I can't stand watching movies with variable OAR - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 28Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 03:58 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
jake51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I can't stand watching movies with variable OAR

It takes me right out of the movie every time the original aspect ratio changes
So much so that I have sold my First Man UHD
It's a good movie with just one scene in a different OAR... but I just can't stand it
My projector screen is in the 2,35:1 format
I like Nolan's movies but I'll never buy them on disc (Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar)
But I remember reading somewhere that movies bought in iTunes Store never have variable OAR?
Do I remember wrong or is this true?

Edit: I really wanted to buy Mission Impossible: Fallout to complete my UHD collection of the MI movies
But no

Last edited by jake51; 04-06-2019 at 04:09 AM.
jake51 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 06:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
shivaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 2,257
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1044 Post(s)
Liked: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake51 View Post
It takes me right out of the movie every time the original aspect ratio changes
So much so that I have sold my First Man UHD
It's a good movie with just one scene in a different OAR... but I just can't stand it
My projector screen is in the 2,35:1 format
I like Nolan's movies but I'll never buy them on disc (Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar)
But I remember reading somewhere that movies bought in iTunes Store never have variable OAR?
Do I remember wrong or is this true?

Edit: I really wanted to buy Mission Impossible: Fallout to complete my UHD collection of the MI movies
But no
Does your projector have an option in the menu to set the image to the 2:35 format? Mine does and because of that, stays in the 2:35 format throughout the movie.
shivaji is online now  
post #3 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 07:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,286
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2231 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
I watch the Dark Knight once a while. In the beginning of the movie the aspect ratio switching makes sense, it also is kind of cool. It does not stop there thought. It goes on and on to a point were it makes no sense no more and one wishes for it to stop. Nolan made a aspect ratio mess here AFAIK. It looks to me like some directors use that tool simply because it is available and since it is rarely used (it being annoying is a good reason not to use it) it is a easy way to distinguish oneself from other directors to. Eventhough it is rarely used some movies that use it are excellent movies like the Dark Knight and Tron: Legacy.
8mile13 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 07:33 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
I actually enjoy movies with aspect ratio changes and go out of my way to purchase them even going so far to buy a 3D version just to get the "IMAX" expansions some offer. Since I run my projector as a TV...a 151.5" 16:9 TV, the transitions from scope to flat aren't a jarring since the change is mild going from 143.5" of 2.35:1 to 151.5" of 16:9. Now by comparison if I was doing a 143.5" scope screen the drop would be to 114.61" of 16:9 and I could see how that large of a transition would be jarring. It would be as bad as distorting a 16:9 image to stretch it to fit a 2.35:1 screen.

TV shows like Truck Night in America jump from flat to scope for the action scenes, and it can really improve a "meh" movie like the new Ghostbusters when the action spills out of the scope box.

At the end of the day, I want the largest possible experience in my home regardless of the aspect ratio so variable OAR fits the bill and add a little something extra come movie time.

151.5" 16:9


143.5" 2.35:1


Breaking the scope wall:




Edit: I had one GB picture with the lights on reflecting on the screen.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02298a.jpg
Views:	333
Size:	164.0 KB
ID:	2549638   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02302a.jpg
Views:	335
Size:	142.4 KB
ID:	2549640   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02307a.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	133.7 KB
ID:	2549642   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02309a.jpg
Views:	244
Size:	121.0 KB
ID:	2549644   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02317.JPG
Views:	352
Size:	126.5 KB
ID:	2549648  

Ben23 likes this.

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; 04-06-2019 at 07:45 AM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #5 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 08:31 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
jake51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by shivaji View Post
Does your projector have an option in the menu to set the image to the 2:35 format? Mine does and because of that, stays in the 2:35 format throughout the movie.
No, my JVC doesn't have that option
I zoom out the image to fit the screen
What projector do you have?
jake51 is offline  
post #6 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 08:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 7,157
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 718 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Yup, its just a directors “phase” hope it passes, its not artistic at all, its distracting at best !

As of Feb 20th still looking for a Marantz SR7010
**HT Build https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...-door-0-a.html **


DIY HT builds, are 90%planning, 10%construction
kgveteran is offline  
post #7 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 09:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
shivaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 2,257
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1044 Post(s)
Liked: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake51 View Post
No, my JVC doesn't have that option
I zoom out the image to fit the screen
What projector do you have?
My projector is the Mitsubishi HC4000.
shivaji is online now  
post #8 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 09:18 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 kgveteran View Post
Yup, its just a directors “phase” hope it passes, its not artistic at all, its distracting at best !
Actually it is artistic and a different way of using the "canvas". Just like any "art" some get it and some don't.

Change scares people who aren't ready to embrace it. Some silent film directors/studios/actors/theaters were against the new talkies. Some black and white film directors/studios/actors/theaters were slow to embrace color. Some academy aspect ratio directors/studios/actors/theaters were slow to adopt scope...but the market drives the bus. As poor old Helen and others may discover:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...flix-cinemacon

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 offline  
post #9 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 10:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,286
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2231 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Actually it is artistic and a different way of using the "canvas". Just like any "art" some get it and some don't.

Change scares people who aren't ready to embrace it. Some silent film directors/studios/actors/theaters were against the new talkies. Some black and white film directors/studios/actors/theaters were slow to embrace color. Some academy aspect ratio directors/studios/actors/theaters were slow to adopt scope...but the market drives the bus. As poor old Helen and others may discover:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...flix-cinemacon
It is like using two different canvasses at the same time AFAIK
steve1106 and Zzz..oltan! like this.
8mile13 is online now  
post #10 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 01:21 PM
Senior Member
 
WOKNROX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal HiDez
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake51 View Post
It takes me right out of the movie every time the original aspect ratio changes
So much so that I have sold my First Man UHD
It's a good movie with just one scene in a different OAR... but I just can't stand it
My projector screen is in the 2,35:1 format
I like Nolan's movies but I'll never buy them on disc (Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar)
But I remember reading somewhere that movies bought in iTunes Store never have variable OAR?
Do I remember wrong or is this true?

Edit: I really wanted to buy Mission Impossible: Fallout to complete my UHD collection of the MI movies
But no
I hear you and like you I'm not a fan of it either...
I have a Carada Masquerade masking system and can't stand it when the OAR changes.

The least they could do is put it on the cover of the movie so I know what's up before I start the movie!!

Your not going to want to buy Aquaman then either...
Great movie but the OAR changed constantly throughout the movie.
Zzz..oltan! likes this.
WOKNROX is offline  
post #11 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 01:39 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
What do you do for 1.85 movies or really any other taller AR movies than 2.35? The problem is choosing a 2.35:1 screen. Changing AR's and taller formatted movies aren't going away.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #12 of 95 Old 04-06-2019, 01:53 PM
Senior Member
 
WOKNROX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal HiDez
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
What do you do for 1.85 movies or really any other taller AR movies than 2.35? The problem is choosing a 2.35:1 screen. Changing AR's and taller formatted movies aren't going away.
With a 235 screen you mask the sides for a narrower 185 movie.

Myself I use a 185 screen with an electric horizontal masking system.
Not a huge problem if it changes a time or two during a movie, it's just a press of a button. But when its content, its a pain.
Now if I know the movie has OAR changes to it from the get go I just won't mask it.
WOKNROX is offline  
post #13 of 95 Old 04-08-2019, 10:30 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
What do you do for 1.85 movies or really any other taller AR movies than 2.35? The problem is choosing a 2.35:1 screen. Changing AR's and taller formatted movies aren't going away.
1.85:1 movies should not be taller than 2.35:1 movies. The intent of scope photography is that the image be the same height as 1.85:1 but wider and more immersive. Watching a scope movie letterboxed on a 16:9 screen is the opposite of that intent.

Only movies that include variable ratio IMAX footage are intended to be taller than scope. There are still relatively few of those, compared to the thousands and thousands of existing 2.35:1 movies.

You can find a list of all the VAR movies in this thread:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2...s-blu-ray.html
Frank714 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 #14 of 95 Old 04-08-2019, 10:39 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake51 View Post
No, my JVC doesn't have that option
I zoom out the image to fit the screen
What projector do you have?
Depending on the model, your JVC projector may have a masking option that will convert parts of the frame to black letterbox bars. Check your model's manual for keywords "masking" or "blanking."

Although you will lose some picture info when you do this, these VAR movies are deliberately composed to be safe for CIH projection (which is how they're shown in all non-IMAX theaters). As you can see in these images that Steve posted above, the movie has no critical picture information above or below the 2.35:1 frame area, just some extra empty headroom and footroom that leave the character awkwardly positioned too low in the frame.





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 #15 of 95 Old 04-08-2019, 12:17 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
jake51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Never thought about this
In the manual it says I can mask 0-220 pixels on all four sides of the picture
Don't know how large a part of the picture 220 pixels is
But that would mean that the sides would be cropped?
I'll try it out
jake51 is offline  
post #16 of 95 Old 04-08-2019, 01:12 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 Josh Z View Post
1.85:1 movies should not be taller than 2.35:1 movies. The intent of scope photography is that the image be the same height as 1.85:1 but wider and more immersive. Watching a scope movie letterboxed on a 16:9 screen is the opposite of that intent.

Only movies that include variable ratio IMAX footage are intended to be taller than scope. There are still relatively few of those, compared to the thousands and thousands of existing 2.35:1 movies.

You can find a list of all the VAR movies in this thread:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2...s-blu-ray.html

In the film days, yes. But we're not playing these from film most likely. Blu rays are formatted to 16:9 and that is already "letterboxed" when they transfer them (1920x1080 total resolution). If the blu ray disc was 2.35:1 total resolution (say 1920x800 total resolution) and 1.85 movies were placed inside that at a smaller width resolution then that would be a case to have a 2.35:1 screen, I'd be all over it. Until then, trying to make 2.35 the largest available screen area makes no sense. The discs are taller than that. You bought the wrong screen.

And changing AR's are perfect for Blu ray (and UHD Blu ray) format because they have the resolution there to allow for it. With 16:9 screen I guess if the black bars bother you so much you could mask them off too if the AR doesn't change.

And this isn't limited to IMAX scenes. MI: Fallout used taller digital images for helicopter scenes, not IMAX. Taller imaging isn't going away.
tenthplanet and steve1106 like this.

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 04-08-2019 at 01:56 PM.
tomtastic is offline  
post #17 of 95 Old 04-10-2019, 08:56 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
jake51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Amazing
I've had JVC projectors for seven years and it never occurred to me to use the masking feature
I can choose to mask only top and bottom, not the sides
I'll watch Interstellar again one of these days… haven't watched it yet because it's a long movie
jake51 is offline  
post #18 of 95 Old 04-11-2019, 08:19 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
In the film days, yes. But we're not playing these from film most likely. Blu rays are formatted to 16:9 and that is already "letterboxed" when they transfer them (1920x1080 total resolution). If the blu ray disc was 2.35:1 total resolution (say 1920x800 total resolution) and 1.85 movies were placed inside that at a smaller width resolution then that would be a case to have a 2.35:1 screen, I'd be all over it. Until then, trying to make 2.35 the largest available screen area makes no sense. The discs are taller than that. You bought the wrong screen.
We're not talking about resolution. We're talking about photographic composition. These are separate issues. The whole point of CinemaScope is to project a large, immersive, and WIDE image. The 16:9 HDTV standard compromises that intention by shrinking scope movies down.



Quote:
And this isn't limited to IMAX scenes. MI: Fallout used taller digital images for helicopter scenes, not IMAX. Taller imaging isn't going away.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout only had a changing aspect ratio in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, it was projected as 2.35:1.

Variable ratios are a fad that only affects a miniscule minority of movies, currently less than two dozen in all. And half of those only have a variable ratio in the 3D version, which is close to dead on the market and newer TVs don't even support anymore.

Meanwhile, there are literally THOUSANDS of movies available in scope 2.35:1, with lots more being made every single day.

Playing on thousands of theater screens right now:

Shazam! - 2.35:1
Pet Sematary - 2.35:1
Us - 2.35:1
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World - 2.35:1
Wonder Park - 2.35:1

Opening this weekend:

Hellboy - 2.35:1
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cinemascope.jpg
Views:	172
Size:	33.1 KB
ID:	2551750  
Zzz..oltan! and Frank714 like 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 #19 of 95 Old 04-11-2019, 09:48 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
Yes, when filming, it's about composition and framing. Like Jurassic Park, Spielberg said he choose 1.85 because dinosaurs were tall. He wanted a taller framing with humans and dinosaurs in the same shot. Jurassic World was shot with 2:1 AR an in between ratio not commonly used so it would retain some scope aspect, then the latest Jurassic World the director went back to 2.35 which if you notice a lot of the dinosaur shots now look less impactful in size and scale with the latest installment, they have a different effect and purpose, all that is a matter of preference, fine. Not arguing what 2.35 and 1.85 are meant for, only that things have changed in the digital world now as how we choose the layout of displaying those images. In an ideal world both formats should have the widest or tallest screen possible respectively, but that isn't the case anymore.

Looking at theaters there are a growing number of theaters that are equipped with 1.85 screens now as the largest screen format not 2.35, and they mask for 2.35 top and bottom or they don't mask at all showing letterboxing which irritates some. To me it isn't a major issue, I focus on the image not the black bars. But the point is, because we've moved to digital where resolution is a key factor and the tech is also digital, starting with a taller screen makes more sense. The same is said for Blu ray which is a 1.78 image. And here resolution does matter too. If they had given a preference to 2.35 movies with greater resolution there would be precedent to favor a 2.35 screen. But they didn't, it's 1.78 from the menu screen to the end credits. Playing a 1.85 movie on a 2.35 screen means you have a much smaller image with pillerboxing (if you don't mask). So now 1.85 movies will be less impact. Jurassic Park will look weak on a 2.35 screen because you could have had a taller screen (if the room dimensions allow for it).

In most home theater rooms a 1.78 screen will fit where ever a 2.35 screen would so favoring a 2.35 screen and then complaining about changing AR because you can't display that correctly, you can enjoy those movies with the rest of us. The simple answer is a 1.78 screen and masking for 2.35 if you need to or leave it open for these movies. Then you can have your cake and eat it too.

The first Ant Man was 1.85. MI: Fallout, what is the Blu ray, 2.35 only or changing AR's? I believe it's the latter.

And the biggest reason taller framing isn't going away is it is closer to what our actual vision can take in, not scope. IMAX is square, VR is square. It's about giving you the biggest screen possible and filling your vision for the most immersive image. Not to suggest that scope is going away though.

The only reason I would go with 2.35 is if the room is sized in proportions that 2.35 allows the biggest screen that would fit and you want the biggest screen possible which I actually did build one at first then realized I could also fit a 1.78 screen if I put speakers behind screen instead of below.

A 1.78 screen is the best of both worlds answer, 2.35 means you can't enjoy some movies as they were intended, like Interstellar, Dark Knight, etc. and you're 1.85 movies will be miniaturized. Now you could argue that 2.35 movies on a 1.78 screen are miniaturized as well then, well aren't they already on the disc? A 1.78 image gets the full 1920x1080 image resolution (taller), 2.35 gets 1920x800 (narrow). Maybe the best way is 2 projectors and dual drop down screens one for each format, I doubt many would go for that though.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #20 of 95 Old 04-11-2019, 10:12 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
jake51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 30
1,85:1 is fine
2,35:1 is fine
A mixture of the two sucks
Zzz..oltan! likes this.
jake51 is offline  
post #21 of 95 Old 04-11-2019, 11:06 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Playing a 1.85 movie on a 2.35 screen means you have a much smaller image with pillerboxing (if you don't mask). So now 1.85 movies will be less impact. Jurassic Park will look weak on a 2.35 screen because you could have had a taller screen (if the room dimensions allow for it).
No, again, you are not understanding the process. The idea of Constant Image Height is that you start with a 1.85:1 image just as large as you want it, and then make the screen wider. Jurassic Park loses nothing, but now all scope movies are restored to their intended impact.

Take a look at the types of movies that are made in each aspect ratio. By overwhelming majority, the big blockbuster visual spectacle movies are photographed in 2.35:1. Do you think their directors want them to be watched smaller than episodes The Bachelor? Because that's what happens to those movies on a 16:9 screen.

Exceptions like Jurassic Park do exist, but they're decidedly a minority. For the most part, 1.85:1 is used for smaller dramas, comedies, and low-budget indie films. For every Jurassic Park at 1.85:1, there a hundred more similar "event" movies at 2.35:1. Every single one of those gets compromised when shrunken down on a 16:9 screen. As I explained, Jurassic Park loses nothing on a proper 2.35:1 screen.
Zzz..oltan! 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.

Last edited by Josh Z; 04-11-2019 at 01:25 PM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #22 of 95 Old 04-11-2019, 02:20 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
Not sure I follow you here: "by starting with constant height and going wider" and "scope movies are restored to their intended impact?" It sounds like you're saying all screens in theaters are 2.35, I know in pre digital days, that was sometimes the case. They would swap out glass behind the bulb and mask off for 1.85 movies but even back then there were 1.85 screens too.

AFAIK, most theaters now (in the digital era) are equipped with both 2.35 and 1.85 or IMAX unless it's a single screen cinema then it would have to be one or the other or IMAX. They should be able to mask off either format as they used to in the past, sides for flat movies or top/bottom for scope. In multiplexes likely both formats of aspect ratios have been displayed on both screens at one time or another, just depends, maybe they run out of 2.35 screens that week etc and they mask them off on a 1.85. Or they don't mask them, that's the case now with some theaters with 1.85 equipped screens, they leave it letterboxed.

Yes, there are more 2.35 movies, it doesn't mean that all theaters should be formatted to that as the largest screen size. They wouldn't have the room to build all theaters with 2.35 screens at least in the big multiplexes. Theaters only have so much real estate to maximize screen size. One reason theaters may favor 1.85 screens is they can have more theater rooms (more movies more tickets) vs. wider rooms (less space to build more theater rooms) to accommodate 2.35 movies. They'll have 1 or 2 big auditoriums and use 2.35 or IMAX, then a number of smaller theaters and these might be 1.85 or 2.35. Really, what's more important is your seating position and distance to the screen. If you sit in the back row and off to the side at an IMAX showing, I just have to ask, why bother? For the best results, with either format it should be the largest size screen possible that would fit the room but seating is critical for either format. For 2.35 movies that means a wider auditorium. For 1.85 less width and more ceiling height.

For home theater the resolution format of Blu ray and UHD favor 1.78. There's more pixel resolution and more data (depending on encoding bitrates). Theoretically, if you use the max bitrate for 1.78 or 1.85 movie they will contain more data than a 2.35 film. This hardly suggests 2.35 should be given the priority of screen format ratio over 1.78 at least in the home. In order to get equal resolution you would need a 2.35 image resolution of approx. 2231x930 to equal 1920x1080 (2.07MP resolution) and I would be perfectly fine with that if they did.

2.35 it's like a wide angle lens, brings more scene into a shot. It's also looks very different than 1.78 so it sets it apart from TV more than 1.85, so it makes more sense that more movies are in that format, however 1.85 is more immersive and 1.78 even more so. IMAX screens are even more square and they seem to be doing just fine when showing these scope movies that open up. Jurassic Park used it well, like an IMAX showing. Personally, I'm glad more movies are using it. I only expect the number of films that use variable AR to increase not go away. In the digital era now we're not bound by any previous standards.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #23 of 95 Old 04-12-2019, 08:13 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
For home theater the resolution format of Blu ray and UHD favor 1.78. There's more pixel resolution and more data (depending on encoding bitrates). Theoretically, if you use the max bitrate for 1.78 or 1.85 movie they will contain more data than a 2.35 film. This hardly suggests 2.35 should be given the priority of screen format ratio over 1.78 at least in the home. In order to get equal resolution you would need a 2.35 image resolution of approx. 2231x930 to equal 1920x1080 (2.07MP resolution) and I would be perfectly fine with that if they did.

2.35 it's like a wide angle lens, brings more scene into a shot. It's also looks very different than 1.78 so it sets it apart from TV more than 1.85, so it makes more sense that more movies are in that format, however 1.85 is more immersive and 1.78 even more so. IMAX screens are even more square and they seem to be doing just fine when showing these scope movies that open up. Jurassic Park used it well, like an IMAX showing. Personally, I'm glad more movies are using it. I only expect the number of films that use variable AR to increase not go away. In the digital era now we're not bound by any previous standards.
Look, I'm clearly not going to convince you, so there's no point arguing it much further. You should do whatever works best for you in your home and be happy with it.

However, in the interest of trying to see this from another perspective, I just ask that you look at the types of movies that are made at each of these aspect ratios and ask yourself which you think is meant to be the larger and more immersive viewing experience (examples chosen of movies from the same year, all Best Picture nominees):

Star Wars or Annie Hall
Lord of the Rings or A Beautiful Mind
Lawrence of Arabia or To Kill a Mockingbird
The Martian or Spotlight

By watching everything on a 16:9 screen, you are compromising all the "big" movies to prioritize the smaller ones.

What cheapjack theaters do to save a buck is of no relevance to this conversation. The quality of the theatrical experience has been deteriorating for decades. I should hope that you haven't designed your personal home theater to closely imitate some crappy multiplex screen.

The resolution of the media is also beside the point. Do you watch 1080p Blu-rays on a 4k display at 1:1 pixel mapping, shrunken inside a small window within the larger screen? Of course not. You scale them up. You'd do the same thing with scope movies on a scope screen, and we're at a point technologically where increasing the resolution has diminishing returns on the visual experience. Even 1920x800 pixels is plenty of resolution to deliver a stunning image on a large screen.

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.
shivaji and Zzz..oltan! like 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 #24 of 95 Old 04-12-2019, 09:08 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
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).

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 95 Old 04-12-2019, 09:20 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
We don't agree, that part we agree on. It's a matter of preference. I like 16:9 screens better. And for my room it works better. I have an equally wide screen for 1.85 movies as 2.35, I'm using the maximum room dimensions. And it's not a big theater nor did I drop a lot of money in it so it's probably nowhere near as good as a cheapjack theater anyway. I don't see the need to fit 1.85 inside a smaller frame to somehow make 2.35 movies grander. I realize years ago in some cinemas if the theater was 2.35 screen then they masked the sides, makes sense since that was the only feasible way to do it if the screen was 2.35.

My only point on Blu ray resolution is that they should give preference to wide screen movies with equal resolution instead they're proportionally reduced. Obviously the real reason is because the standard display format is 16:9 TV screens not a 2.35 framed screen.

I also don't agree that 1.85 movies should be considered "smaller". They should be shown equally as big or however as large as each screen and room can shown them. Plenty of 1.85 movies or expanded frame movies deserve this, instead you just crop all that extra detail out which wasn't as intended, everyone else gets to enjoy it. I still get just as much enjoyment from 2.35 movies on a 16:9 screen. It's widescreen, I get it. And black bars don't bother me personally either but one could always mask too if needed.

Anyway, we've covered it, moving on.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #26 of 95 Old 04-12-2019, 11:12 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I don't see the need to fit 1.85 inside a smaller frame to somehow make 2.35 movies grander.
Conversely, I don't see the need to fit 2.35:1 inside a smaller frame to make sitcoms and game shows grander.

2.35:1 movies are supposed to be grander. That's the whole point of shooting in 2.35:1. Why else would a director choose that format? Never once, in the entire history of cinema, has any director ever decided to shoot at movie at 2.35:1 hoping that audiences would watch it on a screen smaller than the Coke commercials and trivia slides the theater puts on before the show.

Quentin Tarantino in particular has ranted at length about the trend of modern theaters turning into little more than "public TV."

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 #27 of 95 Old 04-12-2019, 02:16 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 Josh Z View Post
Conversely, I don't see the need to fit 2.35:1 inside a smaller frame to make sitcoms and game shows grander.
Right, it works both ways, I see that point too and agree with it. They shoot these movies for 2.35 regardless that their movies are intentionally shrunk when transferred to blu ray for home entertainment, it's mostly about the theatrical experience while in that limited run, but home release is still different. The majority of those watching at home are not watching 2.35 movies on a 2.35 screen, you're in the minority here as am I for just using a projector.

What I say, is that 1.85 or 1.78 or whatever taller ratio is used should not be placed inside a 2.35 screen which diminishes the height effect, unless you're using all the available space like I am for 16:9 and that happens to be the biggest screen you can fit and you want the biggest screen you can fit.

If the room can support a widescreen and 16:9, that would be my choice. Have one screen for 2.35 and one that is 16:9 and both screens can maximize what they're intended to do, and that way neither are placed inside the other because neither fit correctly inside the other. In digital times like right now there's no need to have these constraints.

With IMAX releases that do make it to disc, the intended effect is to open up the frame which you can't if you have a 2.35 screen. And what about other IMAX releases like the documentaries? These screens are supposed to be taller and bigger, can't do that placed inside 2.35, (again a lot depends on room size and available space for a screen). If my room was about 6 feet wider, I might switch to a 2.35 and then have to place the taller ratios inside it, but it's more square so 16:9 works better for me. Ideally, if I had a room that was say 20 feet wide and 9' tall, I would go the 2 screen option. The 2.35 screen would be wider, the 16:9 taller and not as wide.

I could throw up a 2.35 screen in front of the 16:9 screen I guess, then it would be properly matted. But that would be the cost of another drop down screen and projector and it wouldn't change in size only benefit for me would be the matting. I'll have to think about it. Black bars don't bother me that much, but I am sitting a little closer than most, 10' and 125" screen.
steve1106 likes this.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #28 of 95 Old 04-12-2019, 04:04 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: 3603 Post(s)
Liked: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Right, it works both ways, I see that point too and agree with it. They shoot these movies for 2.35 regardless that their movies are intentionally shrunk when transferred to blu ray for home entertainment, it's mostly about the theatrical experience while in that limited run, but home release is still different. The majority of those watching at home are not watching 2.35 movies on a 2.35 screen, you're in the minority here as am I for just using a projector.
This hobby we're in is called "home theater," not "big TV room."

Quote:
With IMAX releases that do make it to disc, the intended effect is to open up the frame which you can't if you have a 2.35 screen. And what about other IMAX releases like the documentaries?

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.

Quote:
If the room can support a widescreen and 16:9, that would be my choice. Have one screen for 2.35 and one that is 16:9 and both screens can maximize what they're intended to do, and that way neither are placed inside the other because neither fit correctly inside the other. In digital times like right now there's no need to have these constraints.
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Composition is precisely the reason why Constant Height display is important. The rules of composition, regarding the relative sizes of objects in the frame, are the same between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The only difference between the two is that 2.35:1 has more picture on the sides.

Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere in this thread trying to explain it in words, allow me to explain it in pictures.

Here are a pair of images from two similar movies: The Avengers (1.85:1) and Iron Man 2 (2.35:1). Both images are medium shots of the same character. When displayed in Constant Height format, you'll notice that the character is basically the same size, and he's framed similarly in both shots from the top of his head to his waist.

This is the intent of scope composition. You start at the same size you would in 1.85:1, and then add extra width.




However, if you display these same images in Constant Width format, suddenly the 2.35:1 movie is greatly shrunken and diminished in impact. The character looks much smaller, and the scene is less involving.



That's not the case in Constant Height. Iron Man is the same size in both movies in Constant Height. He fills the same amount of your vision. The Avengers is not compromised or diminished in Constant Height. When done properly, 1.85:1 movies are as large as they're ever going to be on your screen. Then scope movies are even wider for added immersiveness, as intended.

Constant Width, unfortunately, will always diminish 2.35:1 movies. They will always be shrunken down so that all objects on the screen are smaller than the same objects in 1.85:1 movies. That is not how they were composed.

A Constant Width screen starts from the premise that scope movies are less important than and inferior to 1.85:1 movies. If you believe that's true, take a look at the types of movies that are photographed in each aspect ratio. Year after year after year, the directors of big budget, visual spectacle, eye candy movies overwhelmingly choose to shoot them in scope ratio. Consistently, 70% or more of that type of movie are photographed in scope.

Before you stammer, "Bu... bu... but... Why is The Avengers 1.85:1, then?" That was the decision the director of that movie made. The Avengers is one movie in a long franchise in which most of the other entries are 2.35:1. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Captain America 2, Thor, Thor 2, The Incredible Hulk, even Avengers 2... All of those movies are 2.35:1.

In the Marvel franchise, only The Avengers and Ant-Man are 1.85:1. Pointedly, the premise of Ant-Man is that it's about a guy who's really small. Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America 3 were 2.35:1 in most theaters but variable ratio in IMAX. That's 14 movies, 10 of which are pure 2.35:1. That's perfectly consistent with the overall trend that 70% of these big-budget tentpole movies are photographed in scope.

Scope composition adds more breadth and dimension to the image. It gives the characters more room to move around. 1.85:1 doesn't do that, not even if you project it extra large on an IMAX screen. All that does is zoom up the whole picture and make everything oversized. Proportionally to the way objects in the frame are composed, the characters are still boxed in by limited width.

Constant Height is the only scenario in which Iron Man appears the same size in both of these movies.

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 #29 of 95 Old 04-12-2019, 04:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
inspector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Menifee, CA , USA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 135
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.
tenthplanet and Jbhur212 like this.

...finally retired and spending time in my dedicated HT!!!

SPARKSPLEX HT - Epson 6040 3D/4K UB Projector; 110" 16x9 Dalite HD Progressive Screen; Sammy 3D/4K K8500 region free; 7.2.4. w/Def Tech speakers, Earthquake P12v2 Subs; Auto Source 100vs Amp; Denon 4300H; MX990 Remote; 5 Bello chairs; Coaire Mini-split.
inspector is offline  
post #30 of 95 Old 04-13-2019, 09:14 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
Here's an example of equal area screen. See attached image. This could be done with 2 pulldown projector screens one wide and one 16:9 or by creating a fixed screen like in the attached image. This would require masking either sides or tops when not in use.

So for solutions to viewing changing AR films on a 2.35 screen, not too many options. I guess you could mask it off with projector in menu as was suggested if you have that option. Next you could reconfigure image to display 16:9 inside the center of 2.35 screen, (smaller image). Or you could with ripping tools, crop the image to 2.35. That last idea I would never personally do that, but if you don't mind loosing that information and just have to have 2.35 with no overspill and no in menu masking options, another way to go.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Equal Area Screens.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	268.0 KB
ID:	2552386  

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
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