I can't stand watching movies with variable OAR - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 29Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 96 Old 04-13-2019, 09:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1191 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by inspector View Post
If you have a dedicated home theater (pitch black), like I have, with a 16x9 screen, I have not noticed changing frame movies. I'm too interested in the movie to notice. I have not read the previous posts.
Same here, walls painted black, ceiling tiles a dark gray, doesn't bother me. Same with OLED screen which I have on wall too, you don't notice the bars. They're solid black.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 96 Old 04-13-2019, 09:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1191 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This hobby we're in is called "home theater," not "big TV room."

Nothing is without compromise, but ask yourself how much content this really amounts to. Only a small handful of movies use variable ratio, and every one of them is composed to be safe for matting to Constant Height. Honestly, how often do you watch IMAX nature documentaries? How many of them do you own in your collection right now?

Next, go through your collection and count how many movies are 2.35:1.


Digital has nothing to do with anything. It's about composition. Here's a post I wrote a couple years ago with pictures that might better illustrate the fallacy of the "everything should be as big as possible" line of thinking:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2...l#post46541817
Digital means we're able to move past ancient standards. It doesn't mean we need to replace them altogether but it opens new opportunities and experiences.

IMAX, well I have all the 3D ones, changing AR movies, all of those too I think, and I would have more 2D IMAX documentaries but many of the older ones have yet to make it to Blu ray. So making a DVD image larger, doesn't really appeal. HD holds up much better.

There's literally nothing that says 2.35 images have to be displayed "larger" than a 1.85 movie or 16:9 movie etc. The only thing that's certain is that 2.35 images are "wider". That's it. Yes, there's more movies in that format, doesn't mean you have to use a 2.35 screen. There's more content not in 2.35 on Blu ray if we count TV shows, 1.85 movies, 4:3 etc.. Again, that doesn't matter either. It's really about preference when choosing a screen and maybe available space.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #33 of 96 Old 04-13-2019, 10:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Jbhur212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Akron
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by inspector View Post
If you have a dedicated home theater (pitch black), like I have, with a 16x9 screen, I have not noticed changing frame movies. I'm too interested in the movie to notice. I have not read the previous posts.
Thank you. This is also why I have a dedicated HT (16x9): to WATCH the movies!

EQUIPMENT:LG OLED77C8PUA (ISF calibrated by Jeff Meier)-OPPO BDP-203 blu-ray player-OPPO DV-983H dvd player-Pioneer CLD-99 laser disc player-Marantz 7703 Preamplifier-200x3 Acurus amplifier-150x2 Acurus amplifier-Emotiva UPA-2 amplifier-Outlaw Model 5000 amplifier-2 Mythos 4-1 Mythos 8-2 Mythos BPX-2 NHT Super Zeros-4 SVS Prime Elevation speakers-Hsu VTF-2 MK3 subwoofer-Elite-Xbox One S-Roku Ultra streaming player
Jbhur212 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 11:45 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,275
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3605 Post(s)
Liked: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Digital means we're able to move past ancient standards. It doesn't mean we need to replace them altogether but it opens new opportunities and experiences.
Digital cameras did not suddenly change all the rules of photographic composition.

Quote:
There's literally nothing that says 2.35 images have to be displayed "larger" than a 1.85 movie or 16:9 movie etc.
CinemaScope was explicitly designed to be the same height as the original Academy Ratio 1.37:1 but twice as wide.



Quote:
The only thing that's certain is that 2.35 images are "wider".
How is a 2.35:1 movie supposed to be wider if you play it on a screen the same width as a sitcom?

Quote:
That's it. Yes, there's more movies in that format, doesn't mean you have to use a 2.35 screen. There's more content not in 2.35 on Blu ray if we count TV shows, 1.85 movies, 4:3 etc..
Again, look at what type of content is made at each of those aspect ratios. Which do you think is supposed to be bigger, Jaws or The Big Bang Theory?

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 #35 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 01:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1191 Post(s)
Liked: 465
My statement didn't claim that digital changed photographic composition quite the opposite. I'll post my original statement again, with emphasis in bold: "Digital means we're able to move past ancient standards. It doesn't mean we need to replace them altogether but it opens new opportunities and experiences."

Ancient standards examples, like 24 fps HFR has been adopted in limited form possibly will become more commonplace, 2.35 film ratios, other ratios are experimented with like 2.0:1. IMAX showings using expanding frames.

Digital isn't limited to filming. Blu ray is a digital storage medium. There's been a standard for 1920x1080 total resolution support since it was released and now 3840x2160 with UHD discs, there's no reason to be limited to this standard now. If filming in 4K or higher or even 4K scans of film, the resolution could be different to support other resolutions and ratios.

Cinemascope wider than a sitcom, its ratio is wider not the total size.

How Cinemascope was designed doesn't set any standards for home theater to follow exactly. There are many different ratios used throughout movie history, as well as TV which many of us use home theater screens for that as well. It's about preference most of all. When we look at content, there's tons of movies and shows taller that we don't want to see shrunk on a 2.35 screen. If you're focus is on 2.35 movies then a 2.35 screen might make more sense, go with that.

If I were to build another fixed screen I would build an equal area screen like the one I posted before. Then you could have one for each ratio in the biggest size for available space with equal area. I see no reason to place one image format larger than the other. Just because Cinemascope was designed to be wider and same size as Academy doesn't mean 1.85 or 1.66 or 2.0 or expandable IMAX movies can't be seen just as large. Size of screen is a relative figure. If we wanted to go by biggest screens, then we would use IMAX figures and have them square.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Equal Area Screens.jpg
Views:	8
Size:	268.0 KB
ID:	2553364  

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #36 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 02:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,417
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
My statement didn't claim that digital changed photographic composition quite the opposite. I'll post my original statement again, with emphasis in bold: "Digital means we're able to move past ancient standards. It doesn't mean we need to replace them altogether but it opens new opportunities and experiences."

Ancient standards examples, like 24 fps HFR has been adopted in limited form possibly will become more commonplace, 2.35 film ratios, other ratios are experimented with like 2.0:1. IMAX showings using expanding frames.

Digital isn't limited to filming. Blu ray is a digital storage medium. There's been a standard for 1920x1080 total resolution support since it was released and now 3840x2160 with UHD discs, there's no reason to be limited to this standard now. If filming in 4K or higher or even 4K scans of film, the resolution could be different to support other resolutions and ratios.

Cinemascope wider than a sitcom, its ratio is wider not the total size.

How Cinemascope was designed doesn't set any standards for home theater to follow exactly. There are many different ratios used throughout movie history, as well as TV which many of us use home theater screens for that as well. It's about preference most of all. When we look at content, there's tons of movies and shows taller that we don't want to see shrunk on a 2.35 screen. If you're focus is on 2.35 movies then a 2.35 screen might make more sense, go with that.

If I were to build another fixed screen I would build an equal area screen like the one I posted before. Then you could have one for each ratio in the biggest size for available space with equal area. I see no reason to place one image format larger than the other. Just because Cinemascope was designed to be wider and same size as Academy doesn't mean 1.85 or 1.66 or 2.0 or expandable IMAX movies can't be seen just as large. Size of screen is a relative figure. If we wanted to go by biggest screens, then we would use IMAX figures and have them square.
The resolution of the media is meaningless as some sort of ratio yardstick. I bought widescreen VHS tapes where the media resolution was 1.33:1. I was never deluded into thinking this meant something about how it was meant to be presented. The ratios you keep typing are :1 for a reason. Cinema has been about width vs. height as the constant and still is. Cheap commodity theaters building narrow screens is not some sort of industry endorsement for narrow screens, it's building on the cheap on the part of the theater owners. Nothing more. There tons of movies intended to be shown narrower not taller.

If you want to base your screen around the 1-2% of cropped IMAX content out there be my guest. If you believe filling your wall is a great approach to sizing your screen rather than looking at what you watch, I couldn't disagree more.

A 1.78:1 ratio screen by it's very nature compromises every wider filmed AR you display on it.

jeahrens is online now  
post #37 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 03:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 4,202
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The experience of watching a scope movie on a 2.35:1 screen is vastly more enjoyable than watching the same movie on a 16:9 screen, letterboxed with visible black bars and shrunken to smaller than an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Meanwhile, when done properly, 1.85:1 movies lose nothing.
I don't get the point of the argument. Shouldn't it be as simple as:

If your room is limited in height first, go for 2.35.

If your room is limited in width first, go for 1.78.

If you're pretty close to being in the middle... go for 2.0 and mask accordingly.

If you have to go 1.78, so what if Blade Runner is smaller than Big Bang theory? You couldn't have fit a bigger scope screen than what fits inside your 16:9 screen anyway! Why spite all of the 1.85 content just to make 2.35 feel better? :-/
Scott Simonian likes this.
chirpie is online now  
post #38 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 03:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 4,202
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
If you want to base your screen around the 1-2% of cropped IMAX content out there be my guest. If you believe filling your wall is a great approach to sizing your screen rather than looking at what you watch, I couldn't disagree more.
Maybe that's why I'm not all on board with this. A lot of my all time favorite films AREN'T scope or even close. Stuff like Yi Yi, The Lion King, Akira, The Shawshank Redemption, Babe (Not gonna apologize for this one.) are some of my favorites. To your point, my favorites point to an average that isn't scope friendly...

Let's also not forget scope was originally a technology that partly came about to do battle against television, I.E., a marketing move. By that historical point alone, I try not to get too caught up in an automatic assumption that wider is always the answer.

Last edited by chirpie; 04-15-2019 at 03:18 PM.
chirpie is online now  
post #39 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 03:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
mattztt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Provo, UT
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post
I don't get the point of the argument. Shouldn't it be as simple as:

If your room is limited in height first, go for 2.35.

If your room is limited in width first, go for 1.78.

If you're pretty close to being in the middle... go for 2.0 and mask accordingly.

If you have to go 1.78, so what if Blade Runner is smaller than Big Bang theory? You couldn't have fit a bigger scope screen than what fits inside your 16:9 screen anyway! Why spite all of the 1.85 content just to make 2.35 feel better? :-/
If you get the largest scope screen you can fit and then situate your seating for the ideal level of 16:9 immersion on that screen, then you aren't spiting anything except maybe IMAX. All other content will be perfect.

Now if you can't arrange seating that gives you good immersion for 16:9 content on a scope screen THEN you may have to go with a taller screen and just live with the compromised scope immersion you get from that.
mattztt is online now  
post #40 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 03:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1191 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
The resolution of the media is meaningless as some sort of ratio yardstick. I bought widescreen VHS tapes where the media resolution was 1.33:1. I was never deluded into thinking this meant something about how it was meant to be presented. The ratios you keep typing are :1 for a reason. Cinema has been about width vs. height as the constant and still is. Cheap commodity theaters building narrow screens is not some sort of industry endorsement for narrow screens, it's building on the cheap on the part of the theater owners. Nothing more. There tons of movies intended to be shown narrower not taller.

If you want to base your screen around the 1-2% of cropped IMAX content out there be my guest. If you believe filling your wall is a great approach to sizing your screen rather than looking at what you watch, I couldn't disagree more.

A 1.78:1 ratio screen by it's very nature compromises every wider filmed AR you display on it.
I did not state that resolution should set any standard on aspect ratios. In prior posts I did state that Blu ray does in fact proportionally shrink the size compared to total resolution available for content wider than 1.78, that's a fact, this goes along with most displays formatted to 16:9 not 2.35. By it's very nature Blu ray is a 16.9 format, not 2.35. That does't mean you have to use any particular screen format over the other.

My point here is that resolution should not be considered a standard of any sort. They could for instance release 2.35 movies in a digital format in 2330x930 resolution for HD content which is equal resolution to 1920x1080. In digital terms, there's no reason this couldn't be done.

A 1.78 screen compromising 2.35 filmed movie. No, it doesn't. You see every pixel for pixel available. The confusion here is size. You folks think 2.35 must always be the larger format as if we must set all variables to 2.35 as the correct base ratio format. I do not agree with that. There are different aspect ratios for a reason. There's literally no written proof that 2.35 is the mandatory standard for filming movies, TV shows, documentaries, etc. It's all a matter of preference.

There's various ways one would decide on screen format. Content is one. Overall, taking in consideration TV shows that are formatted narrower, movies that are narrower than 2.35, those out number 2.35 movies and of all content on Blu ray or DVD, 16:9 makes more sense over 2.35, if you're going to claim that there are more 2.35 movies so that means a 2.35 ratio should be the standard format used, clearly that isn't going to work here. Either way, it's a preference.

This isn't the 1950's. We have options now. You can have different screen types of varying sizes, pick the one that works best for you.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #41 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 08:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,275
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3605 Post(s)
Liked: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Cinemascope wider than a sitcom, its ratio is wider not the total size.
Yes, wider in total size, not just shape. A scope movie cannot be wider than a sitcom if they're played on the same width screen. What you're describing is not wider, it's just shorter. That's the entire problem. You're taking these big, beautiful, expensive, $100+ million visual razzle dazzle movies and making them the smallest, least visually impressive content you watch. In exchange, you're prioritizing Reality shows, and cable news, and dog food commercials as being the biggest, most impressive, most important content you watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post
If you have to go 1.78, so what if Blade Runner is smaller than Big Bang theory? You couldn't have fit a bigger scope screen than what fits inside your 16:9 screen anyway! Why spite all of the 1.85 content just to make 2.35 feel better? :-/
Because most 1.85:1 content is not as visually dynamic as 2.35:1 content. Why would you want to give priority to the content that's the least visually interesting?

At this point, I think I've explained this concept as well as it can possibly be explained. I happen to watch a lot of Jeopardy, but Jeopardy will never be larger than Blade Runner on my screen. I find the thought of that appalling. To me, that wouldn't be a home theater. That's just an oversized TV. To each their own.

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

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Last edited by Josh Z; 04-15-2019 at 08:29 PM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #42 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 08:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Zzz..oltan!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles, sunny California
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Very nicely explained.

To me, 16:9 is HDTV, PC screens and video games. The movie industry knows its trade, big budget movies are cinemascope for a reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Back to the subject of movies with a variable aspect ratio:

1) There are very few movies like this. Barely two dozen in all, compared to many thousands of scope 2.35:1 movies.

2) Of the movies photographed with a variable ratio, half of them are only available that way on home media in 3D, while the 2D editions are Constant Height 2.35:1. Of those left, some of them are terrible movies you probably don't want to watch again anyway (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek into Darkness, etc.). This leaves you with a very, very small pool of movies to be concerned about. Is it really worth compromising literally thousands of other movies for the benefit of around half a dozen or fewer titles you might actually care about?

3) These movies only play with a variable ratio in IMAX theaters. In every other theater in the world, they are projected at a constant 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The Dark Knight, M:I Fallout, Aquaman... all of them were 2.35:1 in non-IMAX theaters. This means that, by necessity, they are composed to be fully safe for Constant Height 2.35:1. The IMAX expanded-height shots contain no critical picture information, just some extra headroom and footroom. On a huge IMAX screen, those portions of the frame mostly fall into the viewers' peripheral vision. They aren't meant to draw your eyes. On a smaller home screen, however, what you're left with is an image where characters on screen are awkwardly positioned too low in the frame with lots of empty space above them. It's bad composition, plain and simple.

Many projectors offer a feature to add blanking that can mask off the top and bottom of the frame, turning those IMAX shots into Constant Height 2.35:1. In almost all cases, this is seamless and a viewer would never know anything is missing (because nothing important is).

Too many to list. ;)
Zzz..oltan! is offline  
post #43 of 96 Old 04-15-2019, 11:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,112
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 817 Post(s)
Liked: 535
Just reading the posts in a thread titled "I can't stand watching movies with variable OAR", it is easy to see that screen type plays a major factor in the enjoyment of variable OAR movies with 16:9 screen members not being bothered by aspect ratio changes (based on posts) and members with scope screens tending to not care for these types of movies.

As I stated previously, I enjoy these movies on my 16:9 screen, but to be fair other family members usually fail to even notice the aspect ratio changes. Case in point, I purchased Aquaman last week and had a movie night with the family. I didn't tell them that the movie would be in 2.4:1 (143" on my screen) and 1.78:1 (151.5"). Once again they failed to notice the changes and didn't believe me until I demonstrated a change for them.

...So why have the aspect ratio changes? Well... in Aquaman most of the land/gravity locked action is in everyday 2.4:1 (horizontal/horizon) blockbuster format while the underwater(realms) action is in "expanded" to 1.78:1 which allows for the "gravity freed" characters to be up, down and all around. Visually this demarcation between "land" and "water" action is still being "seen" by the viewer even if they don't consciously notice.

When I added a second projector the next day and reversed it...keeping 2.4:1 the same 143" and shrinking the "expanded" 1.78:1 down to 112.5" to fit in the scope "box", the changes were jarring and didn't work. Kind of real world "more" while underwater/realms "less" which is the opposite of what was intended. By sampling the movie this way, it was easy for me to see why the original poster said "I can't stand watching movies with variable OAR". If I had to watch variable OAR content this way, I wouldn't.

So can we all agree that "the few" variable OAR movies are best suited to 16:9 screens than scope screens?

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 04-16-2019 at 12:09 AM.
steve1106 is online now  
post #44 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 12:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 274
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This hobby we're in is called "home theater," not "big TV room."




Nothing is without compromise, but ask yourself how much content this really amounts to. Only a small handful of movies use variable ratio, and every one of them is composed to be safe for matting to Constant Height. Honestly, how often do you watch IMAX nature documentaries? How many of them do you own in your collection right now?

Next, go through your collection and count how many movies are 2.35:1.


Digital has nothing to do with anything. It's about composition. Here's a post I wrote a couple years ago with pictures that might better illustrate the fallacy of the "everything should be as big as possible" line of thinking:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2...l#post46541817
I'm coming to the conclusion that CIH + IMAX is a really good way to go.
JohnnyWilkinson is offline  
post #45 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 07:02 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,275
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3605 Post(s)
Liked: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
So can we all agree that "the few" variable OAR movies are best suited to 16:9 screens than scope screens?
These movies were made for those scenes to be cropped to scope. That's how they played in 90% of theaters across the globe.

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 #46 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 07:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,417
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
A 1.78 screen compromising 2.35 filmed movie. No, it doesn't.
So in your view shrinking a wider rectangle in both dimensions isn't compromising it's presentation? Odd. I'd think the math is fairly straightforward.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
You see every pixel for pixel available. The confusion here is size. You folks think 2.35 must always be the larger format as if we must set all variables to 2.35 as the correct base ratio format.
No the cinematic standards set the ratio presentations with height as the constant. 2.35:1 is meant to be displayed at the same height as 1.85:1 only wider. Again, the industry has established this. I'm simply following that specification.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I do not agree with that.
Good for you. As long as you realize that your making up your own guidelines that are contrary to what the industry has established.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
There are different aspect ratios for a reason.
Yes there are many artistic reasons for picking an aspect ratio. Standard theatrical ratios are established with the height as a constant and a common viewing distance/angle. IMAX is setup to be taller framed and a much closer seating distance for overwhelming vertical immersion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
There's literally no written proof that 2.35 is the mandatory standard for filming movies, TV shows, documentaries, etc. It's all a matter of preference.
No one is saying it is. We're saying there are defined presentation standards for film that aren't arbitrary. I own all sorts of films in a variety of ARs. From 1.37:1 Academy to 2.40:1 scope films. The only AR that I do not properly display is IMAX. It makes up a minuscule amount of my collection and I have no interest in sitting at IMAX immersion levels. But I can see why folks may want to set up their room for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
There's various ways one would decide on screen format. Content is one. Overall, taking in consideration TV shows that are formatted narrower, movies that are narrower than 2.35, those out number 2.35 movies and of all content on Blu ray or DVD, 16:9 makes more sense over 2.35, if you're going to claim that there are more 2.35 movies so that means a 2.35 ratio should be the standard format used, clearly that isn't going to work here. Either way, it's a preference.

This isn't the 1950's. We have options now. You can have different screen types of varying sizes, pick the one that works best for you.
Absolutely there are options. If you watch mostly TV programs, then a 1.78:1 screen makes sense. If you are more 50/50 TV vs. film, a 2.0:1 screen makes sense. If you are watching mostly movies then 2.35:1 would be my recommendation.

And to be actually on topic, I've always found shifting AR material to be an ugly distraction. Even when I had a 16:9 screen.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-16-2019 at 07:36 AM.
jeahrens is online now  
post #47 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 07:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,417
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyWilkinson View Post
I'm coming to the conclusion that CIH + IMAX is a really good way to go.
As long as you understand what that means. In the diagram attached you should only be using the dark red portion of the screen for IMAX presentations. TV and normal 1.85:1 films should occupy the bright red portion only. The green sections represent scope presentations. Overall you should be approximately 1.5x the total screen height for your seating distance (so if the screen is 50" high, your seating would be 75" from it). This will give IMAX its intended immersion level, while 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 films will have a standard theatrical immersion level.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CIH_IMAX.jpg
Views:	8
Size:	18.8 KB
ID:	2553680  


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-16-2019 at 07:30 AM.
jeahrens is online now  
post #48 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 07:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 274
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
As long as you understand what that means. In the diagram attached you should only be using the dark red portion of the screen for IMAX presentations. TV and normal 1.85:1 films should occupy the bright red portion only. The green sections represent scope presentations. Overall you should be approximately 1.5x the total screen height for your seating distance (so if the screen is 50" high, your seating would be 75" from it). This will give IMAX its intended immersion level, while 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 films will have a standard theatrical immersion level.
Yes, this is exactly what I plan on doing.

I was initially planning on a 3.8-4.2m wide scope (2.4:1 aspect) screen, but instead I'm thinking of taking the maximum width and a 2:1 ratio screen. So 2.1m high, which is about as big as I can go in both dimensions (once the frame is taken into account) - with 4 way masking. I wont be sitting quite as close as you suggest - probably around 4m away, but will likely only use the top and bottom sections for IMAX. The only other time I may use them is for sports viewing where people may be viewing from further back.
jeahrens likes this.
JohnnyWilkinson is offline  
post #49 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 07:52 AM
Member
 
abhilash220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Haven't yet bought Aquaman just because of VAR. I didn't know about the scope blocker and will see how it looks.
I think majority of 16:9 screens and TV owners are not going to be bothered by VAR.
To answer OPs original question 'But I remember reading somewhere that movies bought in iTunes Store never have variable OAR?
Do I remember wrong or is this true?'
The answer is false. Even Aquaman in iTunes has VAR. First thing I checked when the review came out.

Last edited by abhilash220; 04-16-2019 at 07:56 AM.
abhilash220 is offline  
post #50 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 08:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,292
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 842 Post(s)
Liked: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Yes, wider in total size, not just shape. A scope movie cannot be wider than a sitcom if they're played on the same width screen. What you're describing is not wider, it's just shorter. That's the entire problem. You're taking these big, beautiful, expensive, $100+ million visual razzle dazzle movies and making them the smallest, least visually impressive content you watch. In exchange, you're prioritizing Reality shows, and cable news, and dog food commercials as being the biggest, most impressive, most important content you watch.

That's pretty harsh but there is a true ring to that. In my particular case I use alternately either a 2:35:1 screen for scope movies, a 1.78:1 smaller screen for 16:9 'full screen' content and yet a smaller one for TV.


If there were more classic IMAX films around and if I had a higher ceiling I would consider a 1.78:1 screen with the same width as my 2.35:1 screen, but that's unrealistic given my current situation.


On a strictly personal level I couldn't bear to watch Star Wars (ANH) or 2001 on a screen where the image height of either one would be less than that of a TV show, but YMMV.


Regarding VAR I hope to be able to upgrade to a front projector with horizontal blanking to get rid of the extra areas at the top and bottom, as I find VAR rather distracting than contributing.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #51 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,275
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3605 Post(s)
Liked: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
If you watch mostly TV programs, then a 1.78:1 screen makes sense. If you are more 50/50 TV vs. film, a 2.0:1 screen makes sense. If you are watching mostly movies then 2.35:1 would be my recommendation.
Honestly, I don't even think this is true. These days, I wind up watching more TV in my home theater than movies, but I would still never want, say, Killing Eve (a show I love) to be larger than The Matrix. Regardless of which I watch more of by volume, I still want scope movies to have their intended impact when the time comes to watch 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 #52 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,417
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Honestly, I don't even think this is true. These days, I wind up watching more TV in my home theater than movies, but I would still never want, say, Killing Eve (a show I love) to be larger than The Matrix. Regardless of which I watch more of by volume, I still want scope movies to have their intended impact when the time comes to watch them.
I understand that perspective completely. I've been into this hobby for over 20 years and movies are my priority. However I've gotten to the point where I realize not everyone has the same priorities. And perhaps my statement is a bit to general. But if a person is watching mostly sports or TV, I guess I see them as having more of a media room and not striving for a home theater. And it can be hard to justify to them the effort of setting up a room for proper AR presentation (or get them to grasp why it's important). So I've gotten to a point where I look at how they will use the space and try to make a suggestion that best fits those needs. Obviously if movies are in the mix I will make the effort to explain the how and why they may want to consider a scope AR. And it's also important to note that a good deal of streaming content is 2.0:1 or wider, in which case a wider AR screen will only increase the immersion here vs. a narrower one.

jeahrens is online now  
post #53 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 09:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1191 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Yes, wider in total size, not just shape. A scope movie cannot be wider than a sitcom if they're played on the same width screen. What you're describing is not wider, it's just shorter. That's the entire problem. You're taking these big, beautiful, expensive, $100+ million visual razzle dazzle movies and making them the smallest, least visually impressive content you watch. In exchange, you're prioritizing Reality shows, and cable news, and dog food commercials as being the biggest, most impressive, most important content you watch.



Because most 1.85:1 content is not as visually dynamic as 2.35:1 content. Why would you want to give priority to the content that's the least visually interesting?

At this point, I think I've explained this concept as well as it can possibly be explained. I happen to watch a lot of Jeopardy, but Jeopardy will never be larger than Blade Runner on my screen. I find the thought of that appalling. To me, that wouldn't be a home theater. That's just an oversized TV. To each their own.
Again, you seem to think that 2.35 movies should automatically be the larger size, you need to point to facts to substantiate that point. Just because Cinerama back in the 50's/60's was the largest screen size doesn't mean it is today. You're prioritizing 2.35 movies, which is fine. But it's not a standard for making 2.35 screens larger than any other format. If someone films something in 16:9 format with the intention of showing it on the largest 16:9 screen possible, then it's meant to be shown larger than what you would show shrunken on a 2.35 screen. And it's true 2.35 movies are shrunken on a 16:9 screen, which isn't the intended effect, but we're not prioritizing 2.35 movies.

I don't read any facts there that suggest 2.35 is more immersive than any other ratio. While in fact 16:9 is more immersive than wider images which is why IMAX uses taller ratios. We don't see in 2.35, our vision allows us to see much taller images. Dog commercials, Jeopardy, you posted those examples not us. I plan on watching first episode of Game of Thrones Season 8 tonight on my 16:9 screen. It will not be shrunken down to fit on a 2.35 screen.

If I was starting from scratch I would make my dual equal area screen and then both would be the same size.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #54 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 09:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,112
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 817 Post(s)
Liked: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
But if a person is watching mostly sports or TV, I guess I see them as having more of a media room and not striving for a home theater. And it can be hard to justify to them the effort of setting up a room for proper AR presentation (or get them to grasp why it's important).
And it can be hard for someone to grasp that it really isn't that important to some of us that scope always be larger than flat. It is like we are speaking a different language. I can show that given my width limit that 16:9 results in the same scope size presentation while increasing the size of all other aspect ratios.

... but that makes a movie like "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" smaller than the recent episode of "Game of Thrones" or even last night's "Jeopardy" (current champ is kicking butt). It doesn't bother us. All are as large as our current house will support. The same goes for 2:1 or 2.2:1 or 4:3.

Sit closer...scope must be larger...I want my HT like a theater....director's intent is important...my preferred content is scope and so on. Call us rebels since we want the largest possible experience in our home. Sign us up for the affordable 150" TVs when they come.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/14 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is online now  
post #55 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 10:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1191 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
So in your view shrinking a wider rectangle in both dimensions isn't compromising it's presentation? Odd. I'd think the math is fairly straightforward.
I can still see the entire image is why I said it wasn't compromised, yes it's shrunken down on a 16:9 screen as it already is on the Blu ray, it's only compromising overall size when compared to playing 16:9 content on the same screen, if one never played any 16:9 content would it still be compromised? If your priority is displaying 2.35 content, you would want a 2.35 screen. I've said that already.

Quote:
No the cinematic standards set the ratio presentations with height as the constant. 2.35:1 is meant to be displayed at the same height as 1.85:1 only wider. Again, the industry has established this. I'm simply following that specification.
Which cinematic standards state that 16:9 specifically must be shown as a smaller image than 2.35? There are none. Those are cinematic standards not home theater standards. We can go round and round here and we come back to the same thing. It's a matter of preference. There's many different ratios used for movies, documentaries, tv shows, no cinematic standard is going to state that they should all be shown within a 2.35 format screen or that they should be shown as the smaller image.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #56 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 10:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
mattztt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Provo, UT
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
And it can be hard for someone to grasp that it really isn't that important to some of us that scope always be larger than flat. It is like we are speaking a different language. I can show that given my width limit that 16:9 results in the same scope size presentation while increasing the size of all other aspect ratios.

... but that makes a movie like "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" smaller than the recent episode of "Game of Thrones" or even last night's "Jeopardy" (current champ is kicking butt). It doesn't bother us. All are as large as our current house will support. The same goes for 2:1 or 2.2:1 or 4:3.

Sit closer...scope must be larger...I want my HT like a theater....director's intent is important...my preferred content is scope and so on. Call us rebels since we want the largest possible experience in our home. Sign us up for the affordable 150" TVs when they come.
Screen size is not the only element though here. Seating distance is at least as important. You've maximized the size of your screen to the largest you can possibly fit but presumably you haven't moved your seating as close as it can possibly be. Why is that? I'm sure that 150" screen would be absolutely gigantic from 4' away. How far back do you actually have your seats?
mattztt is online now  
post #57 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,417
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I can still see the entire image is why I said it wasn't compromised, yes it's shrunken down on a 16:9 screen as it already is on the Blu ray, it's only compromising overall size when compared to playing 16:9 content on the same screen, if one never played any 16:9 content would it still be compromised? If your priority is displaying 2.35 content, you would want a 2.35 screen. I've said that already.
It doesn't matter at all what percentage of the Blu Ray's resolution it's using. Shrunken down is absolutely compromising the presentation of a format intended to be wider and more immersive. Playing 16:9 content is irrelevant, displaying 2.35:1 reduced on a 1.78:1 screen is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Which cinematic standards state that 16:9 specifically must be shown as a smaller image than 2.35? There are none. Those are cinematic standards not home theater standards. We can go round and round here and we come back to the same thing. It's a matter of preference. There's many different ratios used for movies, documentaries, tv shows, no cinematic standard is going to state that they should all be shown within a 2.35 format screen or that they should be shown as the smaller image.
Are you trying to have a home theater or a TV room? If it's the former, then it's about recreating the cinema experience in your home. Which means recognizing and following cinematic standards. If you want a big TV room and don't care about cinematic presentation, have at it.

jeahrens is online now  
post #58 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 10:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,417
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
And it can be hard for someone to grasp that it really isn't that important to some of us that scope always be larger than flat. It is like we are speaking a different language. I can show that given my width limit that 16:9 results in the same scope size presentation while increasing the size of all other aspect ratios.
Why? Height is the constant in cinematic ratios. What's hard about understanding that "higher number:1" is bigger than "lower number:1"?

What you can show me is what you always show. You filled your wall and think because you've done this you've "maximized" things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
... but that makes a movie like "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" smaller than the recent episode of "Game of Thrones" or even last night's "Jeopardy" (current champ is kicking butt). It doesn't bother us. All are as large as our current house will support. The same goes for 2:1 or 2.2:1 or 4:3.
It's as large as your seating distance and image height make it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Sit closer...scope must be larger...I want my HT like a theater....director's intent is important...my preferred content is scope and so on. Call us rebels since we want the largest possible experience in our home. Sign us up for the affordable 150" TVs when they come.
All I'd say is your setup works for what you use it for. There's nothing rebellious about picking the most basic presentation method and filling the space on your wall with a screen in that AR. Not saying that it's wrong for you, but you're hardly doing anything edgy with your choices.

jeahrens is online now  
post #59 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 10:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,275
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3605 Post(s)
Liked: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I don't read any facts there that suggest 2.35 is more immersive than any other ratio. While in fact 16:9 is more immersive than wider images which is why IMAX uses taller ratios. We don't see in 2.35, our vision allows us to see much taller images.
Most people have two eyes on their face arranged horizontally. We have much more horizontal peripheral vision than vertical, and it is more comfortable for our eyes to scan from side to side than up and down. An overly tall image is uncomfortable to watch, whereas a wide image is much easier to take in.

Even IMAX understands this, which is why the company transitioned from the original super-tall 1.44:1 screens to a wider 1.9:1 ratio.

The smaller multiplex LIEMAX theaters don't do this anymore, but the original IMAX screens (the ones that started in museums and specialty venues) used to begin their shows with warnings for what viewers should do if they experienced vertigo or nausea from the overly-tall images. They also limited show time on their nature documentaries to less than an hour. Those venues were never designed for watching feature-length movies. When IMAX started catering to Hollywood later, they had to change their standards so that viewers watching, say, a frenetic 2 3/4 hour Transformers movie wouldn't all start puking in their seats halfway through.

Quote:
Which cinematic standards state that 16:9 specifically must be shown as a smaller image than 2.35? There are none.
I already explained this with screencap examples in post 28. The visual standards for both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 are based on the notion of a common height. Objects in either are composed for sizing within the frame height. A wider scope frame gives the characters more room to move around, which is why it's well suited for huge, expansive epics. Enlarging a 1.85:1 image doesn't do that all. All it does is make everything bigger, but the characters are still cramped by the limited 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 #60 of 96 Old 04-16-2019, 11:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 4,202
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Because most 1.85:1 content is not as visually dynamic as 2.35:1 content.
But, like, that's just your opinion man.

Going one step further, that sucks for people who's favorite films are Gone with the Wind, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, The Wizard of Oz, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Honestly, I don't even think this is true. These days, I wind up watching more TV in my home theater than movies, but I would still never want, say, Killing Eve (a show I love) to be larger than The Matrix. Regardless of which I watch more of by volume, I still want scope movies to have their intended impact when the time comes to watch them.

Isn't it just as easy to say, "I'm OK with Game of Thrones being larger than Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom?"

As for intended impact? My current plan is to move from the second row to the first row in my theater for scope films. Zoom with your feet and everyone wins.

But I could never get mad at ya Josh, since we both love Lynch's Dune. (Which, I admit, is a scope film. )

Last edited by chirpie; 04-16-2019 at 12:07 PM.
chirpie is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

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