AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, I know most of you already know, but for those of you who don't..........



It's gonna be great!!


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Hugo, you bet I did! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif There wee about 4 burps in the broadcast, but overall I thought it was fantastic.


Man E, bring it on. I tried to get a copy of the DVD to do the comparison, but time got the better of me. The image looked to be cropped to expand to 16:9, but the resolution of the image was, IMO, better than the DVD. All the birds flying around looked a little(which isn't saying much)more detailed than the DVD.


What I didn't like was the scene where they took Maximus to the field of bones to be killed. The camera was pointed downward, then slowly panned up. On the DVD, I remember this being smoother than the very chop like pan up on the broadcast.


Dang, Lake Placid is on now and in 5.1!! Gotta go.


Chris


[This message has been edited by CCLAY (edited 06-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
saw the same 4 burps, but otherwise an excellent display. Watched it on 50" plasma, 1280x768. also checked out the dvd briefly, which was not as good in terms of color and fine detail. This surprised me since for my system, both dvd and HD get scaled to the same output res by the Vig; I expected the dvd content to be as high quality as whatever HBO used to convert to HD.


jlm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Oops! I wasn't doing a head-to-head comparison. We saw the DVD a few months back. I thought that the jewelry was fantastic. I saw many scenes where objects appeared to have been cut at the top and bottom. There were also some out of focus shots (but they might have been in the original). Overall, very good PQ, but it definitely suffers from the lack of OAR. B+/A-



------------------

The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
Quote:
Am I the only person that thinks this way?
According to Mr. Zitter of HBO, you are not.

The dealers and a majority of HBO employees that were surveyed, agree with you.

He also stated that he received more complaints about their pan and scan policy then there are HDTVs. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Jeremy,


I agree 100% with comments on every account.


To further add to them, I don't really see the need for 2.35:1 movies. A big screen is a big screen no matter what the aspect ratio is. I have yet to hear someone complain that the IMAX image isn't big enough and it is 4:3.


I think 1.85:1 is perfectly fine and it fits just about perfect in the 16:9 encoding space of 720P or 1080i.


Another thing to remeber about director's and 2.35:1 movies. Most of them are aware that a huge percentage of movie houses are going to crop the sides of the movie to fit in a 1.85:1 frame. Also, most Stadium Seating theaters are constant width. So if the theater doesn't crop the image, They have to shrink it horizontally to fit it in. 2.35:1 movies are actually smaller than their 1.85:1 counter parts.


So to summarize:


1. The "meat" of of a 2.35:1 film is almost always in the center anyway for whatever reasons.


2. Big black bars on either an anamorphic DVD or HD recording means lost resolution. I would prefer that I get all or nearly all lines full with useful data whether it be DVD or HD.


2. I would perfer that more directors shoot in 1.85:1 and we can get this aspect ratio thing nipped in the bud.


So, Jeremy that makes two of us that are crazy.


-Mr. Wigggles


------------------

The Mothership is now boarding.


[This message has been edited by MrWigggles (edited 06-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Nice to know I'm not alone. :)


This maybe rumor, but I heard that James Cameron preferred 4:3 because it matched the shape of a human face better, thus making closeups more striking. I won't go that far, but 16:9 or 1.85:1 seem like a happy medium.


Jeremy


------------------

D-ILA, HTPC, HDTV, Panamorph(?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Jason


Yes my opinion would change if DVD's were in a 21:9 ratio, but they aren't


All of theater's that I know of in this part of the country: Cinemark, AMC, Loew's use constant width on there movies. The 1.85:1 movies go ALL the way to the boarder's in the stadium theaters. I am sorry I haven't seen the movie theaters that you are talking about but there be a lot o' croppin' go on in these parts. Edward's doesn't. Point is movie theaters now are a lot taller than they used to be.


I am glad you quoted some movies where where the 2.35:1 was used beneficially. You forgot 2001 and Bladerunner. But the word "almost" doesn't mean "always". (I went ahead and but it in bold for you this time.) Also I don't think it looks all that bad cropped to a 16:9 and I know Kubric and Scott could have shot it in 1.85:1 if they desired.


And as far as Lucas is concerned, he can shoot in whatever he wants. His stuff never makes it to us anyway in a quality form. (2.35:1 on laserdisc gives a whopping 270 or so vertical lines)


-Mr. Wigggles


PS. Don't waste your sarcasm on me.


------------------

The Mothership is now boarding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
So, the original AR was 2.35:1, and HBO blows it up to fill a 16:9 shape and then crops the sides?


I too saw a few scenes where it looked like the top and bottom of faces could've been cut off, but that wouldn't make sense if only the sides were cropped. I'm confused as to how HBO is presenting the HD stuff.


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
I'm the first to defend letterboxing, I will sometimes spend 30 minutes explaining to people why those "annoying" black bars are on the top and bottom of the screen. I'm sure you've all been there. But...


[Putting my flamesuit on] I think I actually prefer 16:9 cropping to OAR, there is just something cool about the picture filling my entire wall, ceiling to floor, wall to wall. I think most directors are aware their movies are someday going to be cropped to 4:3 and are carefull to make sure the most important action is happening in that area. Expand that to 16:9 and I think we are actually missing very little that is important. And the impact on people in my theater when the picture is covering the entire wall is amazing... They are blown away. Am I the only person that thinks this way?


Jeremy (ducking for cover)


------------------

D-ILA, HTPC, HDTV, Panamorph(?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
For what it's worth, the HBO presentation showed 33 percent more picture information then was shown in a 2.35 :1 theater. A theater that crops the image on the sides would ahve shown 25 percent less then the 2.35 :1 ratio anamorphic print. That's not a small difference. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I think I'll rent the DVD the next time HBO shows Gladiator at a decent time and do a head to head comparison. Picture quality should be a no brainer. Image cropping is what I want to see.


Frank, did you like the HBO presentation as far as picture quality?


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,379 Posts
Whatever we would have wished the aspect ratio "standard" to be, some of the movies that have contributed most to the cinematic arts were done in a 2.35/1-ish ratio.


In light of this, it makes no sense to me to screw with the aspect ratio on the source end, when it can be done perfectly well on the viewing end to fit your display's strengths. Really, we're talking 1080i or 720p, so there is plenty of resolution to burn.


In any event, I don't know why these movies don't carry pan-and-scan vector information, so that the viewer and/or projectionist can choose on digital projectors. Would this be too difficult?


------------------

Dan


[This message has been edited by dschmelzer (edited 06-04-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by dschmelzer:

I don't know why these movies don't carry pan-and-scan vector information, so that the viewer can choose. Would this be too difficult?
This has baffled me since my introduction to this controversial issue a few years ago. Almost within the time it took to understand what the issue was, this occurred to me to be the easiest solution to offer everyone what they wanted to see. Strange that so many minds were involved and this simple feature of the protocol was elided.


Most STBs are already capable of zooming, they simply need the P&S coordinates to do so properly (zooming to the center is worse than P&S). The mastering process should be much the same as it is today except that instead of butchering the final product, these coordinates are included in the stream. Viola! No issue.


I can't believe that we here at AVS were the first to think of it. Thank heavens with the current system that our best interests were protected by the opinions of dealers and HBO employees.



------------------

The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,379 Posts
Absolutely! I'm stunned that directors haven't insisted on being able to have at least some control over how their work is viewed in these suboptimal, but digital environments. Maybe they figure that it's a slippery slope? If the choices were done at the beginning by the artists, and three or four vector choices were given to the projectionist/viewer, then at least the negatives of the pan-and-scan process would be ameliorated.


There is no need to split the baby in half. With these high of resolutions, we should have more flexibility at the cinema and home cinema.


------------------

Dan


[This message has been edited by dschmelzer (edited 06-04-2001).]
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top