How many movies are actually 16x9? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 43 Old 12-31-2017, 10:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 718 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
The keyword in your post is “TV” you are correct with a TV you are set in stone as to your options. The beauty of projection is you have zoom. With zoom you can watch content year in and year out as CIH (flat and scope) and when Nolan pops out an expanding IMAX1.89 blockbuster you can easily watch that also. Do I wish I could get the true IMAX feature somehow for home? I sure do. Do I wish a movie like Sully would have been released the way Avatar was giving me the IMAX1.89 version? I sure do.

With TV all you can do is slide your seating around.
It was not TV or projection but both as far as showing home presentations.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.

Some servers can do non-encrypted playback to an A/V projector, but it's just a ridiculously expensive media player if you don't have a cinema projector.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 43 Old 01-01-2018, 08:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 243 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1387 Post(s)
Liked: 1503
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
It was not TV or projection but both as far as showing home presentations.
IMAX is CIW plain and simple. None of their presentations are ever pillarboxed so its CIW. They vary their aspect in height only, therefore its a CIW. 1.43 Imax as we know it is all but done.
coolrda is offline  
post #33 of 43 Old 01-02-2018, 06:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 51
And All I asked was essentially, If I was watching The Dark Night, or Interstellar, how many minutes would be in Cinemascope versus how many minutes would be in "other" aspect ratio and wondering if someone had that figured out.

Watching Interstellar on my 2:40 screen utilizing a Panamorph Palladin lens, I didn't notice the aspect changes unlike watching it without the lens. And again, while there are examples of other filmmakers doing this, it is primarily Nolan doing it now.

My original question was to ultimately see if (should Hollywood adopt this style) we should be looking at general do everything aspect ratio screens. I see a number of 2.0 aspect ratio screens being inquired about, but there is no masking
to address the black pillar boxes on the material and masking isn't fast enough to handle the film changes. Besides, I think if masking was deployed during the move, it would be off-putting with movement and noise, effectively taking me out of the experience.
Killer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 43 Old 01-02-2018, 08:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,557
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2013 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
And All I asked was essentially, If I was watching The Dark Night, or Interstellar, how many minutes would be in Cinemascope versus how many minutes would be in "other" aspect ratio and wondering if someone had that figured out.

Watching Interstellar on my 2:40 screen utilizing a Panamorph Palladin lens, I didn't notice the aspect changes unlike watching it without the lens. And again, while there are examples of other filmmakers doing this, it is primarily Nolan doing it now.

My original question was to ultimately see if (should Hollywood adopt this style) we should be looking at general do everything aspect ratio screens. I see a number of 2.0 aspect ratio screens being inquired about, but there is no masking
to address the black pillar boxes on the material and masking isn't fast enough to handle the film changes. Besides, I think if masking was deployed during the move, it would be off-putting with movement and noise, effectively taking me out of the experience.
Sorry if your initial question was misunderstood. I have no data on the times expanded vs another AR and I’m pretty sure there is no formula for it. The director uses it for his artistic desire or because he is shooting with IMAX cameras of choice but cant practically use them in all shots. Whatever the reason the transitions take place and how annoying they are I believe has a lot to do with how involved you are in thinking about these topics when not viewing movies. The same is true about gray bars.

Just the other day I did 2 showing of Dunkirk as CIH+IMAX as my system allows for that. So the presentation was CIH with a screen height during the non IMAX parts where the seating distance was 2 times the screen height. I would call that an immersive level, and then when the image expanded in height for the IMAX parts it was more like 1.5 screen height to seating distance. Very immersive.

All the people watching except myself were casual moviegoers that have no idea about any of this stuff that seems important to us students of cinema. The movie expanded and contracted quite a bit. I noticed the first few in the first viewing and then became enthralled in the movie and forgot to look for them. after both showings I asked everyone if they were bothers by the changing AR or the gray bars and none of them had a clue what I was talking about. After I explained it not one person even noticed it and one person insisted it didn’t happen.

To the question if some of us might want to think differently about presentation and screen AR and size based around the changing face of the media we watch I say yes some of us should and I have. For me I took the simplest of approaches and found it to be best for me. I use a stealth screen wall as a screen and have no limitations on size or AR. I project to a .5 gain simple neutral gray screen surface that I feel minimizes the gray bars and allows for self masking that is very good for most situations and I also have a system for 4way masking that is manual if I care to set it up for a special screening of something. Day to day I’m not that bothered by self-masking and everyone else as mentioned above could care less.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #35 of 43 Old 01-02-2018, 08:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,557
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2013 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
IMAX is CIW plain and simple. None of their presentations are ever pillarboxed so its CIW. They vary their aspect in height only, therefore its a CIW. 1.43 Imax as we know it is all but done.
If you have a TV or a projector without an A-lens what you have is CI_16:9. Modern media for home is based around this window and you have to live inside it.

The thing a projector has that no other displays have is the ability to zoom. If you don’t zoom then you have TV and you have CI_16:9 whatever you put in it will occupy whatever direction limits it.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #36 of 43 Old 01-02-2018, 10:04 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,552
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3827 Post(s)
Liked: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
And All I asked was essentially, If I was watching The Dark Night, or Interstellar, how many minutes would be in Cinemascope versus how many minutes would be in "other" aspect ratio and wondering if someone had that figured out.
If that's what you wanted to know, the initial question was not worded very clearly.

The problem is that in many of these variable-ratio movies, the screen ratio flips back and forth rapidly, sometimes multiple times per scene, so it's difficult to quantify how much time is spent in any one ratio.

I did a full breakdown of the aspect ratio changes in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen a while back. That movie has a number of IMAX shots that only last a few seconds before flipping back to scope for another few seconds, then IMAX, then scope, then IMAX, etc. The Devastator scene at the end flitters back and forth enough to give a person a seizure.

https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/278...enge_imax.html

Star Trek: Into Darkness is very similar with its use of IMAX.

In the original Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan switched to IMAX for most of the big action scenes, but would also occasionally insert a 10- or 15-second establishing shot to start a regular scene in IMAX too. The more of these movies he makes, the more he pushes to use as much IMAX as he can. The Dark Knight Rises has a larger percentage of IMAX than The Dark Knight did (and it's used much less purposefully; random shots will switch to IMAX for no discernible reason other than that he was able to get an IMAX camera into the location that day). Allegedly, Dunkirk is about 70% IMAX.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
post #37 of 43 Old 01-04-2018, 01:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Yet regardless of the amount of times these movies switch, the main action is still framed to work in a CIH set up. This is why when watching INTERSTELLAR that you would not have noticed the AR changes when using an A-Lens.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #38 of 43 Old 01-04-2018, 08:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Slightly OT but watching shows on Netflix on a new UHD TV and I noticed some weird stuff going on with the letter boxing.

Great to see how many shows are now scope and a heap of other programming is a ratio somewhere between Scope and 16:9. Almost like 2.00:1?

The strangest one is the vertical offset of The Fifth Element where the bottom bar was half thickness of normal letter boxing and the balance added to the top bar. This means it would not work on my CIH setup.



Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk
Several Netflix shows have an aspect ratio of 2.00:1

House of Cards is another one.
CAVX likes this.
The_Height_of_Folly is offline  
post #39 of 43 Old 01-07-2018, 05:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Height_of_Folly View Post
Several Netflix shows have an aspect ratio of 2.00:1

House of Cards is another one.
So I noticed. I wish displays were 2.37:1 instead of 1.78:1. These kinds of shows would then have smallish pillars on the sides.

The FIFTH ELEMENT is the only non centred WS presentation so far.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #40 of 43 Old 05-14-2018, 04:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 718 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
IMAX is CIW plain and simple. None of their presentations are ever pillarboxed so its CIW. They vary their aspect in height only, therefore its a CIW. 1.43 Imax as we know it is all but done.
IMAX is 1.9:1. No matter what is shown it is in 1.9:1. Unless you are at a 2.00:1 IMAX. They selected this for digital as a more better fit for the 70x48.5MM IMAX 70 film.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.

Some servers can do non-encrypted playback to an A/V projector, but it's just a ridiculously expensive media player if you don't have a cinema projector.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #41 of 43 Old 05-14-2018, 07:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 988
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 816 Post(s)
Liked: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
IMAX is 1.9:1. No matter what is shown it is in 1.9:1. Unless you are at a 2.00:1 IMAX. They selected this for digital as a more better fit for the 70x48.5MM IMAX 70 film.
Well, they also "selected" that aspect ratio, if selected is the right term, because that's the aspect ratio of the DLP chip used for digital projection...

The very biggest IMAX screens, the ones most people think of as "real IMAX," are still in the old 1.43:1 aspect ratio, and there are plans afoot to utilize vertical anamorphics to fill that full frame.
dschulz is offline  
post #42 of 43 Old 05-15-2018, 08:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 630 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
So I noticed. I wish displays were 2.37:1 instead of 1.78:1. These kinds of shows would then have smallish pillars on the sides.

The FIFTH ELEMENT is the only non centred WS presentation so far.
I'm glad this thread got bumped. I had been looking for this reference to Fifth Element not being centered and could not find it. @CAVX , what did you mean? Is there a problem with a certain disk?

Ultimately wondering if the 4k UHD is mastered properly to work with a lens without having to move the image up or down.
ScottAvery is offline  
post #43 of 43 Old 05-15-2018, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
I'm glad this thread got bumped. I had been looking for this reference to Fifth Element not being centered and could not find it. @CAVX , what did you mean? Is there a problem with a certain disk?

Ultimately wondering if the 4k UHD is mastered properly to work with a lens without having to move the image up or down.
Fifth Element on Netflix is not centered. The 4K BD seems to be fine.

If you think of the 16:9 screen being 9 units high, you might almost say the active image is 7 units high inside that 9 units.
With the netflix, it is like half a unit on one black bar and 1.5 units on the other. So instead of being vertically systemetrical, after scaling, you lose some picture and still have some black bar. Really annoyed that they did this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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