AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's something that should make our Constant Area fans happy. A movie shot in 2 to 1. While its not 2.40 I'll take what I can get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,252 Posts
Here's something that should make our Constant Area fans happy. A movie shot in 2 to 1. While its not 2.40 I'll take what I can get.
It seems to me that the director is trying to shoot for an IMAX friendly ratio. I expect that the movie will either be matted down to 2.40:1 or open matte to 1.85:1 in regular theaters, probably the latter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
The included DCP projectionist letter even states "the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen are completely normal".

Quentin Tarantino said it best when today's digital cinemas were public TV's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The included DCP projectionist letter even states "the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen are completely normal".

Quentin Tarantino said it best when today's digital cinemas were public TV's.
How far we've fallen. Saw Furious 7 in theater and it was letterboxed. That was a first for me. I couldn't believe it. No masking nothing. It really sucked. Ten minutes into the movie I was still pissed. Very disappointing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
How far we've fallen. Saw Furious 7 in theater and it was letterboxed. That was a first for me. I couldn't believe it. No masking nothing. It really sucked. Ten minutes into the movie I was still pissed. Very disappointing.
I saw Jurassic World this afternoon at a AMC/Dolby theatre, the movie was good, i was still in shock no Dolby 3D, no ATMOS,7.1 mix. 2K. Looked good through the dual Christie 6P laser projectors. I hated the 2.0:1 format, it really irritated me seeing the about 6 feet of empty screen on both sides. Of all the movies coming out this year, this one would have been perfect for HFR and HDR. I know my screenshot is not the best, it's not showing copyrighted material, but you get the ideal on the format.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I saw Jurassic World this afternoon at a AMC/Dolby theatre, the movie was good, i was still in shock no Dolby 3D, no ATMOS,7.1 mix. 2K. Looked good through the dual Christie 6P laser projectors. I hated the 2.0:1 format, it really irritated me seeing the about 6 feet of empty screen on both sides. Of all the movies coming out this year, this one would have been perfect for HFR and HDR. I know my screenshot is not the best, it's not showing copyrighted material, but you get the ideal on the format.
My experience was pretty much the same. No Atmos and windowboxed. Really liked the movie but see some issues with some scenes with playback on a CIH. Guess we'll see soon enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Just saw this yesterday,the theater i saw did have black bars,
but the audio part was meh,bass was kinda weak. I thought for sure, for this typ of movie would have some bone crushing LFE Track. I did enjoy the film
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Just watched this in 2.35 and there's no issues except the one sub title naming the island at the beginning. It's nice to have a Jurassic Park movie in scope finally. The Dino's look just fine in widescreen, squished height and all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Looks like the AR on Blu Ray is going to be 2.0:1. Still better than 1.85:1. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,901 Posts
Tall dinosaurs and space movies justify lower aspect ratios, by their content. space, because there is no real up vs down, left vs right.

When a T-Rex (or whatever raptor/rex hybrid monstrosity) is coming down on you, the viewer, being a typical human (assumption) at a typical human being height, you are going to be looking upwards or wanting a greater vertical field of view, it's natural.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Looks like the AR on Blu Ray is going to be 2.0:1. Still better than 1.85:1. :)
The version I was watching was in 2.00. What I was referring to was that it wasn't so tight framed that you have to watch it in 2.00. This is a movie you can watch in 2.35 within any jarring distraction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Tall dinosaurs and space movies justify lower aspect ratios, by their content. space, because there is no real up vs down, left vs right.

When a T-Rex (or whatever raptor/rex hybrid monstrosity) is coming down on you, the viewer, being a typical human (assumption) at a typical human being height, you are going to be looking upwards or wanting a greater vertical field of view, it's natural.
I disagree. My FOV remains the same no matter how my head is turned. Thats the lie that the studios push on us because they want to cram as many screens as they can in a defined area. 2.35 is closer to human FOV than anything lower, regardless of the content. I don't look straight ahead when I want to view a high-rise up close. I look up. My FOV doesn't change. CIH is just that. The max height available per given room, not width challenged rooms put in place to maximize revenue, whether its to fill a small room due to low attendance with a movie on its way out or to keep bodies moving in and out on new blockbuster by starting a different screen every few minutes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,326 Posts
2.35 is closer to human FOV than anything lower, regardless of the content.
This claim has been made quite a number of times on this forum and from everything I've been able to find it does not seem to be the case.

Here is a diagram of the human FOV (Field Of View):





"This diagram shows the normal field of view of a pair of human eyes. The central white portion represents the region seen by both eyes. The gray portions, right and left, represent the regions seen by the right and left eyes, respectively. The cut-off by the brows, cheeks, and nose is shown by the black area. Head and eyes are motionless in this case.
Source: Ruch and Fulton, eds. [25]."

If you look at this page you'll see a mouse-over on that diagram making the case that "The 3/2 horizontal frame of SLR cameras has been successful for years, maybe because it approximately fits the human normal binocular field of view (about 180° horizontally & 120° vertically)."

http://www.fovegraphy.com/Tips.php?section=CompositionTips

That diagram actually corresponds better to what I experience in my own vision.
If I stare ahead the area I'm most aware of fits the taller-than-wider, almost acorn-like FOV as depicted by the central white binocular area of that image.
I'm much less aware of what falls to the side of that view, and hence I have visual impression more of height than width. (And even including the entire width of the vision of both eyes, you can see from the diagram it doesn't even reach a 16:9 AR, let alone the much wider 2:35:1 AR).


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,252 Posts

"This diagram shows the normal field of view of a pair of human eyes. The central white portion represents the region seen by both eyes. The gray portions, right and left, represent the regions seen by the right and left eyes, respectively. The cut-off by the brows, cheeks, and nose is shown by the black area. Head and eyes are motionless in this case.
Source: Ruch and Fulton, eds. [25]."

Here's the problem with that. We don't watch movies (or do anything at all in life, really) by locking our gaze straight ahead on a fixed point and remaining immobile. We have evolved as a species to scan our environment from side to side (not top to bottom), because predators were more likely to attack from the ground than the air. We do this constantly.

A wider image is much more comfortable to view than a taller image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: helmsman

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,326 Posts
Here's the problem with that. We don't watch movies (or do anything at all in life, really) by locking our gaze straight ahead on a fixed point and remaining immobile.
Actually, watching TV or a movie is about as close to that situation as you'd get.
Are you actually moving your head around all the time when watching a movie, like you are walking down the street, in a forest, or playing football? I'm not. In fact, often I'm leaning back, my head resting still on my sofa pillow. (And note that many home theater recliners have head rests, because many people do like to
rest their head while watching and gaze straight ahead at the image. It's hard to imagine a situation in which the FOV pattern would be more applicable than watching a movie).

And since people almost always claim the 2:35:1 matches our FOV, I'd say that the science doesn't support this, given such diagrams as above. Perhaps the claim ought to be changed.

We have evolved as a species to scan our environment from side to side (not top to bottom), because predators were more likely to attack from the ground than the air. We do this constantly.
That's a different claim from the FOV claim. That said, if we want to invoke evolutionary pressures, predation is far from the only selection pressure on our vision. We've needed to evolve to easily scan a lot more than just L/R. We do a lot of looking at down and up angles too in taking in our environment - the sky has played a large role in navigation and other concerns, and many of the creatures that threaten humans are shorter and smaller than us (one of our most common hereditary fears seems to be snakes, which generally crawl on the ground). Scanning vertically is just as important to be able to see the rest of our body in guiding it's action, performing many tasks with our hands, observing and treating areas of disease, injury, defending ourselves, walking over terrain, etc. So if you are going to invoke evolution selection pressures to explain the requirements of human vision, I think it's much more complex than what your hypothesis is suggesting.

As for eye scanning, I find my eyes scanning all around, naturally, not just side to side.

And when it comes to scanning moving our head, you don't really want that when watching movies do you?



A wider image is much more comfortable to view than a taller image.
I have not found that to be the case (and I can test this since I can change the shape of my screen from tall to wide). Once an image extends past my fixed binocular FOV, I have to do some scanning either way, either taller or wider, and I don't find
any particular advantage for scanning sideways.

In fact, as I've mentioned before, when it comes to how movies are actually framed scope-type ARs can be less comfortable insofar as they require more eye scanning than a taller, narrower AR. Insofar as the added width is employed not just with superfluous imagery, but with focal-point images, like characters or important features to one side of the frame. Actors talking are typically framed with one on each side of the frame. The wider you make the image - say moving from 16:9 to 2;35:1 with CIH - the more you've increased the horizontal distance between actors in your FOV and the more you have to scan side to side as each actor talks (that includes close ups, which often preserve the side-framing/negative space relationship of the characters). Increasing the height not width doesn't carry this same issue because actors aren't normally photographed "above and below" each other in the frame, and so that spacial relationship is not being stretched in the same was as increasing image width.

In other words, take this image:



Make it wider (like going from 16:9 to scope) and you will be forced into more eye scanning between the actors. Instead, keep the same width and add height to the image so you can see more above and below them. Unlike widening the image, in this case the actors will remain the same distance apart in terms of watching each speak.

I just experienced this to be the case. I watched Interstellar first in scope, with my anamorphic lens/anamorphic scaling, which allows me to have the widest image possible in my room (about 126" wide). But I wanted to re-experience many of the IMAX scenes in their native AR as well, so I went back and watched those. I couldn't have as wide an image (due to throw limitation) but I made the image much taller opening up my top/bottom masking, for the native IMAX AR on the disc.

I experienced just what I described. It required less scanning to keep all the actors in view, yet was very immersive as well.

I loooove scope images for various reasons. But I only bring these things up when I see dubious rationalizations for scope being a "more natural shape for our eyes."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I've experimented with this extensively in theaters of all shapes and sizes moving from center seat to center seat row by row. !.85 never fills the horizontal FOV like it does the vertical FOV. 2.35 does or gets closer to it. With one eye closed 1.85 is ideal during this same experiment, although I need to turn my head slightly to optimize the view. Placing actors like they did when Panavision first arrived on the scene was gimmickry to show the effect much like whats been done with 3D today. You can still place actors inside the 1.85 area of a 2.35 AR content. Maybe it does come down to the shape of a person's face. My FOV is definitely not less that 2.35, AOF(area of focus), maybe. Actually my FOV is closer to 3.0 but 2.35 satisfies. Lets put it this way, 2.35 is closer to what I see in my everyday life indoors and outdoors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,252 Posts
Are you actually moving your head around all the time when watching a movie, like you are walking down the street, in a forest, or playing football? I'm not. In fact, often I'm leaning back, my head resting still on my sofa pillow.
I'm not talking about moving your whole head. I'm talking about moving your eyes. As you sit down right now to look at your computer monitor, your head may be stable but what are your eyes doing? They're scanning all over the screen. And, in order to read these words, they're mainly scanning from left to right.

That's the way we take in most visual information, not just writing. There may be some scanning from top to bottom, but more so from side to side. Our two eyes are arranged horizontally on our faces, after all.

That said, if we want to invoke evolutionary pressures, predation is far from the only selection pressure on our vision. We've needed to evolve to easily scan a lot more than just L/R. We do a lot of looking at down and up angles too in taking in our environment
I didn't say that we can't look up or down - just that, for the purposes of watching a movie, scanning an image horizontally is more comfortable to our natural vision.

- the sky has played a large role in navigation and other concerns, and many of the creatures that threaten humans are shorter and smaller than us (one of our most common hereditary fears seems to be snakes, which generally crawl on the ground).
Unless you're viewing it on your phone, you're not looking down to watch a movie. So that's irrelevant. When you go to a movie theater and get stuck in the front rows, how comfortable is it to crane your neck upwards to watch the movie? Not very.

Scanning vertically is just as important to be able to see the rest of our body in guiding it's action, performing many tasks with our hands, observing and treating areas of disease, injury, defending ourselves, walking over terrain, etc. So if you are going to invoke evolution selection pressures to explain the requirements of human vision, I think it's much more complex than what your hypothesis is suggesting.
I guess that explains why we have extra sets of eyes on the tops and bottoms of our heads because taking in that vertical information is equally important to taking in horizontal information.... Oh, wait...

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,326 Posts
I'm not talking about moving your whole head. I'm talking about moving your eyes. As you sit down right now to look at your computer monitor, your head may be stable but what are your eyes doing?
Scanning all around my monitor, up, down, side to side, you name it, whatever the content - images or text - require.


They're scanning all over the screen. And, in order to read these words, they're mainly scanning from left to right.
Yes, being english speakers, we are reading English script on a web site, not Japanese or other vertical scripts. How do those cultures with vertical scripts ever manage? :)

That's the way we take in most visual information, not just writing. There may be some scanning from top to bottom, but more so from side to side. Our two eyes are arranged horizontally on our faces, after all.
If I'm engaged specifically in reading on my monitor, of course english script mandates side to side eye movement. But other than that, I am scanning up and down at least as much, if not more, when looking at photos, browsing content for areas of interest, etc.



I didn't say that we can't look up or down - just that, for the purposes of watching a movie, scanning an image horizontally is more comfortable to our natural vision.
As I've said, I don't find that to be the case, either with my computer monitor, movies on my screen, or real life.

And if we are talking about comfort for movies images, in general the less scanning *required* is more comfortable. Hence I'd also made the case for why scope images, in CIH scenarios, often increase the need for scanning.


I guess that explains why we have extra sets of eyes on the tops and bottoms of our heads because taking in that vertical information is equally important to taking in horizontal information.... Oh, wait...

:)
Again, look at the human FOV chart.

It's not near a 2:35:1 shape, and the actual binocular vision is if anything taller rather than wider. Minimal scanning would therefore seem to favor a taller image vs wider for matching our FOV and viewing comfort, or if you include the non binocular area as well, closer to a 4:3 or 2/3 AR, as shown in the link I gave. (One might note that even still today in photography, wide scope-like compositions are the exception rather than the norm, which is one reason that link to the still photography site was suggesting the 2/3 AR was perhaps still so popular due to it's naturally matching our comfortable FOV).

Put that together with the fact we aren't generally moving our heads watching movies, and that the less scanning required the more comfortable the viewing experience (see the "actors on far sides of the screen talking to each other issue). 4:3 or 2/3 AR seems much closer to our natural area of vision. So if one is going to talk about an aspect ratio that most closely matches are natural FOV, and hence the most comfortable to take in with minimal scanning (we always are scanning somewhat of course) then the scope AR is not the best match.

For getting a great sense of immersion, sure. For increasing the sense of horizontal area, sure. For getting us to emphasize horizontal scanning sure - forcing us our eyes to greater horizontal scanning to take in the image can be more "realistic" - like staring at an actual horizon in terms of the work required.

But the claim that it is a "more natural" shape in terms of human vision or FOV...no. Not that I have seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,252 Posts
And if we are talking about comfort for movies images, in general the less scanning *required* is more comfortable. Hence I'd also made the case for why scope images, in CIH scenarios, often increase the need for scanning.
Neither you nor anyone else watches a movie by staring straight ahead at a fixed focal point without moving your eyes. OK, perhaps someone with a traumatic brain injury, but that's about it. Otherwise, that's simply not the way we take in visual information.

Again, look at the human FOV chart.

It's not near a 2:35:1 shape, and the actual binocular vision is if anything taller rather than wider. Minimal scanning would therefore seem to favor a taller image vs wider for matching our FOV and viewing comfort,
I'm sorry, but I can't agree that scanning up and down is as comfortable or more comfortable than scanning side to side. Again, our two eyes are arranged horizontally on our faces for a reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Regardless of what any chart says, just try this simple experiment. Make 2 brackets with your thumb and forefingers and move your finger and thumb up/down and hands out until you get to the edge of your vision. Move your head back and look at the shape. You will likely be left with a rectangle. What aspect ratio it is I'm sure varies person to person. But it is nowhere close to IMAX 4:3 and certainly closer to scope for me.
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
Top