Search results

It is located in Fantasyland near a whole bunch of younger skewing attractions. I love it because it’s got some of my favorite characters (Donald for the win!), is in 3D and something close to Cinerama, and on top of that, is indoors so you can get some air conditioning while sitting down - a...

It’s in the magic kingdom, near the teacups and Peter Pan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey's_PhilharMagic

If you’re ever at Disney World, check out Mickey’s Philharmagic - it’s really the perfect use of both ScreenX peripheral and 4DX water/wind style technologies. It’s one of the most immersive moviegoing experiences I’ve had and I eagerly revisit it whenever I’m at the park.

The thing with ScreenX, in my view at least, is that it’s not really part of the movie. It was originally created as a sort of cheap IMAX knockoff, expanding the screen horizontally rather than vertically, but there’s a key difference: IMAX formatted footage is shot by the filmmakers as part of...

It might be interesting to note that before the transition to HD and 16x9 monitors, NBC started broadcasting prime time prestige shows letterboxed to 1.78:1 within the 4x3 frame. I recall a feature article in American Cinematographer where the DP of West Wing was ecstatic about this because of...

I would argue, and I would imagine that the vast majority of content producers working across different platforms and mediums would agree, that the tech that exists today does serve the art form. It’s true, as you’ve noted, that 2.40:1 was originally created with the intention of it being wider...

I don’t remember who first used it so I can’t take credit for originating it but it always seemed a useful phrase.

The great cinematographer Vittorio Storaro took it upon himself to study aspect ratios and the human eye and came to the conclusion that 2.00:1 was the perfect aspect ratio. He decided to start shooting in that ratio and implored the artists and technicians in the film and television industries...

Ive used this analogy before: Some people buy stereos to play their music. Other people buy music to play their stereos. Neither approach is wrong, per se. We all enjoy what we enjoy. Brian is clearly in the latter group, and the only thing with that is, content makers are never going to max...

I don’t have a lot of time today so my answer is short out of necessity, not dismissiveness. Filmmakers and showrunners choose aspect ratios based on composition, not total pixel usage or overall screen size, in the overwhelming majority of cases today. If it were simply about obtaining the...

Brian is aware that the HTF mission statement proclaims we’re in support of OAR, right? :D

The ratio itself isn’t ludicrous, but it wasn’t well utilized in the film. The framing wasn’t great and it was almost certainly cropped from a taller spherical image capture, which just has different characteristics than an anamorphic lens on a large format film stock. It wasn’t a well made...

I just saw a brand new made for digital horror movie with William Shatner fighting cave monsters and it was ludicrously framed at 2.55:1!

U2’s latest concert film was released on new year’s day on DirecTV in the US and different outlets worldwide. It has a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. I wish I had screenshots because it’s a good example of choosing a ratio to match the subject material. The tour being captured, the 2018 “Experience and...

If you want Dunkirk or any other Christopher Nolan film that’s partially IMAX to view at home in the cropped standard theatrical format of 2.40:1 (or 2.20:1 in the case of Dunkirk), both the DVD editions and the streaming versions (at all resolutions) maintain constant height. The BD and UHD...

No, but I wouldn’t object if they were. If the showrunners or studio feel they have a worthwhile reason for picking that ratio I wouldn’t complain. I watch a variety of television content from all eras on a regular basis, often daily - I see 4x3 material all the time and have no issue...

Oh absolutely, we all have our demo discs. And I’m thrilled to use something that looks extra great to show off what my stuff can do. But it’s at least as important, if not more so, that my system can display my favorite movies as they were meant to look. Which means that not everything I...

I don’t understand the comment that cropping the captured image makes the final product not real. Since the popularization of widescreen in the 1950s, widescreen ratios have commonly been achieved by shooting film negative of one shape and then using aperture plates in the projector to crop...

I also just don’t care about black bars. They don’t bother me. When I was a kid - like, single digits of being a kid - there was a special letterboxed version of Star Trek IV on VHS that came with an intro from director/star Leonard Nimoy. My parents must’ve rented it by mistake. I watched with...

I think it comes down to this central philosophical difference, as I was mentioning earlier, that’s always been in conflict - whether it’s stereos, cars, TVs or anything else: Do you use your TV to watch content you enjoy, or do you use content to show off what your TV can do? Are you watching...

To me, that seems less necessary than ever, with screen sizes growing, prices coming down, and black levels rapidly improving. My $500 TV has such good blacks that any black bars simply disappear into nothingness, especially with the room lights off or dimmed. You can’t tell where the TV frame...

It’s not just Discovery; Short Treks is also 2.40:1 and it looks like Picard will be as well. The new Apple show I sampled (Morning Show) is also 2:1. HBO seems to be holding at 1.78:1 but that’s probably more of a legacy holdover from their days of “everything must be full screen” - expect...