why 2.35:1?

[InXess]

This is silly.

Anyone who feels that the original aspect ratio of a movie must be "changed" to suit them is one egotistical bastard/bitch.

Watch it the way it was made and get over it.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

what a dumb-ass comment!
do you ever use salt and pepper or just eat what's on the plate because this is the way it was meant to be?

how many times art critics have asked an author a question about the content or intentions to hear "not sure..." (read "hmm, I was drunk when I made it") or some BS pseudo-intellectual gibberish.
Few months ago Dateline NBC showed a piece on an exhibition of number of paintings by 4-5 year olds from a kindergarten mixed with some high-value paintings from an art gallery presented to the art critics panel who were calling them daring, mature, fantastic, deep etc to be later confronted with real "painters". Laughing matter. They all looked like fools. Simply they could not distinguish a multimillion dollar piece of art from a child's scribbling.
So let's be careful with filmmaker's intentions as well.

If all users had wall-size screens there would probably be no discussion. What's ridiculous is how some people religiously watch movies WS on a 20 inch TV and get irritated by others who call this plainly insane. Just let everyone watch any way they want and discuss this subject without being called names by members of an orthodox wing of a local WS sect.
After all, your comments were lowest flying so I'm not sold on intellectual benefits of watching WS.

[whitejremiah]

No. The overly pretentious egotistical director who thinks he's making "art" that anyone is gonna give two squirts about in 3 years time is the bastard. If they'd get over themselves and realise they're making disposable entertainment for the masses and frame it accordingly then there'd be no reason to have to adjust it.

Just curious, what if someone drops the next classic movie and it happens to be in 2.35:1? i'm not trying to argue the point here, but i agree with a lot of other people here, if the director made it 2.35:1, he made it that way because he intended it to be.......most likely to show more stuff going on in the sides of the pictures than what can be done with "conventional" 16x9 aspect ratios....

[guns1inger]

I don't agree with the need to change something because you don't like, when you didn't create it in the first place. This culture of "I have the right to do anything I want" is not a pleasant one. But as I pointed out earlier, the technology is there for you to butcher to your heart's content, and I can't (and wouldn't) stop you doing it. What I do object to though is when you then try to extend your attitude to say all widescreen movies should be cropped and distributed at 16:9. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I should be penalised by your narrow-minded attitude. You can cut parts out if you don't like them. But I can't put them back if they aren't there.

Your comparison to the kids painting is bullshit as well. No one is necessarily claiming all films to be great art. We just want the option to watch them as they were made.

[FulciLives]

My point was and is this ... movies are made with a variety of aspect ratios and that aspect ratio is not always going to "fit" your TV so to keep the aspect ratio you will have to have some black above and below the image and now with 16x9 televisions you might even have black on the sides if the ratio is 1.33:1

The point is simple. Deal with it. That is the way it is. Do not let the "black" annoy you. Doing so shows that you are unintelligent or have a "low class" mentality.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[edDV]

________

[DRP]

There's a reason why TV stations broadcast in one of only 3 aspect ratios with *very* few and far between exceptions. Here they only broadcast in 16:9, 14:9 or 4:3. Very very occasionally the local 'ethnic' special broadcasting station will screen something like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in the original ~2.35:1 AR but this is very much the exception.

They do this because they know their target audience. They know the equipment upon which the vast majority of their audience will watch these shows and they know only too well the complaints they will receive if they were to broadcast "as the film maker intended".

Now, the rise of DVD and whatever is yet to supercede DVD and the slow demise of commercial cinemas and megascreen complexes means that more and more the home is becoming the one and only place to be watching movies. Basically the movie & television experience is going to become one and the same (although with fewer ads for the movies of course). I'll bet this is going to lead to movies becoming more and more ~16:9 in ratio as opposed to television becoming more and more ~2.35:1. Costs of production will also drive it. Expensive panavision lenses won't be so necessary. We'll see. Time will tell. In the meantime I'll just keep on croppin' 8)

[guns1inger]

Now, the rise of DVD and whatever is yet to supercede DVD and the slow demise of commercial cinemas and megascreen complexes means that more and more the home is becoming the one and only place to be watching movies. Basically the movie & television experience is going to become one and the same (although with fewer ads for the movies of course). I'll bet this is going to lead to movies becoming more and more ~16:9 in ratio as opposed to television becoming more and more ~2.35:1. Costs of production will also drive it. Expensive panavision lenses won't be so necessary. We'll see. Time will tell

This doesn't actually support your argument in any way. You are talking about a possible future. If they eventually start shooting exlusively in 1.778:1, then that is how I will watch it. You are talking about what might be. We are talking about not changing what has been. Eventually they might stop shooting in 2.35:1, but it will be at least another two generations of film makers before that happens. But even now, with fully digital pipelines, films are shot in 2.35. As digital gets better, it wont be any more expensive to shoot in 2.35 than it will be to shoot in any other format. The same cameras, different lenses 2.35, 1.85, whatever the director needs. Television doesn't need to go 2.35. 16:9 is wide enough. Minimal bars for true widescreen movies, a zoom function for plebians. Once they finally get LCD's colour reproduction and smearing under control (or get OLEDs big enough and cheap enough), I might even consider getting one.

So you keep cropping and encoding. It's your life. Just let us watch them as they were made.

[InXess]

...a zoom function for plebians. Once they finally get Lcd colour reproduction and smearing under control (or get OLEDs big enough and cheap enough), I might even consider getting one.

So you keep cropping and encoding. It's your life. Just let us watch them as they were made.

...a zoom function for plebeians? c'mon, most of the world is still watching 4:3 and this is not a secret. Are you for real...?
...let us watch them as they were made?
this is a total insanity, don't try to reverse positions here! You preach WS Who's is not allowing you to watch any way you please? But at the same time step aside when people who believe otherwise want to exchange ideas about the way THEY want. Stop being so high-handed like you know better.

We have inherited 4:3 format that has been present at homes for almost half a century. No-one in his right mind will go and spend few grand on LCD or Plasma just to watch it "properly". Technology changes (and prices) so fast nowadays that many sit on the sidelines waiting for the dust to settle. What was cutting edge 5 years ago has almost no resale value. Media and video technology companies are pushing very hard but how many times you would have to change your set to be finally satisfied (as per their understanding - never).
Plus most broadcast companies still send 4:3. So what is "proper"?
Most broadcast movies are still modified "to fit your screen". Tell them they are dumb. Everyone wants to use as much of the screen real estate as possible and who is to blame them. The fact that not long ago Plasma was priced similarly to a compact car is hardly a reason to change anything. I've been watching movies on a TV screen since childhood in 4:3 (just like you) and could live with that so what's the rush?

When the time comes for everyone to upgrade they will do so, until then this topic will surface here and there. So what? Been living without "bars" so far and don't think I lost anything. Do you guys turn your TV off when your cable TV plays modified movie? I bet no. So don't be ridiculous.
Some of you try to be more holy the a Pope himself but preach what you don't do yourself. Fulcilives has complained so many times about personal finances here that everyone knows by now know that he has no "proper" equipment. Nobody is telling him to go and buy WS TV. We understand. At least I thought so until this subject surfaces. Then the hell breaks loose. And who is on the forefront? Fulcilives, who is preaching a ticker tape religion but has no credibility in that department himself. Save up, man, and get yourself a big-ass screen cause you must be really suffering. As to me... I couldn't care less. I use the Zoom button if I deem necessary.

To those who belong to WS church: What you have seen behind those bars keep it to yourself, I'm not interested. I leave it to my imagination. Just like with books. Oh, I forgot, you don't read if the there are no WS pictures...(?)

PS. what new have you learned from the scene from WS "Unforgiven" example that you didn't know before...?

[Cornucopia]

I've following this thread, and it seems to me that most of the WS proponents, while they're obviously preachy, have yet to say that you CAN'T watch it the way you want. If that were true, they would be advocating removing the AspectRatio option from DVDplayers and TVs. All they're saying is, "don't F#@k it up for the rest of us".

And you know what, when I go to the rental store with my kids, expecting us all to see a panoramic blockbuster-like say "Master and Commander" and get stuck with only Fullscreen, I DO return it and ask for my money back (and I did just that).

'Nuff said.

Scott

[whitejremiah]

Agreed, just because some people want 30-40% of the movie chopped out, the picture zoomed in and slightly distorted, doesnt mean that i wanna watch it that way....i suppose if you wanna keep butchering your movies, feel free to do so, i'd personally rather just watch the movie as it was intended to....if it's 16x9, 2.35:1 or even if it IS 4:3 (some tv shows, anime, ect) as for 4:3 though, it is slowly dying out...probably gonna be some time before it is completely dead, but it is dying out, and if you can't see that....well, next time you go into your nearest electronics store, grab a pair of glasses before you leave.....

edDV, thanks for proving the point i was trying to make, i couldnt find a pic with all the common aspect ratios, just the examples they had on widescreen.org......

[edDV]

Agreed, just because some people want 30-40% of the movie chopped out, the picture zoomed in and slightly distorted, doesnt mean that i wanna watch it that way....i suppose if you wanna keep butchering your movies, feel free to do so, i'd personally rather just watch the movie as it was intended to....if it's 16x9, 2.35:1 or even if it IS 4:3 (some tv shows, anime, ect) as for 4:3 though, it is slowly dying out...probably gonna be some time before it is completely dead, but it is dying out, and if you can't see that....well, next time you go into your nearest electronics store, grab a pair of glasses before you leave.....

edDV, thanks for proving the point i was trying to make, i couldnt find a pic with all the common aspect ratios, just the examples they had on widescreen.org......

I found those using Google Image search.

[InXess]

I've following this thread, and it seems to me that most of the WS proponents, while they're obviously preachy, have yet to say that you CAN'T watch it the way you want.

Just read above, or other threads. That is exactly what THEY say. And with what language! Just raise your head to see a shining example:

This is silly.
Anyone who feels that the original aspect ratio of a movie must be "changed" to suit them IS one egotistical BASTARD/BITCH.

Watch it the way it was made and get over it.
- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Still in doubt? This is how "helpful" a true WS orthodox may be.

All they're saying is, "don't F#@k it up for the rest of us".

And what you have to loose? Don't worry. you won't even notice...

If that were true, they would be advocating removing the AspectRatio option from DVDplayers and TVs.

I'm sure they would be successful...

And you know what, when I go to the rental store with my kids, expecting us all to see a panoramic blockbuster-like say "Master and Commander" and get stuck with only Fullscreen, I DO return it and ask for my money back (and I did just that).

It's easy to explain. You, like many WS proponents are a perfect product of a frenzy spinned off by a big media and manufacturers. You became their unpaid spokesman programmed to perfection. If they had it their way all of us would be going from one format to another at a flick of a switch quickly filling up their pockets.

Agreed, just because some people want 30-40% of the movie chopped out, the picture zoomed in and slightly distorted, doesnt mean that i wanna watch it that way....i suppose if you wanna keep butchering your movies, feel free to do so, .....

What a big, steaming pile of bull. FYI, zoomed picture on a 36 inch standard TV is more or less equivalent in magnification to 42-50 inch screen in WS. We both watch the same distortion then. And I enjoy it.
4:3 dying off? yes. And when it finally does we shall all be happy. By then your news and the rest of TV broadcast will be 16:9 compliant, no fat faces. Untill then keep on zooming if you please.

Someone posts a question how to set the options to P&S. All of a sudden the church is quiet. No DVDhelp anymore? How so? Your feelings got hurt? Instead the long tirade follows about the benefits of watching "original". Ever seen behind the scenes footage? Often WS is made by cropping original camera 4:3 to a desired format for your viewing pleasure. So don't say cropping means butchering.
I'm for total freedom, watch anyway you want if this feels right for you.
Stop preaching. Get over it.

Now, let's reverse it. How much more you could see in case of "Unforgiven" example if it was a full 4:3 not cropped down to 2.35:1 (missing bottom and top part hidden behind those pesky "bars")? [/b]

[Cornucopia]

With "Unforgiven" and others, you're now talking about a film shot with "Soft Matte" framing. Ever looked through the viewfinder of a pro 35mm film movie camera? They have etchings/line that delineate where the common Matte formats will crop. Anything outside those lines isn't intended for audience viewing. The producer/director chooses how to shoot and which Matte format to use--UP FRONT. From then on, all decisions about the picture are made with the assumption that this "other stuff" outside the lines isn't going to end up there. Like microphone boom poles.
At distribution print-making time the decision is made which way to transfer the film: Continue softmatting and remind the movie theatres to apply shades/curtains, Hard matte/Letterbox it, or make an Anamorphic print and have the theatre use their anamorphic lenses.

Sometimes video transfers DO go back to the softmatte and tranfer at full screen, but then even though the view is lucky to be getting "extra" material in the upper and lower regions, they shouldn't expect it to always be aesthetically pleasing. Of course, with "behind the scenes" footage who cares?

AFA P&S tips:

TMPGEnc: SETTINGS button | VIDEO tab | ASPECT RATIO dropbox -- "16:9 display", and
ADVANCED tab | VIDEO ARRANGE METHOD | "Full Screen"
Then in the Authoring application set the project for 16:9, but change the "desired" movie AR to "16:9 LB/PS" or "16:9 Pan-Scan".

Note: unless you have an encoder that has features where you can control the pan-scan horizontal vectors and encodes them that way, you will ONLY get a "Centered" 4:3 picture.

Scott

[FulciLives]

As far as I am concerned those that do NOT want to watch OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) have the burden on them, not the other way around as they so like to put the argument.

OAR people like myself simply want to see the entire frame as it was made originally.

People against OAR want the entire TV screen, whatever ratio that TV screen is (be it 4:3 or 16x9), to have a picture that completely "fills" the screen. This very often means of course that the OAR must be "altered" in some way either by stretching it or cutting part of the image out.

Common sense says to go with the OAR approach so perhaps that is why those of us that choose OAR have such a hard time grasping the concept of not going OAR since non OAR opponents simply do not make common sense in any of their reasons for wanting something other than OAR.

Going OAR is the logical choice here with perhaps the only negative comment being a slightly smaller "image" but televisions have been at sizes up to 65" for some time now with front projection being even bigger and now large screen televisions are cheaper than ever so even that lone argument is essentially "mute" now. In fact it is even a "mute" point with "small" televisions as distorting the OAR in any way just to get a "bigger" picture is still a rather illogical path to follow.

I also take much offense to being called a corporate spokesman just because I side with OAR ... this is a connection I don't frankly even understand ?!?!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[InXess]

What you (Cornucopia) just said reinforces my argument about movie making.

"Inside or outside the lines", let's call it what it is: "cropping" is the word. Filmmaker has a purpose, just like someone who owns standard TV for whatever reason tries to see it closer to natural (real life, larger) proportions at least (vs. movie theater blow up). It is not about the aspect but rather screen size and in most part is a remedy for smaller images if watched WS on a regular TV.

As to P&S... finally you're talking. It is not about reencoding (that may be good for some, their choice) but rather using a more convenient Zoom thus maximizing your DVD output. Some movies though don't allow zoom, for whatever reason. Setting it in IFO is a much better option. No need to do anything, disk is perfectly suitable for WS and Standard. With this flexibility only morons can complain. This should be explained once and for all so aspect ratio discussions won't be necessary.

John "FulciLives" Coleman
you feel offended after what you have said? Are you kidding? First you call those who think differently (then you) BASTARDS AND BITCHES and then you dare to complain here about my summary of your blind approach? You forgot about APOLOGY! Your entrance had zero finesse, you rather subscribe to let's-chop-off their-heads approach.

Btw. what's your (TV) size if I may ask if you started bragging about how inexpensive they are. This is not what it's about but rather, am I happy with what I see (quality) and to date only a few from a whole bunch I'd say are worth considering.

As far as I am concerned those that do NOT want to watch OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) have the burden on them, not the other way around as they so like to put the argument.

OAR people like myself simply want to see the entire frame as it was made originally.
- John "FulciLives" Coleman

You really have no idea what is being discussed here...

Common sense says to go with the OAR approach so perhaps that is why those of us that choose OAR have such a hard time grasping the concept of not going OAR since non OAR opponents simply do not make common sense in any of their reasons for wanting something other than OAR.
- John "FulciLives" Coleman

No kidding. Wouldn't be wiser of you not to engage in discussions about subjects that you have such a hard time grasping the concept of?

....Common sense says to go with the OAR ....

....Going OAR is the logical choice here ....

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Common sense and logical choice is to maximize your viewing area. That is why theaters use big screens so you could easily follow the movie. Would you watch a movie in WS on your cell phone?

[DRP]

No one here is suggesting that cropping or zooming causes distortion of the picture so to those of you saying this... just pull that bus over to the side of the road and walk away. There is no fat face/tall and thin issues here at all, period. If you think there is then you don't know what you're talking about and there's a village somewhere looking for you, their lost idiot.

This was really just so I could have the last word on the subject.

Word

[minchjp]

Here is an example of what I want my 2.35:1 dvds to look like:

1. Here is what the original dvd looks like (Australian PAL Theatrical version):


2. Here is what the HDTV Broadcast looks like (Channel 9 Perth):


3. This is what I want in a dvd with an OAR of 2.35:1:


If they can do it for TV, why can't they include a version for dvd sale like this?!

[guns1inger]

That's what your zoom function is for, pleb.

[edDV]

The TV guys did all the pan-scan work there. A player zoom will just chop off the sides.

[guns1inger]

I have watched the quality of the TV guy's P&S work, and 9 times out of 10, for 16:9 crops, there is little difference.

[edDV]

I have a small 4:3 (NTSC) sitting next to the 16:9 (HDTV). Interesting to watch how they crop for 4:3. Live to tape shows are mostly centered. Series and movies often have different 4:3 framing. Many times the 4:3 has tighter zoom, or that could mostly be higher TV overscan

[InXess]

That's what your zoom function is for, pleb.

Hola, keep your attitude in check. No name calling. More you stress how sophisticated you are more I doubt it. That's typical to those who have roots deep in third estate though. Always trying to distance themselves, at all cost. Some inherited form of social paranoia.

[guns1inger]

Most Australian broadcasts are now centred for 4:3 from the 16:9 master. Definately true if you watch the digital broadcast. The only true P&S and take from older P&S masters. There is little to no effort put into it any more. The broadcasters expect that if you don't have either a widescreen TV, or a digital box, you will soon. Given that analogue broadcasting is supposed to cease in 2008 (although now more likely to happen in 2010) their confidence is fairly well placed. (And don't say they won't turn it off - they did the same thing for analogue mobile phones in the 90's - although CDMA was a half-assed compromise after the fact)

For the record, I own a Loewe 72cm (sorry, Yanks, you'll have to work that out for yourselves ) 4:3 CRT TV with 16:9 switching. It is only the very newest generation of LCD TVs that have begun to tempt me toward perhaps upgrading in the next two years to large screen 16:9.

[FulciLives]

For the recored since it was asked I currently have a 51" 16x9 TV

I am 33 years old. Growing up at home we had mostly 27" televisions but since college up to just a couple of year ago I had a 20" TV and the last two years a 27" TV and I was more than happy to watch OAR even something "ultra wide" like IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD which is nearly 2.8:1

For those against OAR I bash you for stupidity and lack of logic. For those against OAR that bash me and my ilk ... you bash us because you have no real argument.

Bastards and bitches you are all you ******* worthless losers.

**** with some whore that likes it (because you pay her/him) and not me you ******* worthless trash.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator Cobra

[InXess]

This life story has moved me. Especially the moment when you graduated to 16x9. But you have to start watching your blood pressure as despite your young age (and immaturity) it may be harmful...

[Cobra]

guns1inger - the "pleb" comment wasn't necessary.

FulciLives - please stay within the AUP.

InXess - stop fueling the argument.

I'm going to leave this one unlocked. Please keep it civilised from now on.

[DRP]

That's what your zoom function is for, pleb.

Have you ever actually used the zoom function on any DVD player or plasma screen? No? Well let me tell you the *smallest* zoom increment you can get is 2x. Just so you know, 2x zoom will convert 2.35:1 straight into 4:3 (or actually it's even smaller than that).

The poster was asking for a 16:9 crop of a 2.35:1 film which is exactly what I've been pushing all along as the most sensible resolution for watching. There is no zoom function I've ever seen that will provide this.

[DRP]

For the recored since it was asked I currently have a 51" 16x9 TV

Is that a CRT? If so I'd seriously like to know what make & model. I wanted to buy a CRT 16:9 screen and couldn't find one this small anywhere.

That's a very small screen for a 16:9. And you're the one pushing for watching in OAR. All I can say is you must either be sitting 2 feet away from the screen or you have the eyes of a hawk.

[whitejremiah]

for what it's worth, i'm all for OAR as well, and im running a lousy 27" 4:3 tv, though im hoping to replace it soon.....

[manono]

Hi-

There is no zoom function I've ever seen that will provide this.

My Oppo will do a 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc. Zoom, not that I ever use it.

I wanted to buy a CRT 16:9 screen and couldn't find one this small anywhere.

That's in inches and not centimeters. I'm too lazy to go find where you gave the size of your TV sets, but I believe it's larger than your plasma. Didn't you say it was something like 108 cm?