What's new

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,446
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
...The clear trend among the people who actually make the content we watch is to embrace wider aspect ratios, not to fill your TV screen at all costs.
Except it's almost always shorter, not wider, as there are very few constant height screens left.
 

Indy Guy

Premium
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
41
Real Name
Tony Baxter
With regard to IMAX enhanced films, it is counter to the physical nature of scope aspect ratio screen displays. In an effort to "future-proof" my projection space I opted for the Barco Cinemascope projector. This model has a native 5K 2.35 chip allowing all formats to be presented in consistent height...from 1.33 to 2.35. This eliminated the need for a costly anamorphic lens which can sacrifice brightness and sharpness. The 2.35 design utilizes a maximum amount of pixels to project the image while minimizing pixels devoted to black bars.
If "No Time To Die" was transferred with IMAX 1.90 scenes, the height would remain the same, but large black bars would appear on the left and right. While there might be more detail on the IMAX frame, the effect compared to a full scope image would be diminished.
Lately more and more films being released in the native film aspect ratio of 1.85. This produces small black bars at the top and the bottom of all 16x9 sets. I wonder why 1.85 was not selected as the video aspect ratio to begin with, since 1.85 has long been a common film aspect ratio? In any event, the scope chip on the Barco allows for a 1.85 pre-set that adds a bit of width to the frame while eliminating the small black bars (that added width exceeds the width of fixed 16x9 panels). This is also done without pixel masking. Additional pixels are employed to show all wider formats until all 5K pixels are uses for a 2.35 Cinemascope image like "No Time To Die". I thought this was the wise way to go, but "IMAX Enhanced" actually creates a lesser image on my setup!
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,410
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
With regard to IMAX enhanced films, it is counter to the physical nature of scope aspect ratio screen displays. In an effort to "future-proof" my projection space I opted for the Barco Cinemascope projector. This model has a native 5K 2.35 chip allowing all formats to be presented in consistent height...from 1.33 to 2.35. This eliminated the need for a costly anamorphic lens which can sacrifice brightness and sharpness. The 2.35 design utilizes a maximum amount of pixels to project the image while minimizing pixels devoted to black bars.
If "No Time To Die" was transferred with IMAX 1.90 scenes, the height would remain the same, but large black bars would appear on the left and right. While there might be more detail on the IMAX frame, the effect compared to a full scope image would be diminished.
Lately more and more films being released in the native film aspect ratio of 1.85. This produces small black bars at the top and the bottom of all 16x9 sets. I wonder why 1.85 was not selected as the video aspect ratio to begin with, since 1.85 has long been a common film aspect ratio? In any event, the scope chip on the Barco allows for a 1.85 pre-set that adds a bit of width to the frame while eliminating the small black bars (that added width exceeds the width of fixed 16x9 panels). This is also done without pixel masking. Additional pixels are employed to show all wider formats until all 5K pixels are uses for a 2.35 Cinemascope image like "No Time To Die". I thought this was the wise way to go, but "IMAX Enhanced" actually creates a lesser image on my setup!

IIRC, at least one reason for choosing 16x9 was the math ratios. 16x9 = ~1.7778, which is 4/3 of 4/3 (or 1/3 larger than ~1.3333, ie. ~1.7778 = ~1.3333 * ~1.3333), which is itself 4/3 of 1 (or 1/3 larger than 1, ie. ~1.3333 = 1 * ~1.3333). Likewise, 2.35 is very close to being 4/3 of 16x9 (or 1/3 larger than ~1.7778, ie. ~1.7778 * ~1.3333 = ~2.37).

That yields nearly perfectly identical ratios/multipliers between the most commonly used format ratios (and the new widscreen ratio that goes between) when the new widescreen standard was created. And that ratio of 1.3333 also nicely follows the notion of the rule of thirds while being the old 4/3 AR itself.

_Man_
 

TallPaulInKy

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
60
Real Name
Paul W Urbahns
only intended that version to be seen on IMAX screens.
I wish I had been able to see Die in IMAX. I saw an interview with either Craig or one of the producers and they said they filmed it in IMAX because it was intended to be seen on a big screen. The only IMAX in Kentucky, that I know of, is at the Science Museum in Louisville and they only show educational films. My son even looked around on line when it cam out and could not find an IMAX theater running it in Cincinnati or any other place in driving distance.
Is there an online database of functioning IMAX theaters left in the states?
 

Camps

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
921
Real Name
Tom
Disappointed there's no 3D option. I'd have bought it at a premium were there one. As it is, I won't buy it.

And, believe it or not, there are still many consumers like me out there who will buy 3D or not at all. So I'd argue studios and distributors leave $$ on the table when they don't make the additional investment in a 3D option.
 

RICK BOND

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,176
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
RICK
I Got mine today from Amazon !!! :D :banana:
DSC00482.JPG
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
22,261
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I tried to enter my digital code and got a message that it was not yet valid. Official street is Tuesday, IIRC?

Exactly - it should work on Tuesday.

We have the same issue when they send us review product in advance, we typically can’t access the digital copy until street date so we’re using left with just the option to note that it includes a digital copy without being able to give full details on what that comes with.
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,113
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
On the subject of the Digital Copy, be aware that the code provided with the disc is only redeemable on iTunes and is not compatible with Movies Anywhere or VUDU.

Universal has never been part of Movies Anywhere, but until now their Digital Copies were redeemable at VUDU. That's apparently no longer the case.

Edit: I was incorrect about Universal not being part of Movies Anywhere.
 
Last edited:

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,410
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Actually, the DC issue is probably because the movie belongs to MGM and Universal's just handling the disc distribution/release itself, not the digital.

MGM's the one who's never participated in Movies Anywhere. Universal's actually been w/ MA all along and still is. In fact, Universal's even intentionally switched away from offering iTunes and Vudu DC codes in favor of MA codes for disc releases of their own movies over the last few years.

_Man_
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,461
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
On the subject of the Digital Copy, be aware that the code provided with the disc is only redeemable on iTunes and is not compatible with Movies Anywhere or VUDU.

Universal has never been part of Movies Anywhere, but until now their Digital Copies were redeemable at VUDU. That's apparently no longer the case.

I have over a dozen Universal movies in my MoviesAnywhere account.
 

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,610
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams
TV shows are also moving to wider aspect ratios at a rapid pace. I've tracked nearly 900 TV series to date with aspect ratios wider than 16:9.

The clear trend among the people who actually make the content we watch is to embrace wider aspect ratios, not to fill your TV screen at all costs.
This part actually blows my mind. Movies being shot in wide ARs with the intention of being shown theatrically is one thing but, the move to shoot TV shows wider than 16:9 makes no sense for a medium that will never be shown on wider screens.

I know, I know…artistic reasons. Fine, that seems to be what people say just to try and end the conversation. I have no problem with widescreen on home media, I’ve been buying widescreen movies since the VHS days. I want to preserve the theatrical presentation the best I can at home.

TV shows have no theatrical presentation and I don’t buy this idea that wider ARs feel more cinematic. Jurassic Park has always been 1.85:1 and I’ve never viewed it as less “cinematic” then Star Wars.

Anyway, I know I’m in the minority around here but, I wish TV shows would stick to 16:9 more.


To bring this back to No Time To Die, does the BD have extras? Just looked at the iTunes version and there are no extras which just seems odd. I don’t remember the last time a major big budget film did not include extras on iTunes.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,446
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
This part actually blows my mind. Movies being shot in wide ARs with the intention of being shown theatrically is one thing but, the move to shoot TV shows wider than 16:9 makes no sense for a medium that will never be shown on wider screens.

I know, I know…artistic reasons. Fine, that seems to be what people say just to try and end the conversation. I have no problem with widescreen on home media, I’ve been buying widescreen movies since the VHS days. I want to preserve the theatrical presentation the best I can at home.

TV shows have no theatrical presentation and I don’t buy this idea that wider ARs feel more cinematic. Jurassic Park has always been 1.85:1 and I’ve never viewed it as less “cinematic” then Star Wars.

Anyway, I know I’m in the minority around here but, I wish TV shows would stick to 16:9 more.


To bring this back to No Time To Die, does the BD have extras? Just looked at the iTunes version and there are no extras which just seems odd. I don’t remember the last time a major big budget film did not include extras on iTunes.
I've never really understood why some people find a rectangle inherently superior to a square or vice-versa. Cinematic to me has always been more about size than shape. But I wonder if the generation that grew up with DVD actually sees the presence of black bars are being somehow "cinematic."
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,113
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
Actually, the DC issue is probably because the movie belongs to MGM and Universal's just handling the disc distribution/release itself, not the digital.

MGM's the one who's never participated in Movies Anywhere. Universal's actually been w/ MA all along and still is. In fact, Universal's even intentionally switched away from offering iTunes and Vudu DC codes in favor of MA codes for disc releases of their own movies over the last few years.

Thanks for the clarification. I redeemed some other Universal codes recently, but forgot whether I did it at Movies Anywhere or directly at VUDU.

In any case, for whatever the reason, this one is iTunes only.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
56,794
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Thanks for the clarification. I redeemed some other Universal codes recently, but forgot whether I did it at Movies Anywhere or directly at VUDU.

In any case, for whatever the reason, this one is iTunes only.
MGM isn’t part of MoviesAnywhere.
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,113
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
This part actually blows my mind. Movies being shot in wide ARs with the intention of being shown theatrically is one thing but, the move to shoot TV shows wider than 16:9 makes no sense for a medium that will never be shown on wider screens.

I watch TV shows on my 2.35:1 screen all the time. The recent season of Netflix's Lost in Space looks terrific in scope. :)

I've never really understood why some people find a rectangle inherently superior to a square or vice-versa. Cinematic to me has always been more about size than shape.

Not to sidetrack this thread too much again, but if they were properly presented in Constant Image Height format, the size of people and objects in a 2.35:1 movie would be the same as those in a 16:9/1.85:1 movie. That is how they are photographed and composed. A medium shot of an actor in one will be the same size as a medium shot of an actor in the other. Only the width of the frame differs. Unfortunately, that is not how most people watch them on a 16:9 TV.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
349,558
Messages
4,884,485
Members
142,624
Latest member
francischen
Recent bookmarks
0
Top