- Joined: May 2002
- Post Count: 6,931
I posted this in my "Get Smart" on BD review thread:
Quote:
| Regarding the overscan, I have an "unscaled" option on my LCD display that I double-checked was on. I tried some other discs like "Harold and Kumar," "Chicago" and "Pan's Labyrinth" and they all had the thin black bars. But when I put in any Warner 1.85:1 discs - "Body Heat," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "The Bucket List" - they all filled the screen. I also checked the same titles on a BD-10 output to a 480p projector and had the same results. |
I think we have an upcoming chat with Warner and it might be a question worth asking. It's not a huge deal to me - I'm mostly just curious about the reasoning behind it (I think I pretty much know but I just want the official word).
And hopefully I've spared myself any "user error" embarrassment.
EDIT: I also found this thread:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...-1-85-1-a.html
He was one of those people who would be neither a follower nor a leader, but only an aspiring heart, impatient in the failing body which imprisoned it. -- T. H. White, "The Once and Future King"
- Joined: September 2005
- Post Count: 1,330
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
In the case of Sin City 1.78:1 would be the OAR, as are all of Rodriguez's films shot in HD. That's his choice, the films get matted for cinemas.
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cameron Yee
I posted this in my "Get Smart" on BD review thread:
I think we have an upcoming chat with Warner and it might be a question worth asking. It's not a huge deal to me - I'm mostly just curious about the reasoning behind it (I think I pretty much know but I just want the official word).
And hopefully I've spared myself any "user error" embarrassment.
EDIT: I also found this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...-1-85-1-a.html |
Get Smart was shot digitally with the Panavision Genesis, (all except for slow motion shots which were shot on film) so 1.78:1 is the correct aspect ratio.
Doug
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: May 2002
- Post Count: 6,931
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
I agree with you Robert, but I find it interesting that they will put on the packaging 1.85:1 when it isn't. I'm not sure of the reasoning there.
He was one of those people who would be neither a follower nor a leader, but only an aspiring heart, impatient in the failing body which imprisoned it. -- T. H. White, "The Once and Future King"
- Joined: January 2003
- Post Count: 4,492
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Paramount does this as well
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!
- Joined: July 2001
- Location: The Great Indoors
- Post Count: 2,183
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cameron Yee
I agree with you Robert, but I find it interesting that they will put on the packaging 1.85:1 when it isn't. I'm not sure of the reasoning there.
|
Cameron, very thorough of you to do your "due diligence" and check into this issue for us, well done!
I think the issue here is what your quote above states...if they would indicate 1.78:1 on the back of the packaging, then we (most likely) wouldn't be asking these questions.
The only reason why I questioned it is due to my experience with my own 56" Sammy DLP set. when watching the recent Connery-era Bond releases, I had read that there should be slight pillar boxes on either side of the image yet I don't see them when watching on my set. I have also recalled films that I know to be 1.85:1 ratios yet they are filling my screen sans black bars. Bottom line, if I'm paying this much for a film on Blu-ray, I wanna see it ALL!
"Music is a magic carpet loaded with oils and other soothing potions, it's just what you need when you don't know what you need, when you've got more questions than answers." - Bob Lefsetz
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marko Berg
I realize you had a smiley-face after the above comment, Ron, but just in case... It's equally possible WB opened the mattes (unless the film was hard-matted which is unlikely, I think) for the home video transfer instead of cutting off the sides. In which case you'd be seeing slightly more of the picture than you would in the cinema.
|
Again, Get Smart, if that is the film you're talking about, was shot digitally with the Panavision Genesis, so 1.78:1 is the native aspect ratio. There are no mattes and it was likely cropped to 1.85:1 by every theater that showed it on film. As others have stated the difference between the two is almost imperceptible.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: September 2005
- Post Count: 1,330
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Again, Get Smart, if that is the film you're talking about, was shot digitally with the Panavision Genesis, so 1.78:1 is the native aspect ratio. There are no mattes and it was likely cropped to 1.85:1 by every theater that showed it on film. As others have stated the difference between the two is almost imperceptible.
Doug
|
You know I had to look that up (Wikipedia says it's 16x9 as well) because I wouldn't have guessed the Genesis had a native 16X9 AR. The big draw of the camera was that it used a single 35mm sized sensor so that it would be compatible with existing panavision lenses, and I don't quite understand how that can work if it doesn't have a native academy ratio?
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
You know I had to look that up (Wikipedia says it's 16x9 as well) because I wouldn't have guessed the Genesis had a native 16X9 AR. The big draw of the camera was that it used a single 35mm sized sensor so that it would be compatible with existing panavision lenses, and I don't quite understand how that can work if it doesn't have a native academy ratio?
|
Its actually a standard 1920 X 1080 camera. Its simply that the sensor is about the size of a Super 35mm film frame (full 3 perf super 35 being 1.85:1 and the Genesis being 1.78:1), not that it is academy ratio. In fact academy ratio is not the full 35mm frame, it is cropped to leave room for the soundtrack. Also academy ratio isn't 1.85:1, but rather 1.37:1 as used in almost every film made from the beginning of sound to about 1952.
The point of having a sensor around the size of a Super 35mm frame isn't to make the camera compatible with existing lenses (although that is also an issue), it is actually to give the camera the same depth of field characteristics of a standard 35mm movie camera. The smaller sensor of cameras such as the Sony HDW-F900 give it a much deeper depth of field, making it difficult to make the subject of the shot in sharp focus, while the background is blurred. Also with the smaller sensor a 50mm lens, for instance, becomes an 80mm lens, turning what was a standard focal length lens into a telephoto.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: January 2003
- Post Count: 410
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
1.85:1 movies are NOT being cropped. The mattes are simply removed. You are seeing a fraction of extra info top and bottom. Basically a few scan lines at top and at bottom.
Death to PG-13! And now death to DVNR too!!
-
Patrick McCart
- Patrick J. McCart
-
- offline
- Joined: May 2001
- Location: Georgia, USA
- Post Count: 7,216
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
Tell me which one is 1.78:1 and which is 1.85:1. This is a comparison that essentially demonstrates the difference on DVD and BluRay.
Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece
The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their
Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on
YouTube!
- Joined: October 1999
- Post Count: 1,175
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
You can obviously see more of the dark wave at the bottom in the top screenshot, so I vote 1.78:1 for that one. Not a major difference, but a notable one.
Ernest Hemingway once wrote, \"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.\" I agree with the second part...--Det. William Somerset, SE7EN
http://www.dvdanthology.com/Filmmaker-movielist.html),
http://LDDb.com/collection.php?actio...user=Filmmaker
- Joined: February 2001
- Location: Livonia, MI USA
- Post Count: 5,476
Re: 1.85:1 on Warner titles
I noticed that for one of the recent Warner releases (I think it was Get Smart) a number of the 16:9 enhanced featurettes had the super slim 1.85:1 mattes even though the feature did not. I did not note this in the review since it seemed extremely insignificant.
In any case, I always try to indicate the actual aspect ratio in my reviews for Warner product regardless of what the packaging says.
Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA
