AVS Forum banner

41 - 60 of 325 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
Sorry to derail the thread here... But, that also doesn't work.. with the menu option for 3D turned OFF, inserting a 3D disc results in an error message stating that a 3D capable display is necessary in order for playback to continue... But, again maybe this varies with other bluray disc player manufacturers...
Perhaps. I'm pretty sure I've gotten that to work with my OPPO player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
In any case, with MakeMKV+Handbrake you can create a 2D 1080p rip easy enough. Just a bit more time consuming than modifying some player settings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
I've received clarification that The Last Jedi did not have a variable aspect ratio in IMAX theaters. It was always CIH. I have removed that title from the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Black Panther Blu-rays are announced for May 15th. So far, all I can see is 2:39:1 everywhere. Really hoping that's wrong and we get the IMAX scenes in 2D this time... I've been doing 2D rips of the 3D Blu-rays, but you end up getting black bars on the left side of the screen sometimes for certain scenes. Side effect of 3D. I think you still end up with more pixels than if cropped throughout, but it's still unfortunate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Black Panther Blu-rays are announced for May 15th. So far, all I can see is 2:39:1 everywhere. Really hoping that's wrong and we get the IMAX scenes in 2D this time... I've been doing 2D rips of the 3D Blu-rays, but you end up getting black bars on the left side of the screen sometimes for certain scenes. Side effect of 3D. I think you still end up with more pixels than if cropped throughout, but it's still unfortunate.
Honestly, that's pretty unlikely to happen. Marvel's policy seems to be CIH for 2D and variable ratio for 3D only. Meanwhile, the parent company Disney is also discontinuing 3D in North America. The only option for getting the variable ratio is to import a 3D disc from overseas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Honestly, that's pretty unlikely to happen. Marvel's policy seems to be CIH for 2D and variable ratio for 3D only. Meanwhile, the parent company Disney is also discontinuing 3D in North America. The only option for getting the variable ratio is to import a 3D disc from overseas.
Yeah. It just sucks that if you rip the 3D Blu-ray to create a 2D copy, you sometimes end up with variable AR on the left side of the screen. I think it's a side effect of the 3D conversion. The crappy thing is this applies to the 2:39:1 scenes too, since the 3D conversion affects everything.

I still prefer that to CIH (or watching in 3D, ugh), but it's really too bad that there is no way to get the "IMAX 2D" experience in your home theater.

Luckily you don't really notice the occasional shift on an OLED screen in a blacked out media room. It would be annoying in living rooms, though.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
I still prefer that to CIH (or watching in 3D, ugh), but it's really too bad that there is no way to get the "IMAX 2D" experience in your home theater.
While arguments can be made that Christopher Nolan has some sort of artistic purpose in using a variable ratio in his movies, the alternating ratio on these Marvel movies is purely an afterthought, an easy gimmick added to placate the IMAX distributor. You don't lose anything important (or even noticeable) watching in CIH. There's absolutely nothing of consequence above or below the 2.35:1 frame line.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the directors of these movies weren't even aware that variable ratio versions had been prepared. They give as little thought to that as they do to the 3D conversion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
While arguments can be made that Christopher Nolan has some sort of artistic purpose in using a variable ratio in his movies, the alternating ratio on these Marvel movies is purely an afterthought, an easy gimmick added to placate the IMAX distributor. You don't lose anything important (or even noticeable) watching in CIH. There's absolutely nothing of consequence above or below the 2.35:1 frame line.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the directors of these movies weren't even aware that variable ratio versions had been prepared. They give as little thought to that as they do to the 3D conversion.
Not sure I agree with that. For spectacle films like this, the increase AR does make a huge difference in your immersion.

Check this comparison album. Which version would you rather watch, if given the choice?

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi

I dunno if it's an aftertought either, you can see in the first scene above that the title card location was shifted up to compensate for the increase in vertical space. You also get some cool "frame breaking" AR transitions like this one from GOTG2:




In any case, I'm definitely of the opinion that more visual data is almost always better than less. I'd prefer for all content to be mastered in 16:9, honestly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
Not sure I agree with that. For spectacle films like this, the increase AR does make a huge difference in your immersion.

Check this comparison album. Which version would you rather watch, if given the choice?

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi

I dunno if it's an aftertought either, you can see in the first scene above that the title card location was shifted up to compensate for the increase in vertical space. You also get some cool "frame breaking" AR transitions like this one from GOTG2:




In any case, I'm definitely of the opinion that more visual data is almost always better than less. I'd prefer for all content to be mastered in 16:9, honestly.

All content is mastered in 16x9.

The problem with that argument is its based on gimmickry. Anytime you show a letterbox framed content it will look less immersive than full screen.

It doesn't increase the AR, its actually smaller going from 2.39 to 1.90, it increases the height. It opens up the frame. It does nothing for the shot. The frame breaking does nothing for the shot. Now blowup the 2.40 content and show it the same height as it should be and compare. Better yet add in the content that is trimmed from the sides back in as well when you re-edit for IMAX, don't just add height. Then compare.

Those comparisons only show that full frame is superior over letterbox content. We know. Thats why we build CIH systems. To build a home theater based on a few movies let alone only a few scenes in said movies, wouldn't be ideal in my opinion. But to each his own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
All content is mastered in 16x9.

The problem with that argument is its based on gimmickry. Anytime you show a letterbox framed content it will look less immersive than full screen.

It doesn't increase the AR, its actually smaller going from 2.39 to 1.90, it increases the height. It opens up the frame. It does nothing for the shot. The frame breaking does nothing for the shot. Now blowup the 2.40 content and show it the same height as it should be and compare. Better yet add in the content that is trimmed from the sides back in as well when you re-edit for IMAX, don't just add height. Then compare.

Those comparisons only show that full frame is superior over letterbox content. We know. Thats why we build CIH systems. To build a home theater based on a few movies let alone only a few scenes in said movies, wouldn't be ideal in my opinion. But to each his own.
OLED technology has kind of negated my need to build a CIH system. In a blacked out media room, there is never any letterbox since the black pixels are never turned on. That's why I appreciate when the 1:90 content is included in the consumer disc. Variable AR shifts never appear letterboxed. It's always perfectly framed.

The only downside is I'm currently limited to a 77" display. For me personally this isn't much of an issue because my media room is rather small, with the seats roughly 8' away from the screen.

I don't understand what you mean by "it does nothing for the shot," though. I'd much rather have more picture than less. The 2:39 versions of the "IMAX" scenes in Marvel movies are not displaying more picture. They're literally just cropping the top and bottom of the 1:90 shot to reach 2:39.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
OLED technology has kind of negated my need to build a CIH system. In a blacked out media room, there is never any letterbox since the black pixels are never turned on. That's why I appreciate when the 1:90 content is included in the consumer disc. Variable AR shifts never appear letterboxed. It's always perfectly framed.

The only downside is I'm currently limited to a 77" display. For me personally this isn't much of an issue because my media room is rather small, with the seats roughly 8' away from the screen.

I don't understand what you mean by "it does nothing for the shot," though. I'd much rather have more picture than less. The 2:39 versions of the "IMAX" scenes in Marvel movies are not displaying more picture. They're literally just cropping the top and bottom of the 1:90 shot to reach 2:39.
When Nolan changes aspect it with specific intent, for example, he trying to make a point of the vastness of sea in Dunkirk or the tight cramped quarters onboard the small sailing craft. Those were purposeful and a success. In the case of your example above there no such intent. The movie isn’t any better or worse due to haven’t that shot opened up. The directors say as much. If I had a 16x9 display, I too would prefer the way you view it.

Now in my case I can watch a VAR in one of two ways. I sit exactly 9ft from a 128” 2.37 screen 50x118.5. I can watch it in 16x9 that’s 50x89 with VAR and it looks fine and impressive and I’m still within IMAX digital specs or I can watch it in 2.40 which is the preferred, more immersive viewing for GotG. It’s a good movie, it doesn’t need the gimmicks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
I'm sorry. "Scope on flat" is a cheesy thing they created for 3D enhancement. It should NOT be used in 2D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
When Nolan changes aspect it with specific intent, for example, he trying to make a point of the vastness of sea in Dunkirk or the tight cramped quarters onboard the small sailing craft. Those were purposeful and a success. In the case of your example above there no such intent. The movie isn’t any better or worse due to haven’t that shot opened up. The directors say as much. If I had a 16x9 display, I too would prefer the way you view it.
Not really true. James Gunn himself had this to say about Guardians:

http://www.slashfilm.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-imax-3d/
James Gunn said:
As an EXTRA benefit for those who see the film in IMAX 3D, we will be changing aspect ratios throughout the film in a way that makes the experience even fuller and more encompassing. I’ve personally chosen all the places where the changes occur and, again, I love how it’s coming along. The changing aspect ratios in this case are actually a part of the storytelling.

The Russo Brothers also filmed Infinity War 100% with IMAX cameras, which is a first. It's not true at all that this stuff is an afterthought.

The transition GIF I posted isn't really the point of it though, it was just something I noticed when I watched the film this past weekend. I mainly appreciate VAR for the extra detail in the scene, as shown in the Imgur album I linked earlier. That's not a "gimmick" there... just 26% more image on the screen. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
Not really true. James Gunn himself had this to say about Guardians:

http://www.slashfilm.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-imax-3d/



The Russo Brothers also filmed Infinity War 100% with IMAX cameras, which is a first. It's not true at all that this stuff is an afterthought.

The transition GIF I posted isn't really the point of it though, it was just something I noticed when I watched the film this past weekend. I mainly appreciate VAR for the extra detail in the scene, as shown in the Imgur album I linked earlier. That's not a "gimmick" there... just 26% more image on the screen. ;)
And you expect a director to say anything different when we’re talking money?

I have about 1500 movies and 80 percent or more are 2.35-2.40. I have maybe 15-20 VAR’s. Still, as I mentioned above, I’m covered both ways. I can show any movie full height in any AR. That includes IMAX 1.90 and the Netflix/BBC 2.00AR. I’ll take my 2.40 image over IMAX any day They can keep their extra 26 percent of meaningless gimmickry. Where’s the 26 percent IMAX cut off the top of most of their VAR movies when shown in IMAX Digital?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
And you expect a director to say anything different when we’re talking money?

I have about 1500 movies and 80 percent or more are 2.35-2.40. I have maybe 15-20 VAR’s. Still, as I mentioned above, I’m covered both ways. I can show any movie full height in any AR. That includes IMAX 1.90 and the Netflix/BBC 2.00AR. I’ll take my 2.40 image over IMAX any day They can keep their extra 26 percent of meaningless gimmickry. Where’s the 26 percent IMAX cut off the top of most of their VAR movies when shown in IMAX Digital?
It is true you can show any movie in its full AR on any other AR screen. The studios can on the same token pack any AR movie into any AR container. Those are facts we all agree to I think.

Now comes the question of what is the most common AR for a screen and what is the most common AR for the container. Disregard what we personally like or dislike and if the director wants to play around changing AR throughout the movie. Facts are most HT projectors and all TV’s are in a 16:9 AR and all content is made to fit inside a 16:9 container. They don’t have to fill that container but that’s the shape of it.

Disregard if you think IMAX1.89 is really LieMAX and if you feel the 26% more image is important or not.

Just conceder the simple premise of just two movie as an example or comparison and disregard if you like the movies or the director for a moment.

Two movies that were shown and filmed in a way that allowed them to be released in both scope theaters and LieMAX theaters for people that liked one way or the other or had access to one or the other. One movie was Avatar and the other say Sully. When it came time to put them on BD one director said I like the LieMAX version it will fit on a BD just fine the other director said I like the scope look I’m going to throw away 26% of the movie and replace it with black. His thought process (maybe) is if I release the other 26% I will be condemning my scope movie to be Flat movie in peoples homes. He had to know it would mostly be shown on TV sets and wasn’t going to get wider than the width of the TV. The only exception is going to be .00001% of the BD buyers that were going to take it home and process it and A-lens or zoom it having a CIH screen. The other 99.99999% are going to fit it into a 16:9 screen of some type. The ironic part of it is the .00001% could do just what they were doing anyways and instead of throwing away the 26% that is black and zooming or A-lens-ing they could just eliminate the LieMAX part.

I even think with BD technology it could be as simple as a selection on the main menu to select Scope / LieMAX and let the BD player strip the 26% if you don’t want it.

Maybe it is a gimmick, Scope was invented in the 1950 also as a gimmick and it worked and stuck around. Just like people loved going to Scope theaters they are loving going to LieMAX theaters and watching the exact same movie with the extra 26%.

You can fit any image into your scope screen, correct, but if you are not moving your seating closer you are not getting LieMAX levels of immersion.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #56 ·
In any case, I'm definitely of the opinion that more visual data is almost always better than less. I'd prefer for all content to be mastered in 16:9, honestly.
I think you should consider that you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum. If you have no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, why are you here?

OLED technology has kind of negated my need to build a CIH system. In a blacked out media room, there is never any letterbox since the black pixels are never turned on. That's why I appreciate when the 1:90 content is included in the consumer disc. Variable AR shifts never appear letterboxed. It's always perfectly framed.
And yet 2.35:1 movies are always displayed smaller than 1.85:1 movies or 16:9 TV shows, which is exactly the opposite of the artistic intent. The vast sweeping epic desert landscape of Lawrence of Arabia will always be smaller than the family living room in The Goldbergs.

I don't understand what you mean by "it does nothing for the shot," though. I'd much rather have more picture than less. The 2:39 versions of the "IMAX" scenes in Marvel movies are not displaying more picture. They're literally just cropping the top and bottom of the 1:90 shot to reach 2:39.
The movies are fully composed for 2.35:1 from start to finish. For the variable ratio scenes, they literally just show some extra empty space above the characters' heads.

I don't have Marvel screenshots handy, but here's a comparison from Star Trek into Darkness:





And here's the monumental increase in visual space that you believe vastly opens up the immersiveness of the picture.





Yup. That's it. Is that really worth shrinking the size of every scope movie ever made (and about 90% of the footage in these movies too) to gain on a tiny handful of movies?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
You can fit any image into your scope screen, correct, but if you are not moving your seating closer you are not getting LieMAX levels of immersion.
:)
True. And that "IMAX" footage makes up probably less than 2% of what the average person watches unless they watch the Nolan collection every month.

And the counterpoint is watching scope, which probably makes up 50% or more of the movie content the average HT owner watches, on a 16:9 screen without changing your seating greatly diminishes the impact of that material. And no I'm not endorsing moving your seating around as that will adversely impact the acoustic calibrations.

Here's a breakdown of what I have watched in 4K recently:

Blade Runner 2049
Murder on the Orient Express
Harry Potter 1-8
Dunkirk
Red
Red 2
Justice League
Thor: Ragnarok
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Martian
Interstellar
Ghost in the Machine
Baby Driver
Kingsmen The Golden Circle
The Fifth Element
Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
John Wick 1/2
Apollo 13
Star Trek/Into Darkness/Beyond

The breakdown is:

Scope - 25
Flat - 2
IMAX - 3*

Once I'm done with the Nolan collection the IMAX number isn't likely to grow the rest of the year. I put 3 in for IMAX, but I technically watched Star Trek ID masked since it has zero artistic need for the open framing. If I added in what I've watched in 2K Blu Ray, scope and flat would pull ahead even further. And as Coolrda points out with his setup, I'm on the closer end of the immersion spectrum so there's likely people with 16:9 screens that are getting a less "IMAX" experience than I am.

So pick your poison about what YOU want to size your screen for. Personally I simply can't fathom endorsing sizing your theater around a format that has minimal content and shows no signs of making huge gains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
16:9 screen without changing your seating greatly diminishes the impact of that material.
CIW will change the impact of all scope material and it is a 16:9 screen. CIH+IMAX is also a 16:9 screen and will not change the impact of scope at all.

Like you 2% or less of my movie viewing is IMAX 50% or more is scope. Then there is TV that is not movie viewing. About 80% of TV is filmed in a manner that is close to Flat in terms of movies, 10% is kind of marginal as this new 2.0 AR stuff is finding its place and 10% is flat out filmed like it was IMAX inspired. I happen to have my own balance of streaming TV and regular TV and this IMAX like TV. None of it is Cinema most of it isn’t Flat or Scope or IMAX AR’s.

If 100% of what you watch is UHD BD and it is all cinema, then sure why not just stick with a scope screen unless you are a huge Nolan fan.

If you are like me and 60% of what you watch is sourced other than cinema then you might want to factor that in.

Bringing this back on topic, I hope Nolan’s next movie starts off in scope for 30 seconds and then changes to IMAX and stays that size for the next 2 hours. in doing so it will go on Josh’s list and wont be considered Flat. How great a real IMAX movie on BD.

In fact any of the directors out there making IMAX/Scope versions of a movie do the 30 second thing in the beginning and get on the list so we can get the IMAX cut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
You can fit any image into your scope screen, correct, but if you are not moving your seating closer you are not getting LieMAX levels of immersion.
:)
Why would I need to move my seating when I’ve designed it to IMAX Digital(LieMAX) specs of immersion. I’m already inside the viewing area of my local imax which has a 60ft wide screen. Then I add my lens. It would be like my local IMAX slapping an 1.25x A lens on to go 75ft wide. I did consider IMAX and used their spec when deciding on screen size.
 
41 - 60 of 325 Posts
Top