs of changing. If most of what you watch is scope (like is the case for me) that's more about the movies you like that what's being produced.

My movie watching is about 50 / 50 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Plus HDTV of course. Whatever you watch, having the screen masked to fit the format adds immensely to the perceived picture quality IMO. Whether you use an A lens and a constant height screen, masking or 2 screens like I do. Best thing I ever did to improve my theater !!

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  
post #13 of 153 Old 08-05-2014, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
As Josh usually points out, there's been a consistent (approximately) 50/50 split of movies produced in 1.85:1 vs 2.39:1, and that trend shows no signs of changing. If most of what you watch is scope (like is the case for me) that's more about the movies you like that what's being produced.
Maybe it is my viewing habits, but I can't seem to remember the last film I saw at a cinema in 1.85:1.
Everything it seems has been Scope of late even comedy and animated.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #14 of 153 Old 08-05-2014, 10:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Maybe it is my viewing habits, but I can't seem to remember the last film I saw at a cinema in 1.85:1.
Everything it seems has been Scope of late even comedy and animated.
Haha, me too. Maybe I subconsciously filter out non-scope stuff. I barely have any 1.85:1 Blu Ray movies.

blastermaster is online now  
post #15 of 153 Old 08-06-2014, 11:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Maybe it is my viewing habits, but I can't seem to remember the last film I saw at a cinema in 1.85:1.
Everything it seems has been Scope of late even comedy and animated.
Some notable "big" movies released at 1.85:1 over the past few years would include:

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Noah
Pacific Rim
Monsters University
The Avengers
Men in Black 3

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  
post #16 of 153 Old 08-06-2014, 11:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Some notable "big" movies released at 1.85:1 over the past few years would include:

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Noah
Pacific Rim
Monsters University
The Avengers
Men in Black 3
Why, why, why did they do THE AVENGERS in 1.85:1? I did see this at the cinema in 3D and because the cinema I went to was CIH, the image was not as larger as it could have been. All the lead up films are Scope, so why do that?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #17 of 153 Old 08-07-2014, 11:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Why, why, why did they do THE AVENGERS in 1.85:1? I did see this at the cinema in 3D and because the cinema I went to was CIH, the image was not as larger as it could have been. All the lead up films are Scope, so why do that?
Agreed. That and the color choices made it seem more like an HD TV program to me. Such an epic film and it would have had so much more impact in scope. At least The Avengers 2 is scope.

jeahrens is online now  
post #18 of 153 Old 08-07-2014, 11:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Why, why, why did they do THE AVENGERS in 1.85:1? I did see this at the cinema in 3D and because the cinema I went to was CIH, the image was not as larger as it could have been. All the lead up films are Scope, so why do that?
The cinematographer of the film has stated that Joss Whedon chose 1.85:1 so that the Hulk's head wouldn't get cut off when standing next to the other characters in group shots. Shooting in scope would require pulling the camera back farther to fit everyone in the shot, which would have the effect of making the other superheroes look less "super."

Likewise, Steven Spielberg shot Jurassic Park at 1.85:1 to emphasize the height of the dinosaurs, and Guillermo del Toro did the same for Pacific Rim due to the heights of the robots and monsters.

Whedon shot Serenity in scope, so he's not inexperienced with it or afraid of the format. Given that all of the other Marvel movies have been 2.35:1, he probably had to make a case to justify his decision to the studio.

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  
post #19 of 153 Old 08-07-2014, 12:46 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: 5,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Maybe it is my viewing habits, but I can't seem to remember the last film I saw at a cinema in 1.85:1.
Everything it seems has been Scope of late even comedy and animated.

Well, movies like Her, The Master, Europa Report, Grand Budapest Hotel, 127 Hours, foreign films like A Hijacking, Indendies, tons of older catalog titles still coming out on Blu Ray, are all 16:9. So there are plenty out there.

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  
post #20 of 153 Old 08-08-2014, 07:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Some notable "big" movies released at 1.85:1 over the past few years would include:

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Noah
Pacific Rim
Monsters University
The Avengers
Men in Black 3
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is interesting since the previous movie was 2:40.

DavidHir is online now  
post #21 of 153 Old 08-08-2014, 07:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Agreed. That and the color choices made it seem more like an HD TV program to me. Such an epic film and it would have had so much more impact in scope. At least The Avengers 2 is scope.
I thought that was a mistake myself despite The Hulk situation. Good to hear they are changing for The Avengers 2.

DavidHir is online now  
post #22 of 153 Old 08-08-2014, 07:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidhir View Post
dawn of the planet of the apes is interesting since the previous movie was 2:40.
2:39.1

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #23 of 153 Old 08-09-2014, 12:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,233
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
2:39.1
The terms "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" all refer to the same thing and are used interchangeably. The actual theatrical standard is 2.39 and some change.

No, it doesn't make mathematical sense, but artistic people are rarely good mathematicians.

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  
post #24 of 153 Old 08-09-2014, 06:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The terms "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" all refer to the same thing and are used interchangeably. The actual theatrical standard is 2.39 and some change.

No, it doesn't make mathematical sense, but artistic people are rarely good mathematicians.
Oh yeah, you left out the odd ball 2.37:1, 2.38:1, and my favorite masking monster, 2.45:1. I had a party when the studios finally settled on 1.85:1 "flat" and 2.39:1 "scope". Then 2005 ish DCI made it a standard, there was another party.

For the home viewer you can settle for original 16:9, or the dreaded black bars.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #25 of 153 Old 08-10-2014, 04:06 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The terms "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" all refer to the same thing and are used interchangeably. The actual theatrical standard is 2.39 and some change.

No, it doesn't make mathematical sense, but artistic people are rarely good mathematicians.
If you think about it, this is not really true. Original Cinemascope frames were 4:3 (exact numbers), squeezed 2:1 (again, exact numbers), in order to obtain 2.66:1 (or 8:3, again exact numbers). Then they were changed for technical or economic reasons (2.55:1 to have on print magnetic tracks instead of the original interlock, 2.35:1 to appease exhibitors who didn't want to install stereo sound, 2.39:1 to avoid splicing visibility). I don't think that 2.37 or 2.45 were ever used.

And the original non anamorphic widescreen standards were 1.66:1 (5:3), 1.75:1 (7:4), 2:1. The only oddball was 1.85:1.

(Hope I didn't sound pedantic, didn't mean it, just wanted to share some common knowledge).
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #26 of 153 Old 08-11-2014, 01:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Oh yeah, you left out the odd ball 2.37:1, 2.38:1, and my favorite masking monster, 2.45:1. I had a party when the studios finally settled on 1.85:1 "flat" and 2.39:1 "scope". Then 2005 ish DCI made it a standard, there was another party.

For the home viewer you can settle for original 16:9, or the dreaded black bars.
If you work on D-Cinema being 2048 or 4096 and add a 1.25x A-Lens you should find that you have a light beam at 2.37:1 (assuming no GD).

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #27 of 153 Old 08-11-2014, 01:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
If you think about it, this is not really true. Original Cinemascope frames were 4:3 (exact numbers), squeezed 2:1 (again, exact numbers), in order to obtain 2.66:1 (or 8:3, again exact numbers). Then they were changed for technical or economic reasons (2.55:1 to have on print magnetic tracks instead of the original interlock, 2.35:1 to appease exhibitors who didn't want to install stereo sound, 2.39:1 to avoid splicing visibility). I don't think that 2.37 or 2.45 were ever used.

And the original non anamorphic widescreen standards were 1.66:1 (5:3), 1.75:1 (7:4), 2:1. The only oddball was 1.85:1.

(Hope I didn't sound pedantic, didn't mean it, just wanted to share some common knowledge).
There were a few of late 60's, 70's Hollywood and Bollywood movies in 2.45:1. Considering 1.85:1 oddball? I think IMAX is oddball.

Flat=little black bars. Scope=big black bars. Easy enough.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #28 of 153 Old 08-11-2014, 02:06 AM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
There were a few of late 60's, 70's Hollywood and Bollywood movies in 2.45:1. Considering 1.85:1 oddball? I think IMAX is oddball.
Never heard of a 2.45 format, and you made me curious. Could you please point such films out?

By saying that 1.85 is an oddball format, I obviously meant it looking at its number. Probably the majority of films in the history of cinema are in 1.85:1.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #29 of 153 Old 08-11-2014, 03:10 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 15
ASPECT RATIO does not indicate the size of the frame or of the screen. It's just a frame SHAPE. The RATIO between width and height, not how much "wide" is the image, because it can also be narrower in relation to a fixed width, like on Blu-Ray or 70mm IMAX theaters or digital cinemas.
2.39:1 can also be called 1:0.416, because they mean the same thing.
What really counts is the number of pixels or the amount of celluloid composing the frame. On Blu-Ray, 1.85:1 has more pixels than 2.39:1. The IMAX 1.33:1 frame is bigger than the 35mm 1.195:1 frame (2.39:1 squeezed to half).
Anyone using a CIH screen is just misusing the source format, Blu-Ray, which we all know what ratio and resolution it has. You don't possess 35mm anamorphic prints, where 2.39:1 is actually bigger than 1.85:1, so what you are doing is delusional.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #30 of 153 Old 08-11-2014, 04:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
ASPECT RATIO does not indicate the size of the frame or of the screen. It's just a frame SHAPE. The RATIO between width and height, not how much "wide" is the image, because it can also be narrower in relation to a fixed width, like on Blu-Ray or 70mm IMAX theaters or digital cinemas.
2.39:1 can also be called 1:0.416, because they mean the same thing.
While mathematically correct, this ignores the history of movie capture, where the scope format was created specifically to be larger/wider than the existing smaller ratio flat filming technologies.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat
Gear in this thread - 1920x1080? by PriceGrabber.com

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