IMAX Enhanced - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 77Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 05:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantc View Post
Since we are on the topic of aspect ratios I've always wanted to get this off my chest: Scope is a dumb format. We don't see the world in widescreen. We see just as much up and down as we do side to side.* This is exactly why imax screens are 1.43:1. And its also why ALL movies before 1952 were 1.37:1 and TV was about the same.

Going wider was just one of many gimmicks they came up with in order to compete with television along with things like 3d and smell-o-vision. At one point they went all the way up to 3:1 before standardizing on 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. But there is nothing inherently "cinematic" about these formats. It's just become something we associate with cinema like the horrible motion blur from 24fps or the smell of popcorn and sticky floors.

16:9 is a great all around ratio for both home and cinema screens. Not too wide and not too tall. It was chosen to be a nice compromise between all the existing ratios. I would love if this became the universal standard for all content but I know that's not going to happen so I'll enjoy whatever format it comes in.

* And I know when I say this someone will invariably say that cinema is not about replicating real life. Even though if you discuss another topic those same people say it IS all about realism. So there's just no winning.
I liked your post but I won’t go as far as saying Scope is a dumb format I will just say scope is just one of many formats none really better than the next IMO. Maybe the more important thing is CIH and how it locks all the formats together in a way that for me is unnatural. It says no matter the content or no matter the AR it all has to fit inside a 2.35 rectangle. That was until IMAX came along in the 60s and rocked the boat a little. There was a line drawn and it was agreed. Never the two shall meet. IMAX did their thing pushing the window literally and making their own movies to fit that window. It wasn’t until IMAX decided to do exactly the same thing that Cinemascope did 70 years before was their controversy. They dared to suggest Hollywood try something new and thus the overlap and how could IMAX1.89 exist in a world set up where CIH was king. IMAX wasn’t just trying to edge into the space they wanted to be the new king. Hollywood being in a pickle and came up with this (scope safe) idea. And directors went with the flow and their idea of what scope safe means for some it means more dirt, grass or water on the bottom and more sky on the top. Others actually give us new visuals just like real life does in our vision just not something that stops the movie if it is not seen.

This same concept is true in scope movies only off to the sides. How often have you seen a scope film where the director wanted a close personal central image and had to fill in the sides with extras. They are there to fill our peripheral vision right and left just the same way the extra IMAX area does top and bottom.

Great painters have used all different sized and shaped canvas down thru history The Last Supper was like scope and the Mona Lisa a tall AR. Some artist saw paintings as IMAX and intended their work to be viewed at a distance as it was huge and others made art the size of an iPhone to be viewed close.

For me Academy never fit the mold of CIH. It was placed there because it was the extinct AR and wasn’t to be around that long in the age of scope. In the day movies were a commodity to be made and sold and to be done with. That is still somewhat true but we know now the good ones hang around forever.

I’m a bit in the middle in this discussion because given CIW or CIH as my only two choices with the total body of media out there to watch and no restrictions on my screen size or shape and seating distance I feel CIH is best. The thing is there are not just two methods of presentation and the ways to present media are endless. The trick is finding the method that suits your desires best. For me having a screen sized for IMAX in no way means IMAX is the only thing that fits it. It just means IMAX is at this time about as big as I think I will ever need to go. I was wrong The Hateful Eight came out a few years ago with a 2.55 AR and I ended up watching it wider than I ever thought I would need. So I was glad I hadn’t locked in on IMAX being the largest at least side to side. Not many can say they watched The Hateful Eight at home CIH.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 09:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 28,757
Mentioned: 248 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7764 Post(s)
Liked: 6927
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantc View Post
We don't see the world in widescreen. We see just as much up and down as we do side to side.
Brows and cheeks limit our up & down vision compared to side to side.


Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #153 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 09:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bryantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Europa
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I liked your post but I won’t go as far as saying Scope is a dumb format I will just say scope is just one of many formats none really better than the next IMO.
I was being a little facetious. I just get annoyed at people who talk about 2.35:1 as being some kind of end-all-be-all Holy Aspect Ratio of Cinema. And I don't want to poopoo anybody's choices in entertainment. Whatever makes you happy. But personally I don't really see the point in designing a cinema around it.

We have content in all kinds of ratios and you are going to have black bars no matter what shape your screen is in. Whether it's on the top/bottom or sides doesn't make much difference to me.

Incidentally in my memory I've never been to a movie theater that was constant height. Scope movies are simply projected in the middle of the screen with blank space above and below just like our TVs. Some of the fancier ones have curtains that come up to mask those areas.
Archibald1 likes this.

Media: LG 88" 8K OLED Z9 / Denon AVR-X8500H 7.1.4 / Oppo UDP-203 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / Sony 4K FMP-X10 / Gaming PC (Threadripper 1950X / 2x GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SLI) / PlayStation 4 Pro with PS VR / PlayStation (original)
Family: Sony 85" 4K XBR-85X900F / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / C64 Mini - Game: LG 77" 4K OLED C8 / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K
bryantc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 09:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bryantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Europa
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Brows and cheeks limit our up & down vision compared to side to side.


That is almost exactly 1.37:1. Nice coincidence.
Archibald1 likes this.

Media: LG 88" 8K OLED Z9 / Denon AVR-X8500H 7.1.4 / Oppo UDP-203 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / Sony 4K FMP-X10 / Gaming PC (Threadripper 1950X / 2x GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SLI) / PlayStation 4 Pro with PS VR / PlayStation (original)
Family: Sony 85" 4K XBR-85X900F / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / C64 Mini - Game: LG 77" 4K OLED C8 / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K
bryantc is offline  
post #155 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 10:47 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
appelz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A Hilton property near you!
Posts: 1,076
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 831 Post(s)
Liked: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantc View Post
That is almost exactly 1.37:1. Nice coincidence.
The numbers I recall seeing in the past were between 1.66 and 1.87:1 I think? Even a better coincidence for your point of view, no pun intended.

I've always felt it changed according to distance though, but purely my perception. More square up close and wider further away.
sdurani likes this.

Adam Pelz ,Acoustic Mafia - Hear No Evil
JBL Master ARCOS Calibrator, CEDIA Designer, Home Acoustics Alliance Instructor LIII, THX HT1+ HT2+ Video, Level III Trinnov Altitude Calibrator
Mercenary Calibrator for Manufacturers, Integrators and System Owners
appelz is offline  
post #156 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantc View Post
I was being a little facetious. I just get annoyed at people who talk about 2.35:1 as being some kind of end-all-be-all Holy Aspect Ratio of Cinema. And I don't want to poopoo anybody's choices in entertainment. Whatever makes you happy. But personally I don't really see the point in designing a cinema around it.

We have content in all kinds of ratios and you are going to have black bars no matter what shape your screen is in. Whether it's on the top/bottom or sides doesn't make much difference to me.

Incidentally in my memory I've never been to a movie theater that was constant height. Scope movies are simply projected in the middle of the screen with blank space above and below just like our TVs. Some of the fancier ones have curtains that come up to mask those areas.
I solved the problem for myself with what I call a DIY stealth screen wall. It has no size and it has no AR and more important to me it has no boarder. It is a darker neutral gray and with modern projectors doing black so well the combination of the dark screen and the projector self masking is good enough for me. So you could say the 4way masking travels at the speed of light. It is really nice for movies where the AR changes. The other night I counted 4 different ARs just in commercials as we were watching a network show. I’m also seeing a lot of frame breaking effects in movies and TV alike. If you remember the fish jumping out of the scope window in The Life of Pi. That kind of thing.

Being able to free form zoom and also change the image position at will far outweighs messing with movable masking at least IMO.

FOV and the graph you posted I have posted before. The more important part is our vision is only sharp in the tiny circle in the center. Try looking at one word in what I just typed and without moving your gaze read the word three lines up. Our eyes move non stop when watching a movie scanning and searching out the details we need to see. Then our mind paints the whole picture for us.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #157 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 03:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4,562
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2741 Post(s)
Liked: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
If the masses had their way with movies, they'd mainly be pan and scan. But those days are A LONG way in the rear view and clearly the market is still around. If anything, we have MORE content shot in wider aspects as even Netflix and most other streaming services have adopted them for their original content. So if it was such a big deal, I don't think we'd be in the reality we are.

As for why are we not seeing open matte IMAX versions in the IMAX enhanced disc releases, who knows. We've already heard director's say that they never intended for those versions to be seen in anything but true IMAX theaters, so maybe that continues to be the case for most of them.

So once again, I'll continue to watch the movies in their intended aspect ratios (I don't have an IMAX cinema at home, or kid myself into thinking I do). If you really feel this strongly about it, forums are going to give you ZERO resolve, just long drawn out debates. You'd be better off writing the studios or trying to get the ear of the director's via something like Twitter. For this stuff, these places are just echo chambers.
I think they just frame content in scope to make it look more 'cinematic' and a lot of the time it looks like the simply did it the cheap way and cropped the 16:9 frame.

All TVs are framed at 16:9 and thus all home releases should allow us to use the entire screen area just by leaving in the top and bottom portions that chopped off.

It doesn't need/have to look 'cinematic' as we are at home.

The only people this scenario would annoy are those who have gone purely scope. A minority I would say.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up."
Stephen Hawking. ~~~ "Be water my friend." Bruce Lee.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #158 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 05:11 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 11,189
Mentioned: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4369 Post(s)
Liked: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
I think they just frame content in scope to make it look more 'cinematic' and a lot of the time it looks like the simply did it the cheap way and cropped the 16:9 frame.

All TVs are framed at 16:9 and thus all home releases should allow us to use the entire screen area just by leaving in the top and bottom portions that chopped off.

It doesn't need/have to look 'cinematic' as we are at home.

The only people this scenario would annoy are those who have gone purely scope. A minority I would say.
For movies shot with the newer digital cameras, a lot are cropped to scope rather than using an A-lens. You'd have to look at each movie's details to see what type of lenses they used.

As for your talk about TV's framed at 16x9, that was the same argument they used to use in the day for pan and scan. "But I don't like the bars on my TV!!!"

I use TVs to watch TV, I use my screen to watch movies. TV looks like TV is supposed to, my scope screen makes ALL movies look like they are supposed to. To me, it is as simple as that.
Tom Monahan, Ericglo and AaronMK like this.

My Home Theater UPDATED NOV 2019
Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine
Deep Dive AV - Calibration, Consulting and Education
Kris Deering is online now  
post #159 of 175 Old 05-23-2020, 09:04 PM
Member
 
AaronMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 27
A lot of this "fill my screen" mentality would have been heresy even just a few years ago. I thought we had won that war a long time ago. I remember being an early adopter of DVD happy that OAR releases were not a specialty time, but people who would come over to watch the would see the black bars and be upset that the screen wasn't filled.


Even before Blu-ray launched, and even before 16x9 TVs were common to reduce the unused space, people seemed to understand the reasoning for the black bars, and separate pan and scan releases (and inclusion on the discs) had pretty much gone away. It was all OAR, and at least since Blu-ray's launch, I don't recall anytime where someone even mentioned the black bars or a preference for pan and scan. Bars to preserve the OAR of content when needed had just become the new normal.



It seems like IMAX has really muddied the waters on this. In theaters, the square footage of used screen is so large even when some is unsed due to 2.39:1 on CIW or 1.85:1 on CIH that it does not even enter the head of 98.76% of people viewing it. They see a large screen. (Even without masking.) I makes me pretty skeptical that filmmakers who want the taller ratio for IMAX also want scope for screen usage considerations elsewhere, especially at the cost of having to crop more of the image, when there will be absolutely nothing gained on the large portion of CIW screens, and when it will be and added burden to shoot "scope safe".


While this probably goes into conspiracy theory territory, I get the impression that IMAX pushes for 2.39:1 on the non-IMAX screens so they differentiate what you will see in the IMAX screens to a much greater and more obvious extent. When a taller than 2.35:1 ratio on a home release becomes an "IMAX question" with the answer being "no", it seems they want to differentiate from anything that is not IMAX branded, and are holding their masters closer to the chest.
AaronMK is offline  
post #160 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 01:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4,562
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2741 Post(s)
Liked: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
For movies shot with the newer digital cameras, a lot are cropped to scope rather than using an A-lens. You'd have to look at each movie's details to see what type of lenses they used.

As for your talk about TV's framed at 16x9, that was the same argument they used to use in the day for pan and scan. "But I don't like the bars on my TV!!!"

I use TVs to watch TV, I use my screen to watch movies. TV looks like TV is supposed to, my scope screen makes ALL movies look like they are supposed to. To me, it is as simple as that.
Why didn't 'they' make all TV's scope ratio and shoot all content like that too? That would have put it to bed.

I get exactly what you are saying about movies etc, all I have said as far as this thread goes that IMAX enhanced could have had an obvious selling point if the movies were framed to fill what most people have at home.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up."
Stephen Hawking. ~~~ "Be water my friend." Bruce Lee.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #161 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 05:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMK View Post
A lot of this "fill my screen" mentality would have been heresy even just a few years ago. I thought we had won that war a long time ago. I remember being an early adopter of DVD happy that OAR releases were not a specialty time, but people who would come over to watch the would see the black bars and be upset that the screen wasn't filled.


Even before Blu-ray launched, and even before 16x9 TVs were common to reduce the unused space, people seemed to understand the reasoning for the black bars, and separate pan and scan releases (and inclusion on the discs) had pretty much gone away. It was all OAR, and at least since Blu-ray's launch, I don't recall anytime where someone even mentioned the black bars or a preference for pan and scan. Bars to preserve the OAR of content when needed had just become the new normal.



It seems like IMAX has really muddied the waters on this. In theaters, the square footage of used screen is so large even when some is unsed due to 2.39:1 on CIW or 1.85:1 on CIH that it does not even enter the head of 98.76% of people viewing it. They see a large screen. (Even without masking.) I makes me pretty skeptical that filmmakers who want the taller ratio for IMAX also want scope for screen usage considerations elsewhere, especially at the cost of having to crop more of the image, when there will be absolutely nothing gained on the large portion of CIW screens, and when it will be and added burden to shoot "scope safe".


While this probably goes into conspiracy theory territory, I get the impression that IMAX pushes for 2.39:1 on the non-IMAX screens so they differentiate what you will see in the IMAX screens to a much greater and more obvious extent. When a taller than 2.35:1 ratio on a home release becomes an "IMAX question" with the answer being "no", it seems they want to differentiate from anything that is not IMAX branded, and are holding their masters closer to the chest.

One thing Warner, Sony, Disney, IMAX and all the rest do not know is when someone purchases a media disc from them is what you are going to do with it. They don’t know if you have a front projection home theater with IMAX immersion levels and all the IMAX gear to go with it or if you have a 19” TV and sit 10’ away from it and it has one tiny speaker. Once the movie has past thru their controlled venue it is of no concern to them how you view it.

The idea IMAX has a branding to uphold is valid and thinking about someone playing an IMAX movie on a 19” TV might make the hair stand up on the back of the IMAX teams necks. Likewise Scope and even Flat presentations were not intended for TV and the companies making them have a branding to that product to think about.

But the bottom line is it is out of their control and IMAX can leave their 1.43 and 1.89 movies collect dust and never be seen again unless they want to play them over and over year after year like they did their nature and science movies.

The real money to be made is hitting the secondary market at the right time be it hard media or be it streaming or a combination of both and actually the trend is moving away from hard media.

The thing about IMAX framing of these 1.89 movies and where it differs from pan n scan is nothing is being taken away it is only being added. IMO it is correct to say the scope version does have stuff taken away and in a few the movie is not just center cropped there is some image shifting done just like pan. The difference is the idea of “Scope Safe” meaning the director approves of the cropping and in some cases evidently he approves of it as being better.

All I ask is if that version is better please toss the 1.89 cut in the clipping basket right from the get go and show the scope movie in all venues including IMAX and then put the good version on hard media and streaming. Likewise if an IMAX1.89 is put out there and touted as the best experience then why in the world encode black bars where image should be on my disc. It really IMO has nothing to do with filling a TV screen that is just a good consequence that might help them sell media.

TV doesn’t do justice to any movie regardless of AR. Now that there are 85” TVs it is getting better. Even home theaters seldom have screens 40’-80’ tall. So if IMAX is ok with us seeing their 1.43 masterpieces on DVD as they once sold and now cropped down to 1.77 and put on BD I doubt they will have issue with Hollywood movies.
Archibald1 likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #162 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 05:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
Why didn't 'they' make all TV's scope ratio and shoot all content like that too? That would have put it to bed.

I get exactly what you are saying about movies etc, all I have said as far as this thread goes that IMAX enhanced could have had an obvious selling point if the movies were framed to fill what most people have at home.
They built scope TVs and they have made scope projectors and in both cases they never took off. The only way to really convert a projector to a scope projector is with an A-lens and now that we have 4k resolution it is claimed by some CIH enthusiasts that the main advantage to an A-lens now is just in brightness. At the cost of a 4k quality lens system most people are passing these days.

We live in a 16:9 world now right, wrong, good or bad. To think about changing that again would bring people out in the streets with pitchforks. It is what it is and IMO with 4k resolution I can fit any resolution inside it and have great resolution of that image and in the case of projection I can zoom that image up to any size I need. It is a fine compromise AR.
Archibald1 likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #163 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 06:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
For movies shot with the newer digital cameras, a lot are cropped to scope rather than using an A-lens. You'd have to look at each movie's details to see what type of lenses they used.

As for your talk about TV's framed at 16x9, that was the same argument they used to use in the day for pan and scan. "But I don't like the bars on my TV!!!"

I use TVs to watch TV, I use my screen to watch movies. TV looks like TV is supposed to, my scope screen makes ALL movies look like they are supposed to. To me, it is as simple as that.
I felt the same starting about 20 years ago and moving forward about 15 years. The TV was for watching TV and the HT and projector was for watching movies. There is nothing wrong with that approach and it is still valid.

For the last 5 years I have rethought that though as for me the lines between TV and home theater are being blurred. Streaming is this middle ground along with sports and some other stuff. I thought about it this way the best image in the house is with the projection setup, the most comfortable seating and the best sound control and quality is in there. Why not use it for mixed media because more and more of my viewing time with family is in mixed media.

So yes the news and the morning shows are still TV, but more and more of the evening stuff is projected.

This decision on my part played a role in screen sizing to IMAX also. There is just a lot of media out there that IMO benefits from expanded immersion. I don’t even know what it is called but people are streaming 4k plus content from around the world some of it are drone filmed nature stuff some of it are extreme sports etc. I weigh each presentation on its own merits and watch accordingly.

But that’s me and to each their own.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #164 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 08:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bryantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Europa
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked: 646
Streaming services are using wider aspects because of PHONES not cinema.

Media: LG 88" 8K OLED Z9 / Denon AVR-X8500H 7.1.4 / Oppo UDP-203 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / Sony 4K FMP-X10 / Gaming PC (Threadripper 1950X / 2x GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SLI) / PlayStation 4 Pro with PS VR / PlayStation (original)
Family: Sony 85" 4K XBR-85X900F / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / C64 Mini - Game: LG 77" 4K OLED C8 / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K
bryantc is offline  
post #165 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 08:54 AM
Senior Member
 
tre74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Will the next iPhone be IMAX Enhanced?
tre74 is offline  
post #166 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 09:08 AM
Member
 
CP850-CLED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Television's shape seems poised to evolve again due to streaming. Videowalls provide the flexibility.

"I have spoken."
CP850-CLED is online now  
post #167 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 10:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bryantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Europa
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by tre74 View Post
Will the next iPhone be IMAX Enhanced?

Why not. They already have Atmos and HDR.


And up until recently the Fandango mobile app would let you watch IMAX enhanced versions of movies with expanded aspect ratios. But they seemed to have "fixed" this and now they only show the standard aspect.

Media: LG 88" 8K OLED Z9 / Denon AVR-X8500H 7.1.4 / Oppo UDP-203 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / Sony 4K FMP-X10 / Gaming PC (Threadripper 1950X / 2x GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SLI) / PlayStation 4 Pro with PS VR / PlayStation (original)
Family: Sony 85" 4K XBR-85X900F / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K / C64 Mini - Game: LG 77" 4K OLED C8 / Denon AVR-X3400H 5.1 / Nvidia SHIELD (2017) / Apple TV 4K
bryantc is offline  
post #168 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
RS3771's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I liked your post but I won’t go as far as saying Scope is a dumb format I will just say scope is just one of many formats none really better than the next IMO. Maybe the more important thing is CIH and how it locks all the formats together in a way that for me is unnatural. It says no matter the content or no matter the AR it all has to fit inside a 2.35 rectangle. That was until IMAX came along in the 60s and rocked the boat a little. There was a line drawn and it was agreed. Never the two shall meet. IMAX did their thing pushing the window literally and making their own movies to fit that window. It wasn’t until IMAX decided to do exactly the same thing that Cinemascope did 70 years before was their controversy. They dared to suggest Hollywood try something new and thus the overlap and how could IMAX1.89 exist in a world set up where CIH was king. IMAX wasn’t just trying to edge into the space they wanted to be the new king. Hollywood being in a pickle and came up with this (scope safe) idea. And directors went with the flow and their idea of what scope safe means for some it means more dirt, grass or water on the bottom and more sky on the top. Others actually give us new visuals just like real life does in our vision just not something that stops the movie if it is not seen.

This same concept is true in scope movies only off to the sides. How often have you seen a scope film where the director wanted a close personal central image and had to fill in the sides with extras. They are there to fill our peripheral vision right and left just the same way the extra IMAX area does top and bottom.

Great painters have used all different sized and shaped canvas down thru history The Last Supper was like scope and the Mona Lisa a tall AR. Some artist saw paintings as IMAX and intended their work to be viewed at a distance as it was huge and others made art the size of an iPhone to be viewed close.

For me Academy never fit the mold of CIH. It was placed there because it was the extinct AR and wasn’t to be around that long in the age of scope. In the day movies were a commodity to be made and sold and to be done with. That is still somewhat true but we know now the good ones hang around forever.

I’m a bit in the middle in this discussion because given CIW or CIH as my only two choices with the total body of media out there to watch and no restrictions on my screen size or shape and seating distance I feel CIH is best. The thing is there are not just two methods of presentation and the ways to present media are endless. The trick is finding the method that suits your desires best. For me having a screen sized for IMAX in no way means IMAX is the only thing that fits it. It just means IMAX is at this time about as big as I think I will ever need to go. I was wrong The Hateful Eight came out a few years ago with a 2.55 AR and I ended up watching it wider than I ever thought I would need. So I was glad I hadn’t locked in on IMAX being the largest at least side to side. Not many can say they watched The Hateful Eight at home CIH.
The Hateful Eight is 2.75:1 AR. I've always found the wide-screen ARs to be very cinematic (2.35, 2.4, 2.55, and 2.75) for movies cos of the panoramic presentation. Back in the day, when 2.35 was first introduced, theater screen widths increased dramatically from 1.37 to 2.35, providing the wide angle vision to the audiences, without compromising on the height. But the story for today's HTs are different as we want to accommodate all ARs obviously. My setup is 1.9:1 AR and have manual magnetic masking panels to frame each AR (including 2.75 AR). Documentaries/IMAX look best in the 1.78/1.85 AR to my eyes. My screen width is 13.5 ft.

Last edited by RS3771; 05-24-2020 at 02:51 PM.
RS3771 is online now  
post #169 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 07:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS3771 View Post
The Hateful Eight is 2.75:1 AR. I've always found the wide-screen ARs to be very cinematic (2.35, 2.4, 2.55, and 2.75) for movies cos of the panoramic presentation. Back in the day, when 2.35 was first introduced, theater screen widths increased dramatically from 1.37 to 2.35, providing the wide angle vision to the audiences, without compromising on the height. But the story for today's HTs are different as we want to accommodate all ARs obviously. My setup is 1.9:1 AR and have manual magnetic masking panels to frame each AR (including 2.75 AR). Documentaries/IMAX look best in the 1.78/1.85 AR to my eyes. My screen width is 13.5 ft.
You are correct The Hateful Eight is indeed 2.75 AR it is hard to keep track of what movie is what these days. I think the 35mm print may have been the 2.55 AR.

I also love the super wide look of well done cinema. Just as there are good and bad to anything I have seen my share of scope movies that I have no idea why the director picked scope besides trying to make it more cinematic in doing that. These movies are filled with close personal shots that would look better in flat 1.85 and the sides are filled with a lot of nothing. It is almost they made the movie to be flat or TV safe if cropped.

I could live nicely with a 2:1 AR screen given it has IMAX height. If I had to frame a screen I might pick 2:1.

Going back to the beginnings of scope they used to start the showing with a few cartoons and sometimes a short feature in Academy AR with the side curtains drawn as masking. After 30 or so minutes of watching that academy AR they would start the scope feature and slowly open the curtains. The screen just got wider and wider.

Now that was showmanship of presentation.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #170 of 175 Old 05-24-2020, 07:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by tre74 View Post
Will the next iPhone be IMAX Enhanced?
There is nothing more cinematic than Quibi. That’s the future of movies haven’t you heard. We don’t have a couple hours to give up to watch a movie 10 minutes at a crack is enough, and you get to be your own director flipping your phone back and forth when you want a close up. Talk about AR changers you go between 2:1 and 1:2 with a flip of the wrist.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #171 of 175 Old 05-25-2020, 06:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4,562
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2741 Post(s)
Liked: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantc View Post
Streaming services are using wider aspects because of PHONES not cinema.
And phones are wide-screen because more and more films are watched on the horrid tiny screens. So phones follow on from TV/MOVIE aspects not the other way around.
I can say that as scope movies and wide-screen TVs predate smartphones.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up."
Stephen Hawking. ~~~ "Be water my friend." Bruce Lee.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #172 of 175 Old 05-25-2020, 06:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4,562
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2741 Post(s)
Liked: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tre74 View Post
Will the next iPhone be IMAX Enhanced?
There is nothing more cinematic than Quibi. That’️s the future of movies haven’️t you heard. We don’️t have a couple hours to give up to watch a movie 10 minutes at a crack is enough, and you get to be your own director flipping your phone back and forth when you want a close up. Talk about AR changers you go between 2:1 and 1:2 with a flip of the wrist. [IMG class=inlineimg]/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/IMG]
Sounds exhausting! All I want to do with my hands whilst watching a movie is my drink and or snacks.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up."
Stephen Hawking. ~~~ "Be water my friend." Bruce Lee.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #173 of 175 Old 05-25-2020, 03:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
Sounds exhausting! All I want to do with my hands whilst watching a movie is my drink and or snacks.
Hitting play and pause is enough work.

Quibi is a sign of our changing times though. I personally think a lot of our hobby is generational.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #174 of 175 Old 05-25-2020, 10:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,112
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 925 Post(s)
Liked: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Hitting play and pause is enough work.

Quibi is a sign of our changing times though. I personally think a lot of our hobby is generational.
Quibi flopped really hard, though, so perhaps all is not lost.
bud16415 likes this.
dschulz is offline  
post #175 of 175 Old 05-26-2020, 07:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,439
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Quibi flopped really hard, though, so perhaps all is not lost.
It is a bit odd we are happy about someone investing 1.7 billion into a movie media entertainment idea and flopping. But then again if they would have just came here to the forum and asked the question I’m guessing most would have told them “I wouldn’t pay for that when I already have 10 free apps that show me stuff and a few more pay apps that I enjoy on both my TV at home as well as my phone that have more to watch than I could in 10 lifetimes.”

I think I did what most people did hearing about Quibi I googled it and read that it is a phone only app. Timing couldn’t have been worse it came out right when covid19 broke and people were stuck home with TV. The last thing I want to do is watch a movie on my phone when I have a TV or better yet a Home Theater handy.

At least they have an excuse to make them feel better blame it on covid19 and not that you invented something no one wanted.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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