Theatrical aspect ratio.


16:9 display.


I want to recreate the experience of going to a movie theater, not "fill my display." Besides, the cinematographer, director, etc may very well have carefully framed shots with the theatrical aspect ratio in mind. I'm sure there are some exceptions (let's not get into the endless discussions on the James Cameron stuff yet again please), but that would be my general preference.

 

If your primary concern with your home theater is "filling up your screen", you have some odd priorities.

I want the image that was composed for.

 

I prefer the theatrical ratio be approximated, unless the director deliberately composed the picture to work in multiple ratios (such as Avatar, or the IMAX footage in The Dark Knight). Then I'm fine with the director's choice.


But even though the panoramic look of scope isn't preserved as much on a smaller screen, opening the picture up tends to make the picture lose some tightness in composition, and cause excessive headroom or push people's heads up toward the top of the frame. If it causes the scene to look as if we were twice the distance from the subjects or they look like they all were 10 foot tall, I find it distracting.


I think the difference in between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is so small that opening the picture has little effect, so I don't care if it's matted to 1.85:1 or not.

 

My preference is 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 (theatrical), and 16:9 for 1.85:1 only because on my 16:9 home theater screen I use masking panels and didn't bother with making them work with 1.85:1

That being said, I actually don't mind 1.85:1 at all and depending on the day would rather keep it at 1.85:1. I don't like seeing the white screen at the top and bottom, but if it was black then 1.85:1 would be better, no question.

 

We have moved this to the more appropriate section of the HDM forum. Please do not repost in the BR Software forum.

 

I like 4:3 things to stay the way they were meant.


I like 2+ ratios to stay the way they were shown. Opening up 2.4 just leaves too many weird looks with way too much head/foot room, possible screwups (booms/mikes, etc).


1.85 I can accept if it is a 16:9 open matte, but never cropped. Since it's such a small difference, I not sure why it's not just left the way it was intended though


OTOH 1.66 I would almost always rather leave it at 1.66.



A few exceptions always exist -- animation where information was created, but not used I would like to see the whole cel.

 

I generally prefer whatever AR was shown in the theaters.

 

I generally prefer OAR, even if that means black bars.


What I don't like is when 'tards decide to crop what was originally 4:3 into 16:9 and package it as so. If it was shot in 4:3, then sell it in 4:3. I'll deal, honest.....


Seggers

 

I want to see the image, as shot and composed.

Otherwise why do they bother putting the effort into filling a frame with every inch of detail

 

Yes, they can open up the matte to fix the "light up my whole tv lol" crowd, but sometimes this introduces things that don't belong, or changes the compositing of a shot. The director made it a specific way. If you so object to the way the director makes his (or her) movies that you can't cope with a different aspect ratio, why watch their movies?

 

There should be an option on the disc - so I can do both - with the same disc.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/18930825


There should be an option on the disc - so I can do both - with the same disc.

With most movies that's not really feasible without having two low-quality encodes instead of one (usually) good-quality encode. You can't fudge your way through this problem with seamless branching. So you'd have to have two masters struck (I'd think), and two different encodes done, both fairly costly to do. The two versions would have to be on separate discs typically to have decent quality. That's going to make movies more expensive; do you really want to pay more money per movie for this?

 

The only change from OAR I think is OK is going from 1.85:1 to 1.77:1 (16:9). ALL others should be left unchanged. Leaving 1.85:1 unchanged is fine, too. Thank you for running this poll.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by demonfoo /forum/post/18931499


With most movies that's not really feasible without having two low-quality encodes instead of one (usually) good-quality encode. You can't fudge your way through this problem with seamless branching. So you'd have to have two masters struck (I'd think), and two different encodes done, both fairly costly to do. The two versions would have to be on separate discs typically to have decent quality. That's going to make movies more expensive; do you really want to pay more money per movie for this?

I was thinking, for films where it is possible, use player generated black bars instead of encoded ones. I know that's not going to be possible sometimes if they've panned/scanned around the frame to get the 2.35:1 version, but for any titles where they've constantly used the same middle part of the frame for the 2.35:1 version, yes I think they should use player generated black bars and give an option to remove the black bars - or allow an option for smaller black bars too.


Yes I would pay extra for an option to have more picture above and below what was cropped out for a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 version of a super35 film as long as the quality wasn't reduced.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV /forum/post/18935611


The only change from OAR I think is OK is going from 1.85:1 to 1.77:1 (16:9). ALL others should be left unchanged. Leaving 1.85:1 unchanged is fine, too.

This is my opinion as well. Agree 100%.

 

So for those that are adament about OAR (I am one of them)


How about IMAX docs? The OAR is 1.44 but they get released as 1.78 on BD. No issue there?

 

For me, that is a double-edged sword. The IMAX experience is all about being huge and immersive (which surprisingly is not a real word?!) I loved watching "The Dream is Alive" on my 163" 16:9 screen and it brought me back to that feeling of seeing it at the Imax theater. I sit pretty close to the screen and it is just huge and has great sound. Watching it in a box inside my 16:9 screen would simply take that Imax feeling away. I just wish I could open the top and bottom to make it even bigger and it bugs me that I can't see all the picture, but my preference in the case of Imax films is to crop the top and bottom just like they do. This is the one exception for me. TV shows and regular movies should never be cropped in my opinion. Thankfully Imax films have tons of details even in the 16:9 area so I don't really feel like I am missing much.


Mike

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by thorr /forum/post/19000596


For me, that is a double-edged sword. The IMAX experience is all about being huge and immersive (which surprisingly is not a real word?!) I loved watching "The Dream is Alive" on my 163" 16:9 screen and it brought me back to that feeling of seeing it at the Imax theater. I sit pretty close to the screen and it is just huge and has great sound. Watching it in a box inside my 16:9 screen would simply take that Imax feeling away. I just wish I could open the top and bottom to make it even bigger and it bugs me that I can't see all the picture, but my preference in the case of Imax films is to crop the top and bottom just like they do. This is the one exception for me. TV shows and regular movies should never be cropped in my opinion. Thankfully Imax films have tons of details even in the 16:9 area so I don't really feel like I am missing much.


Mike

So it's OK to crop an IMAX frame from 1.44 to 1.78 because a 1.44 frame would require pillarboxing and it would lose it's grandeur . . .


But it's not OK to open up the matte on a Super 35 film from 2.40 to 1.78?

 

Correct. In my case, that is my personal preference. If I was watching it on my 50" Plasma, then I would rather have the 1.44:1 frame since it is too small to have that Imax experience and would rather see the whole frame. That being said, I wouldn't really want to watch an Imax on my 50" Plasma.


I prefer movies that are in 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 over 1.85:1 even though they are bigger on my screen. There is something about that ultra widescreen that is perfect for movies (not documentaries).

 

IDE have to say i prefer whatever format the image was composed for. Though 16:9 (gladiator) was a nice experience.

 

Either 2:35.1 or 1:85.1 is fine by me.


Don't really appreciate 16.9 if it is not what the director intended.