Gravity 3D Bluray - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 12:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

And all of this DVD business was regarding JUST 2D.  The argument here isn't about 2D at all:  No one here is dramatically complaining about wide AR in 2D.  However in 3D there is a pronounced effect in losing image height.  Now pay attention this time: It does not matter in the least if some of us with 16:9 TVs can somehow throw away our displays and build a constant image height theater to solve the problem.

The only difference between 2D and 3D aspect ratios is that you have personally decided that you don't like 2.35:1 in 3D. This is not a rule. It's your personal preference, nothing more. And the reason you don't like 2.35:1 in 3D is that you're viewing on a 16:9 TV that is incapable of displaying 2.35:1 movies at the proper intended image height. Do you have this problem when you watch these same movies in the theater? No, you don't, because the image in a theater is tall enough for you there.

Your TV screen is the limiting factor. Get a better display and your entire worldview will turn upside down in mere moments.

Some viewers don't like 2.35:1 for either 2D or 3D. They just hate them darn black bars no matter what. You hold yourself superior to those people, but the only difference between you and them is that you've drawn your line in the sand at 3D and they haven't. The logic you use to support your argument ("The picture is smaller on my TV screen!") is otherwise exactly the same.

You can continue to argue that, "Most people have 16:9 TVs, so directors should make their movies with that in mind." Twenty years ago, most people had 4:3 TVs. If directors at that time had made movies to cater to those viewers, those movies would not hold up over time. Are you 100% certain that 16:9 will be the TV standard forever? Technology changes at a rapid pace these days. The only reason the TV standard moved from 4:3 to 16:9 at all was to make HDTV more like movies.

Over time, TVs are becoming more like movie theater screens, not the other way around. If you don't like the way movies look on your TV screen now, change your TV, not the movie.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 12:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

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.

Have you considered the possibility that your ideas are ridiculous and a waste of time? Perhaps Toe or myself have been a little blunt in pointing this out, but your vocal hatred of black bars is the same nonsense we had to fight against 20 years ago. That war is over, and your side lost a long time ago.
dfergie likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #243 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,351
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

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.

Have you considered the possibility that your ideas are ridiculous and a waste of time? Perhaps Toe or myself have been a little blunt in pointing this out, but your vocal hatred of black bars is the same nonsense we had to fight against 20 years ago. That war is over, and your side lost a long time ago.

 

Here we go again.  I'm not suggesting the 1.85 idea, but you seriously cannot see a difference between the two arguments, can you.  And even if you can or cannot: of the 4.3.....you still didn't answer why there were so many pan-n-scan full screen DVDs if "your side won that war".


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #244 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 01:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Here we go again.  I'm not suggesting the 1.85 idea, but you seriously cannot see a difference between the two arguments, can you. 

I can't see something that doesn't exist.

When it comes to aspect ratio, the only difference between 2D and 3D is that you, as an individual person, don't like 2.35:1 in 3D. That's it. You have extrapolated your own personal preference to being a rule that applies to everyone and that all filmmakers should follow in order to make you happy.

Why is 3D your line in the sand, and not 2D? Because you said so? Do you honestly not comprehend how arbitrary that is?
Quote:
And even if you can or cannot: of the 4.3.....you still didn't answer why there were so many pan-n-scan full screen DVDs if "your side won that war".

And you haven't answered how great those pan & scan DVDs look on your 16:9 HDTV? What a wise investment it was for you to buy those. I hope you enjoy watching them stretched to fill your screen.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #245 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Josh and Toe, I certainly understand your point of view but as you state, most people have 16x9 TV's. Do you have a screen that is 2:35? If you consider that most people, as you said, have 16x9 screens then that is exactly the reason I do not consider my argument ridiculous. Since you refer to the time frame of 20 years ago then perhaps 20 years ago when wide screen HD television broadcasts began to become the norm for home viewing the competition with theater goers was minimal and 4x3 was still the target. That's not the case anymore and why I do feel that Directors in general should think about catering to the vast majority. If the TV manufactures and the TV studios would make 2:35 the norm for home viewing then there would be no complaints at all. Since for whatever reason they won't then it seems like 1:85 allows for a more room for artistic expression than 4x3 and less than 2:35. More filling of the screen but still black bars, just not as narrow. It's a compromise I can live with but apparently you can't. I could be wrong but I think that the only mass produced 2:35 television set was made by Vizio and it did not sell very well.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #246 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 01:58 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

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.

Sorry you feel that way. I am open to friendly debate on many things and have lots of friends here at AVS that I have made over the years where we can respectfully disagree with eachother at times and move on, but I am not open to the BS you and a few others are spewing in this thread. My stance is firm on this and I flat out have ZERO respect for any opinion or wish like the one you presented for all the reasons I have mentioned and find it sad that we are even having this argument at AVS.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #247 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 02:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,351
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Why is 3D your line in the sand, and not 2D? Because you said so? Do you honestly not comprehend how arbitrary that is?

 

"Arbitrary"?  Because "I said so"?  Meaning that 2D and 3D have the precise same rule set regarding visual impact?

 

Two people who actually make films chimed in on this.  3D movies that are of some wide AR in 2D have been released in 1.78 because of this.  Was James Cameron just a hack who should have consulted you before releasing the 3DBD?

 

Do you honestly not comprehend that some of these arguments that 3D is different might actually hold water?

 

Or do they not hold water simply because "you said so"...


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #248 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Sorry you feel that way. I am open to friendly debate on many things and have lots of friends here at AVS that I have made over the years where we can respectfully disagree with eachother at times and move on, but I am not open to the BS you and a few others are spewing in this thread. My stance is firm on this and I flat out have ZERO respect for any opinion or wish like the one you presented for all the reasons I have mentioned and find it sad that we are even having this argument at AVS.
Friendly debate? Respectively disagree with each other? Yet you refer to my opinion and a few others as BS. I've never said that your opinion is BS. Your stance is firm and you have ZERO respect for any opinion like mine. Yet I've never said that to you. I guess we also have differing opinions on the meaning of :"friendly debate".
andy sullivan is online now  
post #249 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 02:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

"Arbitrary"?  Because "I said so"?  Meaning that 2D and 3D have the precise same rule set regarding visual impact?

Two people who actually make films chimed in on this.  3D movies that are of some wide AR in 2D have been released in 1.78 because of this.

More 3D movies are released to theaters every year in 2.35:1 than in 1.85:1. That fact speaks for itself.
Quote:
Was James Cameron just a hack who should have consulted you before releasing the 3DBD?

James Cameron released Avatar to theaters in multiple aspect ratio options, and instructed theaters to project whichever one would be largest in the specific auditorium. Some copies were 1.85:1, some were 2.35:1, and some were cropped to 1.44:1 for IMAX. I saw it in 2.35:1 3D.
Quote:
Do you honestly not comprehend that some of these arguments that 3D is different might actually hold water?

The entire argument is based on the assumption that the 2.35:1 image is smaller than a 1.85:1 image, which is a limitation of your 16:9 TV, and has nothing to do with how the movie was designed to play in theaters.

The hobby we're in is called home theater, not "home TV." We build home theaters to emulate professional cinemas and maximize the movie-watching experience. What you want to do is dumb down the entire filmmaking and cinema experience to emulate your rinky-dink television, compromising the results for the rest of us who strive for better.

TVs need to become more like movies, not the other way around. The TV is just a stupid box that we need in order to view movies. The box should not be considered more important than the content you view on it. If that's how you feel, your priorities are completely backwards.

You will get likely upgrade your TV to a bigger and better model in a few years. Once the movie is made, it's locked into the limitations imposed upon it forever.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #250 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 02:49 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Friendly debate? Respectively disagree with each other? Yet you refer to my opinion and a few others as BS. I've never said that your opinion is BS. Your stance is firm and you have ZERO respect for any opinion like mine. Yet I've never said that to you. I guess we also have differing opinions on the meaning of :"friendly debate".

I don't consider what we are doing here friendly debate, but rather flat out disagreement because I am not open AT ALL to your ridiculous suggestion of making everything 1.85 across the board. Sorry to be so blunt, but suggesting a 1.85 across the board move for movies just to conform to your 1.78 display and eliminating scope in the process is a totally ridiculous suggestion for all the reasons me, Josh and a few others have mentioned.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #251 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

That's not the case anymore and why I do feel that Directors in general should think about catering to the vast majority. If the TV manufactures and the TV studios would make 2:35 the norm for home viewing then there would be no complaints at all. Since for whatever reason they won't then it seems like 1:85 allows for a more room for artistic expression than 4x3 and less than 2:35. More filling of the screen but still black bars, just not as narrow. It's a compromise I can live with but apparently you can't. I could be wrong but I think that the only mass produced 2:35 television set was made by Vizio and it did not sell very well.

The vast majority like Brittany Spears over the Rolling Stones.

The vast majority use crayons more than oil paint.

The vast majority prefer "Duck Dynasty" over "Sherlock"

And if there were 2.35 screens, you'd be upset that 1.85 movies have bars on the side and don't fill your screen.

cinema13 is offline  
post #252 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 03:13 PM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
The only thing lacking here is what format the Republicans like over the Democrats...will the last person texting on this thread please turn out the lights
so I can watch my 3D in peace.rolleyes.gifbiggrin.gif
tgm1024 likes this.
threed123 is offline  
post #253 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 03:28 PM
Member
 
Isnoreatmovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I'm a republican and I say I don't care, maybe it's because of that free enterprise thing, but whatever the director wants is fine by me.
Isnoreatmovies is offline  
post #254 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,351
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

"Arbitrary"?  Because "I said so"?  Meaning that 2D and 3D have the precise same rule set regarding visual impact?

Two people who actually make films chimed in on this.  3D movies that are of some wide AR in 2D have been released in 1.78 because of this.

More 3D movies are released to theaters every year in 2.35:1 than in 1.85:1. That fact speaks for itself.

 

There is no such thing as a fact that speaks for itself.  Everything takes a discussion.  I am talking primarily talking about 3DBD releases.  This thread is about the 3DBD release of Gravity.

 

 

Quote:

 

Quote:

Was James Cameron just a hack who should have consulted you before releasing the 3DBD?

James Cameron released Avatar to theaters in multiple aspect ratio options, and instructed theaters to project whichever one would be largest in the specific auditorium. Some copies were 1.85:1, some were 2.35:1, and some were cropped to 1.44:1 for IMAX. I saw it in 2.35:1 3D.

 

Did you notice the "3DBD" I put in????????  Look again.  3DBD means "3D Blu-ray Disc".  I have been talking about home viewing.

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

Do you honestly not comprehend that some of these arguments that 3D is different might actually hold water?

The entire argument is based on the assumption that the 2.35:1 image is smaller than a 1.85:1 image, which is a limitation of your 16:9 TV, and has nothing to do with how the movie was designed to play in theaters.

The hobby we're in is called home theater, not "home TV." We build home theaters to emulate professional cinemas and maximize the movie-watching experience. What you want to do is dumb down the entire filmmaking and cinema experience to emulate your rinky-dink television, compromising the results for the rest of us who strive for better.

TVs need to become more like movies, not the other way around. The TV is just a stupid box that we need in order to view movies. The box should not be considered more important than the content you view on it. If that's how you feel, your priorities are completely backwards.

You will get likely upgrade your TV to a bigger and better model in a few years. Once the movie is made, it's locked into the limitations imposed upon it forever.

 

...which means you do or do NOT understand why some 3D BD's are 1.78 when their 2D BD's shipped right along side them are a wide AR?  Were they mistakes?  Were they goofs?  Or is there something more to it perhaps?

 

Do you or do you not understand that this statement of yours:

Quote:
Why is 3D your line in the sand, and not 2D? Because you said so? Do you honestly not comprehend how arbitrary that is?

...is nonsense because there is something different about 3D with respect to aspect ratio that others have commented on?

 

And by the way, I don't know about YOUR priorities, but my priorities are not theatrical releases.  The vast majority of what I watch is TV content: premium channel serialized TV.  HBO/Starz/Showtime/etc.  Think in terms of Homeland, Black Sails, The Sopranos, etc.  Movies are secondary.  But when I do watch movies, I want them in 3D if appropriate and of quality, and then I prefer them in 1.78.  If I see something in 2D, on a 60" screen it is not prohibitively shrunken down so a wide AR (if that's the original AR) is fine----it does not have the same problem with edge-severed objects in a tight volume.  In 3D (for the reasons Don and others have been talking about) there is a problem in 3D when the angular height is limited.


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #255 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

More 3D movies are released to theaters every year in 2.35:1 than in 1.85:1. That fact speaks for itself.
James Cameron released Avatar to theaters in multiple aspect ratio options, and instructed theaters to project whichever one would be largest in the specific auditorium. Some copies were 1.85:1, some were 2.35:1, and some were cropped to 1.44:1 for IMAX. I saw it in 2.35:1 3D.
The entire argument is based on the assumption that the 2.35:1 image is smaller than a 1.85:1 image, which is a limitation of your 16:9 TV, and has nothing to do with how the movie was designed to play in theaters.

The hobby we're in is called home theater, not "home TV." We build home theaters to emulate professional cinemas and maximize the movie-watching experience. What you want to do is dumb down the entire filmmaking and cinema experience to emulate your rinky-dink television, compromising the results for the rest of us who strive for better.

TVs need to become more like movies, not the other way around. The TV is just a stupid box that we need in order to view movies. The box should not be considered more important than the content you view on it. If that's how you feel, your priorities are completely backwards.

You will get likely upgrade your TV to a bigger and better model in a few years. Once the movie is made, it's locked into the limitations imposed upon it forever.
WE build home theaters to emulate professional cinemas? WE DO? Your snobbery is showing because I know not one single person that has anything other than a sad old TV to watch movies on. TV's are just stupid boxes? I guess us low life's will just have to muddle along with our unsophisticated stupid boxes . By the way, I doubt very many of us consider our TV investments to be as you call them, rinky-dink. Most of us buy and live with what fits our budget.
tgm1024 likes this.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #256 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
As someone who doesn't really care, I find this whole argument very entertaining.
PAPA T likes this.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #257 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 05:56 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

As someone who doesn't really care, I find this whole argument very entertaining.

Good to know there was some redeeming value to this otherwise apparent huge waste of time! tongue.gif ! I'm done though as this is unfortunately going nowhere. Fortunately most AVS members understand and respect OAR/artistic intent. It's been interesting......

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #258 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,351
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

As someone who doesn't really care, I find this whole argument very entertaining.
glad someone does...lol

Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #259 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 09:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I am talking primarily talking about 3DBD releases. This thread is about the 3DBD release of Gravity.

3D movies are made for theaters. 3D movies are released on Blu-ray in the same aspect ratio that they played in theaters. The 3D Blu-ray release of Gravity has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, the same as it played in theaters.
Quote:
...which means you do or do NOT understand why some 3D BD's are 1.78 when their 2D BD's shipped right along side them are a wide AR? Were they mistakes? Were they goofs? Or is there something more to it perhaps?

Please tell me precisely how many Blu-rays have been released with a 3D disc at 1.78:1 while the 2D disc is 2.35:1. Please name them all. Here, let me help you out. There's Titanic and I, Robot and... Hmmm... As far as I'm aware, that's it. Just the two. And I don't believe that the director of I, Robot participated with the 3D conversion or had any say when the studio decided to crop it.

So, you've basically got one director on your side. James Cameron feels that 16:9 is a better aspect ratio for 3D than 2.35:1, and chose to crop Titanic. That's his opinion, and he can do what he wants with his own movies, but James Cameron does not speak for all filmmakers. Many other directors prefer to shoot their 3D movies at 2.35:1 and release them on Blu-ray at 2.35:1.
Quote:
And by the way, I don't know about YOUR priorities, but my priorities are not theatrical releases.  The vast majority of what I watch is TV content: premium channel serialized TV.  HBO/Starz/Showtime/etc.  Think in terms of Homeland, Black Sails, The Sopranos, etc.  Movies are secondary. 

This thread is about 3D movies. How many of those cable TV shows are 3D? Oh, that's right, zero. I fail to see the relevance in your bringing them up.
Quote:
But when I do watch movies, I want them in 3D if appropriate and of quality, and then I prefer them in 1.78.  If I see something in 2D, on a 60" screen it is not prohibitively shrunken down so a wide AR (if that's the original AR) is fine----it does not have the same problem with edge-severed objects in a tight volume.  In 3D (for the reasons Don and others have been talking about) there is a problem in 3D when the angular height is limited.

Again, the "angular height" issue is your TV's fault, not the movie's fault. Do not dictate to filmmakers how they should make their theatrical movies due to the inadequacy of your television, which you will very likely replace in a few years anyway.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #260 of 292 Old 03-17-2014, 09:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

WE build home theaters to emulate professional cinemas? WE DO? Your snobbery is showing because I know not one single person that has anything other than a sad old TV to watch movies on. TV's are just stupid boxes? I guess us low life's will just have to muddle along with our unsophisticated stupid boxes . By the way, I doubt very many of us consider our TV investments to be as you call them, rinky-dink. Most of us buy and live with what fits our budget.

Where do you think you're having this conversation? This is the AVScience Forum, a home theater discussion group, not Ain't It Cool News. If you want to talk about movies with a bunch of like-minded people who don't give a crap what they look like, you're on the wrong web site.
Jayadub likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #261 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 06:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,351
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761

I've had it Josh.  You and your buddy Toe continue to ignore what others (including those that actually create films) are saying about 3D being different; that there's something else going on; that 3D vs 2D AR issues are not "arbitrary" as you put it.  You continually draw inappropriate parallels to a 4:3 world, stating that the era of DVD's somehow had wide AR's fully embraced (when they were not), and in general are completely content in claiming that overwhelming world of 16:9 TV owners have no right to desire 1.78 (or even 1.85) 3D and should put up with wide AR without mentioning anything because they are not set up like your sliver of a market share of theater setup.

 

The only thing that will result from this is an increase in people being less impressed with 3D than they otherwise would have been.  3D has enough of an uphill battle in the world of unintelligent press; it sure doesn't need people with absurdly rare home setups claiming it's everyone else's fault they don't like their 3D as much.

 

I'll leave it to the others to put up with you.  I'm out of here and unsubscribing.  Enjoy your expensive home theater.


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #262 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 09:01 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've had it Josh. You and your buddy Toe continue to ignore what others (including those that actually create films) are saying about 3D being different; that there's something else going on; that 3D vs 2D AR issues are not "arbitrary" as you put it. You continually draw inappropriate parallels to a 4:3 world, stating that the era of DVD's somehow had wide AR's fully embraced (when they were not), and in general are completely content in claiming that overwhelming world of 16:9 TV owners have no right to desire 1.78 (or even 1.85) 3D and should put up with wide AR without mentioning anything because they are not set up like your sliver of a market share of theater setup.

The only thing that will result from this is an increase in people being less impressed with 3D than they otherwise would have been. 3D has enough of an uphill battle in the world of unintelligent press; it sure doesn't need people with absurdly rare home setups claiming it's everyone else's fault they don't like their 3D as much.

I'll leave it to the others to put up with you. I'm out of here and unsubscribing. Enjoy your expensive home theater.

I just cant stay away from this ridiculousness........


The level of ignorance in the post above is precisely why this discussion is pointless since nothing has apparently sunk in with all the excellent and logical info (including some undisputable facts from Josh) that has been provided by Josh and a few others (including me) in here. Your response above still shows that you are missing the entire point of what we are saying and refuse to be open to learn.

Instead of dancing around Josh's last post tgm1024, how about an intelligent response? In particular, could you please provide a list of films that have been released in scope in 2d, but 1.78 in 3d besides the two mentioned? I for one did not buy I-Robot in 3d due to it being cropped to 1.78 for the 3d version, and I have read quite a few other members here deciding not to buy for the same reason which goes directly against your theory. Besides I-Robot and Titanic, please list other scope 2d titles that have been released in 1.78 for the 3d version!
Jayadub likes this.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #263 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 09:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rudy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 3,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 103
I see the whole "hoi polloi" vs "the aristocracy" mentality is still alive and well at the AVSF. Guys, don't take any of this stuff too seriously...you'll give yourselves an ulcer. biggrin.gif
Rudy1 is online now  
post #264 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've had it Josh.  You and your buddy Toe continue to ignore what others (including those that actually create films) are saying about 3D being different; that there's something else going on; that 3D vs 2D AR issues are not "arbitrary" as you put it. 

I have already explained to you why you are wrong. At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. Meanwhile, numerous directors will continue to make 3D feature films at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio when they feel that works best for them, regardless of how much you want them to dumb down their movies to fit your precious, precious TV screen.
Quote:
You continually draw inappropriate parallels to a 4:3 world, stating that the era of DVD's somehow had wide AR's fully embraced (when they were not),

The concept of Original Aspect Ratio has been embraced since the start of the DVD era. For every pan & scan DVD release, the same movie was also released with an OAR transfer. I can only think of a small handful of cases where a movie was only released in pan & scan without a separate OAR option.

I will ask you again: How do all those pan & scan DVDs you bought look on your current HDTV?
Quote:
and in general are completely content in claiming that overwhelming world of 16:9 TV owners have no right to desire 1.78 (or even 1.85) 3D and should put up with wide AR without mentioning anything because they are not set up like your sliver of a market share of theater setup.

You will get a better television in the future. Directors making movies today have to plan for the longevity of their films.
Quote:
The only thing that will result from this is an increase in people being less impressed with 3D than they otherwise would have been.  3D has enough of an uphill battle in the world of unintelligent press; it sure doesn't need people with absurdly rare home setups claiming it's everyone else's fault they don't like their 3D as much.

The reasons that home 3D is dying have nothing at all to do with aspect ratio. That's a correlation you've invented in your head to support your argument.
Quote:
Enjoy your expensive home theater.

I will, thank you.
Jayadub likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #265 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 105
I don't buy the "home 3D is dying" outlook. Sales seem to show otherwise. GRAVITY is the fast-selling 3D title since PROMETHEUS. THOR 3 sold (and is still) selling very well. And now Disney/Pixar has announced 3D releases of THE INCREDIBLES (in 2.35, by the way...to TGM's dismay) )and RATATOULLE. The industry may no longer be pushing it but consumers seem to be rising.
Jayadub likes this.

cinema13 is offline  
post #266 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 10:26 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

I don't buy the "home 3D is dying" outlook. Sales seem to show otherwise. GRAVITY is the fast-selling 3D title since PROMETHEUS. THOR 3 sold (and is still) selling very well. And now Disney/Pixar has announced 3D releases of THE INCREDIBLES (in 2.35, by the way...to TGM's dismay) )and RATATOULLE. The industry may no longer be pushing it but consumers seem to be rising.

Thanks for the info on Incredibles and Rat as I had not heard this news! cool.gif Are there release dates set for them yet?

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #267 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Thanks for the info on Incredibles and Rat as I had not heard this news! cool.gif Are there release dates set for them yet?

No release dates specified. But from the sound of it, RATATOULLE may already be completed. As the article (link in a separate thread) indicated, they are still working on a release strategy (FROZEN 3D anyone?)...I'd guess theatrical re-release first with BD to follow. Personally, I don't see RATATOULLE being a large theatrical draw. But INCREDIBLES might be.
Toe likes this.

cinema13 is offline  
post #268 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
thebignewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 25
For my info only: If the original OAR was 2.35 (Gravity) it's wider than our 16:9 TVs. So to show on those there are black bars on the top and bottom right? I think I remember that when I watched in 3D recently. And the 16:9 ratio was because of TV programming mainly right? Can you even buy TVs in 2.35, or do you buy a projector and a screen to project it on? Thanks. I'm skipping the drama just trying to understand the practicality of it. If it helps I can insult people maybe! biggrin.gif

Samsung ES8000 65", Evo Kit installed, Yamaha AVR with Paradigm speakers, iMac, iPad, Apple TV and HTC One phone.
thebignewt is offline  
post #269 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 01:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebignewt View Post

For my info only: If the original OAR was 2.35 (Gravity) it's wider than our 16:9 TVs. So to show on those there are black bars on the top and bottom right? I think I remember that when I watched in 3D recently. And the 16:9 ratio was because of TV programming mainly right? Can you even buy TVs in 2.35, or do you buy a projector and a screen to project it on? Thanks. I'm skipping the drama just trying to understand the practicality of it. If it helps I can insult people maybe! biggrin.gif

This should help:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013/

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #270 of 292 Old 03-18-2014, 01:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

I don't buy the "home 3D is dying" outlook. Sales seem to show otherwise. GRAVITY is the fast-selling 3D title since PROMETHEUS. THOR 3 sold (and is still) selling very well. And now Disney/Pixar has announced 3D releases of THE INCREDIBLES (in 2.35, by the way...to TGM's dismay) )and RATATOULLE. The industry may no longer be pushing it but consumers seem to be rising.
Frozen is being released in 3D in England but not the US. My wife is very unhappy even though I hear some are ordering it from England.
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