Dr. No Blu Ray: Impressions and aspect ratio question - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 Old 01-22-2014, 05:17 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This Blu ray is so so very impressive. I recently got a projector during the Christmas holidays. It is an Epson 8350 projecting onto a 100 inch screen. I never would have thought that film from 1962 would be so incredible but it was and it completely blew me away.

Specially impressive were the following scenes:

At the beginning of the film, when the taxi driver who picks up James Bond and who is a bad guy first appears. The camera focused on his face at close range for a moment after Bond discloses to him that he knows he is not a real taxi driver. You could count the pores on his face and see the acne complexion of the actor. I did a double take when I saw this. I thought to myself "are you freaking kidding me???) This is INCREDIBLE!!! This is a a 1962 movie. No way am i seeing this.

The scenes when Ursula Andrews first appears in the beach. WOW. Incredible colors and vibrancy in the picture.

These are only two scenes that I am focusing on. The quality of the whole film is just Spectacular.




Two things:



1) Would anyone care to comment on the quality of this Blu Ray? Any feedback is welcomed. Let us know the the size of the display devise you used to to view the Blu Ray if you can. I suspect the impact of the quality of this Blu Ray would increase the larger the display device is.


2) When this film premiered in 1962, did it have two aspect ratios? Did it have a 1:66:1 aspect ratio in European theaters and a 1:85:1 aspect ratio in American theaters? The Blu ray aspect ratio is 1:66:1 with small vertical black bars on the right and left hand columns on a 16x9 display.



I am basing my question on the information on IMDB appearing below:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055928/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec




A blu ray review site also mentions that the original aspect ratio was 1:85:1

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dr-No-Blu-ray/971/#Review



This is the first time I focus at length on a particular Blu Ray on the AVS forum. I have a feeling I would be doing this much more often in the future. My love of Home Theater has skyrocketed upward with the addition of the Epson 8350 projector. :-)


Thanks for any responses guys.





Carlos_ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 Old 01-22-2014, 05:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I bought the bond50 set this past Christmas and haven't opened it yet.

Your post makes me wn to!

Be interesting if it holds up on my 181" screen!

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
post #3 of 37 Old 01-22-2014, 05:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

I bought the bond50 set this past Christmas and haven't opened it yet.

Your post makes me wn to!

Be interesting if it holds up on my 181" screen!


WOW. You have a 181 inch screen??? That is gigantic. I would encourage you to view Dr. No on Blu ray as soon as you can. I am sitting exactly 100 inches away from my 100 inch screen. It is a one to one ratio. Try to sit close to your screen and let us know what you think. Maybe sit 181 inches away from your screen.

Several questions:

1) What kind of projector do you have?

2) Do you have total light control in your viewing environment? By light control I mean several things. When the projector is off and all the lights are off, can you see your hand in front of your face? Also, are the ceiling, walls and floor of your viewing location black or dark? Or are they light or white?

I do not have total light control in my viewing environment. I cannot see my hand in front of my face when all lights are off and projector is off. However, i am projecting in my living room. There is white ceiling, white walls, and white floor. I wish it would all be dark but it can't. However, i compensate by putting the projector on brightest mode (Dynamic). Using this setting, Dr. No Blu Ray just blew me away.
Carlos_ is offline  
post #4 of 37 Old 01-22-2014, 07:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1467738/screen-is-here-woot#post_23425990

Except for the lights of all my gear, its essentially black at night.

Still watchable during the day.

I think of the lamp as a disposable item, so I use HIGH most of the time. Only at 400 hours now and using it less and less with new baby in the house (5 months old).

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
post #5 of 37 Old 01-23-2014, 11:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post

1) Would anyone care to comment on the quality of this Blu Ray? Any feedback is welcomed.

You'll find some nit-pickers in this forum who disagree philosophically with the process used for the digital restoration (Lowry Digital used proprietary software to strip film grain out of the picture without compromising other detail, then added artificial grain back in afterwards to emulate the original look), but it's a very nice-looking disc.
Quote:
2) When this film premiered in 1962, did it have two aspect ratios? Did it have a 1:66:1 aspect ratio in European theaters and a 1:85:1 aspect ratio in American theaters?

Most likely, yes.

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 37 Old 01-27-2014, 04:52 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164

I agree that Dr. No looks fantastic! Especially for a film made in 1962. I've been meanin to add it to the following list, along with at least one or two other Bond films, but I just completed my Bond set over the holidays, and still checking out a couple of the other films.

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1405185/best-catalog-film-transfers

 

I don't know how well the detail will hold up on a 181" screen. (LOL) But color and contrast-wise, it should look excellent, from a proper viewing distance. The Spy Who Loved Me is another very solid transfer visually. The level of detail on that film is simply remarkable.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #7 of 37 Old 01-28-2014, 06:41 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

I agree that Dr. No looks fantastic! Especially for a film made in 1962. I've been meanin to add it to the following list, along with at least one or two other Bond films, but I just completed my Bond set over the holidays, and still checking out a couple of the other films.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1405185/best-catalog-film-transfers

I don't know how well the detail will hold up on a 181" screen. (LOL) But color and contrast-wise, it should look excellent, from a proper viewing distance. The Spy Who Loved Me is another very solid transfer visually. The level of detail on that film is simply remarkable.

ADU:

Are you using a projector?

If you are using a projector, how large is your screen and how close are you sitting to the screen?

I am using a projector. I have a 100 inch screen. I sit about 100 inches from the screen ( 1 to 1 ratio).

I also have the Spy who Loved Me on Blu Ray. It is also a great transfer. However, the aspect ratio of that film is 2:35:1 while Dr. No is 1:85:1. Dr No is just more immersive. The picture is larger. I know it is not fair but I love the IMAX look when viewing films. Therefore I prefer films shot in 1:85 aspect ratio as they are larger from top to bottom with much smaller black bars on a 16x9 screen. I still can't get over how good Dr. No looks on Blu Ray.
Carlos_ is offline  
post #8 of 37 Old 01-29-2014, 10:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post

I also have the Spy who Loved Me on Blu Ray. It is also a great transfer. However, the aspect ratio of that film is 2:35:1 while Dr. No is 1:85:1. Dr No is just more immersive. The picture is larger.

Not on my 2.35:1 screen, it's not.

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 #9 of 37 Old 01-29-2014, 03:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Not on my 2.35:1 screen, it's not.

Josh Z:

What is the diagonal size of your 2:35:1 screen?

Also, what kind of projector are you using?
Carlos_ is offline  
post #10 of 37 Old 01-29-2014, 06:53 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post


ADU:

Are you using a projector?

If you are using a projector, how large is your screen and how close are you sitting to the screen?

I am using a projector. I have a 100 inch screen. I sit about 100 inches from the screen ( 1 to 1 ratio).

I also have the Spy who Loved Me on Blu Ray. It is also a great transfer. However, the aspect ratio of that film is 2:35:1 while Dr. No is 1:85:1. Dr No is just more immersive. The picture is larger. I know it is not fair but I love the IMAX look when viewing films. Therefore I prefer films shot in 1:85 aspect ratio as they are larger from top to bottom with much smaller black bars on a 16x9 screen. I still can't get over how good Dr. No looks on Blu Ray.

 

No projectors here at the moment. Just "direct-views". I owned a little Sharp LCD PJ waaaaay back in the VGA days. But haven't really touched one since. Direct-views work better in my current situation, which is fairly modest.

 

I'm tryin out a couple 50" plasmas at the moment, and coming from a 34" CRT, those seem ample for my space. The add'l screen real estate is nice though for both "scoped" (ie widescreen), and pillarboxed (e.g. 1.37 Academy and 1.66 ratio) content. And I can certainly relate to your desire for a more immersive experience.

 

I'd urge you to keep an open mind though, because there are some pretty great transfers of widescreen films out there as well, esp. some older ones. Carlito's Way (1993) is one of my favorites (if you're over 18). And last night I was watchin Cleopatra (1963), which is also fairly impressive. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Ben Hur (1959) are also good ones, though there are many others as well.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #11 of 37 Old 01-30-2014, 10:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post

What is the diagonal size of your 2:35:1 screen?

Also, what kind of projector are you using?

8-foot wide at 2.35:1, or 104" diagonal. I have a JVC RS40 for 2D and a Sharp XV-Z30000 for 3D.

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 #12 of 37 Old 01-30-2014, 07:24 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

8-foot wide at 2.35:1, or 104" diagonal. I have a JVC RS40 for 2D and a Sharp XV-Z30000 for 3D.

Josh Z:

If your screen is 2.35, then I understand why you like Spy Who Loved Me since it was filmed in the 2:35 aspect ratio.

What happens when you try to play movies shot in 1:85 on your 2:35 aspect ratio screen? Are there black bars on the right and left side? Or do you use another screen?

Also, if you have a 104 inch diagonal 2:35 screen, my 100 inch screen 16X9 screen would still be bigger from top to bottom correct? I know yours would be still be bigger from left to right. According to my calculations, with help of Projector Central, the size of my 100 inch 16x9 screen is 49 inches from top to bottom.
The size of your 2:35 104 inch is screen is 41 inches top to bottom. Is this right?

Thank you for any feedback. I am new to home theater.
Carlos_ is offline  
post #13 of 37 Old 01-30-2014, 07:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bond 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 12,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 341 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Great movie!

No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!
Bond 007 is offline  
post #14 of 37 Old 01-30-2014, 09:19 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164

I can't promise these will all look spectacular on your 100+ inch screens, but these are some of the better lookin transfers of older films on my direct-view HDTVs. They're broken down by aspect ratio, going from the widest (How the West Was Won at 2.89:1) to narrowest (Day the Earth Stood Still at 1.34:1).


2.89
How the West Was Won (1962)


2.75
Ben Hur (1959)


2.35 - 2.40
Alien (1979)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Carlito's Way (1993)
Forbidden Planet (1956)
Ghostbusters (1984) - The new 4K-mastered version is probably best, but the original Blu-ray release is also pretty good.
Legend: The Director's Cut (1985)
Logan's Run (1976)

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)
Planet of the Apes (1968)
The Road Warrior (1981)
St. Elmo's Fire (1985)
Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (1977 - 1983)


2.19 - 2.22
Cleopatra (1963)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
TRON: The Original Classic (1982)


1.85
Heavy Metal (1981, adult animated)
The Ten Commandments (1956)
Wizards (1977, adult animated)


1.78

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

Excalibur (1981)


1.66
Jason and the Argonauts (1963) - Detail is pretty good on most of this film, but the quality does drop noticeably in some scenes with FX, dissolves & other opticals.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)


1.33 - 1.37
Casablanca (1942, B&W)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951, B&W)


Titles like Excalibur, Forbidden Planet, Jason & the Argonauts, Legend and Casablanca will have a more grainy appearance than some of the others. But they're still a very nice watch (and I actually prefer a little more grain in most of my movies).


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #15 of 37 Old 01-31-2014, 08:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

Titles like Excalibur, Forbidden Planet, Jason & the Argonauts, Legend and Casablanca will have a more grainy appearance than some of the others. But they're still a very nice watch (and I actually prefer a little more grain in most of my movies).
Unfortunately EXCALIBUR is a flawed transfer. The film has an aspect ratio is 1.66:1, but they went 1.78:1 for the BD. The way they grabbed 1.78:1 is to lower the frame to the bottom, in effect cropping too much at the top. So heads are frequently lopped right off. This film needs a proper 1.66:1 release or at least a 178:1 transfer that is correctly composed.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #16 of 37 Old 02-01-2014, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

I can't promise these will all look spectacular on your 100+ inch screens, but these are some of the better lookin transfers of older films on my direct-view HDTVs. They're broken down by aspect ratio, going from the widest (How the West Was Won at 2.89:1) to narrowest (Day the Earth Stood Still at 1.34:1).

2.89

How the West Was Won (1962)

2.75

Ben Hur (1959)

2.35 - 2.40

Alien (1979)

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Carlito's Way (1993)

Forbidden Planet (1956)

Ghostbusters (1984) - The new 4K-mastered version is probably best, but the original Blu-ray release is also pretty good.

Legend: The Director's Cut (1985)

Logan's Run (1976)

Planet of the Apes (1968)

The Road Warrior (1981)

St. Elmo's Fire (1985)

Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (1977 - 1983)

2.19 - 2.22

Cleopatra (1963)

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

TRON: The Original Classic (1982)

1.85

Heavy Metal (1981, adult animated)

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Wizards (1977, adult animated)

1.78
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Excalibur (1981)

1.66

Jason and the Argonauts (1963) - Detail is pretty good on most of this film, but the quality does drop noticeably in some scenes with FX, dissolves & other opticals.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

1.33 - 1.37

Casablanca (1942, B&W)

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951, B&W)


Titles like Excalibur, Forbidden Planet, Jason & the Argonauts, Legend and Casablanca will have a more grainy appearance than some of the others. But they're still a very nice watch (and I actually prefer a little more grain in most of my movies).

ADU:

Thanks for the list.

What is the size of the HDTV sets you use to view films?

That is great that you list The Road Warrior in this list. It is one of my favorite movies of all time. I have heard that it is one of the films showing the most picture quality improvement going from DVD to Blu Ray.
Carlos_ is offline  
post #17 of 37 Old 02-03-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post

What happens when you try to play movies shot in 1:85 on your 2:35 aspect ratio screen? Are there black bars on the right and left side? Or do you use another screen?

Black bars on the sides. These are much less noticeable than black bars on the top and bottom. If they bother you, you can always put up some curtains to draw inwards.
Quote:
Also, if you have a 104 inch diagonal 2:35 screen, my 100 inch screen 16X9 screen would still be bigger from top to bottom correct? I know yours would be still be bigger from left to right. According to my calculations, with help of Projector Central, the size of my 100 inch 16x9 screen is 49 inches from top to bottom.
The size of your 2:35 104 inch is screen is 41 inches top to bottom. Is this right?

My screen is 96" wide x 41.85" tall. A 16:9 image pillarboxed in the center of this is 72.62" x 40.85", for a diagonal of 83.33".

So, yes, your 100" diagonal 16:9 screen is larger than mine for 16:9 content. However, you are still stuck with the problem that episodes of Wheel of Fortune are displayed larger and more immersive than all the Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings movies, which is the exact opposite of the intent.

If you have sufficient wall space, an equivalent 2.35:1 screen for you would be 115.22" wide x 49.03" tall, or 125.22" diagonal.

Here is a tutorial on Constant Image Height:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013/

You can also find more information on this in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site.

We're getting a little off the subject of this thread. That's probably my fault. smile.gif

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 #18 of 37 Old 02-03-2014, 09:16 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post


Unfortunately EXCALIBUR is a flawed transfer. The film has an aspect ratio is 1.66:1, but they went 1.78:1 for the BD. The way they grabbed 1.78:1 is to lower the frame to the bottom, in effect cropping too much at the top. So heads are frequently lopped right off. This film needs a proper 1.66:1 release or at least a 178:1 transfer that is correctly composed.

 

I agree it would've been better to leave it at 1.66. The cropping isn't too bad if you use little or no overscan though.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #19 of 37 Old 02-03-2014, 09:52 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post


ADU:

Thanks for the list.

What is the size of the HDTV sets you use to view films?
 

 

:) My main TV is still a 12 year-old Sony 34" 1080i CRT. But I'm considering a new flat panel in the ~ 40-50" size range. At the moment, I'm checking out a 51" Samsung PN51F5300 1080p plasma. The picture on the Sammy plasma is very CRT-like in many ways, but without most of the common pitfalls of the older tech. The only downsides I see so far on the plasma are the brighter black levels, and dithering.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post

That is great that you list The Road Warrior in this list. It is one of my favorite movies of all time. I have heard that it is one of the films showing the most picture quality improvement going from DVD to Blu Ray.

 

I looked at Road Warrior a few nights ago on the Sammy plasma, and it looked quite good. The color is showing some signs of age in places, and there's some slight edge-enhancement visible along the top and bottom edges of the image. For the most part though, the transfer seems to preserve the original (grungy) look of the film. It's on sale at Best Buy this week for $8 btw.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #20 of 37 Old 02-04-2014, 01:46 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

smile.gif My main TV is still a 12 year-old Sony 34" 1080i CRT. But I'm considering a new flat panel in the ~ 40-50" size range. At the moment, I'm checking out a 51" Samsung PN51F5300 1080p plasma. The picture on the Sammy plasma is very CRT-like in many ways, but without most of the common pitfalls of the older tech. The only downsides I see so far on the plasma are the brighter black levels, and dithering.


I looked at Road Warrior a few nights ago on the Sammy plasma, and it looked quite good. The color is showing some signs of age in places, and there's some slight edge-enhancement visible along the top and bottom edges of the image. For the most part though, the transfer seems to preserve the original (grungy) look of the film. It's on sale at Best Buy this week for $8 btw.

ADU:

When you can, try to see Jaws on Blu Ray. I am sure it will make your list. I just saw parts of it yesterday. Using a projector, I beamed it on a flat white wall. I did not use a projection screen because the aspect ratio of this film is 2:35:1 and I wanted a larger top to bottom picture size than a 100 inch 16x9 screen provides. So I displayed it on a wall with a 120 diagonal picture. I was not expecting much. WRONG!!!!. Jaws looks SPECTACULAR on Blu Ray. Again, I am using an Epson 8350 projector on its brightest, "Dynamic" setting. Some scenes at the beginning I could not believe I was seeing. The scene at the beginning of the movie where the movie switches from the first woman killed at night and then goes inside the Brody home and then Brody leaves his house and drives jeep to the beach is PHENOMENAL. This scene was shot in 1975 by Spielberg with pure bright natural sunlight and looks INCREDIBLE.
Carlos_ is offline  
post #21 of 37 Old 02-06-2014, 08:27 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


Black bars on the sides. These are much less noticeable than black bars on the top and bottom. If they bother you, you can always put up some curtains to draw inwards.
My screen is 96" wide x 41.85" tall. A 16:9 image pillarboxed in the center of this is 72.62" x 40.85", for a diagonal of 83.33".

So, yes, your 100" diagonal 16:9 screen is larger than mine for 16:9 content. However, you are still stuck with the problem that episodes of Wheel of Fortune are displayed larger and more immersive than all the Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings movies, which is the exact opposite of the intent.

If you have sufficient wall space, an equivalent 2.35:1 screen for you would be 115.22" wide x 49.03" tall, or 125.22" diagonal.

Here is a tutorial on Constant Image Height:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013/

You can also find more information on this in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site.

We're getting a little off the subject of this thread. That's probably my fault. smile.gif

 

I think the majority of my Blu-rays are in the 2.35 - 2.40 ratio. So I definitely see the advantages in using a 2.35 screen. I still own quite a bit of 4:3 DVD content though (mostly TV shows and such), and wouldn't necessarily want ~1.37 ratio classics like Casablanca, Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. to look like a postage stamp in the middle of my screen.


Fortunately there are no ~2.35 ratio plasmas or LEDs out there readily available that I'm aware of, so it's not a choice I really have to worry about. ;)


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #22 of 37 Old 02-06-2014, 08:29 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post


ADU:

When you can, try to see Jaws on Blu Ray...

 

Will do. I've been tracking the prices on this for awhile. Just waitin for it to come down to a place more convenient to my pocketbook.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #23 of 37 Old 02-07-2014, 10:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

I think the majority of my Blu-rays are in the 2.35 - 2.40 ratio. So I definitely see the advantages in using a 2.35 screen. I still own quite a bit of 4:3 DVD content though (mostly TV shows and such), and wouldn't necessarily want ~1.37 ratio classics like Casablanca, Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. to look like a postage stamp in the middle of my screen.

On a Constant Image Height screen, 16:9 and 4:3 content would appear the exact same size as they do on your current screen, but 2.35:1 content will no longer be shrunken down and letterboxed. Take your current screen and add extra width to the sides. A movie like Casablanca would no more be a postage stamp on that than it is on what you have now.

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 #24 of 37 Old 02-08-2014, 04:25 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


On a Constant Image Height screen, 16:9 and 4:3 content would appear the exact same size as they do on your current screen, but 2.35:1 content will no longer be shrunken down and letterboxed. Take your current screen and add extra width to the sides. A movie like Casablanca would no more be a postage stamp on that than it is on what you have now.

 

Probably true.

 

But if I had the space for a larger 2.35 CIH screen, I think I'd want Gort, and Bogie & Bergman, and Ursula & Sean to be bigger too.

 

I suppose there are some HT buffs who've figured out a way to get both the maximum width on scoped films, and also maximum height on 1.37 and 1.66 films on their screens, without ever seeing any black bars, using various lenses and motorized masking/screen systems.

 

It probably wouldn't be that hard to construct, now that I think about it. You could have a fixed screen in one ratio on the wall, and then one or more pre-masked screens in other ratios that simply drop down in front of it. Probably run into some $$$ to build it though.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #25 of 37 Old 02-09-2014, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Carlos_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Black bars on the sides. These are much less noticeable than black bars on the top and bottom. If they bother you, you can always put up some curtains to draw inwards.
My screen is 96" wide x 41.85" tall. A 16:9 image pillarboxed in the center of this is 72.62" x 40.85", for a diagonal of 83.33".

So, yes, your 100" diagonal 16:9 screen is larger than mine for 16:9 content. However, you are still stuck with the problem that episodes of Wheel of Fortune are displayed larger and more immersive than all the Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings movies, which is the exact opposite of the intent.

If you have sufficient wall space, an equivalent 2.35:1 screen for you would be 115.22" wide x 49.03" tall, or 125.22" diagonal.

Here is a tutorial on Constant Image Height:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013/

You can also find more information on this in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site.

We're getting a little off the subject of this thread. That's probably my fault. smile.gif

Josh Z:

Spy Who Loved me is indeed spectacular (as much as Dr. No).

I put away my 100 inch screen and used my projector to light up my living room wall.

I stretched out the picture to 125 diagonal so that the vertical height of this movie would approximate the 49 inch vertical height of DR. No. I wanted similar immersiveness.

My wall is not ideal like my screen because it is pourous and has imperfections. But %$$#%, what a picture!!. Specially impressive was the scene where Bond is driving the Lotus fast thru the mountains and coast. This scene was filmed in 1977 under full, direct sunlight and it is just INCREDIBLE when projected into the wall at 125 inches diagonal. It is like my wall became a window into another reality. Like a time portal to 1977. Thanks for the recommendation Josh Z. You put a big smile on my face. :-)
Carlos_ is offline  
post #26 of 37 Old 02-10-2014, 11:14 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164

Slightly OT, but my favorite scene in TSWLM is the one in Karnak temple (where Jaws plays a little cat & mouse with Bond & Anya). The detail, lighting, color (esp. the earth-tones in the temple columns), and sense of depth is just eye-popping in that scene in HD. There's alot of really nice location photography in that film though.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #27 of 37 Old 02-11-2014, 12:40 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post


I suppose there are some HT buffs who've figured out a way to get both the maximum width on scoped films, and also maximum height on 1.37 and 1.66 films on their screens, without ever seeing any black bars, using various lenses and motorized masking/screen systems.

It probably wouldn't be that hard to construct, now that I think about it. You could have a fixed screen in one ratio on the wall, and then one or more pre-masked screens in other ratios that simply drop down in front of it. Probably run into some $$$ to build it though.

Constant area.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #28 of 37 Old 02-12-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

But if I had the space for a larger 2.35 CIH screen, I think I'd want Gort, and Bogie & Bergman, and Ursula & Sean to be bigger too.

I suppose there are some HT buffs who've figured out a way to get both the maximum width on scoped films, and also maximum height on 1.37 and 1.66 films on their screens, without ever seeing any black bars, using various lenses and motorized masking/screen systems.

It probably wouldn't be that hard to construct, now that I think about it. You could have a fixed screen in one ratio on the wall, and then one or more pre-masked screens in other ratios that simply drop down in front of it. Probably run into some $$$ to build it though.

As Art mentioned, what you're describing is called Constant Area.

Ultimately, this will come down to personal preference. You should do whatever makes you happy. However, all I'll say to this is that when CinemaScope was invented in the 1950s, the intention was to project a movie at the same height but twice as wide as Academy Ratio movies like Casablanca or The Day the Earth Stood Still. The whole point of CinemaScope was to be bigger than those other films.

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 #29 of 37 Old 02-12-2014, 10:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos_ View Post

Josh Z:

Spy Who Loved me is indeed spectacular (as much as Dr. No).

I put away my 100 inch screen and used my projector to light up my living room wall.

I stretched out the picture to 125 diagonal so that the vertical height of this movie would approximate the 49 inch vertical height of DR. No. I wanted similar immersiveness.

My wall is not ideal like my screen because it is pourous and has imperfections. But %$$#%, what a picture!!. Specially impressive was the scene where Bond is driving the Lotus fast thru the mountains and coast. This scene was filmed in 1977 under full, direct sunlight and it is just INCREDIBLE when projected into the wall at 125 inches diagonal. It is like my wall became a window into another reality. Like a time portal to 1977. Thanks for the recommendation Josh Z. You put a big smile on my face. :-)

Glad to help. smile.gif

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 #30 of 37 Old 02-12-2014, 06:28 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post


Constant area.

Art

 

Interesting. Sounds like alot of work to setup though.

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1130474/cia-constant-image-area


ADU
ADU is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

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