Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
19,253
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Brian is a proponent of ‘new full screen’ aka taking full advantage of every 16x9 pixel on his tv.
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 is, you just see an image and the TV appears to just be that shape. Since I watch a lot of material that comes in ratios other than 16x9, it’s immensely helpful.

But it’s the age old philosophical argument: are you watching content to show off your gear, or are you using your gear to watch content?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Erwin

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
49,777
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Well, that creates a dilemma with about 85% of all content created through all of time, doesn't it? An image is more than just pixels and data.

As I already said, I need to listen to the podcast.

EDIT: Brian, Brian, Brian... (shaking my head) listening to the podcast.
I have to agree with you. Brian, Brian, Brian... (shaking my head too)
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
29,021
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Hey I know that the pitchforks are being sharpened but I want to make one thing clear: It's my understanding that @Brian Dobbs is NOT advocating that content be 'pan n scanned' to fill 16x9 screens but that most content creation should merge to the 16x9 screen standard. So less scope stuff and less 2.1, ultrawide IMAX ratio and 4:3 stuff too.

Again, I disagree with that and know that Dolby Cinema continues to push 2.35 content hard and really like that format there.

But that is waaaay different than advocating for anything to be chopped off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Dobbs

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Supporter
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
13,499
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Maybe not pan and scanned, but certainly opening up soft mattes solely to have more "information" to fill the screen. :emoji_radioactive:
 
Last edited:

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Supporter
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
13,499
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I do want to reiterate my thanks to Sam and Brian for taking the time to do these podcasts. I suspect there's a lot of time and effort involved. When you express yourself, you put yourself at risk of blowback, but these guys still do it.

...so, thanks guys.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
5,340
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
While I can appreciate where Brian is coming from, I too have the opposite opinion. I love the variety of aspect ratios. Standardization is boring. How fun is it when, on one hand a movie called The Osiris Child comes out with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, and then Steven Soderbergh makes Unsane with a 1.56:1 aspect ratio?
 

Brian Dobbs

Ambassador
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
1,166
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Brian Dobbs
They aren't cropping - they are windowboxing, making the image even smaller.
Not sure if I understand what you are saying here, but allow me to clarify with visuals below what one of my main issues is.

"Experience Black Panther the way it was intended."
- See? They are literally selling the IMAX version as the definitive version.

Using Black Panther as an example, why not...

1) Release the film theatrically entirely in the IMAX 1.9:1 aspect ratio? They obviously have the image to do so. They're just hiding the top and bottom of the frame, so that they can give a 2.35 image for...reasons?

2) Release the film on home video with a) the IMAX 1.9:1 scenes as shown theatrically or b) the entire film in the IMAX 1.9:1 aspect ratio?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Erwin

Panavision70

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
104
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Real Name
Rick Notch
Saturday Night Live does Wizard of Oz parody in wrong aspect ratio!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=286&v=Xb9j738BHws&feature=emb_title
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
23,820
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
@Sam Posten and @Brian Dobbs Fun episode! I listened to it as I was doing Thanksgiving grocery shopping. :) I thought, how are they going to discuss aspect rations for an hour and half, there’s not that much to say?!?! You showed me! :rolling-smiley:

Fun topic, enjoyed it. Learned a few things like 2.39 is 2.40.

if you ever want to talk optics, give me a call pre-show and I can whisper some some things for you to use when you’re on mic. I wanted to jump in and expand on some explanations regarding anamorphic lenses, depth of field, and other physics details :D

Good work. Looking forward to what’s next!
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
29,021
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Thanks so much @DaveF - I had the same reticence when we were planning out the episode, could we really make it into a full show? The feedback you have all given says we were successful AND we had fun doing it, so win/win! Will talk over having a follow up on it down the road and will definitely give you a consult!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Dobbs

Brian Dobbs

Ambassador
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
1,166
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Brian Dobbs
BTW, just to clarify, if blu-ray/UHD manufacturers gave consumers the ability to project 2.35 without all the hassle, and in a way that is superior in resolution to 1.85, then my opinion might be different.

For example, reviving the 'anamorphically enhanced' aspect, but for blu-ray/UHD
 

Brian Dobbs

Ambassador
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
1,166
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Brian Dobbs
Do creative decisions play into it at all? Or is there nothing more to consider than numbers?
I'm all about ultra-wide, but unfortunately the home experience does it a disservice, which is important IMO because that's where we are watching most of our movies.
 

Brian Dobbs

Ambassador
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
1,166
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Brian Dobbs
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 is, you just see an image and the TV appears to just be that shape. Since I watch a lot of material that comes in ratios other than 16x9, it’s immensely helpful.
Maybe if I could get my setup like this my opinion might change, but lighting conditions would have to be perfect, and even in my pitch black room with matte paint there's still enough ambient light from the projector to nullify any pure black framing that might come from the scenario you describe.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,126
Messages
4,731,498
Members
141,391
Latest member
ketoburni