AVS Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi,


movies like Terminator 2, Star Wars 4-6, 2001 and so on have an aspect ratio of 2.20:1.

So i would like to ask you, how you watch them?

I have a HD+ with custom zoom factor, so that i can stretch the image vertically for full panel height without cropping them. But then, things like faces would appear wider than they ought to be. By the way, my A-lens is fixed.


I need your advice, please
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
The premise of your question is wrong I beleive. Of the films you've mentioned, only 2001 (shot in 65mm) had a native AR of 2.20. The rest were standard 'Scope with AR's of 2.39 or so.


But to answer your question, I usually crop 2.20 content to 2.37 which is how the vast majority of viewers saw those films in theaters ... in standard 35mm Scope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I checked the ARs at www.imdb.com

When you take a look at this site, you'll see that at least Star Wars has a AR of 2.20:1. Maybe this information is simply wrong? (i would appreciate this
)


So you also have a fixed A-lens in front of your projector?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,169 Posts
I only have three films in my collection that were filmed 2:20 Tron, 2001 and one other (having a senior moment). I also have one film that was shot 2:00 (SuperScope) and that is the 1956 Invasion of The Body Snatchers. All of these are a problem w/ my 2:40 screen due to over cropping when I engage stretch mode. 2001 is watchable cropped - but the others I simply watch in 16X9 mode w/ black bars on all 4 sides. (I don't have a VP.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Widlarizer /forum/post/16965217


I checked the ARs at www.imdb.com

When you take a look at this site, you'll see that at least Star Wars has a AR of 2.20:1. Maybe this information is simply wrong? (i would appreciate this
)


So you also have a fixed A-lens in front of your projector?

The IMDB info is wrong. And, as most of us know, that's not terribly unusual.


Yes, I have a Prismasonic 1500FE lens fixed in front of my projector (see pix using the link in my sig). But of course, that lens has adjustable prisms ... so I can set it to "pass through"mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Widlarizer /forum/post/16964934


Hi,


movies like Terminator 2, Star Wars 4-6, 2001 and so on have an aspect ratio of 2.20:1.

So i would like to ask you, how you watch them?

I have a HD+ with custom zoom factor, so that i can stretch the image vertically for full panel height without cropping them. But then, things like faces would appear wider than they ought to be. By the way, my A-lens is fixed.


I need your advice, please


Regardless of whether those particular movies a listed right or not, the "correct" way to handle 1.78

I know the Lumagens (I think) have very nifty features for this in that you can specify your output aspect ratio, you tell it you have a 2.3x:1 screen, and then (again IIRC from my research a while ago) it corrects everything to fit that correctly. When it receives a 16:9 video (normal HDTV) it compresses it horizontally the correct amount. For stuff greater than 16:9 you simply define a custom crop and it will do the appropriate stretching/squeezing to fit it to your screen with the right AR.


It sounds like you've got part of that done, but you need to add the small bit of horizontal squeeze required for
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Hi,


the HD+ offers similar screen/image adjustments like Lumagens. I told it that i have a 2.35:1 screen and it squeezes the image for ARs like 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1 just fine. But it has no preset for 2.20:1.

Maybe i have to play around with it until i find the proper settings for a custom squeeze.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,703 Posts
The proper way to display 2.20:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen is to reduce the projector's zoom or use a video processor to shrink the image so that the top and bottom of the picture fit the top and bottom of the screen -- Constant Image Height. This will result in small pillarbox bars on the left and right sides.


This process should not result in "squeezing" or "stretching", both of which imply that you're distorting the picture geometry to fill the entire screen.


Failing that, it is usually acceptable to zoom the picture to fill the width of the screen, cropping a small amount from the top and bottom. That's the way that 65mm movies are projected in standard 35mm theaters. The films should have been composed with that in mind. Directors working in this format usually know enough to leave a little leeway at the edges.


Pillarboxing is better, but if you don't have enough zoom range, then you'll need a video processor for that. Most projectors don't include that much aspect ratio control standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
I have Grand Prix, Mutiny on the Bounty and 2001 and I've never felt the need to zoom in 16x9 mode to view these movies. By cropping to 2.35/2.40 your only losing 5% of the vertical picture, which is outside of Safe Title. The Bermuda Triangle of CIH is all content with an AR between 1.78-2.35. Your gonna lose some picture information unless using a dedicated scaler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/16967066


The proper way to display 2.20:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen is to reduce the projector's zoom or use a video processor to shrink the image so that the top and bottom of the picture fit the top and bottom of the screen -- Constant Image Height. This will result in small pillarbox bars on the left and right sides.

Correct. For some reason, there are many that assume you need to use the full panel horizontal rez. You don't. You should only be concerned with using the full vertical rez - IE regardless of AR, all images should use the full 1080 pixels when projecting images (when using an A-Lens). Therefore, from time to time, you may see side pillars with some presentations.


At this time, I don't have a scaler, so I am just cropping that very small amount of picture of 2.20:1. The number of films in this AR are small compared to standard CinemaScope (2.35 - 2.40).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,353 Posts
THe other option is a variable masking system. MOst masking systems allow for any aspect between 1.33 and 2.40 - so 2.20 could be perfectly masked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland /forum/post/17047493


THe other option is a variable masking system. MOst masking systems allow for any aspect between 1.33 and 2.40 - so 2.20 could be perfectly masked.

The point is still the scaling of the image. Masking is cream on te cake, however, the cake is not nice without the correct ingrediants, and Scaling is a very important part of the mixture here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
when I re-watched TRON a few weeks back, I just left the lens off to the side, zoomed in and used my technologically advanced masking system to crop off the small pillars (ie, I pulled the curtains in a little less than I do for 16x9
).
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top