-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Anamorphic Bluray?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 of 44 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker

  • 3,145 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted June 18 2013 - 04:13 PM

Some of us prize extras very highly
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#22 of 44 OFFLINE   Persianimmortal

Persianimmortal

    Supporting Actor

  • 975 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2012
  • Real Name:Koroush Ghazi
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted June 18 2013 - 05:19 PM

That's fine, some of us prize image playback with minimal molestation highly :)


  • AaronMK likes this

#23 of 44 OFFLINE   zoetmb

zoetmb

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 149 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2012
  • Real Name:Martin Brooks
  • LocationNYC

Posted June 24 2013 - 05:49 PM

Mark my math is correct the difference in our answers results in the figures we are multiplying.  I researched through Google and these were the pixels various sites were reporting based on the formula they used.  It doesn't matter I was only trying to say expanding the picture using an anamorphic lens does not increase picture quality it eliminates the black bars.  That is a good thing I am all for getting rid of the black bars as long as the picture quality is not compromised.  

 

You could stretch the vertical during mastering or do it in the BD player or the projector (see below) and then use an anamorphic lens.    But you can't only use an anamorphic lens because that would simply distort the picture.   

 

Secondly, Mark was correct in his dimensions.   I'll repeat proper dimensions here, just so we're clear:

On a 16:9 display:

16:9 1920 x 1080

1.85: 1920 x 1038

2.35: 1920 x 817

2.39: 1920 x 803

2.55: 1920 x 753

2.75: 1920 x 698

 

Unfortunately, this means that a widescreen image is smaller than a 16:9 or 1.85:1 image.   Which makes me really laugh when people watch a Cinerama film on a 16:9 TV and think there's any way to emulate what it was like to see such a film in a Cinerama theatre where the screens were frequently 90 feet wide and about 30 feet high. 

 

Unfortunately, the standards for HDTV were developed when we were still using CRTs and it was only possible to make a screen so wide and so large.   If HDTV had not been developed until flat screen technology had been developed, they probably would have made the screens at least 2.0:1, which is what the Director's Guild wanted for the HDTV standard in the first place.    Anamorphic films still would have been letterboxed slightly and 1.85 films would have had small bars on the left and right, but it would have been better than what we have now.   

 

However (and also unfortunately), this is also true in digital movie projection.   Using the Sony 4K projector as an example, a 1.85 "movie" is projected at 3996 x 2160 (8.6MP).   A widescreen movie with a nominal 2.35 to 2.4:1 AR is projected at approximately 4096 x 1716 pixels (7.029MP).    There is an option in the Sony projector to expand the 1716 to use the full height of 2160 and then use a 1.25x anamorphic lens to restore the proper aspect ratio, but almost no theatre does this because this particular anamorphic lens is very expensive and no one wants to take the time to switch lenses.   So generally, widescreen digital films are projected with less height than 1.85 films.    IMO, this is "film done wrong".     But ten years from now, as higher resolution systems are used for both capture and projection, this issue should go away (hopefully). 

 

(Note that even 4K projectors have relatively low resolution.    Consider that many DSLRs now shoot 25MP still images.   That's 300% of what is projected in a movie theatre. )

 

This is the opposite of the film days.   An anamorphic film print uses a print area of .825 x .690" (plus a 2x anamorphic lens in the horizontal domain).    A 1.85 print uses .825 x .448.    The anamorphic print uses 54% more area and when projected properly, is projected larger than 1.85.    (However there were theatres that improperly either projected everything at 2.0:1 by chopping the height on 1.85 films and the width on anamorphic films or they improperly projected common width instead of common height.)   


  • Mark-P likes this

#24 of 44 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter

  • 1,276 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted June 25 2013 - 01:32 AM

Interesting comments Martin.

 

Do you not think that the future may be 2.00:1, both for TV and cinema?

 

It'd make a lot of sense.  'Scope films would still be wider than 1.85:1.  Lazy projectionists/non-purists at home could crop both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 without losing too much (probably easily to protecty for when shooting), and good cinemas/purists can continue to watch in the OAR without large black bars (the bars at either side or top & bottom on a 2.00:1 screen are minimal).  Meanwhile you don't get a significant drop in resolution.

 

Probably very easy to set up and switch between for both the projectionist and on your TV.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#25 of 44 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,628 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted June 25 2013 - 05:55 AM

Interesting comments Martin.
 
Do you not think that the future may be 2.00:1, both for TV and cinema?
 
It'd make a lot of sense.  'Scope films would still be wider than 1.85:1.  Lazy projectionists/non-purists at home could crop both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 without losing too much (probably easily to protecty for when shooting), and good cinemas/purists can continue to watch in the OAR without large black bars (the bars at either side or top & bottom on a 2.00:1 screen are minimal).  Meanwhile you don't get a significant drop in resolution.
 
Probably very easy to set up and switch between for both the projectionist and on your TV.
 
Steve W


Good points and I doubt we will see this but an even better compromise would be something around 2.1:1.
If you do the math you will find that the two most current cinematic aspect ratios are 2.39/2.40 and 1.85. Both would occupy an almost identical amount of screen real estate on a 2.1:1 screen/TV.

#26 of 44 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter

  • 1,276 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted June 26 2013 - 02:17 AM

Good points and I doubt we will see this but an even better compromise would be something around 2.1:1.
If you do the math you will find that the two most current cinematic aspect ratios are 2.39/2.40 and 1.85. Both would occupy an almost identical amount of screen real estate on a 2.1:1 screen/TV.

 

I know that Constant Image Area screens are 2.05:1.  I'm moving back into my dedicated cinema room this Autumn and I'm getting a 2.00:1 screen.  It gives me the largest screen size  for each aspect ratio - it'll take up the full width of the room, so 'scope couldn't be any larger, but 1.85:1 would be smaller.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#27 of 44 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker

  • 3,145 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted June 26 2013 - 02:19 AM

Don't forget people still watch 1.33 material so you can't just split the difference between 1.85 and 2.4...
  • cafink likes this
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#28 of 44 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter

  • 1,276 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted June 26 2013 - 08:54 AM

Don't forget people still watch 1.33 material so you can't just split the difference between 1.85 and 2.4...

 

True.

 

I think 1.78:1 was a compromise which included 1.33:1.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#29 of 44 ONLINE   Billy Batson

Billy Batson

    Screenwriter

  • 1,423 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2008
  • Real Name:Alan
  • LocationLondon

Posted June 26 2013 - 09:35 AM

True.

 

I think 1.78:1 was a compromise which included 1.33:1.

 

Steve W

 

I think 16:9 is a bit like the qwerty keyboard, we're stuck with it now. I think it's fine, it's as close to 1:85 as to make no odds, & I don't mind the black bars for 'scope films. The worlds economy is in the basement right now, so there won't be any change for quite some time, & anyway, just how good can a 40's, 50's 60's film look? I love CD's, they haven't changed since 1982, theres a lot to be said for not changing things too often.



#30 of 44 OFFLINE   Cinescott

Cinescott

    Supporting Actor

  • 838 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2010
  • Real Name:Scott
  • LocationMilwaukee, WI

Posted June 26 2013 - 12:04 PM

I think often that many of us are spoiled regarding the quality with which we are now able to view home video. I clearly remember the VHS days and how poor the images and sound were, yet people ate it up. 

 

When I first saw a "prototype" high definition system in a high-end electronics store more than 10 years ago, I was amazed at how good it looked and for many (maybe most) Blu-rays, that quality is now everyday.

It was a dream of mine when I was a kid to have a small theater in my home and for all intents and purposes, I now do. Films I grew up loving and able to watch only once in a very great while in poor quality are now at my fingertips in a non-degrading, hi-def format. 

 

This definitely is a Renaissance for home theater enthusiasts, even if we have a minor gripe about a particular transfer from time to time. Years ago, the format was so poor that minor slips in the transfer would have been impossible to spot. With Blu-ray, we see everything, and that's a good thing.  


  • cafink and Brenty like this

"There are two types of people in the world, my friend. Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."


#31 of 44 OFFLINE   John Hermes

John Hermes

    Supporting Actor

  • 761 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2007
  • Real Name:John Hermes
  • LocationLa Mesa (San Diego) CA

Posted June 26 2013 - 12:40 PM

I know that Constant Image Area screens are 2.05:1.  I'm moving back into my dedicated cinema room this Autumn and I'm getting a 2.00:1 screen.  It gives me the largest screen size  for each aspect ratio - it'll take up the full width of the room, so 'scope couldn't be any larger, but 1.85:1 would be smaller.

 

Steve W

I use two screens:  a scope wall screen and a 16x9 pulldown right in front of it.  This allows me to have a larger 16x9 image than if I were to show it on my scope screen.  I come from a film projection background and back then had a full set of aperture plates and lenses for my 35mm projector.  We would also mask the screen for the film we were showing.  I wouldn't want a CinemaScope film not to be wider than a 1.85 one.  I guess a perfect scenario for me would to have a large scope screen with the ability to mask it to any ratio.  They do sell these but I will have to do with what I have presently, for now.



#32 of 44 OFFLINE   Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,781 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted June 26 2013 - 05:37 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Scott.  I remember being delighted with a 17" color television.  I remember collecting a lot of movies on VHS and being content with the quality I was able to get.  I remember being delighted with the bonuses that were available on laserdisc and eventually moving into collecting some of those titles just as the format was going under at the dawn of DVD.   I was just as impressed with DVD's capabilities and it's been downhill ever since.  As a side note, I remember my brother initially criticizing DVD when he was working at a Ken Crane's store.  He told me that he had run one of the very first DVD releases on a big-screen TV in the store, and then he had run a laserdisc of the same title for comparison.  He firmly stated then that the picture quality of DVD was inferior to laserdisc and said he wasn't buying into it.   That's the fun of statements like this.  That was in 1997 or so, and look where we are today...



#33 of 44 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,309 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted June 26 2013 - 06:35 PM

I use two screens:  a scope wall screen and a 16x9 pulldown right in front of it.  This allows me to have a larger 16x9 image than if I were to show it on my scope screen.  I come from a film projection background and back then had a full set of aperture plates and lenses for my 35mm projector.  We would also mask the screen for the film we were showing.  I wouldn't want a CinemaScope film not to be wider than a 1.85 one.  I guess a perfect scenario for me would to have a large scope screen with the ability to mask it to any ratio.  They do sell these but I will have to do with what I have presently, for now.

Easily done with side curtains. That's what I use. Fully open my screen is 2.35:1. The curtains can be closed all the way to 1.33:1



#34 of 44 OFFLINE   John Hermes

John Hermes

    Supporting Actor

  • 761 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2007
  • Real Name:John Hermes
  • LocationLa Mesa (San Diego) CA

Posted June 26 2013 - 10:44 PM

Easily done with side curtains. That's what I use. Fully open my screen is 2.35:1. The curtains can be closed all the way to 1.33:1  

Well, I'd like to be able to mask top and bottom too for CinemaScope 2.55 and the oddball stuff like 2.76.  I find my 120" diagonal 2.35 too small to show 1.33 or 1.78/1.85 at the size I like.  That's why I use a second, pulldown, screen.



#35 of 44 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,628 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted June 27 2013 - 01:47 AM

Don't forget people still watch 1.33 material so you can't just split the difference between 1.85 and 2.4...


I only used the two most widespread cinema aspect ratios.
In my experience 1.33 material still looks quite good on such a screen.

#36 of 44 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,628 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted June 27 2013 - 02:07 AM

Well, I'd like to be able to mask top and bottom too for CinemaScope 2.55 and the oddball stuff like 2.76.  I find my 120" diagonal 2.35 too small to show 1.33 or 1.78/1.85 at the size I like.  That's why I use a second, pulldown, screen.

With a big enough room and screen we could just go with 2.76:1, curtains from the sides and 2 or 3 rows of seating :D

#37 of 44 OFFLINE   Worth

Worth

    Screenwriter

  • 1,135 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 17 2009

Posted June 27 2013 - 06:25 AM

I only used the two most widespread cinema aspect ratios.
In my experience 1.33 material still looks quite good on such a screen.

 

Except that 99% of the population doesn't own a front projector.


Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife. Doomed is your soul and damned is your life.

#38 of 44 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,628 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted June 27 2013 - 06:49 AM

Except that 99% of the population doesn't own a front projector.


I would think that it can also look good on a TV screen but obviously these do not exist.

#39 of 44 OFFLINE   John Hermes

John Hermes

    Supporting Actor

  • 761 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2007
  • Real Name:John Hermes
  • LocationLa Mesa (San Diego) CA

Posted June 27 2013 - 08:38 AM

With a big enough room and screen we could just go with 2.76:1, curtains from the sides and 2 or 3 rows of seating :D

Just waiting for that Powerball windfall to happen - then I can get it just right.   ;)


  • ahollis likes this

#40 of 44 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,628 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted June 27 2013 - 09:05 AM

Just waiting for that Powerball windfall to happen - then I can get it just right.   ;)


When you get that Powerball windfall you will of course also have to bring out 4k UHD versions of Khartoum and Fall of the Roman Empire to properly fill that ultrawide screen :D




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users