Gravity 3D Bluray - Page 8 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 05:40 AM
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

No doubt and my point was that good directors are not just considering the art alone, but also what will be acceptable by the audience, because that plays to a good business decision. Fortunately, most people haven't complained too much about the lack of filling the screen with 2.35 AR. However, I wonder if a poll were taken, would most people prefer for all movies to be cropped to fill the 1.78 screen? It seems to me that with 3D, most people prefer 1.78 because it expands the Z axis. They may not know that but they certainly understand what looks better to them. It might be interesting to run a poll here to see if people prefer their 3D movies be designed around 1.78 or 2.35 on their 16x 9 screens. We did this a few years ago and the outcome was OAR for 2D and don't change it for the Disk because it was to be played on 16 x 9 TV's. The studios didn't always conform to that request.


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1514423/which-screen-format-do-you-prefer-for-3d

Unfortunately, 3D forum does not seem to be followed by too many AVS members. Really hoped that the poll would have captured more attention. From a technical and immersion standpoint for 3d only, I strongly feel that you need the increased image height that 1.78 offers over scope to get the full effect of a 3D image. I just wish that all these directors new to 3D film making would shoot with this in mind.
Reload9000 likes this.
BLWTX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 06:15 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reload9000 View Post

If I was making art and knew the most popular current method of reproduction was going to greatly diminish its intended effect, and that by making my art in only a subtly different way I could keep everyone happy, guess what I'd do.

But maybe the directors and producers don't know, maybe they never watch their own movies on 3D bluray and rely on the public telling them by sales and commentary what the score is. So all the people that put up with the situation because of their "artistic values" are actually only making the situation worse for everyone. Personally I won't bother buying any more 2.39 scale 3D blurays in future because I know from experience how poor they are. If others do the same then let's see how long these artists continue to paint on the wrong sized canvases.

Go back and read the last several pages of this thread. The "canvas" is not wrong, you just can't display it to it's full potential with your TV which presents the ratios in the exact opposite manner as meant to be seen. If your set was capable of keeping CIH, you would not feel a 2.35 canvas was wrong. Point of all this being to blame your TV, not the art. If you care enough, you can change your setup to best represent the art. BLWTX, this applies to your post above as well.

Again, this would be like me pushing for ALL 3d to be 2.35 since that is generally more immersive in my setup with my 2.35 screen which I would never do since I don't want to limit how the director can express their vision for their film which may work better in 2.40 or 1.78. It's amazing to me that there are AVS members who don't understand this by now and who don't support OAR for 2d and 3d.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #213 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 06:50 AM
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Toe

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been involved in viewing or producing anything in 3D? Not trying to be rude or confrontational, just curious since you think that those of us who do not agree with just do not understand that 2.35 is better for 3D. I have experience shooting 3D for still images and have been a Pro Photographer for 30 years, so my understanding is a little better than you give me credit for. 3D is not new to me and I do own several 3d still cameras and have viewed 3d from still hand held applications to my own 3D home theater.
BLWTX is offline  
post #214 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 07:10 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLWTX View Post

Toe

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been involved in viewing or producing anything in 3D? Not trying to be rude or confrontational, just curious since you think that those of us who do not agree with just do not understand that 2.35 is better for 3D. I have experience shooting 3D for still images and have been a Pro Photographer for 30 years, so my understanding is a little better than you give me credit for. 3D is not new to me and I do own several 3d still cameras and have viewed 3d from still hand held applications to my own 3D home theater.

I'm not saying 2.35 is "better" for 3d. rolleyes.gif I am saying that it should be left up to the director to decide, period.

You are shooting 3d stills with your 1.78 screen in mind obviously and movies are not shot with the same perspective since they are traditionally shot with the commercial theater CIH perspective as Josh has explained so well in this thread if you have been reading up to this point (have you?). THERE IS NO INCREASED HEIGHT. The increased height you are seeing for 1.78 vs 2.35 is due to a handicap of your 1.78 display.

The only thing your 3d shooting experience applies to is what YOU are specifically trying to shoot. Obviously other directors who are shooting films and not stills feel that in some cases, just like 2d, that scope will better represent their vision over 1.78 and 3d does not change this even though you think your crippled 1.78 should change it for some VERY odd reason.

By your line of thinking, every film made before widescreen TVs hit our households should be filmed in 4:3! Can you imagine if so many classic films were limited to 4:3 like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and so on? eek.gif

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #215 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 566

The sad thing about this is that most people wouldn't know why it was that the 3D wasn't that impressive with 2.35, they'd just get a rough sense of the bottom line and potentially use it as a way of condemning 3D as a whole.

 

Thankfully there have been movie makers smart enough to release their 3D versions in 1.78.

andy sullivan and Reload9000 like this.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #216 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 07:57 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

The sad thing about this is that most people wouldn't know why it was that the 3D wasn't that impressive with 2.35, they'd just get a rough sense of the bottom line and potentially use it as a way of condemning 3D as a whole.

Thankfully there have been movie makers smart enough to release their 3D versions in 1.78.


2.35 has nothing to do with it. I can think of impressive 3d in both 1.78/85 and 2.35/40. Some of my favorite 3d titles for pure 3d have been in scope including Monsters Vs Aliens, Flying Swords of Dragonsgate, HTTYD, etc........Lots of great 3d in 1.78 as well. Point being, aspect ratio is not what makes or breaks 3d as you seem to be implying. Gravity from what I have read off your posts is one of your favorite 3d titles and one of the best examples of "natural" 3d and it is scope which seems to contradict what you are trying to imply with this post as well. rolleyes.gif

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #217 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 566

^^^The problem with blocking someone like Toe is that they often prefer it because it makes them believe they can reply with impunity.  I keep unblocking (all my blocks are short lived on purpose), only to find myself wishing I hadn't.


No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #218 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:11 AM
Newbie
 
Reload9000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post


Go back and read the last several pages of this thread. The "canvas" is not wrong, you just can't display it to it's full potential with your TV which presents the ratios in the exact opposite manner as meant to be seen. If your set was capable of keeping CIH, you would not feel a 2.35 canvas was wrong. Point of all this being to blame your TV, not the art. If you care enough, you can change your setup to best represent the art. BLWTX, this applies to your post above as well.

Again, this would be like me pushing for ALL 3d to be 2.35 since that is generally more immersive in my setup with my 2.35 screen which I would never do since I don't want to limit how the director can express their vision for their film which may work better in 2.40 or 1.78. It's amazing to me that there are AVS members who don't understand this by now and who don't support OAR for 2d and 3d.

 

My TV works fine for everything else, thanks. TV (16:9 or 4:3), 2D movies in any AR, 3D movies in 1.78, any movies in IMAX AR, countless games, displaying photographs, youtube videos and so on. The only cases where it falls over is with these contentious 2.39/2.40 3D movies.

 

I know you think all the people who have a problem with it are idiots or don't appreciate art but that isn't going to stop us having a real and quantifiable problem.

 

And as for your solution, your TV is an expensive, specialist set made not because it makes any sense for anything else but specifically to address this one problem. Which it does through massive additional cost and through putting bars on everything else! This is why 99% of people don't own them. And it also doesn't address the fact that precious pixels of image are being lost either, something I already noted was of concern to those with passive 3D sets as they effectively have fewer pixels to play with in the first place.

 

Yes directors should have choices and find ones that suit them best but if your choice is that your movie needs to be panoramic then give up putting out 3D bluray because it does not fly.

Reload9000 is offline  
post #219 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:17 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

^^^The problem with blocking someone like Toe is that they often prefer it because it makes them believe they can reply with impunity.  I keep unblocking (all my blocks are short lived on purpose), only to find myself wishing I hadn't.

Do you have anything intelligent/relevant to say as far as my post you responded to? I would be curious to hear a real response from your perspective if you have one.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #220 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:21 AM
Newbie
 
Reload9000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
 

The sad thing about this is that most people wouldn't know why it was that the 3D wasn't that impressive with 2.35, they'd just get a rough sense of the bottom line and potentially use it as a way of condemning 3D as a whole.

 

Thankfully there have been movie makers smart enough to release their 3D versions in 1.78.

 

This is an excellent point, I'd agree that it has damaged the scene. That and slapdash post-prod 3D. These things have helped generate the impression that 3D is a "pointless gimmick". Such a shame when there are movies like Avatar where the overall experience is enhanced as much by the 3D as movies of the past were by having colour or sound.

Reload9000 is offline  
post #221 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reload9000 View Post

And as for your solution, your TV is an expensive, specialist set made not because it makes any sense for anything else but specifically to address this one problem. Which it does through massive additional cost and through putting bars on everything else! This is why 99% of people don't own them. And it also doesn't address the fact that precious pixels of image are being lost either, something I already noted was of concern to those with passive 3D sets as they effectively have fewer pixels to play with in the first place.

 

Passive is an absolutely incredible technology.  It's a requirement for a TV for me.  I held off on buying a Sony until 2013 because of how bad active is.

 

One of the things about passive that I find interesting though.  Using the Zoom feature on wide AR will produce a different effect than it does with active, potentially a positive one.

 

Passive is throwing away every other scanline of information for each eye.  (Note: This isn't technically correct, there's a vertical filter, and LG's technique of alternating fields to fill in 1080p worth of information over two fields are being used but it's good enough for now because you still only get 540 lines per eye at a time).  But the data is still 1080p on the disk.

 

Theoretically the information would be zoomed to the full screen, and then cut down vertically in half.  For the middle region and not the portion not lopped off on the left and right (which obviously happens for both active and passive the moment you zoom), you might be gaining information in passive.  Obviously there would be artifacts with that.  I'll have to experiment with this some.

andy sullivan likes this.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #222 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:26 AM
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I'm not saying 2.35 is "better" for 3d. rolleyes.gif I am saying that it should be left up to the director to decide, period.

You certainly sound as if you are saying that 2.35 is better.

You are shooting 3d stills with your 1.78 screen in mind obviously and movies are not shot with the same perspective since they are traditionally shot with the commercial theater CIH perspective as Josh has explained so well in this thread if you have been reading up to this point (have you?). THERE IS NO INCREASED HEIGHT. The increased height you are seeing for 1.78 vs 2.35 is due to a handicap of your 1.78 display.

a) I do not shoot shoot 3D stills for my 1.78 display.

b )Directors shoot for this perspective not with 3D as their primary version in mind, but for their 2D version. You should remember that native 3D cameras do not shoot natively to this perspective and 3D versions of films that have recently been released in 2.35 are 3D conversions.

c) As far as the height, when shooting scope it definitely changes how a cinematographer frames his shot for the extra width available, often cropping into the height to accommodate the extra width. This is where the height is being impaired on some shots ( Cropping off the tops of heads and other objects. When you you let objects hit the edge of the screen they loose their 3rd dimension potential. )


The only thing your 3d shooting experience applies to is what YOU are specifically trying to shoot. Obviously other directors who are shooting films and not stills feel that in some cases, just like 2d, that scope will better represent their vision over 1.78 and 3d does not change this even though you think your crippled 1.78 should change it for some VERY odd reason.

By your line of thinking, every film made before widescreen TVs hit our households should be filmed in 4:3! Can you imagine if so many classic films were limited to 4:3 like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and so on? eek.gif

You could not be further from the truth. And here is where you keep ruining your argument. This all started with a 3D only perspective in mind and you are now taking it back to everything being shot. I am by no way an old school advocate for 4:3, but am an advocate for keeping high defintion 3D alive. I want film makers to shoot with the best 3D practices in mind so that 3D will remain alive in contemporary films.

Since you never answered the question I posed, I assume that you are experiencing 3D for the first time and have never shot 3D, so really do not understand 3D from a technical shooting perspective. Do not feel alone, a lot of cinematographers and directors are shooting their first films for 3D as well and will learn more as they shoot more of it. Just hope the demand stays around long enough for them to really excel at the craft.
BLWTX is offline  
post #223 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:32 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reload9000 View Post

My TV works fine for everything else, thanks. TV (16:9 or 4:3), 2D movies in any AR, 3D movies in 1.78, any movies in IMAX AR, countless games, displaying photographs, youtube videos and so on. The only cases where it falls over is with these contentious 2.39/2.40 3D movies.

I know you think all the people who have a problem with it are idiots or don't appreciate art but that isn't going to stop us having a real and quantifiable problem.

And as for your solution, your TV is an expensive, specialist set made not because it makes any sense for anything else but specifically to address this one problem. Which it does through massive additional cost and through putting bars on everything else! This is why 99% of people don't own them. And it also doesn't address the fact that precious pixels of image are being lost either, something I already noted was of concern to those with passive 3D sets as they effectively have fewer pixels to play with in the first place.

Yes directors should have choices and find ones that suit them best but if your choice is that your movie needs to be panoramic then give up putting out 3D bluray because it does not fly.


You are missing the whole point as well. The only problem is due to a limitation of your 1.78 screen, but instead of placing blame where it belongs, you want the film to be restricted just to cater to your crippled screen aspect.

My "TV" is no more expensive to go scope vs 1.78, at least doing the zoom method. There is no "massive additional cost" the way I am doing it. It is simply a matter of choosing a 1.78 or 2.35 screen. It does more than just "addressing this one problem". since it keeps the aspects in proper perspective vs one another which is important to me and just happened to work out best with my screen wall (I run out of height before width in my room, so a 2.35 screen made the most sense). Seeing a 1.78 TV show larger vs something shot in scope like LOTR just feels wrong because it is. A 1.78 screen is a good compromise in a sense between broadcast TV and movies, but the big sacrifice you make is presenting movies as far as aspect goes in the exact opposite way as intended (movies are meant to maintain a CIH between 1.78 and scope, not CIW like you get on a 1.78 screen). I am certainly not suggesting a scope screen is right for everyone since there are MANY factors to consider, but it did work out best for me and I enjoy knowing I am experiencing the aspect ratios as intended instead of seeing them backwards like I got on my 1.78 screen for all the years prior to moving to 2.35. You don't have to loose pixels by the way if you simply add an anamorphic lens to your setup which will allow you to use all your projectors pixels.

Scope 3d "flys" just fine and just as well as 1.78

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #224 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reload9000 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
 

The sad thing about this is that most people wouldn't know why it was that the 3D wasn't that impressive with 2.35, they'd just get a rough sense of the bottom line and potentially use it as a way of condemning 3D as a whole.

 

Thankfully there have been movie makers smart enough to release their 3D versions in 1.78.

 

This is an excellent point, I'd agree that it has damaged the scene. That and slapdash post-prod 3D. These things have helped generate the impression that 3D is a "pointless gimmick". Such a shame when there are movies like Avatar where the overall experience is enhanced as much by the 3D as movies of the past were by having colour or sound.

 

Yeah, I've said it a million times by now, but hopefully we're in a new era where 3D isn't there for you to be slapped in the face with it.  The weeding out of schlock films has already started and hopefully the public will get a good sense of how 3D is there for you to forget it's there and to allow you to be quietly pulled into the storyline stronger than ever.  This business however of post production 3D is annoying me.  IMO, all films that have 3D goals in mind should be shot with 3 cameras per mount, but I'll gladly accept 2.  And I certainly won't accept 1, even though Gravity somehow managed to pull off the unthinkable and make it work.  Perhaps because so much of composition of the film was structural CGI in nature?

 

The problem I have is when people misinterpret the weeding out of shlock 3D as a sign that 3D itself was somehow a bad idea.  And that is just infuriating to me.  IMO it's mostly parroted around by people who don't own a 3D set trying to feel validation for it.


No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #225 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:37 AM
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

The sad thing about this is that most people wouldn't know why it was that the 3D wasn't that impressive with 2.35, they'd just get a rough sense of the bottom line and potentially use it as a way of condemning 3D as a whole.

Thankfully there have been movie makers smart enough to release their 3D versions in 1.78.

I could not agree with this more.
RonAlam likes this.
BLWTX is offline  
post #226 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:40 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLWTX View Post

You could not be further from the truth. And here is where you keep ruining your argument. This all started with a 3D only perspective in mind and you are now taking it back to everything being shot. I am by no way an old school advocate for 4:3, but am an advocate for keeping high defintion 3D alive. I want film makers to shoot with the best 3D practices in mind so that 3D will remain alive in contemporary films.

Since you never answered the question I posed, I assume that you are experiencing 3D for the first time and have never shot 3D, so really do not understand 3D from a technical shooting perspective. Do not feel alone, a lot of cinematographers and directors are shooting their first films for 3D as well and will learn more as they shoot more of it. Just hope the demand stays around long enough for them to really excel at the craft.


So you think since you have shot a few 3d "stills" in your time and have been involved in photography for 30 years that you are now an authority on how another director should shoot their 3d film and convey their vision? Do I have this right? smile.gif


No, I have not shot 3d before and it would not have any relevance if I had as far as someone else's project, especially if it was something like stills which is different vs shooting a motion picture.

I have been watching 3d consistently at home for the last 3.5 years on 3 different projectors, so I am not new to 3d in that area. If properly presented as far as CIH, 3d is impressive in both scope and 1.78. Some of my favorite 3d films are in scope, and some are in 1.78. cool.gif

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #227 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 08:56 AM
Member
 
BLWTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I knew it would be a waste of time trying to help you understand the perspective of individuals who prefer 1:78 formatted 3D. Oh well.

I am impressed with your 3.5 years of 3D viewing experience . NOT !!!
BLWTX is offline  
post #228 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 09:11 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLWTX View Post

I knew it would be a waste of time trying to help you understand the perspective of individuals who prefer 1:78 formatted 3D. Oh well.

I am impressed with your 3.5 years of 3D viewing experience . NOT !!!



I was answering your question, certainly not trying to impress you. smile.gif

You guys have made your perspective crystal clear, I just find it sad that we are going back to "them pesky black bar" days and that filling your precious screen is your number one concern over artistic intent. As you said though, it all feels like a waste of time since you guys cant seem to see past your selfish perspective to appreciate the bigger picture (pun intended) and respect OAR for both 2d AND 3d. 3d does not change the aspect rules as much as you guys would like it to so your precious 1.78 screens can be filled. Just like 2d, some 3d films are better conveyed in scope and some in 1.78 which the director is perfectly capable of deciding without your vast knowledge of shooting irrelevant 3d stills.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #229 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 09:30 AM
Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

No doubt and my point was that good directors are not just considering the art alone, but also what will be acceptable by the audience, because that plays to a good business decision. Fortunately, most people haven't complained too much about the lack of filling the screen with 2.35 AR. However, I wonder if a poll were taken, would most people prefer for all movies to be cropped to fill the 1.78 screen? It seems to me that with 3D, most people prefer 1.78 because it expands the Z axis. They may not know that but they certainly understand what looks better to them. It might be interesting to run a poll here to see if people prefer their 3D movies be designed around 1.78 or 2.35 on their 16x 9 screens. We did this a few years ago and the outcome was OAR for 2D and don't change it for the Disk because it was to be played on 16 x 9 TV's. The studios didn't always conform to that request.



Don,
Were votes being taken, I'd definitely be in the 1.78 for 3d camp!
Barry C is offline  
post #230 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 10:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
You know, the easier answer to this whole 2:35/2:40 vs 1:78 preference is for Directors to adopt 1:85 as their go to aspect ratio. Not just for 3D but across the board. I think that would eliminate 80% of the complaints from both side of the argument. I know I would easily live with 1:85.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #231 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 10:33 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

You know, the easier answer to this whole 2:35/2:40 vs 1:78 preference is for Directors to adopt 1:85 as their go to aspect ratio. Not just for 3D but across the board. I think that would eliminate 80% of the complaints from both side of the argument. I know I would easily live with 1:85.


That is a horrible solution in all due respect, then again, there is no problem from my perspective (and anyone who cares about artistic intent/OAR) to begin with.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #232 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rudy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 3,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

You know, the easier answer to this whole 2:35/2:40 vs 1:78 preference is for Directors to adopt 1:85 as their go to aspect ratio. Not just for 3D but across the board. I think that would eliminate 80% of the complaints from both side of the argument. I know I would easily live with 1:85.

You do realize that movie theaters are in direct competition with the millions of television sets deployed throughout the country? That was one of the primary reasons the studios adopted the wide and ultrawide aspect ratios for films. Once TVs started appearing in American homes in ever larger numbers and movie theater attendance started to decline, the studios reacted with various strategies (such as IMAX and Cinerama) to lure audiences back into the theaters.
Rudy1 is offline  
post #233 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

That is a horrible solution in all due respect, then again, there is no problem from my perspective (and anyone who cares about artistic intent/OAR) to begin with.
Why is it such a horrible solution? It still allows for the Directors artistic considerations, just not quite as much as 2:35 but way more than 1:78. It would seem that 1:85 would provide a happy middle ground actually slightly more in the Directors favor. As a buyer of DVD's in general I would find, as I do now, very little hesitance in watching 1:85 vs 1:78. 3D would be more watchable for me than 2:35/2:40 and the Director would only need to make a slight compromise. Yep, 1:85 is the logical choice. Remember, I said only 80% or so would be happy with this.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #234 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 566

1.77777777777777777777777... is 16:9

1.85 equates to 16.65:9

 

They're effectively the same.


No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #235 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy1 View Post

You do realize that movie theaters are in direct competition with the millions of television sets deployed throughout the country? That was one of the primary reasons the studios adopted the wide and ultrawide aspect ratios for films. Once TVs started appearing in American homes in ever larger numbers and movie theater attendance started to decline, the studios reacted with various strategies (such as IMAX and Cinerama) to lure audiences back into the theaters.
I'm not so sure that in 2014 it simply a matter of the movie theaters vs the millions of us TV owners. Many of the studios (SONY) make money from the theater as well as DVD releases. At least in Sony's case they produce the films, own some of the theaters, make their own DVD blanks, sell the dvd players, and sell the TV sets to those same millions of viewers. Also consider that many of those same viewers go to the theater to watch the movie then buy it later for home viewing. A very complicated financial thread running throughout the process. Which is why I see 1:85 as the easiest solution to the aspect ratio used for DVD argument.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #236 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Which is why I see 1:85 as the easiest solution to the aspect ratio used for DVD argument.


Wow...great idea. Make i.85 the standard and lose oall the visually sumptive, eye-filling panoramic cinema vistas that one can only get with widescreen. Just to conform to a 16X9 Yv sets (pr rather, some of the owners). If it comes to that, it will hopefully be years from know when I'm either fead or have no sight! I only have a 47" 3D set...and I'd NEVER buy a cropped-from-2.35 3D movie. Although I have to sit much closer, I haven't been disappointed in any widescreen 3D discs (as far as the 3D alone goes). Can't say the same for things like the cropped I, ROBOT 3D.

cinema13 is offline  
post #237 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Like I stated, my solution will only appeal to maybe 80% of the TV owners out there. No way to actually take a serious survey but I know of not one single person that thinks like you do. Of course I don't personally know anybody here on the AVS Forum where I'm sure a lot of people think like you do. You know, an awful lot of movies are released in 1:85 so some Directors must think it's not so bad and can still manage to express their artistic chops. If you have a 47" display then you must be very comfortable with 2:35/2:40. On that size set it would drive me nuts.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #238 of 292 Old 03-16-2014, 10:28 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Why is it such a horrible solution? It still allows for the Directors artistic considerations


No it doesn't. I wont even entertain your ridiculous suggestion since it's a waste of time. Thankfully your wish will not come true since scope is going nowhere. This would be like me suggesting that everything be released in 2.35 down from 2.40 and this is somehow a great compromise and happy medium for everyone. I would never want to strip a director of the option/choice to film in 1.78/85 or 2.35/40. This idea of yours is not even worth wasting time discussing.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #239 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 06:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 35
The theater I go to has one screen ratio probably close to 1.85:1. And when they show a 2.35:1 film on it, you get the same width with reduced height. In fact, I'm not sure they even mask it, now that I think of it. I remember the old days of film vs. digital, when a wide screen would be shown, they would open up the curtains to either side of the screen to make it wider using anamorphic lens projection and close them for 1.85:1 for normal projection. Just saying, something is different today that makes 2.35:1 films not as impressive as in the past. I would like to know if your theater experience is different. I might try another theater.
threed123 is offline  
post #240 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 10:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

No it doesn't. I wont even entertain your ridiculous suggestion since it's a waste of time. Thankfully your wish will not come true since scope is going nowhere. This would be like me suggesting that everything be released in 2.35 down from 2.40 and this is somehow a great compromise and happy medium for everyone. I would never want to strip a director of the option/choice to film in 1.78/85 or 2.35/40. This idea of yours is not even worth wasting time discussing.
I can certainly understand why some people have blocked you. You don't know how to disagree with others opinions without demeaning them by calling their ideas ridiculous and a waste of time. Please. don't waste your time.
andy sullivan is online now  
Reply 3D Content

Tags
Gravity Blu Ray 3d Blu Ray Dvd Ultraviolet Combo Pack

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