Search results

You ruined blu-ray for me. The quality of this trailer is STUNNING. Scenes underwater are always, always, always plagued by terrible banding. I couldn't find a single instance here. The trailer is in HD, it last 2.03 minutes and is 2 Gig in size. I.E. an average bitrate of 127 Mbps, so way...

Of course, sorry

First in sicilian as they speak it, than in current italian, then in english. Sollozzo: Mi dispiace. Mi dispiace. I'm sorry. Michael: Fissarie. Fesserie. It's nothing. Sollozzo: Tu hai sapiri ca chiddu ch'ha successu tra me e tu patri fu 'na cosa di bisinisse. Devi sapere che quello che e'...

Can you at least publicly mark it as disabled? I don't want to appear as part of the community anymore.

You would think this, wouldn't you? And yet...

Can you believe it, now?

I want to delete my account from this forum. How do I proceed?

From Across the Pacific (1942), starting at 0.33

This is from Hitchcock's Sabotage (1936). Is this symbolic too? (All my examples taken from Youtube)

Are you sure? I've seen a lot of examples that show rounded corners. From Cruise cat (1952) From Going home (1944) From Porky's preview (1941) From Puss in boots (1922)

It might be intersting to note that VistaVision was advertised not as a narrower than cinemascope format, but as a taller one, to underscore the benefits coming from a larger negative. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/254253-1954-u-i-aspect-ratios/?p=3055863

If it is true (and I believe it is) that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", burying films is an eccellent way to help to accomplish that.

Bob, very interesting pictures. Apparently, there is no mention of common top masking, so maybe center cropping was far more common (unless, of course, projectionists were expected to obtain common top masking by "racking" the picture). Either way, there is no mention of it.

Maybe the reason of the success of Cinemascope was that directors got to squeeze Marylin...

Well, finally a meaningful and very pleasant use of the otherwise annoying vertical iphonevision!

It might be interesting to note that the specs are to 1/1000 of an inch. If one considers the width of the frame in a spherical widescreen film, on an 80 feet screen, one has a precision of 1/825*80(feet)*12(inches) = 1.16 inches. So the width of the projected image is specified for a +-1.16...

The blu is missing AT LEAST 11%. Please note that there is no guarantee (in fact, give what it was made for, it is almost a certainty) that the Youtube trailer was not zoomed in already.

If it still wasn't, it is now. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/331675-marty-1955-blu-ray-available-for-preorder/?p=4116781

It is, very obviously, heavily zoomed in. DVD Blu-ray Trailer from Youtube The upper part of the frame has been chopped away, and that obviously explains that one shot that Kino could not frame properly (Marty standing up on the stairs - at 1.85 his face was cut in half). Nice cuts on...

Ok, sorry. I though this was a place to discuss things. I was wrong. Bye

I'll try again! If you check my previous post, i suggested OFA or OPFA (originally projected frame area). I thought it was clear that I meant the area that is supposed to be projected. So no rounded corners, no edge of the frame inconsistencies. Just the area that was supposed to be projected...

I'm sorry if I was not clear. I will try and explain better. Ben Hur, DVD 2000: Ben Hur, DVD 2005: See? Both are OAR, OPAR, OSAR, ODAR, OCAR. Still, one of the two is clearly wrong (and possibly both!). The only way to know is this: That is, compare to an original element, because dvd and BD...

It's not about simplicity, it's about having a number that actually means something. In theaters, it meant something for the projectionist because he always knew the width of the frame. We don't.

That is why, IMHO, it could be a good idea to drop the concept of OAR and use something like OFA (original frame area) or OPFA (originally projected frame area). And percentages could be used to indicate how much of the picture we are supposed to see are actually seeing.

http://blog.sony.com/sony-4k-tv-content

I started experimenting with Immersive Display Lite 2 (I posted a link earlier in this thread). It works! You have as many control points as you want, so I'l have to do my math to calculate the required distortions. But it's doable. Plus, you are not forced to a center distortion: you can do...

It appears to me as this is actually the opposite. The document says "these end-to-end 35 mm cinema film resolution tests utilized state-of-the-art 35mm cinema filme equipment, film stocks (...) Thus, the test studied the practical 35mm cinema film resolution that is achieved in normal operation...

According to this, these appear to be fairly accurate figures (if I correctly understand the paper).

Actually, not that difficult (provided you use an HTPC), and part of my upcoming project . This program here can morph your picture as you want it in real time, and works with one or more displays, flat or curved. So if you have a curved display you can rectify, if you have a flat display you...

Wow! My experience with an HTPC is, in fact, the opposite. Using either VLC or Media Player Classic with FFDshow, I can zoom, scale and crop as I please, and I never noticed any of the effects that you describe. The main problem with this approach is that you cannot trust the frame area on the...