AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 2.35:1 AR is absolute madness
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2.35:1 AR is absolute madness

post #1 of 33
10/18/11 at 7:04pm
Thread Starter 
We have seen what happened with shorter and shorter computer displays. Stop this nonsense before it's too late.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 33
10/18/11 at 7:18pm
Get over it.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 33
10/18/11 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

We have seen what happened with shorter and shorter computer displays. Stop this nonsense before it's too late.

With computer displays it's about the manufacturers getting higher yields and making a cheaper product with 16:9 as opposed to the initial 16:10 aspect ratios. With home theater, it's preserving the theatrical aspect ratio in the home. Movie theaters have curtains to mask the screen, 2.35 is just about replicating that experience. They're totally different and unrelated.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 33
10/18/11 at 11:11pm
Well said.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 33
10/19/11 at 5:34am
That and I love widescreen monitors, more horizontal real estate is great. I don't see it as getting shorter, I see it as getting wider. Who wouldn't want more space, who wouldn't prefer 1680x1050 over 1280x1024?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 33
10/19/11 at 7:13am
'Scope was created in the early 1950's, so depending on how old you are, this "nonsense" has been going on since before you were born.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 33
10/19/11 at 8:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

That and I love widescreen monitors, more horizontal real estate is great. I don't see it as getting shorter, I see it as getting wider. Who wouldn't want more space, who wouldn't prefer 1680x1050 over 1280x1024?

Let's limit the scope to one resolution. I don't know any tech inclined person who can't afford 1920x1200, which is available for 5 years or more. The height shrunk to 1080p. At the time when "True HD" were introduced they costed more defying any reason.

Tech industry moves at astounding pace -- it gets my respect. Hollywood stuck in the 60s with their ridiculous AR which vast majority of images simply don't fit. You movie enthusiasts, please take a closer look and notice how ugly the framing most of the scenes is. Then, come on, "anamorphic", "fish eye" -- what are those dinosaurs, they can't afford digital camera anymore? "Occupy Hollywood"!
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 33
10/19/11 at 9:11am
A smell a troll.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 33
10/19/11 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Let's limit the scope to one resolution.

OK, I'd rather have 1920x1200 than 1600x1200.

Quote:
You movie enthusiasts, please take a closer look and notice how ugly the framing most of the scenes is.

You're not going to get any sympathy, I love scope, the composition, the framing. Square framing just feels cramped.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 33
10/19/11 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Tech industry moves at astounding pace -- it gets my respect. Hollywood stuck in the 60s with their ridiculous AR which vast majority of images simply don't fit. You movie enthusiasts, please take a closer look and notice how ugly the framing most of the scenes is. Then, come on, "anamorphic", "fish eye" -- what are those dinosaurs, they can't afford digital camera anymore? "Occupy Hollywood"!

Wow, 10 posts in and you've made nearly a million enemies on here. Good start.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 33
10/19/11 at 9:48am
So Tegiri, can you give some thoughts of your interest in a CIH home theater? We can help!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 33
10/19/11 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Let's limit the scope to one resolution. I don't know any tech inclined person who can't afford 1920x1200, which is available for 5 years or more. The height shrunk to 1080p. At the time when "True HD" were introduced they costed more defying any reason.

Tech industry moves at astounding pace -- it gets my respect. Hollywood stuck in the 60s with their ridiculous AR which vast majority of images simply don't fit. You movie enthusiasts, please take a closer look and notice how ugly the framing most of the scenes is. Then, come on, "anamorphic", "fish eye" -- what are those dinosaurs, they can't afford digital camera anymore? "Occupy Hollywood"!

What is your purpose in posting in this forum? Trolling behavior is against the forum rules.

If you don't want a 2.35:1 screen, don't buy one. No one is forcing you to. Problem solved. Have a nice day.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 33
10/19/11 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Tech industry moves at astounding pace -- it gets my respect.

Yes and no. As fars an non-viewable tech goes, yes (like CPUs, HDs, etc). When it comes to display tech, no. I had a 1600x1200 22" monitor over 10 years ago. I currently have 1920x1200 monitors and the industry seems to be pushing 1920x1080 monitors. Which is a very small percentage of pixels greater than 1600x1200. Granted, I can get a 2560x1600 monitor, but that isn't considered main stream. It just seems odd to me that computer monitors are declining to tv resolution (or perhaps it's vice versa), when it should be pushing well past tv resolution.

As for movie aspect ratios.. scope all the way!
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 33
10/19/11 at 11:11am
There's Reefer Madness, March Madness, Madness (80's music)....and now 2.35:1 AR Absolute Madness.

I'm in!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 33
10/19/11 at 1:09pm
You're right, 2.35:1 is nonsense. 2.40:1 is where its at.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 33
10/19/11 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liaury View Post

There's Reefer Madness, March Madness, Madness (80's music)....and now 2.35:1 AR Absolute Madness.

I'm in!

And I am a fan of the last two
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 33
10/19/11 at 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Let's limit the scope to one resolution. I don't know any tech inclined person who can't afford 1920x1200, which is available for 5 years or more. The height shrunk to 1080p. At the time when "True HD" were introduced they costed more defying any reason.

Tech industry moves at astounding pace -- it gets my respect. Hollywood stuck in the 60s with their ridiculous AR which vast majority of images simply don't fit. You movie enthusiasts, please take a closer look and notice how ugly the framing most of the scenes is. Then, come on, "anamorphic", "fish eye" -- what are those dinosaurs, they can't afford digital camera anymore? "Occupy Hollywood"!

Ok you are clearly trolling and if not you have an astounding misunderstanding of the economics and culture of Hollywood production. You might get the tech but movies are more than tech.

And you're not going to convince me the guys who develop at places like LucasFilm, Weta, Digital Domain and Pixar (who either came from Silicon Valley or work hand-in-hand with them) are behind the tech curve.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 33
10/20/11 at 2:45am
Its nothing wrong with 2.35:1. Its just that you need a big enough screen so that 4:3 and 16:9 movies dont suffer when they are displayed in that ratio. And at the right distance/screen we do get a better result of watching 16:9 on a 2.35:1 screen then we do watching 2.35:1 on a 16:9 screen.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 33
10/20/11 at 3:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Its nothing wrong with 2.35:1. Its just that you need a big enough screen so that 4:3 and 16:9 movies dont suffer when they are displayed in that ratio. And at the right distance/screen we do get a better result of watching 16:9 on a 2.35:1 screen then we do watching 2.35:1 on a 16:9 screen.

Allot of the "image size" issue is actually based on seating distance. Even Disney (WOW disc) now states 2x the image height for viewing Blu-ray Disc. When seated this close to the screen, 4 x 3, 16:9 and Scope will all take on an immersive feel.

CIH works. Even sports could look better if they used the wider AR.



I've quickly altered this add that was on the side if the post above me to simulate what a Scope TV might look like with sports, and yes I prefer it
LL
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 33
10/20/11 at 8:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

And you're not going to convince me the guys who develop at places like LucasFilm, Weta, Digital Domain and Pixar (who either came from Silicon Valley or work hand-in-hand with them) are behind the tech curve.

Pixar is 3D computer animation -- this could be done in arbitrary aspect ratio. It is silly that they render it @ 2.35:1 AR for theaters, and then it ends up being demoted to 800 lines of vertical res on consumer BRD.

Speaking of 3D, gaming industry revenue volume surpassed movies sometime ago. Game scenes can be rendered in any AR, even on several side-by-side monitors. Yet widescreen propellerheads continue to perpetrate the myth that "modern games are designed for wide AR".

Back to movies -- movie theaters were created at poor times when movie distribution and display were expensive. Both are commodity now. I find it ironic that [relatively] wealthy dudes are trying to mimic an experience at the place which was designed to entertain less fortunate folks. Missed that popcorn smell?
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 33
10/20/11 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Horstkotte View Post

You're right, 2.35:1 is nonsense. 2.40:1 is where its at.

+1 Brad!
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 33
10/20/11 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Pixar is 3D computer animation -- this could be done in arbitrary aspect ratio. It is silly that they render it @ 2.35:1 AR for theaters,

They don't render it "for theaters", they render it is scope becasue that's the composition the creator wanted it to have.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 33
10/20/11 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Horstkotte View Post

You're right, 2.35:1 is nonsense. 2.40:1 is where its at.

2.40:1 is actually 2.39:1

21:9 is actually 64:27

It does not matter whether you consider 2.35:1, 2.37:1, 64:27, 2.39:1 or 2.40:1, the black bars to adjust between them are negligible and take up less than 1% of the image area.

No one has ever complaint about the difference between 16:9 (1.78:1) and 1.85:1, and those bars take up almost 4%

Digital consumer electronics video systems use (4/3)^n aspect ratios, this is easier to handle within the devices: 4:3, 16:9, 64:27.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 33
10/20/11 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Back to movies -- movie theaters were created at poor times when movie distribution and display were expensive. Both are commodity now. I find it ironic that [relatively] wealthy dudes are trying to mimic an experience at the place which was designed to entertain less fortunate folks. Missed that popcorn smell?

Im not wealthy, nor do you need to be to experience 2.35:1 in your home. But im an old school movielover who just want to experience my favourite movies in the right aspect ratio. I dont like it when LOTR is presented less grand then your avarage tv show.

And 2.35:1 were added when TVs came into peoples home, and theaters needed something new to bring people into the theater.

And voila the epic format was born.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 33
10/20/11 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Back to movies -- movie theaters were created at poor times when movie distribution and display were expensive. Both are commodity now. I find it ironic that [relatively] wealthy dudes are trying to mimic an experience at the place which was designed to entertain less fortunate folks. Missed that popcorn smell?

Depending on which point of view you have, it could be said that CinemaScope was introduced to save an industry now faced with the competition of TV. Yet this solution became the industry standard and the choice of major directors.

Those of us with Scope setups at home love our movies and are simply doing what ever it takes to recreate the experience in the home. Do I miss that pop corn smell? No. But I do like the way Scope projection looks in both the cinema and now (thanks to A-Lenses + 16:9 projectors) at home.

Scope just looks more natural to me and I prefer that to the AR chosen for HDTV.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 33
10/20/11 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post


Speaking of 3D, gaming industry revenue volume surpassed movies sometime ago. Game scenes can be rendered in any AR, even on several side-by-side monitors. Yet widescreen propellerheads continue to perpetrate the myth that "modern games are designed for wide AR".

And what will the Aspect Ratio be for several 16:9 or 16:10 screens side-by-side?

Would a gamer prefer screens side-by-side without the dividing black borders?

Why would a gamer want several screens side-by-side? Does the word Immersion ring a bell?

Quote:
Pixar is 3D computer animation -- this could be done in arbitrary aspect ratio. It is silly that they render it @ 2.35:1 AR for theaters, and then it ends up being demoted to 800 lines of vertical res on consumer BRD.

You have a lot to learn about Cameras, Movie making and Displaying movies in a practical world.

Luckily for us the movie industry isn't solely made up of "brain heads", but also have it fair share of artists.

Go and educated yourself somewhat about the subject before you start an argument.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 33
10/20/11 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Pixar is 3D computer animation -- this could be done in arbitrary aspect ratio. It is silly that they render it @ 2.35:1 AR for theaters, and then it ends up being demoted to 800 lines of vertical res on consumer BRD.

Speaking of 3D, gaming industry revenue volume surpassed movies sometime ago. Game scenes can be rendered in any AR, even on several side-by-side monitors. Yet widescreen propellerheads continue to perpetrate the myth that "modern games are designed for wide AR".

I think the only 2.40 Pixar films are Cars, The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Ratatouille. The rest are 1.85. Also there are no cameras, digital or otherwise that support a 1.6 aspect ratio. Digital sensors and 3-perf Super 35 are native 1.77, 4-perf Super 35 is 1.33. It's bad enough trying to get 1.85 and 2.40 from this.

Also the economics of gaming are not even on the same planet of those of Hollywood. There are nowhere near the number of 100-200 million dollar games (if any) as there are movies. The vast majority of games that are developed, including the R&D are not going to amount anything near what it costs to make a motion picture (or have half the legal hangups). The distribution process of gaming is much less complicated too.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 33
10/21/11 at 5:39am
Madness? This! Is! Sparta!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 33
10/21/11 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

I think the only 2.40 Pixar films are Cars, The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Ratatouille. The rest are 1.85.

A Bug's Life and Cars 2 are also 2.40:1.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 33
10/21/11 at 10:03am
It's time to stop feeding the troll, everyone. Tegiri did not come here to have an honest conversation or learn about the subject.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 2.35:1 AR is absolute madness