What's new

sbjork

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
137
Real Name
Stephen
Hmmm... wonder how it'd look zoomed to say ~1.5:1 (almost 1/2 way between 4x3 and 16x9)?

True IMAX would be ~1.43:1, no?

_Man_
Yes, and that's how it would have been framed for true IMAX presentations. That's how the IMAX footage in the remastered version of Batman v Superman is framed. In this case, since the majority of the film was shot in Super-35, they just opted for the full 1.33:1 frame from that.

As far as zooming to something different than 1.78:1, who knows? I like the look as is, though.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,118
The framing looks natural at 4x3. I played around with zooming and while it still works that way, it did feel a bit too tight in comparison. 4x3 also has the weird psychological effect of appearing more "open" -- it's funny how 16x9 felt more open when we were used to 4x3 televisions, but in the 16x9 area, it felt the opposite. However -- and it's a big however -- that's really only true when watching it on a large projection screen. I do understand how people viewing it on a smaller flat panel would feel differently. (Possibly some people with 2.35:1 screens, too.)

I was fine with the framing most of the time, but the shots where they include multiple characters often showed an awful lot of space above/below.

This was most noticeable with the big "hero shot" of the JL together toward the end - kinda took away the impact because they all looked so small in the middle of the frame...
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,118
How does answering a question result in nitpicking?? Dude…seriously?:rolleyes:

When it's 0.01 difference AND the guy uses the "approximately" mark, it's nitpicking.

And it's not even clearly accurate, as plenty of sources use 1.43:1 as the AR.

One source claims it's actually 1.435:1, so either 1.43:1 or 1.44:1 is appropriate.

Wiki says 1.43:1. People on Roger Deakins' website say 1.43:1 - he doesn't say himself, but he doesn't correct them.

So yeah... seriously!
 

Tino

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
19,835
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
When it's 0.01 difference AND the guy uses the "approximately" mark, it's nitpicking.

And it's not even clearly accurate, as plenty of sources use 1.43:1 as the AR.

One source claims it's actually 1.435:1, so either 1.43:1 or 1.44:1 is appropriate.

Wiki says 1.43:1. People on Roger Deakins' website say 1.43:1 - he doesn't say himself, but he doesn't correct them.

So yeah... seriously!
Lol. If this response isn’t the definition of nitpicking I don’t know what is.~ :D~
 

sbjork

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
137
Real Name
Stephen
I've had people jump on me over saying 1.43:1. So apparently, it's a satisfying thing to nitpick. Yet if it truly is erroneous, then the IMAX corporation itself is equally guilty of promulgating the error:

dunkirk_1.jpeg
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,158
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
The Q should be if this is the hill anyone really wanna die on re: (O)AR... even though the OCD-ish thing tends to come along w/ this hobby I suppose, haha...

Interesting this 4K disc package apparently doesn't come w/ digital copy, so guess I can't buy the DC cheaply enough from someone else (like I sometimes do)...

It's still on HBO Max, right? Anyone know for how much longer? I'll eventually want to reactivate my subscription, but would like to wait a while...

Cheers!

_Man_
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
55,596
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
It's still on HBO Max, right? Anyone know for how much longer? I'll eventually want to reactivate my subscription, but would like to wait a while...

Cheers!

_Man_
There is no digital code with the 4K disc release. Thus, I'm thinking that if you want to stream this version of the film then you'll have to do it on HBO Max.
 

Dave H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
5,906
So, I guess the big question is, as someone who didn't like the original theatrical version, is this cut worth rolling the dice as a blind buy?
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,751
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
So, I guess the big question is, as someone who didn't like the original theatrical version, is this cut worth rolling the dice as a blind buy?

It’s still on HBO Max, so if you prefer to stream you can subscribe there and see it.

It’s almost an entirely different film - out of its four hour running time, probably less than an hour is in the theatrical cut, and what appears in both is tonally different in this director’s cut. You may still end up not liking it but it’s an entirely different experience.

Best guess: if you like the Ultimate Edition of Batman V Superman, you’ll probably like this. If you didn’t, you probably won’t.
 

Dave Moritz

Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
8,504
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz
In the past we had 4:3 CRT screens and that is the way things had to be shown . I can put up with older content because it was shot that way. And we have have been living 16 X 9 screens for some time now and while we can not do anything about old content to me this makes no sense returning to the old dead 4:3. Yes I am sure there are those who are not bothered by this format being used but for me knowing it is a modern releases it feels unnatural and a really dislike the use of 4:3 ratio on a modern release. Will not purchase this title on disc or digitally it just takes me out of the movie, sorry. The long 4 hour run time did not bother me and the additional run time and restored footage does the story line well. I will add Batman V Superman as long as it is not 4:3 and luckily it is 2.39:1.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,745
Messages
4,855,367
Members
142,371
Latest member
Software Testing Training
Recent bookmarks
0
Top