AVS Forum banner

101 - 120 of 624 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,700 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToEhrIsHuman /forum/post/19996981


According to DisneyStore.com:


TRON

Aspect Ratio: 1080p / 2.20:1

Audio: English DTS-HD MA 5.1


TRON: Legacy

Aspect Ratio: 1080p / 2.35 & 1.78

Audio: English DTS-HD MA 7.1

IMAX scenes will be 1.78 and 3D! This sounds great and will be a blind buy for me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanton /forum/post/19997357


In an interview with the director, he said they were contractually obligated NOT to include a music only soundtrack: it would cut into CD sales. Worked on me: this is one of the few soundtracks I've ever bought, and it was the European 2CD version with extra tracks (made an 80 minute CD when I included the iTunes and Amazon exclusive tracks!)

Lucky. That 2CD set is now OOP and selling for $70-80 on eBay. Wish I'd known about it sooner!


Alright then Disney, give me the isolated 7.1 soundtrack on a separate BD and charge me $20 extra for it. I'll gladly pay it, no questions asked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,110 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 /forum/post/0


A shifting AR? Crap. Not good for the ol' scope screen.

Just like "Dark Knight". Adjust the screen for 1.78 and the 2.35 takes care of itself. Unique to BD & looks cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanton /forum/post/20002011


Just like "Dark Knight". Adjust the screen for 1.78 and the 2.35 takes care of itself. Unique to BD & looks cool.

That's one of the very reasons I rarely watch TDK on the projector (that, and I'm not a big fan of it). Adjusting for 1.78 doesn't take care of anything except me having to shrink the screen size considerably and getting black bars back on top and bottom again for scope scenes (and masking the sides). I don't think that's cool at all. Granted, if I had a 1.78 screen I wouldn't care at all about shifting ratios, though I am most certainly a fan of using masking, which this doesn't allow.


Enter the "director's intent" crowd in 5....4....3....2....1....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,738 Posts
Bah. Stupid shifting aspect ratio nonsense. It works when it's part of the film (Scott Pilgrim, for example) but it bothers the crap out of me when they do it just because they can when they're shifting between formats (The Dark Knight, Transformers 2).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #106 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation /forum/post/20002283


Bah. Stupid shifting aspect ratio nonsense. It works when it's part of the film (Scott Pilgrim, for example) but it bothers the crap out of me when they do it just because they can when they're shifting between formats (The Dark Knight, Transformers 2).

I think it actually makes more sense in Tron: Legacy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
It was all shot with digital cameras so there's no "IMAX scenes". It's just opened up to 1.78:1. For those wanting to imagine they have an IMAX screen it's fine but for the rest of us it's pointless. Luckily it should be safe to crop to 2.35:1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I think we will see more and more of these aspect ratio shifts in movies (as more films are made knowing full well they will be shown on IMAX screens).


I also think they will be of the Dark Knight/Transformers 2 variety where the image gains height as opposed to gaining width (Enchanted springs to mind right now). Again, a direct result of many mainstream movies being released in IMAX cinemas now.


As some folks have noticed, this brings some pretty obvious problems to those people with CIH screens! Folks with CIH screens will love the 'widening' effect of some films (Enchanted) but bemoan releases such as this.


Food for thought: maybe such IMAX aspect ratio changes are best left in the cinema? It doesn't bother me in the slightest (have a 16:9 plasma and projection screen), but I can understand CIH owners frustrations at releases such as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/20002472


It was all shot with digital cameras so there's no "IMAX scenes". It's just opened up to 1.78:1. For those wanting to imagine they have an IMAX screen it's fine but for the rest of us it's pointless. Luckily it should be safe to crop to 2.35:1.

Wait... So they didn't shoot the IMAX scenes with an IMAX camera? Instead, what they did, was shoot the whole movie in 1.78:1 and then just crop some scenes (I'm guessing the non-action scenes) to 2.35:1 so that people would think that the 1.78:1 scenes were 'amazing' because they were un-cropped? Am I getting this right? PLUS the movie was shot in 3D - so that's like... double the filming gimmick. Fake IMAX + 3D... Oh, man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #111 ·
^^^

The IMAX sequences were in full IMAX aspect ratio in theaters, not just 1.78. So the said IMAX sequences will actually be cropped to 1.78 on the Blu-ray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
The 3-D cameras that were used for the Grid portion of the film are natively 1.78:1 so if they were full height in an IMAX theater (a real one, not this ) then it was zoomed in and cropped to fill the screen.


I just want the film to be presented like I saw it: epic 2.35:1 scope throughout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/20003785


The 3-D cameras that were used for the Grid portion of the film are natively 1.78:1...

That's what I was trying to say. I know that they used 3D cameras, and not IMAX cameras, so I figure that the footage would have been shot at 1.78:1. If this is the case, that means that IMAX audiences got to see the sides cut off just so the movie would "look" taller? These gimmicks really need to stop. The movie should have never been hyped as having "IMAX footage" if this is the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,160 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeAd MiKe 187 /forum/post/20003893


If this is the case, that means that IMAX audiences got to see the sides cut off just so the movie would "look" taller?

From SlashFilm : "The IMAX presentation will not be zoomed in or cropped. Kosinski was very clear to me in saying that IMAX moviegoers would see more of the movie at the top and bottom of the frame."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/20004027


From SlashFilm : "The IMAX presentation will not be zoomed in or cropped. Kosinski was very clear to me in saying that IMAX moviegoers would see more of the movie at the top and bottom of the frame."

Perhaps he is saying that IMAX viewers would see more at the top and bottom when compared to people who saw the 2.39:1 version (which is already being cropped from 1.78:1 to 2.39:1). Pretty sure those 3D cameras shoot at the 1.78:1 AR, unless they used different 3D cameras that shot in 4:3 or IMAX aspect ratio for those scenes, but I haven't heard anything like that...


EDIT: From that very article: "No, the movie was not shot on IMAX cameras — it was shot using Sony CineAlta Fusion 3D cameras. I know that camera has a native 16:9 frame..."


Doesn't that make what I'm saying correct? Movie is shot on 1.78:1. Most of the movie is then cropped to 2.39:1 leaving some scenes un-cropped so that they can be hyped as IMAX scenes. What a crock. That's the epitome of a gimmick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo /forum/post/20004080


I saw it twice at a 1.43:1 IMAX theater and it certainly didn't look like they zoomed or cropped anyting to fill the screen

How else do you suggest footage that was natively shot at the 1.78:1 aspect ratio being displayed "in full" on a 1.43:1 screen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #117 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeAd MiKe 187 /forum/post/20004107


How else do you suggest footage that was natively shot at the 1.78:1 aspect ratio being displayed "in full" on a 1.43:1 screen?

Yeah well I'm not that dumb hopefully.
I even deleted my post after reading your previous reply but you were faster... Even if they used 1.78 camera one thing remains they shot the film with shifting AR in mind. it's less of a gimmick than converting 2D to lame 3D (clash of the titans and narnia come to mind). This was done, I guess, to "enhance" the experience, and it did. afaic, the film wasn't marketed as an IMAX film either. For most people, IMAX simply means bigger picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo /forum/post/20004139


Yeah well I'm not that dumb hopefully.
I even deleted my post after reading your previous reply but you were faster... Even if they used 1.78 camera one thing remains they shot the film with shifting AR in mind. it's less of a gimmick than converting 2D to lame 3D (clash of the titans and narnia come to mind). This was done, I guess, to "enhance" the experience, and it did. afaic, the film wasn't marketed as an IMAX film either. For most people, IMAX simply means bigger picture.

Hahahaha, no problem. This picture pretty much clears it up, anyway:




I guess it never filled the entire 1.43:1 IMAX screen for the "real" IMAX theaters, but filled the 1.78:1 IMAX screen for the cheaper IMAX theaters.


In any case, I still find it lame that they cropped the movie and then hyped the un-cropped parts for IMAX. It may not have been marketed as an "IMAX film" but the IMAX scenes were most certainly advertised. There were various articles titled things like "Tron Legacy to Include Larger Format IMAX Scenes" - "Tron Legacy Will Have 5 Sequences in Tall IMAX Screen Size" - "Tron: Legacy Grid Scenes will Expand for IMAX" and so on, as well as the director doing interviews about how the IMAX audience will see "more" of the picture. LOL yes, they will see more of the picture because the other scenes were cropped! Wow!


You may not want to think of it as a gimmick, but it totally was. I totally agree with you that 2d-to-3d conversion is an even worse gimmick. There's just no real reason that the whole movie couldn't have been 1.78:1 (since the big action scenes were of that native ratio, anyway) other than getting more people to see the film in IMAX (which is why it was shot in 3D, I'm sure - no real reason to do 3D other than the extra money - it's not like it enhances the story in any way).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
Not to stir the pot even further, but it's entirely possible that many green screen portions of the Tron: Legacy were shot in 2D and converted in post. It's actually been done on quite a few native 3D films (Avatar for instance). It's actually becoming fairly common-place for special effects sequences involving chroma-keying and motion tracking to be shot in 2D.


Here is a great article about the state of 2D to 3D conversion that I found pretty interesting: Art of Stereo Conversion: 2D to 3D . The article only briefly mentions Tron: Legacy, but it's a good read and may shed some light on what goes on when converting a film.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brad
Not to stir the pot even further, but it's entirely possible that many green screen portions of the Tron: Legacy were shot in 2D and converted in post. It's actually been done on quite a few native 3D films (Avatar for instance). It's actually becoming fairly common-place for special effects sequences involving chroma-keying and motion tracking to be shot in 2D.


Here is a great article about the state of 2D to 3D conversion that I found pretty interesting: Art of Stereo Conversion: 2D to 3D . The article only briefly mentions Tron: Legacy, but it's a good read and may shed some light on what goes on when converting a film.
Yep, Dark of the moon's close ups are shot on 35mm and converted as Bay loves the look of film
 
101 - 120 of 624 Posts
Top