Video rendering problems

[smrpix]

The point is that someone with at least some artistic inclination will not necessarily limit his chosen aspect ratio to the aspect ratio of the camera.

This is an idea that goes back to the earliest days of silent cinema. Nobody particularly disagrees with it, it's non-controversial, everyone knows they have the option, and folks see it as an individual, situational choice without a whole lot to debate.

[hello_hello]

The ulta-wide screen idea left me unexcited until I watched this today, however I'll confess I couldn't help but think how much better it would looked if it was framed for ultra-wide in ultra-high definition. With a wider framing I probably would have sat with my nose pressed against the screen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A-cOmaaBgQ
I'll be starting on the sequels as soon as I've finished the original.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZJulSnr5j8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW10W0Wcwpw

[Cornucopia]

...And I thought Empire was a snooze!! And there's a whole series of em.

I'm sure somebody here won't be satisfied until Napoleon can be shown in all it's 4:1 glory on a native Ultra-Mega-Super-Duper-Widescreen TV.

Scott

[_Al_]

It could be easily perceived that wide TV is better simply because it is wider?, no surprise there , but is it there a difference between 2.40:1 TV and 16:9 TV if both have the same width. Flat or curved, always the same.

It is just brain tricks, like someone hates watching 2.4:1 on 16:9 TV because that TV has letterbox black bands up and down. Brain "computes" wrong! Well until you realize that there is room for subtitles, where would they put subtitles on wide scree - in the picture. To me it is kind of ridicules all of this,..., TV should be big enough and then, who cares what aspect ratio is running on it. It is up to anybody how big the TV is.

[newpball]

It could be easily perceived that wide TV is better simply because it is wider?, no surprise there , but is it there a difference between 2.40:1 TV and 16:9 TV if both have the same width. Flat or curved, always the same.

The point is you can sit closer to your screen if it is higher resolution and wider.

Improving the feeling of immersion is that not what most people are after when they want to watch a movie?

Some perhaps don't but that is either because they don't even know what that means yet (they'll find out 20 years from now) or they are obstinate and reluctant to change.

This:



versus this:

[smrpix]

Improving the feeling of immersion is that not what most people are after when they want to watch a movie?

Imax is pretty immersive and that's not 21:9, or 2.4:1, or 16:9, or 1.85:1, or 1.66:1... oh yeah, it's 4:3 full raster.

[Cornucopia]

You are missing the point that "immersion" means different things to different people. I love true stereo 3D stuff and feel it is on the cutting edge for immersion, but clearly not everybody feels that way.

Also, not every video experience should be a VR experience. I don't want my news (particularly when showing graphic depictions of violence) immersing me like that.

Scott

[hello_hello]

It could be easily perceived that wide TV is better simply because it is wider?, no surprise there , but is it there a difference between 2.40:1 TV and 16:9 TV if both have the same width. Flat or curved, always the same.

The point is you can sit closer to your screen if it is higher resolution and wider.

Damn! As I type I'm only about 12 inches away from my CRT monitor. If I had to sit closer because it was wider there wouldn't be any desk between me and the screen at all. I'm not sure how practical that'd be. Holding the keyboard in my hand might be tiring.

My 51" Plasma is at least twice the distance from my eyes as my 22" CRT. Probably more like three or four times. And yeah, I tried sitting as close to my Plasma as I'm currently sitting to this CRT and even though it's only 16:9 I had to keep moving my head left and right to take in the whole screen. It actually wasn't all that comfortable. Not very relaxing at all.

I sometimes put the tiny little screen on my smartphone really close to my face. Even when I'm not talking on the phone. Just watching video. I'm hoping nobody will tell the wide-screen, ultra high definition police I'm sometimes so close to a little screen. I can't afford the fines.

Improving the feeling of immersion is that not what most people are after when they want to watch a movie?

Some perhaps don't but that is either because they don't even know what that means yet (they'll find out 20 years from now) or they are obstinate and reluctant to change.

It's just a picture on a screen. Granted the pictures move, and there's sound accompanying it, but it's still just pictures on a screen.
Admittedly I do sometimes find myself immersed in the sample and hold effect as images "jitter" across the screen. I could probably immerse myself into a headache with just the right video if I sat close enough. I can immerse myself in the artefacts created by frame interpolation and if I was lucky enough to own an LCD I could no doubt immerse myself in backlight bleed and motion blur. I do know first hand though.... once you've immersed yourself in colour banding there's just no going back.

This:



versus this:

[_Al_]

versus this:

Nice marketing brain trick, how about my green 16:9 TV. It is bigger than your blue wide.

[hello_hello]

Deleted.

I seemed to have posted the same post twice, somehow.

[newpball]

This:


[Attachment 30578 - Click to enlarge]

A 4k screen is obviously wasted here.

[newpball]

Damn! As I type I'm only about 12 inches away from my CRT monitor.

Then all what I am saying may indeed not be relevant to you as your viewing distance is exceptional. But just because it is not relevant to your situation does not imply it is not relevant to most people who have more standard viewing distances.

By the way I am not a doctor but I suspect that sitting 12 inches away from a CRT screen may not be such a good idea health wise a LCD screen may be advisable.

[hello_hello]

Damn! As I type I'm only about 12 inches away from my CRT monitor.

Then all what I am saying may indeed not be relevant to you as your viewing distance is exceptional. But just because it is not relevant to your situation does not imply it is not relevant to most people who have more standard viewing distances.

You're the one making the claims, which puts the onus on you to prove them.

By the way I am not a doctor but I suspect that sitting 12 inches away from a CRT screen may not be such a good idea health wise a LCD screen may be advisable.

Radiation is good for you in small doses. Not only do liquid crystals look like crap, they don't even provide a health benefit. I try to sleep with a CRT under my pillow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21092626/reload=0;jsessionid=fIg6ejp74Ob7svcg5OFx.22