2.35 movies: Disc should be completely 2.35 - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2009, 07:30 PM
high_rollin's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 98
Default 2.35 movies: Disc should be completely 2.35

Anybody else agree with me that for 2.35 movies, EVERYTHING on the disc should be 2.35? The previews, the menus, the subtitles, all special features... if the source material is a different aspect ratio, it should be contained in the 2.35 space.

I just think that there should be more consideration for constant height set-ups by studios, especially with TVs starting to expand to 2.35 (Philips has a 21:9 TV). It IS the most proper way to watch movies, after all. Height is SUPPOSED to be constant between aspect ratios. That was, and is, the whole POINT of CinemaScope. That it's the widest, biggest frame.

For 1.85 and 1.78 movies and whatnot, the 16:9 format is best. But I think if, for 2.35 movies, the entire disc was in the 2.35 format, it would 1) Make constant height set-ups a lot less problem-prone. 2) Give a uniform look to the entire disc. 3) Make more people want to have constant height set-ups.

2.35 movies should also be encoded to FILL the 16:9 frame, and then program Blu-Ray players to scale it to the proper shape. That way, when people have a projector with an anamorphic lens, or they get Philips' 21:9 TV, the 2.35 frame will be FULL 1080p resolution, instead of 824p or whatever it is with the black bars taking up encode space. They did it with "Enhanced for 16x9" DVDs, they can do it with 2.35 on Blu-Rays.

I'm personally just sick of people thinking that 1.85 is a bigger frame than 2.35. Even a lot of theaters have vertical masking that makes 2.35 smaller (a friggin' disgrace, IMO). It eliminates the whole point of the theatrical aspect ratio. The screen is supposed to get wider for scope movies, and therefore feel more grand and epic.

I think it's high time that home video reflect that. For all this, "DVD/Blu-Ray is the best way to experience movies at home! It's the best way to see movies the way they were MEANT to be seen."... there's been a terrible mis-handling of aspect ratios. Afterall, 1.85 (or 16:9) was a step backwards to begin with... 2.35 is the true widescreen. We should have gone straight from 4:3 to 2.35 right away, IMO. None of this "middle ground" 16:9 crap.

Anyway, I'm rambling.
My main point is just that making Blu-Rays for 2.35 movies COMPLETELY 2.35, and encode them at full frame, letting the Blu-Ray player add black bars for non-constant height screens, is the first step that I'd like to see done.
Because as soon as the format starts acknowledging constant height setups and accommodating them, then constant height will start to become more of a concern for both consumers and electronics manufacturers. An event that is LONG overdue, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-28-2009, 08:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 496
Default

At first, I thought you meant $2.35.

But after reading what you have to say, it doesn't really bother me. I think you're being kind of nitpicky, and this isn't really an "event that's LONG overdue."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2009, 08:17 PM
skycracksopen's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 878
Default

i personally would rather have the film in 2.35:1 and the menus/extras in 1.85:1

2.35 looks better for films, but 1.85 looks better for the rest

who wants to watch a "making of" documentary in 2.35?


to me, things are fine they way they've been doing them
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2009, 08:22 PM
skycracksopen's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 878
Default

but you do make a good point that 2.35:1 should be bigger.

i'm strongly considering a 21:9 TV someday, because those 2.35:1 movies are the things that i want to be the biggest. 4:3 and 1.85:1 i usually don't mind being a bit smaller.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2009, 08:27 PM
high_rollin's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 98
Default

"2.35 looks better for films, but 1.85 looks better for the rest

who wants to watch a "making of" documentary in 2.35?"


They wouldn't necessarily have to be 2.35 (although, yes. I would like to watch any feature in 2.35... its my favourite aspect ratio). 16:9 content would be pillarboxed within the 2.35 frame.

It would be a "Constant Height" option on Blu-Ray players, with three options:
1) 16x9 - Normal
2) Constant Height - Matted (for people without anamorphic lenses, but that want constant height simply by masking the black bars)
3) Constant Height - Anamorphic

That way, you please everybody. And if they encode 2.35 at full frame and let the Blu-Ray do the black bars, then when you select option 3, you get the 2.35 frame with full 1080p resolution.

I just think there need to be more consideration by studios and electronics manufacturers for people who do care about this, since anybody who truly is a film fan SHOULD care about it. Instead of letting people fend for themselves in this area.

Last edited by high_rollin; 07-28-2009 at 08:31 PM. Reason: adding quote
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2009, 08:49 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by high_rollin View Post
2.35 movies should also be encoded to FILL the 16:9 frame, and then program Blu-Ray players to scale it to the proper shape. That way, when people have a projector with an anamorphic lens, or they get Philips' 21:9 TV, the 2.35 frame will be FULL 1080p resolution, instead of 824p or whatever it is with the black bars taking up encode space. They did it with "Enhanced for 16x9" DVDs, they can do it with 2.35 on Blu-Rays.
It's too late for this, unfortunately. The functionality to downconvert anamorphically-stretched HD images to letterbox format is not part of the Blu-ray spec. No players offer that feature.

Although it could theoretically be added by firmware, that would require every hardware manufacturer to update every single model, even discontinued models. And it would require every Blu-ray owner without a 21:9 screen to be on-the-ball enough to update their player's firmware.

It's just not gonna happen.
__________________
Josh Z
Former Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest
My opinions are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-28-2009, 09:05 PM
high_rollin's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
It's too late for this, unfortunately. The functionality to downconvert anamorphically-stretched HD images to letterbox format is not part of the Blu-ray spec. No players offer that feature.

Although it could theoretically be added by firmware, that would require every hardware manufacturer to update every single model, even discontinued models. And it would require every Blu-ray owner without a 21:9 screen to be on-the-ball enough to update their player's firmware.

It's just not gonna happen.

It's a software thing. That means it can be done with a firmware update.
And if people don't know what it is, that means they don't need it. Therefore, they won't have to worry about it (16:9 - normal would be the default option).

The only models that would have to be updated are the ones that are owned by those who want the feature. Therefore, its up to the consumers to get the update.

They just need to offer the update. That's what I'm asking for.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-28-2009, 09:58 PM
Motorheadache's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by high_rollin View Post
It's a software thing. That means it can be done with a firmware update.
And if people don't know what it is, that means they don't need it. Therefore, they won't have to worry about it (16:9 - normal would be the default option).

The only models that would have to be updated are the ones that are owned by those who want the feature. Therefore, its up to the consumers to get the update.

They just need to offer the update. That's what I'm asking for.
Wouldn't all of the new anamorphic Blu-Rays appear squished on a 16:9 tv if you didn't use the firmware update? I have to agree with Josh-- I doubt the studios would try to push something like this at this point. It sure would have been nice to have in the first place, though.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2009, 10:00 PM
septim's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 786
Default

This is coming from a person that's about to order a 2.37 screen...

People with scope screens represent a minuscule niche in a overall market which right now is also niche (Projection/Blu Ray). So a tiny niche of a niche is not going to get much consideration from movie studios.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2009, 10:35 PM
high_rollin's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by septim View Post
People with scope screens represent a minuscule niche in a overall market which right now is also niche (Projection/Blu Ray). So a tiny niche of a niche is not going to get much consideration from movie studios.
I'm reminded of something James Cameron said at Comic Con, naught 5 days ago... Peter Jackson said that WB didn't want to spend money on converting Lord of the Rings to 3D because they don't think there's enough 3D-equipped theaters to justify doing it.
James Cameron's reply was, "There'll be a lot more once they find out Lord of the Rings is available in 3D." He then went on to explain that what the studios do will guide how the industry evolves. If they pioneer 3D and go ahead with big projects and do it enough... 3D will be widespread before you know it. So, in Cameron's exact words, "WB needs to grab a pair of balls".

What I'm saying is essentially the same thing. If the studios realize that this is the way to go, and just do it... it'll be widespread before you know it. And in the interest of staying ahead of the curve... it should be done sooner, rather than later.
Ideally, 16:9 TVs would stop getting made. Every TV would be 21:9. All theaters would have horizontal masking.
But I know that's not gonna happen. At least, not any time soon, if it ever does.

All I'm asking for is a constant height feature to be implemented into future Blu-rays and Blu-ray players. It really wouldn't be that hard. You fill the frame with the 2.35 picture. Enter a flag in the encode that lets the player know it's a 2.35 movie.
Do a firmware upgrade that updates players to accommodate the feature. It's a simple scaling feature.

It would take the hassle out of creating a constant height setup, because right now, it is a major hassle. That's why most people would not want to do it. Figuring out how to do the scaling properly is the biggest hurdle. But if Blu-Ray players had this feature... then all you have to worry about is getting the proper display.

Not to mention that seeing a "Constant Height" option on Blu-Ray players would get more people interested in it.

As for the slow-adopters concern:
Everybody should be updating their Blu-Ray players regularly anyway. This feature would be no different than any other firmware upgrade. If people end up with stretched pictures and don't know how to fix it, even though EVERY Blu-ray comes with a slip and a title screen that says "You may have to update your player to play this disc properly." ... well, not much can be said for those people then. Other than "Update your player!".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
At the Movies done completely BostonMA Film Forum 18 03-29-2010 04:57 PM
Forget Casting Woes, 'Justice League' Movie Could Be Shelved Completely Master X Film Forum 1 09-30-2007 06:13 PM
Attach Rate For HD DVD Completely Wrong? AV_Integrated High Definition Smackdown 38 05-20-2007 01:24 PM
AACS completely hacked, thanks to 360 HD DVD addon? ack_bak High Definition Smackdown 63 04-05-2007 10:50 AM
Blu-ray Hitchhikers Guide - Completely Faithful Transfer hdmoviefan101 High Definition Smackdown 6 02-03-2007 12:30 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off