AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I watched Hunger Games - Catching Fire last night on my 2.35:1 screen with Anamorphic lens.


As you know, this is another of the films using hybrid 2.35:1 and 1.78 IMAX ratios. I don't think the film suffered by losing the top and bottom information on the IMAX scenes. Once or twice, a scene may have felt slightly 'closed in', but it didn't seem that atypical given the usual style of filming for this picture. In fact, it felt very appropriate given the situations being filmed.


Next, I will watch the movie using a special feature of my Kaleidescape system. This performs the appropriate scaling for the 2.35 portions with the lens in place, and then electronically scales the 1.78 portions to fit in the center of the 2.35 screen, with the lens remaining in place. I just can't imagine this as a satisfactory way to view the film, as the 1.78 portions of this movie were meant to be larger and more grand than the 2.35 portions. This method of viewing would reverse that.


We'll see.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
I watched it last night with the lens in place and it looked just fine to me. These dual AR movies have been a non-issue for my setup thus far. I hope it stays that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,130 Posts
Sounds like you both watched it just the way it was presented in the theater when I saw it there. I never even knew it was a multiple AR film until I read it here, some time after I saw it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24462650


Sounds like you both watched it just the way it was presented in the theater when I saw it there. I never even knew it was a multiple AR film until I read it here, some time after I saw it.

Not sure that is entirely accurate. I do believe there is a version of the movie that was formatted in its entirety for 2.35:1 screens, including the appropriate formatting of the IMAX scenes. We were not provided with this version on the BluRay. We are assuming the center portion of the IMAX frame is what we are supposed to be seeing, cutting off the same amount on top and bottom. This is not definitely the way these portions of the movie were formatted on the true 2.35 cut.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,961 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24463020


We are assuming the center portion of the IMAX frame is what we are supposed to be seeing, cutting off the same amount on top and bottom. This is not definitely the way these portions of the movie were formatted on the true 2.35 cut.

What do you base this on?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24464198


What do you base this on?

This is why I said 'not definitely' and NOT 'definitely not'.


It is very possible they took the IMAX print and merely lopped off the top and bottom for the widescreen theatrical presentations. We just don't know. And we won't know without inside information or perhaps if somebody illegally recorded the theatrical presentations with which to compare.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,961 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24464224


This is why I said 'not definitely' and NOT 'definitely not'.

Ah, I read your post too quickly and thought you said "definitely not." Sorry.
Quote:
It is very possible they took the IMAX print and merely lopped off the top and bottom for the widescreen theatrical presentations. We just don't know. And we won't know without inside information or perhaps if somebody illegally recorded the theatrical presentations with which to compare.

I didn't see this movie in the theater, IMAX or otherwise. When it was released, one of the readers of my blog insisted that the picture had a lot of critical info at the top of the IMAX frame, but that may have just been his perception based on a first viewing. He didn't see the movie in scope to compare.


I picked up the Blu-ray this weekend but haven't had a chance to watch yet. If the actors' heads are awkwardly cropped, I think it's safe to say that the framing isn't right for scope. However, if that's not the case and the framing generally looks acceptable, I don't think it's worth fretting over.


Avatar, for example, was shot with a high top-line for 2.35:1 on the camera sensor. If you do a straight zoom/crop on the (16:9) Blu-ray, character heads are frequently lopped off right above the eyes. It looks awkward. However, if you can back the zoom out to 2.20:1 with a video processor, it looks fine. That may not be the exact framing that was seen on the scope-formatted copies of the movie, but it's good enough that framing issues are not noticeable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Good points, Josh. I did feel like a few of the scenes were a little closed in. I'm sure not accurate, but certainly acceptable. I don't have the ability to scale to 2.2:1. I believe I would much prefer this than to have the IMAX scenes formatted smaller in the middle of my 2.35 screen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire/0_50#post_24455932


I just can't imagine this as a satisfactory way to view the film, as the 1.78 portions of this movie were meant to be larger and more grand than the 2.35 portions.

This is kind of a misnomer. They're presenting it like this on blu-ray because the VAST majority 99.999% of people watching it are not using an anamorphic scope setup to make the anamorphic image larger than the 1.78:1 image. They know this and the effect you get on your TV or projector when showing the "IMAX" footage is the opposite effect of what would happen with someone who had a scope set up and showing the image as 1.78:1 (by removing the scaling and lens). On an HDTV you're getting a bigger image simply because it takes up more room (using more pixels) on your screen but when you display the anamorphic content correctly by doing the vertical stretch and adding the lens, the scope image is larger than the 1.78:1 image as it should be and if you wanted to display that 1.78:1 content on this setup it would actually be smaller, unless you were utilizing a dual screen setup. But I don't think anyone would employ a system like that to take advantage of a few blu-rays with variable aspect ratios.


It's nice that Kaleidescape provides a solution for you to keep that scope look when viewing the film. The rest of us are SOL it seems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
Just my $0.02 worth on these dual AR discs. It seems the only real difference here is that they have gone back in after and opened the mats. Given that D-Cinema fully supports CinemaScope means that they would have framed it for the way they wanted it seen by the masses. The whole IMAX experience is a bit of a toss given IMAX no longer uses 70mm film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thanks for the input Dylan. I understand your description and get what you are trying to say. I completely agree that in most cases, it is highly desirable for the scope image to be larger than the 1.78 images. That's why I also went in that direction. I just don't know if that applies in this situation.


You mention that the only reason the 1.78 image is larger in Hunger Games has to do with people's home sets having a 1.78 aspect ratio. I have never watched a 'normal' movie at an IMAX theater. It was my understanding that when displayed at an IMAX theater, the 1.78 portions of the movie are indeed larger than the 'scope' portions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong! Just was my understanding!) This would indicate that the intent for this version, then, was for the 1.78 formatted scenes to indeed be larger than the scope scenes. Thus, if I used my Kscape to display the 1.78 scenes in the center of my scope screen, I would be doing the EXACT opposite of the intended presentation.


Thanks, Mark. "the only real difference here is that they have gone back in after and opened the mats." Do you know this to be the cases? If so, it would certainly support our displaying these scenes the width of our scope screens. I understand that D-Cinema supports CinemaScope. My thought is that some actual work has gone into paring down the IMAX screens to scope ratio, rather than simply matting down. If so, would be awfully nice to have that version!


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,961 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24467599


I have never watched a 'normal' movie at an IMAX theater. It was my understanding that when displayed at an IMAX theater, the 1.78 portions of the movie are indeed larger than the 'scope' portions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong! Just was my understanding!)

Catching Fire is one of a tiny handful of movies that had selected scenes shot on IMAX 15/70 film stock, which has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1. In the few remaining IMAX theaters capable of projecting 15/70 film, the picture opened up to fill the whole 1.44:1 screen. Digital IMAX theaters, however, have a wider screen aspect ratio of 1.9:1. In those theaters, the movie shifted from 2.40:1 to 1.9:1, which is a much smaller difference. Most people in the audience probably never noticed.


On Blu-ray, the IMAX scenes open to fill the 1.78:1 frame of that format. In both digital IMAX theaters and Blu-ray, the top and bottom of the movie's IMAX scenes are partially cropped.


In all theaters other than IMAX, the movie played at a constant 2.40:1 aspect ratio. The IMAX scenes were more heavily cropped there.


The only other movies to have selected scenes shot with IMAX film like this are:


The Dark Knight

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

The Dark Knight Rises

Star Trek into Darkness

Interstellar (upcoming)


Tron Legacy and The Amazing Spider Man were both shot digitally, but were formatted so that selected scenes would open up from 2.40:1 to 1.9:1 in IMAX theaters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
In addition to what Josh has already said regarding 1.78:1 and 2.35:1, I'll say simply look at the difference between those numbers. Taking constant image height into consideration, 2.35 is a larger number than 1.78 which means the scope image is supposed to be larger and presented as such. To keep the original aspect ratio on a 1.78:1 HDTV you need to make the scope 2.35:1 image smaller and use black bars on top and bottom even though the image is meant to be presented larger than the 1.78:1 image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24470908


In addition to what Josh has already said regarding 1.78:1 and 2.35:1, I'll say simply look at the difference between those numbers. Taking constant image height into consideration, 2.35 is a larger number than 1.78 which means the scope image is supposed to be larger and presented as such. To keep the original aspect ratio on a 1.78:1 HDTV you need to make the scope 2.35:1 image smaller and use black bars on top and bottom even though the image is meant to be presented larger than the 1.78:1 image.

I'm confused as to why you continue to make the generic argument that 2.35 images should be larger than 1.78. I completely understand the concept, and have had scope screens for many years for that very reason. No need to explain further. I've been at this game quite a while!


What you don't seem to be grasping is the concept of image size as it pertains to the IMAX presentation of these few films. For these PARTICULAR films, the IMAX portions (be it 1.78 or 1.9 or 1.44) are meant to be, and ARE projected as larger than the 2.35 images for these particular films. This has nothing to do with the home TV ratio. The fact that these films are being ported to BluRay with the IMAX cuts (rather than the cinema scope versions) probably does have to do with home TV ratio. This does not change the fact that the IMAX portions of these films are projected as larger than the 2.35 portions. Thus, by centering these portions of the films in the middle of my scope screen, I am doing the exact opposite of the intended presentation. (Shrinking the IMAX portions in relation to the 2.35 portion) I'm thinking I'm probably better off leaving it be, and lopping off the top and bottom sections of the IMAX portions of the films.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
Regarding the IMAX 1.44 being larger. I find it easier to think of it like 'open matte 4:3'. Which is to say its as if the letterboxes were peeled off so as to reveal the information that was blacked out by them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,961 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire#post_24472328


I'm thinking I'm probably better off leaving it be, and lopping off the top and bottom sections of the IMAX portions of the films.

I think that's what most of us in this forum do. You are correct that switching to a 16:9 pillarbox for the IMAX scenes makes those scenes smaller than the rest of the movie, which is the opposite of the intention. All of these movies were composed with 2.40:1 safety in mind and played that way in all non-IMAX theaters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Snyder  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire/0_50#post_24472328


I'm confused as to why you continue to make the generic argument that 2.35 images should be larger than 1.78. I completely understand the concept, and have had scope screens for many years for that very reason. No need to explain further. I've been at this game quite a while!


What you don't seem to be grasping is the concept of image size as it pertains to the IMAX presentation of these few films. For these PARTICULAR films, the IMAX portions (be it 1.78 or 1.9 or 1.44) are meant to be, and ARE projected as larger than the 2.35 images for these particular films. This has nothing to do with the home TV ratio. The fact that these films are being ported to BluRay with the IMAX cuts (rather than the cinema scope versions) probably does have to do with home TV ratio. This does not change the fact that the IMAX portions of these films are projected as larger than the 2.35 portions. Thus, by centering these portions of the films in the middle of my scope screen, I am doing the exact opposite of the intended presentation. (Shrinking the IMAX portions in relation to the 2.35 portion) I'm thinking I'm probably better off leaving it be, and lopping off the top and bottom sections of the IMAX portions of the films.


Kevin

I'm talking specifically about those who utilize a CIH setup. In that scenario the image will be smaller if displayed without scaling or a lens in place, like it's supposed to be considering the AR of the content. My whole point is that hollywood knows that almost everyone doesn't use a CIH set up so when they're watching it on their HDTV or 1.78:1 projection screen the illusion that the image gets "larger" because it takes up more pixel space on screen. In that scenario it does get larger and I don't think you understand that I understand that the IMAX footage is supposed to be presented as a huge, larger, image. I'm simply saying, in the context of how the blu-ray was released, us CIH users got shafted on the presentation because unless we have two screens or some type of scaling like your Kaleidescape we can't get the IMAX image to be bigger like it's supposed to be.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,043 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster  /t/1521574/hunger-games-catching-fire/0_100#post_24460577


I watched it last night with the lens in place and it looked just fine to me. These dual AR movies have been a non-issue for my setup thus far. I hope it stays that way.

I agree I watched it last night. Didn't even notice the change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Unfortunately the presentation isn't Scope safe when the top and bottom are cropped. During the IMAX sequence if cropped to 2.35:1 a lot of the scenes are not appropriately framed, I watched side by side with the dvd to check this. I noticed that one shot in the 2.35:1 version actually has more image area than the IMAX presentation, there could be more but I didn't watch the entire sequence as it was getting a little dizzying.


Mis-framed



2.35:1 has a nicer panoramic.



Edit: Apparently the Japanese Blu-ray set has the HD 2.35:1 version along with the IMAX version, I'll be picking it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Although it does make the picture smaller this film is very friendly to those of us that zoom for scope. There's just one switch to IMAX and then one back to scope. We just paused and switched lens memory. Unlike the last 2 Batman films which constantly change. The Batman movies you will also have framing issues as the scope versions are not simply derived from cutting out the center. Still if I was using a lens I would probably just opt to crop it and deal with it.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top