or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oblivion - Page 4

post #91 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

From listening to your 78's too loud. biggrin.giftongue.gif
That hurts more than you will ever know.....
post #92 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

From listening to your 78's too loud. biggrin.giftongue.gif

Mine came from listening to my Edison wax cylinders too loud. wink.gif
post #93 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Too late for me. I haven't lost too much of it yet, certain higher frequencies notwithstanding, but I have a persistent ringing that's always there. Not bad enough to really interfere with normal activities, but there nonetheless. Wish I had spent a little less time camped out in front of high-powers loudspeakers - in bars and nightclubs, mostly - when I was younger, or at least used earplugs. Like "always use sunscreen", it's valuable advice. frown.gif

Same with me. Loud concerts like Zeppelin, The Who, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Iggy and the Stooges, etc etc., not to mention decades as a club DJ has resulted in tinnitus and a loss of the higher frequencies. But then, the higher volume for some movie presentations allows me to hear what I might ordinarily miss.
Edited by cinema13 - 4/22/13 at 1:00pm
post #94 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

Take into consideration that Oblivion is shot in IMAX format 1.9:1 and is not a post conversion. Probably 90 to 95% of the film is in IMAX format.

No, it wasn't. Precisely none of Oblivion was shot in IMAX format. Much like Skyfall, the movie was shot in 2k digital. Standard theatrical screenings were projected at 2.40:1 aspect ratio, while IMAX screenings were "open matte" to 1.9:1. No film, much less IMAX film, was used in the production of this movie.

While it has a different aspect ratio for IMAX, the resolution of the image is exactly the same as a normal digital theater.
post #95 of 539
My question is what is the OAR of this film? If you watch this video, it almost gives off the vibe that both the IMAX framing and the scope framing could both be considered OAR. At the same time, at the 1:55 mark in the video the director makes the comment that the film was composed for widescreen aspect ratio (which I assume means scope), but he protected for the full frame for IMAX. So what is the OAR??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XlXv_eatutw
post #96 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

My question is what is the OAR of this film? If you watch this video, it almost gives off the vibe that both the IMAX framing and the scope framing could both be considered OAR. At the same time, at the 1:55 mark in the video the director makes the comment that the film was composed for widescreen aspect ratio (which I assume means scope), but he protected for the full frame for IMAX. So what is the OAR??

Per IMDB

Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383)
D-Cinema

Aspect ratio
1.89 : 1 (IMAX version)
2.35 : 1
post #97 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

My question is what is the OAR of this film? If you watch this video, it almost gives off the vibe that both the IMAX framing and the scope framing could both be considered OAR. At the same time, at the 1:55 mark in the video the director makes the comment that the film was composed for widescreen aspect ratio (which I assume means scope), but he protected for the full frame for IMAX. So what is the OAR??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XlXv_eatutw

Most likely, 2.40:1 will be considered "OAR," since the movie will be projected at that ratio in the majority of its screenings. However, the director may reserve the right to claim that 1.9:1 is OAR if he feels that way and approves the home video transfer.

As I said, this is the same scenario for Skyfall and Prometheus. The Blu-rays for both of those movies are 2.40:1.
post #98 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

That hurts more than you will ever know.....

It's a tough love.biggrin.gif Come on over for a Tom Cruise movie marathon. We'll drink, we'll bond, we'll even reenact the infamous jumping up & down on the couch exhibition. And I promise to keep the volume low.tongue.gif
post #99 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

It's a tough love.biggrin.gif Come on over for a Tom Cruise movie marathon. We'll drink, we'll bond, we'll even reenact the infamous jumping up & down on the couch exhibition. And I promise to keep the volume low.tongue.gif
After looking at your HT setup, I am green with envy, sir.
Very nice stuff.

Last I heard Cabo is willing to host an AVS Puke-Fest.....wink.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1405112/django-unchained/120_60#post_23232557
post #100 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

After looking at your HT setup, I am green with envy, sir.
Very nice stuff.

Last I heard Cabo is willing to host an AVS Puke-Fest.....wink.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1405112/django-unchained/120_60#post_23232557
At 1st glance I wasn't all thrilled with the Martin Logan's not a fan of electrostatic speakers but the pair of JL subs got my curiosity but what really got my attention were the Wire world silver eclipse cables. That's big time stuff. Those are breathless, I was shock that anyone here at AVS have them besides Mono price. Not to toot my own horn but I have several sets of Starlight square HDMI and Ultraviolet cables but it's relatively small time compared to those Silver Eclipse....WOW
post #101 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Most likely, 2.40:1 will be considered "OAR," since the movie will be projected at that ratio in the majority of its screenings. However, the director may reserve the right to claim that 1.9:1 is OAR if he feels that way and approves the home video transfer.

As I said, this is the same scenario for Skyfall and Prometheus. The Blu-rays for both of those movies are 2.40:1.

Thanks for the info Josh (and cinema13).
post #102 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

It's a tough love.biggrin.gif Come on over for a Tom Cruise movie marathon. We'll drink, we'll bond, we'll even reenact the infamous jumping up & down on the couch exhibition. And I promise to keep the volume low.tongue.gif

An all this to "Old Time Rock n' Roll" I hope. wink.gif
post #103 of 539
post #104 of 539
This movie was even better in D-Box..The Dr said in a trailer that he filmed it with I/max's 1.90.1 in mined.
post #105 of 539
Saw a matinee yesterday. Enjoyed it. Was able to see most of the twists coming, but I didn't let it bother me. Gorgeous looking film.

Only real problem was the presentation. It was as if I could see the LCD grid. There were maybe eight to ten vertical sections to the image and that doesn't happen with a 35mm print.
post #106 of 539
I saw it Monday afternoon at a "regular" theater. Looked great, very crisp, didn't see the grid Matt speaks of. Didn't see the Big Plot Twist coming either, which probably made it more enjoyable for me.
post #107 of 539
I gots to ask this. Based on the trailer, Morgan Freeman's character is lighting a cigar. Years after the world as we know it has ended, where does one get a cigar? I will still watch this on BR, but I'm just curious if they also have pop tarts? wink.gif
post #108 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobg View Post

I gots to ask this. Based on the trailer, Morgan Freeman's character is lighting a cigar. Years after the world as we know it has ended, where does one get a cigar?

From his humidor, silly.
post #109 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

From his humidor, silly.

Too funny.biggrin.gif
post #110 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

From his humidor, silly.

Nah, Cuba. They didn't destroy Cuba, because...Stogies!
post #111 of 539
Was this thing filmed in 3D?
post #112 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Was this thing filmed in 3D?

Nope. 2D all the way.
post #113 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedeskE View Post

Nah, Cuba. They didn't destroy Cuba, because...Stogies!

Frankly, if the apocalypse happened, most people in Cuba wouldn't be able to tell the difference from how things are there now anyway. smile.gif
post #114 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobg View Post

I gots to ask this. Based on the trailer, Morgan Freeman's character is lighting a cigar. Years after the world as we know it has ended, where does one get a cigar? I will still watch this on BR, but I'm just curious if they also have pop tarts? wink.gif

This is one of several inconsistencies with this movie. I saw it last night on an IMAX screen. Looked and sounded great. The movie seemed like a 'tip of the hat' to other sci-fi classics which also included the music soundtrack which sounded Hans Zimmerish at times. I will resist the temptation to reel off the other movie titles here but you will know them if and when you see this film. I will be interested to see where director Joseph Kosinski's (Tron Legacy) career takes him next.

Tom Cruise (now 50 years old) is finally displaying the gravitas needed to carry a movie role like this. Believe me that hurt to admit since I'm not a big fan of Cruise's personal life, not that he cares I'm sure.

Box Office Mojo did a breakdown of three of his opening sci-fi movies.

Tom Cruise Sci-Fi Showdown

7/10

-G
post #115 of 539
Not a Cruise fan and lean heavily toward the "he does not have much range" side.

That said, paid $40 to see this in IMAX with my kid and do not regret it at all.

However, THAT said, I realized I would have enjoyed this movie just as much if it had no dialog at all. Maybe more, given it would have eliminated some of the glaring logical and scientific errors in the story. I will likely still buy the blu-ray though.

Kosinky's production design and compositional sense are fantastic. He needs to let someone else write and direct the actors though.
post #116 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post


Tom Cruise (now 50 years old) is finally displaying the gravitas needed to carry a movie role like this. Believe me that hurt to admit since I'm not a big fan of Cruise's personal life, not that he cares I'm sure.

I was in the luke warm camp on Cruise until MI3. The scene where they shoot his wife and he is coming apart convinced me that he could act. I'm still not sure he's the best pick for some of the roles he gets (i.e. Reacher), but I do think he has some talent.
post #117 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobg View Post

The scene where they shoot his wife and he is coming apart convinced me that he could act.

Have you seen Magnolia?
post #118 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobg View Post

I was in the luke warm camp on Cruise until MI3. The scene where they shoot his wife and he is coming apart convinced me that he could act. I'm still not sure he's the best pick for some of the roles he gets (i.e. Reacher), but I do think he has some talent.

Contrary to me expectations, I liked Cruise as Jack Reacher. Although I have read all of Lee Child's Jack Reacher books and am well aware that Child's Reacher is 6'5" tall and weighs more than 220. Nevertheless, tiny Tom Cruise's athleticism and a performance, which I thought was true to Reacher's personality, sold me on his portrayal of Reacher.
post #119 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Have you seen Magnolia?

Or Born on the Fourth of July?
post #120 of 539
I want my $15 back. Omega man + planet of the apes beginning, running man middle (book, not movie), Independence Day+Portal ending. I could have saved them a 100 mil or so with a razor blade, tape and access to previous films.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home