List of Variable Aspect Ratio Movies on Blu-ray - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 87Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 196 Old 04-11-2018, 11:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Why would I need to move my seating when I’ve designed it to IMAX Digital(LieMAX) specs of immersion. I’m already inside the viewing area of my local imax which has a 60ft wide screen. Then I add my lens. It would be like my local IMAX slapping an 1.25x A lens on to go 75ft wide. I did consider IMAX and used their spec when deciding on screen size.
Because that is the same logic I’m always told is in error in my system of presentation.

Using that logic a case could be made the guy with a CIW setup is actually watching within the standards of proper presentation because his Flat movie watching is like he is in the front of the theater and his Scope movie watching he is sitting in the back of the theater.

The overlap between historic standards for cinema and IMAX are a bit more blurred because they are different standards written by different organizations it is really a misnomer when I or anyone talks about CIH+IMAX because they are two unrelated things except how we chose to relate them ourselves. IMAX theaters do show Scope presentations though so in a way that may give a little credit to how I think they are related in terms of immersion.

If I understand what you are saying is when you go to a commercial IMAX1.89 theater to watch a IMAX1.89 movie you prefer to sit more to the back of the theater but if you know they are showing a scope movie you would like to be closer. Then your screen selection and presentation method seems to be correct for you. The only time it throws me off is when you have to deal with an expanding AR movie. Each time the movie expands you would need to change your seat to have your desired immersion.

Most people I believe like IMAX all AR’s of it to be the same width as Scope. I haven’t compared the theater specs to see if say the dead center seat provides that relationship or not. I know in general that relationship works best for myself.
Shizzlenits likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 196 Old 04-11-2018, 02:31 PM
Member
 
Shizzlenits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I think you should consider that you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum. If you have no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, why are you here?
I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm seeking new VAR Blu-rays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
And yet 2.35:1 movies are always displayed smaller than 1.85:1 movies or 16:9 TV shows, which is exactly the opposite of the artistic intent. The vast sweeping epic desert landscape of Lawrence of Arabia will always be smaller than the family living room in The Goldbergs.
I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.

In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.

As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi








Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow better? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Be honest now, which would you prefer? Clearly the top image is more immersive. Less info but more immersive.
How is this not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.

I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.

Last edited by Shizzlenits; 04-11-2018 at 02:42 PM.
Shizzlenits is offline  
post #63 of 196 Old 04-11-2018, 04:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm seeking new VAR Blu-rays.



I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.

In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.

As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi








Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow better? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.



How is this not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.

I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.
What an anamorphic lens does is effectively turn a 16x9 display into a native 2.37 display through use of optic expansion. Basically I can show full screen, full chip whether it’s 16x9 or 2.40 content. I’ve already made it clear that I can view it however I want in either of two ways with no compromise. Your clearly thinking of this from one aspect only, watching it on a 16x9 tv. Most guys running CIH have full blown dedicated home theaters built to cinema standards and specs. I have as large a 16x9 as I can for my throw distance, then I expand another 33 percent. I go beyond what’s capable with a 16x9 screen. This is how cinemas do it. Thousands of movies are shot in 2.35/2.40 AR. It’s not a gimmick. IMAX needs to show the whole movie in 1.90 and stop this VAR nonsense.

Oh and by the way IMAX is 1.90 or 17x9 not 16x9. How’d they do that? Sounds like lost information to me.
coolrda is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 196 Old 04-11-2018, 06:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Because that is the same logic I’m always told is in error in my system of presentation.

Using that logic a case could be made the guy with a CIW setup is actually watching within the standards of proper presentation because his Flat movie watching is like he is in the front of the theater and his Scope movie watching he is sitting in the back of the theater.

The overlap between historic standards for cinema and IMAX are a bit more blurred because they are different standards written by different organizations it is really a misnomer when I or anyone talks about CIH+IMAX because they are two unrelated things except how we chose to relate them ourselves. IMAX theaters do show Scope presentations though so in a way that may give a little credit to how I think they are related in terms of immersion.

If I understand what you are saying is when you go to a commercial IMAX1.89 theater to watch a IMAX1.89 movie you prefer to sit more to the back of the theater but if you know they are showing a scope movie you would like to be closer. Then your screen selection and presentation method seems to be correct for you. The only time it throws me off is when you have to deal with an expanding AR movie. Each time the movie expands you would need to change your seat to have your desired immersion.

Most people I believe like IMAX all AR’s of it to be the same width as Scope. I haven’t compared the theater specs to see if say the dead center seat provides that relationship or not. I know in general that relationship works best for myself.
I have no sweet spot when I go to IMAX. I sit wherever minus the first 3 rows. In my theater I have a max of 9ft but watch as close as 3-4ft when laying on the floor and I do watch like that sometimes. If sit on my 24” sub with my back against the rear wall I’m 3xSH. I have extra temp seating which allows me 1xSH viewing. Honestly I don’t have a preference, all of the above is fine and immersive to me. Even the 3xSH. IMAX has a last row minimum view distance/angle. What I call WCS(worst case scenario). I build to that spec just so I’m not missing out on anything. I’ve covered all the bases. So if someone says you need to check this out in this format(imax var), I can and I do. 2.00AR is relatively new and I didn’t care about it. Now it’s has a serious presence and so I adapted for it. I absolutely despise the VAR on the newest Transformer movie but showing that movie cropped to 2.00 does wonders and I think I prefer that AR to the 2.40. I don’t care about containers, CIH is CIH to me and is shown as such. I’ve always been an early adopter. The audio in my room is complete overkill. I spent large sums for a few percentage points of improvement and very little that reaped huge rewards. But I’ve always moved the bar within my budget. In the case with my lens what started as a complete over the top purchase, has turned into an almost frugal purchase when considering 8 years of ownership. Light gain was a big deal and a key plus to this purchase, then projectors got brighter and the light gain wasn’t needed but now we come full circle with HDR and every lumen available is needed. We also speculated that 4K would eliminate the need for pixel density and yet the opposite has happened and guys are actually remounting their lenses to maximize Image sharpness very noticeable due to the increased resolution capability. I want full screen 16x9 and I want full screen 2.40 and this is how I accomplish this.

Last edited by coolrda; 04-11-2018 at 10:35 PM.
coolrda is offline  
post #65 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 05:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
I have no sweet spot when I go to IMAX. I sit wherever minus the first 3 rows. In my theater I have a max of 9ft but watch as close as 3-4ft when laying on the floor and I do watch like that sometimes. If sit on my 24” sub with my back against the rear wall I’m 3xSH. I have extra temp seating which allows me 1xSH viewing. Honestly I don’t have a preference, all of the above is fine and immersive to me. Even the 3xSH. IMAX has a last row minimum view distance/angle. What I call WCS(worst case scenario). I build to that spec just so I’m not missing out on anything. I’ve covered all the bases. So if someone says you need to check this out in this format(imax var), I can and I do. 2.00AR is relatively new and I didn’t care about it. Now it’s has a serious presence and so I adapted for it. I absolutely despise the VAR on the newest Transformer movie but showing that movie cropped to 2.00 does wonders and I think I prefer that AR to the 2.40. I don’t care about containers, CIH is CIH to me and is shown as such. I’ve always been an early adopter. The audio in my room is complete overkill. I spent large sums for a few percentage points of improvement and very little that reaped huge rewards. But I’ve always moved the bar within my budget. In the case with my lens what started as a complete over the top purchase, has turned into an almost frugal purchase when considering 8 years of ownership. Light gain was a big deal and a key plus to this purchase, then projectors got brighter and the light gain wasn’t needed but now we come full circle with HDR and every lumen available is needed. We also speculated that 4K would eliminate the need for pixel density and yet the opposite has happened and guys are actually remounting their lenses to maximize Image sharpness very noticeable due to the increased resolution capability. I want full screen 16x9 and I want full screen 2.40 and this is how I accomplish this.
Interesting. We are doing the same thing pretty much then. Except with my projector on the slide now and eyes to screen 8’ I vary the image between 110”- 70” 16:9 and if I use the projectors zoom as well 60” I haven’t found a need for that though. 1.7 SH – 2.7 SH.
The 1.7 being my IMAX sweet spot. Scope shows at 2.4 SH on a screen size of 104” as does all CIH. I haven’t found anyone that is bothered by too much immersion at the 2.7 SH setting in fact most people want more.

The 2.0:1 AR Univisium is here to stay. I have yet to have anyone even notice or ask about it. I think people just assume it is one or the other.

As to A-lens. I don’t have any issues with the approach as it is a unique solution with great benefits. If I had to guess though I would guess its usage will continue to decline with both brightness and resolution improvements with projectors. There will always be a place for them for some people, but I cant see usage growing even with HDR. I hope I’m wrong though.

I don’t crop any movies. I don’t have any problem if people want to do that though. That’s the beauty of HT is people can feel free to do presentation any way that makes them happy.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #66 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 08:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
CIW will change the impact of all scope material and it is a 16:9 screen. CIH+IMAX is also a 16:9 screen and will not change the impact of scope at all.
Only if they are cognizant of how to setup their seating distance to image height ratio properly. Which is much closer than 2x to the height of the "IMAX" content on the full 16:9 screen. And they would need to watch flat pillarboxed and letterboxed in the CIH area. I strongly suspect this is not happening in the majority of cases where people are claiming this sort of setup. And I can understand why, it wouldn't be practical for most to size things properly for so little content.

The only TV I've really watched has been some Netflix and old Star Trek. Over 90% of our viewing is film. But as has been said multiple times, I have my image sized for the desired immersion level so TV is not an issue. And I have no desire to delve into a discussion on your views of how TV should be viewed.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-12-2018 at 08:39 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #67 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 08:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm seeking new VAR Blu-rays.



I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.

In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.

As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.


Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow better? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.



How is this not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.

I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.
You're missing that the point that the filmmaker and DP in these IMAX add on films are composing the film in scope and adding a few scenes with the frames opened up to hit that market. IMAX isn't always used that way, but it certainly is in the case of Guardians and ST:ID. The reason you're seeing the majority of these released to the home market without the IMAX AR is because the filmmakers themselves don't want it that way. The scope framing is their original intent.

If you want to use size your setup to watch the minuscule amount of content in IMAX, that's your choice. But you are likely diminishing the intended impact of countless other films that make up a lot more of your viewing. As you've noted we're seeing less content with IMAX framing released to the home market with the demise of 3D and we weren't seeing much to start with. So I certainly wouldn't endorse setting up a room around it. But to each their own.
garygarrison and Uppsalaing like this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #68 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 09:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 835 Post(s)
Liked: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Oh and by the way IMAX is 1.90 or 17x9 not 16x9. How’d they do that? Sounds like lost information to me.
That's an interesting tale. The Texas Instruments DLP chips used in cinema projectors are 2048 X 1080 (0r 4096 X 2160 for 4K systems). The digital cinema standards specified two different containers, 'Scope at 2048 X 858 and Flat at 1998 X 1080. IMAX is just running outside the DCI standards and running Full Container using the whole pixel array.
dschulz is offline  
post #69 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 09:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Modern movie theaters are trending in the wrong direction. The intent of scope photography is that it be the same height but wider than 1.85:1, for an image with greater immersiveness across the horizontal plane.

Year after year after year, the vast majority of big-budget spectacle movies (your action, sci-fi, and superhero flicks - i.e. the major studio tentpoles) are photographed in 2.35:1. Have you never asked yourself why that is? These are the "event" movies that are supposed to dazzle you with their eye candy. Do you think the directors of those movies want them displayed smaller than rom-coms, zero-budget indie art films, and even Reality TV shows? Because that's what happens on a constant-width screen.

Quote:
Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow better? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.
More picture is not always "better" picture. Motion picture photography is composed to place people and objects in specific parts of the frame to create a sense of artistic purpose. Opening up the frame to expose empty picture at the top and bottom can throw off the balance and ruin the effectiveness of a scene.

In this shot from Dark City, the characters are carefully positioned at opposite ends of the frame, with the windows between them forming a precise geometrical symmetry:



The open-matte version totally ruins the shot. The added picture changes your perspective and has the effect of making the characters look farther away from the viewer and closer to each other, which alters the psychological impact of the scene. The dynamic tension of the original composition is lost.



Maybe you don't care about any of that. Maybe you value filling your TV screen with picture, no matter how pointless, over any artistic consideration. Fine, that's your prerogative. But, again, you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum, so don't come here expecting a lot of sympathy for that opinion.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	dark-city-scope.jpeg
Views:	361
Size:	55.0 KB
ID:	2388974   Click image for larger version

Name:	dark-city-open-matte.jpeg
Views:	360
Size:	80.0 KB
ID:	2388976  

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 offline  
post #70 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Interesting. We are doing the same thing pretty much then. Except with my projector on the slide now and eyes to screen 8’ I vary the image between 110”- 70” 16:9 and if I use the projectors zoom as well 60” I haven’t found a need for that though. 1.7 SH – 2.7 SH.
The 1.7 being my IMAX sweet spot. Scope shows at 2.4 SH on a screen size of 104” as does all CIH. I haven’t found anyone that is bothered by too much immersion at the 2.7 SH setting in fact most people want more.

The 2.0:1 AR Univisium is here to stay. I have yet to have anyone even notice or ask about it. I think people just assume it is one or the other.

As to A-lens. I don’t have any issues with the approach as it is a unique solution with great benefits. If I had to guess though I would guess its usage will continue to decline with both brightness and resolution improvements with projectors. There will always be a place for them for some people, but I cant see usage growing even with HDR. I hope I’m wrong though.

I don’t crop any movies. I don’t have any problem if people want to do that though. That’s the beauty of HT is people can feel free to do presentation any way that makes them happy.
I don’t change my view. I don’t sit on my sub behind my seating. I rarely lay on the floor. My point was I don’t have to be 1xSH to enjoy and feel immersed. 99 percent of the time I sit in the same spot. Exactly 2.16xSH and that’s measured from my eye to the bottom and top edge of my screen. So I’m a little closer to the center even. I watch full screen height whether it’s 1.00 or 2.37. I want all AR’s to be the exact same height. It doesn’t look natural or right when it’s not. I don’t care if it’s blurry 240 line VHS or pristine 2160P or higher, I view it the same way. No I only watch BR’s or equivalent hires on streaming but my point is I don’t change my view distance or display height. It remains constant.
jeahrens, dschulz and garygarrison like this.
coolrda is offline  
post #71 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 10:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
That's an interesting tale. The Texas Instruments DLP chips used in cinema projectors are 2048 X 1080 (0r 4096 X 2160 for 4K systems). The digital cinema standards specified two different containers, 'Scope at 2048 X 858 and Flat at 1998 X 1080. IMAX is just running outside the DCI standards and running Full Container using the whole pixel array.
Exactly. So how is that carved up for 16x9? Is the home release pixel perfect, where they trim the sides to fit? Or does it add even more additional height info? That was my impression of Dunkirk in that it remained CIW across formats and that the home release actually had more info than the IMAX Dig. IMAX GT/SR was 1.43, Blu-ray 1.78 and IMAX Dig 1.90.

Last edited by coolrda; 04-12-2018 at 10:36 AM.
coolrda is offline  
post #72 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 10:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm seeking new VAR Blu-rays.



I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.

In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.

As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi








Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow better? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.



How is this not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.

I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.
Huh? Bigger is not more immersive? Then why are we even talking Image MAXimum or VAR.

That’s true that 1.85 screens ruled the multiplex as the big 2.40 CIH screens were cut down. But things have changed for the better locally. We have two new theaters a six and ten that are dinner and movie houses. All running CIH. The ten screener opening today has all 4K laser projectors and Atmos and luxury recliners. Only 10 rows deep by 16 seats wide so I’m seeing this adaptation/diversification where it’s becoming a bar, restaurant and theater which probably is the only way they survive and prosper.
coolrda is offline  
post #73 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 10:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Exactly. So how is that carved up for 16x9? Is the home release pixel perfect, where they trim the sides to fit? Or does it add even more additional height info? That was my impression of Dunkirk in that it remained CIW across formats and that the home release actually had more info than the IMAX Dig. IMAX GT/SR was 1.43, Blu-ray 1.78 and IMAX Dig 1.90.
It went back and forth on The Dunkirk thread. It sounds like Nolan is endorsing the 1.78:1 compromise. But it doesn't negate that we are getting a compromised framing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #74 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 11:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
I don’t change my view. I don’t sit on my sub behind my seating. I rarely lay on the floor. My point was I don’t have to be 1xSH to enjoy and feel immersed. 99 percent of the time I sit in the same spot. Exactly 2.16xSH and that’s measured from my eye to the bottom and top edge of my screen. So I’m a little closer to the center even. I watch full screen height whether it’s 1.00 or 2.37. I want all AR’s to be the exact same height. It doesn’t look natural or right when it’s not. I don’t care if it’s blurry 240 line VHS or pristine 2160P or higher, I view it the same way. No I only watch BR’s or equivalent hires on streaming but my point is I don’t change my view distance or display height. It remains constant.
You are at 2.16 SH and I am at 2.4. I can see how you can be happy 2.16 but for me 2.16 for scope would be outside of my comfort zone not in height but in width. 2.4 scope and flat is a fine point I could live with if I had to live with CIH. But on the other hand I’m fine with 1.7 for IMAX1.89 on BD.

It goes back to one of two things. We are ether wired differently with how we accept our FOV, or we condition ourselves to fit into the CIH world. With better and better resolutions it is easy to set our height to max out and then accept the width of scope as it slightly out scans our comfort vision.

Because we have side to side 180 degree field there is no hard limit on width ever. Your 2.16 SH could be a mile wide if you wanted it and you could watch a train coming down the tracks starting as just a dot in the distance and you could see it all without moving your head. But there is a comfort limit side to side. Scope like IMAX fills the width with less important details or like Josh’s example it conflicts us with what side to watch. It is not a stretch to realize up and down can be directed the same way. Is it directed the same way? No because they start the project knowing the top and bottom will be trimmed off to make a scope version in most cinema.

That’s where prestige TV comes in it is never going to be trimmed to scope. It might be the new trend to 2.00 even. It is TV whatever TV is any more and is intended to have those black bars top and bottom as that’s how it fits in TV. I think you would be crazy to show it as such in CIH but making a 2.00 setting is showing it grander than TV. These directors are using that full frame in the same way real IMAX intended their frame to be used.

I can find 100s of examples that show tall framing is a waste and I can find 100s more that make a good case for IMAX1.89.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #75 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 11:57 AM
Member
 
Shizzlenits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
IMAX needs to show the whole movie in 1.90 and stop this VAR nonsense.
This I agree with. Luckily, that's exactly what they've done for Avengers: Infinity War and 2019's untitled Avengers 4. Both films were fully shot in 1.90 on IMAX digital cameras. First major studio films to do that. I'm holding out hope that those at least will release in 16:9 on Blu-ray. There's at least precedent for that in the series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Oh and by the way IMAX is 1.90 or 17x9 not 16x9. How’d they do that? Sounds like lost information to me.
Obviously losing a little bit on the top and bottom on home Blu-rays. There's not really anything that can be done about that though. If LG or Sony released a 17:9 OLED, rest assured that I would buy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
More picture is not always "better" picture. Motion picture photography is composed to place people and objects in specific parts of the frame to create a sense of artistic purpose. Opening up the frame to expose empty picture at the top and bottom can throw off the balance and ruin the effectiveness of a scene.

...

Maybe you don't care about any of that. Maybe you value filling your TV screen with picture, no matter how pointless, over any artistic consideration. Fine, that's your prerogative. But, again, you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum, so don't come here expecting a lot of sympathy for that opinion.
I care more about immersion. The "pointless" picture is just there to fill my peripheral vision in the background. I'm still looking at the intended framing of the shot. I just feel more like I'm actually in it, since less of my vision is detecting information that isn't the film. I'd make my entire wall a screen, if I could (and if content supported it).

It's not about having more visual information on the top and bottom. I'd take more to the sides too, if I could. It's simply about having the biggest possible picture in front of my face.
Shizzlenits is offline  
post #76 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 12:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I care more about immersion.
You care so much about immersion that you shrink the majority of big spectacle movies you watch to be smaller than TV sitcoms.

Quote:
It's not about having more visual information on the top and bottom. I'd take more to the sides too, if I could.
Having a screen with more picture on the sides is the entire point of Constant Image Height. You really don't understand the concept at all, do you?

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 offline  
post #77 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 12:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
This I agree with. Luckily, that's exactly what they've done for Avengers: Infinity War and 2019's untitled Avengers 4. Both films were fully shot in 1.90 on IMAX digital cameras. First major studio films to do that. I'm holding out hope that those at least will release in 16:9 on Blu-ray. There's at least precedent for that in the series.
It will be interesting to see what the Russo Brothers decide. Keep in mind, your immersion depends on where you sit in relation to the image height. If you maintain the same screen height and seating distance and install a wider scope screen, a 1.9:1 film will be larger than it would on a 16:9 screen.

For example lets compare:

110" 16:9 screen (96x54")
138" 2.35:1 screen (127x54")

(note the height is the same)

1.78:1 (16:9)

The 2 give you an identical image size

1.9:1

110" 16:9 = 96x51" 34 sq/ft
138" 2.35:1 = 103x54" 39 sq/ft

Scope screen picture is 15% bigger

2.0:1 (like Strager Things or other Netflix)

110" 16:9 = 96x48" 32 sq/ft
138" 2.35:1 = 108x54" 41 sq/ft

Scope screen picture is 28% bigger

2.35:1

110" 16:9 = 96x41" 27 sq/ft
138" 2.35:1 = 127x54" 48 sq/ft

Scope screen picture is 78% bigger

Height IS the constant when talking cinematic ARs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
It's not about having more visual information on the top and bottom. I'd take more to the sides too, if I could. It's simply about having the biggest possible picture in front of my face.
Considering IMAX makes up a tiny amount of films out there, you would get the "most" picture with a CIH setup. If you have your CIH setup sized properly, you will lose no impact with narrower ARs.
coolrda likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #78 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 12:41 PM
Member
 
Shizzlenits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You care so much about immersion that you shrink the majority of big spectacle movies you watch to be smaller than TV sitcoms.

Having a screen with more picture on the sides is the entire point of Constant Image Height. You really don't understand the concept at all, do you?
I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.
Shizzlenits is offline  
post #79 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 01:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.
Again, that's your prerogative. But you're posting in a thread in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat forum. Your original question has been answered. If you have no interest in learning about 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, continuing to post here is not the most productive use of either your or our time.

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 offline  
post #80 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 01:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.
Although I understand your use case, I personally would never move to an OLED from my JVC projector. Do the LG OLED's I've seen exceed the contrast I have? Of course. Do they get anywhere close to the impact the JVC imparts? Not even close. Again I realize in your situation you have chosen the best option for your space (and don't get me wrong if you are doing a TV, the OLED's are fantastic). But, at least for me, a good projector can come close enough to the contrast an OLED has while providing an impact it can't.
garygarrison and Uppsalaing like this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #81 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 03:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
We all have 16:9 machines and a few have lens to manipulate a manipulated image into another AR. When a poster comes along and doesn’t use a projector or a lens and instead uses a flat panel display, he has one problem and one thing in common with us. The problem is he is helplessly stuck in the CIW world he has no zoom and his screen is the wrong AR. What he has in common with us is he has the exact same media we all use and it has imagery in all kinds of AR’s but it all comes in a container that is 16:9.

Now @Shizzlenits is in the minority here in this forum, but in the world of displays he outnumbers the people with projectors 10,000 to 1 or something like that. Now if I’m Sony or any of the people selling media I will be listening to the big number not the small number I would think. Especially if I’m making the product both ways to start and with a couple lines of code it could be used both ways.

Sometimes I think I’m the only person that can watch an IMAX1.89 movie and clearly feel the full impact of the scope presentation along with additional immersion due to the extra content even if I never once look up into that area of the screen. It was so evident in Dunkirk. I had a very close experience at home in my HT as I would have standing on the deck of a ship watching it in 100% full field of view in my vision. That movie and the IMAX parts I never saw the edges of the screen the AR could have been a circle for all I knew. And there laid right across the middle was the scope image.

To see this on a flat panel TV you would have to sit a lot closer than I normally see people sitting. But I still can see where people with TVs still would like the full image over black bars and they are buying the majority of the media.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #82 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
We all have 16:9 machines and a few have lens to manipulate a manipulated image into another AR. When a poster comes along and doesn’t use a projector or a lens and instead uses a flat panel display, he has one problem and one thing in common with us. The problem is he is helplessly stuck in the CIW world he has no zoom and his screen is the wrong AR. What he has in common with us is he has the exact same media we all use and it has imagery in all kinds of AR’s but it all comes in a container that is 16:9.

Now @Shizzlenits is in the minority here in this forum, but in the world of displays he outnumbers the people with projectors 10,000 to 1 or something like that. Now if I’m Sony or any of the people selling media I will be listening to the big number not the small number I would think. Especially if I’m making the product both ways to start and with a couple lines of code it could be used both ways.

Sometimes I think I’m the only person that can watch an IMAX1.89 movie and clearly feel the full impact of the scope presentation along with additional immersion due to the extra content even if I never once look up into that area of the screen. It was so evident in Dunkirk. I had a very close experience at home in my HT as I would have standing on the deck of a ship watching it in 100% full field of view in my vision. That movie and the IMAX parts I never saw the edges of the screen the AR could have been a circle for all I knew. And there laid right across the middle was the scope image.

To see this on a flat panel TV you would have to sit a lot closer than I normally see people sitting. But I still can see where people with TVs still would like the full image over black bars and they are buying the majority of the media.
A TV viewer would need to put his 65" TV in his lap, or go up to a 90"+ sized TV... Not many of those around.

Anyway, back to VAR, I think on Apple TV/iTunes Dunkirk is shown closer to 2.25:1 ratio or something... Not VAR.

I have a CIH set up in my temporary dedicated room. Epson 9300W with zoom as my room is too short for anamorphic. I sit at 2.6x screen hight, which is farther than when my room is ready, and Dunkirk looks great. On a CIW set up it would look smaller than TV shows... With CIH it looks bigger than TV shows and Flat movies. Pehaps something closer to this aspect ratio would be better than making the movies VAR? I think my projector can digitally mask the extra bits anyway and I have black masking around my screen so there is no spill from zooming at all.

I hardly watch any TV on my home cinema (I rarely watch TV shows).. iPads and the TV in the lounge are more than enough for the quality of TV shows, apart from the first season of Mad Men, one scene of True Detective and the pilot of a handfull of other shows... And 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on the projector at CIH more than enough for TV shows. It even exposes their TV-ness a bit.

I first saw Dunkirk theatrically in digital IMAX (new cinema lieMAX, not a converted cinema and not the several stories high kind proper IMAX of which there are very few in the world and not 70mm film). It was still probably as tall as a small house and very immersive.

I don't want to side track this thread as I kniw it is VAR specific and blu ray specific, but I'd thought I'd share some input even though I am running a temporary set up. CIH is still worth it and I'll have it when the dedicated room is ready.

Last edited by Uppsalaing; 04-12-2018 at 04:35 PM.
Uppsalaing is offline  
post #83 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 05:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.
My JVC matches my Oled’s blacks. It won’t match its whites though.
coolrda is offline  
post #84 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 06:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uppsalaing View Post
A TV viewer would need to put his 65" TV in his lap, or go up to a 90"+ sized TV... Not many of those around.

Anyway, back to VAR, I think on Apple TV/iTunes Dunkirk is shown closer to 2.25:1 ratio or something... Not VAR.

I have a CIH set up in my temporary dedicated room. Epson 9300W with zoom as my room is too short for anamorphic. I sit at 2.6x screen hight, which is farther than when my room is ready, and Dunkirk looks great. On a CIW set up it would look smaller than TV shows... With CIH it looks bigger than TV shows and Flat movies. Pehaps something closer to this aspect ratio would be better than making the movies VAR? I think my projector can digitally mask the extra bits anyway and I have black masking around my screen so there is no spill from zooming at all.

I hardly watch any TV on my home cinema (I rarely watch TV shows).. iPads and the TV in the lounge are more than enough for the quality of TV shows, apart from the first season of Mad Men, one scene of True Detective and the pilot of a handfull of other shows... And 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on the projector at CIH more than enough for TV shows. It even exposes their TV-ness a bit.

I first saw Dunkirk theatrically in digital IMAX (new cinema lieMAX, not a converted cinema and not the several stories high kind proper IMAX of which there are very few in the world and not 70mm film). It was still probably as tall as a small house and very immersive.

I don't want to side track this thread as I kniw it is VAR specific and blu ray specific, but I'd thought I'd share some input even though I am running a temporary set up. CIH is still worth it and I'll have it when the dedicated room is ready.
Yep. Dunkirk alternates between imax 15/[email protected] and normal [email protected] It’s cropped to 1.78 for the home release and further cropped to 1.90 for IMAX Digital. It’s a a movie that plays good in CIH, but looks spectacular in full frame on the 4K UHDBR. I’m in the minority but this movie didn’t do anything for me. I really like every Nolan movie to date accept for this. Yet I watch it repeatly due to the demo quality of the pic. I think it’s the first time we’ve seen what 15/70 could look like at home in an uncompromising format.
Uppsalaing likes this.

Last edited by coolrda; 04-12-2018 at 08:06 PM.
coolrda is offline  
post #85 of 196 Old 04-12-2018, 06:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Yep. Dunkirk alternates between imax 15/[email protected] and normal [email protected] It’s cropped to 1.78 for the home release and and further cropped to 1.90 for IMAX Digital. It’s a a movie that plays good in CIH, but looks spectacular in full frame on the 4K UHDBR. I’m in the minority but this movie didn’t do anything for me. I really like every Nolan movie to date accept for this. Yet watch it repeat my due to the demo quality of the pic. I think it’s the first time we’ve seen what 15/70 could look like at home in an uncompromising format.
It was my favourite movie of last year.

I will certainly get the UHD disc when Panasonic release their new line of players next month or so, as I only have a regular blu ray player at the moment... It'll be good to compare it to the Apple TV4K version that i have to see how big the difference in picture quality is and how the presentation differs.

Equipment: Epson 9300W projector, Panasonic UB-424, AppleTV4K, Procella Audio Speakers...
Uppsalaing is offline  
post #86 of 196 Old 04-13-2018, 12:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
We all have 16:9 machines and a few have lens to manipulate a manipulated image into another AR. When a poster comes along and doesn’t use a projector or a lens and instead uses a flat panel display, he has one problem and one thing in common with us. The problem is he is helplessly stuck in the CIW world he has no zoom and his screen is the wrong AR.What he has in common with us is he has the exact same media we all use and it has imagery in all kinds of AR’s but it all comes in a container that is 16:9.

Now @Shizzlenits is in the minority here in this forum, but in the world of displays he outnumbers the people with projectors 10,000 to 1 or something like that. Now if I’m Sony or any of the people selling media I will be listening to the big number not the small number I would think. Especially if I’m making the product both ways to start and with a couple lines of code it could be used both ways.
Well if you are stuck with a flat panel, it seems odd to come in here to begin with. But I'm sure the posters intentions were honest. As far as the studios go, I'm glad they're listening to the filmmakers. Or we'd potentially have things horribly cropped like the Pan and Scan era. And before you rebut, simply offering a choice in my opinion starts us on a slope of the studios being cheap and throwing everything into 1.78:1 like they used to with 1.33:1. The filmmaker has the final say. If that's VAR, so be it. If it isn't, so be it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Sometimes I think I’m the only person that can watch an IMAX1.89 movie and clearly feel the full impact of the scope presentation along with additional immersion due to the extra content even if I never once look up into that area of the screen. It was so evident in Dunkirk. I had a very close experience at home in my HT as I would have standing on the deck of a ship watching it in 100% full field of view in my vision. That movie and the IMAX parts I never saw the edges of the screen the AR could have been a circle for all I knew. And there laid right across the middle was the scope image.

To see this on a flat panel TV you would have to sit a lot closer than I normally see people sitting. But I still can see where people with TVs still would like the full image over black bars and they are buying the majority of the media.
You're not the only one watching this in VAR that is pleased with your sizing. Your own preference may have it larger or smaller. Again anyone serious about home theater should not be concerned about people seeing and complaining about black bars. We just ended a dismal era of the "fill my screen" idiots forcing butchered media on all of us.

jeahrens is offline  
post #87 of 196 Old 05-04-2018, 06:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 245 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1391 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Netflix’s Anon.
coolrda is offline  
post #88 of 196 Old 05-04-2018, 11:44 AM
Member
 
Shizzlenits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Also not sure how to classify Infinity War in the context of this thread, since it is in fact fully 1.9:1 in IMAX and not variable. In this case there are just two separate versions of the film.
Shizzlenits is offline  
post #89 of 196 Old 05-04-2018, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
Also not sure how to classify Infinity War in the context of this thread, since it is in fact fully 1.9:1 in IMAX and not variable. In this case there are just two separate versions of the film.
Yeah thankfully either way it won't be variable. Either way they release it (1.9 or Scope), should be a stunning 4K disc.

jeahrens is offline  
post #90 of 196 Old 05-04-2018, 01:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzlenits View Post
Also not sure how to classify Infinity War in the context of this thread, since it is in fact fully 1.9:1 in IMAX and not variable. In this case there are just two separate versions of the film.
I'd say it should be classified in the same category as movies like Skyfall, Prometheus, and Blade Runner 2049, which were 1.9:1 in IMAX, but scope in all other theaters and home video.

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 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