How To Train Your Dragon 3D Blu Ray Discussion - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 01:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,034
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 341
In other words: "I hate black bars. They should make them go away. Full screen forever!!!"

The aspect ratio argument for 3D is absolutely no different than the aspect ratio argument for 2D. It's an artistic decision at the control of the filmmakers. As the YouTube video linked above clearly shows, How to Train Your Dragon was composed during production with 2.35:1 in mind. That the studio also rendered a "full screen" version for some venues/mediums doesn't change the compositional OAR. The majority of 2.35:1 live action movies are also photographed with extra picture above and below the frame line on the negative. That doesn't make their OAR 4:3 or 16:9.

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 03:12 PM
Senior Member
 
DigVid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

In other words: "I hate black bars. They should make them go away. Full screen forever!!!"

The aspect ratio argument for 3D is absolutely no different than the aspect ratio argument for 2D. It's an artistic decision at the control of the filmmakers. As the YouTube video linked above clearly shows, How to Train Your Dragon was composed during production with 2.35:1 in mind. That the studio also rendered a "full screen" version for some venues/mediums doesn't change the compositional OAR. The majority of 2.35:1 live action movies are also photographed with extra picture above and below the frame line on the negative. That doesn't make their OAR 4:3 or 16:9.

No problem here with black bars, as an old filmmaker myself I defend them more than most. I was simply trying (poorly obviously) to note that an IMAX or more open matte (if you will) print, (or program source) existed (as I saw it that way in IMAX - and it was beautiful (and intended) and would have translated greatly to our current home 16:9 3D displays. Much better IMO (this time) than what DreamWorks decided to use. However, it is all water over the dam, so enjoy what we get...
DigVid is offline  
post #63 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 03:34 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

In other words: "I hate black bars. They should make them go away. Full screen forever!!!"

The aspect ratio argument for 3D is absolutely no different than the aspect ratio argument for 2D. It's an artistic decision at the control of the filmmakers. As the YouTube video linked above clearly shows, How to Train Your Dragon was composed during production with 2.35:1 in mind. That the studio also rendered a "full screen" version for some venues/mediums doesn't change the compositional OAR. The majority of 2.35:1 live action movies are also photographed with extra picture above and below the frame line on the negative. That doesn't make their OAR 4:3 or 16:9.

I agree. From the looks of the video, the OAR clearly looks to be 2.35.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #64 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 03:52 PM
Senior Member
 
DigVid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I agree. From the looks of the video, the OAR clearly looks to be 2.35.

Well, I see what appears to be some 1.44:1 and 1.85:1 in there as well, so it appears multiple aspect ratios were the intent clearly to me. Okay?
DigVid is offline  
post #65 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 04:13 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigVid View Post

Well, I see what appears to be some 1.44:1 and 1.85:1 in there as well, so it appears multiple aspect ratios were the intent clearly to me. Okay?

Sorry, but I dont agree. 2.35 looks like it is the OAR as all signs point that way IMO. We can disagree though its all good

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #66 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 04:15 PM
Senior Member
 
DigVid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I see that it's important to you to have the last say and that's okay. However, I saw this in IMAX and it wasn't in 2.35:1 and I'm sure they intended that too. Nuff said, now let's put this thread back to sleep...
DigVid is offline  
post #67 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 04:25 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 416
Why is only the 2.35 version available on blu ray then? 2.35 is clearly the preferred version it would seem since both the 2d, 3d version on blu are framed that way.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #68 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 05:00 PM
Senior Member
 
DigVid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A good comparison would be how they distributed Avatar on Blu-ray. Here are the specs for that film, once again from IMDb:

Aspect ratio
1.78 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version) (2K 3-D version: constant image width venues)
2.35 : 1 (2-D version) (2K 3-D version: constant image height venues)

I saw HTTYD shortly after Avatar. I went with low expectations, as the trailer for the film looked bad to me. Anyway, there I was at the IMAX Theater and from the start I was in awe of how great this animation, sound, and story was presented. Since I do a lot of shot composing myself, I was taken by the open 3D framing of the movie. I told my wife that I hope that they put out the 3D Blu-ray of this film the way they did with Avatar and allow the full framing of my TV and projector to open up the film as I experienced it in IMAX. Well, they didn't and maybe the reason was that they knew if enough people had seen the 2.35.1 version they would cry foul (it certainly wouldn't be the first time). As for me, I felt cheated, as this film is really great wide open. I am not an advocate for full screen movies, unless they were seen that way at the theater. I saw HTTYD that way. However, the Blu-ray 3D is what it is and that's that. Move along
DigVid is offline  
post #69 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 05:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigVid View Post

Well, I see what appears to be some 1.44:1 and 1.85:1 in there as well, so it appears multiple aspect ratios were the intent clearly to me. Okay?

All the footage of the film in that video was at 2.35:1. There were times when computer monitors showed images that were full screen, but that was merely the animators working on individual CG objects in the film.

I've tried looking up some info on how, why, or if it was actually sent to 70mm IMAX theaters in 1.44:1 but haven't come up with anything. Nothing substantial anyways; a couple unreliable mentions. I saw it in Digital IMAX and while I can't recall if it was 2.35:1 or 1.85:1, it definitely wasn't 1.44:1 (kind of a moot point though, as it was a Liemax theater--don't think they even have the capability for it). Mostly I want to know if it was cropped somewhere along the line, and if so, which version was cropped. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that they would design and render it in 1.44:1 if everything besides the couple hundred IMAX screens in the world were going to get it at 2.35:1.
javanpohl is online now  
post #70 of 80 Old 01-03-2012, 05:14 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigVid View Post

Well, they didn’t and maybe the reason was that they knew if enough people had seen the 2.35.1 version they would cry foul (it certainly wouldn’t be the first time)

Or maybe they didn't because the preferred aspect is 2.35.........that makes the most sense IMHO.

You can get the full frame on your projector by the way......get a 2.35 setup. I am guessing if you had a scope screen, we would not be having this conversation

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #71 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 04:11 AM
Senior Member
 
DigVid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Or maybe they didn't because the preferred aspect is 2.35.........that makes the most sense IMHO.

You can get the full frame on your projector by the way......get a 2.35 setup. I am guessing if you had a scope screen, we would not be having this conversation

I am in no way against "Director Intent" or "OAR" or any of that just to fill my particular screen size. Instead, I conform to the film industry as much as I can. The fact is this Digital Film (HTTYD) was on view to paying IMAX customers in an AR that was not 2.35 and was closer to 1.78. And, that version which a group at DreamWorks (not me) put together for the public to enjoy I feel would have made a better 16:9 Blu-ray for most. I'm speaking here for what's best for the viewing experience and not to fit ANY home-theater setup. The info at IMDb appears to be correct and I stand by it no matter how hard anyone tries to change the facts! Bottom line is that the intent of this feature was both for 2.35 and IMAX 1.44/1.85. It’s not the first time this has been the case and won’t be the last. There really is no “preferred” (as you like to call it), it would depend on the venue. Also, there were other 3D animations distributed to IMAX theaters in the more 16:9 friendly format such as: Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, Monsters vs Aliens, MegaMind, Kung Fu Panda, and of course Avatar (which thanks to Mr. Cameron was made into a 16:9 3D Blu-ray). That being said, since you appear to have a cinemascope setup, I can see why you adamantly want this film ONLY to be in that AR. However, my only point and the reason I Googled and revived this thread was to offer that DreamWorks could have used the entire 16:9 viewing area of Blu-ray with their beautiful, fuller IMAX digital rendering; which btw, was also intended. Those who have seen this film in a good IMAX 3D Theater would hopefully know what I am talking about…
DigVid is offline  
post #72 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 05:48 AM
Senior Member
 
tbuick6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Understood and heartily agreed with!

"To Live Outside The Law You Must Be Honest"
tbuick6 is online now  
post #73 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 05:53 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 416
I stand by my last question then.....why is there only a 2.35 version available on blu for both 2d and 3d if its not considered the OAR? If both aspects were considered OAR as you say, why would they only put out the one that is going to give most people "black bars” for home viewing on blu? It seems obvious to me that there is only one OAR and that is 2.35 for this title.

By the way, I am not pushing for scope on this title because I use a 2.35 screen. If both aspects truly are considered OAR (they are not from my perspective obviously), then put both on blu. If 1.78 is the OAR, use that. I just want OAR. All signs on this title point to 2.35 as OAR from my perspective.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #74 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 06:39 AM
Senior Member
 
tbuick6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Laziness on Dreamworks/Paramount's part. They could have used 2.35 for 2d and 1.85 to closely match the IMAX release.

"To Live Outside The Law You Must Be Honest"
tbuick6 is online now  
post #75 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 06:47 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbuick6 View Post

Laziness on Dreamworks/Paramount's part. They could have used 2.35 for 2d and 1.85 to closely match the IMAX release.


Why? Many (most?) theaters showed the 3d version in 2.35 aspect which is how I viewed it at my local cinema.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #76 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 07:14 AM
Senior Member
 
DigVid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbuick6 View Post

Laziness on Dreamworks/Paramount's part. They could have used 2.35 for 2d and 1.85 to closely match the IMAX release.

I don't think it's laziness as much as marketing. To have a more favorable version like the IMAX one only available in theaters (they must feel) keeps those expensive theaters hopefully in the black. It is annoying though, that I'll say.
DigVid is offline  
post #77 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 08:44 AM
Senior Member
 
tbuick6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: White Plains, NY
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Dark Knight was shown on most theater screens at 2.35 but Warner saw fit to release the Blu-Ray in it's IMAX multi ratio presentation. Same with Transformers 2 Walmart release.

"To Live Outside The Law You Must Be Honest"
tbuick6 is online now  
post #78 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigVid View Post

I don't think it's laziness as much as marketing. To have a more favorable version like the IMAX one only available in theaters (they must feel) keeps those expensive theaters hopefully in the black. It is annoying though, that I'll say.

If it were a marketing ploy, I should be able to find something from either IMAX or Dreamworks advertising the film as having been released in 1.44:1.

A mod on this thread states that the IMAX print he helped build was Scope.

So far you're the only person on the entire internet saying he saw it in 1.44:1.

... and, yes, I read every single page on the internet before I made that statement.
javanpohl is online now  
post #79 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 10:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,034
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

I saw it in Digital IMAX and while I can't recall if it was 2.35:1 or 1.85:1, it definitely wasn't 1.44:1 (kind of a moot point though, as it was a Liemax theater--don't think they even have the capability for it).

Digital IMAX theaters have a screen ratio of 2:1. A 2.35:1 movie will be projected with minimal letterboxing. When I saw Mission: Impossible 4 just recently, the IMAX-filmed segments in the movie that are supposed to open up the frame only expanded from 2.35:1 to 2:1. The difference was so negligible that it was barely even noticeable unless I specifically looked for it. As you note, these screens do not even have the capability of opening up to 1.44:1. Only the film-based 15/70 IMAX theaters can do that, and those are an endangered species these days.

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 #80 of 80 Old 01-04-2012, 11:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

As you note, these screens do not even have the capability of opening up to 1.44:1. Only the film-based 15/70 IMAX theaters can do that, and those are an endangered species these days.

No kidding. The two that were in Colorado (aside from the one at the Museum) are now digital. Of course, they still have the same screen as before but it's disconcerting nonetheless.

This is kind of off-topic, but if they were going to switch, I really don't understand why they just didn't wait a little bit longer for 4K DLPs. 2K on a full IMAX screen doesn't quite cut it.
javanpohl is online now  
Reply 3D Content

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