Discussion Thread, TV shows with aspect ratios other than 16:9 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 Old 06-04-2019, 03:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Discussion Thread, TV shows with aspect ratios 16:9 or other than 16:9

We all know a movie director thought process is creating motion picture art, and he begins his process knowing his work will premiere in the venue of a motion picture theater of some form. It may be a cinemascope theater or it may be an IMAX venue or it might be something else. But when Martin Scorsese makes a movie I think it is safe to say he is not primarily concerned with showing it on TV sets or how it is going to play on a TV set. I know from his interviews he is not a fan of chopping the sides off his movies to fill TV screens and I totally agree with that. But I think if you asked him where his movie will look best is in a proper movie theater with seating designed around long time standards of the motion picture industry. So if he makes a 2.35:1 AR movie his artistic goal is to have it shown in a scope theater.

We at home a tiny minuscule percentage of the population with the ability to show motion pictures at home with somewhat theater like presentations with projectors that have setups to maintain correct presentation with zooms and special lens and such. Mr. Scorsese could come to our homes and watch his movie and I think would say well done.

Now there are other directors making TV shows like Good Omens for Amazon at a 2.35:1 AR. Being TV they call them Creators and I’m sure there are directors also. The powers to be know these series and shows are bypassing theater releases and they are intended to go to TV and be watched on TV. They know they will have black bars and they know the person watching them will be watching them not as tall as Wheel of Fortune. They are using the AR as an artistic tool I guess and knowing it is TV I have to assume are making corrections differently than if it were going to a motion picture theater.

The question then is how should the CIH home theater community view these things. Is Good Omens really a cinemascope movie being limited in its immersion to all the TV viewers it was intended for? Or is it TV and should be watched as CIH with black bars just like any other TV? Or is it up to the discretion of each of us to judge the merits of the show and decide for ourselves?

We now live in the age of this new IMAX AR as well and some people feel some 16:9 TV is IMAX just like some may feel Good Omens is cinemascope in terms of presentation. Game of Thrones has actually played in IMAX theaters so a strong case could be made that proper presentation of a TV series would be IMAX at home.

If Amazon or Netflix shows a 2.35:1 Martin Scorsese film I think we will agree it should be scope at home it is a motion picture and should be presented as such. Is 2.35, 2.20, 2.00 TV the same?

What say you all?

Bud

Last edited by bud16415; 06-07-2019 at 05:52 AM.
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 Old 06-04-2019, 11:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
We all know a movie director thought process is creating motion picture art, and he begins his process knowing his work will premiere in the venue of a motion picture theater of some form. It may be a cinemascope theater or it may be an IMAX venue or it might be something else. But when Martin Scorsese makes a movie I think it is safe to say he is not primarily concerned with showing it on TV sets or how it is going to play on a TV set. I know from his interviews he is not a fan of chopping the sides off his movies to fill TV screens and I totally agree with that. But I think if you asked him where his movie will look best is in a proper movie theater with seating designed around long time standards of the motion picture industry. So if he makes a 2.35:1 AR movie his artistic goal is to have it shown in a scope theater.

We at home a tiny minuscule percentage of the population with the ability to show motion pictures at home with somewhat theater like presentations with projectors that have setups to maintain correct presentation with zooms and special lens and such. Mr. Scorsese could come to our homes and watch his movie and I think would say well done.

Now there are other directors making TV shows like Good Omens for Amazon at a 2.35:1 AR. Being TV they call them Creators and I’m sure there are directors also. The powers to be know these series and shows are bypassing theater releases and they are intended to go to TV and be watched on TV. They know they will have black bars and they know the person watching them will be watching them not as tall as Wheel of Fortune. They are using the AR as an artistic tool I guess and knowing it is TV I have to assume are making corrections differently than if it were going to a motion picture theater.

The question then is how should the CIH home theater community view these things. Is Good Omens really a cinemascope movie being limited in its immersion to all the TV viewers it was intended for? Or is it TV and should be watched as CIH with black bars just like any other TV? Or is it up to the discretion of each of us to judge the merits of the show and decide for ourselves?

We now live in the age of this new IMAX AR as well and some people feel some 16:9 TV is IMAX just like some may feel Good Omens is cinemascope in terms of presentation. Game of Thrones has actually played in IMAX theaters so a strong case could be made that proper presentation of a TV series would be IMAX at home.

If Amazon or Netflix shows a 2.35:1 Martin Scorsese film I think we will agree it should be scope at home it is a motion picture and should be presented as such. Is 2.35, 2.20, 2.00 TV the same?

What say you all?
Yes, I think content should be presented without letterbox bars, at CIH, irrespective of whether it aired originally on broadcast/cable TV, a streaming service or a cinema. Here's my logic:

The appropriate size of a screen is determined largely by the *height*, as in, a comfortable screen height is roughly half the viewers' distance from the screen (some people prefer to sit 1.5X screen height, others closer to 2.5X screen height, but there is a cluster around 2X). Once you've determined the correct *height* of your screen, you'll find the *width* doesn't matter. At a viewing distance of 2X screen height, you can make the screen *wider* without affecting the comfort of the viewer, and in fact making the screen wider simply makes the experience more cinematic, more immersive. TV looks great with a screen this size at 1.78:1, Jurassic Park looks great at 1.85:1, Stranger Things looks great at 2.0:1, Star Wars looks great at 2.39:1. This is why CIH advocates are so vocal for their support of the CIH format.

But Sully! you'll cry. Here's my assertion: Sully does not need to be bigger than Jurassic Park. In fact, I don't believe for a hot second that Clint Eastwood *wanted* Sully to be bigger than Jurassic Park. I think he framed it in 'Scope, and had a safe image area for IMAX, because IMAX has a large box office percentage and it behooves filmmakers and studios to give IMAX what they want.

The *only* movies that should be shown in an IMAX ratio (where the screen height is more like 1X viewing distance, as in, overwhelming in scale) are traditional IMAX documentaries, filmed in 15/70 IMAX (with its attendant utra-high-resolution image) and meant to be overwhelming, and the films of Christopher Nolan, because Nolan understands the utility of IMAX and is framing in the native AR of each of his film cameras - 2.39:1 for anamorphic 35mm, 2.2:1 for 5/70, 1.43:1 for 15/70.

So with the notable exception of a handful of nifty IMAX documentaries and a half-dozen Christopher Nolan movies, CIH *perfectly* conveys the intended experience of *thousands* of movies and TV shows, and remains, IMO, the gold standard for home cinema.
Josh Z and ScottAvery like this.
dschulz is offline  
post #3 of 37 Old 06-05-2019, 05:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
The question is not entirely without merit. The creators of shows like Stranger Things or Good Omens obviously know that their programs will be watched almost entirely in letterbox format on 16:9 screens. However, does that mean it's their INTENT that they be smaller than Reality shows or sitcoms? Or are they visionaries who foresee a future where TV screens go wider?

For those of us who have 2.35:1 CIH screens, watching something like Good Omens in 16:9 mode results in a picture floating in the middle of the screen with black bars on all sides. I think it's safe to assume that's nobody's intention.
dschulz likes this.

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
 
post #4 of 37 Old 06-05-2019, 10:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Yes, I think content should be presented without letterbox bars, at CIH, irrespective of whether it aired originally on broadcast/cable TV, a streaming service or a cinema. Here's my logic:

The appropriate size of a screen is determined largely by the *height*, as in, a comfortable screen height is roughly half the viewers' distance from the screen (some people prefer to sit 1.5X screen height, others closer to 2.5X screen height, but there is a cluster around 2X). Once you've determined the correct *height* of your screen, you'll find the *width* doesn't matter. At a viewing distance of 2X screen height, you can make the screen *wider* without affecting the comfort of the viewer, and in fact making the screen wider simply makes the experience more cinematic, more immersive. TV looks great with a screen this size at 1.78:1, Jurassic Park looks great at 1.85:1, Stranger Things looks great at 2.0:1, Star Wars looks great at 2.39:1. This is why CIH advocates are so vocal for their support of the CIH format.

But Sully! you'll cry. Here's my assertion: Sully does not need to be bigger than Jurassic Park. In fact, I don't believe for a hot second that Clint Eastwood *wanted* Sully to be bigger than Jurassic Park. I think he framed it in 'Scope, and had a safe image area for IMAX, because IMAX has a large box office percentage and it behooves filmmakers and studios to give IMAX what they want.

The *only* movies that should be shown in an IMAX ratio (where the screen height is more like 1X viewing distance, as in, overwhelming in scale) are traditional IMAX documentaries, filmed in 15/70 IMAX (with its attendant utra-high-resolution image) and meant to be overwhelming, and the films of Christopher Nolan, because Nolan understands the utility of IMAX and is framing in the native AR of each of his film cameras - 2.39:1 for anamorphic 35mm, 2.2:1 for 5/70, 1.43:1 for 15/70.

So with the notable exception of a handful of nifty IMAX documentaries and a half-dozen Christopher Nolan movies, CIH *perfectly* conveys the intended experience of *thousands* of movies and TV shows, and remains, IMO, the gold standard for home cinema.
Should we put James Wan (Aquaman), James Cameron (Avatar), Christopher McQuarrie (MI Fallout), Damien Chazelle (First Man) on the list with Eastwood some of these only expand for a few minutes some for nearly the whole movie and some the entire movie. I think most directors are like Nolan and use the format that best displays their work. I’m willing to bet Eastwood never gave Jurassic Park a thought when filming Sully and he only knows if he made the IMAX version to get into those venues to make more money from the film. We know he liked the scope version enough he made it the version people get to watch at home on BD on their 16:9 TVs. Or maybe if he and the studios were thinking about money and knowing IMAX Enhanced releases were in the works held back the 1.89 version knowing down the road they would get the IMAX seal of approval and start selling it all over again. It’s all speculation isn’t it? I will predict we even see an IMAX Enhanced 4k BD of Avatar at some point as the program goes past just AR.

We are drifting a little off topic but I agree 2.0 x SH for most would be a CIH limiter and that would equate to 1.5 x SH for nature IMAX and Nolan movies if you don’t think those other guys are in the same caliber.

2.0 x SH is just a little much for me and my setup and I like about 2.3 x SH and 1.7 x SH for IMAX @ Home. We are all different. Although I enjoy many Academy AR movies at 2.0 x SH. Keep in mind the 1.0 x SH IMAX nature movies are no longer for sale in the 1.43 AR for home viewing when you buy the new Enhanced versions they are the 16:9 variety. So really nothing modern for the home market as far as I know requires an AR taller than 16:9

Getting back to shortened TV ARs it is your opinion even though the directors know their target audience will be TV viewers with 16:9 TV sets with black bars. They are as @Josh Z proposes visionaries and are filming with a cinematography process like motion pictures and will be ready when TV makes it’s next big move away from 16:9 to something like 2.35:1. The 2.35 TVs had a chance a couple years ago and never gained traction. Seems people hate black bars on the sides even more than top and bottom.

If you and Josh are correct those of us with projectors and can do what we like with the new media don’t want black bars all around then we are making a decision to change a size based around content and in effect equating the TV show Good Omens to any of the other great scope movies of all times, in terms of presentation.

I actually agree with that and as we all know I’m not opposed at changing my presentation based around my perception of the content. When we elevate Good Omens TV to a scope movie presentation that’s exactly what we are doing.

I will say the directors of that if visionaries are really out there in their thought process in hopes TV AR will be changing anytime soon.

There is another idea I have about AR and that it possesses its own beauty regardless of size or the amount of our vision it consumes. This is the reason we are compelled to watch 2.35 movies in a movie theater no matter what row we like to sit in. Because I do my wacky method of presentation and sometimes limit my immersion in favor PQ and such for me it doesn’t affect the beauty of the filmmakers work. Could it be the directors of these TV shows simply want that framing and are willing to make the vast number of people watch it less immersive because of how they want to frame.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #5 of 37 Old 06-05-2019, 11:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 696 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Perhaps the one thing all producers of AV material might agree is no one intended the viewer to scale their viewing size in multiple directions in for the content. They would either use vertical masking to make the viewing area more narrow as in the theaters of 50 years ago, or lower a horizontal mask to make the image shorter as in more recently built multiplexes. 4 way masking (Or mask-less screen walls) are an abomination!








I kid, I kid. They are not an abomination. More like a travesty! No, no, just jokes. I recognize we have a choice of going to an IMAX theater if we choose. If you're into that kind of gimmick. Oh, I can't stop myself!
ScottAvery is offline  
post #6 of 37 Old 06-05-2019, 11:44 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If you and Josh are correct those of us with projectors and can do what we like with the new media don’t want black bars all around then we are making a decision to change a size based around content and in effect equating the TV show Good Omens to any of the other great scope movies of all times, in terms of presentation.

I actually agree with that and as we all know I’m not opposed at changing my presentation based around my perception of the content. When we elevate Good Omens TV to a scope movie presentation that’s exactly what we are doing.
Watch a show like Good Omens and pay attention to the size of objects, especially human faces, in the frame. Is a close-up of an actor's face the same size as one in a comparable 16:9 program, just with the top and bottom masked off? If so, that would suggest that it's intended to be watched in Constant Width format and the letterbox bars are part of the image. If you zoomed that up to fill a 2.35:1 screen, close-ups should be uncomfortably large.

Or is the entire face smaller, such that the top of the head and the chin remain proportional relative to the height of the frame? Because in that case, the photography was composed for Constant Height. When you zoom it up to fill a 2.35:1 screen, the actors are the same size as in a 16:9 show on the same screen, just with added width on the sides.

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 #7 of 37 Old 06-05-2019, 02:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Watch a show like Good Omens and pay attention to the size of objects, especially human faces, in the frame. Is a close-up of an actor's face the same size as one in a comparable 16:9 program, just with the top and bottom masked off? If so, that would suggest that it's intended to be watched in Constant Width format and the letterbox bars are part of the image. If you zoomed that up to fill a 2.35:1 screen, close-ups should be uncomfortably large.

Or is the entire face smaller, such that the top of the head and the chin remain proportional relative to the height of the frame? Because in that case, the photography was composed for Constant Height. When you zoom it up to fill a 2.35:1 screen, the actors are the same size as in a 16:9 show on the same screen, just with added width on the sides.
That’s correct and that’s the stuff you learn in cinematography 101.

It in a way asks us to make a determination on how best to do our presentation. It is easy with motion pictures we know the intended presentation and we can follow it.
I Love Lucy is simple it was in an age where the largest TV tube made was 21-24” with big round corners. The faces were crammed in on close-ups trying to get some resolution to the image. I sometimes watch old TV like that. I have been threw the twilight zone and a lot of Perry Mason. I’m pretty amazed at how they have maintained and cleaned up those old shows. My theater room is the most comfortable viewing in my house with the best sound system and the least distraction so the perfect place to watch old Perry Mason. I sure don’t want to watch him IMAXed even though I can and I find I enjoy it larger than 21-24” I think as small as my zoom will allow for a 4:3 image is 54” and that works just nice. Because I have a stealth screen I’m not aware of black bars all around all I see is a 54” image.

I will have to watch some Good Omens and see if I can figure out if it is TV or motion picture cinematography. Maybe someone with a list of them all could list a recommended immersion factor on the list as well.

It works both ways also because Game of Thrones a 16:9 TV series, I find along with many others it is filmed quite IMAX like and plays just fine as such. It pleased TV viewers as it filled their screens and when shown in a large IMAX venue got rave reviews again. I think this is what IMAX Enhanced is partly about. It plays to the serious movie viewers with quality 60-80” flat panels that enjoy their sound and demand HDR and high resolutions in not theater rooms. It’s vastly what the Millennial generation is all about. That and streaming. IMAX has been accumulating a large repository of media that will fill and fit those TV sets and when enhanced to give the best that can be seen on them and a little more image than could be had before they are betting on the opposite of the visionaries at Good Omens.

Then there is TV without faces to judge by that I also watch in my theater. How about NBA or Auto Racing. NBA most of the time we see the whole body as a tiny little person running down the court we see both teams all at once along with graphics top and bottom that makes the actual image of the game about 3:1 AR. I watch them IMAX and it isn’t until a commercial I realize it is too large for a face close up. I think they are catching on though because many of the commercials are now shot in scope.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #8 of 37 Old 06-05-2019, 02:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
Perhaps the one thing all producers of AV material might agree is no one intended the viewer to scale their viewing size in multiple directions in for the content. They would either use vertical masking to make the viewing area more narrow as in the theaters of 50 years ago, or lower a horizontal mask to make the image shorter as in more recently built multiplexes.

I agree with this actually and would add the difference in all these theaters is many more rows of seats than any of us have at home. Who cares what size an image is if you have 40 rows of seats to pick from. Come late and get stuck in the front row though and you will rethink immersion.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #9 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 05:29 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It works both ways also because Game of Thrones a 16:9 TV series, I find along with many others it is filmed quite IMAX like and plays just fine as such. It pleased TV viewers as it filled their screens and when shown in a large IMAX venue got rave reviews again.

If Game of Thrones had been filmed like IMAX, it would have a lot of empty space above the characters' heads that would look very awkward when watched on a normal-sized HDTV. Instead, Game of Thrones was composed like any other 16:9 TV show, with lots of close-ups and medium shots that look oversized and exceed viewers' vertical vision when projected in IMAX. That some fans thought this was "cool" is a factor of the novelty of watching a TV show in such a setting.

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 #10 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 07:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
If Game of Thrones had been filmed like IMAX, it would have a lot of empty space above the characters' heads that would look very awkward when watched on a normal-sized HDTV. Instead, Game of Thrones was composed like any other 16:9 TV show, with lots of close-ups and medium shots that look oversized and exceed viewers' vertical vision when projected in IMAX. That some fans thought this was "cool" is a factor of the novelty of watching a TV show in such a setting.
I don’t know if GOT was filmed with intent for IMAX anymore than you know if Good Omens was filmed with intention to be a scope movie. I do believe both of them were filmed with the intention of them being played back by people at home on modern large flat panel TVs and my guess is the director was assuming maybe a 60-70” set would be great to view them on. That implies that TV is growing and changing as we all know and directors are knowing people are viewing at least slightly more immersive than they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

If Good Omens gains a large following and decides to do a fan favorites premier in a bunch of Commercial Scope theaters I’m sure that novelty will likewise pack them in if it is scope movie cinematography or not.

I know I could go thru GOT and find some close personal close ups that are not typical IMAX1.89 shots. I can also go thru my collection of classic 1.43 nature history and science movies and find parts where it switches away from the normal framing and to a close up of something that feels uncomfortably large.

Keep in mind when I say GOT could be watched as IMAX I’m suggesting IMAX1.89 and in my case at home that immersion would be 1.7 x SH. That isn’t front row by any means it is more slightly behind middle row. Also much of the cinematography is like this, and is very easy to enjoy.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	GOT3.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	163.7 KB
ID:	2576646   Click image for larger version

Name:	GOT4.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	2.33 MB
ID:	2576648   Click image for larger version

Name:	GOT5.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	98.5 KB
ID:	2576650   Click image for larger version

Name:	GOT8.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	99.4 KB
ID:	2576652   Click image for larger version

Name:	GOT9.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	243.4 KB
ID:	2576654  


Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #11 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 08:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I don’t know if GOT was filmed with intent for IMAX anymore than you know if Good Omens was filmed with intention to be a scope movie.
Well, you know, you can look at them. Take a shot like this. Not a close-up. Not even a medium shot. It's a nice vista shot with lots of scenery in the background. You might think, "Wow, that'd look great in IMAX!"



Except that, it wouldn't. Where are the characters in the frame? Projected in an IMAX theater, The Hound's face will be way at the top of the screen, forcing viewers to crane their necks up to see him. In genuine IMAX photography, he should be positioned much lower, with his face closer to where Arya's is now and a lot of headroom above him that falls off into the viewer's peripheral vision. But doing so would look really weird for viewers watching on a normal HDTV.

Good Omens, meanwhile, follows the same compositional rules as any 2.35:1 movie.

Even though the digital IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1 is very close to both the standard theatrical 1.85:1 or HDTV 1.78:1, IMAX is its own unique format. The sheer size of an IMAX screen requires its own compositional rules that are different than traditional photography. Although it may seem "epic," Game of Thrones was not photographed for IMAX.
dschulz likes this.

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 #12 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 08:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Well, you know, you can look at them. Take a shot like this. Not a close-up. Not even a medium shot. It's a nice vista shot with lots of scenery in the background. You might think, "Wow, that'd look great in IMAX!"



Except that, it wouldn't. Where are the characters in the frame? Projected in an IMAX theater, The Hound's face will be way at the top of the screen, forcing viewers to crane their necks up to see him. In genuine IMAX photography, he should be positioned much lower, with his face closer to where Arya's is now and a lot of headroom above him that falls off into the viewer's peripheral vision. But doing so would look really weird for viewers watching on a normal HDTV.

Good Omens, meanwhile, follows the same compositional rules as any 2.35:1 movie.

Even though the digital IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1 is very close to both the standard theatrical 1.85:1 or HDTV 1.78:1, IMAX is its own unique format. The sheer size of an IMAX screen requires its own compositional rules that are different than traditional photography. Although it may seem "epic," Game of Thrones was not photographed for IMAX.
Again you are confusing IMAX and IMAX 1.89. You are also confusing IMAX 1.89 seating with conventional theater seating. All IMAX theaters have steeper stadium seating and unless you sit in the very front you have a much more comfortable scan of the whole screen than you describe. Peripheral vision is challenged in the up and down direction more than with scope but only to the extent if you are viewing the top 1/3 of the screen the bottom 1/3 is in peripheral allowing a greater feeling of reality.

In my case when viewing IMAX 1.89 at home my eyes are centered on the center of the screen with flat vision. IMAX and IMAX 1.89 is intended to be taller/higher than scope but it is also to be lower and I will contend disproportionably lower at home due to lack of stadium seating. I have often said this is a problem at home for those who would convert with more than one row.

Here is an example comparing the same movie Dunkirk with a larger head near the top of the screen in an IMAX cut. It was shot in IMAX 1.43 and cut to IMAX 1.89 and also scope and done by who some would say is the premiere director of modern IMAX directors. Of course he loved the cut none of us will ever get at home best. His second choice was the IMAX 1.89 showing and you can see where the head is in relation to the top of the screen. No one complained or said the movie would look better presented as flat. There are many spots in the movie that are framed just like this and perhaps GOT.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	screen-comparison.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	285.0 KB
ID:	2576694   Click image for larger version

Name:	Dunkirk1.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	128.4 KB
ID:	2576696  

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #13 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 11:29 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Here is an example comparing the same movie Dunkirk with a larger head near the top of the screen in an IMAX cut. It was shot in IMAX 1.43 and cut to IMAX 1.89 and also scope and done by who some would say is the premiere director of modern IMAX directors. Of course he loved the cut none of us will ever get at home best. His second choice was the IMAX 1.89 showing and you can see where the head is in relation to the top of the screen. No one complained or said the movie would look better presented as flat. There are many spots in the movie that are framed just like this and perhaps GOT.
Nolan is treating IMAX 1.89:1 as just an oversized 1.85:1. Even in its digital version, IMAX screens are meant to be much larger than conventional cinemas. The comparison image you posted does not account for that. The background and environment behind the boy do not expand in IMAX Digital. The whole thing, boy included, is just blown up larger.

This is really a moot point anyway, as none of us have IMAX screens at home.

When watching a variety of content on a single screen, the scale of objects (especially faces) within any picture should be fairly consistent with comparable shots at another aspect ratio.

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 #14 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 696 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Pains me to say I think Bud is making sense here, Josh. With the exception of the real IMAX theater at the Air and Space Center, all the IMAX screens in my market are not much bigger than the Dolby Cinema screens. Just taller, with steeper stadium seating, as Bud describes. I may have to reconsider the arguments made for IMAX more in line with this comparison. But I probably won't! AH!

I saw End Game on both formats and couldn't tell any difference, other than our Dolby room has a horrible red blob in the lower left that I don't know if it is panel damage or a customer threw an ICEE at the screen. I don't see any drips, so I lean to projector issues.
bud16415 likes this.

Last edited by ScottAvery; 06-06-2019 at 10:48 PM.
ScottAvery is offline  
post #15 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 11:59 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
With the exception of the real IMAX theater at the Air and Space Center, all the IMAX screens in my market are not much bigger than the Dolby Cinema screens. Just taller, with steeper stadium seating, as Bud describes.
Note that I said that IMAX screens are meant to be much larger than conventional cinemas. That many IMAX auditoriums are much smaller than originally promised was a financial and business decision, not the actual intent of the format.

Quote:
I saw End Game on both formats and couldn't tell any difference, other than our Dolby room has a horrible red blob in the lower left that I don't know if it is panel damage or a customer through an ICEE at the screen. I don't see any drips, so I lean to projector issues.
Could it be a reflection from the Exit sign? I've heard a lot of complaints about red light leakage from Exit signs in Dolby theaters.

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 #16 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 12:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Here is the run down comparison of the formats in proper theaters.

@Josh Z is correct as far as I know no one is doing home presentation inline with true IMAX or IMAX Dig that is 1.89 AR. most of us few that want to enjoy IMAX Lite at home are projecting something closer to Regular Theater CIH and then maintaining that width and allowing increased height. We get a little more image than IMAX Digital because most of the discs are sized to 1.77 not 1.89. We are not close to IMAX DMR width yet. I believe that may change with the 4k IMAX Enhanced media.

If I win the mega-ball I would be into IMAX Enhanced with DMR immersion at home with the enhanced whole 9 yards, but that’s not likely and until then IMAX Lite as I call it is quite impressive enough for now. Because it is a lite version and the source is coming from the real deal it is even less taxing to the vision.

Nolan is not treating IMAX 1.89 as oversized 1.85 we are simply viewing it oversized because his cinematography allows it. As mentioned above no one that I know is yet going oversized enough. If his cinematography didn’t allow it we would be reading awful IMAX reviews where the image was nauseatingly large. No one is saying that.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	imax comparison fov.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	114.0 KB
ID:	2576812  

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #17 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 12:33 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
We've gotten well off the original question, which is what the creators of TV shows with wider aspect ratios want or expect from them.

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 #18 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 12:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Note that I said that IMAX screens are meant to be much larger than conventional cinemas. That many IMAX auditoriums are much smaller than originally promised was a financial and business decision, not the actual intent of the format.
Remember IMAX and IMAX digital are two different things. IMAX the company got into expansion and retrofitting older theaters to improve the IMAX Digital experience as much as possible in the communities they moved into and what they felt that community could support. Like all standards there is high and low limits of what is acceptable. When they were forced to barely increase screen size in a venue they then did what they could with screen size and then moved the screen/seating closer or a combination of both.

People walked into these retro-IMAX places expecting to see an 8 story tall real IMAX screen and didn’t see past it wasn’t there. Then the LieMAX name was issued. They had a branding going back to the 60s and even if they built an 8 story theater in every town they would all go out of business as they would be too big and too expensive to pay off.

I like that they are trying to actually improve presentation and I like the IMAX 1.89 AR as when properly positioned fill my FOV with a great immersive image that is way more mainstream in terms of cinematography for modern action movies.

The fact it fills up TV screens is an added bonus I think.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #19 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 12:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
We've gotten well off the original question, which is what the creators of TV shows with wider aspect ratios want or expect from them.
We have and we haven’t.

If we only are looking at TV shows that are made shorter than conventional TVs 16:9 format and if we should present them as tall and wider then yes we have drifted off topic.

But if we feel these TV shows merit that then it is only logical that some TV shows might mimic IMAX Digital also and if they did could then maybe also be shown wider. GOT was my offering in that genera, there could be others.

I have no problem with the thread wandering around in the realm of TV presentation in a HT environment.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #20 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 02:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,099
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2067 Post(s)
Liked: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
People walked into these retro-IMAX places expecting to see an 8 story tall real IMAX screen and didn’t see past it wasn’t there. Then the LieMAX name was issued. They had a branding going back to the 60s and even if they built an 8 story theater in every town they would all go out of business as they would be too big and too expensive to pay off.
Honestly I always considered it LieMAX due to the lack of resolution. IMAX always meant incredibly clear footage to me and seeing the first "LieMAX" venue was immediately disappointing because it lacked this. I wasn't really bothered by the AR or size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I like that they are trying to actually improve presentation and I like the IMAX 1.89 AR as when properly positioned fill my FOV with a great immersive image that is way more mainstream in terms of cinematography for modern action movies.

The fact it fills up TV screens is an added bonus I think.
Well it really shouldn't fill up a 1.78:1 screen. It's frustrating that a "premium" brand continually crops material. I know it's not much but they really shouldn't.

As far as the thread as a whole, I can't really get excited one way or the other on whether TV should be seen wider or shorter. If I watch it downstairs I would likely use the lens memory and watch it CIH. About 99% of the time I stream TV on the flat panel, so there's not really an option there.


Last edited by jeahrens; 06-06-2019 at 02:14 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #21 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 696 Post(s)
Liked: 203
I have seen the argument that Netflix' transition is more about tablet and phone aspect ratios than anything to do with cinematic presentation, but I think the "prestige TV" argument holds more merit. It has been 20 years since TV went to 16x9, and youngsters have never even seen 4:3 screens except in old movies. 16x9 is no longer special, and I definitely remember when it was. To make TV stand out now it does make sense to present it in a cinematic ratio.
ScottAvery is offline  
post #22 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 02:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Honestly I always considered it LieMAX due to the lack of resolution. IMAX always meant incredibly clear footage to me and seeing the first "LieMAX" venue was immediately disappointing because it lacked this. I wasn't really bothered by the AR or size.



Well it really shouldn't fill up a 1.78:1 screen. It's frustrating that a "premium" brand continually crops material. I know it's not much but they really shouldn't.

As far as the thread as a whole, I can't really get excited one way or the other on whether TV should be seen wider or shorter. If I watch it downstairs I would likely use the lens memory and watch it CIH. About 99% of the time I stream TV on the flat panel, so there's not really an option there.
IMAX Digital / LieMAX no one should have expected IMAX film quality I don’t remember the exact numbers but the film equated to 8k or 16k or something like that and it was widely publicized just how amazing and expensive that film system really is. Even to this day nothing can touch its resolution. There was a reason you only had a few venues scattered around the world and for the most part mainstream movie making didn’t adopt it. It is the reason IMAX had to produce their own short nature movies. Good and practical don’t always go hand in hand. They went where the money is and I don’t think they ever promised IMAX film quality. It was time for them to put down roots and stake a claim so they did. All the movie industry has been smoke and mirrors from the beginning. They are no different. Cinemascope was a hook at one time now it is IMAX Digital.

As to the AR sure 1.89 is a wonky number but so are the rest of them. I agree they should have went for 1.77 I would have. But they for whatever reason didn’t. It’s really no difference than why TV didn’t switch to 2:1 from 4:3 or for that mater why didn’t IMAX pix 2:1 over 1.89. These are the mysteries of all time. All I know is home entertainment is 16:9 and it’s close enough for me. Nolan and some others seem to get it when he has a 1.43 source he’s putting on BD he uses a 16:9 cut at least. If I had my way I would take the whole thing with black bars to the sides but that’s just me.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #23 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 02:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
I have seen the argument that Netflix' transition is more about tablet and phone aspect ratios than anything to do with cinematic presentation, but I think the "prestige TV" argument holds more merit. It has been 20 years since TV went to 16x9, and youngsters have never even seen 4:3 screens except in old movies. 16x9 is no longer special, and I definitely remember when it was. To make TV stand out now it does make sense to present it in a cinematic ratio.
That’s interesting logic and when you think about it the person with the smallest screen should complain about black bars the most. If a director has in the back of his mind I need to make a movie for a cell phone then, who knows what his cinematography model is.

When scope and the other wide AR came out it was to be different and more. Thus keeping the height the same and making the image larger in width. You were really giving people something more and wowing them. This idea is reverse as we know they have TVs. A prestige product that is less. Like how bags of chips keep getting smaller and the price goes up.

It’s like the 2.0 number was thought about as we can make it seem wider and the black bars will be small enough they might not notice. Going 2.35 is a bold move for TV as most everyone notices those bars.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #24 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 08:46 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If we only are looking at TV shows that are made shorter than conventional TVs 16:9 format and if we should present them as tall and wider then yes we have drifted off topic.

You did title this thread "Discussion Thread, TV shows with aspect ratios other than 16:9." Every episode of Game of Thrones is 16:9.

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 #25 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 08:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,038
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked: 3269
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
I have seen the argument that Netflix' transition is more about tablet and phone aspect ratios than anything to do with cinematic presentation, but I think the "prestige TV" argument holds more merit. It has been 20 years since TV went to 16x9, and youngsters have never even seen 4:3 screens except in old movies. 16x9 is no longer special, and I definitely remember when it was. To make TV stand out now it does make sense to present it in a cinematic ratio.

Some of the shows that have a 2.0:1 aspect ratio, I can see that decision being done to optimize them for phones or tablets. But the shows that actually go out to 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 are definitely not optimized for mobile. In those cases, it has to be an artistic decision to make them more cinematic.

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 #26 of 37 Old 06-06-2019, 10:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 696 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Some of the shows that have a 2.0:1 aspect ratio, I can see that decision being done to optimize them for phones or tablets. But the shows that actually go out to 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 are definitely not optimized for mobile. In those cases, it has to be an artistic decision to make them more cinematic.
Yes, I agree. I realized after posting that I misremembered the context of the previous discussion which had been that 2.0:1 was a recommended maximum width, possibly due to smaller viewing devices. I think TV produced in wider aspect ratios are just about making it an event rather than a humdrum show like any other.
ScottAvery is offline  
post #27 of 37 Old 06-07-2019, 06:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You did title this thread "Discussion Thread, TV shows with aspect ratios other than 16:9." Every episode of Game of Thrones is 16:9.

Title changed please proceed.

The topic will include all ARs shorter than 16:9 such as 2.0:1 and not as wide as 16:9 such as 4:3 and will include 16:9.

The overall discussion is if any material is being produced for TV non-theater released intent. That surpasses the intended normal presentation we would give TV in our theaters.

All this media comes in a 16:9 packet and may include black bars one way or the other.

It is of course always the individual showing it in his home theaters privilege to present it however he wants. Just as the guy with a TV can hit the zoom button on his remote and fill his screen by chopping off the rest. I think we all agree that is not proper TV presentation even though many people do that. So the question remains what do each of us feel is proper presentation in home theater given we have a zoom feature that doesn’t chop anything off.

TV could be made in Academy AR for effect just as easily as Scope or any wide screen format, and likewise who knows it could just as easily try and mimic one of the IMAX formats. Until we hear some TV directors commenting on it like they did with GOT we don’t know their real intent.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #28 of 37 Old 06-07-2019, 06:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
Yes, I agree. I realized after posting that I misremembered the context of the previous discussion which had been that 2.0:1 was a recommended maximum width, possibly due to smaller viewing devices. I think TV produced in wider aspect ratios are just about making it an event rather than a humdrum show like any other.
If every TV in the world could be magically transformed to some new wider AR as some people would like to see, maybe say 2.35:1. and every TV content provider would adopt a new standard of 2.35 presentation. If the consumer media folks making BD and UHD BD adopted a new standard of the packet of data that would be 2.35 also.

We could break out of this humdrum world of 16:9.

Oh wait that’s what they did not to many years ago and broke out of the humdrum world of 4:3.

How long would it take a new generation of viewers that don’t remember 4:3 and barely remember the boring 16:9 to find this new AR boring and normal.

We are attracted to change. I always laugh when someone catches a news worthy event on their cell phones and don’t turn the phone sideways. Then I see it on TV with blurry strips on the sides.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #29 of 37 Old 06-07-2019, 11:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,099
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2067 Post(s)
Liked: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
IMAX Digital / LieMAX no one should have expected IMAX film quality I don’t remember the exact numbers but the film equated to 8k or 16k or something like that and it was widely publicized just how amazing and expensive that film system really is.
I understand where you are coming from, but they built a brand on a high resolution and high quality. Slapping that name on projection that was nothing special is where the lie came from for me. Nothing about their digital initiative informed the consumer they were in for a huge step down in quality. The brand built up an expectation and didn't deliver. At least that's my opinion on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Even to this day nothing can touch its resolution. There was a reason you only had a few venues scattered around the world and for the most part mainstream movie making didn’t adopt it. It is the reason IMAX had to produce their own short nature movies. Good and practical don’t always go hand in hand. They went where the money is and I don’t think they ever promised IMAX film quality. It was time for them to put down roots and stake a claim so they did. All the movie industry has been smoke and mirrors from the beginning. They are no different. Cinemascope was a hook at one time now it is IMAX Digital.
The high end digital is really coming close. IMAX may not have promised comparable quality, but they didn't inform the consumer not to expect it either. If I was buying a Mercedes Benz I would have an expectation of quality. If take it for a drive and I get the experience of stripped down Ford Focus, I am not going to be a happy customer. Digital IMAX does not deliver on what the brand has built itself on plain and simple. Thus LieMAX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
As to the AR sure 1.89 is a wonky number but so are the rest of them. I agree they should have went for 1.77 I would have. But they for whatever reason didn’t. It’s really no difference than why TV didn’t switch to 2:1 from 4:3 or for that mater why didn’t IMAX pix 2:1 over 1.89. These are the mysteries of all time. All I know is home entertainment is 16:9 and it’s close enough for me. Nolan and some others seem to get it when he has a 1.43 source he’s putting on BD he uses a 16:9 cut at least. If I had my way I would take the whole thing with black bars to the sides but that’s just me.
1.89:1 is the full panel resolution of the common theater DLPs. Which gets masked to 1.85:1 for normal content. IMAX just used the full area to try to get some "bonus" for their brand. Agreed on seeing the whole 1.43:1 IMAX frame. I wish Nolan would at least give us that option.

I get why IMAX had to expand and get a larger presence, but I really feel like they diluted and damaged the brand in the process. But who knows maybe the brand wouldn't exist anymore if they hadn't.

jeahrens is offline  
post #30 of 37 Old 06-10-2019, 01:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,822
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I understand where you are coming from
I understand your viewpoint as well and do agree IMAX built a reputation that even IMAX couldn’t compete with in the digital age yet. They needed to something or go the way of Ringling Bros & Barnum, Bailey Circus. Nolan and a few others are keeping the film side alive and I think IMAX needed to move mainstream they have 3 things going for them and only one is the fantastic film quality they can do. There is also the somewhat increased immersion of IMAX 1.89 and then their sound. The IMAX DMR from what I can see is a plus for them as well. At least their theater presentation goals are to keep improving and some of the local movie chains around here seem like they don’t really care anymore. Time will tell if IMAX reinvents themselves.

As to the core question of the thread do you have a comment?

Is a TV series that is sent out to TV land in say 2.35:1 AR worthy of a presentation similar to a blockbuster movie of the same AR? Or do we discriminate and pick and chose our presentation similar to what I do based on how good we feel it will show?

Bud
bud16415 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