Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

1.85:1 on Warner titles


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 of 20 OFFLINE   Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer



  • 10,815 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted November 09 2008 - 05:19 AM

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. Posted Image

EDIT: I also found this thread: http://www.hometheat....-1-85-1-a.html

#2 of 20 OFFLINE   Jace_A

Jace_A

    Second Unit



  • 293 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 19 2005

Posted November 09 2008 - 06:34 AM

Warners have been releasing all their 1.85:1 movies in 1.78:1 on DVD since 1998.

#3 of 20 OFFLINE   CraigF

CraigF

    Screenwriter



  • 2,383 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 2002
  • Real Name:Craig
  • LocationToronto area, Canada

Posted November 09 2008 - 06:50 AM

OT but vaguely related: I mentioned last week that the Sin City BD is 1.78:1 vs the theatrical 1.85:1. The little response was sort of "not a big problem". I can't even see the diff with my HT display, but I thought it may be an issue for most people with LCD/plasma, and from a purist standpoint. I guess the ratio diff hasn't been a problem so far, bigger fish to fry especially with WB...

#4 of 20 OFFLINE   Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter



  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted November 09 2008 - 07:07 AM

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."

#5 of 20 OFFLINE   CraigF

CraigF

    Screenwriter



  • 2,383 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 2002
  • Real Name:Craig
  • LocationToronto area, Canada

Posted November 09 2008 - 07:13 AM

^ Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. So it's my DVD that's screwed up then (1.85)...all the more reason to pass it on.

#6 of 20 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 09 2008 - 09:48 AM

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

#7 of 20 OFFLINE   Robert George

Robert George

    Screenwriter



  • 1,014 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted November 09 2008 - 11:16 AM

If 1.78 vs. 1.85 is going to be the next "issue" on these forums, then I'm moving out of the country. (Only half kidding) Seriously, if the difference in framing between 1.78 and 1.85 makes absolutely ANY difference to someone as to whether to buy a movie, or watch a movie, or make stupid statements about the studio that made the movie, then it is time for the sane members of the various HT forums to rise up and ostracize that element of membership. Johnny-come-lately film "experts" are only making it harder and harder for the enthusiast community to be taken seriously ANYWHERE outside of these forums. You know who you are, and for those of you that don't know who you are, it is long past time for others to point out who you are and put a lid on it. BTW, there is far more variation from theater to theater and even screen to screen out there in the commercial cinema world where these films are MEANT to be seen than the difference between 1.78 and 1.85. If you can't enjoy a movie for what it is, think about finding a new hobby.

#8 of 20 OFFLINE   Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer



  • 10,815 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted November 09 2008 - 11:19 AM

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.

#9 of 20 OFFLINE   CraigF

CraigF

    Screenwriter



  • 2,383 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 2002
  • Real Name:Craig
  • LocationToronto area, Canada

Posted November 09 2008 - 12:54 PM

?? People are asking questions because they DON'T know. Exactly the opposite of professing to be all-knowing, wouldn't you say? As a certain mod would say: straw dogs. Go watch it! Edit: almost forgot. I wish the experts would go and correct the sources who *do* profess to be experts on film, such as those who assemble the data for imdb. That is presuming of course that we are not confusing theatrical OAR with camera OAR (which is irrelevant since we're not behind one). Home Theater not Home Photography. For us idiots who can only watch and not make.

#10 of 20 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,237 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted November 09 2008 - 01:16 PM

Paramount does this as well
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#11 of 20 OFFLINE   Ron Reda

Ron Reda

    Screenwriter



  • 2,281 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 27 2001

Posted November 10 2008 - 06:39 AM


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! Posted Image
"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

#12 of 20 ONLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Producer



  • 3,053 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted November 10 2008 - 07:20 AM

The first three Connerys are 1.66:1, which would be windowboxed within a 16x9 (1.78:1) frame... the difference between 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 is small enough that overscan more than makes up the difference on most sets. The same, only more so, is true with the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1.

#13 of 20 OFFLINE   Marko Berg

Marko Berg

    Supporting Actor



  • 857 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 22 2002

Posted November 10 2008 - 07:36 AM

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.

#14 of 20 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 10 2008 - 11:27 AM

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

#15 of 20 OFFLINE   Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter



  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted November 10 2008 - 02:27 PM

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."

#16 of 20 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted November 10 2008 - 07:34 PM

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

#17 of 20 OFFLINE   Cassy_w

Cassy_w

    Second Unit



  • 461 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 02 2003

Posted November 11 2008 - 04:37 AM

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!!

#18 of 20 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,483 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted November 11 2008 - 05:16 AM

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.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#19 of 20 OFFLINE   Travis Brashear

Travis Brashear

    Screenwriter



  • 1,175 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1999

Posted November 11 2008 - 06:46 AM

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.dvdanthol...-movielist.html), http://LDDb.com/coll....user=Filmmaker

#20 of 20 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer



  • 6,121 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted November 11 2008 - 07:04 AM

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. Posted Image

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users