# Sticky  List of Variable Aspect Ratio Movies on Blu-ray



## Josh Z

Most of this information has been discussed previously in this forum, but I felt it worthwhile to consolidate it into a dedicated thread because the question comes up frequently.

The following is a list of movies presented on Blu-ray or Ultra HD with a variable aspect ratio - specifically those that periodically transition from 2.35:1 to expand in height for a pseudo-IMAX effect.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Effective Sept. 1, 2022, the lists of Variable Aspect Ratio Movies are also available in more convenient to read chart form on the following permanent, regularly-updated web site pages:

List of IMAX Variable Aspect Ratio Movies
List of Other Variable Aspect Ratio Movies (Not IMAX)

*Movies with IMAX Variable Aspect Ratio on Blu-ray or Ultra HD (and Some Streaming)*

The Aeronauts (digital streaming)
Ant-Man and the Wasp (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
Aquaman (2D Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and streaming)
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice - Ultimate Edition (IMAX Enhanced 2021 remastered Ultra HD and digital streaming only, except HBO Max. Ratio switches between 2.40:1 and full-height 1.43:1)
Black Panther (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
Black Widow [2021] (Japanese 3D Blu-ray and Disney+ streaming only, ratio switches between 2.40:1 and 1.90:1)
Captain America: Civil War (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
Captain Marvel (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
The Dark Knight (Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
The Dark Knight Rises (Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Doctor Strange (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
Dunkirk (Blu-ray and Ultra HD are VAR 2.20:1/16:9)
Eternals (Disney+ streaming only, ratio switches between 2.40:1 and 1.90:1)
First Man (Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and streaming)
Ghostbusters [2016] (2D, 3D, Ultra HD, and IMAX Enhanced streaming edition)
Guardians of the Galaxy (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Blu-ray only)
Interstellar (Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Iron Man (Disney+ streaming only)
Lightyear (Disney+ streaming only)
Mission: Impossible - Fallout (Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and streaming are VAR 2.40:1/1.90:1)
Mojin: The Lost Legend
Nope (Blu-ray and Ultra HD are VAR 2.20:1/16:9)
Spider-Man: Far from Home (IMAX Enhanced streaming edition only. Movie has some 16:9 segments windowboxed within the 2.35:1 area and other IMAX sequences that expand in height to 1.90:1.)
Star Trek into Darkness ("Compendium" Blu-ray box set, Ultra HD Blu-ray, and IMAX Enhanced streaming edition)
Tenet (Blu-ray and Ultra HD are VAR 2.20:1/16:9)
Thor: Ragnarok (3D and Disney+ streaming only)
Top Gun: Maverick (Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and streaming)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (3D Blu-ray and IMAX Enhanced streaming edition only)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart-exclusive "Big Screen Edition" Blu-ray only)
Tron Legacy (both 2D and 3D)
Wonder Woman 1984 (2D, 3D, and Ultra HD are VAR 2.40:1/1.90:1.)
A Writer's Odyssey (a.k.a. Assassin in Red. Blu-ray switches between 2.40:1 and 1.85:1, as the film did in regular theaters. However, the IMAX theatrical release was fully open-matte 1.85:1 for the entire movie.)

*2.35:1 Movies with Frame-Breaking Visual Effects That Intrude into the Letterbox Bars*

G-Force
Ghostbusters [2016] - Also has one scene that changes aspect ratio completely.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (3D) - Some scenes change aspect ratio completely. Others remain 2.35:1 with frame-breaking effects into the letterbox bars.
Pixels - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to an even wider ratio so that visual effects can break the frame.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [2014] - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to an even wider ratio so that visual effects can break the frame.

*Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but Are Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray or Ultra HD (and Some Streaming)*

Alien: Covenant
Alita: Battle Angel
The Amazing Spider-Man
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Aquaman (3D only)
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice [2016 theatrical cut] (2D, 3D, and Ultra HD releases, plus streaming)
Captain America: Civil War (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Captain Marvel (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Black Panther (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Black Widow [2021] (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Doctor Strange (2D)
Dune [2021] (Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and HBO Max streaming)
Eternals (Blu-ray, 3D, Ultra HD, and most streaming)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2D)
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Ultra HD, Australian Blu-ray edition, and German Blu-ray edition are Constant Height 2.35:1)
Iron Man (2018 IMAX re-release)
Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Lightyear (2D Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and most streaming)
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
No Time to Die
Nope (streaming)
Riddick
Seventh Son
Spider-Man: Far from Home (2D, 3D, and Ultra HD)
Star Trek into Darkness (Initial 2D and 3D Blu-ray editions, any versions except the "Compendium" Blu-ray box set or the Ultra HD)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Thor: Love and Thunder (Blu-ray, Ultra HD, and most streaming)
Thor: Ragnarok (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (General retail Blu-ray and Ultra HD, any version except the Walmart "Big Screen Edition" Blu-ray)

*Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with an Open-Matte 1.90:1 Aspect Ratio (Entire Length of Movie) but Are Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray or Ultra HD*

1917
Avengers: Endgame
Avengers: Infinity War
Baahubali 2: The Conclusion
Beauty and the Beast [2017]
Blade Runner 2049
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2D, 3D, Ultra HD, and any streaming except Disney+)
The Eight Hundred (film was 2.11:1 in IMAX theaters but is 2.35:1 on the Hong Kong Blu-ray)
Flight Crew (2016 Russian film, no home video release in America)
Flying Swords of Dragon Gate (most releases aside from Hong Kong 2D and 3D Blu-ray Limited Editions)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2.0:1)
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2.0:1)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2.0:1)
I, Frankenstein
The King's Man
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
Maze Runner: The Death Cure
Nomadland
Oblivion
Only the Brave
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Prometheus
Saaho (digital streaming)
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2D, 3D, Ultra HD, and any streaming except Disney+)
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2D, 3D, Ultra HD, and any streaming except Disney+; movie has some 16:9 segments windowboxed within the 2.35:1 area)
Skyfall
Sully
Tomorrowland
Underworld: Awakening
Young Detective Dee: Rise of the Sea Dragon

*Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with an Open-Matte Aspect Ratio (Entire Movie) and Are Open-Matte on Blu-ray or Ultra HD (and Some Streaming)*

Avatar
Avengers: Endgame (Disney+ streaming)
Avengers: Infinity War (Disney+ streaming)
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (Disney+ streaming)
Flying Swords of Dragon Gate (Hong Kong 2D and 3D Limited Edition Blu-rays only)
RRR (Netflix streaming)
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (Disney+ streaming)
Spider-Man: No Way Home (Disney+ streaming)
Titanic (3D only)

*Movies that Have a Variable Aspect Ratio on Blu-ray or Ultra HD but Are Constant Height 2.35:1 on Digital Streaming*

Ant-Man and the Wasp
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice - Ultimate Edition (HBO Max streaming is variable ratio with IMAX sequences pillarboxed as 1.90:1 within the 2.35:1 CIH frame)
Black Panther (except Disney+)
Captain America: Civil War (except Disney+)
Captain Marvel (except Disney+)
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Doctor Strange (except Disney+)
Dunkirk (2.20:1)
Ghostbusters [2016]
Guardians of the Galaxy (except Disney+)
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (except Disney+)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Interstellar
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Tenet (2.20:1)
Thor: Ragnarok (except Disney+)
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Wonder Woman 1984 (HBO Max)

*Misc.*

Justice League - Original theatrical version is 1.85:1 on all media. The director's cut called "Zack Snyder's Justice League" has been reformatted to a pillarboxed 4:3 ratio.

The Lion King [2019] - Played in IMAX Laser theaters with an aspect ratio that varied from 1.85:1 to 1.43:1. Blu-ray and Ultra HD editions have a constant 16:9 ratio.


*Movies with Home Video Status TBD*

Variable Aspect Ratio in IMAX Theaters:

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
Creed III
Dune: Part Two
Lost in Russia
Oppenheimer
Thor: Love and Thunder (3D and Disney+ streaming)
Uncharted

Fully Open-Matte 1.90:1 in IMAX Theaters:

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
Avatar: The Way of Water
Avatar 3
The Battle at Lake Changjin
The Battle at Lake Changjin II: Water Gate Bridge
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
Blue Beetle
Detective Chinatown 3
The Flash
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
Jurassic World: Dominion
The Marvels
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Two
The Rescue


I will update this list as needed.


----------



## Josh Z

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Effective Sept. 1, 2022, the lists of Variable Aspect Ratio Movies are also available in more convenient to read chart form on the following permanent, regularly-updated web site pages:

List of IMAX Variable Aspect Ratio Movies
List of Other Variable Aspect Ratio Movies (Not IMAX)

*Other (Non-IMAX) Variable Ratios Movies*

(500) Days of Summer - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some scenes pillarboxed to 1.20:1 or 1.50:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form. Streaming copies in some international territories may not be Constant Height safe.

All Hallows' Eve 2 - Movie alternates between 2.35:1 (present day timeline) and 16:9 (flashbacks). Not Constant Height safe.

An American Pickle - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie but opening scenes are pillarboxed 4:3.

Anon - Movie regularly alternates between 16:9 and letterboxed 2.35:1 within a 16:9 container.

Ant-Man - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie, but the post-credits teaser scene is letterboxed to 2.35:1.

Apollo 18 - Movie is shot in "found footage" faux-documentary style and varies in aspect ratio from approximately 4:3 to approximately 1.85:1 within a 16:9 container. Some shots are mildly letterboxed, some are pillarboxed, and some have black bars on all sides.

Ash Is Purest White - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie but opening scenes are pillarboxed 4:3.

The Assassin (2015) - Movie is primarily a 1.37:1 ratio pillarboxed inside a 1.85:1 container, with one scene that expands to 1.85:1.

Attack on Finland - Movie is primarily 2.35:1 with some scenes pillarboxed to 16:9. Presented in Constant Height Form.

Bad Education (a.k.a. La mala educación, 2004) - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1.

Belle (2021) - Primarily 2.35:1. Some scenes windowboxed to 16:9. CIH safe.

Biutiful - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1.

Blonde (2022) - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes in other ratios including 4:3, 1.66:1, 16:9, and 2.35:1. Authored within a 16:9 container.

Brainstorm - Movie regularly switches between 1.66:1 (scenes in the "real world") and 2.35:1 ("brainstorm" sequences). Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Brother Bear - Opening scene is windowboxed 1.85:1, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Captain America: The First Avenger - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie, but the post-credits scene is 1.85:1 windowboxed within the 2.35:1 frame.

Censor (2021) - Movie opens at 2.35:1 but slowly reduces in width to 4:3. Presented on Video On Demand streaming in Constant Height form.

A Christmas Story Christmas - Primarily 2.00:1. One scene letterboxed to 2.35:1.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some cutaway shots pillarboxed to 4:3 or 16:9. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

The Command (a.k.a. Kursk) - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie will some scenes windowboxed to 1.66:1 within the frame. Presented in Constant Height form.

The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course - Movie regularly switches between 2.35:1 and windowboxed 1.85:1. Presented on DVD in Constant Height form.

Cutie Honey - Primarily 16:9. Some animated sequences letterboxed to 1.85:1.

Da 5 Bloods - Movie regularly switches between 2.35:1 (present day scenes) and 4:3 (flashbacks). Both are presented inside a 1.85:1 container with alternating letterbox or pillarbox bars. Not Constant Height safe.

Enchanted - Opening scene is windowboxed 1.85:1, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Evangelion 3.01+1.01: Thrice Upon a Time - Primarily 2.35:1. Clips from earlier films in the opening recap are windowboxed 16:9. CIH safe.

Everything Everywhere All at Once - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some some scenes letterboxed or pillarboxed to ratios including 4:3, 2.00:1, or 2.35:1. Not Constant Height safe.

Fantasia 2000 - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie, except for "Sorcerer's Apprentice" segment from Fantasia (1940) pillarboxed to 1.37:1. Main aspect ratio was opened to 1.66:1 in IMAX theaters during its theatrical run.

Fauci - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 4:3 and 16:9 scenes windowboxed in the frame. Presented in Constant Height form.

Finding 'Ohana - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes letterboxed to 2.35:1.

The French Dispatch - Movie uses multiple aspect ratios inside a 1.85:1 container. (See entry for The Grand Budapest Hotel. Similar style used here.)

Galaxy Quest - Opening scene is windowboxed 4:3, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form. (Originally, the movie started as 4:3, then transitioned to 1.85:1 for the first 20 minutes, and finally expanded to 2.35:1 when the characters got to outer space. The Blu-ray skips the 1.85:1 step and opens the sides to 2.35:1 for all that footage.)

The Grand Budapest Hotel - Movie regularly changes aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 to 2.35:1, along with some other non-standard ratios. Played in theaters inside a 1.85:1 container with alternating letterbox and pillarbox bars. Presented that way on Blu-ray as well.

Gunbuster vs Diebuster: Aim for the Top! The GATTAI!! Movie (a.k.a. Gunbuster: The Movie) - First half of movie (Gunbuster) is primarily 4:3, except for the climax scenes that expand in width to 16:9. Second half of movie (Diebuster) is fully 16:9.

High Life - Primarily a 1.66:1 movie with some scenes pillarboxed to 1.33:1 and one scene letterboxed to 1.85:1.

The Horse Whisperer - First half hour is windowboxed 1.85:1, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

In the Shadow of the Moon (2007) - Documentary alternates from 16:9 for new interviews to 4:3 for vintage footage.

The Incredibles - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie. Opening scene is pillarboxed to 4:3.

It Comes at Hight - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some scenes in 2.75:1 or 3.0:1.

JFK - Opening scene is windowboxed 4:3, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Jurassic World: Dominion - Primarily 2.00:1. Prologue is 16:9 windowboxed within the 2.00:1 container. Some video inserts are 4:3.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 - Primarily 2.35:1. One scene windowboxed to 4:3. Presented in CIH form.

King Richard - Primarily 2.35:1. One scene windowboxed to 16:9. Presented in CIH form.

Life of Pi - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with one scene that shrinks in height to 2.35:1. This scene also has frame-breaking visual effects in the letterbox bars.

The Lion King (2019) - Played in theaters primarily at 1.85:1. The musical numbers expanded in height to 1.43:1 in select IMAX theaters. Home video releases are constant 16:9 (1.78:1) throughout.

Love & Pop - Primarily 4:3 pillarboxed inside a 16:9 container. Some scenes expand in width to 1.85:1.

Lucy in the Sky - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes pillarboxed to 1.33:1 and some letterboxed to 2.39:1, 5.00:1, and even 8.00:1.

The Mitchells vs. the Machines - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes pillarboxed to 4:3.

The Mystery of Picasso - Movie alternates between 4:3 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios. Not Constant Height safe.

Napoleon (1927) - Primarily a 1.33:1 movie, but the film's "Polyvision" climax was presented in triptych form with three images projected side-by-side, for a total ratio of 4.00:1.

Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death + Rebirth - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie but opening recap scenes are pillarboxed 4:3.

Pawn Sacrifice - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 1.85:1 scenes pillarboxed in the frame. Presented in Constant Height form.

Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 scenes windowboxed within the frame. Presented on Blu-ray and Ultra HD in Constant Height form.

Oz: The Great and Powerful - Opening scenes are windowboxed 4:3, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Penguins of Madagascar - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1.

The Pillow Book - Was projected in theaters as 1.85:1 with some scenes letterboxed to 2.35:1. All home video transfers to date have been open matte and pillarboxed to 1.33:1 with occasional letterboxing to 1.85:1 (presented as a tiny rectangle in the middle of the screen).

Pompo: The Cinephile - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1.

_Ritual _(a.k.a. _Shiki-Jitsu_) - Primarily 2.35:1. Some scenes pillarboxed to 4:3 or 16:9 within the 2.35:1 container in CIH form.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1.

Shin Godzilla - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 scenes windowboxed within the frame. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1 and have frame-breaking visual effects.

Sneakers - Opening prologue scene is pillarboxed 4:3 (and black-and-white). After the first five minutes, the rest of the movie is 1.85:1 and in color.

Space Jam: A New Legacy - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes at either 4:3 or 2.35:1.

Spider-Man: Homecoming - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 4:3 segments pillarboxed in the frame. Presented on Blu-ray in Constant Height form.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 4:3 segments pillarboxed in the frame. Presented on Blu-ray and Ultra HD in Constant Height form.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with numerous split-screen effects comprised of images windowboxed inside that container.

tick, tick...BOOM! - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie with some 4:3 segments pillarboxed in the frame. Presented in Constant Height form.

Transformers: The Last Knight - The movie has at least 8 different aspect ratios, as Michael Bay decided that any shot could have any arbitrary shape depending on which camera he used and what his mood was that day. Played in theaters inside a 1.85:1 container with alternating letterbox and/or pillarbox bars. The Blu-ray and Ultra HD editions follow suit.

The Triplets of Belleville - Opening scene is pillarboxed 1.37:1. The remainder of the movie is 1.66:1.

The True History of the Kelly Gang - Starts at 16:9 and gradually shrinks in height to 2.55:1.

Unicorn Store - Opening scene is windowboxed 4:3, then the movie expands in width to 2.35:1. Presented on Netflix streaming in Constant Height form.

Waves - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes letterboxed or pillarboxed to ratios including 1.33:1, 2.35:1, and 2.67:1.

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story - Primarily a 2.35:1 movie. Brief flashback scenes are pillarboxed to 4:3 within a taller 16:9 container. Not CIH safe.


----------



## Josh Z

Movies that play in IMAX theaters with a variable aspect ratio will play in all other movie theaters at a constant 2.35:1. As such, their photography must be primarily composed to be 2.35:1 safe, with all essential picture elements positioned in that part of the frame.

When transferred to Blu-ray, most of these movies are safe to crop to 2.35:1, either by using a CIH vertical stretch feature with an anamorphic lens, or by blanking the top and bottom of the frame with a video processor.

Unfortunately, however, some of these movies are altered so that the variable ratio version cannot simply be cropped without causing issues.

The following lists will be based on CIH viewers' results of cropping variable ratio movies to 2.35:1. Please share your experiences and opinions in the thread. *NOTE:* These results may be subjective. Filmmakers sometimes adjust their shot framing in post-production, and a center-crop from the Variable Aspect Ratio version of the movie may differ in some ways from the filmmaker's prepared 2.35:1 scope version. However, such differences are often not noticeable without a direct comparison.

*Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Safe to Crop to 2.35:1*

Doctor Strange (3D) - No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area. The 2.35:1 theatrical version was a direct center extraction from the camera sensor. Can be watched in 2.35:1 without noticing anything missing. Even the director (Scott Derrickson) prefers this movie in 2.35:1.

G-Force - Because only some occasional visual effects break the frame while all other picture info remains in the 2.35:1 area, this movie should be safe to crop to Constant Height.

Interstellar - No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area. Although the director's prepared 2.35:1 theatrical version (available on DVD and streaming) may differ in framing in some shots (or portions of shots) than masking the 16:9 Blu-ray, that is not at all noticeable while watching the disc cropped to 2.35:1.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout - No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area is noticeable.

Tenet - Per member magi1500: "It alternates between 2.2 & 1.78 and I just ran the 4K UHD disc cropped to 2.2 and it looked great. I’m not sure it would work to crop all the way to 2.4 (scope). But matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition etc."

Wonder Woman 1984 - No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area is noticeable.

*Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Mostly Safe to Crop to 2.35:1*

The Dark Knight - The director's prepared 2.35:1 theatrical version of the movie (available on DVD and streaming) differs in framing from a straight center crop during many shots. Some adjust the 2.35:1 extraction higher or lower in the frame (most often lower). In general, this is not noticeable without a direct comparison and watching the 16:9 Blu-ray footage cropped to 2.35:1 looks fine in its own way.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - The 2.35:1 safe zone was originally positioned high in the frame, not in the center. A symmetrical crop on the top and bottom may result in the top of the image being cropped a little tight on the robot characters' heads. However, the movie has such frantic camerawork and rapid-fire editing that this is rarely bothersome. Your eye hardly has time to take in an image before you've already moved onto the next 12.

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story - The movie is mostly 2.35:1, but has two or three short flashback scenes in 4:3 that extend to the height of the 16:9 container. They're presented as TV clips, from the news and The Oprah Winfrey Show. I think it's perfectly watchable cropped to 2.35:1, but some on-screen text is clipped. In total, those scenes comprise less than two minutes of screen time in the movie.

*Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Not Safe to Crop to 2.35:1*

Star Trek into Darkness - The variable ratio version in the "Compendium" Blu-ray box set and Ultra HD edition has been altered in comparison to the 2.35:1 Constant Height Blu-ray editions. On-screen text has been moved both higher and lower in the frame, and extends outside the 2.35:1 safe zone. CIH viewers are advised to watch the standard 2D or 3D Blu-ray editions instead.


----------



## coolrda

Thanks Josh. Doesn't Oz start at 1.33AR?


----------



## Josh Z

coolrda said:


> Thanks Josh. Doesn't Oz start at 1.33AR?


Correction made, thanks. I've also added a category to the first post for movies that have CIH options on Blu-ray, and made some other clean-ups, including some extra trivia on Galaxy Quest.


----------



## invadergir

Near the end of Ghostbusters they also switched to the expanded IMAX ratio and break the constant scope ratio. 

Pixels occasionally has the scope ratio shrink in so that Qbert's nose or some alien crafts appear to break the black frame.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles also has its constant scope ratio shrink a bit to make objects appear as if they are breaking the screen ratio










Sin City: A Dame to Kil For also shrinks the screen from its Flat ratio to make it appear that the playing cards near the end of film are breaking the screen 


These are from my viewings of the 3D discs only


----------



## Josh Z

invadergir said:


> Near the end of Ghostbusters they also switched to the expanded IMAX ratio and break the constant scope ratio.
> 
> Pixels occasionally has the scope ratio shrink in so that Qbert's nose or some alien crafts appear to break the black frame.
> 
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles also has its constant scope ratio shrink a bit to make objects appear as if they are breaking the screen ratio
> 
> Sin City: A Dame to Kil For also shrinks the screen from its Flat ratio to make it appear that the playing cards near the end of film are breaking the screen
> 
> 
> These are from my viewings of the 3D discs only


Thanks. I've made edits to the lists.


----------



## invadergir

Forgot about *Scott Pilgrim Vs The World * which is a flat format film which will consistently change ratios for battles and dream sequences to usually a scope ratio


----------



## Josh Z

invadergir said:


> Forgot about *Scott Pilgrim Vs The World * which is a flat format film which will consistently change ratios for battles and dream sequences to usually a scope ratio


I added that one with my last update. Thanks.

I'm not sure how far I want to go with the "Other (Non-IMAX) Variable Ratios Movies" list. I fear we'll get bogged down listing every weird instance of a movie including a single scene that's pillarboxed to represent a TV broadcast or home movie or something. 

My original intent for that list was just to include movies where the aspect ratio shift meaningfully affects CIH projection.


----------



## seplant

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread. I just converted over to a constant height setup, and this information really helps!


----------



## biliam1982

@Josh Z, nice job starting this!

AVS needs to keep more definitive lists like these.

They should make this thread a sticky.


----------



## Frank714

Great and very helpful compilation, Josh! Thanks. 


I just repeated my request in the Oppo UDP-203 threat that Oppo might look into providing a masking option for VAR program content. I remain frustrated that too many front projector manufacturers do not provide us with adequate blanking options for VAR program content.


----------



## bud16415

Frank714 said:


> Great and very helpful compilation, Josh! Thanks.
> 
> 
> I just repeated my request in the Oppo UDP-203 threat that Oppo might look into providing a masking option for VAR program content. I remain frustrated that too many front projector manufacturers do not provide us with adequate blanking options for VAR program content.


A lot of this stuff I agree would be easy to add to a projector if they wanted to or saw a need. 

I would like to see image shift using the unused pixel areas. I had this 12 years ago on my Sharp XR10X XGA projector when showing 16:9 content I could move the image up and down in the 4:3 window. So the technology is all there to program all these features. There is no reason you shouldn’t be able to scale an image down and move it around on your screen just like you do a window on your PC. 

We all would like different things though for me I don’t want to blank out the expanding parts of the movie, I like jumping into Imax immersion like the director wanted us to see. But I have an Imax sized screen area.


----------



## Josh Z

Added The Force Awakens to the "Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray" list. I somehow forgot about that one.


----------



## bud16415

How about Life of Pi?


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> How about Life of Pi?


What about it? It's on the list in the second post.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> What about it? It's on the list in the second post.


Oh sorry I thought you were updating the first post. I see they are mixed in now. Have to read the whole thread I guess.


----------



## Josh Z

Updated information on Star Trek into Darkness to indicate that the Ultra HD copy is also variable ratio.


----------



## Josh Z

Added Batman v. Superman to the list of "Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray."


----------



## Josh Z

I've updated the list with info about Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. 

The 2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD are Constant Height 2.35:1. The 3D Blu-ray is variable ratio.


----------



## John Ballentine

Amazing effort Josh! These lists continue to be Extremely helpful!


----------



## John Ballentine

Has anybody checked the new BD of Transformers: The Last Knight to see what aspect ratio(s) it is? Doesn't say on the case.


----------



## Josh Z

John Ballentine said:


> Has anybody checked the new BD of Transformers: The Last Knight to see what aspect ratio(s) it is? Doesn't say on the case.


That movie uses at least eight different aspect ratios. Theatrically, it was projected inside a 1.85:1 container with black bars variously either on the sides or top/bottom. I just Googled a review that confirmed the Blu-ray does the same.

I would not consider this either CIH or CIH+IMAX. I have it listed in post #2 under "Other (Non-IMAX) Variable Ratios Movies."


----------



## biliam1982

Josh Z said:


> That movie uses at least eight different aspect ratios. Theatrically, it was projected inside a 1.85:1 container with black bars variously either on the sides or top/bottom. I just Googled a review that confirmed the Blu-ray does the same.
> 
> I would not consider this either CIH or CIH+IMAX. I have it listed in post #2 under "Other (Non-IMAX) Variable Ratios Movies."


I watched this tonight... what a mess!!! WTF was Bay thinking and/or smoking/on?!

Tried to make it through the opening scenes just to see what everyone was talking about. I guess I was too into the movie when it first came out to notice in the theaters. But this time it was painfully obvious.

Just a constant change in aspect ratio. Sometimes. 1.85:1, 2.0:1. etc. Letterbox, Pillarbox, or both at the same time. I ended up just using the Stretch mode on my Oppo 203 and slid the Anamorphic Lens in place and forgot about it. 

I think these Directors need to have a reality check. I understand artistic license and intent, or to be experimental. But, when 99.99% of the movie's life will be spent in a home environment, where the display's aspect ratio for the foreseeable future is locked at 16:9 or maybe 2.35:1 in some rare cases, it doesn't make sense to have this.


----------



## Josh Z

I've updated the first post to indicate that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Transformers: Age of Extinction are CIH on Ultra HD.


----------



## BoSoxMole

Can someone explain what the difference between these two are? Civil War, Doctor Strange, Guardians and others are always in 2.35:1 on 2D blu ray. I don't see any options for changing it. Thanks. 

Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray or Ultra HD

Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but Have Constant Height 2.35:1 Options on Blu-ray or Ultra HD


----------



## coolrda

BoSoxMole said:


> Can someone explain what the difference between these two are? Civil War, Doctor Strange, Guardians and others are always in 2.35:1 on 2D blu ray. I don't see any options for changing it. Thanks.
> 
> Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray or Ultra HD
> 
> Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but Have Constant Height 2.35:1 Options on Blu-ray or Ultra HD


Typically most movies that play in IMAX are enhanced for IMAX meaning it was shot 2.39 and then the extra out of the frame content can be added in during the IMAX DMR process. Occasionally these may be filmed with IMAX cameras and have specific scenes shot and displayed with more vertical height and content. This can be done with any other camera as well. It’s mutually beneficial to IMAX and the studio and producers because of revenue generated. There is no need to include this version in the home release. 

Then you have certain directors that film in IMAX primarily if not exclusively to a specific film. They will usually release those movies as it was shown in IMAX or close to it while still maximizing for 16x9 panels and screens. It typically adds little to the content but there’s no denying it’s a money maker. There isn’t multiple copies per disc. You get one or the other. 

It actually defeats the purpose by putting VAR in a home release. The intent is to have you sitting in an IMAX theater.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> It actually defeats the purpose by putting VAR in a home release. The intent is to have you sitting in an IMAX theater.


I agree you can’t recreate the IMAX experience at home 100% just as it is imposable to recreate the experience of a Scope or Flat for that matter True Cinema experience at home 100%. Unless you are a lucky enough to live in a commercial theater or wealthy enough to build one the best you can do at home is try and replicate some of the feel of a commercial theater be it IMAX or Scope. 

One of the things you can somewhat recreate is the level of visual immersion be it IMAX1.89 or be it Scope 2.35. In replicating the visual immersion we then say we have a “Scope” or “IMAX1.89” theater at home even though we really don’t. 

That in no way defeats the purpose of putting VAR in the home release media. As if a person has a facsimile of an IMAX1.89 theater at home with IMAX1.89 visual immersion the media containing the VAR material is most welcomed.


----------



## Josh Z

This is meant to be a purely informational thread. Please keep your bickering out of it, Bud.^ Thank you.


----------



## Josh Z

BoSoxMole said:


> Can someone explain what the difference between these two are? Civil War, Doctor Strange, Guardians and others are always in 2.35:1 on 2D blu ray. I don't see any options for changing it. Thanks.
> 
> Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray or Ultra HD
> 
> Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but Have Constant Height 2.35:1 Options on Blu-ray or Ultra HD


The 2D editions of Civil War, Doctor Strange, and Guardians are constant 2.35:1. Only the 3D editions are variable aspect ratio.

*"Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray or Ultra HD"* means that all home video editions are CIH. There is no option to watch these movies with a variable ratio at home. Not in 2D, not in 3D, nothing.

*"Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but Have Constant Height 2.35:1 Options on Blu-ray or Ultra HD"* means that some home video editions are variable ratio (typically the 3D copies), but other versions (such as 2D) are available in a CIH ratio.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> This is meant to be a purely informational thread. Please keep your bickering out of it, Bud.^ Thank you.


Please excuse my intrusion into a purely informational thread by commenting on another’s comments. I do take exception to you thinking I by name was bickering and off topic but not the statement I was addressing. 

Please if you would have the mod remove this post and all posts and partial posts you find non informational.


----------



## Josh Z

Added Thor: Ragnarok to the list.

This is perhaps still pending confirmation, but word is that the 3D edition (which is only available overseas, not in North America) has variable ratios. The 2D Blu-ray and UHD editions are CIH.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Thanks for this. Great resource.

Bummer that there's no way to see the IMAX scene from The Force Awakens on Blu-ray. Double bummer that the MCU movies only provide the 16:9 scenes with the 3D Blu-rays.

This might be a dumb question, but are 3D Blu-rays shown in full SBS or half SBS? If full, then I wouldn't mind buying the 3D Blu-rays and ripping my own 1080p crops in 2D. I really just want to see the 16:9 scenes in 2D, but without losing half of the horizontal resolution.

*edit:* also, Black Panther (currently in theaters) continues the Marvel tradition of shifting aspect ratio for IMAX.


----------



## deano86

Shizzlenits said:


> Thanks for this. Great resource.
> 
> Bummer that there's no way to see the IMAX scene from The Force Awakens on Blu-ray. Double bummer that the MCU movies only provide the 16:9 scenes with the 3D Blu-rays.
> 
> This might be a dumb question, but are 3D Blu-rays shown in full SBS or half SBS? If full, then I wouldn't mind buying the 3D Blu-rays and ripping my own 1080p crops in 2D. I really just want to see the 16:9 scenes in 2D, but without losing half of the horizontal resolution.
> 
> *edit:* also, Black Panther (currently in theaters) continues the Marvel tradition of shifting aspect ratio for IMAX.


Legit 3D blurays from movie studios should all be using the MVC (multiview) frame packed codec... not SBS or TB formats more typically associated with streaming or bootleg rips. So, yes if you rip the 3D version and play it in 2D, you will indeed get a full resolution version of the movie.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> This might be a dumb question, but are 3D Blu-rays shown in full SBS or half SBS? If full, then I wouldn't mind buying the 3D Blu-rays and ripping my own 1080p crops in 2D. I really just want to see the 16:9 scenes in 2D, but without losing half of the horizontal resolution.


3D Blu-rays are encoded in frame-packed format. One full 1080p frame for the first eye followed by another full 1080p frame for the second eye in rapid succession. 

Most Blu-ray players will allow you to turn off 3D and only watch the first eye view.


----------



## Josh Z

The Blu-ray and UHD editions of Star Wars: The Last Jedi are CIH. No variable aspect ratio. I have updated the first post.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Josh Z said:


> 3D Blu-rays are encoded in frame-packed format. One full 1080p frame for the first eye followed by another full 1080p frame for the second eye in rapid succession.
> 
> Most Blu-ray players will allow you to turn off 3D and only watch the first eye view.


Hm, gonna rent Guardians of the Galaxy and test the options available on Xbox One X. Thanks.


----------



## deano86

Josh Z said:


> Most Blu-ray players will allow you to turn off 3D and only watch the first eye view.


Hmm... the bluray players that I have owned (for the most part Sony models) do not allow me to just switch the player into 2D mode for a 3D only disc. But, I can do this on my display device (Panasonic projector) though...


----------



## Josh Z

deano86 said:


> Hmm... the bluray players that I have owned (for the most part Sony models) do not allow me to just switch the player into 2D mode for a 3D only disc. But, I can do this on my display device (Panasonic projector) though...


Check the Blu-ray player setup menus (not the disc menus) when no disc is inserted. There should be an option to turn off 3D entirely.


----------



## deano86

Josh Z said:


> Check the Blu-ray player setup menus (not the disc menus) when no disc is inserted. There should be an option to turn off 3D entirely.


Sorry to derail the thread here... But, that also doesn't work.. with the menu option for 3D turned OFF, inserting a 3D disc results in an error message stating that a 3D capable display is necessary in order for playback to continue... But, again maybe this varies with other bluray disc player manufacturers...


----------



## Josh Z

deano86 said:


> Sorry to derail the thread here... But, that also doesn't work.. with the menu option for 3D turned OFF, inserting a 3D disc results in an error message stating that a 3D capable display is necessary in order for playback to continue... But, again maybe this varies with other bluray disc player manufacturers...


Perhaps. I'm pretty sure I've gotten that to work with my OPPO player.


----------



## Shizzlenits

In any case, with MakeMKV+Handbrake you can create a 2D 1080p rip easy enough. Just a bit more time consuming than modifying some player settings.


----------



## Josh Z

I've received clarification that The Last Jedi did not have a variable aspect ratio in IMAX theaters. It was always CIH. I have removed that title from the list.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Black Panther Blu-rays are announced for May 15th. So far, all I can see is 2:39:1 everywhere. Really hoping that's wrong and we get the IMAX scenes in 2D this time... I've been doing 2D rips of the 3D Blu-rays, but you end up getting black bars on the left side of the screen sometimes for certain scenes. Side effect of 3D. I think you still end up with more pixels than if cropped throughout, but it's still unfortunate.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> Black Panther Blu-rays are announced for May 15th. So far, all I can see is 2:39:1 everywhere. Really hoping that's wrong and we get the IMAX scenes in 2D this time... I've been doing 2D rips of the 3D Blu-rays, but you end up getting black bars on the left side of the screen sometimes for certain scenes. Side effect of 3D. I think you still end up with more pixels than if cropped throughout, but it's still unfortunate.


Honestly, that's pretty unlikely to happen. Marvel's policy seems to be CIH for 2D and variable ratio for 3D only. Meanwhile, the parent company Disney is also discontinuing 3D in North America. The only option for getting the variable ratio is to import a 3D disc from overseas.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Josh Z said:


> Honestly, that's pretty unlikely to happen. Marvel's policy seems to be CIH for 2D and variable ratio for 3D only. Meanwhile, the parent company Disney is also discontinuing 3D in North America. The only option for getting the variable ratio is to import a 3D disc from overseas.


Yeah. It just sucks that if you rip the 3D Blu-ray to create a 2D copy, you sometimes end up with variable AR on the left side of the screen. I think it's a side effect of the 3D conversion. The crappy thing is this applies to the 2:39:1 scenes too, since the 3D conversion affects everything.

I still prefer that to CIH (or watching in 3D, ugh), but it's really too bad that there is no way to get the "IMAX 2D" experience in your home theater.

Luckily you don't really notice the occasional shift on an OLED screen in a blacked out media room. It would be annoying in living rooms, though.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> I still prefer that to CIH (or watching in 3D, ugh), but it's really too bad that there is no way to get the "IMAX 2D" experience in your home theater.


While arguments can be made that Christopher Nolan has some sort of artistic purpose in using a variable ratio in his movies, the alternating ratio on these Marvel movies is purely an afterthought, an easy gimmick added to placate the IMAX distributor. You don't lose anything important (or even noticeable) watching in CIH. There's absolutely nothing of consequence above or below the 2.35:1 frame line.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the directors of these movies weren't even aware that variable ratio versions had been prepared. They give as little thought to that as they do to the 3D conversion.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Josh Z said:


> While arguments can be made that Christopher Nolan has some sort of artistic purpose in using a variable ratio in his movies, the alternating ratio on these Marvel movies is purely an afterthought, an easy gimmick added to placate the IMAX distributor. You don't lose anything important (or even noticeable) watching in CIH. There's absolutely nothing of consequence above or below the 2.35:1 frame line.
> 
> In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the directors of these movies weren't even aware that variable ratio versions had been prepared. They give as little thought to that as they do to the 3D conversion.


Not sure I agree with that. For spectacle films like this, the increase AR does make a huge difference in your immersion.

Check this comparison album. Which version would you rather watch, if given the choice?

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi

I dunno if it's an aftertought either, you can see in the first scene above that the title card location was shifted up to compensate for the increase in vertical space. You also get some cool "frame breaking" AR transitions like this one from GOTG2:











In any case, I'm definitely of the opinion that more visual data is almost always better than less. I'd prefer for all content to be mastered in 16:9, honestly.


----------



## coolrda

Shizzlenits said:


> Not sure I agree with that. For spectacle films like this, the increase AR does make a huge difference in your immersion.
> 
> Check this comparison album. Which version would you rather watch, if given the choice?
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi
> 
> I dunno if it's an aftertought either, you can see in the first scene above that the title card location was shifted up to compensate for the increase in vertical space. You also get some cool "frame breaking" AR transitions like this one from GOTG2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, I'm definitely of the opinion that more visual data is almost always better than less. I'd prefer for all content to be mastered in 16:9, honestly.



All content is mastered in 16x9.

The problem with that argument is its based on gimmickry. Anytime you show a letterbox framed content it will look less immersive than full screen.

It doesn't increase the AR, its actually smaller going from 2.39 to 1.90, it increases the height. It opens up the frame. It does nothing for the shot. The frame breaking does nothing for the shot. Now blowup the 2.40 content and show it the same height as it should be and compare. Better yet add in the content that is trimmed from the sides back in as well when you re-edit for IMAX, don't just add height. Then compare. 

Those comparisons only show that full frame is superior over letterbox content. We know. Thats why we build CIH systems. To build a home theater based on a few movies let alone only a few scenes in said movies, wouldn't be ideal in my opinion. But to each his own.


----------



## Shizzlenits

coolrda said:


> All content is mastered in 16x9.
> 
> The problem with that argument is its based on gimmickry. Anytime you show a letterbox framed content it will look less immersive than full screen.
> 
> It doesn't increase the AR, its actually smaller going from 2.39 to 1.90, it increases the height. It opens up the frame. It does nothing for the shot. The frame breaking does nothing for the shot. Now blowup the 2.40 content and show it the same height as it should be and compare. Better yet add in the content that is trimmed from the sides back in as well when you re-edit for IMAX, don't just add height. Then compare.
> 
> Those comparisons only show that full frame is superior over letterbox content. We know. Thats why we build CIH systems. To build a home theater based on a few movies let alone only a few scenes in said movies, wouldn't be ideal in my opinion. But to each his own.


OLED technology has kind of negated my need to build a CIH system. In a blacked out media room, there is never any letterbox since the black pixels are never turned on. That's why I appreciate when the 1:90 content is included in the consumer disc. Variable AR shifts never appear letterboxed. It's always perfectly framed.

The only downside is I'm currently limited to a 77" display. For me personally this isn't much of an issue because my media room is rather small, with the seats roughly 8' away from the screen.

I don't understand what you mean by "it does nothing for the shot," though. I'd much rather have more picture than less. The 2:39 versions of the "IMAX" scenes in Marvel movies are not displaying more picture. They're literally just cropping the top and bottom of the 1:90 shot to reach 2:39.


----------



## coolrda

Shizzlenits said:


> OLED technology has kind of negated my need to build a CIH system. In a blacked out media room, there is never any letterbox since the black pixels are never turned on. That's why I appreciate when the 1:90 content is included in the consumer disc. Variable AR shifts never appear letterboxed. It's always perfectly framed.
> 
> The only downside is I'm currently limited to a 77" display. For me personally this isn't much of an issue because my media room is rather small, with the seats roughly 8' away from the screen.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by "it does nothing for the shot," though. I'd much rather have more picture than less. The 2:39 versions of the "IMAX" scenes in Marvel movies are not displaying more picture. They're literally just cropping the top and bottom of the 1:90 shot to reach 2:39.


When Nolan changes aspect it with specific intent, for example, he trying to make a point of the vastness of sea in Dunkirk or the tight cramped quarters onboard the small sailing craft. Those were purposeful and a success. In the case of your example above there no such intent. The movie isn’t any better or worse due to haven’t that shot opened up. The directors say as much. If I had a 16x9 display, I too would prefer the way you view it. 

Now in my case I can watch a VAR in one of two ways. I sit exactly 9ft from a 128” 2.37 screen 50x118.5. I can watch it in 16x9 that’s 50x89 with VAR and it looks fine and impressive and I’m still within IMAX digital specs or I can watch it in 2.40 which is the preferred, more immersive viewing for GotG. It’s a good movie, it doesn’t need the gimmicks.


----------



## CAVX

I'm sorry. "Scope on flat" is a cheesy thing they created for 3D enhancement. It should NOT be used in 2D.


----------



## Shizzlenits

coolrda said:


> When Nolan changes aspect it with specific intent, for example, he trying to make a point of the vastness of sea in Dunkirk or the tight cramped quarters onboard the small sailing craft. Those were purposeful and a success. In the case of your example above there no such intent. The movie isn’t any better or worse due to haven’t that shot opened up. The directors say as much. If I had a 16x9 display, I too would prefer the way you view it.


Not really true. James Gunn himself had this to say about Guardians:

http://www.slashfilm.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-imax-3d/


James Gunn said:


> As an EXTRA benefit for those who see the film in IMAX 3D, we will be changing aspect ratios throughout the film in a way that makes the experience even fuller and more encompassing. I’ve personally chosen all the places where the changes occur and, again, I love how it’s coming along. *The changing aspect ratios in this case are actually a part of the storytelling.*



The Russo Brothers also filmed Infinity War 100% with IMAX cameras, which is a first. It's not true at all that this stuff is an afterthought.

The transition GIF I posted isn't really the point of it though, it was just something I noticed when I watched the film this past weekend. I mainly appreciate VAR for the extra detail in the scene, as shown in the Imgur album I linked earlier. That's not a "gimmick" there... just 26% more image on the screen.


----------



## coolrda

Shizzlenits said:


> Not really true. James Gunn himself had this to say about Guardians:
> 
> http://www.slashfilm.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-imax-3d/
> 
> 
> 
> The Russo Brothers also filmed Infinity War 100% with IMAX cameras, which is a first. It's not true at all that this stuff is an afterthought.
> 
> The transition GIF I posted isn't really the point of it though, it was just something I noticed when I watched the film this past weekend. I mainly appreciate VAR for the extra detail in the scene, as shown in the Imgur album I linked earlier. That's not a "gimmick" there... just 26% more image on the screen.


And you expect a director to say anything different when we’re talking money? 

I have about 1500 movies and 80 percent or more are 2.35-2.40. I have maybe 15-20 VAR’s. Still, as I mentioned above, I’m covered both ways. I can show any movie full height in any AR. That includes IMAX 1.90 and the Netflix/BBC 2.00AR. I’ll take my 2.40 image over IMAX any day They can keep their extra 26 percent of meaningless gimmickry. Where’s the 26 percent IMAX cut off the top of most of their VAR movies when shown in IMAX Digital?


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> And you expect a director to say anything different when we’re talking money?
> 
> I have about 1500 movies and 80 percent or more are 2.35-2.40. I have maybe 15-20 VAR’s. Still, as I mentioned above, I’m covered both ways. I can show any movie full height in any AR. That includes IMAX 1.90 and the Netflix/BBC 2.00AR. I’ll take my 2.40 image over IMAX any day They can keep their extra 26 percent of meaningless gimmickry. Where’s the 26 percent IMAX cut off the top of most of their VAR movies when shown in IMAX Digital?


It is true you can show any movie in its full AR on any other AR screen. The studios can on the same token pack any AR movie into any AR container. Those are facts we all agree to I think. 

Now comes the question of what is the most common AR for a screen and what is the most common AR for the container. Disregard what we personally like or dislike and if the director wants to play around changing AR throughout the movie. Facts are most HT projectors and all TV’s are in a 16:9 AR and all content is made to fit inside a 16:9 container. They don’t have to fill that container but that’s the shape of it. 

Disregard if you think IMAX1.89 is really LieMAX and if you feel the 26% more image is important or not. 

Just conceder the simple premise of just two movie as an example or comparison and disregard if you like the movies or the director for a moment. 

Two movies that were shown and filmed in a way that allowed them to be released in both scope theaters and LieMAX theaters for people that liked one way or the other or had access to one or the other. One movie was Avatar and the other say Sully. When it came time to put them on BD one director said I like the LieMAX version it will fit on a BD just fine the other director said I like the scope look I’m going to throw away 26% of the movie and replace it with black. His thought process (maybe) is if I release the other 26% I will be condemning my scope movie to be Flat movie in peoples homes. He had to know it would mostly be shown on TV sets and wasn’t going to get wider than the width of the TV. The only exception is going to be .00001% of the BD buyers that were going to take it home and process it and A-lens or zoom it having a CIH screen. The other 99.99999% are going to fit it into a 16:9 screen of some type. The ironic part of it is the .00001% could do just what they were doing anyways and instead of throwing away the 26% that is black and zooming or A-lens-ing they could just eliminate the LieMAX part.

I even think with BD technology it could be as simple as a selection on the main menu to select Scope / LieMAX and let the BD player strip the 26% if you don’t want it. 

Maybe it is a gimmick, Scope was invented in the 1950 also as a gimmick and it worked and stuck around. Just like people loved going to Scope theaters they are loving going to LieMAX theaters and watching the exact same movie with the extra 26%.

You can fit any image into your scope screen, correct, but if you are not moving your seating closer you are not getting LieMAX levels of immersion.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> In any case, I'm definitely of the opinion that more visual data is almost always better than less. I'd prefer for all content to be mastered in 16:9, honestly.


I think you should consider that you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum. If you have no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, why are you here?



Shizzlenits said:


> OLED technology has kind of negated my need to build a CIH system. In a blacked out media room, there is never any letterbox since the black pixels are never turned on. That's why I appreciate when the 1:90 content is included in the consumer disc. Variable AR shifts never appear letterboxed. It's always perfectly framed.


And yet 2.35:1 movies are always displayed smaller than 1.85:1 movies or 16:9 TV shows, which is exactly the opposite of the artistic intent. The vast sweeping epic desert landscape of Lawrence of Arabia will always be smaller than the family living room in The Goldbergs. 



> I don't understand what you mean by "it does nothing for the shot," though. I'd much rather have more picture than less. The 2:39 versions of the "IMAX" scenes in Marvel movies are not displaying more picture. They're literally just cropping the top and bottom of the 1:90 shot to reach 2:39.


The movies are fully composed for 2.35:1 from start to finish. For the variable ratio scenes, they literally just show some extra empty space above the characters' heads. 

I don't have Marvel screenshots handy, but here's a comparison from Star Trek into Darkness:



















And here's the monumental increase in visual space that you believe vastly opens up the immersiveness of the picture.



















Yup. That's it. Is that really worth shrinking the size of every scope movie ever made (and about 90% of the footage in these movies too) to gain on a tiny handful of movies?


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> You can fit any image into your scope screen, correct, but if you are not moving your seating closer you are not getting LieMAX levels of immersion.


True. And that "IMAX" footage makes up probably less than 2% of what the average person watches unless they watch the Nolan collection every month.

And the counterpoint is watching scope, which probably makes up 50% or more of the movie content the average HT owner watches, on a *16:9 screen without changing your seating greatly diminishes the impact of that material. * And no I'm not endorsing moving your seating around as that will adversely impact the acoustic calibrations.

Here's a breakdown of what I have watched in 4K recently:

Blade Runner 2049
Murder on the Orient Express
Harry Potter 1-8
Dunkirk
Red
Red 2
Justice League
Thor: Ragnarok
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Martian
Interstellar
Ghost in the Machine
Baby Driver
Kingsmen The Golden Circle
The Fifth Element
Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
John Wick 1/2
Apollo 13
Star Trek/Into Darkness/Beyond

The breakdown is:

Scope - 25
Flat - 2
IMAX - 3*

Once I'm done with the Nolan collection the IMAX number isn't likely to grow the rest of the year. I put 3 in for IMAX, but I technically watched Star Trek ID masked since it has zero artistic need for the open framing. If I added in what I've watched in 2K Blu Ray, scope and flat would pull ahead even further. And as Coolrda points out with his setup, I'm on the closer end of the immersion spectrum so there's likely people with 16:9 screens that are getting a less "IMAX" experience than I am.

So pick your poison about what YOU want to size your screen for. Personally I simply can't fathom endorsing sizing your theater around a format that has minimal content and shows no signs of making huge gains.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> *16:9 screen without changing your seating greatly diminishes the impact of that material. *


CIW will change the impact of all scope material and it is a 16:9 screen. CIH+IMAX is also a 16:9 screen and will not change the impact of scope at all. 

Like you 2% or less of my movie viewing is IMAX 50% or more is scope. Then there is TV that is not movie viewing. About 80% of TV is filmed in a manner that is close to Flat in terms of movies, 10% is kind of marginal as this new 2.0 AR stuff is finding its place and 10% is flat out filmed like it was IMAX inspired. I happen to have my own balance of streaming TV and regular TV and this IMAX like TV. None of it is Cinema most of it isn’t Flat or Scope or IMAX AR’s. 

If 100% of what you watch is UHD BD and it is all cinema, then sure why not just stick with a scope screen unless you are a huge Nolan fan. 

If you are like me and 60% of what you watch is sourced other than cinema then you might want to factor that in. 

Bringing this back on topic, I hope Nolan’s next movie starts off in scope for 30 seconds and then changes to IMAX and stays that size for the next 2 hours. in doing so it will go on Josh’s list and wont be considered Flat. How great a real IMAX movie on BD. 

In fact any of the directors out there making IMAX/Scope versions of a movie do the 30 second thing in the beginning and get on the list so we can get the IMAX cut.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> You can fit any image into your scope screen, correct, but if you are not moving your seating closer you are not getting LieMAX levels of immersion.


Why would I need to move my seating when I’ve designed it to IMAX Digital(LieMAX) specs of immersion. I’m already inside the viewing area of my local imax which has a 60ft wide screen. Then I add my lens. It would be like my local IMAX slapping an 1.25x A lens on to go 75ft wide. I did consider IMAX and used their spec when deciding on screen size.


----------



## coolrda

Be honest now, which would you prefer? Clearly the top image is more immersive. Less info but more immersive.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> Why would I need to move my seating when I’ve designed it to IMAX Digital(LieMAX) specs of immersion. I’m already inside the viewing area of my local imax which has a 60ft wide screen. Then I add my lens. It would be like my local IMAX slapping an 1.25x A lens on to go 75ft wide. I did consider IMAX and used their spec when deciding on screen size.


Because that is the same logic I’m always told is in error in my system of presentation. 

Using that logic a case could be made the guy with a CIW setup is actually watching within the standards of proper presentation because his Flat movie watching is like he is in the front of the theater and his Scope movie watching he is sitting in the back of the theater. 

The overlap between historic standards for cinema and IMAX are a bit more blurred because they are different standards written by different organizations it is really a misnomer when I or anyone talks about CIH+IMAX because they are two unrelated things except how we chose to relate them ourselves. IMAX theaters do show Scope presentations though so in a way that may give a little credit to how I think they are related in terms of immersion. 

If I understand what you are saying is when you go to a commercial IMAX1.89 theater to watch a IMAX1.89 movie you prefer to sit more to the back of the theater but if you know they are showing a scope movie you would like to be closer. Then your screen selection and presentation method seems to be correct for you. The only time it throws me off is when you have to deal with an expanding AR movie. Each time the movie expands you would need to change your seat to have your desired immersion.

Most people I believe like IMAX all AR’s of it to be the same width as Scope. I haven’t compared the theater specs to see if say the dead center seat provides that relationship or not. I know in general that relationship works best for myself.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Josh Z said:


> I think you should consider that you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum. If you have no interest in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, why are you here?


I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm _seeking _new VAR Blu-rays. 



Josh Z said:


> And yet 2.35:1 movies are always displayed smaller than 1.85:1 movies or 16:9 TV shows, which is exactly the opposite of the artistic intent. The vast sweeping epic desert landscape of Lawrence of Arabia will always be smaller than the family living room in The Goldbergs.


I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days. 

In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.

As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.

https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi





























Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow _better_? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.



coolrda said:


> Be honest now, which would you prefer? Clearly the top image is more immersive. Less info but more immersive.


How is _this _not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.

I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.


----------



## coolrda

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm _seeking _new VAR Blu-rays.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.
> 
> In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.
> 
> As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow _better_? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.
> 
> 
> 
> How is _this _not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.
> 
> I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.


What an anamorphic lens does is effectively turn a 16x9 display into a native 2.37 display through use of optic expansion. Basically I can show full screen, full chip whether it’s 16x9 or 2.40 content. I’ve already made it clear that I can view it however I want in either of two ways with no compromise. Your clearly thinking of this from one aspect only, watching it on a 16x9 tv. Most guys running CIH have full blown dedicated home theaters built to cinema standards and specs. I have as large a 16x9 as I can for my throw distance, then I expand another 33 percent. I go beyond what’s capable with a 16x9 screen. This is how cinemas do it. Thousands of movies are shot in 2.35/2.40 AR. It’s not a gimmick. IMAX needs to show the whole movie in 1.90 and stop this VAR nonsense. 

Oh and by the way IMAX is 1.90 or 17x9 not 16x9. How’d they do that? Sounds like lost information to me.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> Because that is the same logic I’m always told is in error in my system of presentation.
> 
> Using that logic a case could be made the guy with a CIW setup is actually watching within the standards of proper presentation because his Flat movie watching is like he is in the front of the theater and his Scope movie watching he is sitting in the back of the theater.
> 
> The overlap between historic standards for cinema and IMAX are a bit more blurred because they are different standards written by different organizations it is really a misnomer when I or anyone talks about CIH+IMAX because they are two unrelated things except how we chose to relate them ourselves. IMAX theaters do show Scope presentations though so in a way that may give a little credit to how I think they are related in terms of immersion.
> 
> If I understand what you are saying is when you go to a commercial IMAX1.89 theater to watch a IMAX1.89 movie you prefer to sit more to the back of the theater but if you know they are showing a scope movie you would like to be closer. Then your screen selection and presentation method seems to be correct for you. The only time it throws me off is when you have to deal with an expanding AR movie. Each time the movie expands you would need to change your seat to have your desired immersion.
> 
> Most people I believe like IMAX all AR’s of it to be the same width as Scope. I haven’t compared the theater specs to see if say the dead center seat provides that relationship or not. I know in general that relationship works best for myself.


I have no sweet spot when I go to IMAX. I sit wherever minus the first 3 rows. In my theater I have a max of 9ft but watch as close as 3-4ft when laying on the floor and I do watch like that sometimes. If sit on my 24” sub with my back against the rear wall I’m 3xSH. I have extra temp seating which allows me 1xSH viewing. Honestly I don’t have a preference, all of the above is fine and immersive to me. Even the 3xSH. IMAX has a last row minimum view distance/angle. What I call WCS(worst case scenario). I build to that spec just so I’m not missing out on anything. I’ve covered all the bases. So if someone says you need to check this out in this format(imax var), I can and I do. 2.00AR is relatively new and I didn’t care about it. Now it’s has a serious presence and so I adapted for it. I absolutely despise the VAR on the newest Transformer movie but showing that movie cropped to 2.00 does wonders and I think I prefer that AR to the 2.40. I don’t care about containers, CIH is CIH to me and is shown as such. I’ve always been an early adopter. The audio in my room is complete overkill. I spent large sums for a few percentage points of improvement and very little that reaped huge rewards. But I’ve always moved the bar within my budget. In the case with my lens what started as a complete over the top purchase, has turned into an almost frugal purchase when considering 8 years of ownership. Light gain was a big deal and a key plus to this purchase, then projectors got brighter and the light gain wasn’t needed but now we come full circle with HDR and every lumen available is needed. We also speculated that 4K would eliminate the need for pixel density and yet the opposite has happened and guys are actually remounting their lenses to maximize Image sharpness very noticeable due to the increased resolution capability. I want full screen 16x9 and I want full screen 2.40 and this is how I accomplish this.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> I have no sweet spot when I go to IMAX. I sit wherever minus the first 3 rows. In my theater I have a max of 9ft but watch as close as 3-4ft when laying on the floor and I do watch like that sometimes. If sit on my 24” sub with my back against the rear wall I’m 3xSH. I have extra temp seating which allows me 1xSH viewing. Honestly I don’t have a preference, all of the above is fine and immersive to me. Even the 3xSH. IMAX has a last row minimum view distance/angle. What I call WCS(worst case scenario). I build to that spec just so I’m not missing out on anything. I’ve covered all the bases. So if someone says you need to check this out in this format(imax var), I can and I do. 2.00AR is relatively new and I didn’t care about it. Now it’s has a serious presence and so I adapted for it. I absolutely despise the VAR on the newest Transformer movie but showing that movie cropped to 2.00 does wonders and I think I prefer that AR to the 2.40. I don’t care about containers, CIH is CIH to me and is shown as such. I’ve always been an early adopter. The audio in my room is complete overkill. I spent large sums for a few percentage points of improvement and very little that reaped huge rewards. But I’ve always moved the bar within my budget. In the case with my lens what started as a complete over the top purchase, has turned into an almost frugal purchase when considering 8 years of ownership. Light gain was a big deal and a key plus to this purchase, then projectors got brighter and the light gain wasn’t needed but now we come full circle with HDR and every lumen available is needed. We also speculated that 4K would eliminate the need for pixel density and yet the opposite has happened and guys are actually remounting their lenses to maximize Image sharpness very noticeable due to the increased resolution capability. I want full screen 16x9 and I want full screen 2.40 and this is how I accomplish this.


Interesting. We are doing the same thing pretty much then. Except with my projector on the slide now and eyes to screen 8’ I vary the image between 110”- 70” 16:9 and if I use the projectors zoom as well 60” I haven’t found a need for that though. 1.7 SH – 2.7 SH.
The 1.7 being my IMAX sweet spot. Scope shows at 2.4 SH on a screen size of 104” as does all CIH. I haven’t found anyone that is bothered by too much immersion at the 2.7 SH setting in fact most people want more. 

The 2.0:1 AR Univisium is here to stay. I have yet to have anyone even notice or ask about it. I think people just assume it is one or the other. 

As to A-lens. I don’t have any issues with the approach as it is a unique solution with great benefits. If I had to guess though I would guess its usage will continue to decline with both brightness and resolution improvements with projectors. There will always be a place for them for some people, but I cant see usage growing even with HDR. I hope I’m wrong though. 

I don’t crop any movies. I don’t have any problem if people want to do that though. That’s the beauty of HT is people can feel free to do presentation any way that makes them happy.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> CIW will change the impact of all scope material and it is a 16:9 screen. CIH+IMAX is also a 16:9 screen and will not change the impact of scope at all.


Only if they are cognizant of how to setup their seating distance to image height ratio properly. Which is much closer than 2x to the height of the "IMAX" content on the full 16:9 screen. And they would need to watch flat pillarboxed and letterboxed in the CIH area. I strongly suspect this is not happening in the majority of cases where people are claiming this sort of setup. And I can understand why, it wouldn't be practical for most to size things properly for so little content.

The only TV I've really watched has been some Netflix and old Star Trek. Over 90% of our viewing is film. But as has been said multiple times, I have my image sized for the desired immersion level so TV is not an issue. And I have no desire to delve into a discussion on your views of how TV should be viewed.


----------



## jeahrens

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm _seeking _new VAR Blu-rays.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.
> 
> In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.
> 
> As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.
> 
> 
> Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow _better_? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.
> 
> 
> 
> How is _this _not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.
> 
> I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.


You're missing that the point that the filmmaker and DP in these IMAX add on films are composing the film in scope and adding a few scenes with the frames opened up to hit that market. IMAX isn't always used that way, but it certainly is in the case of Guardians and ST:ID. The reason you're seeing the majority of these released to the home market without the IMAX AR is because the filmmakers themselves don't want it that way. The scope framing is their original intent.

If you want to use size your setup to watch the minuscule amount of content in IMAX, that's your choice. But you are likely diminishing the intended impact of countless other films that make up a lot more of your viewing. As you've noted we're seeing less content with IMAX framing released to the home market with the demise of 3D and we weren't seeing much to start with. So I certainly wouldn't endorse setting up a room around it. But to each their own.


----------



## dschulz

coolrda said:


> Oh and by the way IMAX is 1.90 or 17x9 not 16x9. How’d they do that? Sounds like lost information to me.


That's an interesting tale. The Texas Instruments DLP chips used in cinema projectors are 2048 X 1080 (0r 4096 X 2160 for 4K systems). The digital cinema standards specified two different containers, 'Scope at 2048 X 858 and Flat at 1998 X 1080. IMAX is just running outside the DCI standards and running Full Container using the whole pixel array.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.


Two wrongs do not make a right. Modern movie theaters are trending in the wrong direction. The intent of scope photography is that it be the same height but wider than 1.85:1, for an image with greater immersiveness across the horizontal plane. 

Year after year after year, the vast majority of big-budget spectacle movies (your action, sci-fi, and superhero flicks - i.e. the major studio tentpoles) are photographed in 2.35:1. Have you never asked yourself why that is? These are the "event" movies that are supposed to dazzle you with their eye candy. Do you think the directors of those movies want them displayed smaller than rom-coms, zero-budget indie art films, and even Reality TV shows? Because that's what happens on a constant-width screen.



> Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow _better_? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.


More picture is not always "better" picture. Motion picture photography is composed to place people and objects in specific parts of the frame to create a sense of artistic purpose. Opening up the frame to expose empty picture at the top and bottom can throw off the balance and ruin the effectiveness of a scene. 

In this shot from Dark City, the characters are carefully positioned at opposite ends of the frame, with the windows between them forming a precise geometrical symmetry:










The open-matte version totally ruins the shot. The added picture changes your perspective and has the effect of making the characters look farther away from the viewer and closer to each other, which alters the psychological impact of the scene. The dynamic tension of the original composition is lost.










Maybe you don't care about any of that. Maybe you value filling your TV screen with picture, no matter how pointless, over any artistic consideration. Fine, that's your prerogative. But, again, you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum, so don't come here expecting a lot of sympathy for that opinion.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> Interesting. We are doing the same thing pretty much then. Except with my projector on the slide now and eyes to screen 8’ I vary the image between 110”- 70” 16:9 and if I use the projectors zoom as well 60” I haven’t found a need for that though. 1.7 SH – 2.7 SH.
> The 1.7 being my IMAX sweet spot. Scope shows at 2.4 SH on a screen size of 104” as does all CIH. I haven’t found anyone that is bothered by too much immersion at the 2.7 SH setting in fact most people want more.
> 
> The 2.0:1 AR Univisium is here to stay. I have yet to have anyone even notice or ask about it. I think people just assume it is one or the other.
> 
> As to A-lens. I don’t have any issues with the approach as it is a unique solution with great benefits. If I had to guess though I would guess its usage will continue to decline with both brightness and resolution improvements with projectors. There will always be a place for them for some people, but I cant see usage growing even with HDR. I hope I’m wrong though.
> 
> I don’t crop any movies. I don’t have any problem if people want to do that though. That’s the beauty of HT is people can feel free to do presentation any way that makes them happy.


I don’t change my view. I don’t sit on my sub behind my seating. I rarely lay on the floor. My point was I don’t have to be 1xSH to enjoy and feel immersed. 99 percent of the time I sit in the same spot. Exactly 2.16xSH and that’s measured from my eye to the bottom and top edge of my screen. So I’m a little closer to the center even. I watch full screen height whether it’s 1.00 or 2.37. I want all AR’s to be the exact same height. It doesn’t look natural or right when it’s not. I don’t care if it’s blurry 240 line VHS or pristine 2160P or higher, I view it the same way. No I only watch BR’s or equivalent hires on streaming but my point is I don’t change my view distance or display height. It remains constant.


----------



## coolrda

dschulz said:


> That's an interesting tale. The Texas Instruments DLP chips used in cinema projectors are 2048 X 1080 (0r 4096 X 2160 for 4K systems). The digital cinema standards specified two different containers, 'Scope at 2048 X 858 and Flat at 1998 X 1080. IMAX is just running outside the DCI standards and running Full Container using the whole pixel array.


Exactly. So how is that carved up for 16x9? Is the home release pixel perfect, where they trim the sides to fit? Or does it add even more additional height info? That was my impression of Dunkirk in that it remained CIW across formats and that the home release actually had more info than the IMAX Dig. IMAX GT/SR was 1.43, Blu-ray 1.78 and IMAX Dig 1.90.


----------



## coolrda

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm here because I became aware that Marvel had been releasing the VAR scenes with certain 3D Blu-ray releases, and I searched Google for a list of which ones. This is the only list I could find online. To be honest I had no idea what "CIH" even was when I started following this thread. I'm here for the list of VAR Blu-rays because I'm _seeking _new VAR Blu-rays.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this even means. Even modern movie theaters are 16:9 (or something close to it). Most don't even bother to mask the black bars. Maybe at some point in the past 2.35 was actually wider. In 2018, it just means there is wasted space above and below the picture. That's why we buy big ass TV's (or screens) these days.
> 
> In my previous home theater I had a 106" projector setup with a really nice screen that had adjustable AR. I could mask to 2.35:1 (or any other AR) and have everything look great. I still wasn't getting any "wider" shots, though. Just less vertical picture. This was still preferable to seeing black bars on a static 16:9 screen, but again, OLED has fixed that issue. MicroLED will advance things further by removing the only real inherent weaknesses of OLED (image retention and peak brightness). Massive 16:9 displays with perfect blacks are the future of home theater.
> 
> As for that Star Trek image, sure, that's an example where you're not gaining much. I already posted some examples where that isn't the case though. All from the same movie.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the picture at the top and bottom isn't "essential" to the shot, how exactly is the version with less visual data more immersive? I'm not arguing that the extra 26% is somehow critical to the storytelling (the director might disagree, but I digress), but how is the cropped version somehow _better_? Having less viewable picture in a visual medium is... by definition, worse.
> 
> 
> 
> How is _this _not a gimmick? 16:9 screens can be just as wide as any other, it's disingenuous to pretend that 2.35:1 is larger by default.
> 
> I'd rather watch a 1.90 cut on a screen with that same width. All the benefit of a larger screen horizontally... and 26% more picture vertically.


Huh? Bigger is not more immersive? Then why are we even talking Image MAXimum or VAR. 

That’s true that 1.85 screens ruled the multiplex as the big 2.40 CIH screens were cut down. But things have changed for the better locally. We have two new theaters a six and ten that are dinner and movie houses. All running CIH. The ten screener opening today has all 4K laser projectors and Atmos and luxury recliners. Only 10 rows deep by 16 seats wide so I’m seeing this adaptation/diversification where it’s becoming a bar, restaurant and theater which probably is the only way they survive and prosper.


----------



## jeahrens

coolrda said:


> Exactly. So how is that carved up for 16x9? Is the home release pixel perfect, where they trim the sides to fit? Or does it add even more additional height info? That was my impression of Dunkirk in that it remained CIW across formats and that the home release actually had more info than the IMAX Dig. IMAX GT/SR was 1.43, Blu-ray 1.78 and IMAX Dig 1.90.


It went back and forth on The Dunkirk thread. It sounds like Nolan is endorsing the 1.78:1 compromise. But it doesn't negate that we are getting a compromised framing.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> I don’t change my view. I don’t sit on my sub behind my seating. I rarely lay on the floor. My point was I don’t have to be 1xSH to enjoy and feel immersed. 99 percent of the time I sit in the same spot. Exactly 2.16xSH and that’s measured from my eye to the bottom and top edge of my screen. So I’m a little closer to the center even. I watch full screen height whether it’s 1.00 or 2.37. I want all AR’s to be the exact same height. It doesn’t look natural or right when it’s not. I don’t care if it’s blurry 240 line VHS or pristine 2160P or higher, I view it the same way. No I only watch BR’s or equivalent hires on streaming but my point is I don’t change my view distance or display height. It remains constant.


 You are at 2.16 SH and I am at 2.4. I can see how you can be happy 2.16 but for me 2.16 for scope would be outside of my comfort zone not in height but in width. 2.4 scope and flat is a fine point I could live with if I had to live with CIH. But on the other hand I’m fine with 1.7 for IMAX1.89 on BD. 

It goes back to one of two things. We are ether wired differently with how we accept our FOV, or we condition ourselves to fit into the CIH world. With better and better resolutions it is easy to set our height to max out and then accept the width of scope as it slightly out scans our comfort vision.

Because we have side to side 180 degree field there is no hard limit on width ever. Your 2.16 SH could be a mile wide if you wanted it and you could watch a train coming down the tracks starting as just a dot in the distance and you could see it all without moving your head. But there is a comfort limit side to side. Scope like IMAX fills the width with less important details or like Josh’s example it conflicts us with what side to watch. It is not a stretch to realize up and down can be directed the same way. Is it directed the same way? No because they start the project knowing the top and bottom will be trimmed off to make a scope version in most cinema. 

That’s where prestige TV comes in it is never going to be trimmed to scope. It might be the new trend to 2.00 even. It is TV whatever TV is any more and is intended to have those black bars top and bottom as that’s how it fits in TV. I think you would be crazy to show it as such in CIH but making a 2.00 setting is showing it grander than TV. These directors are using that full frame in the same way real IMAX intended their frame to be used. 

I can find 100s of examples that show tall framing is a waste and I can find 100s more that make a good case for IMAX1.89.


----------



## Shizzlenits

coolrda said:


> IMAX needs to show the whole movie in 1.90 and stop this VAR nonsense.


This I agree with. Luckily, that's exactly what they've done for Avengers: Infinity War and 2019's untitled Avengers 4. Both films were fully shot in 1.90 on IMAX digital cameras. First major studio films to do that. I'm holding out hope that _those_ at least will release in 16:9 on Blu-ray. There's at least precedent for that in the series.



coolrda said:


> Oh and by the way IMAX is 1.90 or 17x9 not 16x9. How’d they do that? Sounds like lost information to me.


Obviously losing a little bit on the top and bottom on home Blu-rays. There's not really anything that can be done about that though. If LG or Sony released a 17:9 OLED, rest assured that I would buy it. 



Josh Z said:


> More picture is not always "better" picture. Motion picture photography is composed to place people and objects in specific parts of the frame to create a sense of artistic purpose. Opening up the frame to expose empty picture at the top and bottom can throw off the balance and ruin the effectiveness of a scene.
> 
> ...
> 
> Maybe you don't care about any of that. Maybe you value filling your TV screen with picture, no matter how pointless, over any artistic consideration. Fine, that's your prerogative. But, again, you are posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum, so don't come here expecting a lot of sympathy for that opinion.


I care more about immersion. The "pointless" picture is just there to fill my peripheral vision in the background. I'm still looking at the intended framing of the shot. I just feel more like I'm actually in it, since less of my vision is detecting information that isn't the film. I'd make my entire wall a screen, if I could (and if content supported it).

It's not about having more visual information on the top and bottom. I'd take more to the sides too, if I could. It's simply about having the biggest possible picture in front of my face.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> I care more about immersion.


You care so much about immersion that you shrink the majority of big spectacle movies you watch to be smaller than TV sitcoms. 



> It's not about having more visual information on the top and bottom. I'd take more to the sides too, if I could.


Having a screen with more picture on the sides is the entire point of Constant Image Height. You really don't understand the concept at all, do you?


----------



## jeahrens

Shizzlenits said:


> This I agree with. Luckily, that's exactly what they've done for Avengers: Infinity War and 2019's untitled Avengers 4. Both films were fully shot in 1.90 on IMAX digital cameras. First major studio films to do that. I'm holding out hope that those at least will release in 16:9 on Blu-ray. There's at least precedent for that in the series.


It will be interesting to see what the Russo Brothers decide. Keep in mind, your immersion depends on where you sit in relation to the image height. If you maintain the same screen height and seating distance and install a wider scope screen, a 1.9:1 film will be larger than it would on a 16:9 screen.

For example lets compare:

110" 16:9 screen (96x54")
138" 2.35:1 screen (127x54")

(note the height is the same)

1.78:1 (16:9)

The 2 give you an identical image size

1.9:1

110" 16:9 = 96x51" 34 sq/ft
138" 2.35:1 = 103x54" 39 sq/ft

Scope screen picture is 15% bigger

2.0:1 (like Strager Things or other Netflix)

110" 16:9 = 96x48" 32 sq/ft
138" 2.35:1 = 108x54" 41 sq/ft

Scope screen picture is 28% bigger

2.35:1

110" 16:9 = 96x41" 27 sq/ft
138" 2.35:1 = 127x54" 48 sq/ft

Scope screen picture is 78% bigger

Height IS the constant when talking cinematic ARs. 



Shizzlenits said:


> It's not about having more visual information on the top and bottom. I'd take more to the sides too, if I could. It's simply about having the biggest possible picture in front of my face.


Considering IMAX makes up a tiny amount of films out there, you would get the "most" picture with a CIH setup. If you have your CIH setup sized properly, you will lose no impact with narrower ARs.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Josh Z said:


> You care so much about immersion that you shrink the majority of big spectacle movies you watch to be smaller than TV sitcoms.
> 
> Having a screen with more picture on the sides is the entire point of Constant Image Height. You really don't understand the concept at all, do you?


I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.


Again, that's your prerogative. But you're posting in a thread in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat forum. Your original question has been answered. If you have no interest in learning about 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, continuing to post here is not the most productive use of either your or our time.


----------



## jeahrens

Shizzlenits said:


> I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.


Although I understand your use case, I personally would never move to an OLED from my JVC projector. Do the LG OLED's I've seen exceed the contrast I have? Of course. Do they get anywhere close to the impact the JVC imparts? Not even close. Again I realize in your situation you have chosen the best option for your space (and don't get me wrong if you are doing a TV, the OLED's are fantastic). But, at least for me, a good projector can come close enough to the contrast an OLED has while providing an impact it can't.


----------



## bud16415

We all have 16:9 machines and a few have lens to manipulate a manipulated image into another AR. When a poster comes along and doesn’t use a projector or a lens and instead uses a flat panel display, he has one problem and one thing in common with us. The problem is he is helplessly stuck in the CIW world he has no zoom and his screen is the wrong AR. What he has in common with us is he has the exact same media we all use and it has imagery in all kinds of AR’s but it all comes in a container that is 16:9. 

Now @Shizzlenits is in the minority here in this forum, but in the world of displays he outnumbers the people with projectors 10,000 to 1 or something like that. Now if I’m Sony or any of the people selling media I will be listening to the big number not the small number I would think. Especially if I’m making the product both ways to start and with a couple lines of code it could be used both ways. 

Sometimes I think I’m the only person that can watch an IMAX1.89 movie and clearly feel the full impact of the scope presentation along with additional immersion due to the extra content even if I never once look up into that area of the screen. It was so evident in Dunkirk. I had a very close experience at home in my HT as I would have standing on the deck of a ship watching it in 100% full field of view in my vision. That movie and the IMAX parts I never saw the edges of the screen the AR could have been a circle for all I knew. And there laid right across the middle was the scope image. 

To see this on a flat panel TV you would have to sit a lot closer than I normally see people sitting. But I still can see where people with TVs still would like the full image over black bars and they are buying the majority of the media.


----------



## Uppsalaing

bud16415 said:


> We all have 16:9 machines and a few have lens to manipulate a manipulated image into another AR. When a poster comes along and doesn’t use a projector or a lens and instead uses a flat panel display, he has one problem and one thing in common with us. The problem is he is helplessly stuck in the CIW world he has no zoom and his screen is the wrong AR. What he has in common with us is he has the exact same media we all use and it has imagery in all kinds of AR’s but it all comes in a container that is 16:9.
> 
> Now @*Shizzlenits* is in the minority here in this forum, but in the world of displays he outnumbers the people with projectors 10,000 to 1 or something like that. Now if I’m Sony or any of the people selling media I will be listening to the big number not the small number I would think. Especially if I’m making the product both ways to start and with a couple lines of code it could be used both ways.
> 
> Sometimes I think I’m the only person that can watch an IMAX1.89 movie and clearly feel the full impact of the scope presentation along with additional immersion due to the extra content even if I never once look up into that area of the screen. It was so evident in Dunkirk. I had a very close experience at home in my HT as I would have standing on the deck of a ship watching it in 100% full field of view in my vision. That movie and the IMAX parts I never saw the edges of the screen the AR could have been a circle for all I knew. And there laid right across the middle was the scope image.
> 
> To see this on a flat panel TV you would have to sit a lot closer than I normally see people sitting. But I still can see where people with TVs still would like the full image over black bars and they are buying the majority of the media.


A TV viewer would need to put his 65" TV in his lap, or go up to a 90"+ sized TV... Not many of those around.

Anyway, back to VAR, I think on Apple TV/iTunes Dunkirk is shown closer to 2.25:1 ratio or something... Not VAR.

I have a CIH set up in my temporary dedicated room. Epson 9300W with zoom as my room is too short for anamorphic. I sit at 2.6x screen hight, which is farther than when my room is ready, and Dunkirk looks great. On a CIW set up it would look smaller than TV shows... With CIH it looks bigger than TV shows and Flat movies. Pehaps something closer to this aspect ratio would be better than making the movies VAR? I think my projector can digitally mask the extra bits anyway and I have black masking around my screen so there is no spill from zooming at all.

I hardly watch any TV on my home cinema (I rarely watch TV shows).. iPads and the TV in the lounge are more than enough for the quality of TV shows, apart from the first season of Mad Men, one scene of True Detective and the pilot of a handfull of other shows... And 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on the projector at CIH more than enough for TV shows. It even exposes their TV-ness a bit.

I first saw Dunkirk theatrically in digital IMAX (new cinema lieMAX, not a converted cinema and not the several stories high kind proper IMAX of which there are very few in the world and not 70mm film). It was still probably as tall as a small house and very immersive.

I don't want to side track this thread as I kniw it is VAR specific and blu ray specific, but I'd thought I'd share some input even though I am running a temporary set up. CIH is still worth it and I'll have it when the dedicated room is ready.


----------



## coolrda

Shizzlenits said:


> I've come to understand it from this thread, but since it's impossible to produce on a TV (rather than a projector) it's not something I'll ever be interested in. For two reasons. One, the media room in my new house doesn't have a far enough throw distance for a large screen. That's why I went with the OLED in the first place instead of moving the 106" screen I've been using for years. Two, after getting used to the OLED, I never want to go back to the inherently inferior contrast of a projector.


My JVC matches my Oled’s blacks. It won’t match its whites though.


----------



## coolrda

Uppsalaing said:


> A TV viewer would need to put his 65" TV in his lap, or go up to a 90"+ sized TV... Not many of those around.
> 
> Anyway, back to VAR, I think on Apple TV/iTunes Dunkirk is shown closer to 2.25:1 ratio or something... Not VAR.
> 
> I have a CIH set up in my temporary dedicated room. Epson 9300W with zoom as my room is too short for anamorphic. I sit at 2.6x screen hight, which is farther than when my room is ready, and Dunkirk looks great. On a CIW set up it would look smaller than TV shows... With CIH it looks bigger than TV shows and Flat movies. Pehaps something closer to this aspect ratio would be better than making the movies VAR? I think my projector can digitally mask the extra bits anyway and I have black masking around my screen so there is no spill from zooming at all.
> 
> I hardly watch any TV on my home cinema (I rarely watch TV shows).. iPads and the TV in the lounge are more than enough for the quality of TV shows, apart from the first season of Mad Men, one scene of True Detective and the pilot of a handfull of other shows... And 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on the projector at CIH more than enough for TV shows. It even exposes their TV-ness a bit.
> 
> I first saw Dunkirk theatrically in digital IMAX (new cinema lieMAX, not a converted cinema and not the several stories high kind proper IMAX of which there are very few in the world and not 70mm film). It was still probably as tall as a small house and very immersive.
> 
> I don't want to side track this thread as I kniw it is VAR specific and blu ray specific, but I'd thought I'd share some input even though I am running a temporary set up. CIH is still worth it and I'll have it when the dedicated room is ready.


Yep. Dunkirk alternates between imax 15/[email protected] and normal [email protected] It’s cropped to 1.78 for the home release and further cropped to 1.90 for IMAX Digital. It’s a a movie that plays good in CIH, but looks spectacular in full frame on the 4K UHDBR. I’m in the minority but this movie didn’t do anything for me. I really like every Nolan movie to date accept for this. Yet I watch it repeatly due to the demo quality of the pic. I think it’s the first time we’ve seen what 15/70 could look like at home in an uncompromising format.


----------



## Uppsalaing

coolrda said:


> Yep. Dunkirk alternates between imax 15/[email protected] and normal [email protected] It’s cropped to 1.78 for the home release and and further cropped to 1.90 for IMAX Digital. It’s a a movie that plays good in CIH, but looks spectacular in full frame on the 4K UHDBR. I’m in the minority but this movie didn’t do anything for me. I really like every Nolan movie to date accept for this. Yet watch it repeat my due to the demo quality of the pic. I think it’s the first time we’ve seen what 15/70 could look like at home in an uncompromising format.


It was my favourite movie of last year.

I will certainly get the UHD disc when Panasonic release their new line of players next month or so, as I only have a regular blu ray player at the moment... It'll be good to compare it to the Apple TV4K version that i have to see how big the difference in picture quality is and how the presentation differs.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> We all have 16:9 machines and a few have lens to manipulate a manipulated image into another AR. When a poster comes along and doesn’t use a projector or a lens and instead uses a flat panel display, he has one problem and one thing in common with us. The problem is he is helplessly stuck in the CIW world he has no zoom and his screen is the wrong AR.What he has in common with us is he has the exact same media we all use and it has imagery in all kinds of AR’s but it all comes in a container that is 16:9.
> 
> Now @Shizzlenits is in the minority here in this forum, but in the world of displays he outnumbers the people with projectors 10,000 to 1 or something like that. Now if I’m Sony or any of the people selling media I will be listening to the big number not the small number I would think. Especially if I’m making the product both ways to start and with a couple lines of code it could be used both ways.


Well if you are stuck with a flat panel, it seems odd to come in here to begin with. But I'm sure the posters intentions were honest. *As far as the studios go, I'm glad they're listening to the filmmakers.* Or we'd potentially have things horribly cropped like the Pan and Scan era. And before you rebut, simply offering a choice in my opinion starts us on a slope of the studios being cheap and throwing everything into 1.78:1 like they used to with 1.33:1. The filmmaker has the final say. If that's VAR, so be it. If it isn't, so be it.



bud16415 said:


> Sometimes I think I’m the only person that can watch an IMAX1.89 movie and clearly feel the full impact of the scope presentation along with additional immersion due to the extra content even if I never once look up into that area of the screen. It was so evident in Dunkirk. I had a very close experience at home in my HT as I would have standing on the deck of a ship watching it in 100% full field of view in my vision. That movie and the IMAX parts I never saw the edges of the screen the AR could have been a circle for all I knew. And there laid right across the middle was the scope image.
> 
> To see this on a flat panel TV you would have to sit a lot closer than I normally see people sitting. But I still can see where people with TVs still would like the full image over black bars and they are buying the majority of the media.


You're not the only one watching this in VAR that is pleased with your sizing. Your own preference may have it larger or smaller. *Again anyone serious about home theater should not be concerned about people seeing and complaining about black bars.* We just ended a dismal era of the "fill my screen" idiots forcing butchered media on all of us.


----------



## coolrda

Netflix’s Anon.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Also not sure how to classify Infinity War in the context of this thread, since it is in fact fully 1.9:1 in IMAX and not variable. In this case there are just two separate versions of the film.


----------



## jeahrens

Shizzlenits said:


> Also not sure how to classify Infinity War in the context of this thread, since it is in fact fully 1.9:1 in IMAX and not variable. In this case there are just two separate versions of the film.


Yeah thankfully either way it won't be variable. Either way they release it (1.9 or Scope), should be a stunning 4K disc.


----------



## Josh Z

Shizzlenits said:


> Also not sure how to classify Infinity War in the context of this thread, since it is in fact fully 1.9:1 in IMAX and not variable. In this case there are just two separate versions of the film.


I'd say it should be classified in the same category as movies like Skyfall, Prometheus, and Blade Runner 2049, which were 1.9:1 in IMAX, but scope in all other theaters and home video.


----------



## ScottAvery

I did not think I had a strong opinion on this until I saw 2 minutes of Transformers: The Last Knight on TV last night and it changed aspect ratio with every cut. Nope. Not doing that. Lens and crop, k thx, bye.


----------



## Craig Peer

ScottAvery said:


> I did not think I had a strong opinion on this until I saw 2 minutes of Transformers: The Last Knight on TV last night and it changed aspect ratio with every cut. Nope. Not doing that. Lens and crop, k thx, bye.


That's a bit much - the aspect ratio was a " transformer " itself !


----------



## Shizzlenits

Well Black Panther is confirmed 2.39:1 in 2D Blu-ray and UHD, as expected.

Not sure about the 3D version, but I assume that one will be variable like the rest of Marvel's lineup.

Shucks.


----------



## Josh Z

Black Panther 3D has been confirmed to have a variable ratio (2D is constant height).


----------



## Josh Z

I received Avengers: Infinity War 3D from the UK today. Quickly scanning through the disc, it does not appear to have variable ratio. Even the big action scenes at the climax look to be CIH. 

Does anyone recall a specific scene from the movie, with rough time code, that had expanded height in IMAX theaters?


----------



## Josh Z

I won't have time to watch the full Infinity War disc anytime soon (I'm still about 4 movies behind on the Marvel Cinematic Universe). Unless someone can point me to a specific scene to check, I'm moving this to the "Only Constant Height 2.35:1" section of the list.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Josh Z said:


> I received Avengers: Infinity War 3D from the UK today. Quickly scanning through the disc, it does not appear to have variable ratio. Even the big action scenes at the climax look to be CIH.
> 
> Does anyone recall a specific scene from the movie, with rough time code, that had expanded height in IMAX theaters?


Every scene was expanded in IMAX theaters. Both Infinity War and the upcoming Avengers 4 were 100% shot on digital IMAX cameras.

The Blu-rays are indeed fully cropped to 1.35:1, unfortunately. I suspect it's due to Disney wanting to be cheap with the BD66 disc. Wouldn't surprise me to see them put one of those "IMAX enhanced" discs out with the full picture and sell it at a premium.


----------



## bud16415

Shizzlenits said:


> Every scene was expanded in IMAX theaters. Both Infinity War and the upcoming Avengers 4 were 100% shot on digital IMAX cameras.
> 
> The Blu-rays are indeed fully cropped to 1.35:1, unfortunately. I suspect it's due to Disney wanting to be cheap with the BD66 disc. Wouldn't surprise me to see them put one of those "IMAX enhanced" discs out with the full picture and sell it at a premium.


More and more I see that happening. They should do the consumers a favor and offer both versions at the same time if they want to offer it. I think a lot of people will pay 5 bucks more to get the full movie, and those that like 2.35 can save money and get the cropped version. 

If they start holding back as you suggest hoping to sell the movie twice they will see push back from the consumers I think. It has been the history though to offer an enhanced disc edition later on with extras so maybe that’s how Disney is thinking of playing it. 

I take it you would rather have the IMAX version?


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> More and more I see that happening. They should do the consumers a favor and offer both versions at the same time if they want to offer it. I think a lot of people will pay 5 bucks more to get the full movie, and those that like 2.35 can save money and get the cropped version.


Anyone who wants to watch a "full-screen" version of the movie will wait for it to play on HBO. Those people don't actually buy many movies to own.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I think a lot of people will pay 5 bucks more to get the full movie, and those that like 2.35 can save money and get the cropped version.


The full movie = the AR the Director framed for and intends to be seen

Scope Cropped. That statement is not factual. Not even in the context of this thread as it implies there is usable material removed, which is not always the case.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Anyone who wants to watch a "full-screen" version of the movie will wait for it to play on HBO. Those people don't actually buy many movies to own.


Do you have an example of a movie that showed as 1.89 in IMAX theaters and 2.35 in scope theaters and was put onto BD as 2.35 but was later shown as the full 1.89 IMAX version on HBO? If you do please post the movie titles. 

I haven’t had HBO in 20 years but if they are doing this I might sign up.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> The full movie = the AR the Director framed for and intends to be seen
> 
> Scope Cropped. That statement is not factual. Not even in the context of this thread as it implies there is usable material removed, which is not always the case.


If a movie like Sully is made dual AR and displayed in two different venues one with 26% more and new and different information per the request of the director. The scope version is intentionally cropped from the center of the IMAX version and 13% discarded from the top and 13% discarded from the bottom what is it if it isn’t cropping. It is director intended cropping it could even be said the director did it because he liked it better cropped or maybe he did it because IMAX didn’t pay him enough to leave it in. Most of the time we don’t know the reason unless he says it in a interview. 

All we know is there are two official ways I could pay money and go see the movie in the theater. Nothing is removed from the scope version to make the IMAX version normally. The IMAX version just has more. 

Cropped is the exact correct term. Director approved cropping. 

If you read what the producers of Black Panther said they strongly advise people to see the version with 26% more as it makes the movie. That’s not to say they wont crop it for home use, Or will they make another deal with IMAX and let it out how it makes the most money. 

Now that I know if I want to see the full IMAX version I need to watch it on HBO I guess I will just snag it off HBO.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Do you have an example of a movie that showed as 1.89 in IMAX theaters and 2.35 in scope theaters and was put onto BD as 2.35 but was later shown as the full 1.89 IMAX version on HBO? If you do please post the movie titles.
> 
> I haven’t had HBO in 20 years but if they are doing this I might sign up.


HBO plays almost everything in full-screen. Some executive there is a rabid black bar hater.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> HBO plays almost everything in full-screen. Some executive there is a rabid black bar hater.


That didn’t answer the question. Full screen can mean taking a scope movie chopping off the sides and blowing the rest up to fit the screen.

The discussion is IMAX1.89 version showing up on HBO? Not the scope version butchered to fit.

Now I know 1.89 is not 1.77 so we know the wacko at HBO will trim a sliver off the 1.89 to get it to fit. 

Are you saying that is what HBO is doing when a movie is released dual AR in the beginning?


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> If a movie like Sully is made dual AR and displayed in two different venues one with 26% more and new and different information per the request of the director. The scope version is intentionally cropped from the center of the IMAX version and 13% discarded from the top and 13% discarded from the bottom what is it if it isn’t cropping. It is director intended cropping it could even be said the director did it because he liked it better cropped or maybe he did it because IMAX didn’t pay him enough to leave it in. Most of the time we don’t know the reason unless he says it in a interview.
> 
> All we know is there are two official ways I could pay money and go see the movie in the theater. Nothing is removed from the scope version to make the IMAX version normally. The IMAX version just has more.
> 
> Cropped is the exact correct term. Director approved cropping.
> 
> If you read what the producers of Black Panther said they strongly advise people to see the version with 26% more as it makes the movie. That’s not to say they wont crop it for home use, Or will they make another deal with IMAX and let it out how it makes the most money.
> 
> Now that I know if I want to see the full IMAX version I need to watch it on HBO I guess I will just snag it off HBO.


Films shot with an anamorphic lens or on 65/70mm film stock have no additional framing. In the case of these shifting films you continue to assume there is good data to be used. In many cases there isn't. The scope framing is the only piece of the image carried forward to be color corrected and have the effects finished (and a myriad of other things I'm likely ignorant of). The entire raw sensor data (assuming digital cameras) may no longer exist. Even if it does it is not in a finished state. So in many cases scope is likely the only way the finished product exists.

Thus scope cropped.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Films shot with an anamorphic lens or on 65/70mm film stock have no additional framing. In the case of these shifting films you continue to assume there is good data to be used. In many cases there isn't. The scope framing is the only piece of the image carried forward to be color corrected and have the effects finished (and a myriad of other things I'm likely ignorant of). The entire raw sensor data (assuming digital cameras) may no longer exist. Even if it does it is not in a finished state. So in many cases scope is likely the only way the finished product exists.
> 
> Thus scope cropped.


No one is even talking about those movies. The movies I listed played in IMAX 1.89 venues at the same time they played in scope venues. 

No one wants to take a movie from 1960 and turn it into an IMAX 1.89 movie. At least I don’t. Just as no one in their right mind should want to turn Gone With the Wind into a scope movie or anything except what it was made as. 

Every night I see ads on TV for the latest movie and at the end it says see it in IMAX. Most stuff is now going to both venues. Some is only 2.35:1 in both places and some is 2.35 in one venue and 1.89 in the other. The ones that are 1.89 are the ones we are talking about. Some are start to finish 1.89 and some change AR.

IMAX doesn’t have a great task ahead of them they are doing it every day.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> That didn’t answer the question. Full screen can mean taking a scope movie chopping off the sides and blowing the rest up to fit the screen.
> 
> The discussion is IMAX1.89 version showing up on HBO? Not the scope version butchered to fit.
> 
> Now I know 1.89 is not 1.77 so we know the wacko at HBO will trim a sliver off the 1.89 to get it to fit.
> 
> Are you saying that is what HBO is doing when a movie is released dual AR in the beginning?


HBO doesn't do any video transfers itself. HBO places an order with the studio, requesting a full-screen copy of the movie. The studios will open mattes when possible, or crop when not.

The only films HBO airs with letterboxing are those where the filmmakers have contractual requirements that their movies be presented OAR. For example, Steven Soderbergh has it in his contract that the Ocean's movies can never be cropped. HBO reluctantly broadcast Ocean's 12 letterboxed.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> No one is even talking about those movies. The movies I listed played in IMAX 1.89 venues at the same time they played in scope venues.
> 
> No one wants to take a movie from 1960 and turn it into an IMAX 1.89 movie. At least I don’t. Just as no one in their right mind should want to turn Gone With the Wind into a scope movie or anything except what it was made as.
> 
> Every night I see ads on TV for the latest movie and at the end it says see it in IMAX. Most stuff is now going to both venues. Some is only 2.35:1 in both places and some is 2.35 in one venue and 1.89 in the other. The ones that are 1.89 are the ones we are talking about. Some are start to finish 1.89 and some change AR.
> 
> IMAX doesn’t have a great task ahead of them they are doing it every day.


Well it's a good thing I mentioned the variable aspect ratio films in the post too then.

Of course they have a task ahead of them. It has to be financially viable for studios to finish films for IMAX as it is more expensive. Again I wish them luck.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> HBO doesn't do any video transfers itself. HBO places an order with the studio, requesting a full-screen copy of the movie. The studios will open mattes when possible, or crop when not.
> 
> The only films HBO airs with letterboxing are those where the filmmakers have contractual requirements that their movies be presented OAR. For example, Steven Soderbergh has it in his contract that the Ocean's movies can never be cropped. HBO reluctantly broadcast Ocean's 12 letterboxed.


So to your knowledge has HBO ever shown the IMAX1.89 version of a movie fit to full screen when the only version available to the public on disc was the scope cut? 

I also wonder how HBO is offered a copy of say one of Nolan’s expanding movies that are available to the public that way? 

And thanks for the info.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Well it's a good thing I mentioned the variable aspect ratio films in the post too then.
> 
> Of course they have a task ahead of them. It has to be financially viable for studios to finish films for IMAX as it is more expensive. Again I wish them luck.


I have no idea the price difference in finishing a scope movie compared to an IMAX 1.89 movie. My guess is about 26% more. 

The argument is academic though because every movie they would intend to finish for IMAX home release has to be finished anyway because it is being shown in a real IMAX theater way before it would be released to the public. 

If anything the home market revenue will help underwrite the 26% theater market costs. So it is a win / win for IMAX. 

I hope they are reading this it took them a very long time after the founders sold the company to figure out how to make real money in the motion picture industry. It started out as a science project filming animals and places because they didn’t have the money to pay real actors and sold their product in museums because they were government funded and no one else could afford them. Now they have an actual business model and are leaving filmmaking to the filmmakers, and they are doing what they do best marketing the “best experience” money can buy in motion pictures. It doesn’t matter if you and I buy that claim what matters is if the public does. The lack of caring about the movie experience in most of the regular theaters I have been in the last 10 years is making IMAX’s job easier. The best thing the rest of the movie industry could do to kill IMAX would be to go back to providing a really quality experience at a low price.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I have no idea the price difference in finishing a scope movie compared to an IMAX 1.89 movie. My guess is about 26% more.
> 
> The argument is academic though because every movie they would intend to finish for IMAX home release has to be finished anyway because it is being shown in a real IMAX theater way before it would be released to the public.
> 
> If anything the home market revenue will help underwrite the 26% theater market costs. So it is a win / win for IMAX.
> 
> I hope they are reading this it took them a very long time after the founders sold the company to figure out how to make real money in the motion picture industry. It started out as a science project filming animals and places because they didn’t have the money to pay real actors and sold their product in museums because they were government funded and no one else could afford them. Now they have an actual business model and are leaving filmmaking to the filmmakers, and they are doing what they do best marketing the “best experience” money can buy in motion pictures. It doesn’t matter if you and I buy that claim what matters is if the public does. The lack of caring about the movie experience in most of the regular theaters I have been in the last 10 years is making IMAX’s job easier. The best thing the rest of the movie industry could do to kill IMAX would be to go back to providing a really quality experience at a low price.


Let's hope they they do it the right way and get studios to commit to the process from the start and not start side cropping scope films to 1.78:1. My hope is IMAX takes the high road with their branding seen as premium, but money may talk. If they do stoop to butchering films they'll win points from the uneducated because their TV is "full" but from the people passionate about cinema they'll kill any good will they have. Ever seen a side cropped scope film to 1.78:1? It's ugly. We had Harry Potter 5 on in a hotel room that was cut up and it was just a sad thing to see.

Even 10% of a modern films effects budget is a sizable chunk.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Let's hope they they do it the right way and get studios to commit to the process from the start and not start side cropping scope films to 1.78:1. My hope is IMAX takes the high road with their branding seen as premium, but money may talk. If they do stoop to butchering films they'll win points from the uneducated because their TV is "full" but from the people passionate about cinema they'll kill any good will they have. Ever seen a side cropped scope film to 1.78:1? It's ugly. We had Harry Potter 5 on in a hotel room that was cut up and it was just a sad thing to see.
> 
> Even 10% of a modern films effects budget is a sizable chunk.


I don’t think IMAX has any desire or has ever chopped the sides off a scope film to give it a new AR and call it IMAX. They do have a process they call DMR (digital re mastering) and it is quite a bit more than what an up scaling BD player does to improve a DVD. It is some algorithms they have along with a laborious process of human inspection and intervention to improve the quality mostly grain reduction of 35mm films turning them into 70mm or a higher digital resolution than could otherwise be achieved. It is not simply running them thru a computer and spitting out an “improved” product it takes a large group of skilled people about a month to do a single film. 

They do this to be able to play a regular scope movie with the AR unchanged at a larger IMAX immersion level in their IMAX theaters. 

It may well end up on 70mm film but it is not captured with 70mm cameras. There is a loss in resolution over a 70mm capture process but it is widely accepted it is an improvement over the 35mm source and at very least does nothing to degrade it. 

A company that goes to these lengths is never going to hack a film down and call it a day. They have been continually been working on creating a brand of something superior to everything else. 

People can like or not like the increased immersion and they are free to feel that paying extra for this attention to detail is unnecessary for their viewing pleasure. IMAX seems to want to be a top shelf product for those that want that. I doubt they will risk their branding on selling cheapened up movies on disc. 

As far as DMR like simulated immersion at home. I don’t do that as I’m still living in the world of BD 1080 and I don’t think the resolution will allow that. With UHD BD I might try it and don’t know if I would like it or not.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I don’t think IMAX has any desire or has ever chopped the sides off a scope film to give it a new AR and call it IMAX.


They did that initially, with the IMAX conversions of Apollo 13 and Attack of the Clones. Both movies were cropped to 1.44:1 and edited to run times less than 2 hours. However, with The Matrix Reloaded, IMAX started projecting scope movies letterboxed and full-length.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> They did that initially, with the IMAX conversions of Apollo 13 and Attack of the Clones. Both movies were cropped to 1.44:1 and edited to run times less than 2 hours. However, with The Matrix Reloaded, IMAX started projecting scope movies letterboxed and full-length.


That’s an interesting fact and I’m guessing around the time IMAX was sold to the investment banking group and they were trying to right the ship. They were and still are a bunch of financial people that didn’t understand filmmaking very well at that time. 

I know the goal early on was to try and get people in the doors and they didn’t have much luck trying to make their own movies so it sounds like they resorted to the easy way to fill the screen. If it only took two movies to learn the lesson they were fairly fast studies. 

My guess that is what spurred the idea of DMR because who would want to pay double to see a movie only filling a quarter of the screen and no bigger than a regular theater. 

No doubt they have been playing catch up for about 20 years. The last 5 years technology has been on their side. 

Here is to hoping they do it right.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Here is to hoping they do it right.


Agreed! Done right they'll have a very good product on their hands.


----------



## Josh Z

Did anyone bother to see The Nutcracker and the Four Realms theatrically? The movie's kind of a flop, so perhaps not.

IMDb claims that the movie's aspect ratio is 1.85:1. However, some of the trailers playing on TV appear letterboxed to 2.35:1 with frame-breaking effects that poke into the black bars. Is that what it actually looks like in theaters, or was that just done for the trailer?


----------



## Josh Z

Mission: Impossible - Fallout confirmed to have variable ratio on both Blu-ray and UHD.

Interestingly, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire on UHD is 2.35:1 CIH even though the regular Blu-ray was variable ratio.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Mission: Impossible - Fallout confirmed to have variable ratio on both Blu-ray and UHD.


Looks like the IMAX AR is at 2.20:1 and it is completely framed for the scope area so you really won't lose any important image if you stay CIH....but the IMAX scenes look so much better than the scope, although the switch from grainy scope to almost digital clean IMAX is a bit jarring. But this one really shows the added resolution of the IMAX format.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> Looks like the IMAX AR is at 2.20:1


The information I have is that the transfer alternates between 2.40:1 and 1.9:1.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> The information I have is that the transfer alternates between 2.40:1 and 1.9:1.


I thought that too but it does look closer to 2.10-2.20. Heck, 1.90 vs 1.85 is almost the same so I didn't think it looked like 1.90....but I could be wrong.


----------



## Killroy

Killroy said:


> I thought that too but it does look closer to 2.10-2.20. Heck, 1.90 vs 1.85 is almost the same so I didn't think it looked like 1.90....but I could be wrong.


OK, on second look...it does look like 1.90:1. But the framing is still scope safe.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> I thought that too but it does look closer to 2.10-2.20. Heck, 1.90 vs 1.85 is almost the same so I didn't think it looked like 1.90....but I could be wrong.


The last screenshot in this review measures 1.90:1.

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/62075/missionimpossiblefallout4kultrahdbluray.html


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> The last screenshot in this review measures 1.90:1.
> 
> https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/62075/missionimpossiblefallout4kultrahdbluray.html


Yeah, I finally realized that my testing monitor has a very thick frame and with the lights down I mistook the extra frame space for active space compared to my living room TV that has almost no frame. Not having a projector for these few months is really making me miss it.


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


> But the framing is still scope safe.



Is the framing scope safe? I would say yes. Does it lack impact cropped? I would say yes.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> Is the framing scope safe? I would say yes. Does it lack impact cropped? I would say yes.


I saw it in the theater on an 80-foot-wide scope screen with no expanded IMAX scenes and I did not think it lacked any impact. IMAX is meant to be seen in IMAX theaters, 3-4 stories high screen, and not in home screens...the home IMAX is just an open matte presentation and a gimmick that needs to die just like 3D. /me ducks!


----------



## bud16415

I could make the same analogy to scope. Scope is intended to be seen on a screen 80 foot wide in a scope theater and to watch it at home is just a gimmick Big TV with some black cloth pretending to be a movie theater. 

I don’t doubt without having anything to compare it to in your local scope theater it was quite entertaining and didn’t leave you lacking mostly because you didn’t see the rest of it. 

For anyone reading this and wondering and thinking about screen AR / sizing, go rent Dunkirk BD or better UHD BD and play it on a white wall sit nice and close and watch it once as scope covering up 26% of the picture and then the second time don’t move your seat and watch the full expansions. If it looks like some open matte version of an old war movie then you will know @Killroy was here and was correct. If you think it is enhanced then you will know IMAX at home is a real thing.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

bud16415 said:


> I could make the same analogy to scope. Scope is intended to be seen on a screen 80 foot wide in a scope theater and to watch it at home is just a gimmick Big TV with some black cloth pretending to be a movie theater.
> 
> I don’t doubt without having anything to compare it to in your local scope theater it was quite entertaining and didn’t leave you lacking mostly because you didn’t see the rest of it.
> 
> For anyone reading this and wondering and thinking about screen AR / sizing, go rent Dunkirk BD or better UHD BD and play it on a white wall sit nice and close and watch it once as scope covering up 26% of the picture and then the second time don’t move your seat and watch the full expansions. If it looks like some open matte version of an old war movie then you will know @Killroy was here and was correct. If you think it is enhanced then you will know IMAX at home is a real thing.


I love Ben Hur ,my favorite film of all time in fact, but even that I can't watch enough to do a 2.76:1 screen. Dunkirk is just an OK film really ,how many times can you watch what looks like 14 total films ,10 of which are mediocre at best ?

I mean there are :
Ben Hur
Mutiny On The Bounty
Fall of the Roman Empire
Battle of the Bulge
Rogue One
The Greatest Story Ever Told
It's a Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad World
Raintree County
How the West Was Won
The Hateful Eight

All in 2.76:1 

Not to mention tons of 2.55:1 films many are truly great films and I wouldn't build a screen or room or both just for them.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Killroy said:


> I saw it in the theater on an 80-foot-wide scope screen with no expanded IMAX scenes and I did not think it lacked any impact. IMAX is meant to be seen in IMAX theaters, 3-4 stories high screen, and not in home screens...the home IMAX is just an open matte presentation and a gimmick that needs to die just like 3D. /me ducks!


We are getting our wish with 3D ...


----------



## Josh Z

Art Sonneborn said:


> I mean there are :
> Ben Hur
> Mutiny On The Bounty
> Fall of the Roman Empire
> Battle of the Bulge
> Rogue One
> The Greatest Story Ever Told
> It's a Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad World
> Raintree County
> How the West Was Won
> The Hateful Eight
> 
> All in 2.76:1


How did Rogue One get in that list? That's a standard 2.40:1 movie. Did you type the wrong title?


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Josh Z said:


> How did Rogue One get in that list? That's a standard 2.40:1 movie. Did you type the wrong title?


Josh I got my info here:

https://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

If this list is inaccurate let me know but it doesn't diminish my point


----------



## Kris Deering

Killroy said:


> Looks like the IMAX AR is at 2.20:1 and it is completely framed for the scope area so you really won't lose any important image if you stay CIH....but the IMAX scenes look so much better than the scope, although the switch from grainy scope to almost digital clean IMAX is a bit jarring. But this one really shows the added resolution of the IMAX format.


This is what bugs me about all this stuff. Fallout doesn't look better because it is IMAX, it isn't. The scenes look "better" because they were shot with an extremely high end digital camera, unlike the rest of the film. They didn't even use IMAX cameras (digital or film). The expanded aspect ratio was just the open matte version of the capture. The majority of the films that people say are IMAX are not, even the IMAX digital camera used for Infinity Wars is just an Alexa 65 with an IMAX sticker stuck on it (same camera that has been used on lots of movies that don't say shot on IMAX cameras). It is a marketing ploy, nothing more. We've already seen DP's talk about IMAX wanting an open matte version of their scope films to fill their screen more (see BR2049 and Skyfall). If it is shot 15/70 great, that is IMAX proper. Everything else is a marketing ploy. I'm not saying it doesn't look good, I LOVE that director's are shooting more and more films with fantastic quality cameras with large format sensors, but the marketing dribble is getting old.


----------



## bud16415

Art Sonneborn said:


> I love Ben Hur ,my favorite film of all time in fact, but even that I can't watch enough to do a 2.76:1 screen. Dunkirk is just an OK film really ,how many times can you watch what looks like 14 total films ,10 of which are mediocre at best ?
> 
> I mean there are :
> Ben Hur
> Mutiny On The Bounty
> Fall of the Roman Empire
> Battle of the Bulge
> Rogue One
> The Greatest Story Ever Told
> It's a Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad World
> Raintree County
> How the West Was Won
> The Hateful Eight
> 
> All in 2.76:1
> 
> Not to mention tons of 2.55:1 films many are truly great films and I wouldn't build a screen or room or both just for them.


That’s kind of the point of what I advocate and how I do my presentation. 

Why not do everything if you can. When The Hateful Eight came out I pulled back on the zoom and watched it as it was intended. When Dunkirk expands I watch it as it should be or at least as immersive as the director allowed on the disc. 

Selecting a screen is the start of the limiting of your options IMO. 

I’m not designing a screen for just a few films I’m designing a screen for every film made and every film to be made.


----------



## Josh Z

Art Sonneborn said:


> Josh I got my info here:
> 
> Widescreen.org
> 
> If this list is inaccurate let me know but it doesn't diminish my point


Rogue One was originally planned to be shot on 65mm with Ultra Panavision 70 lenses. However, the production eventually switched to digital capture on an Alexa 65 camera, but kept the lenses. The final product was cropped and conformed to a 2.40:1 aspect ratio in post-production. The movie was never projected at 2.76:1.

The Hateful Eight used the same lenses on a 65mm camera and did go all the way to 2.76:1.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Josh Z said:


> Rogue One was originally planned to be shot on 65mm with Ultra Panavision 70 lenses. However, the production eventually switched to digital capture on an Alexa 65 camera, but kept the lenses. The final product was cropped and conformed to a 2.40:1 aspect ratio in post-production. The movie never was never projected at 2.76:1.
> 
> The Hateful Eight used the same lenses on a 65mm camera and did go all the way to 2.76:1.




Thanks !

Art


----------



## Kris Deering

bud16415 said:


> I could make the same analogy to scope. Scope is intended to be seen on a screen 80 foot wide in a scope theater and to watch it at home is just a gimmick Big TV with some black cloth pretending to be a movie theater.
> 
> I don’t doubt without having anything to compare it to in your local scope theater it was quite entertaining and didn’t leave you lacking mostly because you didn’t see the rest of it.
> 
> For anyone reading this and wondering and thinking about screen AR / sizing, go rent Dunkirk BD or better UHD BD and play it on a white wall sit nice and close and watch it once as scope covering up 26% of the picture and then the second time don’t move your seat and watch the full expansions. If it looks like some open matte version of an old war movie then you will know @Killroy was here and was correct. If you think it is enhanced then you will know IMAX at home is a real thing.


This only works for those with a 16:9 screen. If you have a proper scope screen, you would pick Dunkirk in scope all day. The problem with 16x9 screens is that they are working the opposite of what they should. I understand why, but I built my theater to watch movies, not TV. Aspect ratios are based on width, not height, hence 1.85:1, 2.35:1, the height always remains locked to the WIDTH, not the other way around. So when I watch Dunkirk in scope, the image is over 50% larger than if I watch it in flat. Since Nolan shot it scope safe, I watch it that way. If a movie was shot in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, I watch it in that format. Doesn't bug me at all. But a scope movie looks FAR more cinematic in my setup.


----------



## Josh Z

Kris Deering said:


> This only works for those with a 16:9 screen. If you have a proper scope screen, you would pick Dunkirk in scope all day. The problem with 16x9 screens is that they are working the opposite of what they should. I understand why, but I built my theater to watch movies, not TV. Aspect ratios are based on width, not height, hence 1.85:1, 2.35:1, the height always remains locked to the WIDTH, not the other way around. So when I watch Dunkirk in scope, the image is over 50% larger than if I watch it in flat. Since Nolan shot it scope safe, I watch it that way. If a movie was shot in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, I watch it in that format. Doesn't bug me at all. But a scope movie looks FAR more cinematic in my setup.


Oh Kris, it's a futile argument engaging with Bud. He has his own nutty ideas about film presentation and, as he insists on telling everyone in earshot over and over again, doesn't have a screen at all, just a big open wall that he continually changes his zoom ratio to project onto, depending on his mood that day. 

If he could, he'd just project movies up into the sky and watch them reflected off the clouds.


----------



## bud16415

Kris Deering said:


> This only works for those with a 16:9 screen. If you have a proper scope screen, you would pick Dunkirk in scope all day. The problem with 16x9 screens is that they are working the opposite of what they should. I understand why, but I built my theater to watch movies, not TV. Aspect ratios are based on width, not height, hence 1.85:1, 2.35:1, the height always remains locked to the WIDTH, not the other way around. So when I watch Dunkirk in scope, the image is over 50% larger than if I watch it in flat. Since Nolan shot it scope safe, I watch it that way. If a movie was shot in 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, I watch it in that format. Doesn't bug me at all. But a scope movie looks FAR more cinematic in my setup.


Moses didn’t come down from the mountain with a tablet that said Aspect Ratios are based around width and height should never change. 

What you are saying is any ratio can be stated in terms of 1.0 so 16:9 is 1.77:1 and in doing that everything has to be the same height. That’s just silly. 

You do have me thinking though and because I like to watch 1.89:1 IMAX content the width of scope only wider IMAX made a serious mistake in calling the AR 1.89. It should really be 2.84:1.5. That would really clear things up wouldn’t it. 

Here is the real thing Nolan shot his movie (Scope Safe). That is so true. But what I wonder is if we could ask him is scope safe the same thing as the best presentation possible for him to want us to watch that movie in? Oh how silly of me we don’t need to ask him that he has explained it dozens of times in interviews. He only did it because he wanted it shown as immersive as possible in as many venues as he could put it in, but given the choice he highly recommended seeing it in the tallest format you have access to, and the absolute best was the full IMAX 1.43 if you are lucky enough to live by one. 

His acknowledgment that it is scope safe to be cropped in no way says that is equally as good that way as 1.89 in a LieMAX theater or 1.77 at home in a proper theater or 1.43 in a real IMAX theater. 

As I posted yesterday for anyone reading that hasn’t made up their mind watch it both ways and make up your own mind if you like 2.35:1 or 2.84:1.5 better.


----------



## Killroy

Kris Deering said:


> I watch Dunkirk in scope, the image is over 50% larger than if I watch it in flat. *Since Nolan shot it scope safe*, I watch it that way.


So it is scope safe? I haven't watched it in scope yet (my HT is not ready yet) and I wanted to add that to my list of variable AR movies to just view in scope.

BTW, I also agree with you 110% on IMAX turning into a marketing ploy. I just commented that there is a difference in look between the scope and "IMAX" scenes. If they had shot the entire film with the same digital look then I would not have noticed any difference. But the way it stands now, the scope does look a lot grainier (not a bad thing at all) than the "IMAX" scenes. I guess that is part of their marketing ploy... "Look how cleaner this IMAX looks compared to that filthy film look!!!"


----------



## Kris Deering

bud16415 said:


> What you are saying is any ratio can be stated in terms of 1.0 so 16:9 is 1.77:1 and in doing that everything has to be the same height. That’s just silly.


It isn't silly, that is EXACTLY the way content is shot. For it to be represented on a display properly they should be the same height. We don't do that because of TV Broadcast standards, so everyone's thinking is based on a format that they are forced to use for TV (16x9 displays).



bud16415 said:


> Here is the real thing Nolan shot his movie (Scope Safe). That is so true. But what I wonder is if we could ask him is scope safe the same thing as the best presentation possible for him to want us to watch that movie in? Oh how silly of me we don’t need to ask him that he has explained it dozens of times in interviews. He only did it because he wanted it shown as immersive as possible in as many venues as he could put it in, but given the choice he highly recommended seeing it in the tallest format you have access to, and the absolute best was the full IMAX 1.43 if you are lucky enough to live by one.


Wow, Nolan goes out of his way to shoot on IMAX film so you can see it in true IMAX 70mm and he suggests that you see it that way? I can't believe that is how he recommends seeing it!

Knowing Nolan the only way he would recommend properly watching this film at home is via a film projector with a 65mm print.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Oh Kris, it's a futile argument engaging with Bud. He has his own nutty ideas about film presentation and, as he insists on telling everyone in earshot over and over again, doesn't have a screen at all, just a big open wall that he continually changes his zoom ratio to project onto, depending on his mood that day.
> 
> If he could, he'd just project movies up into the sky and watch them reflected off the clouds.


I don’t know about the clouds but that might be kind of cool to try. 

I wouldn’t say I’m nutty though or if I am nutty I’m in some good company. In a recent thread in the screen forum member chriscmore of Seymour AV and Don Stewart of Stewart FilmScreens both were answering some questions about 4way automatic masking systems that cost a small fortune that allow people the freedom to mask primarily the way I do my presentation. Of course both companies offer 2way masking systems for those wanting CIH as well as the more modern method they are designing for Nutty people like myself and guys like Rob Hahn. 

Masking or not the principal is the same.


----------



## Kris Deering

Killroy said:


> So it is scope safe? I haven't watched it in scope yet (my HT is not ready yet) and I wanted to add that to my list of variable AR movies to just view in scope.
> 
> BTW, I also agree with you 110% on IMAX turning into a marketing ploy. I just commented that there is a difference in look between the scope and "IMAX" scenes. If they had shot the entire film with the same digital look then I would not have noticed any difference. But the way it stands now, the scope does look a lot grainier (not a bad thing at all) than the "IMAX" scenes. I guess that is part of their marketing ploy... "Look how cleaner this IMAX looks compared to that filthy film look!!!"


I don't think that is what they were trying to show. IMAX is all about large format capture. Even their 15/70 had VERY little grain. In this case you went from film stock that had an intentionally soft and grainy look (it was over emphasized) to a pristine digital camera. If they wanted it to look crisp and clean the whole movie they could have easily achieved that look, but the filmmakers have already stated they specifically didn't want that look. The "IMAX" sequences are literally just open matte, so no worries there.


----------



## bud16415

Kris Deering said:


> It isn't silly, that is EXACTLY the way content is shot. For it to be represented on a display properly they should be the same height. We don't do that because of TV Broadcast standards, so everyone's thinking is based on a format that they are forced to use for TV (16x9 displays).
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Nolan goes out of his way to shoot on IMAX film so you can see it in true IMAX 70mm and he suggests that you see it that way? I can't believe that is how he recommends seeing it!
> 
> Knowing Nolan the only way he would recommend properly watching this film at home is via a film projector with a 65mm print.


I didn’t select 16:9 I would have stuck with 4:3 oh no I mean 12:9 or is it 1.33:1. really it doesn’t matter to me it is just a rectangle and every other AR rectangle there is will fit inside it no mater what the standard for TV and all the media that goes along with it. 

Way back it mattered a little because some guys like Kodak were making film and film had sprocket holes spaced along it. The future is zeros and ones that make up an image and who cares what format someone wants.

Someone dreamt up 16:9 and TV said what the heck we might as well fill it up. Now some smarty are saying lets not use it all. That’s fine too. 

The fact is the equipment being designed for us HT enthusiasts is mostly 16:9 so we have to live with that. the people designing media to play on equipment at home are also giving us a pallet that is 16:9. and the people making playback equipment are making it guess what 16:9.

You or anyone else is free to build 2.35:1 projectors and TV sets and come up with a new media that has a 2.35:1 canister of zeros and ones, and make playback devices to read and play it. No one is doing that, and the few that tried went down pretty fast. 

All IMAX is doing is saying Scope cinematography is great and what if we give you that and also instead of black bars we actually try and fill that area with enhancement and do no harm to the scope safe vision. If people watch it on a 32” TV then it is more like open matte, if they watch it with scope levels of immersion then it is IMAX1.89. 

I think Nolan probably doesn’t care how we watch a movie at home, but if I told him lets make a way at home that is closer to a theater presentation he would endorse that.

Saying you enjoy IMAX in general is in no way saying you dislike scope for me. It seems like most fans of scope HT say I enjoy scope so I have to dislike IMAX.


----------



## bud16415

Kris Deering said:


> I don't think that is what they were trying to show. IMAX is all about large format capture. Even their 15/70 had VERY little grain. In this case you went from film stock that had an intentionally soft and grainy look (it was over emphasized) to a pristine digital camera. If they wanted it to look crisp and clean the whole movie they could have easily achieved that look, but the filmmakers have already stated they specifically didn't want that look. The "IMAX" sequences are literally just open matte, so no worries there.


Based on this the only way IMAX can make a creditable IMAX movie will be to film a blockbuster movie and not allow it to be shown anyplace except an IMAX theater. Otherwise it will always be just an open matte. 

Open matte was never intended to be in the movie anyplace. It was extra area on the film stock to be used as needed in editing. The extras included in IMAX and cropped from scope were always intended to be seen. These scope movies and what you do when you mask down the content are not scope safe upgrades to the movie they are scope safe downgrades. 

You can do the same thing to Avatar and crop it down to be scope. Watch it both ways and tell me it is just an open matte version of the scope movie.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> All IMAX is doing is saying Scope cinematography is great and what if we give you that and also instead of black bars we actually try and fill that area with enhancement and do no harm to the scope safe vision.


Except that IMAX does harm the "scope safe vision" by unmasking too much excess picture info at the top and bottom of the screen, which can in many cases ruin symmetrical composition. When projected on a super-sized IMAX screen, that extra picture mostly falls outside your peripheral vision and your eyes don't take it in. But when that same open-matte version is played back on normal screen sizes at home, all that empty headroom and footroom is much more noticeable and harmful to the composition. 

IMAX open-matte presentations are only intended to be viewed in IMAX theaters, and nowhere else. 

This goes back to an argument we've had many times before, Bud, which is that you don't seem to understand how photographic composition works or what the purpose of it is. There's a lot more to filmmaking than just setting a camera in the back of a room and letting it take in the entire scene, like a video recording of a stage play. Where the director places his camera and how much picture he allows it to capture are critical tools in telling the story.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> You can do the same thing to Avatar and crop it down to be scope. Watch it both ways and tell me it is just an open matte version of the scope movie.


Avatar is 100% an open matte version of a scope movie. During production, Avatar was absolutely composed for scope ratio, which you can see in the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray. Only during post-production did James Cameron change his mind and decide to open up the mattes.

In countless scenes in that open-matte transfer, characters have empty space above their heads for no reason. All the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are also placed really high up in the middle of the picture, where they look ridiculous. From a compositional standpoint, the framing on that Blu-ray transfer looks awful.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Avatar is 100% an open matte version of a scope movie. During production, Avatar was absolutely composed for scope ratio, which you can see in the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray. Only during post-production did James Cameron change his mind and decide to open up the mattes.
> 
> In countless scenes in that open-matte transfer, characters have empty space above their heads for no reason. All the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are also placed really high up in the middle of the picture, where they look ridiculous. From a compositional standpoint, the framing on that Blu-ray transfer looks awful.


What you say can be true or it can not be true and IMAX recognized this and it is the bases of IMAX1.89. Watching an IMAX1.43 movie on an old 25” 4:3 TV from across the room, I will agree is not doing anything except causing the action to be under-whelmed by the extras. That was 30 years ago. 
We now have a tamed down IMAX1.89 and we have 75” 4k TV that people sit about 4 times more immersive to, and yes we even have a few folks with 150” 4k front projection setups.

The argument is dated and not valid any longer as much has changed. Watching Dunkirk and studying the cinematography between the 1.43 version shown in a IMAX theater and then the IMAX 1.89 version in a LieMAX or the 1.77 at home compared to the scope at home will tell an honest viewer the truth. 

Actually scope is the same thing when viewed in a theater the sides are there to fill our vision and don’t extrapolate well when brought home to TV with less immersion. People don’t complain about black bars on TV they complain about the image being too small. 

I contend IMAX 1.89 is a better bridge to TV than scope given the cinematography and the increased size of TV, compared to porting scope straight to TV. After all the whole scope movie is still there given the choice will people get black paper and cover up their TVs top and bottom to watch The Dark Knight. 

It is up to you to decide what I know and don’t know about artistic composition.

Here is what he said.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I didn’t select 16:9 I would have stuck with 4:3 oh no I mean 12:9 or is it 1.33:1. really it doesn’t matter to me it is just a rectangle and every other AR rectangle there is will fit inside it no mater what the standard for TV and all the media that goes along with it.


Except that it would be a terrible waste of panel area for the majority of viewers.



bud16415 said:


> Someone dreamt up 16:9 and TV said what the heck we might as well fill it up. Now some smarty are saying lets not use it all. That’s fine too.


16:9 was a compromise between the outgoing 4:3 and Cinema ratios.



bud16415 said:


> The fact is the equipment being designed for us HT enthusiasts is mostly 16:9 so we have to live with that. the people designing media to play on equipment at home are also giving us a pallet that is 16:9. and the people making playback equipment are making it guess what 16:9.


That was a safe bet once the standard was established.



bud16415 said:


> You or anyone else is free to build 2.35:1 projectors and TV sets and come up with a new media that has a 2.35:1 canister of zeros and ones, and make playback devices to read and play it. No one is doing that, and the few that tried went down pretty fast.


Any new TV ratio that tries to gain traction against an entrenched standard is going to have problems unless it has a ton of industry muscle behind it. It was an attempt at a niche product that failed to gain traction. It's not a smoking gun that the AR couldn't work as a display standard. 



bud16415 said:


> All IMAX is doing is saying Scope cinematography is great and what if we give you that and also instead of black bars we actually try and fill that area with enhancement and do no harm to the scope safe vision. If people watch it on a 32” TV then it is more like open matte, if they watch it with scope levels of immersion then it is IMAX1.89.


IMAX is trying to sell product based on the immersion experience that movie goers enjoy in their theaters. The reason IMAX concentrates on trying to get directors to compose safely for 1.9:1 is that they don't have a wider format and opening the matte conveniently comes close. Which makes good business sense for them. 



bud16415 said:


> I think Nolan probably doesn’t care how we watch a movie at home, but if I told him lets make a way at home that is closer to a theater presentation he would endorse that.
> 
> Saying you enjoy IMAX in general is in no way saying you dislike scope for me. It seems like most fans of scope HT say I enjoy scope so I have to dislike IMAX.


I don't dislike IMAX and I don't really see that sentiment echoed anywhere in this subforum or any other. I do find shifting aspect ratios employed on some of their titles an ugly technique. And I don't have any interest in IMAX levels of immersion. Also, in my opinion the small amount of content available in the format simply doesn't justify any special consideration. But if the movie is good and has IMAX footage, I'll certainly watch it and enjoy it.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Except that it would be a terrible waste of panel area for the majority of viewers.
> 
> 
> 
> 16:9 was a compromise between the outgoing 4:3 and Cinema ratios.



Yep that’s right they picked 16:9 because its half way between 4:3 and scope for the most part. Dr. Powers played around with all the different AR having the same area and came up with one area in the middle. So he invented something that wasn’t good at any one thing and made it the standard. That sounds pretty smart it’s like trying to design something with a committee. 

Not to go off topic a little but it is akin to my logic only in reverse and it pertains to IMAX and that all other ARs and correct sizes fit inside an IMAX screen. Why look for a compromise when you can have total inclusion and nothing suffers. 

You say a terrible waste of panel area, but remember we are talking about FP and what is the panel area but a surface that reflects light. You are not wasting anything as the projector has zoom so as long as it can fill it all is good. A projector could send out any rectangle you want it’s the image inside it that matters. Having a boundary is always going to hold you back in one direction or another. So far nothing is wider or taller than IMAX if it holds IMAX it holds everything. That’s what projection will always have and TV can never have.


----------



## Kris Deering

Wow. You had it nailed Josh. I'm done here.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> After all the whole scope movie is still there given the choice will people get black paper and cover up their TVs top and bottom to watch The Dark Knight.


Covering the TV with black paper? That may be the most absurd thing you've ever said in this forum, which is really quite an achievement. 



> It is up to you to decide what I know and don’t know about artistic composition.


Actually, it's up to the filmmakers to decide. Right now, you have Christopher Nolan and James Cameron on your side. Congratulations, those are a couple of big ones. I have... let me do a quick tally in my head here... oh yeah, almost every other filmmaker who has ever lived.


----------



## lknhomeaudio

Art Sonneborn said:


> We are getting our wish with 3D ...





Killroy said:


> I saw it in the theater on an 80-foot-wide scope screen with no expanded IMAX scenes and I did not think it lacked any impact. IMAX is meant to be seen in IMAX theaters, 3-4 stories high screen, and not in home screens...the home IMAX is just an open matte presentation and a gimmick that needs to die just like 3D. /me ducks!



I, for one, looooooove 3D! haha


----------



## Art Sonneborn

lknhomeaudio said:


> I, for one, looooooove 3D! haha


Many do, I'm one who would just like for it to go away. In consumer electronics anyway it appears that is finally happening. I had the chance to sit in a home theater with perhaps the best 3D set up in the world and all I could think of was can we turn this gimmick off and watch something.

Art


----------



## lknhomeaudio

I'm sorry you don't enjoy more things. 

Even a typical film, without the popout effects, is real nice to watch. Adds a depth to it, and I sometimes confuse it for real life... instead of a movie.

But that's just me...


----------



## Art Sonneborn

lknhomeaudio said:


> I'm sorry you don't enjoy more things.


I can enjoy a lot of things ,3D as it is done now just isn't one of them.

Art


----------



## lknhomeaudio

Understood. I'll hate to see it go!


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Covering the TV with black paper? That may be the most absurd thing you've ever said in this forum, which is really quite an achievement.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's up to the filmmakers to decide. Right now, you have Christopher Nolan and James Cameron on your side. Congratulations, those are a couple of big ones. I have... let me do a quick tally in my head here... oh yeah, almost every other filmmaker who has ever lived.


When you play a movie that has IMAX1.89 content in it as scope safe allowing your black masking and back wall to suck up everything that isn’t scope. How is that different than some guy with a TV covering the top and bottom of his screen with black paper to watch it “scope safe”. Of course no one is stupid enough to do that on a TV only people with front projection theaters would be stupid enough to do that. 

I know you like lists so here is a list someone put together over at imdb. (Films shot with IMAX cameras) 1.43 ,1.89 etc. and the handful of directors doing such. Not really any good movies on the list and most of the directors are hacks. 

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls063157640/

You are correct in the history of filmmaking most directors didn’t compose with thoughts of IMAX framing why would they IMAX wasn’t invented yet.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> When you play a movie that has IMAX1.89 content in it as scope safe allowing your black masking and back wall to suck up everything that isn’t scope. How is that different than some guy with a TV covering the top and bottom of his screen with black paper to watch it “scope safe”. Of course no one is stupid enough to do that on a TV only people with front projection theaters would be stupid enough to do that.


Might want to take a breather from this thread Bud. You said earlier that people who enjoyed a CIH setup "dislike IMAX" with nothing to back that up with and now anyone that has overspill of non-active pixels is "stupid". I don't think this is a tone you want to continue with.



bud16415 said:


> I know you like lists so here is a list someone put together over at imdb. (Films shot with IMAX cameras) 1.43 ,1.89 etc. and the handful of directors doing such. Not really any good movies on the list and most of the directors are hacks.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/list/ls063157640/
> 
> You are correct in the history of filmmaking most directors didn’t compose with thoughts of IMAX framing why would they IMAX wasn’t invented yet.


IMAX is a niche at this point. it may or may not get more popular as time marches on. I don't really care either way. Josh can speak for himself, but I think he was talking more to the point that only a handful of directors are changing the AR for different viewing methods vs. the majority that want their compositions to stay consistent no matter where it is viewed.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Yep that’s right they picked 16:9 because its half way between 4:3 and scope for the most part. Dr. Powers played around with all the different AR having the same area and came up with one area in the middle. So he invented something that wasn’t good at any one thing and made it the standard. That sounds pretty smart it’s like trying to design something with a committee.
> 
> Not to go off topic a little but it is akin to my logic only in reverse and it pertains to IMAX and that all other ARs and correct sizes fit inside an IMAX screen. Why look for a compromise when you can have total inclusion and nothing suffers.


How does nothing suffer? To go with a taller 1.89:1 screen and maintain the current width I'd have to have my center almost on the floor (which would be HORRIBLE for sound reproduction). If I go with a smaller 1.89:1 (assuming that is what you meant by IMAX) screen to keep the height sane, then I have to sit basically on top of my screen to maintain the same immersion. All for a niche format that I still would not sit close enough to properly appreciate. If you meant 1.43:1 then it's FAR worse.



bud16415 said:


> You say a terrible waste of panel area, but remember we are talking about FP and what is the panel area but a surface that reflects light. You are not wasting anything as the projector has zoom so as long as it can fill it all is good. A projector could send out any rectangle you want it’s the image inside it that matters. Having a boundary is always going to hold you back in one direction or another. So far nothing is wider or taller than IMAX if it holds IMAX it holds everything. That’s what projection will always have and TV can never have.


No you said you would have stuck with a 4:3 STANDARD. As standard for a digital TV it would be a terrible choice as very little material would use the majority of the panel area. 4:3 was replaced for good reason. It was a bad use of display area then and it would be today.


----------



## Josh Z

jeahrens said:


> IMAX is a niche at this point. it may or may not get more popular as time marches on. I don't really care either way. Josh can speak for himself, but I think he was talking more to the point that only a handful of directors are changing the AR for different viewing methods vs. the majority that want their compositions to stay consistent no matter where it is viewed.


Exactly. Christopher Nolan and James Cameron may consider themselves aspect ratio agnostic these days, but other directors and cinematographers (pretty much all of them) put more thought into their frame compositions. Exposing extra picture that wasn't part of the original framing is just as harmful as cropping some picture off.


----------



## Josh Z

I've made a number of updates to the first post. 

- Added Ant-Man and the Wasp 3D to the VAR list.
- Added a section for movies that played with an open-matte AR for the entire movie in IMAX theaters.
- Added several titles to the "VAR in IMAX theaters but only CIH on video" list, including Alien: Covenant, Kingsman: The Golden Circle, Riddick, and the recent IMAX re-release of Iron Man. Until now, I was not aware that these movies had VAR scenes at all.


----------



## bud16415

You list Avatar in the group that played in IMAX as 1.9, but were released to BD as 2.35. My BD version is 1.78 and that is how IMDb also lists it.

It seems the BD version is the 1.9 version with a tad more. 

It is the same for the expanding parts of Dunkirk IMDb says 1.78. 

It seems logical if the director prefers the IMAX cut in the theater as well as home usage and it is filmed 16:9 or taller to put it on home media as 1.78 not 1.9. If the director finds the taller version distracting on the small screen for some reason say as Eastwood must have with Sully then the home version is cut to 2.35.


----------



## Josh Z

Avatar has been corrected. I added a new section to account for that and Titanic 3D.

The aspect ratio for IMAX digital theaters is 1.9:1, not 1.78:1, regardless of what IMDb says.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Avatar has been corrected. I added a new section to account for that and Titanic 3D.
> 
> The aspect ratio for IMAX digital theaters is 1.9:1, not 1.78:1, regardless of what IMDb says.


Correct but the home BD is indeed 1.78 not 1.9. Both Avatar and Dunkirk show more image at home than they would have shown in a IMAX1.9 theater. Dunkirk logically so because it went all the way to 1.43. Avatar was processed as Digital HDCAM SR and as Cameron said in the interview 16:9 was the format so he put it on BD as such because it looked better. 

If I had a scope screen I would show Avatar cropped to 2.35 not as CIH. But having a CIH+IMAX sized screen area I always show it full screen as that’s as close to the best theatrical presentation I have capabilities to do.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Correct but the home BD is indeed 1.78 not 1.9. Both Avatar and Dunkirk show more image at home than they would have shown in a IMAX1.9 theater. Dunkirk logically so because it went all the way to 1.43. Avatar was processed as Digital HDCAM SR and as Cameron said in the interview 16:9 was the format so he put it on BD as such because it looked better.


None of this contradicts the information on the list. No update to the list is needed for this.



> If I had a scope screen I would show Avatar cropped to 2.35 not as CIH. But having a CIH+IMAX sized screen area I always show it full screen as that’s as close to the best theatrical presentation I have capabilities to do.


I am ever so happy for you. Would you like me to buy you a cupcake?


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I am ever so happy for you. Would you like me to buy you a cupcake?


Thanks Josh I’ll take a blueberry muffin please.


----------



## lockdown571

In case this hasn't been confirmed yet, I have the First Man UHD blu-ray and it does indeed change aspect ratios for the moon landing sequence


----------



## Josh Z

lockdown571 said:


> In case this hasn't been confirmed yet, I have the First Man UHD blu-ray and it does indeed change aspect ratios for the moon landing sequence



Thanks. I assume that the standard Blu-ray edition does as well, but if you have a moment to check that disc in the case, it'd be much appreciated.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Thanks. I assume that the standard Blu-ray edition does as well, but if you have a moment to check that disc in the case, it'd be much appreciated.


The Blu-ray does it as well.


----------



## Josh Z

The 4k digital streaming version of Aquaman has variable ratio. Unless confirmed otherwise, I assume that all the disc versions will as well.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> The 4k digital streaming version of Aquaman has variable ratio. Unless confirmed otherwise, I assume that all the disc versions will as well.


Bloody HELL!!!! They got lazy and put the subs right smack in the middle of the scope frame. Had to move them into scope-safe for CIH.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> Bloody HELL!!!! They got lazy and put the subs right smack in the middle of the scope frame. Had to move them into scope-safe for CIH.



Do you mean that they were in the letterbox bar?


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Do you mean that they were in the letterbox bar?


Worse than that...double lined subs are split on the active and non-active area of the scope (above/below) and single lines are right in the middle of the scope/letterbox line. That is just plain lazy.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> Worse than that...double lined subs are split on the active and non-active area of the scope (above/below) and single lines are right in the middle of the scope/letterbox line. That is just plain lazy.


All the more reason to choose disc over streaming, I guess. There's no way to move the subtitles on a streaming copy.


----------



## inspector

I'm glad I found this list.


----------



## Josh Z

I just learned that even though both the 2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD of Aquaman are variable ratio, the 3D Blu-ray is constant height 2.35:1. That's the opposite of how other studios like Marvel typically handle it.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> I just learned that even though both the 2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD of Aquaman are variable ratio, the 3D Blu-ray is constant height 2.35:1. That's the opposite of how other studios like Marvel typically handle it.


Yeah, found that out myself. I have to see how the 3D is framed to see if the IMAX version is scope friendly or if they did some sort of recomposition for the scope on the 3D.


----------



## Retina

This is a great effort, thanks so much for starting it Josh.


----------



## Josh Z

I'm told that the Captain America: Civil War UHD is constant height, no variable ratio.


----------



## Tom Monahan

Art Sonneborn said:


> I love Ben Hur ,my favorite film of all time in fact, but even that I can't watch enough to do a 2.76:1 screen. Dunkirk is just an OK film really ,how many times can you watch what looks like 14 total films ,10 of which are mediocre at best ?
> 
> I mean there are :
> Ben Hur
> Mutiny On The Bounty
> Fall of the Roman Empire
> Battle of the Bulge
> Rogue One
> The Greatest Story Ever Told
> It's a Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad World
> Raintree County
> How the West Was Won
> The Hateful Eight
> 
> All in 2.76:1
> 
> Not to mention tons of 2.55:1 films many are truly great films and I wouldn't build a screen or room or both just for them.


I went 2.76:1 and wouldn't go back


----------



## Josh Z

Captain Marvel is CIH on Blu-ray and UHD. Awaiting confirmation on the overseas 3D release (street date July 15).


----------



## ScottAvery

Tom Monahan said:


> I went 2.76:1 and wouldn't go back


I went 2.76 on my test screen last year and have spent a lot of time on calculations to be able to retain it when I build the final screen, at a larger scale. The final height decision comes down to a either having zoom range for 2.2:1 TV shows without lens or maxing out 2.76 with lens. I've figured out how to hit 2.76 at 60 inches high, but need to do a test to see if its bright enough and not overwhelmingly large. I'm going to have to use a mirror to extend throw, and I will also have to determine if the screen edge would interfere with the speakers, which might force me to scale down to 2.55:1 or go shorter.


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> I went 2.76 on my test screen last year and have spent a lot of time on calculations to be able to retain it when I build the final screen, at a larger scale. The final height decision comes down to a either having zoom range for 2.2:1 TV shows without lens or maxing out 2.76 with lens. I've figured out how to hit 2.76 at 60 inches high, but need to do a test to see if its bright enough and not overwhelmingly large. I'm going to have to use a mirror to extend throw, and I will also have to determine if the screen edge would interfere with the speakers, which might force me to scale down to 2.55:1 or go shorter.


In general, I think a 2.76:1 screen is overkill for the small minority of content at ratios wider than 2.40:1, but I was watching Lady and the Tramp (2.55:1) with my kids this weekend and definitely see the appeal.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> In general, I think a 2.76:1 screen is overkill for the small minority of content at ratios wider than 2.40:1, but I was watching Lady and the Tramp (2.55:1) with my kids this weekend and definitely see the appeal.


Yes, that one, and Sleeping Beauty for the kids, and I can't help loving the look of La La Land. The intro aspect ratio stretch is cool.

You are right that 2.76 is overkill, but width is so easy to add, I figure I might as well if it is convenient. I am sizing for 2.4 as primary viewing mode. The 2.55 setting will open all the way to the wings, and 2.76 will technically be behind the false wall, but still visible from most seats. Truth be told, I only have one 2.76 movie at the moment, and I don't even like it! I'm just excited about seeing the masking open ALLLLLLLL the way out and if I am going to go to 2.55, I might as well finish it.

The new conundrum is I realized the A-lens will block one side of the screen unless I reverse the direction of the slide, which will make me change the projector position and cost me some throw range. I may have to give up on mounting in a soffit and just suspend the pj behind a beam. So annoyed!


----------



## Josh Z

From what I can ascertain, it appears that all copies of Alita: Battle Angel (Blu-ray, UHD, and 3D) are Constant Image Height.

On the other hand, I found a YouTube review of Captain Marvel 3D that confirms it has variable ratio.


----------



## Josh Z

Avengers: Endgame is CIH on Blu-ray and UHD. Waiting for confirmation on the overseas 3D Blu-ray, which won't be released until September. I expect that it will also be CIH like Infinity War.

If anyone is picking up the first Iron Man movie on UHD this week, could you please check the aspect ratio? That movie was 2.35:1 originally. However, an IMAX re-release in 2018 had a variable ratio with some scenes opening up to 1.9:1.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> If anyone is picking up the first Iron Man movie on UHD this week, could you please check the aspect ratio? That movie was 2.35:1 originally. However, an IMAX re-release in 2018 had a variable ratio with some scenes opening up to 1.9:1.



CIH all the way.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> CIH all the way.


The UHD? You got it early?


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> The UHD? You got it early?


Yes to both.


----------



## dvdgamer

Would it be possible for you to add a section on movies with alternating aspect ratios in both theaters and UHD or Blu Ray disks but only have CIH in digital forms? Now that the digital copies are trending due to convenience and cost, it would be very useful so we can continue to purchase in disc form if the aspect ratio is not retained digitally and critical to our choice of media. Thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

dvdgamer said:


> Would it be possible for you to add a section on movies with alternating aspect ratios in both theaters and UHD or Blu Ray disks but only have CIH in digital forms? Now that the digital copies are trending due to convenience and cost, it would be very useful so we can continue to purchase in disc form if the aspect ratio is not retained digitally and critical to our choice of media. Thanks.



I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very difficult to track that information currently.


----------



## dvdgamer

Josh Z said:


> I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very difficult to track that information currently.


Thanks for considering. I only realized this recently when I purchased digital copy for the Dark Knight series in 4K, and was real disappointed when both Dark Knight titles did not retain variable aspect ratios upon viewing. Had I known, I would have bought the disc versions instead even if it is more costly as personally the imax format on these scenes greatly add to its value and enjoyment. Perusing threads about this informed me that Dunkirk will have the same issues in digital form, as may other Christopher Nolan movies. This is the best thread I’ve seen that is very informative with regards variable aspects in movies.

Perhaps a good starting point would be just the movies already in your current list with variable aspects if your team retains the digital copies for these which can then be viewed, or from feedback from readers. Thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

dvdgamer said:


> Thanks for considering. I only realized this recently when I purchased digital copy for the Dark Knight series in 4K, and was real disappointed when both Dark Knight titles did not retain variable aspect ratios upon viewing. Had I known, I would have bought the disc versions instead even if it is more costly as personally the imax format on these scenes greatly add to its value and enjoyment. Perusing threads about this informed me that Dunkirk will have the same issues in digital form, as may other Christopher Nolan movies. This is the best thread I’ve seen that is very informative with regards variable aspects in movies.
> 
> Perhaps a good starting point would be just the movies already in your current list with variable aspects if your team retains the digital copies for these which can then be viewed, or from feedback from readers. Thanks.


For now, I'll add the two Dark Knight movies to the "Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with a Variable Aspect Ratio but Have Constant Height 2.35:1 Options Available" list. If anyone comes across other examples like this, please let me know.


----------



## dvdgamer

Please see attached. Don't know how to drop the list from an excel that will be formatted in this page properly, so I attached an image instead. I have digital copies of most of the movies that were tagged with different Image Aspect in blu/UHD in the first page, so I checked my digital copies from iTunes and Movies Anywhere, and indicated the current formats when you view these in these apps. I've also indicated whether my source was digital HD or 4K. Hope this helps. Since I mostly watch movies at home instead of theaters, I actually didn't realize I am missing a lot of movies in the designed formats. I'll consider and check this site next time I decide to buy a disc or digital copy. Thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

dvdgamer said:


> Please see attached. Don't know how to drop the list from an excel that will be formatted in this page properly, so I attached an image instead. I have digital copies of most of the movies that were tagged with different Image Aspect in blu/UHD in the first page, so I checked my digital copies from iTunes and Movies Anywhere, and indicated the current formats when you view these in these apps. I've also indicated whether my source was digital HD or 4K. Hope this helps. Since I mostly watch movies at home instead of theaters, I actually didn't realize I am missing a lot of movies in the designed formats. I'll consider and check this site next time I decide to buy a disc or digital copy. Thanks.


Thanks for that. I've added a section for digital streaming to the first post. Does that help?

Of the titles with variable ratio on Blu-ray or UHD, this leaves us with only Interstellar and Tron: Legacy to confirm on streaming. Has anyone streamed those?


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Thanks for that. I've added a section for digital streaming to the first post. Does that help?
> 
> Of the titles with variable ratio on Blu-ray or UHD, this leaves us with only Interstellar and Tron: Legacy to confirm on streaming. Has anyone streamed those?


If and or when IMAX Enhanced ever gets rolling I believe FandangoNow will have the exclusive rights for being the download site for the digital IMAX Enhanced version. It could get confusing if restrictions on IMAX content to 2.35 was on the digital version of a movie but the full 1.89 DMRed HDR version could be found else ware on Fandango. 

I guess time will tell there is talk now IMAX Enhanced is DOA. There certainly isn’t the buzz there was a year ago.


----------



## Josh Z

Avengers: Endgame 3D confirmed to be 2.35:1 CIH. No open matte or variable ratio.


----------



## Josh Z

It's been very difficult to find information on the Spider-Man: Far from Home 3D Blu-ray, but I found one YouTube commenter who says that it's 2.35:1 CIH just like the 2D and UHD versions.

There may be an "IMAX Enhanced" streaming version with VAR. Need more information on that and where to find it.


----------



## Philnick

At the risk of being flamed, I'm one with a JVC 4K projector that who came here _looking for_ VAR films, not trying to avoid them.

The projector has a 17:9 (1.91:1) imaging area, and can zoom the image 6.25% to fill its width, at the price of shaving off 3.125% at the top and at the bottom.

With scope films, that's just a bit of the letterbox bars, but with films with an aspect ratio of less than 17:9 you're shaving off image.

My screen is the wall, painted with a homebrew formula from home theater shack called Cream & Sugar Ultra that has excellent contrast and color neutrality and a wide viewing area. Its blacks are dark enough that letterbox bars are invisible. It's mixed up from paint easily found at art and big box hardware stores.

My image area is 11' wide by 5'10" tall. I sit about 11' away from the screen.

For scope I use the full 11' of width. For anything narrower than 1.91 (17:9), including VAR films, I leave it in Auto, which fills the screen vertically at 16:9, resulting in an image 10'4" wide.

_In either setting, it's immersive at roughly one screen width away_.

So why do I _seek out_ VAR films, which I can't zoom? Because I like the way VAR gives a gut distinction between being indoors and outdoors. Our peripheral vision is the same in either place, but the ceiling indoors limits the height of our visual field.

Looking at the two crops of Spock in the volcano early in this thread - which are part of a close-up - _my_ reaction was I liked the taller version that gave me more of a feeling of place. It's a shame that the comparison didn't include "establishing shots" from further back that really make you feel like you're in the volcano with Spock.

It seems to me that unless you don't have a high enough ceiling to make your screen 16:9 (or 17:9 if your projector can do the same trick as mine) without sacrificing image width, the simplest solution to the aggravation of trying to fit VAR films onto a scope screen is to "get a bigger boat."


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> It seems to me that unless you don't have a high enough ceiling to make your screen 16:9 (or 17:9 if your projector can do the same trick as mine) without sacrificing image width, the simplest solution to the aggravation of trying to fit VAR films onto a scope screen is to "get a bigger boat."


No matter how large you make a 16:9 screen, Young Sheldon will always be larger and more immersive than Lawrence of Arabia. If you're cool with that, enjoy. I find the prospect revolting.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> Philnick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that unless you don't have a high enough ceiling to make your screen 16:9 (or 17:9 if your projector can do the same trick as mine) without sacrificing image width, the simplest solution to the aggravation of trying to fit VAR films onto a scope screen is to "get a bigger boat."
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how large you make a 16:9 screen, Young Sheldon will always be larger and more immersive than Lawrence of Arabia. If you're cool with that, enjoy. I find the prospect revolting.
Click to expand...

I find the prospect of watching most TV series - particularly that one and its progenitor - revolting, and particularly in my theater. Is movie viewing a zero-sum game, where in order for scope films to "win," 16:9 films have to "lose" by being made smaller?

Can't each film be appreciated on its own merits?


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> I find the prospect of watching most TV series - particularly that one and its progenitor - revolting, and particularly in my theater. Is movie viewing a zero-sum game, where in order for scope films to "win," 16:9 films have to "lose" by being made smaller?
> 
> Can't each film be appreciated on its own merits?


Look at the types of movies made in each aspect ratio. Year after year after year after year, the overwhelming majority (at least 70-80% each year) of big-budget studio tentpole movies are photographed in 2.35:1. These are your visual spectacle, eye candy movies that demand to be watched on the biggest screen possible. It has been this way for decades, and there is no sign of that changing. 

Do you think the directors shoot those movies in scope hoping for them to be projected smaller than, say, Sleepless in Seattle? The *whole point* of scope photography is that it is designed to be bigger and wider than flat photography. That is its express purpose.

A 16:9 constant width screen reverses the artistic intent of motion picture photographic composition.

Now I'm sure you'll want to bring up IMAX. Only in infinitesimal number of movies (1 or 2 per year, sometimes none) are photographed with IMAX variable ratio. Do you really want to compromise literally tens of thousands of other movies to benefit a tiny handful - every single one of which is also composed to be safe for projection on a scope screen? The math just isn't in your favor.


----------



## Philnick

I'm watching everything as large as possible. Sitting 11 feet from the screen, I project scope films 11 feet wide! 

Even VAR films are 10' 4" wide.

This is hardly sacrificing "spectacle." 

To fit your "Procrustean bed" (look up that Greek myth), anything shot in 16:9 should be shrunk down to 8.5 feet wide - or have its head and feet cut off - so that it won't exceed 4.75 feet tall.

There are lots of movies shot 16:9, which you want to classify with bad TV. How dare they be made to feel immersive? That seems pretty snobbish to me.

PS _Sleepless in Seattle_ was, in fact, not a TV show but a theatrical movie. Is it disqualified from being shown large because it was a "chick flick?"


----------



## bud16415

@Philnick 
You are not alone, but you are likely in the wrong thread in the wrong forum. I don’t really know why this is the wrong thread as it is all about movies that don’t fit CIH presentation so we catalog them so they can be shown cropped to scope anyway so why not just call them scope movies. 

Like you I find these movies very entertaining and like you I find the AR expansions into IMAX very visually stimulating probably because the director intended them to be that way. 

As to variable image sizing and using zoom settings or projectors with taller than 16:9 AR to customize to your particular immersion level like you do is in effect allowing yourself the option of changing the row you would sit in if at a commercial theater. 

Unfortunately there is no forum here that deals with this and like you I tried to have an open chat on these ideas with no positive outcome. I started a thread here when I adopted a presentation method I called PIA (personal image area) most here ignore this thread and a few post to it when they have ideas on the subject. If you want to talk more you are welcome in that thread. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...personal-image-area-sub-sets-cih-ciw-cia.html 

Within the last few weeks In the Dedicated Theater Design forum Rob Hahn an A-list Hollywood cinamatographer was honored with the new Home Theater of the Decade award by AVS. Rob has forgot more about filmmaking and presentation than all the participants here likely know. In that thread I asked him about his presentation method and if he planned on any changes. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...3111056-home-theater-decade-hahn-theater.html He and Keith Yates both answered my questions and the answers revolving around variable presentation you will find quite interesting. 

Even the folks here that deplore anything but CIH presentation and detest TV being expanded tend to expand the height of streaming prestige TV that comes say 2.0:1 with black bars to fit the screen so some TV is ok. But then Game of Thrones that is 16:9 even though the producers of the show made provisions for certain episodes to play in IMAX theaters it can not be expanded within the confines of CIH. Thus they give Stranger things more screen area than GOT. 

Like I said if you want to talk about the subject more I will be in the other thread as all we will do here is rile people up.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> PS _Sleepless in Seattle_ was, in fact, not a TV show but a theatrical movie. Is it disqualified from being shown large because it was a "chick flick?"


Do you think Sleepless in Seattle was photographed with the intention of being a more immersive spectacle movie than, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark? When you project them both onto a constant width screen, close-ups of Meg Ryan will always dwarf close-ups of Harrison Ford.

Why would Steven Spielberg photograph his big action-adventure movie in a format smaller than a rom-com? Seems like a pretty dumb artistic decision for the most successful filmmaker of all time.


----------



## Josh Z

The fundamental question any constant-width proponent should ask themselves is this: Why do you think so many directors of big-budget action/sci-fi/fantasy movies shoot those films in 2.35:1 scope aspect ratio? If they could have a bigger, more immersive picture shooting in 16:9, why would they choose to shrink the height of their movies to be smaller than rom-coms and no-budget indie dramas? Are all of these directors complete morons? They would have to be, if 16:9 were actually supposed to be the biggest display format.

Or could it be that 16:9 is just a half-assed compromise chosen by TV manufacturers as a mid-way point between legacy 4:3 content and scope movies - a decision made with no input at all from the filmmaking community?


----------



## bud16415

Aspect ratio really has little bearing or correlation to image size or immersion in commercial theaters as we are limited by the restriction of the front row to the back row in our personal selection of where to sit and thus the immersion of the experience. At home for most people watching on constant 16:9 TV displays there is no comparison between theater immersion and the home experience, but people still enjoy rom-coms as well as action blockbusters at home. The experience of movie watching is only partly the immersion value and the pleasures of AR are only partly connected to immersion. 

We instinctively understand what our tastes are and I doubt anyone watches overly large presentations just because they can of subject matter that doesn’t lend itself to being larger. Most people buying a TV or setting up a FP HT weigh out a compromise based on simplicity or complexity they wish to endure. CIW people normally are not watching 16:9 content too large they compromise to watch scope material too small. The advantage is it is simple you really do nothing except take it as it comes just like TV only bigger. CIH is a much better method presentation method as it produces the classic time tested relationship between scope and flat movies in terms of immersion, and good directors aware of this make the proper adjustments to the cinematography. This was all well and good in the days of proper scope theaters showing both formats interchangeably in one theater. Today with Cineplex theaters and total disregard for proper presentation with screens of both and even different ARs they show movies in the theater that’s sized for the expected audience regardless of proper presentation. I watched Ford vs Ferrari a couple weeks ago a 2.39 movie on a 1.85 or maybe 16:9 screen at our Tinsel Town. It wasn’t a big deal as crappy as the presentation was I just sat closer to the front is all. I was likely the only one in the theater that gave it a thought. 

One thing IMAX1.89 has going for it is it allows scope theaters their scope movie if well shot it allows even a disputably better presentation in an IMAX1.89 venue and it allows eventually to be able to fill the vast majority home TV sets fully when the time comes with their half-assed 16:9 AR. 

That doesn’t change the fact that there is a load of content people watch in FP HT that is not motion pictures and all of it is open to debate as to what constitutes proper presentation / immersion. I used to watch almost 100% motion pictures when I had a dedicated HT all ether flat or scope. Now I have more of a media room / HT and easily 50% or more is movie like streaming TV or outright TV content. It also doesn’t change that I have a single row setup and all my guests don’t have the same passion for immersion as I do. Also that production of content today is very much different than it was even 15 years ago. I watched a commercial last night for some drug they were selling that started on the screen with an AR of about 8:1 and then with a real time blended transition morphed to scope as it continued there was then frame breaking into the black bars with graphics and moving text. For a 60 second spot it was a cinematography masterpiece or at least an eye catcher. It wasn’t intended for me to watch with IMAX immersion it was intended to be watched on a 50” TV with the viewer sitting 10’ away and is still equally cool. 

The poster @Philnick is suggesting something akin to CIA and without evaluating his screen size / seating distance and room constraints it is not fair to rationalize his compromise situation. I know quite a few people that find scope at the preferred full immersion height of modern flat movies to be overly wide. Our eyes FOV as we have talked about a 1000 times and our effective FOV with comfortable eye movement added in is not 2.40:1. NASA knows this the Air Force knows this and the Medical Industry knows this. The guy that didn’t know this was the guy that selected scope as the new film AR over half a century ago. So as historic as it is there are people that feel comfortable adjusting it.


----------



## NxNW

Josh Z said:


> *Other (Non-IMAX) Variable Ratios Movies*
> Bad Education (a.k.a. La mala educación, 2004) - Primarily a 1.85:1 movie with some scenes that shrink in height to 2.35:1.
> [snip]
> The True History of the Kelly Gang - Starts at 16:9 and gradually shrinks in height to 2.55:1.


Ash is Purest White
Primarily 1.85 but opening scenes are Academy. The artistic intent appears to be similar to that of Grand Budapest Hotel where an earlier era is evoked with a narrower format.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ash-Is-Purest-White-Blu-ray/244168/


----------



## Josh Z

IMDb claims that the movie The Gentlemen has one scene in 1.85:1:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8367814/technical?ref_=tt_ql_dt_6

What is not clear is whether that scene expands in height like IMAX or is pillarboxed within the scope portion. Has anyone watched this?


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> Thanks for that. I've added a section for digital streaming to the first post. Does that help?
> 
> Of the titles with variable ratio on Blu-ray or UHD, this leaves us with only Interstellar and Tron: Legacy to confirm on streaming. Has anyone streamed those?


Don't know about *Tron:Legacy* but VUDU's 1080P and UHD streaming versions of *Interstellar* are CIH - which is why I prefer the disks.


----------



## cyan

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet or not, but I watched *Waves* last night on my plasma and spotted at least three different ratios during the movie. 1.33, 1.85 and 2.35.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8652728/reference

Edit: According to the link above there are even some scenes in 2.67:1 

[   ]


----------



## Josh Z

cyan said:


> Not sure if it has been mentioned yet or not, but I watched *Waves* last night on my plasma and spotted at least three different ratios during the movie. 1.33, 1.85 and 2.35.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8652728/reference
> 
> Edit: According to the link above there are even some scenes in 2.67:1


Thanks, I've added this to post 2.


----------



## Josh Z

I've added Spike Lee's Da 5 Bloods to the "Other (Non-IMAX) Variable Ratios Movies" list.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .I found a YouTube review of Captain Marvel 3D that confirms it has variable ratio.


I have and love the 3D version of _Captain Marvel_, and can confirm that it's a VAR film, though I consider the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_ to be Marvel's current masterpiece of the VAR format, with seamless transitions starting early in the film, which opens in at night in scope format in the darkened library of the Kamar-Taj monastery in Katmandu, Nepal, where renegade sorcerers who've just killed the order's librarian to steal a forbidden formula are chased by the head of the order through the temporary dimensional portal they've opened to daytime in the streets of New York City - at which point we're in IMAX-like tall format for a battle in the audience's first taste of "the mirror dimension," an M.C. Escher-like kaleidoscopic scene with buildings, streets, and people rotated in three dimensions in a mind-blowing tableau with up and down going in all different directions.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

There is an IMAX Limited Edition of Flying Swords of Dragon Gate in Hong Kong which opens up to 16:9 unlike the other versions which are CinemaScope.

Also, Spider-Man: Far From Home's IMAX version is available in FandangoNOW and other IMAX Enhanced streaming platforms.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> There is an IMAX Limited Edition of Flying Swords of Dragon Gate in Hong Kong which opens up to 16:9 unlike the other versions which are CinemaScope.


Is this Blu-ray, streaming, or something else?


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Josh Z said:


> Is this Blu-ray, streaming, or something else?


Blu-ray 2D and 3D. Hong Kong only.
And there is also a regular CinemaScope release in 2D and 3D in Hong Kong, while all other countries only have the CinemaScope version.

P.S: I also found some more movies that are available on IMAX Enhanced in FandangoNOW.
These movies are:
Transformers: Age of Extinction (IMAX VAR, just like the 3D release)
Transformers: The Last Knight (VAR, like all other versions)
Star Trek: Into Darkness (IMAX VAR, just like the Compendium and 4K releases)
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016) (IMAX VAR, just like the 2D, 3D and 4K Blu-ray releases)

P.P.S: Can you include some open matte movies that are available in other means in open matte/IMAX.
For example, iTunes Russia has open matte versions of Infinity War and Endgame even if other countries only have the CinemaScope versions.
These iTunes Russia open matte versions are still slightly pan-and-scan in 16:9 rather than the full 1.9:1 aspect ratio, though.
Amazon Prime also has 16:9 open matte versions of Spider-Man 3 and (500) Days of Summer, not sure about the other ones.
Another example: Most of the pre-2013 DVD releases of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh as well as all VHS and LaserDisc releases are open matte 4:3 compared to it's theatrical 1.75:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> P.P.S: Can you include some open matte movies that are available in other means in open matte/IMAX.


I'm not sure how far I want to go with this. It was common practice for TV networks and streamers to open mattes or crop movies to the wrong aspect ratio for decades. That isn't the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Only the Brave is also in IMAX Enhanced on FandangoNOW.


----------



## Danchu

Can someone confirm if Only the Brave has the expanded 1.90:1 IMAX ratio on the streaming IMAX Enhanced version? Thanks


----------



## bud16415

Danchu said:


> Can someone confirm if Only the Brave has the expanded 1.90:1 IMAX ratio on the streaming IMAX Enhanced version? Thanks


The fact that you need to ask the question and it is so hard to find the answer to this very simple question is baffling to me as well as you. Only the Brave was clearly made to be showcased in IMAX 1.90. It is talked about all over the place it is one of the hundreds of movies selected to undergo the IMAX Enhanced program and be shown thru their deal with Fandango.

It would seem logical they would put out the IMAX Enhanced version in the IMAX 1.9:1 AR and anyone wanting to see it in scope could just turn on the blanking scope safe feature. That is not what they seem to do though even though most people watching it at home have 16:9 TVs not CIH scope projection setups.

Josh has this movie listed as 2.4 home media shown in IMAX as 1.9. All the trailers on Fandango show it that way also even though it is listed as IMAX Enhanced as far as PQ and audio. So my guess is it will be a disappointing 2.4 cut being streamed.
This is the type of movie that IMO really benefits in the IMAX AR and why they don’t do it is a mystery to me. Again I haven’t found anything saying exactly what the AR is it is just my guess based on what they have been doing. For me they are disregarding one of their best selling points.


----------



## Danchu

bud16415 said:


> The fact that you need to ask the question and it is so hard to find the answer to this very simple question is baffling to me as well as you. Only the Brave was clearly made to be showcased in IMAX 1.90. It is talked about all over the place it is one of the hundreds of movies selected to undergo the IMAX Enhanced program and be shown thru their deal with Fandango.
> 
> It would seem logical they would put out the IMAX Enhanced version in the IMAX 1.9:1 AR and anyone wanting to see it in scope could just turn on the blanking scope safe feature. That is not what they seem to do though even though most people watching it at home have 16:9 TVs not CIH scope projection setups.
> 
> Josh has this movie listed as 2.4 home media shown in IMAX as 1.9. All the trailers on Fandango show it that way also even though it is listed as IMAX Enhanced as far as PQ and audio. So my guess is it will be a disappointing 2.4 cut being streamed.
> This is the type of movie that IMO really benefits in the IMAX AR and why they don’t do it is a mystery to me. Again I haven’t found anything saying exactly what the AR is it is just my guess based on what they have been doing. For me they are disregarding one of their best selling points.


Confirmed indeed it is a disappointing 2.4:1 on FandangoNow IMAX Enhanced. (While Spider-man: Far from Home does have the 1.9:1 ratio so I think IMAX Enhanced is working properly on my TV).


----------



## bud16415

Danchu said:


> Confirmed indeed it is a disappointing 2.4:1 on FandangoNow IMAX Enhanced. (While Spider-man: Far from Home does have the 1.9:1 ratio so I think IMAX Enhanced is working properly on my TV).


Yep I’m told the call is made by the owner of the movie in conjunction with the directors desires as to what AR he feels is best. The part I can’t figure out is they feel the scope AR is best from a cinematography point then why ever make or release the 1.9:1 AR to IMAX venues in the first place and advertise it as better and charge more to see it that way. They are completely able to show scope movies just fine.

Then there is the issue if it is made and marketed both ways when it makes it to the small home screen 99.9% will be watching it on 16:9 TVs under immersive most likely and most people I would think wouldn’t mind something other than black bars. Any 1.9/1.77 AR content can be cropped to 2.4 if the person playing it has a CIH projection setup and they feel it is scope safe to do so.
IMO there is no reason to do the IMAX Enhanced process to a movie that was shown as IMAX1.9 and not do the whole image for the streaming or home BD market. But what do I know. I do feel not doing it limits sales. It at least does in my case.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Yep I’m told the call is made by the owner of the movie in conjunction with the directors desires as to what AR he feels is best. The part I can’t figure out is they feel the scope AR is best from a cinematography point then why ever make or release the 1.9:1 AR to IMAX venues in the first place and advertise it as better and charge more to see it that way. They are completely able to show scope movies just fine.


Because IMAX finances a portion of the movie's budget in exchange for the right to market an exclusive version of the movie only available in IMAX theaters.

Roger Deakins is on record that he disliked the IMAX open-matte versions of Skyfall and Blade Runner 2049, but the decision to release them that way was out of his control.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Because IMAX finances a portion of the movie's budget in exchange for the right to market an exclusive version of the movie only available in IMAX theaters.
> 
> Roger Deakins is on record that he disliked the IMAX open-matte versions of Skyfall and Blade Runner 2049, but the decision to release them that way was out of his control.


Ding, ding, ding!!!! And the only reason why Nolan uses it so much is that he is a partner with IMAX. They pay him directly (or indirectly) as well as the studios.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Because IMAX finances a portion of the movie's budget in exchange for the right to market an exclusive version of the movie only available in IMAX theaters.
> 
> Roger Deakins is on record that he disliked the IMAX open-matte versions of Skyfall and Blade Runner 2049, but the decision to release them that way was out of his control.


I found a couple comments on Rodger’s page where fans asked just this question about just this movie and he never mentioned disliking the IMAX 1.89 version. He said he framed for scope and was careful to keep the “open-matte” as you call it free from distracting items not part of the movie. That I would say is a minimal method of making an IMAX1.89 movie.

If IMAX is financing these movie and all they are being supplied is an open-matte version for their theaters that can easily play the scope version the cinematographer “likes better” they are not getting much for their money.

I couldn’t find any comments on what version Mr. Deakins felt looks better when played on a home TV.

If you have any links where he says he dislikes 1.89 IMAX for these movies I would love to read more. I believe it is true the director had final say.

Here are two links if others reading want to read his comments and a trailer commentary of what they think of one of the movies above. The IMAX comments start at around 2:15. I have no clue is the scope version played in IMAX. I would think IMAX venues played the 1.89 version.

About aspect ratio in three movies with Dir. Denis. - Composition - Roger A. Deakins.

Blade Runner 2049 - Composing for two different Aspect Ratios - Composition - Roger A. Deakins


----------



## Killroy

You missed this quote from him on that first link... "We shot the film in 2D and in a wide screen format. The IMAX and 3D were additional formats that were required by the studio."

Then... Post for IMAX version of BR2049 - Post & the DI - Roger A. Deakins

"As I have said countless times, the IMAX version shows more image area to the top and bottom of the wide screen frame. That is not how the process works when a film is shot in anamorphic because the anamorphic image already fills the sensor. So there has to be an extraction made. *Less of the original picture area is seen on the IMAX screen. It is cropped to the left and right to allow for the more square IMAX image area.* It is for this reason the image can be said to have been 'blown up' for IMAX and this is why they use the DMR process."

He has stated throughout his website that IMAX is not his preferred method to shoot film. He seems to pretty much openly imply that it is forced upon him by the studios.


----------



## bud16415

I must have missed a lot because I never saw anything about dislike of IMAX in the reply he made. He likes wide screen scope. So do I and I also can like IMAX when the content demands it.

He is dead wrong IMO that this new IMAX 1.89 is a blown up extraction of the center of a scope movie. I don’t know of any recent movie that played in both IMAX1.89 and scope venues. The IMAX if you want to think of it as open-matte is that or if you want to think of it of dual composition I think that is more correct and two movies are made at once. Nothing that is in the scope movie isn’t in the IMAX movie but there is more in the IMAX movie. Go to IMAX web site and there are 100s of examples of what you see in both versions. It is always increased material in the IMAX version and every pixel of the scope is left intact. Otherwise you couldn’t scope safe extract the scope version.

When IMAX puts a scope movie thru the DMR process even if there is an open-matte original, they don’t presume the director would have wanted an IMAX1.89 movie to be made of it. If it was a scope movie they apply the DMR process and out comes a scope IMAX movie. There is no cropping or pan and scan done to it to make it somehow larger or a different AR.

Every director is free to film or digitally capture on any camera he wants in any AR and then in the cutting room to put his film together using any or all the area he captured in any AR or combination of ARs he wants. The finished product is art and the art should be respected as it is. When they make a movie for multiple releases into different venues they have more than one piece of art and they are allowed to like one more than the other and I have no problem with them releasing one or both to the public for home media be it hard or streaming. If they come out and claim as in the case of Skyfall in the video I posted above that there is nothing like the IMAX presentation then it sounds like they like that version best. I would say a smart company would then put that version out to home media as well. Especially when you go to the review forums and all the clamor is about why they didn’t.


----------



## Killroy

I think I will take the word and experience of a cinematographer with fifteen Oscar nominations (twice winner), five BAFTAs, and other countless awards, with almost 50-years experience and over 81-films under his belt over yours...just saying.


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


> I think I will take the word and experience of a cinematographer with fifteen Oscar nominations (twice winner), five BAFTAs, and other countless awards, with almost 50-years experience and over 81-films under his belt over yours...just saying.


He’s not wrong if an image is captured with anamorphic he said there is not any extra material to make a taller image out of even if you wanted. That is what he is talking about.

No one making a dual IMAX / scope movie is doing that most are using these new “IMAX digital” deals like Eastwood did in Sully. The viewfinders / monitors are even setup with several boxes for framing of different ARs. They have to frame it for scope first otherwise one of the movies would look stupid with heads cut off and such. The good directors are including more outside that frame that for the most part is not critical to the point of the movie but are there to expand on our FOV. The repeat clip from Sully that shows the Hudson river is a great example. Sure you get the idea they are trying to land in the river in scope but seeing the skyline in the distance IMO gives the feeling of reality better.
If you can find me an IMAX 1.89 movie that has the sides of a scope movie chopped off to then play it more immersive I will be a believer and will shame IMAX and DMR for doing such a thing. IMAX was very aware of the sins of pan and scan in the past and in no way were going down that road again. The only chopping I see them doing is to their own 1.44 nature and science movies from years ago where they are DMRing them and putting them out for the public again. I wish they would leave them 1.44 just as I wish Nolan would give us the option on his movies to buy the real deal IMAX1.44 version.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> No one making a dual IMAX / scope movie is doing that most are using these new “IMAX digital” deals like Eastwood did in Sully. The viewfinders / monitors are even setup with several boxes for framing of different ARs.


Not every movie that plays in IMAX theaters was shot with IMAX cameras. Neither Skyfall nor Blade Runner 2049 used IMAX cameras. Many movies shot with anamorphic lenses play in IMAX theaters, and there's no way to "reformat" those for the IMAX 1.89:1 screen without cropping.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Not every movie that plays in IMAX theaters was shot with IMAX cameras. Neither Skyfall nor Blade Runner 2049 used IMAX cameras. Many movies shot with anamorphic lenses play in IMAX theaters, and there's no way to "reformat" those for the IMAX 1.89:1 screen without cropping.



I thought that is what I said.

Many scope movies shot with anamorphic lens are going under the DMR process to be shown in IMAX theaters or whatever. As far as I can tell they are showing them huge and immersive as scope movies.

Can you show me some that have had the sides chopped off in the process?

This being a home theater forum we have to at some point bring the focus of the threads back to home theater and the poster @Danchu that started this train of thought was wondering about how some movie would play on his TV at home from a streaming site claiming IMAX Enhanced status for their downloads. He like myself would love to see Only the Brave in its IMAX1.89 framing. I’m pretty sure Only the Brave wasn’t side cropped when shown in IMAX1.89 theaters. I’m pretty sure it had additional FOV expanding material top and bottom.

The bottom line is at least 2 of us were disappointed with the AR it came to home in. I’m even ok with that if I clearly know the director of Only the Brave feels the scope cut is better in his opinion. Again listen to the word in his own opinion starting around 1:00 in.


----------



## Josh Z

Wonder Woman 1984 is safe to mask to scope. I watched it cropped to 2.35:1 and never felt that anything was missing. Scanning through it again afterward, the only parts of the movie with additional "IMAX" height are the first scene and the last scene.

As it turns out, the extended flashback opening probably should have been cut from the movie entirely anyway. It's very long, very boring, and contributes nothing at all to the plot.

I can't figure out why the last scene is presented IMAX style, as it's mostly just some boring dialogue (not an action scene or anything like that) and looks really weirdly framed with a mile of empty headroom over the actors' heads.


----------



## bud16415

I watched Tenet yesterday in BudMAX allowing the expansion outside of its widescreen AR to full 1.77:1, and was somewhat disappointed at how the expansion footage was used from a cinematic viewpoint. Maybe 6 places where it happened I felt the expansion was used effectively and many others I agree with Josh it was just adding head room that gave the image a strange framing. The six or so places where it was used effectively gave the “Oh Wow” moments to the BudMAX experience with 1.5 x screen height immersion.
There were even a couple spots where it was all headroom and I felt and wondered if he didn’t use a shift along with the crop in the scope theatrical cut. I never saw it in a commercial scope theater so I don’t know.

There is a stark difference in how the IMAX framing was used in Dunkirk in comparison to Tenet. IMO Dunkirk was flawless in giving each expansion an Oh Wow impact in the film.

I often get the same feeling when watching say a romantic comedy filmed in scope where the extra on the sides seemed to be an after thought or maybe something it won’t hurt to remove if cropped for TV. These movies often have a couple of Oh Wow scope parts like they are being added to justify the use of scope.

It is maybe time for Nolan and others to just start making some start to finish IMAX 1.9 movies and putting them out to the public that way like Avatar was to be enjoyed at IMAX immersion and forget about this scope safe stuff. Pick a method they feel is best be it scope, flat or IMAX1.9 and go with it. If I’m finding uncomfortable headroom in the 1.77 cut I can only wonder what the 1.44 cut would be like.
If IMAX1.9 is to be a real format it is time to let it stand on its own. And let the scope theaters show it as flat.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> It is maybe time for Nolan and others to just start making some start to finish IMAX 1.9 movies and putting them out to the public that way like Avatar was to be enjoyed at IMAX immersion and forget about this scope safe stuff.


Nolan can't do that until he starts shooting with the IMAX digital cameras, which he won't do because he has a raging hard-on fetish for celluloid film and insists on using the super-large and super-loud 15/70 film cameras.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Nolan can't do that until he starts shooting with the IMAX digital cameras, which he won't do because he has a raging hard-on fetish for celluloid film and insists on using the super-large and super-loud 15/70 film cameras.


He can keep using his 15/70 IMAX film I wish he would at least until digital gets as high of quality image. I’m not sure but in practical terms and the media being delivered to our eyes unless we live close to a true film venue won’t be much better. So if his fetish is only for his eyes and a very small percentage of his viewers that get to a real 1.44 IMAX to see his movies for a short time, then he could still shoot with his true love and except everything above 1.77 will just be open matte.

Quite a few of the rest of the directors are fine with shooting on the smaller digital “IMAX” cameras. Why not just commit to IMAX or shoot in scope. If I’m going to pay twice the price to watch a movie in an IMAX1.9 venue I expect that to be the best version of the movie not the cropped 2.4 version. If I go to a scope theater to see an IMAX1.9 movie I don’t mind sitting 10 rows closer if I want to fill my vision with it. Likewise if I go to an IMAX1.9 venue to watch a scope movie because they have better equipment and I know the director wanted the framing to be scope I’m equally ok.

I just think it is silly making movies trying to be best both ways.

I personally thought Sully is a better movie with its IMAX1.9 framing but Mr. Eastwood liked the scope version better as that is what he gave me on my disc. Millions of TV viewers disagreed with him but it is what it is. All I ask is if he liked scope better then don’t ask me to pay more watching in the not as good AR.
Pick a AR and go with it. If Nolan thinks 1.44 is best then put that version on my disc. No one would have suggested when re-mastering The Wizard of Oz to put it on disc as anything but 1.37. Give us your best version both in the theater and at home.


----------



## Philnick

Beyond the argument made by IMAX in one of the clips above that the IMAX cameras are too expensive, large, and noisy to use indoors - which really need apply only to _film_ IMAX cameras - there's an artistic reason to shift aspect ratios between scope indoors and tall outdoors - it corresponds with our intuition.

Indoors there's usually a relatively low "sky" unless you're in a cathedral or other room with a multistory height - so scope conveys that visually.

Used right, the taller IMAX ratios _feel_ like being outdoors.

Two films that use that to great effect are _Star Trek Into Darkness_ and _Doctor Strange_.

When you're aboard one of the spaceships in _Into Darkness_, you're in scope (though the engine room may be an exception). When you're on Nabiru running through the red-leaved forest or with Spock inside the volcano, you're in IMAX, often seeing him dwarfed by the flaming majesty of the leaping lava. I'm sure that when Kirk and Khan are space-diving between the _Enterprise_ and the _Vengeance_ you're in IMAX.

_Doctor Strange_ opens in a dark nighttime basement library in scope, where the librarian is murdered by a band of evil magicians who steal a page from a spellbook. Confronted by the Ancient One (the head of the order), who tells them that the spell they're taking will bring them nothing but pain, they flee with it - and are pursued by her - through a dimensional portal they open up to the daytime streets of NYC in IMAX, where they're thrown by the Ancient One into an M.C. Escher-like "Mirror Dimension" where parts of buildings and streets rotate at all directions in space, as does gravity.

The same things apply to _Interstellar._ Majestic vistas outdoors, IMAX. Indoors, scope. Check.

These aspect ratio shifts are integral to the artistic vision of the films. (And the psychedelic _Doctor Strange_ is VAR even on the 3D Blu-ray.)


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> He can keep using his 15/70 IMAX film I wish he would at least until digital gets as high of quality image. I’m not sure but in practical terms and the media being delivered to our eyes unless we live close to a true film venue won’t be much better.


Digital is already higher quality than film. What gives Nolan a boner are specifically the analog textures of film - the grain and the slight softness, plus the sound of the film roll running through the camera or the projector. He will never give any of that up, and will make all sorts of elaborate justifications for why it's better than digital - the same way vinyl record lovers will argue that the high noise floor and hiss on an LP are actually "warmth." It's not a rational obsession.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> Indoors there's usually a relatively low "sky" unless you're in a cathedral or other room with a multistory height - so scope conveys that visually.
> 
> Used right, the taller IMAX ratios _feel_ like being outdoors.
> 
> Two films that use that to great effect are _Star Trek Into Darkness_ and _Doctor Strange_.


That's a lovely theory, but it's not the way these filmmakers are actually using IMAX. Star Trek into Darkness has one of the most frustrating uses of variable ratio I've seen. Portions of the movie flit back and forth from one aspect ratio to another rapid-fire in 2-3 second cross-cuts from scene to scene. It's visually incoherent.

The truth is, the only reason J.J. Abrams shot certain scenes in IMAX and not others was that the camera was only available that day, so that's when he used it. 

With Christopher Nolan, the more movies he makes, the more he pushes to shoot as much footage in IMAX as he can, regardless of context. There's an indoors scene in The Dark Knight Rises that's all scope except for one shot that inexplicably switches to IMAX for a few seconds out of the blue. There's no logic to the change in ratio, but he had the camera that day, he could squeeze it into the location, and the shot didn't have any dialogue in it, so he used it.


----------



## Killroy

Or maybe, just maybe, IMAX pays Nolan a bucket-load of money to use IMAX cameras. They are listed as "partners". Yes, cynical of me but they admit being partners and not many, if any, other directors call themselves "partners" with the likes of PanaVision, Red, or Arri. To most DoP and directors, cameras and brands are just tools and not a paycheck.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Digital is already higher quality than film. What gives Nolan a boner are specifically the analog textures of film - the grain and the slight softness, plus the sound of the film roll running through the camera or the projector. He will never give any of that up, and will make all sorts of elaborate justifications for why it's better than digital - the same way vinyl record lovers will argue that the high noise floor and hiss on an LP are actually "warmth." It's not a rational obsession.


I often read IMAX 15/70 is roughly equal to 12-20k resolution. Depending on the authority comparing film to digital. For me it is a moot point once human vision is exceeded based around what level of immersion is selected.

I also enjoy the artifacts of film to some extent when it is correct for the period piece, most likely because I lived thru that era. It is also true for me with LP music I know there is better playback with digital but it can be nostalgic to hear a record spun with its artifacts.

For me playback is a totally different requirement than capture when it comes to resolution. One area of resolution I see there almost no limit to how much resolution is enough is security. The reason being maybe being able to enlarge one face out of a group of 1000’s and have a clear image. Greater resolution than needed is a plus in editing.

For all practical purposes we are at or close to the point of enough resolution in terms of enjoying motion pictures for the masses. We have surpassed small enough pixel size to suit pixel identification but there are other subtle advantages of keeping going if the goal is an image that displays reality. No one really needs that though to enjoy a digital movie IMO.
Getting back on topic Nolan regardless of his arousal by film artifacts surely knows the vast majority of people watching his films are seeing them converted to digital. When I hear him talk I get the feeling he is also captivated by the idea film just gives you one chance to get it right and he would rather go to great lengths to do as much of it real rather than adding it back in with green screens and all that trickery. I think in his case it is more than the clatter of film or the softness of film. I think he is really embracing a total process of the past. He seems to be doing pretty good with it so you can’t knock success.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> That's a lovely theory, but it's not the way these filmmakers are actually using IMAX. Star Trek into Darkness has one of the most frustrating uses of variable ratio I've seen. Portions of the movie flit back and forth from one aspect ratio to another rapid-fire in 2-3 second cross-cuts from scene to scene. It's visually incoherent.
> 
> The truth is, the only reason J.J. Abrams shot certain scenes in IMAX and not others was that the camera was only available that day, so that's when he used it.
> 
> With Christopher Nolan, the more movies he makes, the more he pushes to shoot as much footage in IMAX as he can, regardless of context. There's an indoors scene in The Dark Knight Rises that's all scope except for one shot that inexplicably switches to IMAX for a few seconds out of the blue. There's no logic to the change in ratio, but he had the camera that day, he could squeeze it into the location, and the shot didn't have any dialogue in it, so he used it.


I think what @Philnick was relating was more of a way it works or should work than what one or two directors have done on occasion.

I agree as I said above in Tenet for me there were places that the IMAX expansion showed me more of less rather than expand my FOV. IMAX for the sake of IMAX doesn’t seem logical and if they have only an IMAX camera around and need to get a shot done it could still stay cropped if it didn’t add anything.

That’s my reason for saying I don’t care if a movie expands or not or stays scope or IMAX1.9 for the whole movie. I’m pretty aware of it and it doesn’t bother me and my guests that just want to watch a movie never notice anything. I just wish they would give up this scope safe idea and commit to whatever AR they are putting in the film and go with it. If Nolan wants a variable AR movie then make it and show it that way in all venues.
@Killroy I wouldn’t blame him if he was. The whole reason for motion pictures is about making money the good old fashion way of capitalism. I see so much product placement anymore. Money is flowing in every direction in today’s motion pictures. If a movie turns out good and really sells it is still about the money over the craft.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> @Killroy I wouldn’t blame him if he was. The whole reason for motion pictures is about making money the good old fashion way of capitalism. I see so much product placement anymore. Money is flowing in every direction in today’s motion pictures. If a movie turns out good and really sells it is *still about the money over the craft.*


I have so many reasons to disagree with you on this point but I won't since it will derail this thread.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I often read IMAX 15/70 is roughly equal to 12-20k resolution.


Well, I heard it was a million-trillion-bajillion-infinity Ks. The great thing about trying to equate analog to digital is that anybody can just make up a random number that suits their argument and pretend it's real.

In real-world practical application, 4k digital has been demonstrated to resolve and display more detail than IMAX 15/70 on an IMAX screen.


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


> I have so many reasons to disagree with you on this point but I won't since it will derail this thread.


Nolan movies if you like them or not have grossed about $5 billon so far and put about $200 million in his pocket. He has the golden touch when making movies and has helped to make a lot of people rich. I’m sure they love the craft involved and equally love the wealth it brings them.

You brought up the possibility of Nolan being on the take with IMAX not me. I was just agreeing with you.
Without a cash market there would be no cinema. It is at its core supply and demand.


----------



## Josh Z

I do not think Nolan is "on the take" in the sense that IMAX puts money directly into his pocket. However, IMAX does finance a portion of the movie's budget in exchange for the rights to market an IMAX exclusive version of the movie and for the studio to promote the IMAX aspect of the film.

That said, I'm sure Nolan really is a true believer in IMAX.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> Nolan movies if you like them or not have grossed about $5 billon so far and put about $200 million in his pocket. He has the golden touch when making movies and has helped to make a lot of people rich. I’m sure they love the craft involved and equally love the wealth it brings them.
> 
> You brought up the possibility of Nolan being on the take with IMAX not me. I was just agreeing with you.
> Without a cash market there would be no cinema. It is at its core supply and demand.


And yet, Spielberg, Scorsese, Fincher, Coppola, Tarantino, Cameron, Lynch, Ritchie...(I could go on) have made billions without shilling themselves to a camera format and keeping their artistic integrity intact.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> I do not think Nolan is "on the take" in the sense that IMAX puts money directly into his pocket. However, IMAX does finance a portion of the movie's budget in exchange for the rights to market an IMAX exclusive version of the movie and for the studio to promote the IMAX aspect of the film.
> 
> That said, I'm sure Nolan really is a true believer in IMAX.


The fact they they use the term "partners" means they have to keep the FTC at-bay for not disclosing their business relationship. If it was just IMAX providing funding to the movie budget they would not need to disclose this except as a title holder in their credits or as a production company at the opening credits. They are in bed together beyond just budget contributors.


----------



## Killroy

Here's another example where IMAX "partners" with a director... IMAX and Spike Jonze

The fact that they are disclosing SEC form 10-K means that they are not just budget investors.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> And yet, Spielberg, Scorsese, Fincher, Coppola, Tarantino, Cameron, Lynch, Ritchie...(I could go on) have made billions without shilling themselves to a camera format and keeping their artistic integrity intact.


Fincher is very much in the bag for RED. Cameron exclusively uses Sony cameras now and developed the Pace Fusion 3D format with the company. And Tarantino is a big advocate for Panavision - reviving the Ultra Panavision 70 format for The Hateful Eight and making an exclusive "Roadshow" version of the movie only for theaters that would install 70mm projectors to show it.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Well, I heard it was a million-trillion-bajillion-infinity Ks. The great thing about trying to equate analog to digital is that anybody can just make up a random number that suits their argument and pretend it's real.
> 
> In real-world practical application, 4k digital has been demonstrated to resolve and display more detail than IMAX 15/70 on an IMAX screen.


Well the forum’s name is AV Science so we should at least make an attempt to be scientific or do some research before making claims. Every comparison I have ever read starts out clearly explaining film and digital are two different things totally and how we view resolution as a comparison is filled with a lot of ifs.

Most explain grain is the determining factor for film and pixel count and spacing between pixels is the determining factor for digital. Film is all over the place when it comes to grain size and film speed and frame size along with many other factors come into play. When it comes to movie filming methods it is normally accepted IMAX 15/70 is about the best we have. If 4k digital exceeds IMAX 15/70 then we could likely assume 35mm film would be bested by VGA digital.

I don’t know how many “bajillions” one is better than another but I didn’t just make the number up.
I agree film is in the past from a practical standpoint along with other Edison inventions the light bulb and the phonograph. I even feel IMAX1.44 days are numbered and wished IMAX1.89 would have been IMAX1.77 much more logical in today’s 16:9 imposed world. It really doesn’t matter to me though because once I figured out every AR will fit inside ever other AR and zoom lets me control the size of both of them nothing that comes along can be a problem, even when it is changing every few minutes during a movie. I assume digital technology will keep getting better and that is not a problem as well as it has now surpassed my needs. I have convinced myself that no one AR is better or more beautiful to frame a motion picture in than any other and even mixing them is ok with me. Film put a lot more constraints on a director than digital. So if some director wants to make a round AR film I’m game to watch it.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Shin Godzilla is primarily a 2.39:1 film but some in-universe camcorder video or television broadcast footage scenes shrink to 16:9. The film is presented in constant height.
However, the English subtitles in the English-language FUNimation release extend past the 2.39:1 frame. And all the informational text is player-generated for the English release (it's hardcoded into the video in the original Japanese version) which also goes past the 2.39:1 frame. You're getting non-Constant Height Safe English subtitles regardless if you watch it with Japanese audio or English dubbed audio.
The Hong Kong Blu-ray doesn't have an English dub but does have a Hi-Res Audio track and the Japanese informational text hard-coded into the picture (with player-generated English or Chinese subtitles on top of them). They also probably use the exact same subtitle script from Toho but I'm not sure if the English subtitles in this version are constant-height safe.
tl;dr: The film itself is in Constant Height but for the FUNimation Blu-ray, the subtitles are not Constant Height Safe. And the jury is still out for the Hong Kong version.

Also, Flying Swords of Dragon Gate is not a VAR film, it's a constant open matte in IMAX.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Shin Godzilla is primarily a 2.39:1 film but some in-universe camcorder video or television broadcast footage scenes shrink to 16:9. The film is presented in constant height.
> However, the English subtitles in the English-language FUNimation release extend past the 2.39:1 frame. And all the informational text is player-generated for the English release (it's hardcoded into the video in the original Japanese version) which also goes past the 2.39:1 frame. You're getting non-Constant Height Safe English subtitles regardless if you watch it with Japanese audio or English dubbed audio.
> The Hong Kong Blu-ray doesn't have an English dub but does have a Hi-Res Audio track and the Japanese informational text hard-coded into the picture (with player-generated English or Chinese subtitles on top of them). They also probably use the exact same subtitle script from Toho but I'm not sure if the English subtitles in this version are constant-height safe.
> tl;dr: The film itself is in Constant Height but for the FUNimation Blu-ray, the subtitles are not Constant Height Safe. And the jury is still out for the Hong Kong version.


If the subtitles and info text are player-generated, it should be possible for OPPO and select other Blu-ray player models to move the text into the frame.

I'm not going to add subtitle info to this list because, frankly, the list of scope movies with subtitles in the letterbox bar is too huge and (at least on disc) there are options to move them.


----------



## vila2k

I'm not convinced than any of Nolans films on Blu Ray / 4k discs with Imax scenes will give you the correct 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 if centre matted.

Comparing them to the iTunes version you start to see shots where other parts of the IMAX frame (typically the top) have been used.

While this might be acceptable to some, centre matting gives you incorrect framing compared to the iTunes/DVD/2.39:1/2.30:1 cinema version


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> I'm not convinced than any of Nolans films on Blu Ray / 4k discs with Imax scenes will give you the correct 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 if centre matted.
> 
> Comparing them to the iTunes version you start to see shots where other parts of the IMAX frame (typically the top) have been used.
> 
> While this might be acceptable to some, centre matting gives you incorrect framing compared to the iTunes/DVD/2.39:1/2.30:1 cinema version


It appears that Nolan selectively reframes shots when doing the 2.39:1 extraction from the IMAX footage. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a center masking looks "wrong." In most cases, it looks perfectly fine and no viewer would ever notice that something is supposedly missing. When shooting the footage, the cameras have 2.39:1 markings that the DP and operator frame with. That's what you're seeing with a center masking, even if Nolan decided to change the framing in post production.

There's at least one example from The Dark Knight where a center masking looks better than Nolan's chosen reframing, IMO. For some reason, Nolan chose to push the frame down to focus on the floor even though there's important stuff happening higher up.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> It appears that Nolan selectively reframes shots when doing the 2.39:1 extraction from the IMAX footage. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a center masking looks "wrong."



If you want to see the film framed 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 as the director intended, the centre masking is incorrect.


Itunes / Vudu etc do at least as an option for film maker intended framing if 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 is required.


----------



## bud16415

vila2k said:


> I'm not convinced than any of Nolans films on Blu Ray / 4k discs with Imax scenes will give you the correct 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 if centre matted.
> 
> Comparing them to the iTunes version you start to see shots where other parts of the IMAX frame (typically the top) have been used.
> 
> While this might be acceptable to some, centre matting gives you incorrect framing compared to the iTunes/DVD/2.39:1/2.30:1 cinema version
> 
> View attachment 3089127
> View attachment 3089130
> View attachment 3089134
> View attachment 3089135
> View attachment 3089137


I have noticed this also. I have watched many of them both ways IMAX and “scope safe” and if you only watched the scope safe version you likely wouldn’t know what you don’t know as they say. Watching them back to back with the IMAX version first IMO I feel the scope safe leaves me wanting the fuller frame and in places it seems awkwardly framed when cropped to scope safe. I understand doing it if you have a CIH setup but when having the option I will take the expanding and contracting image over the cropped every time.
I don’t think Nolan gives the idea of watching his movie at home one thought about being scope safe. He knows 99.99% of it will be viewed on 16:9 TVs. I just wish he would offer the 1.44:1 version as a choice also. I’m fine with going taller.


----------



## nathan_h

Thanks for posting these details. Makes me feel a little less bad that I bought his movies on iTunes instead of disk.....especially since I have a 2.37:1 screen so being optimized for a wide ratio is handy for my particular situation.



vila2k said:


> I'm not convinced than any of Nolans films on Blu Ray / 4k discs with Imax scenes will give you the correct 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 if centre matted.
> 
> Comparing them to the iTunes version you start to see shots where other parts of the IMAX frame (typically the top) have been used.
> 
> While this might be acceptable to some, centre matting gives you incorrect framing compared to the iTunes/DVD/2.39:1/2.30:1 cinema version
> 
> View attachment 3089127
> View attachment 3089130
> View attachment 3089134
> View attachment 3089135
> View attachment 3089137


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> If you want to see the film framed 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 as the director intended, the centre masking is incorrect.


The point of this thread is that Constant Image Height users cannot watch these variable ratio movies "as the director intended," because the footage does not fit a 2.35:1 screen. Any attempt to watch these movies on a 2.35:1 screen will involve compromise, and some of the compromises are much worse than others:

1) Watch the entire movie shrunken to 16:9 size, with large black bars on all sides for most of the movie.

2) Zoom the entire movie to fill the 2.35:1 screen width, with extra picture spilling off the top and bottom onto the wall during all the IMAX scenes.

3) Spend $8,0000 to buy a video processor with automatic black bar detection that will shrink the IMAX scenes to 16:9 pillarbox size - which is also NOT WHAT THE DIRECTOR INTENDED, as he wanted the IMAX scenes to be larger than the rest of the movie, not smaller.

or

4) Mask the IMAX scenes down to 2.35:1.

Pick your poison.



> Itunes / Vudu etc do at least as an option for film maker intended framing if 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 is required.


That's nice, but those options are often not available on disc with lossless audio. So even there, you have to make a major compromise.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> The point of this thread is that Constant Image Height users cannot watch these variable ratio movies "as the director intended," because the footage does not fit a 2.35:1 screen.


Indeed and I think lists like this are really useful for people who want to be able to identify a variety of issues with aspect ratios and discs.

I'm quite sure that many discs with IMAX scenes can be centre matted and give you the scope image you would have seen in theaters.

However both Tenet and Interstellar are listed under ;



Josh Z said:


> Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Safe to Crop to 2.35:1


I think this might be slightly confused to people who are going to interpret that as implying cropping gives you the correct scope framing . 

We can see it doesn't.

And there are other categories on the list.



Josh Z said:


> Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Mostly Safe to Crop to 2.35:1





Josh Z said:


> Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Not Safe to Crop to 2.35:1


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> I think this might be slightly confused to people who are going to interpret that as implying cropping gives you the correct scope framing .
> 
> We can see it doesn't.


The post in question explicitly states: "These results may be largely subjective."


----------



## Philnick

I'm with Bud. As one who comes here to find - rather than avoid - variable aspect ratio films, I suggest that there's a fourth - and in my opinion better - choice, as long as you don't tie yourself to a 2.35:1 framed screen:

4) Use a screen as wide as - but taller than - your scope screen, so the IMAX sections don't have to cropped or shrunken to fit on the screen.

I don't use a screen that's framed at all. I use a 11'4" wide by x 6' tall 17:9 area (to match my projector's imaging panels) of a wall entirely painted with 0.93 gain screen paint, so I don't have to shrink or crop IMAX-framed scenes to fit. (The low-gain screen paint - and my matte black side walls and ceiling - together let black letterbox or pillarbox framing bars stay inconspicuous.)

But what I'm suggesting would also work with a very large 16:9 screen if that's your projector's panel's aspect ratio.

An experiment you could try to see if my approach looks good: Without using an anamorphic setup, in 16:9 mode adjust your lens so that the whole height of the 16:9 image fits onto your screen, and sit about as far away as the resulting image is wide, which will be the same width for scope sections as well. With that experimental setup, watch the variable aspect ratio 4K Blu-rays of _Star Trek Into Darkness_, Nolan's _Interstellar_ or the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_ (the streaming versions tend to be in constant scope ratio).

Each uses IMAX framing to give a sense of vertical as well as horizontal immersion, whether you're with Spock inside a volcano, outside a spaceship in deep space, on the surface of an alien world, or in _Doctor Strange's_ "mirror dimension" (which looks like an M.C. Escher print, with gravity - and buildings - running in all different directions) with the Ancient One battling evil sorcerors.

They use scope framing for more intimate locations - like when indoors.

No annoyances from pillarbox bars or shrunken IMAX scenes, just vertical expansion for those scenes.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> The post in question explicitly states: "These results may be largely subjective."



Well I'm simply sharing my finding in the thread which I though others might find useful - 

If you're putting say Tenet in a list ' safe to crop ' based on someones opinion that 



Josh Z said:


> it looked great. I’m not sure it would work to crop all the way to 2.4 (scope). But matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition


I think there are some readers that will see there are issues with cropping the image this way and might be mislead by the listing and description.

Perhaps it might be worth at least adding a comment to the listing that with Nolan's films, masking will give incorrect framing at points if not putting them into one of the other categories.


----------



## nathan_h

vila2k said:


> Well I'm simply sharing my finding in the thread which I though others might find useful -
> 
> If you're putting say Tenet in a list ' safe to crop ' based on someones opinion that
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are some readers that will see there are issues with cropping the image this way and might be mislead by the listing and description.
> 
> Perhaps it might be worth at least adding a comment to the listing that with Nolan's films, masking will give incorrect framing at points if not putting them into one of the other categories.


Thats a fair point. 

One can "caveat" a declarative statement that is demonstrably questionable -- by saying it's "just an opinion" -- but when we have evidence of how the director intended the cropping to work (and it's different than just a center crop) it's a little disingenuous to leave the impression that a center crop is anything other than a compromise versus what we know about the director's intention.


----------



## Josh Z

I have a really hard time taking Christopher Nolan's "artistic intentions" seriously, when in most cases Nolan's only actual intention is to frustrate the audience. Screwing around with the movie's framing in post production is of a piece with making the dialogue inaudible in the sound mix by drowning it out with super-loud music. There's usually no "artistic" reason to do it. He's just decided that he enjoys being perverse.

I've watched several of Nolan's VAR movies with a center-crop, and they look fine. Does it 100% match his "artistic intention" to push the framing up to focus on the ceiling lights in certain shots? Probably not. Oh well. Nobody who watched the movie that way would ever know anything was supposedly wrong.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> I'm with Bud. As one who comes her to find - rather than avoid - variable aspect ratio films, I suggest that there's fourth - and in my opinion better - choice, as long as you don't tie yourself to a 2.35:1 framed screen:


Remind me, what forum are we in?


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> I've watched several of Nolan's VAR movies with a center-crop, and they look fine. Does it 100% match his "artistic intention" to push the framing up to focus on the ceiling lights in certain shots? Probably not. Oh well. Nobody who watched the movie that way would ever know anything was supposedly wrong.


I can certainly appreciate a subjective opinion on ones enjoyment of a directors artistic and technical choices.

Many people that watch tv versions of 2.39:1 films cropped to 16:9 would never know they were incorrectly framed.

But then I suspect that many enthusiasts who care about things like frame rate, sound formats and a calibrated display also care about being a film correctly framed as the director intended. Centre matting sadly does not achieve this Nolans films.

At least people can make an informed choice rather than being mislead that the framing is correct.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> Remind me, what forum are we in?


"List of Variable Aspect Ratio Movies on Blu-ray" 
No mention of "To Avoid" - or "For Those Who Hate Them" in the title.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> "List of Variable Aspect Ratio Movies on Blu-ray"
> No mention of "To Avoid" - or "For Those Who Hate Them" in the title.


Hmmm....


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> View attachment 3089250


OK there is no CIH+IMAX forum, no IMAX forum. When CIH came to life in 1953 there was no IMAX and when IMAX was invented it was never intended to play alongside other Hollywood formats. CIH is a commercial idea that has been adopted as a HT idea and in recent years a new format emerged as a Hollywood product the IMAX1.89 AR (LieMAX to some). If you are a true believer that everything and anything in this entire new modern media, not just IMAX1.89 should be shown as CIH then you should fit it into your scope screens with IMAX full height and scope with gray bars on 4 sides. Then it would be CIH. If cropping it is an option then letting it play out full size should also be an option. There is no variable forum or no CIH+IMAX forum and very little traffic in this forum for that matter. As a large part of what CIH+IMAX is CIH what forum would you suggest we talk about this in? You started this thread talking about these LieMAX movies it is understandable someone would point out some of these movies are not properly shown as a center crop.
Please put in a word with the admin that there should be a new forum started to clear out any and all forms of discussion about anything variable. We can then move this thread and all the other non CIH topics there.


----------



## Philnick

Of course, Bud. It's absurd for the Variable Aspect Ratio film discussion to be considered to be so "owned" by folks who don't like it when films' aspect ratio vary that fans of VAR films are considered fair game for criticism by CIH adherents for the heresy of enjoying watching such films _as delivered on disk_ without cropping or shrinking to fit a fixed format.

About the only modern VAR film that I'm aware of that _is_ CIH is _Galaxy Quest_, which starts out in 4:3 showing a "lost TV episode," expanded horizontally to 1.85:1 to show the stage of the convention where it's being shown, and again to 2.35:1 for outer space, in classic "This . . . is Cinerama!" style. All other modern VAR films I'm aware of expand vertically, not horizontally.

If you have a low ceiling, a 2.35:1 screen may be all you can fit. Otherwise, why build a Procrustean bed for your movies and crop or shrink anything taller to make it fit?


----------



## Josh Z

Those of us who are professional writers are very familiar with the maxim "Know Your Audience." You wouldn't write an article for Motor Trend magazine that says buying a car is for suckers and everybody should just take a bus instead. The readers of Field & Stream aren't interested in your hot take about how fish are smelly and they should try eating vegan.

In other words, read the room.

This is the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat forum. It's the only place on this site, and indeed one of the very few places on the entire internet, where home theater projector owners interested in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height can discuss... get this... 2.35:1 Constant Image Height. It kind of stands to reason that anyone in here should in fact *be* interested in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, how to do it, and the challenges involved with it. One of those challenges is these stupid variable aspect ratio movies. Hence this thread about how to deal with them.

There's no Constant Width forum here, you say? How about every other display forum on this site? Digital Projectors, Screens, LCD Flat Panels, etc. All of those are overwhelmingly biased toward Constant Width display.

For those of us who actually came to this 2.35:1 Constant Height subforum because we want to discuss 2.35:1 Constant Height, it's downright exhausting to have the same handful of people continue to post over and over again about how 2.35:1 screens are stupid and they think it's so much better to project onto a blank wall with no borders, no aspect ratios, and no rules.

If projecting onto a blank wall is what works best for you, great, enjoy. To each their own. Whatever. But that is simply not the purpose of this forum. This is the place for 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat. I should not have to explain that when it's literally _right there in the damn name_.


----------



## vila2k

Well it seems entirely reasonable to discuss entries and catagories for the list in this thread.

It has films listed as 'safe to crop' when it can be factually demonstrated that centre cropping is changing the filmmakers theatrical scope presentation.

As it stands the list is quite easily misleading for people if they want to make an informed choice for their CIH screen.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> Well it seems entirely reasonable to discuss entries and catagories for the list in this thread.


To be clear, that last comment wasn't directed at you, vila2k. The people it applies to know who they are, as we've had this same conversation about ten thousand times before.



> It has films listed as 'safe to crop' when it can be factually demonstrated that centre cropping is changing the filmmakers theatrical scope presentation.
> 
> As it stands the list is quite easily misleading for people if they want to make an informed choice for their CIH screen.


I really don't think it's misleading. Most of the entries in that post say "No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area." That can still be true even if the director fiddled with his framing in another version of the movie.

The problem with trying to be a purist for "the filmmaker's theatrical scope presentation" is that the filmmaker's theatrical scope presentation is often not available on home video, or is only available on an inferior format (such as DVD or streaming).


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> I really don't think it's misleading. Most of the entries in that post say "No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area." That can still be true even if the director fiddled with his framing in another version of the movie.


I kind of feel that many people might think cutting John David Washingtons upper body or Batman's out the frame is essential picture information.



















If transformers ROTF is listed as 'Mostly safe to crop 'and Star Trek into Darkness is listed ' Not Safe to Crop' due to problems that are created with centre matting surely these Nolan films at least deserve and annotation of disclaimer about the differences from the true scope framing?


----------



## bud16415

In the regular projection screen forum called (Screens) not CIW screens, scope screens are talked about all the time. I generally advise people wanting more help to come here for it in fact.

The other day someone started a thread (acceptable 2.39 over-scan). He wanted a scope CIH setup but didn’t have a room wide enough for the screen height he wanted for his tastes and maybe he had issues with changing his seating distance or maybe he felt like many do that when scope is the width they like it isn’t as tall as they like. Many CIA types feel that way. Ether way he wanted to know how much width he could crop off scope movies and still not effect the directors intent.

No one but me attempted to help this member and he had put a lot of time and effort into making drawings and thinking about other ARs that would work for him. Kind of a DIY pan n scan at home. He realized going 16:9 was too far and he was basing it on all the scope movies he had watched in his life and rarely was there anything important out at the sides in terms of critical details although there is a lot in terms of a wider FOV. So he wanted to trade some of the expanse of FOV for a taller window for other non scope stuff.

My advice to him was go as wide as he could and then adjust his seating closer to get the vertical immersion he wanted. The purest CIH solution. I then did tell him CIH is not controlled by the screen shape it is controlled by the discipline of presentation and if he had the height he could include IMAX and not change any of the CIH plans. I didn’t dive deep into what non movie content he may watch that is not bound by any theatrical conventions. I simply advised him don’t chop off the sides of scope movies. I feel equally as strong about not chopping off the top and bottoms of IMAX movies. Many IMAX movies come to us already scope safe as full 2.4:1 cropped by the director to be put on home media. I have to assume those are done to directors intent. Some come IMAX and some come IMAX expanding and I have to assume those directors wanted them that way even though they allowed them to be cropped for commercial scope theaters.
That’s my understanding of directors intent and as pointed out above Nolan even went as far as changing the panning of where he took the cuts for the commercial scope prints. If he wanted us to see them at home he could have gave us that package rather than what we got. We don’t know why he pulled our vision up or down in the IMAX theater, maybe some of you professional writers can ask him next time he give an interview.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> This is the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat forum. It's the only place on this site, and indeed one of the very few places on the entire internet, where home theater projector owners interested in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height can discuss... get this... 2.35:1 Constant Image Height. It kind of stands to reason that anyone in here should in fact *be* interested in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height, how to do it, and the challenges involved with it. One of those challenges is these stupid variable aspect ratio movies. Hence this thread about how to deal with them.
> . . .


Josh,

This is hardly the only place where CIH is discussed. The thread on the series of JVC projectors mine is part of is in fact populated in part by CIH believers like yourself who've purchased anamorphic lenses and scope screens and - in apparent subconscious defense of making that large additional expenditure - have often ganged up to heap much worse abuse than you engage in on those who try to discuss how to best use their unmodified projectors and non-scope screens - to the point that the moderator of that thread not long ago deleted large swaths of the thread to make the CIH contingent stop abusing other members.

However, to my knowledge, this _is_ the only place on this site, and possibly one of the very few places on the entire internet, where home theater projector owners interested in variable aspect ratio films can come to discuss them. You've created a valuable resource with this thread, and should be proud that you've attracted an audience.

If you don't want anyone here who _likes_ VAR films, put your dislike of such films into the thread's title as a "Stay Out" sign - which would be a regrettable waste of your effort by limiting your audience. Otherwise, please be respectful of other folks' feelings.

There's an old saying, "Don't yuck my yum." It's a companion injunction to - maybe even a corollary of - "Read the room." CIH fans are not the only ones here. Since you're in the only place here to discuss VAR films - even if you're the one who created it - please try to be open-minded and welcoming to others' views.

I'll make you a deal: Be open to those who like watching VAR films _with_ vertical expansion - and who offer hints on how to watch them that way - and I'll restrain myself from talking about Procrustean beds. (_Mea culpa_.)

Phil


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> I kind of feel that many people might think cutting John David Washingtons upper body or Batman's out the frame is essential picture information.


How long are they out of the shot for? Nolan shoots most of his action sequences in shaky-cam with the camera bobbing up and down.

Someone in another thread recently made a similar argument that Nolan's films shouldn't be cropped due to this damning-looking screenshot.










What he neglected to mention is that this is what that same shot looks like literally one second before and one second after that still. The actor's face is only out of the frame when the camera shakes. 










Once again, someone watching the center-crop version is unlikely to think this looks "wrong" without a direct comparison to the alternate version of the movie.

As I recall, that second shot you posted shows Bane lifting Batman from low in the frame to above his head. In the iTunes cropping, Batman would be out of the frame at the beginning of the shot. Is that really better? Bane's face is supposed to be the focus of the shot anyway.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> How long are they out of the shot for? Nolan shoots most of his action sequences in shaky-cam with the camera bobbing up and down.
> 
> Someone in another thread recently made a similar argument that Nolan's films shouldn't be cropped due to this damning-looking screenshot.


I wasn't making notes as I whizzed through the scenes on timings. But it was certainly demonstrable if you placed the correctly framed iTunes version in the centre of the Imax Disc that you would quite quickly see the image start to 'misalign' between shots in the iTunes version and the disc - sometimes partially sometimes towards the top of the frame.

But the film makers have chosen their best version of the Imax frame in each scene to create the true scope version.




Josh Z said:


> Once again, someone watching the center-crop version is unlikely to think this looks "wrong" without a direct comparison to the alternate version of the movie.


Once again most people watching a 16:9 cropped version of a tv broadcast are unlikely to think this looks "wrong" without a direct comparison to the alternate version of the movie.....

Its still wrong.




Josh Z said:


> As I recall, that second shot you posted shows Bane lifting Batman from low in the frame to above his head. In the iTunes cropping, Batman would be out of the frame at the beginning of the shot. Is that really better? Bane's face is supposed to be the focus of the shot anyway.


It seems rather likes that's getting into an argument that you don't like Christopher Nolans / Wally Pfister's choice of framing which is a different argument entirely.

I'd assume that most people on this site care about fidelity?

There is a correct framing for 2.39:1 versions of the film, but centre matting does not achieve it with these Nolan films and the list and some of the posts in this forum seem likely to mislead.

So why not at least make reference to this on the list?

You could even add in other sources that give users the CORRECT scope versions of the film - Dunkirk is available in 2.20:1 on Kaleidescape for example.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> But the film makers have chosen their best version of the Imax frame in each scene to create the true scope version.


If that true scope version were available on disc, I would buy it. Sadly, it's not, so this is what we have to deal with.

I will push CIH users toward the true scope versions of Hunger Games: Catching Fire, or Star Trek into Darkness, or Guardians of the Galaxy. However, Warner Bros. has elected not to offer that option for the Dark Knight films or Tenet. CIH users are therefore left with the choice of either watching a streaming version with inferior video and lossy audio, or cropping the image from the disc. Some will choose to crop the disc. All this thread is saying is that it's safe to do so. Maybe it's slightly different than Nolan's "true scope version," but the image does not look noticeably _wrong_ while watching.

The VAR version of Star Trek into Darkness does look _wrong_ when center-cropped to scope, because on-screen text is cut off from the frame. That is not the case with these Nolan films.



> It seems rather likes that's getting into an argument that you don't like Christopher Nolans / Wally Pfister's choice of framing which is a different argument entirely.


When Pfister looked through his camera viewfinder, he saw 2.35:1 etchings for a center-crop and framed his shots to get the most important parts of the action within that area. Nolan may have chosen to adjust the framing later in post-production, but the original 2.35:1 center-crop does still yield a workable image for those who are forced to crop the VAR version.



> You could even add in other sources that give users the CORRECT scope versions of the film - Dunkirk is available in 2.20:1 on Kaleidescape for example.


When I have that information, I will try to add it to the post. But I do not buy or rent every single streaming copy of a movie available searching for variants. I have neither the time nor the money to do so. If you know which streaming versions are "true scope," by all means make a list of them here and I'll edit the original post.

I will note that Dunkirk and the Dark Knight movies were already on the list under "Movies that Have a Variable Aspect Ratio on Blu-ray or Ultra HD but Are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Digital Streaming." I will add Tenet now.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> If that true scope version were available on disc, I would buy it. Sadly, it's not, so this is what we have to deal with.


I agree its a problem and a same, but I alway feel its better to be informed than ignorant.



Josh Z said:


> Maybe it's slightly different than Nolan's "true scope version," but the image does not look noticeably _wrong_ while watching.


The framing is incorrect. To not acknowledge that in anyway in a list is misleading.

On a forum when I would imagine many used have been careful to calibrate speaker levels, crossover, color, overscan ensuring the correct frame rates are being used etc... then I think many readers will care about correct framing rather than "Looked OK to me."




Josh Z said:


> When Pfister looked through his camera viewfinder, he saw 2.35:1 etchings for a center-crop and framed his shots to get the most important parts of the action within that area. Nolan may have chosen to adjust the framing later in post-production, but the original 2.35:1 center-crop does still yield a workable image for those who are forced to crop the VAR version.


I don't belive the DOP framed this wave with the intention that the top of the wave be cropped out of the scope version?










Pfister has even talked in the past about how they somewhat ignored IMAX guidance on shooting safe to better make use of the IMAX frame and Nolan and the Editor would extract the best part of scope.





Josh Z said:


> If you know which streaming versions are "true scope," by all means make a list of them here and I'll edit the original post.


The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight rises, Interstellar are all on iTunes / Vudu / Amazon with their correct 2.39:1 framing

Dunkirk and Tenet are on iTunes / Vudu / Amazon with their correct 2.20:1 framing

Dunkirk additionally is on Kaleidescape (which is very high quality) in its correct 2.20:1 framing




Josh Z said:


> will note that Dunkirk and the Dark Knight movies were already on the list under "Movies that Have a Variable Aspect Ratio on Blu-ray or Ultra HD but Are Only Constant Height 2.35:1 on Digital Streaming." I will add Tenet now.



But not add any information that centre cropping the disc incorrectly frames it mislead readers into thinking this is the correct scope framing?


----------



## nathan_h

vila2k said:


> Pfister has even talked in the past about how they somewhat ignored IMAX guidance on shooting safe to better make use of the IMAX frame and Nolan and the Editor would extract the best part of scope.


This is a key point that I had forgotten about. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> I don't belive the DOP framed this wave with the intention that the top of the wave be cropped out of the scope version?


Is the crest of the wave that high in the frame for the entire shot, or does the camera pan up to it? It really feels to me like you're cherry-picking bad individual stills that don't represent the entire scene. 



> But not add any information that centre cropping the disc incorrectly frames it mislead readers into thinking this is the correct scope framing?


I've added a disclaimer to Post 3. Does that help you?


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> Is the crest of the wave that high in the frame for the entire shot, or does the camera pan up to it? It really feels to me like you're cherry-picking bad individual stills that don't represent the entire scene.


For the duration of that shot, it cuts shots of Wes Bentley looking panicked to McConaughey panicking in the shuttle to the top of the wave static without a pan.

It really feels to me like you dislike Nolan and want to fill your screen (which is fair enough) that your reluctant to accept that matting and zooming on these films gives the wrong framing. 



Josh Z said:


> I've added a disclaimer to Post 3. Does that help you?


It s certainly help a bit but as far as I'm aware this is more of a Nolan thing and not something on most other films

I certainly wouldn't describe Interstellar as 


Josh Z said:


> - No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area.


Or Tenet as 


Josh Z said:


> "It alternates between 2.2 & 1.78 and I just ran the 4K UHD disc cropped to 2.2 and it looked great. I’m not sure it would work to crop all the way to 2.4 (scope). But matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition etc


to my mind It would make sense to me to have 


Josh Z said:


> these movies are altered so that the variable ratio version cannot simply be cropped without causing issues.


Next to the Nolan movies specifically, as I'd be surprised if Fallout and Geforce etc where framed in this way.


----------



## vila2k

On a side note another member on the JVC thread just mentioned his method for managing Nolan's films while maintaining CIH which I though was really interesting.

The wouldn't just work for the Nolan, but also allow discs like Grand Budapest Hotel to be enjoyed at CIH.



[email protected] said:


> I use the Ultra HD Blu-ray disc, but play it back on a home theater PC with madVR's video renderer. If you set the output resolution going to the NX9 as 3840 x 1600 (scope) and enable madVR's automatic black bar detection, it will keep constant image height by scaling the 16/9 IMAX scenes smaller within the confines of my scope screen.
> 
> Instead of spilling over the top and bottom of my screen, the IMAX scenes are scaled to look like the blue part of this image. Then when a scene goes back to scope, it fills the screen back up (white) with 1:1 pixel mapping, ie no scaling at all. The software works pretty seamlessly as it goes between aspect ratios.
> 
> View attachment 3089557


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> It really feels to me like you dislike Nolan and want to fill your screen (which is fair enough) that your reluctant to accept that matting and zooming on these films gives the wrong framing.


I've watched Interstellar on my own screen, cropped to 2.35:1. I remember the wave scene. Nothing in that scene stood out to me as, "YOU'RE MISSING SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO SEE HERE." If the crest of the wave isn't visible in that specific shot, it is visible in other shots.

If I'm "reluctant to accept that matting and zooming on these films gives the wrong framing," I would argue that you are reluctant to accept the possibility that "wrong framing" is subjective. 

The framing may be _different_ than the filmmaker's separate, re-composed 2.35:1 version, but the intent of the scene is still conveyed.



vila2k said:


> On a side note another member on the JVC thread just mentioned his method for managing Nolan's films while maintaining CIH which I though was really interesting.


Automatic black bar detection like this is currently available with MadVR or the Lumagen Radiance Pro. The HTPC version of MadVR is very complex to install and use, and requires that you rip all content to a hard drive to watch. The standalone MadVR Eny processor is much more plug-and-play, but costs $8,000. The Radiance Pro is comparable in price.

For all that, shrinking the IMAX scenes to pillarboxed 16:9 size is in direct violation of the filmmaker's artistic intention that you so want to preserve. The IMAX scenes are intended to be larger than the scope footage around them, not smaller.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> 've watched Interstellar on my own screen, cropped to 2.35:1. I remember the wave scene. Nothing in that scene stood out to me as, "YOU'RE MISSING SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO SEE HERE." If the crest of the wave isn't visible in that specific shot, it is visible in other shots.


Sorry but that is little different from panned and scanned versions of films.

🤮

There is correct framing of the films that was chosen by the film makers and for these films, matting is a crude solution that creates an incorrect framing of the film.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> There is correct framing of the films that was chosen by the film makers and for these films, matting is a crude solution that creates an incorrect framing of the film.


What's your solution, then? 

Watching these variable ratio films on a scope screen requires compromise. Your compromise may be different than my compromise, but none of them are ideal. You pick the one you can live with and move on with your life.

We wouldn't have a problem at all if the filmmakers would stop this variable ratio nonsense.


----------



## bud16415

@vila2k
When you really think about cinematography if a director could frame for both ARs at once he would likely be doing a disservice to one or the other or maybe both. If the film was done like Eastwood did Sully. My feel is he just shot a scope film and let the open matte just catch a bit more of what was above and below. In that case I ask what is the point of even making the taller version and charging people more to see it that way and then releasing it on 16:9 media as scope for home use because he liked it better. The IMAX cut in that case will feel unbalanced showing extra headroom much of the time. Nolan IMO takes a more thoughtful approach shooting IMAX to be IMAX and cropping as best he can for what he feels scope is the lesser format. In doing that of course he will move the scope frame after the fact to do the best he can keeping the action in the frame.

I have watched most of the Nolan movies both ways at home with the same horizontal immersion and doing the center crop. I always felt most were awkwardly framed and also didn’t feel the impact like the taller image with the IMAX vertical immersion. I commented after watching Tenet it was the first one I actually felt except a couple places the shift to IMAX left me cold. It to me was like he was thinking ahead to the scope movie but using the IMAX camera. I didn’t get to see the full blown IMAX version but I would think it would be worse
I later said I wish they would decide what they want to make scope, IMAX or mixed and stick with it. Make it their masterpiece and put it on home media that way. Trying to make 2 movies at once isn’t doing one of them justice.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> What's your solution, then?


Well that search is what brought me here in the first place.

While sticking with a zoom and blanking to frame for most other Imax films I'm not going to watch the Nolan films with the wrong scope framing

I'm favoring either remuxing the HD Audio to the iTunes file or experimenting with MadVR as suggesting in the JVC thread - the software is free and ripping discs is straightforward to me.

I certainly take no issue with what other people do with their setups and enjoy - just the information shared be factual where possible. 



Josh Z said:


> We wouldn't have a problem at all if the filmmakers would stop this variable ratio nonsense.


Hopefully it will get to a point where the whole thing will be shot IMAX - I certainly enjoy the image clarity.


----------



## nathan_h

vila2k said:


> On a side note another member on the JVC thread just mentioned his method for managing Nolan's films while maintaining CIH which I though was really interesting.
> 
> The wouldn't just work for the Nolan, but also allow discs like Grand Budapest Hotel to be enjoyed at CIH.


This is a solution for Nolans films but I would feel a little dirty doing it.

On the other hand I love this idea for Grand Budapest. I mean not enough to build a new htpc but ...... well actually I might.


----------



## vila2k

bud16415 said:


> When you really think about cinematography if a director could frame for both ARs at once he would likely be doing a disservice to one or the other or maybe both. If the film was done like Eastwood did Sully. My feel is he just shot a scope film and let the open matte just catch a bit more of what was above and below. In that case I ask what is the point of even making the taller version and charging people more to see it that way and then releasing it on 16:9 media as scope for home use because he liked it better. The IMAX cut in that case will feel unbalanced showing extra headroom much of the time. Nolan IMO takes a more thoughtful approach shooting IMAX to be IMAX and cropping as best he can for what he feels scope is the lesser format. In doing that of course he will move the scope frame after the fact to do the best he can keeping the action in the frame.



You might enjoy this article - with Wally Pfister from when he and Nolan first used Imax for The Dark Knight.

Its a bit lengthly but goes over some of the considerations for framing with Imax, ignoring some of the guidance given to them by IMAX and then extracting a scope image from that in the editor Lee Smith.

The ASC -- American Cinematographer: Batman Looms Larger


----------



## vila2k

nathan_h said:


> This is a solution for Nolans films but I would feel a little dirty doing it.
> 
> On the other hand I love this idea for Grand Budapest. I mean not enough to build a new htpc but ...... well actually I might.


There was a guy on another forum who was going through the disc of Tenet ripped into editing software reframing the Imax scenes to match the 2.20:1 from the iTunes copy .... that's a bit much work even for me! 🤨

But yeah I had no idea MadVR could do that type of thing on the fly which seems really neat.


----------



## bud16415

I think the solution is quite simple. I enjoyed The Grand Budapest Hotel and even Da 5 Bloods. The fish jumping out of the movie in The life of Pi and many more including subtitles.

I don’t see the trend slowing down Nolan or no Nolan. 

Best part is zero impact to CIH presentation.
It’s called two masking panels.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> You might enjoy this article - with Wally Pfister from when he and Nolan first used Imax for The Dark Knight.
> 
> Its a bit lengthly but goes over some of the considerations for framing with Imax, ignoring some of the guidance given to them by IMAX and then extracting a scope image from that in the editor Lee Smith.
> 
> The ASC -- American Cinematographer: Batman Looms Larger


That article is indeed enlightening, in troubling ways. Pfister effectively says that he ignored all the advice that anyone who'd ever worked in IMAX gave him and decided to just wing it on set.

The main thing Pfister ignored is the fact that the compositional rules for IMAX are different than for other formats. The purpose of IMAX is to exceed a viewer's field of vision. An IMAX cinematographer will not place important picture info at the extreme height of the frame, because that requires viewers to crane their necks and is uncomfortable to watch. Pfister essentially said, "IDGAF about that" and did it anyway. That doesn't really speak well for him either artistically or as a professional, IMO.

For all that, I think he's doing a fair amount of exaggerating in that article. I've watched The Dark Knight center-cropped to 2.35:1 and, again, there's nothing really important outside the 2.35:1 frame. He and Nolan may have fiddled with the framing of individual shots for their own scope version, but the differences don't substantively affect the scenes.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> But yeah I had no idea MadVR could do that type of thing on the fly which seems really neat.


I don't believe the effect is perfect. There's going to sometimes be a lag as the software tries to keep up with the movie, especially in some of the VAR films that have rapid-fire editing between IMAX and non-IMAX footage.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> That article is indeed enlightening, in troubling ways. Pfister effectively says that he ignored all the advice that anyone who'd ever worked in IMAX gave him and decided to just wing it on set.
> 
> The main thing Pfister ignored is the fact that the compositional rules for IMAX are different than for other formats. The purpose of IMAX is to exceed a viewer's field of vision. An IMAX cinematographer will not place important picture info at the extreme height of the frame, because that requires viewers to crane their necks and is uncomfortable to watch. Pfister essentially said, "IDGAF about that" and did it anyway. That doesn't really speak well for him either artistically or as a professional, IMO.


🙄


Well Josh, your clearly not much of a fan of Nolan or Pfister - which your very entitled to feel.

But pardon If some of us pay more attention to Acadamy award winning filmmakers choices for their films rather than your opinion on how they should have been shot and framed.


----------



## bobof

vila2k said:


> I'm not convinced than any of Nolans films on Blu Ray / 4k discs with Imax scenes will give you the correct 2.39:1 / 2.20:1 if centre matted.
> 
> Comparing them to the iTunes version you start to see shots where other parts of the IMAX frame (typically the top) have been used.
> 
> While this might be acceptable to some, centre matting gives you incorrect framing compared to the iTunes/DVD/2.39:1/2.30:1 cinema version
> 
> View attachment 3089127
> View attachment 3089130
> View attachment 3089134
> View attachment 3089135
> View attachment 3089137


Awesome, thanks for posting.
I did once watch Interstellar with the masks down to 2.4 and I didn't like it - I was certain there were more than a few scenes which I couldn't believe were made in a "scope safe" manner on the Imax print as they looked crass when masked. While not proof of the interstellar scenes, these clearly show how they are re-framing the 2.4 version based on the best shot out of the Imax scene. Excellent work.

Maybe we can put to bed forever this pap that CIH screen users trot out for these titles. They're just not as good for watching them, live with it...


----------



## Danchu

First Man on Apple TV streaming is VAR for me.


----------



## Josh Z

Danchu said:


> First Man on Apple TV streaming is VAR for me.


I'll update the list, thanks.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

(500) Days of Summer is presented in constant height on Blu-ray, being in 2.35:1 with some scenes in 1:1 and 4:3 and some splitscreen scenes.
Some Amazon streams in some countries (like Russia, I think) present the film in an open matte 16:9 with 1:1, 4:3 and splitscreen scenes now conforming to a 16:9 screen.

Shin Ultraman may have a similar VAR scheme as Shin Godzilla since it's from the same creators and having similar cinematography and visual style judging from the teaser but the teaser don't show anything to suggest it. Not yet confirmed until someone in Japan browsing this forum sees and confirms it when it comes out in Japanese cinemas, and then the Blu-ray release will fully answer the question.

Also, The Eight Hundred was open matte 2.11:1 in IMAX cinemas compared to it's 2.35:1 aspect ratio everywhere else, the Hong Kong Blu-ray (which is absolute crap since it's in PAL speedup 1080i and has no Dolby Atmos track) is in 2.35:1 but it hasn't been released on Blu-ray outside of Hong Kong for now.

Dune was shot with IMAX cameras and would be open matte 1.9:1 in IMAX cinemas but again, home video status unconfirmed.
We can also safely assume this for Sony Pictures Animation's latest film Vivo, since the cinematographer is Roger Deakins of Skyfall, Blade Runner 2049, and 1917 fame.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Dune was shot with IMAX cameras and would be open matte 1.9:1 in IMAX cinemas but again, home video status unconfirmed.


IMDb claims that Dune will have a variable ratio, so I've added it to that section of the "TBD" list.



> We can also safely assume this for Sony Pictures Animation's latest film Vivo, since the cinematographer is Roger Deakins of Skyfall, Blade Runner 2049, and 1917 fame.


There's conflicting information on this one. Wikipedia says that Deakins is the cinematographer for Vivo, but IMDb and the official Sony Animation web site credit Yong Duk Jhun. What I think probably happened is that Deakins is a Visual Consultant on the film, as he was for the How to Train Your Dragon series and a few others.


----------



## biliam1982

So the Snyder Cut will be 1.37:1. Huh. According to the article, going to the extreme edges of the film stock and no cropping. Leaves no room for lens issues on the fringes. Or he is having to crop a little but will retain that AR... which in such case, he's just using it as a marketing tactic to get some wow factor. Probably is anyways. Wonder how it will play out if there is ever a disc release. Will they keep it 1.37:1 or something else?









The Justice League Snyder Cut's Weird Aspect Ratio Explained


The 1.37:1 aspect ratio is taller than most films




screenrant.com


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Will you include full open matte presentations here, even if the film wasn't shown in IMAX?
Drive (2011) was open matte in it's Mexican Blu-ray.
The Revenant (a US/Hong Kong/Taiwan co-production) has an open matte version in the Taiwanese Blu-ray, though there is probably some censorship.

Anyways, Brie Larson's Unicorn Store (2017) on Netflix is mostly in 2.35:1 but has an opening montage in 4:3, the film is presented in Constant Height.

Also, Top Gun: Maverick won't be VAR for it's IMAX release, it will be full open matte.
Ironically, the IMAX version of The Suicide Squad will be in 1.90:1 while the regular release is in the taller 1.85:1.
I assume the regular release is cropped a bit on the sides since it was shot in IMAX.
The Chinese film Assassin in Red is fully open matte 1.90:1 in it's IMAX release while the regular release is 2.35:1.


----------



## Josh Z

biliam1982 said:


> So the Snyder Cut will be 1.37:1. Huh. According to the article, going to the extreme edges of the film stock and no cropping. Leaves no room for lens issues on the fringes. Or he is having to crop a little but will retain that AR... which in such case, he's just using it as a marketing tactic to get some wow factor. Probably is anyways. Wonder how it will play out if there is ever a disc release. Will they keep it 1.37:1 or something else?


Just one of what will undoubtedly be many questionable artistic decisions Snyder has chosen. I'm sure his audience will have no problem understanding why his four-hour epic looks like a 1980s TV movie on their screens.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Will you include full open matte presentations here, even if the film wasn't shown in IMAX?
> Drive (2011) was open matte in it's Mexican Blu-ray.
> The Revenant (a US/Hong Kong/Taiwan co-production) has an open matte version in the Taiwanese Blu-ray, though there is probably some censorship.


Literally thousands movies have been presented in an incorrect aspect ratio somewhere, either on TV or dubious home video releases. It is way beyond the scope of this list to track that.



> Ironically, the IMAX version of The Suicide Squad will be in 1.90:1 while the regular release is in the taller 1.85:1.
> I assume the regular release is cropped a bit on the sides since it was shot in IMAX.


All 1.85:1 movies are slightly modified to 1.90:1 (technically 1.89:1) in IMAX theaters, either through slight cropping or opening the mattes. The difference between those two ratios is so tiny it's not even noticeable to the eye. This is not worth tracking here, IMO. Again, I'd have to inflate the list with many hundreds of additional movies.

I've updated the other titles you mentioned, thanks.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Just one of what will undoubtedly be many questionable artistic decisions Snyder has chosen. I'm sure his audience will have no problem understanding why his four-hour epic looks like a 1980s TV movie on their screens.


The article says.

“The aspect ratio of Zack Snyder's Justice League is taller than most films, meaning fans will be seeing more of the heroes they love, literally.”

What’s not to like about seeing more of what they love?

It comes around to TV screens are all 16:9 and the vast majority of fans will be watching a 16:9 TV and if you want to give them more of what they love filling that screen will be a step in the right direction. My guess is they will equally complain based on area not content with 1.37 or 2.4. How do the areas compare with an IMAX version at 1.77.
This is in part why I watch Academy taller. Sounds like Snyder wanted to make an Academy movie.


----------



## Josh Z

1.37:1 will not fill a 16:9 TV screen.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> 1.37:1 will not fill a 16:9 TV screen.


It will vertically, and will consume roughly the same area of vision as scope given a 16:9 screen.

Of course this is the CIH forum but no one told Zack Snyder that. This AR does a great disservice to anyone doing CIH presentation for sure. I just don’t know if guys like Mr. Snyder or Mr. Nolan care about that.

A lot of people with TVs complain about black bars going both directions. 

A 100”16:9 screen 49x87 = 4263 sq inches.

A scope screen 36x87 = 3132 sq inches
An Academy screen 49x65 = 3185 sq inches


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Who's That Girl is in 16:9 but the animated opening sequence is windowboxed but still 16:9.
It's not available on Blu-ray but it is presented this way on both DVD and digital streaming.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Who's That Girl is in 16:9 but the animated opening sequence is windowboxed but still 16:9.
> It's not available on Blu-ray but it is presented this way on both DVD and digital streaming.


A number of studios used to have a habit of windowboxing opening credits because they were afraid the text would be cut off by the overscan on TVs, and the practice persisted even into the modern era of zero-overscan HD screens. This is hugely annoying, but I don't think it counts as "variable aspect ratio" for the purposes of this list.


----------



## nathan_h

Warner used to do this for tons of their classic hollywood releases. Annoyed the crap about of me. Doesn't seem to be a common practice now, thankfully.


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> Warner used to do this for tons of their classic hollywood releases. Annoyed the crap about of me. Doesn't seem to be a common practice now, thankfully.


No, but those old masters still wind up getting used for streaming and sometimes Blu-ray.


----------



## nathan_h

Yes, as a long time TCM fan, it was nice to see old films remastered well but I would cringe during the credits sequence a little.


----------



## Killroy

The German Blu-ray of "All Hallow's Eve 2" (2015) switches from 16:9 to scope numerous times. Don't know if all the Blu-rays are the same since IMDb has no technical info on the film.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> The German Blu-ray of "All Hallow's Eve 2" (2015) switches from 16:9 to scope numerous times. Don't know if all the Blu-rays are the same since IMDb has no technical info on the film.


Constant height or constant width?


----------



## biliam1982

@Josh Z are you including other AR changes besides between 1.78 and 2.35? If so, Apollo 18 (2011) should be included. Technical Specifications on IMDb state 1.33 and 1.85, but that's not exactly correct.... at least for streaming. I happened to watch it recently on NF as it's coming up as expiring and I wanted to catch it before it left. I noticed AR changes from slightly less than 1.33 to slightly less than 1.78. At least 4 or 5 different AR's. Never saw a full 1.78 or 1.85.

Netflix 

IMDb


----------



## Josh Z

biliam1982 said:


> @Josh Z are you including other AR changes besides between 1.78 and 2.35? If so, Apollo 18 (2011) should be included. Technical Specifications on IMDb state 1.33 and 1.85, but that's not exactly correct.... at least for streaming. I happened to watch it recently on NF as it's coming up as expiring and I wanted to catch it before it left. I noticed AR changes from slightly less than 1.33 to slightly less than 1.78. At least 4 or 5 different AR's. Never saw a full 1.78 or 1.85.


Looks like I missed it and this has left Netflix. Is all the footage Constant Height within the 2.20:1 container, or does it vary in height?

Edit: Wait, never mind, I was looking for Apollo 11. Let me check this one out.

OK, I just scanned through a bit of this and added it to Post 2. Thanks!


----------



## biliam1982

Josh Z said:


> Looks like I missed it and this has left Netflix. Is all the footage Constant Height within the 2.20:1 container, or does it vary in height?
> 
> Edit: Wait, never mind, I was looking for Apollo 11. Let me check this one out.


It's still on NF if you want to verify the AR's. Last day to watch is March 8th.

It doesn't go anywhere near 2.20. As I said in my previous post, the "widest" I saw was slightly less than 1.78.

This movie is a "found footage" type like The Blair Witch Project. The "widest" AR I mention was slightly less than 1.78 and was like viewing old CRT TV's. The other AR's was less and various, like looking at old film stock. The "narrowest" was slight less than 1.33 and had rounded edges on the corners like very old 16/32mm film.


----------



## Josh Z

biliam1982 said:


> It's still on NF if you want to verify the AR's. Last day to watch is March 8th.
> 
> It doesn't go anywhere near 2.20. As I said in my previous post, the "widest" I saw was slightly less than 1.78.


Right, I was confusing Apollo 18 with Apollo 11. Different movie entirely.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Constant height or constant width?


Constant width. The 16:9 is NOT scope safe. I thought it was just the initial flashback scene but scanning it revealed many AR jumps throughout the film.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> Constant width. The 16:9 is NOT scope safe. I thought it was just the initial flashback scene but scanning it revealed many AR jumps throughout the film.


Aren't the All Hallows' Eve movies both anthology films made up of multiple shorts? Is it that the AR changes at every story? Any idea if the first one does the same?


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Aren't the All Hallows' Eve movies both anthology films made up of multiple shorts? Is it that the AR changes at every story? Any idea if the first one does the same?


The first one (2013) was 100% scope. The second one seems to follow the present time in scope and flashback/past in 16:9. But the flashbacks are not scenes from the first movie.

Overall, a pretty decent horror flick that I thought was actually better than the first one.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> The first one (2013) was 100% scope. The second one seems to follow the present time in scope and flashback/past in 16:9. But the flashbacks are not scenes from the first movie.
> 
> Overall, a pretty decent horror flick that I thought was actually better than the first one.


Thanks. I don't know that it's right to call this one an "IMAX" variable ratio, so I'm putting it in Post 2 unless someone disagrees.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Thanks. I don't know that it's right to call this one an "IMAX" variable ratio, so I'm putting it in Post 2 unless someone disagrees.


Never implied that it was but I seldom find movie with shifting ARs that are so random as this one. Kinda like The True Story of the Kelly Gang which starts off as full 16:9 then slowly shrinks into a full 2.55:1 scope by the last frame.


----------



## Danchu

Mojin: The Lost Legend is free to stream on Youtube right and it's actually VAR:





The BD also seems to be VAR per the blu-ray.com screenshots:








Mojin - The Lost Legend Blu-ray (寻龙诀)


Mojin - The Lost Legend Blu-ray Release Date May 3, 2016 (寻龙诀). Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.




www.blu-ray.com





I did see one poster claiming to see it in a non-IMAX theater in China and it was still VAR, so not sure if the VAR is IMAX-exclusive?


----------



## Hydra Spectre

The Mitchells vs. The Machines is mostly a 1.85:1 film with some 4:3 scenes.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Josh Z said:


> Literally thousands movies have been presented in an incorrect aspect ratio somewhere, either on TV or dubious home video releases. It is way beyond the scope of this list to track that.
> 
> 
> 
> All 1.85:1 movies are slightly modified to 1.90:1 (technically 1.89:1) in IMAX theaters, either through slight cropping or opening the mattes. The difference between those two ratios is so tiny it's not even noticeable to the eye. This is not worth tracking here, IMO. Again, I'd have to inflate the list with many hundreds of additional movies.
> 
> I've updated the other titles you mentioned, thanks.


There are some 1.85:1 films that are presented in proper 1.85:1 in IMAX, the 4K remaster of AKIRA is one of them.
I saw Weathering With You in IMAX and the film was completely uncropped in 1.78:1, there are still some black bars in the left and right sides compared to the scope trailer of IT: Chapter Two that played before the film.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is VAR between 2.35:1 and 4:3 with constant height.

Also, Top Gun is available in IMAX Enhanced on FandangoNOW. Top Gun played in IMAX 3D but it was probably the original CinemaScope presentation rather than open matte but there is little evidence backing it up.
Now, what I am not sure about is if the FandangoNOW IMAX Enhanced version is in open matte 16:9. There are some streaming versions based on the 4K remaster (used in both the 3D conversion and the 2020 re-release) that are open matte 16:9 but since I don't live in America, I don't have a US credit card and I don't have the money, I can't verify if the IMAX Enhanced version on FandangoNOW is open matte 16:9.
Can someone verify if the FandangoNOW IMAX Enhanced version is open matte 16:9 or at least 1.9:1?
I really want a better open matte version of Top Gun and my Russian bootleg open matte has too many compression artifacts and little grain even for a 9GB 1080p file.
Netflix Philippines has Top Gun and it is the 4K remaster (with the 100th Anniversary logo like the Russian bootleg open matte and the 3D release) but it is cropped to CinemaScope just like the 4K UHD and the remastered Blu-ray.

Also, is Only the Brave in 1.9:1 on IMAX Enhanced?


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> All 1.85:1 movies are slightly modified to 1.90:1 (technically 1.89:1) in IMAX theaters, either through slight cropping or opening the mattes. The difference between those two ratios is so tiny it's not even noticeable to the eye. . . .
> . . .


With my projector, which has imaging panels that are 1.89:1 and has settings that let me toggle between Aspect:Auto - fitting everything into a 16:9 area leaving the sides unused - and Aspect:Zoom - that does a 6 2/3% digital zoom to use the full panel width, cropping off image at the top and bottom - I use Auto for 16:9 and narrower and Zoom for 1.85:1 and wider.

This gets me my largest image at 1.85:1, at the expense of about a 1% crop top and bottom, since 1.85:1 doesn't quite fill the height of the imagers in Auto. I've always figured that's within the framing tolerance cinematographers allow to guard against overscan errors in the display of their films. Apparently, the IMAX folks came to the same conclusion.

My 1.89:1 image area is 6' tall by 11'4.5" wide, so using Zoom on 1.85:1 gets me 8.5 inches more width and 2.8 inches more height while shaving off less than an inch of image top and bottom.

In watching VAR films, I've usually used Auto, assuming the tall sections are 16:9 - but if I know that the tall sections of a VAR film are actually 1.85:1 I could use Zoom.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is VAR between 2.35:1 and 4:3 with constant height.


I will add this to the list in post 2, but I'm not sure that it's really significant enough to call the movie Variable Aspect Ratio. The film has a handful of cutaway shots to content being watched on TV screens which are momentarily pillarboxed.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

So, about IMAX Enhanced, are Only the Brave and Top Gun open matte in their IMAX Enhanced FandangoNOW streams?


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> So, about IMAX Enhanced, are Only the Brave and Top Gun open matte in their IMAX Enhanced FandangoNOW streams?


I'm not able to check them out. I'll wait for someone else to confirm.


----------



## Danchu

Hydra Spectre said:


> So, about IMAX Enhanced, are Only the Brave and Top Gun open matte in their IMAX Enhanced FandangoNOW streams?


I can confirm Only the Brave 4k is presented at 2.39 on FandangoNow, despite being shown in 1.9 in IMAX theaters. I reached out to FandangoNow - they said they would ask the studio but has not heard back yet.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

The Unrated version of Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth in the Arrow Blu-ray changes from an HD 1.85:1 presentation to upscaled SD 4:3 in scenes that were cut from the theatrical release. This amounts to about 4 minutes of footage.
The theatrical cut is a consistent 1.85:1 on Blu-ray.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> The Unrated version of Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth in the Arrow Blu-ray changes from an HD 1.85:1 presentation to upscaled SD 4:3 in scenes that were cut from the theatrical release. This amounts to about 4 minutes of footage.
> The theatrical cut is a consistent 1.85:1 on Blu-ray.


This sounds like the "director's cut" of Exorcist III. I'm not sure if this sort of thing really qualifies as an actual variable ratio movie since it's more of a hodgepodge workprint.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Penguins of Madagascar is mostly a 1.85:1 film with some scenes shrinking to 2.35:1.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

There are two MCU shows with VAR post-credit scenes.
Ant-Man is a 1.85:1 film that goes to 2.35:1 with its post-credit scene that is a tease for Captain America: Civil War while Captain America: The First Avenger goes to 1.85:1 (constant height) for its post-credit scene which is a teaser for The Avengers.

The movie Censor (2021) starts out in 2.35:1 until it very slowly shrinks to 4:3, Constant Height safe.

The movie It Comes at Night is mostly 2.35:1 in real world scenes and nightmare sequences in 2.75:1 but during the last 20 minutes or so, the film starts to very slowly shrink to a 3:1 aspect ratio.

The Assassin is in 1.37:1 (in a 1.85:1 container) but it briefly expands to 1.85:1 for select scenes.

Space Jam: A New Legacy is mostly a 1.85:1 film that shrinks to either 4:3 or 2.35:1 for some scenes.


----------



## Josh Z

Black Widow was supposed to have a variable ratio in IMAX theaters. If anyone has streamed the movie via Premiere Access on Disney+, can you confirm whether the ratio there is VAR or constant 2.35:1?


----------



## nathan_h

Constant 235.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Evangelion: 3.0+1.01 Thrice Upon a Time has some 1.78:1 scenes from Evangelion: 1.11 You Are (Not) Alone and Evangelion: 2.22 You Can (Not) Advance at the opening recap while most of the film is in 2.35:1 and presented in Constant Height safe. However, flashbacks to footage from the first two films in the film proper have been reformatted to 2.35:1.

UPDATE: The 16:9 scenes from the 1.11 and 2.22 recap are pillarboxed within the 2.35:1 frame, but stock footage flashbacks from the previous films have been reformatted to 2.35:1.
Also, the Amazon Prime release is 3.0+1.01, not 3.01+1.01.


----------



## dragonbud0

I was not aware of the difference between 3.0+1.01, not 3.01+1.01 but this latest and final (?) iteration is far better than the 3.0 version released in 2012. We've all grown up in the last 25 years. There is no anime or TV series that spans more than one generation from the same director/producer. Blade Runner, a movies, is one of the exceptions.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

3.0+1.0 is the fourth film in the series but it's numbered that because it implies a time loop and because 4 is an unlucky number symbolising death in Japanese.
3.0 is an entirely different film. And speaking of 3.0, it has an updated IMAX version called 3.333 that is getting a 4K UHD release but they did not open the film up to 1.90:1 or 16:9, it is still in 2.35:1 just like the original release.

I'm not sure if the 4K UHD will be IMAX Enhanced, though.

Also, Evangelion: Death & Rebirth opens with a brief 4:3 scene before expanding to 16:9 (which is actually animated in 4:3 and cropped to 16:9 for the film version). This happens to both the theatrical version of Death & Rebirth (included on the Japanese Blu-ray box set) and on the updated Death(true)² cut (the version included as part of Revival of Evangelion alongside The End of Evangelion and on international releases on DVD, Blu-ray and Netflix).


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Pawn Sacrifice is primarily a 2.35:1 film with scenes in 16:9.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Pawn Sacrifice is primarily a 2.35:1 film with scenes in 16:9.


Pillarboxed, or expanded height?


----------



## Jacob305

I have hbomax. they have the new remastered Batman v Superman. when they do the Imax scenes, they are CIH safe.. its more like the opening of that remake of Oz with Sam Raimi. when I play my digital version of Batman v Superman the Imax overlap on the wall. I have to downsize the picture. 

Also the hbo wonder woman 1984 is also CIH safe. the imax opening is like the rest of the movie. 

Jacob


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Pawn Sacrifice is pillarboxed.


----------



## Josh Z

Jacob305 said:


> Also the hbo wonder woman 1984 is also CIH safe. the imax opening is like the rest of the movie.


This was HBO linear broadcast? I watched WW84 when it premiered on HBO Max, and the first and last scenes were full-screen 16:9 (not CIH safe). Seems strange that the linear channel would use a different transfer.

Edit: I just pulled up both movies on HBO Max and can confirm that, yeah, WW84 is now fully 2.35:1. No more variable ratio.

As you say, Bats v Supes is variable ratio but pillarboxed to be CIH safe. Another oddity, the IMAX scenes are pillarboxed 1.90:1, whereas they are full-height 1.43:1 on the UHD Blu-ray.


----------



## Philnick

I showed _Wonder Woman 1984_ to my wife through VUDU's UHD stream last night and found that it was VAR 1.90:1 / 2.39:1 - even though Blu-ray.com only said that about the disk and was silent about the stream's delivered aspect ratio, listing only an original aspect ratio of 2.39:1.

Given my borderless 17:9 setup (which _is_ 1.90:1), 1.90:1 is the ideal vertical expansion for VAR for me, since I can use my JVC's 6.67% digital Aspect:Zoom to get the biggest picture for the whole film without shaving off any of the original vertical image.

But I didn't like the fake "analog TV video noise" effects during the closing credits and on the lettering of all of the credits over the opening scene!

It may be a film set in 1984, but don't subject us to fake video noise that has no relationship to the plot.


----------



## jrubinstein81

I heard that Dune on Hbomax is CIH safe. I do not have it anymore.

Someone on bluray.com mentioned that.

Jacob


----------



## fatherom

jrubinstein81 said:


> I heard that Dune on Hbomax is CIH safe. I do not have it anymore.
> 
> Someone on bluray.com mentioned that.
> 
> Jacob


I thought the HBO Max didn't even have the VAR? Can anyone confirm?

Do you have a link to the blu-ray.com thing you mentioned?


----------



## jrubinstein81

when wonder woman 1984 played it had the imax scenes. now on regular hbomax it only the regular version.






Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - Dune (2021)


Everything about Blu-ray Disc. Join the Blu-ray Forum to discuss topics such as Blu-ray movies, players, recorders, drives, media and software.




forum.blu-ray.com





Jacob


----------



## Hydra Spectre

National Geographic/Disney+'s Fauci is mostly in 2.35:1 container but has some 4:3 and 16:9 scenes windowboxed within a 2.35:1 frame.
Also, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is mostly in 2.35:1 but has some 4:3 scenes.


----------



## nathan_h

Love the window boxing. Wish a lot more content was like that (I'm looking at you, Wes Anderson).


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> National Geographic/Disney+'s Fauci is mostly in 2.35:1 container but has some 4:3 and 16:9 scenes windowboxed within a 2.35:1 frame.
> Also, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is mostly in 2.35:1 but has some 4:3 scenes.


I will add these to Post 2, but I struggle with documentaries or other films that insert clips from other sources.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Sorry if this has been asked and answered before but how do scope screens and CIH handle subtitles? Viewable?


----------



## Josh Z

Ricoflashback said:


> Sorry if this has been asked and answered before but how do scope screens and CIH handle subtitles? Viewable?


If the subtitles are placed inside the movie image, it's not a problem. If they are below the movie image in the letterbox bar, but you're watching something on disc (DVD, Blu-ray, UHD), there are a few models of player with the ability to manually adjust the subtitles up or down.

Unfortunately, with streaming you're out of luck. Those subtitles are burned into the image where they are and can't be adjusted. In that case, the best compromise is a combination of reducing zoom and shifting the image upward until the subtitles are just visible and the top of your image remains flush with the top of your screen. That will give you black bars on three sides, which is obviously still not ideal, but is better than bars on all four sides.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Josh Z said:


> If the subtitles are placed inside the movie image, it's not a problem. If they are below the movie image in the letterbox bar, but you're watching something on disc (DVD, Blu-ray, UHD), there are a few models of player with the ability to manually adjust the subtitles up or down.
> 
> Unfortunately, with streaming you're out of luck. Those subtitles are burned into the image where they are and can't be adjusted. In that case, the best compromise is a combination of reducing zoom and shifting the image upward until the subtitles are just visible and the top of your image remains flush with the top of your screen. That will give you black bars on three sides, which is obviously still not ideal, but is better than bars on all four sides.


Much thanks. That definitely makes me reconsider a scope screen and even a projector with lens memory. I gave up on Blu-ray discs a couple of years ago with all the faux 4K out there. Plus, the convenience of streaming. And I watch a lot of sports, as well. So, it might have to be a 16 x 9 screen with horizontal masking. The three black bars solution doesn't sound very enticing. Thanks again.


----------



## Josh Z

Ricoflashback said:


> Much thanks. That definitely makes me reconsider a scope screen and even a projector with lens memory. I gave up on Blu-ray discs a couple of years ago with all the faux 4K out there. Plus, the convenience of streaming. And I watch a lot of sports, as well. So, it might have to be a 16 x 9 screen with horizontal masking. The three black bars solution doesn't sound very enticing. Thanks again.


Do you watch a lot of content with subtitles that this would be an issue for?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Josh Z said:


> Do you watch a lot of content with subtitles that this would be an issue for?


Yes - virtually all movies and TV shows except for news and sports. High loss hearing (too many rock concerts when I was younger?) Oddly enough, news and sports are fine. News is straight forward dialogue (for the most part) and sports I can follow without jabbering sportscasters or loud crowd noise. Background noise is a real problem and some audio mixes are just not clear. So, an absolute deal killer for me. Thanks for your explanation. It really locks me into a 16 x 9 screen and no need for lens memory on the projector.


----------



## nathan_h

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes - virtually all movies and TV shows except for news and sports. High loss hearing (too many rock concerts when I was younger?) Oddly enough, news and sports are fine. News is straight forward dialogue (for the most part) and sports I can follow without jabbering sportscasters or loud crowd noise. Background noise is a real problem and some audio mixes are just not clear. So, an absolute deal killer for me. Thanks for your explanation. It really locks me into a 16 x 9 screen and no need for lens memory on the projector.


I am a constant image height widescreen 2.4:1 anamorphic fan boy…..……

….and in your case, between hearing loss/subtitles, and watching stuff like news and sports, 16*9 sounds like the right screen for you.


----------



## Ricoflashback

nathan_h said:


> I am a constant image height widescreen 2.4:1 anamorphic fan boy…..……
> 
> ….and in your case, between hearing loss/subtitles, and watching stuff like news and sports, 16*9 sounds like the right screen for you.


Thanks. Unfortunately for me, I think you’re right. I would have loved to try a scope screen but I need the subtitles. And the widescreen aspect ratio doesn’t easily accommodate subtitles. So - the largest 16 x 9 screen with horizontal masking seems like the best solution. That’s o.k. If I move from a 100” to a 120” 16 x 9 screen - - that will still be a noticeable improvement for movies.


----------



## bud16415

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes - virtually all movies and TV shows except for news and sports. High loss hearing (too many rock concerts when I was younger?) Oddly enough, news and sports are fine. News is straight forward dialogue (for the most part) and sports I can follow without jabbering sportscasters or loud crowd noise. Background noise is a real problem and some audio mixes are just not clear. So, an absolute deal killer for me. Thanks for your explanation. It really locks me into a 16 x 9 screen and no need for lens memory on the projector.


Ricoflashback you really should have asked your question in the thread dedicated to this topic. There is one such thread active on the first page of the forum now with a lot of great information.

Having said that you are confusing presentation with the ability to present closed caption. CIW 16:9 and CIH 2.4:1 are different methods of presentation that show different AR images in a size that is theatrically correct, with or without subtitles. Even doing as Josh suggests is messing with the proper presentation of the movie.

This thread is about movies with changing ARs and the most common is IMAX to scope and the thread advocates cropping the IMAX to fit scope that is questionably altering the presentation negatively. Watching everything CIW on a 16:9 screen is defiantly improper presentation.

The solution for you is a CIH+IMAX concept with top and bottom masking where you can drop the bottom masking when you want to read burned in subtitles in the black bar.

Sports and news are not motion pictures and don’t follow any presentation guidelines and I think news you will find good sized to fit inside the scope frame and many sports you might like blown up to IMAX size. This is what I do as many sports are shot much like scope and the area above and below are filled in with stats.
The added benefit of this is when you do watch an IMAX movie you can do the full presentation.


----------



## Ricoflashback

bud16415 said:


> Ricoflashback you really should have asked your question in the thread dedicated to this topic. There is one such thread active on the first page of the forum now with a lot of great information.
> 
> Having said that you are confusing presentation with the ability to present closed caption. CIW 16:9 and CIH 2.4:1 are different methods of presentation that show different AR images in a size that is theatrically correct, with or without subtitles. Even doing as Josh suggests is messing with the proper presentation of the movie.
> 
> This thread is about movies with changing ARs and the most common is IMAX to scope and the thread advocates cropping the IMAX to fit scope that is questionably altering the presentation negatively. Watching everything CIW on a 16:9 screen is defiantly improper presentation.
> 
> The solution for you is a CIH+IMAX concept with top and bottom masking where you can drop the bottom masking when you want to read burned in subtitles in the black bar.
> 
> Sports and news are not motion pictures and don’t follow any presentation guidelines and I think news you will find good sized to fit inside the scope frame and many sports you might like blown up to IMAX size. This is what I do as many sports are shot much like scope and the area above and below are filled in with stats.
> The added benefit of this is when you do watch an IMAX movie you can do the full presentation.


Thanks. I'll look at the thread suggested. I didn't know where to go with my question.


----------



## Mihadis

Add Kursk (2018) (aka The Command) to the list. It's 2.35:1, but starts out 1.66 (within 2.35:1). This was quite funny looking watching on a tv.


----------



## Jacob305

https://www.engadget.com/disney-plus-imax-enhanced-marvel-mcu-140016192.html



Disney Plus is going to show the imax version of the marvel movies. That incudes avengers Infinity war and endgame.

The others were presented in 3d. on disc.

Jacob


----------



## Josh Z

Jacob305 said:


> https://www.engadget.com/disney-plus-imax-enhanced-marvel-mcu-140016192.html
> 
> 
> 
> Disney Plus is going to show the imax version of the marvel movies. That incudes avengers Infinity war and endgame.
> 
> The others were presented in 3d. on disc.


Looks like Engadget changed the link to that article. This is where I found it:



https://www.engadget.com/disney-plus-imax-enhanced-marvel-mcu-140052678.html


----------



## bud16415

Jacob305 said:


> https://www.engadget.com/disney-plus-imax-enhanced-marvel-mcu-140016192.html
> 
> 
> 
> Disney Plus is going to show the imax version of the marvel movies. That incudes avengers Infinity war and endgame.
> 
> The others were presented in 3d. on disc.
> 
> Jacob


This is great news. Lets hope all the streaming sites pick up on this idea. Maybe even put more movies shot for IMAX1.89 on disc media that way.


----------



## Josh Z

I've done my best to update the list with this info, but I'll admit that the various categories are getting confusing when there's a conflict between the disc releases and some streaming providers but not other streaming providers.


----------



## Philnick

bud16415 said:


> This is great news. Lets hope all the streaming sites pick up on this idea. Maybe even put more movies shot for IMAX1.89 on disc media that way.


Simple competitive requirements should take care of that for streaming. 

I showed an old friend the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_ last night as part of a two-film Benedict Cumberbach marathon, starting with the 4K disk of _Star Trek Into Darkness_ - and I really noticed how much dimmer the 3D _Doctor Strange_ was than the 4K _Into Darkness_. Too bad that they limit the VAR to the 3D disk - I wish that there was a 4K VAR release! It would be a shame to have to watch it on streaming for that.


----------



## fatherom

Philnick said:


> Simple competitive requirements should take care of that for streaming.
> 
> I showed an old friend the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_ last night as part of a two-film Benedict Cumberbach marathon, starting with the 4K disk of _Star Trek Into Darkness_ - and I really noticed how much dimmer the 3D _Doctor Strange_ was than the 4K _Into Darkness_. Too bad that they limit the VAR to the 3D disk - I wish that there was a 4K VAR release! It would be a shame to have to watch it on streaming for that.


I personally can't wait for the Disney+ IMAX versions. The Spiderman FFH imax Fandango Now version is spectacular (unfortunately, it's not available anymore since VUDU bought Fandango). That Spiderman FFH IMAX version is my preferred way to watch that film.

I love the MCU and I love expanding ratio films. I own all these movies on disc, and most of the titles announced I have IMAX ratios on the 3D version, but to get a 4K IMAX 2D version is wonderful. Especially Infinity War and Endgame, which have no prior IMAX version to speak of.


----------



## Jacob305

I remember having the original star wars on digital. they switched over with the new versions. The retail could offer the Imax versions as well.

Jacob

Ps. Josh Z. you have done a great job with the listing. please keep up the great work.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Shang Chi and Black Widow are available on Blu-ray 3D but only in Japan.
They are packaged with the 4K UHD MovieNEX releases.

The 2018 IMAX Remaster of Iron Man 1 will also be on Disney+. And Shang Chi is confirmed to have an IMAX version on Disney+.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I've done my best to update the list with this info, but I'll admit that the various categories are getting confusing when there's a conflict between the disc releases and some streaming providers but not other streaming providers.


Well the title of your thread is “variable AR movies on BD”.

Even that is getting confusing and streaming is coming from more and more directions all the time and will be whatever they want it to be or can get permission to send out.

I have been saying for a few years that variable true cinema releases and variable TV all coming to us mixed together and hard to tell the difference sometimes over dozens of streaming sites is going to be next to imposable to keep track of, other than it is all forced to fit inside a 16:9 container and for most people will be watched on TVs with no control to change size.

For those of us with projectors that can control the variable content we watch we need some sort of a system of managing it. Thread like these and your efforts help a lot of people that are still trying to size and mask it all. I commend them for the efforts.

In the end I’m sure people are getting surprised still with not knowing fully what something is going to do until it happens.
The more digital filming is embraced and directors are free to do almost anything with the image they think adds to what they are making this is going to keep taking off. I watched a one-minute commercial that changed AR and size and had frame breaking all in one minute.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Shang Chi and Black Widow are available on Blu-ray 3D but only in Japan.
> They are packaged with the 4K UHD MovieNEX releases.


Do the 3D versions have variable aspect ratio, or are they constant 2.35:1?


----------



## Philnick

I find Blue-ray.com very helpful as a reference to know what to expect from a disk, since they list, for each version of a disk, what the original aspect ratio of the film was and how it's delivered on disk, with the maximum and minimum aspect ratios used. 

In the case of streaming service releases, they may start to do the same, but so far I haven't seen that for VAR films. I've only seen them list the OAR in that situation.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> Do the 3D versions have variable aspect ratio, or are they constant 2.35:1?


Most of the recent Marvel 3D discs (including Black Widow, also Captain Marvel, Ant-Man & The Wasp, Black Panther, Thor Rangnarok, etc) are variable AR. Certain scenes switch from 2.40:1 to 1.78:1.

EDIT: The japanese 3D blu-ray for black widow is variable AR. I'm assuming Shang Chi will be as well, but it's not out yet.


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> Most of the recent Marvel 3D discs (including Black Widow, also Captain Marvel, Ant-Man & The Wasp, Black Panther, Thor Rangnarok, etc) are variable AR. Certain scenes switch from 2.40:1 to 1.78:1.


This isn't guaranteed. The 3D Blu-ray for Spider Man: Far from Home is constant 2.35:1. The only VAR edition of that movie is the IMAX Enhanced streaming version.



> EDIT: The japanese 3D blu-ray for black widow is variable AR. I'm assuming Shang Chi will be as well, but it's not out yet.


I found a YouTube review of Black Widow that confirms the Japanese 3D disc is VAR from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1.

My understanding is that Shang-Chi is fully open-matte 1.90:1 for the whole movie in IMAX theaters, not VAR. I will wait for confirmation on how the disc versions handle it.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> This isn't guaranteed. The 3D Blu-ray for Spider Man: Far from Home is constant 2.35:1. The only VAR edition of that movie is the IMAX Enhanced streaming version.
> 
> I found a YouTube review of Black Widow that confirms the Japanese 3D disc is VAR from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1.
> 
> My understanding is that Shang-Chi is fully open-matte 1.90:1 for the whole movie in IMAX theaters, not VAR. I will wait for confirmation on how the disc versions handle it.


I know it's not guaranteed...that's why I said "most of the recent marvel 3d discs" and didn't include Spiderman FFH in my () list.

Yeah, Black Widow is definitely VAR, and I think the first marvel 3D disc to go to 1.90:1 (as opposed to all the other VAR discs which seem to go to 1.78:1)...I've watched the Black Widow 3D japan disc once.

Yeah, not sure how Shang Chi will work. I wonder if the disc will be different from the Disney+ imax version coming out this Friday.

Edit: the blu-ray.com forum threads seem to indicate your suspicion...the Shang Chi disc will most likely be 1.90:1 throughout.


----------



## Philnick

After looking at the specifications for the Disney+ IMAX-enhanced films that appeared today (using my phone app, since the web app is silent about the specs), I was horrified that they were all listed as "HD 5.1" instead of "UHD Atmos" as they had been when they were straight scope formatted.

Then I went to my theater, fired up my Nvidia Shield and was relieved to see that they are indeed still UHD (confirmed by the Shield, which expressly declines to apply upscaling to 4K material) and DD+ Atmos (confirmed by my AVR). The one film I tested out, _Doctor Strange,_ is VAR, opening up vertically to 1.90:1 in the IMAX scenes - so I can use my 4K JVC's Aspect:Zoom setting, since 1.90:1 is the projector's native aspect ratio. (With the 3D VAR film, I can't use Aspect:Zoom because that mode is unavailable when showing 3D.)

I have both the UHD (VAR) and 3D (scope) disks of _Star Trek: Into Darkness_ and I always watch the VAR UHD version so I can see Spock dwarfed by the leaping lava inside the volcano and benefit from the bigger, brighter, sharper picture and discrete overhead sound. The new Disney+ IMAX-enhanced version of _Doctor Strange_ will lead me to watch that version instead of the VAR 3D disk - a bigger, brighter, sharper image with discrete overhead channels makes 3D less of a draw. And the same will apply to my other 3D Marvel disks once they're available this way.


----------



## Philnick

For anyone who's afraid that the IMAX-enhanced versions of films at Disney+ are cropped "pan and scan" versions that would herald the return of "Fullscreen" versions like on VHS, just look at the thumbnails on a film's Versions tab and you'll see that they both show the same uncropped image in terms of width, just opening up taller to show more vertical source image in the IMAX version. For those with CIH screens, the scope versions are still there to be watched.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

A Writer's Odyssey is variable aspect ratio 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 on Blu-ray like in IMAX.
I am getting conflicting reports. Some say that the IMAX version is variable aspect ratio while others say the film is fully 1.85:1 in IMAX and VAR in standard releases.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> My understanding is that Shang-Chi is fully open-matte 1.90:1 for the whole movie in IMAX theaters, not VAR. I will wait for confirmation on how the disc versions handle it.


I watched _Shang-Chi_ on Disney + a few nights ago and it was full height for the whole film. No scope scenes at all.

But like all of the other IMAX-Enhanced films they just put up, they also put up a purely scope version as well, giving the user the choice of which version to watch, on the "Versions" tab under the film's description.


----------



## Josh Z

Apropos of a conversation in another thread that went off the rails and was (rightly) closed down, I decided to pull some up-to-date stats to determine what percentage of theatrical movies in a given year are really made in each aspect ratio. The information seems relevant to this thread, so I'll post it here and hope to avoid the mess that happened elsewhere.

I'll admit, the results did surprise me a little.

I've long made the argument that the split between 1.85:1 theatrical movies and 2.35:1 (technically 2.39:1) theatrical movies has been about 50/50 for decades. That was based on the fact that Widescreen Review used to publish annual lists of theatrical release movies with aspect ratio info, and that's how it broke down most years. But they haven't done that in a while. Is it still true?

The pandemic greatly disrupted every studio's distribution plans over the last couple years, so I focused on 2019, the last year with a normal theatrical release schedule. I started from this List of American Films of 2019 and then went and looked up aspect ratio specs for each and every one of them.

Off the bat, this is only for American films. The situation may be different in other countries, but I just don't have the time or resources to get this information for every movie released worldwide.

This is also only for theatrical release films. The original list had about 250 titles. I tried my best to weed out movies that were made for or released straight to streaming with no theatrical distribution. That leaves a total of 211 titles released theatrically in 2019. Here's how they broke down:

1.66:1 - 3 (2%)
1.85:1 - 40 (19%)
2.39:1 - 150 (71%)
2.39:1 in regular theaters / open matte 1.90:1 in IMAX - 3 (1%)
2.39:1 in regular theaters / variable ratio in IMAX - 4 (2%)
Misc. non-standard ratios - 11 (5%)










So, it would seem that the 50% average no longer applies. Current trends weight heavily toward 2.39:1 for most American theatrical movies, with 1.85:1 shrinking significantly in usage. IMAX open-matte and variable ratio remain a very small niche.

This would appear to disprove the supposition that modern movies are moving toward 1.85:1 to cater to streaming or TV or IMAX. Clearly, filmmakers are actually pushing hard in the other direction and embracing scope 2.39:1 over all other formats to an overwhelming degree.

(This also pretty bluntly disproves the claim that "Presently 70% of all production is shot 1.77:1." Shot using digital cameras with 1.77:1 [more likely 1.90:1] sensors, perhaps - but not actually composed for or distributed in that ratio.)

Should anyone demand that I show my work, the tabulated data is attached.


----------



## nathan_h

Great data. 

I still understand why some people go 16x9 because they watch lots of TV, play video games, watch sports etc. or have other constraints.

But for us movie lovers / theatrical experience aficionados, the choice is clear if we want to mimic the theatrical experience as much as possible.

(This last statement is fraught by the fact that most theater screens in the US are closer to 1.78 than 2.35 but that's a whole other abomination, lol.)


----------



## Killroy

Like I said before, there are more (cinema grade) anamorphic lenses being manufactured and sold today than at any other time in cinema history. Canon, and even Nikon are getting into the manufacturing of anamorphic lenses. Arri has been making them for ages but now they are branching out with various models including (prototype) zoom lenses in their Masters series. And the use of 4K and 8K sensors are making those lenses produce some incredible quality scope films.

EDIT - The zoom ones are just prototype at this time.


----------



## Josh Z

I got fancy and added a pie chart to my previous post for better illustration of the disparity.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> Apropos of a conversation in another thread that went off the rails and was (rightly) closed down, I decided to pull some up-to-date stats to determine what percentage of theatrical movies in a given year are really made in each aspect ratio. The information seems relevant to this thread, so I'll post it here and hope to avoid the mess that happened elsewhere.
> 
> I'll admit, the results did surprise me a little.
> 
> I've long made the argument that the split between 1.85:1 theatrical movies and 2.35:1 (technically 2.39:1) theatrical movies has been about 50/50 for decades. That was based on the fact that Widescreen Review used to publish annual lists of theatrical release movies with aspect ratio info, and that's how it broke down most years. But they haven't done that in a while. Is it still true?
> 
> The pandemic greatly disrupted every studio's distribution plans over the last couple years, so I focused on 2019, the last year with a normal theatrical release schedule. I started from this List of American Films of 2019 and then went and looked up aspect ratio specs for each and every one of them.
> 
> Off the bat, this is only for American films. The situation may be different in other countries, but I just don't have the time or resources to get this information for every movie released worldwide.
> 
> This is also only for theatrical release films. The original list had about 250 titles. I tried my best to weed out movies that were made for or released straight to streaming with no theatrical distribution. That leaves a total of 211 titles released theatrically in 2019. Here's how they broke down:
> 
> 1.66:1 - 3 (2%)
> 1.85:1 - 40 (19%)
> 2.39:1 - 150 (71%)
> 2.39:1 in regular theaters / open matte 1.90:1 in IMAX - 3 (1%)
> 2.39:1 in regular theaters / variable ratio in IMAX - 4 (2%)
> Misc. non-standard ratios - 11 (5%)
> 
> View attachment 3202091
> 
> 
> So, it would seem that the 50% average no longer applies. Current trends weight heavily toward 2.39:1 for most American theatrical movies, with 1.85:1 shrinking significantly in usage. IMAX open-matte and variable ratio remain a very small niche.
> 
> This would appear to disprove the supposition that modern movies are moving toward 1.85:1 to cater to streaming or TV or IMAX. Clearly, filmmakers are actually pushing hard in the other direction and embracing scope 2.39:1 over all other formats to an overwhelming degree.
> 
> (This also pretty bluntly disproves the claim that "Presently 70% of all production is shot 1.77:1." Shot using digital cameras with 1.77:1 [more likely 1.90:1] sensors, perhaps - but not actually composed for or distributed in that ratio.)
> 
> Should anyone demand that I show my work, the tabulated data is attached.


I really don't care what "the mainstream" of film production is - and I'm surprised that in this hobby "what everyone outside the hobby does" should count for anything. This forum is for folks who aren't content to take what the commercial movie theaters dish out as the only way, not simply copy them.

"If everyone else watched movies on their phones, would you?"​The question, when it comes to designing a theater, is whether you give everything you show its best possible presentation - on its own terms, not based on comparison to anything else.

71% of the films made for theatrical presentation in 2019 were in scope format, _but 29% were not_, and that's not an insignificant number. I don't watch sports or ordinary television in my theater, I watch lots of stream-only material like the new Marvel and Star Trek shows - which are made with production value to match any theatrical film - and yes, many of them are scope formatted, but not all, particularly since Disney + has begun to free the taller-formatted Marvel films from being confined to 3D disks, and will likely try to do the same with films from other studios. Remember that some of Disney's own recent production is taller format, like their new photorealistic version of _The Lion King_.

In my theater, I don't want things I show that aren't scope-height limited - which include some Marvel films and others that emphasize spectacle - to have to be shown smaller than possible, just to fit on a screen optimized for scope films.

Since my screen is wider than my projector can show a scope film, they are shown in their full glory, 11' 4.5" wide, for an audience sitting ten feet away. The other 29% of 2019 production should also be shown as large as possible, so my screen is also tall enough to show those as large as possible.

If a taller screen makes letterbox bars distracting in your theater, by all means hide them with masking when showing scope films, but let things that are taller breathe free.

To quote the old song, "Don't fence me in."


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> 71% of the films made for theatrical presentation in 2019 were in scope format, _but 29% were not_, and that's not an insignificant number.


Phil, do me a favor. Open the PDF attached to my earlier post and tell me how many of the 1.85:1 titles on the list you have actually watched in your theater, vs. the 2.39:1 titles.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> Phil, do me a favor. Open the PDF attached to my earlier post and tell me how many of the 1.85:1 titles on the list you have actually watched in your theater, vs. the 2.39:1 titles.


Here you go - and not just _numbers_ of 1.85 vs scope, but the _names_ of _all_ of the films from your list of 2019 thatrical films that I own (or have paid access to) and have watched, by name and format. (Corrected, per your response, to reclassify _Ad Astra_.)

Maybe the industry is trending towards scope, but as many of my films on that list are taller than scope as are scope-locked:

*1.85:1 - 4 films*
_Little Women
Knives Out
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
The Lion King_

*2.0:1 - 1 film*
_Men in Black International_

*IMAX - 1 film*
_Avengers: Endgame _

*IMAX VAR - 3 films*
_The Aeronauts
Spider-Man: Far From Home
Captain Marvel_

*Total that are taller than scope: 9

Pure Scope - 9 films*
_X-Men: Dark Phoenix
Serenity
Downton Abbey
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Rocketman
Blinded by the Light
Shazam!
Ad Astra_

*Scope: 9, Taller than scope: 9*

And there's not a romantic comedy, sports film, or tv movie in the bunch. Nothing there that doesn't deserve full immersion as much as, say, _The Runaway Bride_ (2.39:1), _Roxanne_ (2.4:1), _Pride and Prejudice_ (2005) (2:39:1) and _Ramona and Beezus_ (2.39:1), all of which I also have and enjoy.

So you can see that I have no reason to impose a scope height limit on my viewing. I haven't done an analysis of the rest of my film catalog (linked to in my signature below) - which is 44 pages long, single spaced, an average of two lines per entry and a line and a half between entries. (I used to be the projectionist for the film society in college, as a student employee of the school's film department, where they taught film production - I've so far resisted buying a copy of _David Holtzman's Diary_, a cautionary tale that was shown to film students.) I suspect that an analysis of my full list would come out even more weighted towards non-scope films. I'll let you know if and when I do that - which would require determining the format of every film in my list.

If you've read the legend of Procrustes, who killed travelers by making them fit his iron bed - by stretching them or sawing off any excess - you'd know that he was ultimately executed for his crimes by fitting _him_ to the bed.

I prefer to follow the Goldilocks approach of choosing a bed to fit the film.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> *2.0:1 - 2 films*
> _Ad Astra
> Men in Black International_


Ad Astra is not 2.00:1. It is 2.39:1.



> *IMAX - 1 film*
> _Avengers: Endgame _
> 
> *IMAX VAR - 3 films*
> _The Aeronauts
> Spider-Man: Far From Home
> Captain Marvel_


The Blu-rays and UHDs for Avengers: Endgame, Captain Marvel, and Spider-Man: Far from Home are CIH. Have you watched them on Disney+ since Nov. 12?

Assuming that's probably a no, here are your actual numbers:

1.85:1 - 4
2.00:1 - 1
IMAX VAR - 1
2.39:1 - 12

You literally watched twice as many 2.39:1 movies as everything else combined (only one of which was actually designed to be taller than scope).


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> Ad Astra is not 2.00:1. It is 2.39:1.


My mistake. The arrangement of your list was confusing, with category totals looking like headings, until I figured things out.

Reclassifying _Ad Astra_ from 2.0 to 2.39 makes my two category totals - scope and taller than scope - equal, at 9 films apiece.

I'll edit my post.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> The Blu-rays and UHDs for Avengers: Endgame, Captain Marvel, and Spider-Man: Far from Home are CIH. Have you watched them on Disney+ since Nov. 12?
> 
> Assuming that's probably a no, here are your actual numbers:
> 
> 1.85:1 - 4
> 2.00:1 - 1
> IMAX VAR - 1
> 2.39:1 - 12
> 
> You literally watched twice as many 2.39:1 movies as everything else combined (only one of which was actually designed to be taller than scope).


I've played this game by your rules, and you're not.

First of all, I own and have watched the VAR 3D Blu-ray of _Captain Marvel_ several times, so you're simply wrong on that one, and had no basis to make that assertion. 

Secondly, if I could have watched _Endgame _at home taller than scope, I would have, and I will now that I can. 

The same will apply to _Far From Home_ if and when it becomes available at home in taller than scope format. Even if I agreed with that reclassification of a film - which I classified based on your list - moving one film out of 18 makes it 10 to 8, a 5 to 4 split - nowhere near a 2/1 split.

_*The purpose of this analysis is to look at how we should design our theaters based on what sort of things we like to watch.* _You suggested basing this on how our taste maps to the production design of films released during 2019, already a very small slice of most our libraries, which you released a listing of, categorized by how they were produced. I worked from your list.

Because you don't like that my taste in films turns out to include as many films produced in "taller than scope" as in scope format, you want to refigure the count by reclassifying one film that you didn't think I had in taller than scope _but actually do_, one that has only just been made available that way, and one that may or may not be. 

The filmmakers made those films taller than scope and I would prefer to watch them that way. Even if only a third of my viewing was taller than scope, I wouldn't be willing to compromise presentation of those films. Remember, _I said that 29% was not insignificant_.

Why are you so determined to convince the world that a scope-locked screen is the best way to set up a home theater projection system? 

Why shouldn't a theater be able to show _any_ format at its best? Why is it best to optimize projection for one format by a method that degrades presentation of other formats by forcing tall films to fit into a short frame? 

Why not adapt the screen to the film, instead of vice versa?

Months ago I used a quote from a political observer, "Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit" to characterize this debate. 

I may never convince those who have spent as much on anamorphic lenses and scope screens as on their projectors that there is an equally, if not more, valid way to set up a theater, but I will not allow anyone to convince me that my own preference is other than what I know it to be by trying to gerrymander my count.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> _*The purpose of this analysis is to look at how we should design our theaters based on what sort of things we like to watch.* _You suggested basing this on how our taste maps to the production design of films released during 2019, already a very small slice of most our libraries, which you released a listing of, categorized by how they were produced. I worked from your list.


Two of the categories on the list explicitly state:

2.39:1 in regular theaters / open matte 1.90:1 in IMAX
2.39:1 in regular theaters / variable ratio in IMAX 

You do not have an IMAX screen in your home, Phil. Those movies were made to be viewed as 2.39:1 in all venues _other than IMAX theaters with 75-foot tall screens_, where the height of the screen exceeds your field of vision. That is the *only* place where the open-matte or VAR version is applicable.



> Why shouldn't a theater be able to show _any_ format at its best? Why is it best to optimize projection for one format by a method that degrades presentation of other formats by forcing tall films to fit into a short frame?


The point of this discussion is that you've got it completely backwards. A scope screen does not degrade the presentation of 1.85:1 films. However, a 16:9 screen absolutely does degrade the presentation of all scope films.


----------



## Josh Z

Let's try a visual illustration, shall we? Here are two very similar films made in different aspect ratios:

Goldfinger (1964)
Aspect Ratio: 1.66:1
Budget: $3 million USD










Thunderball (1965)
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Budget: $9 million USD










Notice how these are both classically-composed medium shots, framed from the top of Sean Connery's head to the middle of his torso, with the same amount of headroom above each. The only difference is that the scope movie has more width for the actor to move through.

Why is it that Connery looks so much smaller in Thunderball (a much bigger scale movie with three times the budget of its predecessor) when viewed on a 16:9 screen? In fact, it's not just this shot. Everything in the entire movie is smaller when watched this way. Does that seem right to anyone?










Yet, if you watch them in Constant Height format, suddenly the actor is the exact same size in both shots.











Still not seeing it? Try this side-by-side extract. It's pretty much impossible to miss.










Huh. How weird. It's almost as if the scope movie was *explicitly made* to be projected the same height but wider than the non-scope movie.

Wait, isn't that what I've been saying _all along_ in this forum?

Oh, but these are both really old movies. Surely, this is just some antiquated rule that only applied back in the 1960s. Movies aren't still photographed like this anymore, right?

Spectre (2015)
Aspect Ratio: 2.39:1
Budget: $300 million USD





















WHAAAAAAAAAT????!!!!!! Movies are still photographed the same way even 50 years later? Impossible!!! How can this be???


----------



## Philnick

Here we go again!

In my theater, at my 15' 9" throw distance - which is what I use because to move my projector any further back would put it into an alcove and the image would get cut off by a side wall - my projector is capable of filling a 1.89:1 area 11' 4.5" wide by 6' high. Period. The area within which I can put a screen is just under 12' wide. An anamorphic lens is thus ruled out as a matter of physics, as well as cost.

Since I'm sitting ten feet from the screen, I'm probably seeing my scope image as large or larger than if I went to a commercial theater, and I'm pretty sure you'd like what you saw - until you noticed the absence of a scope-shaped frame around the image.

Because of the absence of such a frame, I can show 1.85 films at the projector's full 6' by 11' 4.5." Are you saying that my ability to show 1.85 taller than scope degrades my scope presentations? That's balderdash.

Scope is taking exactly the same amount of my horizontal and vertical field of view as it would if I had installed a 
scope screen, as I am projecting it as large as my projector can at my throw distance. All a scope screen would do is limit the vertical height of non-scope material - it would not make my scope images one millimeter wider or taller.

To quote John Adams during the trial resulting from the Boston Massacre, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

I don't know if you ever read Kurt Vonnegut's stories, but he famously described, in 1961's _Harrison Bergeron_, a future society in which no one was allowed to excel, so dancers were required to wear lead weights and intelligent people had their thoughts continually interrupted by radios they were required to wear.

You're trying to put lead weights on images that _can_ use the full height of the projector's image to keep them from being taller than scope.

Personally, I believe that images should be free, not constrained by the jealousy of fans of other images.

_Thunderball_ may have been designed to be shown as tall as _Goldfinger_, but can you show me an instruction from the studio to the theaters to never show _Goldfinger_ taller than a scope film? I bet that they never refused to rent _Thunderball_ to a theater which didn't have scope screens as tall as their conventional screens.

But I promise not to show you _Thunderball_ right after _Goldfinger_.


----------



## fatherom

Good lord, just stop. You're both never going to agree...between the arcane historical quotes and the "this is how movies work", you sound like two stubborn arguing crotchety old people. Just let it go, please.


----------



## nathan_h

While books have been written about the history of widescreen and what studios intended and what theaters did, and even if one reads the history and concludes CIH was what was intended, and usually how it worked, until the 21st century when 185:1 screens became ubiquitous in multiplexes and most theaters in the US started letterboxing cinemascope content……..it’s pretty much Mac versus Window, atheists versus theists, and “reading on a Kindle is an abomination against Gutenberg“ discussion every time. Even if every director signed an oath that they intended their 2.35 content to be the same height as 1.85 movies, it wouldn’t change anyones mind.

The beauty of this thread is that we get INFORMATION with which we can make a choice based on knowing how the content is available.


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> Good lord, just stop. You're both never going to agree...between the arcane historical quotes and the "this is how movies work", you sound like two stubborn arguing crotchety old people. Just let it go, please.


I mean, this is _my_ thread. So.....


----------



## Josh Z

To recap, I have demonstrated that:

1) 2.35:1 films are composed to have objects the same size as those in a 1.85:1 film but with more area available on the sides.

And

2) An overwhelming majority of modern feature films are composed and photographed for 2.35:1 ratio.

And the conclusion we draw from this is... 16:9 is the best screen shape and all these stupid directors must really want their movies to be projected smaller than the Geico ads and trivia slides that play before the feature.

Right. Of course. That's totally logical.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> I mean, this is _my_ thread. So.....


Then you should probably change the thread title. The title and the first post is merely a list of information...it contains no opinions or connotations. Yet, the thread has changed into a debate of scope vs. 16:9, with people firmly entrenched in both camps. The current discussion happening in this thread has morphed from merely a thread/discussion meant to convey a list of movies with VAR.


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> Then you should probably change the thread title. The title and the first post is merely a list of information...it contains no opinions or connotations. Yet, the thread has changed into a debate of scope vs. 16:9, with people firmly entrenched in both camps. The current discussion happening in this thread has morphed from merely a thread/discussion meant to convey a list of movies with VAR.


We're 20 pages in. I think the thread can handle a little drift, which is pertinent to the topic anyway.


----------



## Philnick

fatherom said:


> Good lord, just stop. You're both never going to agree...between the arcane historical quotes and the "this is how movies work", you sound like two stubborn arguing crotchety old people. Just let it go, please.


All I have to say is - he started it.


Josh Z said:


> Apropos of a conversation in another thread that went off the rails and was (rightly) closed down, I decided to pull some up-to-date stats to determine what percentage of theatrical movies in a given year are really made in each aspect ratio. The information seems relevant to this thread, so I'll post it here and hope to avoid the mess that happened elsewhere.
> 
> I'll admit, the results did surprise me a little.
> 
> I've long made the argument that the split between 1.85:1 theatrical movies and 2.35:1 (technically 2.39:1) theatrical movies has been about 50/50 for decades. That was based on the fact that Widescreen Review used to publish annual lists of theatrical release movies with aspect ratio info, and that's how it broke down most years. But they haven't done that in a while. Is it still true?
> 
> The pandemic greatly disrupted every studio's distribution plans over the last couple years, so I focused on 2019, the last year with a normal theatrical release schedule. I started from this List of American Films of 2019 and then went and looked up aspect ratio specs for each and every one of them.
> 
> Off the bat, this is only for American films. The situation may be different in other countries, but I just don't have the time or resources to get this information for every movie released worldwide.
> 
> This is also only for theatrical release films. The original list had about 250 titles. I tried my best to weed out movies that were made for or released straight to streaming with no theatrical distribution. That leaves a total of 211 titles released theatrically in 2019. Here's how they broke down:
> 
> 1.66:1 - 3 (2%)
> 1.85:1 - 40 (19%)
> 2.39:1 - 150 (71%)
> 2.39:1 in regular theaters / open matte 1.90:1 in IMAX - 3 (1%)
> 2.39:1 in regular theaters / variable ratio in IMAX - 4 (2%)
> Misc. non-standard ratios - 11 (5%)
> 
> View attachment 3202091
> 
> 
> So, it would seem that the 50% average no longer applies. Current trends weight heavily toward 2.39:1 for most American theatrical movies, with 1.85:1 shrinking significantly in usage. IMAX open-matte and variable ratio remain a very small niche.
> 
> This would appear to disprove the supposition that modern movies are moving toward 1.85:1 to cater to streaming or TV or IMAX. Clearly, filmmakers are actually pushing hard in the other direction and embracing scope 2.39:1 over all other formats to an overwhelming degree.
> 
> (This also pretty bluntly disproves the claim that "Presently 70% of all production is shot 1.77:1." Shot using digital cameras with 1.77:1 [more likely 1.90:1] sensors, perhaps - but not actually composed for or distributed in that ratio.)
> 
> Should anyone demand that I show my work, the tabulated data is attached.


I responded that 29% is not insignificant, and I didn't want to sacrifice the presentation of those, leading him to say:


Josh Z said:


> Phil, do me a favor. Open the PDF attached to my earlier post and tell me how many of the 1.85:1 titles on the list you have actually watched in your theater, vs. the 2.39:1 titles.


So I did, and found that it was 50/50 in my case (after reclassifying a film I had inadvertently read as being in the wrong category).

That wasn't to his taste, so he tried to reclassify several more of my non-scope films to make it two to one in scope's favor. He did this by inventing new rules. Why ask about films that are only taller than scope in theaters if you're not going to allow them to be counted - or rule out films only newly available taller than scope?

At that point I pointed out that he wasn't playing fair.

Don't blame me - I was only responding to him throughout. I humbly apologize if the debate he began exposed that not everyone shares his preference for films intended for scope presentation.

Some of us prefer to honor the filmmaker's intent.

There's an old joke about wrestling with pigs: "You'll just get as dirty as the pig, and the pig will like it."

I guess in that context, I'm the pig - I may not start arguments, but I don't shy away from them, because I enjoy presenting my point of veiw persuasively.


----------



## fatherom

“He started it”

Wow…just wow.


----------



## Josh Z

I don't want this thread to get closed down like the other recent one. I've told Phil this before, but I want to make it clear that I have nothing against him or the decisions he makes for his own home theater, and I think we probably agree on more issues than we disagree. Just not this one.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> You do not have an IMAX screen in your home, Phil. Those movies were made to be viewed as 2.39:1 in all venues _other than IMAX theaters with 75-foot tall screens_, where the height of the screen exceeds your field of vision. That is the *only* place where the open-matte or VAR version is applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this discussion is that you've got it completely backwards. A scope screen does not degrade the presentation of 1.85:1 films. However, a 16:9 screen absolutely does degrade the presentation of all scope films.


In commenting I quote Josh but realize I have no chance of changing Josh’s mind with any kind of logic so this is for others reading along to so the fault in his logic.

He says above that Phil does not have a 75’ tall IMAX screen at home so there for there is no way or place for an IMAX cut to be shown in the home as IMAX needs that enormous screen to provide the full IMAX experience. I actually agree with this but what he doesn’t say it is also true to get a full Scope motion picture theatrical experience at home you would need a 50’ tall screen. Screen size is part of it for sure and so is immersion the ratio of screen size to seating distance. I think all will agree putting your eyes 2” from an iPhone will not be a theatrical experience.

There is also the case of close enough or good enough to make it worth while trying and that holds true for Scope HT and IMAX HT. In meeting the visual immersion spec for scope or IMAX in the home and being quite a bit larger than the largest TV sets readily available today and in a light controlled room with similar immersive sounds we can get close enough to a real theater experience to make it worth doing for scope or IMAX.

Josh would like us to believe scope at home is proper and IMAX at home is way outside the limits of possibility. That is just not true.

Here is the reality all commercial theaters have rows and rows of seating and each row slightly changes the immersion ratio of the one before it. When you enter a commercial theater the director of the movie is not there to help you find the row to sit in nor does he care what row you sit in. Most people have an immersion level they like and maintain a constant image height between flat and scope what ever that immersion happens to be. Most people with HT don’t move their seats to vary immersion and the conventional seating distance is made from a compromise that all family members like leaning to favor the person of less immersion. The same process happens when you go to a movie with friends and family go to a commercial theater you don’t all sit in the row you like best, you normally sit together in the same row based on what suits the group.

I do variable as it allows CIH+IMAX and also allows for the rare 2.55:1 as part of CIH along with that my desire for immersion is greater than other family members and that feature of variable CIH+IMAX allows for virtual row changes to suit the less immersive folks when they join me.
Personally over the years I have found it matters little to me how immersive a romantic comedy is to me compared to an action adventure movie intended to be watched immersive and IMAX features of the same movie need to be watched on a large screen and immersive to get the impact. Does the screen need to be 75’ height? I say no.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I don't want this thread to get closed down like the other recent one. I've told Phil this before, but I want to make it clear that I have nothing against him or the decisions he makes for his own home theater, and I think we probably agree on more issues than we disagree. Just not this one.


There is no reason to close threads simply because people have varied opinions on a topic and are talking about them in a civil manner. That is in fact what social media and forums such as this are about. This idea of cancel culture where a group only is allowed to have one opinion is flooding our culture, and is wrong. 
If disagreement was reason to close a thread my variable presentation thread should have been closed years ago. Anyone reading that thread will see a vast amount of the comments was negative to me. I never ran to the mods and ask for comments to be removed or the thread closed. It is in seeing both sides of an issue is when people can decide where they want to be.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> There is no reason to close threads simply because people have varied opinions on a topic and are talking about them in a civil manner. That is in fact what social media and forums such as this are about. This idea of cancel culture where a group only is allowed to have one opinion is flooding our culture, and is wrong.
> If disagreement was reason to close a thread my variable presentation thread should have been closed years ago. Anyone reading that thread will see a vast amount of the comments was negative to me. I never ran to the mods and ask for comments to be removed or the thread closed. It is in seeing both sides of an issue is when people can decide where they want to be.


The other recent thread was closed because one of the posters was being a jerk and throwing insults at everyone who disagreed with him. I just wanted it to be clear that this thread isn't going that direction.


----------



## Josh Z

I agree with the concept of CIH+IMAX. I have no objection to that at all.

The problem is that almost nobody actually does it. Even here on AVSForum, home of the nit-pickiest hardcore home theater nerds, I'd be amazed if it took more than the fingers on one hand to count the number of people doing true CIH+IMAX. The other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of viewers in the world will watch IMAX content the same size they watch any other 16:9 content. An IMAX movie is displayed the same size as a McDonald's commercial.

That's where the problem lies. A 16:9 screen normalizes 16:9 content as the biggest, most important thing a viewer can watch, while making scope content the smallest and least important. And since the amount of legimitate IMAX content is so miniscule, the vast majority of that big, important 16:9 material is going to be TV shows and rom-coms. And even the _good _TV shows and rom-coms are moving toward wider ratios than 16:9 these days, leaving you mostly with the dregs. For every Game of Thones "Wow, Amazing Epic 16:9!" show, there are a thousand CSI: Pittsburgh or Chicago Water & Sewer type spin-offs, and ten thousand crappy Reality shows. Those are not IMAX. They should not be elevated to a status comparable to IMAX.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> The other recent thread was closed because one of the posters was being a jerk and throwing insults at everyone who disagreed with him. I just wanted it to be clear that this thread isn't going that direction.


That’s a good reason to give the poster a time out or ban them along with cleaning the thread up. It is not a good reason to close a thread where other people have been carrying on a civil conversation no matter who started the thread.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> That’s a good reason to give the poster a time out or ban them along with cleaning the thread up. It is not a good reason to close a thread where other people have been carrying on a civil conversation no matter who started the thread.


Not my call to make.


----------



## bud16415

I don’t know when the first film motion picture was ported to TV. I remember as a kid we had 2 local channels and I was about 8 when the ABC affiliate came on air and the first thing they showed was The Creature from the Black Lagoon. It was a happy day for me glued to the new channel and watching a full-length movie without a commercial. In other ways it was the beginning of sad days of TV trying to be cinematic for me.

Here we are almost 60 years later and comparing the same thing to some degree.

People that buy TVs set view them at TV distance and watch TV about right, they watch flat movies under immersive and watch scope movies way under immersive. We are never going to change that and fortunately TVs are getting much larger and clearer and rooms have not grown so everything is getting more immersive. Directors of TV content know this and things like GoT is proof that they get it. I don’t have a number but a good amount of commercials even are getting made wide screen and more cinematic for the larger screens they do frame breaking and other wanabe film like stuff.

We are not addressing here TV folks with educating to ideas like CIH+IMAX we are not even talking to the majority of projector owners that do CIW because they bought a projector to watch sports large and some movie nights and the budget projector isn’t able to handle CIH if they wanted.

For me it isn’t about the breakdown of the number of movies scope and flat. It is about the movie I’m currently about to watch. If it happens to be Dunkirk or The Aeronaut or The Hateful Eight. I could care less it is only .001% of the movies ever made. If I have a screen area that allows it to be proper and more amazing in immersion than anything else why not do it. IMO it is part of what made Avatar so amazing to watch.

I on the other hand watch old TV in my theater and if it is Perry Mason or The Twilight Zone They are too big for even CIH immersion after all they are old TV from the 50-60s and are more than immersive enough smaller than Scope height.
I would give people reading and responding in this forum credit for understanding a concept like variable or CIH+IMAX and viewing everything to the max with CIW.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> I agree with the concept of CIH+IMAX. I have no objection to that at all.
> 
> The problem is that almost nobody actually does it. Even here on AVSForum, home of the nit-pickiest hardcore home theater nerds, I'd be amazed if it took more than the fingers on one hand to count the number of people doing true CIH+IMAX. The other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of viewers in the world will watch IMAX content the same size they watch any other 16:9 content. An IMAX movie is displayed the same size as a McDonald's commercial.
> 
> That's where the problem lies. A 16:9 screen normalizes 16:9 content as the biggest, most important thing a viewer can watch, while making scope content the smallest and least important. And since the amount of legimitate IMAX content is so miniscule, the vast majority of that big, important 16:9 material is going to be TV shows and rom-coms. And even the _good _TV shows and rom-coms are moving toward wider ratios than 16:9 these days, leaving you mostly with the dregs. For every Game of Thones "Wow, Amazing Epic 16:9!" show, there are a thousand CSI: Pittsburgh or Chicago Water & Sewer type spin-offs, and ten thousand crappy Reality shows. Those are not IMAX. They should not be elevated to a status comparable to IMAX.


Josh, Josh, Josh.

"That's where the problem lies. A 16:9 screen _normalizes_ 16:9 content as the biggest, most important thing a viewer can watch, while making scope content the smallest and least important." [Italics added]

There's the nub of our disagreement right there. Why does the size I'm watching my current film have any bearing on the importance of the film I watch tomorrow?

"Think you size matters?" said Yoda to Luke in _Empire_, and he was right. 

The comparative _height_ of two films does not imply their comparative _worth_. 

All I care about is that the thing I'm watching right now be shown for its best enjoyment. What I object to is the insistence on enforcing a heirarchy of importance by using a frame on the screen that requires showing films whose director and cinematographer framed taller than scope on a screen that forces shrinking them to no taller than scope. 

CIH made sense at the birth of cinemascope as a way to differentiate the new medium. Guess what? It's not new any more, and demanding that everything be forced into its frame is just a way of artificially enforcing a pecking order of relative importance of films - to prevent the "normalizing" other formats.

The bean counters in the film production companies have bought into your dogma to the extent that when directors wanted to use a taller format because it was appropriate to their film - and prominent examples are the first _Avengers_ film (which had an invasion from the sky among Manhattan's skyscrapers) and the _Ant-Man_ films (which have characters and objects shrinking and growing dramatically) - those directors had to _fight_ to be allowed by the studios to use a taller than scope format.

Scope is, in fact, the format that has been "normalized" by the financiers in the film industry, and the artistic folks have to fight to present their own visions in whatever format.

PS Only 1.85:1 things I show are as wide as scope - that's the extent of CIW in my theater. 16:9 images are 6 2/3% _narrower_ than scope - 10' 8" wide instead of 11' 4.5"

And I have _never_ shown a MacDonalds ad in my theater, since I don't watch ordinary TV down there. Please stop trading in stereotypes. No one posting regularly in this forum is part of the group you are so zealous to protect and re-educate.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> All I care about is that the thing I'm watching right now be shown for its best enjoyment. What I object to is the insistence on enforcing a heirarchy of importance by using a frame on the screen that requires showing films whose director and cinematographer framed taller than scope on a screen that forces shrinking them to no taller than scope.


You keep talking about films "framed taller than scope." The complete list of all films framed to be taller than scope is in the first post of this thread. That's it. That's *all* of them. Meanwhile, there are _tens of thousands_ of films not framed to be taller than scope.

Not all 1.85:1 movies are framed to be taller than scope. Sleepless in Seattle was not photographed with IMAX composition. It has standard 1.85:1 composition, pretty similar to how TV shows are shot. Lots of close-ups. Most everything centered in the frame (unlike true IMAX, which draws a viewer's eyes lower in the frame). 

(From the 2019 list I attached earlier) Little Women was not photographed with IMAX composition. Madea's Family Reunion was not photographed with IMAX composition. No, not even Joker or Knives Out were photographed with IMAX composition. These are not IMAX films, regardless of whether they played in IMAX theaters or not.



> The bean counters in the film production companies have bought into your dogma to the extent that when directors wanted to use a taller format because it was appropriate to their film - and prominent examples are the first _Avengers_ film (which had an invasion from the sky among Manhattan's skyscrapers) and the _Ant-Man_ films (which have characters and objects shrinking and growing dramatically) - those directors had to _fight_ to be allowed by the studios to use a taller than scope format.
> 
> Scope is, in fact, the format that has been "normalized" by the financiers in the film industry, and the artistic folks have to fight to present their own visions in whatever format.


So now we have a conspiracy where filmmakers are not allowed to choose their aspect ratios? Is that it? 

Not one second of footage in The Avengers was shot with IMAX cameras. Not one second of Ant-Man was shot with IMAX cameras. They are standard 1.85:1 films, with standard (not IMAX) composition.


----------



## Josh Z

This is not IMAX composition:










A close-up this tight on a 75-foot tall IMAX screen is disorienting. It leaves viewers unsure where they should be looking. They have to crane their necks way up to see Tony Stark's eyes.

Nor is this IMAX composition:










It's a pretty standard 1.85:1 medium shot, without nearly enough headroom for IMAX. Again, the character's eyes are too high in the frame for IMAX.

In fact, none of these are IMAX composition:




























The shots are too tight, with critical picture too high in the frame.

This movie was not photographed for IMAX. It's a regular 1.85:1 movie with typical, TV-safe 1.85:1 composition that happened to play in IMAX theaters.

Now, I'm sure you'll argue that I cherry-picked these shots without much headroom. Sure, that's true enough. But it's also true that the movie has *a lot* of shots like this. It did not take me more than 15 seconds of random clicking through the movie to find these and plenty more like them.

This is what a medium shot that's actually composed for IMAX looks like:











This is a different thing entirely. The character is much lower in the frame with way more headroom above him. In IMAX, the character's eyes are in line with where viewers are looking.

But of course, this looks kind of awkward and weird on a regular-sized screen. Why is there so much empty space over his head? That's why, when this movie was transferred to home video, it was significantly cropped and re-positioned to extract a 16:9 portion from the bottom half of the original frame (not the center).

This is a screencap from the official Blu-ray release, and you can see that this shot maintains a common bottom-line with the original 1.43:1 frame, cropping entirely from the top. Other scenes were adjusted on a shot-by-shot basis as Christopher Nolan saw fit.










IMAX - genuine IMAX - has its own rules of presentation and composition that are _only _applicable in an IMAX theater. Photography actually composed for IMAX does not work on regular screen sizes (especially not home screen sizes) without adjustment.

As I said before (and I say this to everyone reading), you *do not* have an IMAX screen in your home. The rules of IMAX have no bearing on home viewing.


----------



## Jacob305

Warner’s Mad Max 2 4K statement, Dune aspect ratio, Shout!/Scream’s Feb slate has The Howling & Alligator in 4K, plus a Star Trek Cyber Monday Deal & more!


All right, we hope you all had a great Thanksgiving holiday, and that you were able to take advantage of some good Black Friday Week and Cyber Monday deals on discs and whatnot. We’ve got some big announcement news for you today, and a few follow-ups on previously-mentioned titles and issues...




thedigitalbits.com





While we’re talking WBHE, we’ve also checked with them and confirmed that their forthcoming Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD release of Denis Villeneuve’s *Dune* (2021)—due on 1/11/22—will include the film in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. In other words, it will not shift aspect ratios for IMAX scenes. That is official, so adjust your plans accordingly. 

From the digital bits.

Jacob


----------



## Philnick

@Josh Z
Boy, you're slippery! You must know there is only a small number of IMAX cameras in the world, which - unless they've changed their business model - cannot be purchased but can only rented from the IMAX company.

You're beginning to remind me of Humpty Dumpty, who feels free to use words to mean whatever he likes, except that you feel entitled to redefine what I'm saying as well.

When I say a film is "framed taller than scope" I said nothing about IMAX. A film is framed taller than scope if - when the 16:9 container that _all_ digital media are contained in is projected - it will be taller than a scope film projected at the same magnification.

Your entire discussion about IMAX is you debating your _substitute_ for my statement, instead of dealing with my actual statement, saying that if a film isn't composed according to _your_ ideas about _IMAX_ composition, the film wasn't composed to be taller than scope. I'm talking about the physical reality of the film projection process, you're talking about your ideas about how you would compose an IMAX shot.

That's known in rhetoric theory as creating a "straw man argument" that's easier to knock down than the real position you are debating against.

The problem with debating you is that you refuse to actually deal with what I'm saying - that I want to let every film stand on its own - because you insist on putting them into cinematic categories of your own designing so you can discount the value of films that don't meet your definitions - being the films that _you've_ "normalized."

I like IMAX films, but they're not the only taller than scope films that I like. I also like scope films and I show them as large as I can. I don't discriminate against films based on their format - I show them all as large as I can.

You, on the other hand, don't appear to think that anything not composed using the compositional rules of scope or IMAX (as you understand them) - and using the "correct" equipment for either - deserves to be shown as large as possible - which is of course, why we set up home theaters. The inevitable conclusion is that you don't think that the majority of 1.85 or 1.78 films really deserve to be shown in a home theater except in a miniaturized version, in the 16:9 ghetto - "And over here we have these cute little films."

I keep expecting you to say "There's glory for you!" (_Through the Looking Glass,_ Chapter 6, "Humpty Dumpty")


----------



## Josh Z

N/m. Writing posts late at night is never a good idea. I miss the "delete" option.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> This is not IMAX composition:
> 
> View attachment 3203311
> 
> 
> A close-up this tight on a 75-foot tall IMAX screen is disorienting. It leaves viewers unsure where they should be looking. They have to crane their necks way up to see Tony Stark's eyes.
> 
> Nor is this IMAX composition:
> 
> View attachment 3203313
> 
> 
> It's a pretty standard 1.85:1 medium shot, without nearly enough headroom for IMAX. Again, the character's eyes are too high in the frame for IMAX.
> 
> In fact, none of these are IMAX composition:
> 
> View attachment 3203314
> 
> 
> View attachment 3203315
> 
> 
> View attachment 3203316
> 
> 
> The shots are too tight, with critical picture too high in the frame.
> 
> This movie was not photographed for IMAX. It's a regular 1.85:1 movie with typical, TV-safe 1.85:1 composition that happened to play in IMAX theaters.
> 
> Now, I'm sure you'll argue that I cherry-picked these shots without much headroom. Sure, that's true enough. But it's also true that the movie has *a lot* of shots like this. It did not take me more than 15 seconds of random clicking through the movie to find these and plenty more like them.
> 
> This is what a medium shot that's actually composed for IMAX looks like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 3203319
> 
> 
> This is a different thing entirely. The character is much lower in the frame with way more headroom above him. In IMAX, the character's eyes are in line with where viewers are looking.
> 
> But of course, this looks kind of awkward and weird on a regular-sized screen. Why is there so much empty space over his head? That's why, when this movie was transferred to home video, it was significantly cropped and re-positioned to extract a 16:9 portion from the bottom half of the original frame (not the center).
> 
> This is a screencap from the official Blu-ray release, and you can see that this shot maintains a common bottom-line with the original 1.43:1 frame, cropping entirely from the top. Other scenes were adjusted on a shot-by-shot basis as Christopher Nolan saw fit.
> 
> View attachment 3203332
> 
> 
> IMAX - genuine IMAX - has its own rules of presentation and composition that are _only _applicable in an IMAX theater. Photography actually composed for IMAX does not work on regular screen sizes (especially not home screen sizes) without adjustment.
> 
> As I said before (and I say this to everyone reading), you *do not* have an IMAX screen in your home. The rules of IMAX have no bearing on home viewing.


Josh I find it interesting you showed all the head placements in the flat films and told us these are not IMAX framing and then showed us the IMAX Joker frame that was the original 1.43:1 IMAX cut with all the head room That is not in any of the home media 16:9 or 1.89 cuts the “proper” framing is still IMAX1.89 and the head is the same place it would be in the flat movies you showed examples of.

So was Nolan knowing it was being shown in IMAX1.89 theaters intending us to crane our necks to see the Jokers face.

You are correct no one has an IMAX1.43 “like” HT because none of these movies are released for home consumption any more in 1.43 we get at best the 1.89 cut. Way back when I did purchase nearly all the 1.43 science and nature IMAX produced 45 minute long movies on DVD in full frame and I had at that time a 4:3 projector and screen and would show them at home IMAX “like” in terms of immersion. Now if you buy them they are cropped to 16:9 to fit BD media and have undergone the IMAX enhanced process.

We are not talking about 1960’s IMAX1.43 here though and needing a 75’ tall screen. We are talking about the new IMAX1.89 that is shown in more conventional sized theaters with more immersive seating distances. We are then talking about the possibility of porting that experience to our homes and trying to get a little bit of that experience at home.

I know you do not have a CIH+IMAX setup in your home but keep in mind 1.89 is not all that much taller than 2.39 in the home and only half the difference is in height the other half is projected below the scope frame lower. If you had a stealth setup as I do you would also see image shift up and down can be used and like a real IMAX theater with stadium seating the rule of thumb of the center of the screen being 1/3 of eye level up the screen need not be followed. With a single row I would recommend for IMAX at home placing the center of the screen at eye level is very immersive and stops neck craning.

IMAX1.89 is a much milder form of IMAX compared to IMAX1.43 and the reason it was selected as the new format for mainstream motion pictures filmed with or without IMAX film cameras. About the only thing similar is the name IMAX.
Lastly wide shots do not require a wide format process such as scope. Look at Citizen Kane shot in 1941 and shown in 1.37 Academy AR. Sure you can look thru it and find examples showing close shots and I can find shots framed very wide where the extra head room just shows the giant banner hanging above saying Kane. Almost a IMAX framing of the day. You could also walk into any Academy theater in 1941 and find a seat about 1/3 of the way back and watch that movie with similar to IMAX immersion levels. I will at home play Citizen Kane at home taller than I would normally watch a scope movie to Phil’s point and the next day watch a scope movie and it has no lessening of the impact of the much wider scope movie.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Josh I find it interesting you showed all the head placements in the flat films and told us these are not IMAX framing and then showed us the IMAX Joker frame that was the original 1.43:1 IMAX cut with all the head room That is not in any of the home media 16:9 or 1.89 cuts the “proper” framing is still IMAX1.89 and the head is the same place it would be in the flat movies you showed examples of.


Bud, the point is that there is no true "IMAX" version available for home viewing. Even the Blu-ray with shifting aspect ratios has been modified to make it TV safe. Nobody has an IMAX screen in their home, and what is meant for IMAX does not work in the home.



> So was Nolan knowing it was being shown in IMAX1.89 theaters intending us to crane our necks to see the Jokers face.


I would have to research the timeline, but I'm not sure that IMAX had transitioned to 1.89:1 screens when The Dark Knight came out.

Regardless, Nolan is an IMAX purist and has publically stated that he does not like IMAX's transition to 1.89:1 digital screens. When Dunkirk was released, he fought to force IMAX theaters to re-install their old 15/70 film projectors and implored audiences to go see it on 1.43:1 screens.

The later Blu-ray and UHD, of course, were cropped to TV safe 16:9, because he knows that nobody has an IMAX screen at home.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Bud, the point is that there is no true "IMAX" version available for home viewing. Even the Blu-ray with shifting aspect ratios has been modified to make it TV safe. Nobody has an IMAX screen in their home, and what is meant for IMAX does not work in the home.
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to research the timeline, but I'm not sure that IMAX had transitioned to 1.89:1 screens when The Dark Knight came out.
> 
> Regardless, Nolan is an IMAX purist and has publically stated that he does not like IMAX's transition to 1.89:1 digital screens. When Dunkirk was released, he fought to force IMAX theaters to re-install their old 15/70 film projectors and implored audiences to go see it on 1.43:1 screens.
> 
> The later Blu-ray and UHD, of course, were cropped to TV safe 16:9, because he knows that nobody has an IMAX screen at home.


So we are talking semantics here. For the last few years all major press releases and advertising has used the term IMAX to mean the new IMAX 1.89 versions of the films. Theaters have signs in front of them calling themselves IMAX and inside is the 1.89 screen setup. It was at first called LieMAX by some as the reinvention and re-branding wasn’t clear. Most of it is digital IMAX and not 15/70 sourced or projected media.

So if this is really a problem of semantics I guess we need to say IMAX1.89 or IMAX1.43 still. I don’t get the confusion though as this forum is about home media and this thread is about recent movies that some of them are referred to as IMAX but it is understood they are IMAX1.89 movies. Many people are enjoying these movies in their entire full framing with the most common AR projectors of 16:9. You are also correct almost no one is watching 1.43:1 IMAX movies at home other than maybe me and even then they are pushing the limit of my variable setup.

Nolan is one of a few rare exceptions that is crafting not 2 movies at once but 3, and his strong preference is the full true IMAX1.43 version that only a handful of people will ever see in the 15/70 source. I wish we had the option of that 1.43 source transferred to digital and put on home media. Just as I wish some of the others would give us the 1.89 version for home. But that is what it is. It seems silly if a movie expands from scope to IMAX it is ok to put the IMAX on disc, but if it is totally IMAX we only get it cropped to scope. That is reality though and things like the Marvel IMAX releases give me hope that will change.
I just wish after this amount time people would now know when some one says IMAX on a BD they know it is not the 1.43 IMAX and that the difference between scope and IMAX1.89 is not the same as between scope and IMAX1.43. 

PS: I wish this whole discussion was taking place in my PIA thread as that was the intended topic of that thread. This thread is more about alerting people of variable movies that have CIH setups so they can figure out how to deal with them, as my thread is more about how to enjoy them.


----------



## Josh Z

Bud, you do not have an IMAX 1.43:1 screen in your home. You also do not have an IMAX 1.89:1 screen in your home. You do not have any sort of IMAX screen in your home. A regular 16:9 or 1.85:1 or 1.89:1 home theater screen is not IMAX.

Even in their 1.89:1 version, IMAX screens are supposed to be large enough to _exceed _your field of view. You cannot accomplish that in the home.

What happens in IMAX is _only _relevant to IMAX theaters and is not applicable to home viewing, despite the marketing team's efforts to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Philnick

And since a true Cinemascope theater was designed to exceed one's horizontal field of vision, I suspect that you don't have a true Cinemascope experience in your home either - so can we please stop debating this and just get down to enjoying the films we have - on their own terms - in the best presentation we can manage of each one, without comparing them to each other?


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> And since a true Cinemascope theater was designed to exceed one's horizontal field of vision,


No, they were not.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Bud, you do not have an IMAX 1.43:1 screen in your home. You also do not have an IMAX 1.89:1 screen in your home. You do not have any sort of IMAX screen in your home. A regular 16:9 or 1.85:1 or 1.89:1 home theater screen is not IMAX.
> 
> Even in their 1.89:1 version, IMAX screens are supposed to be large enough to _exceed _your field of view. You cannot accomplish that in the home.
> 
> What happens in IMAX is _only _relevant to IMAX theaters and is not applicable to home viewing, despite the marketing team's efforts to convince you otherwise.


You forgot to add that is your opinion.

I had a 4:3 screen for a number of years and a 4:3 projector and owned and played all the IMAX1.43 original movies. my screen was 6’x8’ and because of DVD resolution even upscaled I was limited to a seating distance of 1.75 to 2.0 times the height of the screen that put me within a range of immersion that would be possible in an IMAX theater but perhaps not in the front half of the theater. Was it an IMAX theater? Of course not. At that time a 32” Sony 4:3 TV was considered cutting edge in home entertainment along with people mostly watching VHS tapes. By the standards of the time my guests felt it was the next best thing to IMAX and maybe I met 50% of a true IMAX experience.

Fast forward 20 years and a lot has changed in home entertainment and the bar to pass as far as what people conceder normal TV is much higher. projectors are now 16:9 as are TVs and so is this new version of IMAX that really isn’t IMAX and why I now call it BudMAX in my theater for people like yourself that like to remind me there is no IMAX at home. I now sit at an immersion level of 1.5 times the image height and that would be a solid IMAX immersion level in one of the new IMAX1.89 theaters. That means I watch scope at 2.0 times the image height. That is also quite comparable to seating in a modern commercial scope theater. Maybe today I might say I can reproduce 75% of a current IMAX experience. 

So as I agree that I don’t have an IMAX theater in my home I will remind you in terms of reproducing a commercial scope theater experience in your home, you also don’t have a scope theater unless you happen to have a 40’ high screen in your living room.

We could and likely do have better sound reproduction and maybe even better overall PQ than a real theater and of course we don’t have some idiot 3 rows down texting or talking during the movie, or the kid sitting behind coughing or kicking the back of our seat. But one thing we don’t have and is one of the factors of all motion pictures scope or IMAX is the pure impact of that 4-6 story tall image.

It is silly to keep telling me my screen doesn’t fill my FOV the same as I could get in a IMAX theater. I can sit in front of my 42” TV and fill my vision like IMAX, the same as I can scope. That doesn’t make it IMAX or scope in terms of size. As I mentioned above there is a point where I feel it is good enough though or at least the best I can do at home. My only benchmark as these things can’t be measured is my friends that come to watch an IMAX branded movie like Dunkirk and these same friends have 65” or larger TVs at home and they tell me there is no comparison what is closer to an actual theater experience. They like BudMAX well enough to invite themselves back.
So who cares if I have IMAX or call it what you want at home. As long as produces the desired results call it anything you want. Phil has related to me how much he enjoys PhilMAX at his place.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> No, they were not.


@Philnick

You have to realize that Josh sees FOV as black and white like a line when on one side there is image the other nothing.

In reality FOV is a gradient and depends on degree of clarity so for Josh because our horizontal FOV without eye movement is close to 180 degrees then a scope screen would never fill our FOV unless it spanned to infinity and beyond.
No reason to get into the weeds comparing similar visual acuities both right and left and up and down as IMAX did years ago and NASA and the Air Force also have and setting practical limits of where peripheral vision begins in all direction and also how our vision works with our brain in actively processing that data compared to our central vision processing. It will just become a circular argument that will never end.


----------



## Philnick

When you realize that all of our color vision is concentrated in a central cone that's much narrower than the eye's full field of view, it becomes clear that our picture of the world is actually a mental mosaic - or jigsaw puzzle - put together from the output of our constantly-scanning eyes. Since our eyes are round, and surrounded by muscles that can move them in any direction, it's doubtful that they do a better job of scanning in either plane. Yes, the presence of two eyes side-by-side makes the field of view wider than tall, but the exact ratio will vary by the spacing of any particular person's eyes and the depth of their inset under their eyebrows - perhaps the reason for so much disagreement here.

The aspect ratio used is thus a matter of artistic choice, not science. I don't believe in overriding the choice made by a film's maker to impose an imputed consensus of a community that has never been able to agree on much of anything.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> You have to realize that Josh sees FOV as black and white like a line when on one side there is image the other nothing.
> 
> In reality FOV is a gradient and depends on degree of clarity so for Josh because our horizontal FOV without eye movement is close to 180 degrees then a scope screen would never fill our FOV unless it spanned to infinity and beyond.


And you seem to believe that people watch movies by locking their eyes straight forward and never scanning from side to side, which is not at all how human vision or perception work.

In any case, you can try to confuse the issue by bringing up NASA and the Air Force all you like, but neither NASA nor the Air Force make movies and are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

It was never the intent of CinemaScope to exceed your field of view. Only IMAX is designed to exceed your field of view, and to do so in every direction. A proper IMAX theater should be both taller _and _wider than a scope theater. An IMAX screen isn't supposed to be the same width as scope but taller. It's supposed to be larger all around. An IMAX screen should make viewers swing their heads around to take everything in. The fact that the IMAX Corporation has franchised the format to multiplexes with much smaller screen sizes was a cynical business desision that has diluted the brand.

True IMAX photography is composed with lots of extra buffering space around all four sides. Neither traditional 1.85:1 photography nor scope 2.35:1 photography are composed that way. 

As I've repeatedly said, what works in IMAX is only applicable in IMAX theaters. You do not have an IMAX theater in your home.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> And you seem to believe that people watch movies by locking their eyes straight forward and never scanning from side to side, which is not at all how human vision or perception work.
> 
> In any case, you can try to confuse the issue by bringing up NASA and the Air Force all you like, but neither NASA nor the Air Force make movies and are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> It was never the intent of CinemaScope to exceed your field of view. Only IMAX is designed to exceed your field of view, and to do so in every direction. A proper IMAX theater should be both taller _and _wider than a scope theater. An IMAX screen isn't supposed to be the same width as scope but taller. It's supposed to be larger all around. An IMAX screen should make viewers swing their heads around to take everything in. The fact that the IMAX Corporation has franchised the format to multiplexes with much smaller screen sizes was a cynical business desision that has diluted the brand.
> 
> True IMAX photography is composed with lots of extra buffering space around all four sides. Neither traditional 1.85:1 photography nor scope 2.35:1 photography are composed that way.
> 
> As I've repeatedly said, what works in IMAX is only applicable in IMAX theaters. You do not have an IMAX theater in your home.


Of course people move their eyes while watching a movie. In fact we don’t all watch a movie looking at the same thing. One of the reasons we like to watch the same movie more than once because each time we watch it there is a different visual experience as we notice different things. Here is a video I like as it tracks 11 different people eyes all watching the same movie and the longer the gaze remains it tracks that by changing the size of their target on the video.






As to relative screen sizes in a true IMAX theater here is how they relate to a conventional movie theater in terms of relative immersion and screen location.

The same cut of the same scope movie even changes immersion after the IMAX DMR process according to IMAX.

If I wanted to and likely will as resolution progresses increase immersion. I followed the advice of Gary Lightfoot as to IMAX at home spec of keeping the width of scope and expanding the height for the IMAX1.89 movies that were coming out at the time. When doing variable there is nothing saying you have to follow that rule as I expand the width beyond scope for 2.55:1 movies keeping them CIH with scope.
Here is a picture of the relationships in IMAX.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> The same cut of the same scope movie even changes immersion after the IMAX DMR process according to IMAX.
> 
> If I wanted to and likely will as resolution progresses increase immersion. I followed the advice of Gary Lightfoot as to IMAX at home spec of keeping the width of scope and expanding the height for the IMAX1.89 movies that were coming out at the time. When doing variable there is nothing saying you have to follow that rule as I expand the width beyond scope for 2.55:1 movies keeping them CIH with scope.
> Here is a picture of the relationships in IMAX.
> View attachment 3203513


The "DMR" process is basically just some added edge enhancent and noise reduction to (allegedly) make the picture look sharper and less grainy. It doesn't change the composition of the photography. It doesn't add extra picture to the sides that wasn't in the original.

If a movie was photographed using standard composition, DMR doesn't magically make it IMAX. All it does is blow that picture up extra large. That tight close-up in The Avengers is still going to be uncomfortable to watch at IMAX sizes, because it wasn't composed for IMAX.

What I will thank you for, however, is providing a graphic that actually backs up my last point - that an IMAX screen is meant to be larger than a regular cinema in all directions, not just vertically. CinemaScope was never intended to exceed your field of view, as you and Phil have tried to argue. Only IMAX (true IMAX) attempts that.


----------



## bud16415

It might be ludicrous and it might have something to do with why I hear some avid movie enthusiasts say they like to sit 2/3 back in a DMR full blown IMAX theater.

I know myself in the early days of HT with DVD or worse resolution and transfers my desire for increased immersion was tempered by PQ. The lower quality was compressed and made better at a lesser immersion. I have watched the trend with 720, 1080, 4k a lot of people have migrated to greater immersion at each step. The DMR process if you study it is quite a labor intensive process and it is not running an original thru some filter and out pops DMR. It is done frame by frame and the reason this IMAX Enhanced thing didn’t create a thousand movies over night.

I was criticized when explaining my variable presentation method and my logic behind it in a similar way. Saying when I watch a movie like King Kong (1933) that hasn’t undergone a lot of restoration yet, or any of 100s of that era movie I’m lucky enough to be able to stream and watch. I find them much better slightly less immersive than I would watch a recent digital mastered movie.

I’m not in favor of making everything as large as I can and I think people interested in presentation are capable of sitting the row that gives them the immersion they like even if that row is virtual.

IMAX I believe in putting out a graphic such as that of course is putting their products in the best light in comparing regular scope to DMR scope. Who knows for sure as there isn’t a direct correlation between standards just as there is no correlation between how Academy fits into modern movies or for sure how TV should compare with motion pictures in terms of immersion. You seem to be ok promoting some 2.0:1 TV ahead of 1.85:1 motion pictures in size.
If you compare the DMR size of a regular scope movie to the two IMAX sizes they say they play the same width. Then again I have heard IMAX will play a 1.85 movie as large as possible and if that is the case that would be ludicrous IMO. DMR or not. I haven’t seen one in IMAX personally but I don’t go to IMAX all that much.


----------



## Killroy

Well here's something back on-topic....

A Writer's Odyssey 2021 (China) Blu-ray and UHD are VAR and it appears mostly scope-safe.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> It might be ludicrous and it might have something to do with why I hear some avid movie enthusiasts say they like to sit 2/3 back in a DMR full blown IMAX theater.


Yes, because IMAX screens are too large for regular movies not composed for IMAX. You're actually supporting my argument here.



> The DMR process if you study it is quite a labor intensive process and it is not running an original thru some filter and out pops DMR. It is done frame by frame and the reason this IMAX Enhanced thing didn’t create a thousand movies over night.


Nevertheless, it's still a combination of edge enhancement and DNR. The 35mm portions of The Dark Knight looked like crap in IMAX due to all the edge haloing. They've dialed it back on subsequent movies since then, but it's still just a bunch of digital fiddling to make the picture "cleaner."



> If you compare the DMR size of a regular scope movie to the two IMAX sizes they say they play the same width.


The "Regular theater" is the yellow box inset within the green IMAX DMR box. They are not the same width.



> Then again I have heard IMAX will play a 1.85 movie as large as possible and if that is the case that would be ludicrous IMO. DMR or not. I haven’t seen one in IMAX personally but I don’t go to IMAX all that much.


I have never seen an IMAX theater play a 1.85:1 movie at anything less than full width (and full height if it's a digital 1.90:1 screen). IMAX does not windowbox movies to a smaller size on their screens. They blow everything up as large as possible.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> Well here's something back on-topic....
> 
> A Writer's Odyssey 2021 (China) Blu-ray and UHD are VAR and it appears mostly scope-safe.


Scope-safe, meaning that the 1.85:1 portions are windowboxed within the 2.35:1 frame? This is what Hydra Spectre said about it earlier:



Hydra Spectre said:


> A Writer's Odyssey is variable aspect ratio 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 on Blu-ray like in IMAX.
> I am getting conflicting reports. Some say that the IMAX version is variable aspect ratio while others say the film is fully 1.85:1 in IMAX and VAR in standard releases.


This is what IMDb says:


Aspect Ratio1.85 : 1 (IMAX version)
1.85 : 1 (fantasy world scenes)
2.39 : 1 (reality scenes)

This doesn't really clear much up, but suggests that the IMAX version was fully 1.85:1.


----------



## Killroy

The UHD switches from 2.39:1 to 1.85:1, and back, in various scenes within the "reality scenes" and the fantasy world remains 1.85:1 throughout.

EDIT - Added UHD clarification.


----------



## Killroy

BTW, the Blu-ray also comes in a Black & White version that is also VAR in the exact same places as the UHD so I think it's consistent to both versions. The standard Blu-ray (non B&W) ALSO comes with a non-VAR for the reality scenes via seamless branch.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> The UHD switches from 2.39:1 to 1.85:1, and back, in various scenes within the "reality scenes" and the fantasy world remains 1.85:1 throughout.


Are the 1.85:1 scenes full-screen (or close to it), or are they inset within the 2.35:1 area? I would assume they'd expand in height to full-screen during the fantasy scenes.

Trailers on YouTube aren't helping. They're either fully letterboxed to 2.35:1 or fully 1.85:1. I can't find any VAR trailers.


----------



## Philnick

Bud's IMAX graphic has an interesting detail: Buried inside the larger frames in that graphic for IMAX theaters is an inner "Normal Theater" frame with a "60% center eyesight" circle that extends about as far above and below that smaller Normal Theater 2.35 frame as my 1.89 screen does - and in fact suggests that the taller framing fits normal eyesight as well or better than does scope framing.

You'll probably reject that graphic as propaganda from IMAX, but it's still interesting


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> The aspect ratio used is thus a matter of artistic choice, not science. I don't believe in overriding the choice made by a film's maker to impose an imputed consensus of a community that has never been able to agree on much of anything.


Phil, I dashed off a response to your earlier post late last night, but then realized that it came off more argumentative than I intended, so I deleted it.

Nevertheless, you have said several times that you "don't believe in overriding the choice made by a film's maker." Yet that's exactly what you do every time you watch a scope film smaller than 16:9. No filmmaker has ever chosen to photograph a movie in 2.35:1 wanting it to be projected smaller than the Diet Coke ads the theater plays before the lights go down. That's not the purpose of shooting in scope format. 

Why would all these filmmakers - especially the directors of so many big-budget action spectacle movies - choose to shoot in scope if it was the smallest available format? Why wouldn't they all shoot in 16:9 or 1.85:1 if those were really supposed to be larger?

The crux of your argument is based on the unwavering assumption that 16:9 is meant to be the largest screen size in all dimensions and anything else will "miniaturize" 16:9 content. But that's a false premise.

Adding extra width to the sides of a 16:9 screen does not miniaturize a 16:9 picture. When viewed in Constant Height, objects in both aspect ratios maintain the same size. Neither is miniaturized. Scope simply has more room to breathe on the sides. The scale of objects in both ratios is equalized.










To the contrary, viewing them in Constant Width absolutely does miniaturize scope content. Everything in the 2.35:1 image is now smaller. This is not the filmmakers' intention.










Now, if your particular home theater room does not have enough wall space to accommodate a 2.35:1 Constant Height screen with a suitably large 16:9 center, that's a limitation of your room and a compromise you'll have to decide for yourself. But that does not invalidate the concept of Constant Image Height as a projection practice. It just means that it doesn't work in your specific room.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> Are the 1.85:1 scenes full-screen (or close to it), or are they inset within the 2.35:1 area? I would assume they'd expand in height to full-screen during the fantasy scenes.


They are definitely 1.85:1 expanded from the center of the 2.39:1 but there are some scenes that were composed for the 1.85:1 AR so they will look a bit cut-off with scope-only viewing.

BTW, huge issue with the subs NOT being scope-safe I had to move them manually before remuxing to keep them scope safe.


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> They are definitely 1.85:1 expanded from the center of the 2.39:1 but there are some scenes that were composed for the 1.85:1 AR so they will look a bit cut-off with scope-only viewing.


OK, thanks. I'm going to keep this on the list with The Dark Knight, Tenet, etc.

When you initially said "scope-safe," I thought it might be like The Horse Whisperer or Galaxy Quest, with some footage widowboxed inside the scope frame which then expands sideways.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> Nevertheless, you have said several times that you "don't believe in overriding the choice made by a film's maker." Yet that's exactly what you do every time you watch a scope film smaller than 16:9. No filmmaker has ever chosen to photograph a movie in 2.35:1 wanting it to be projected smaller than the Diet Coke ads the theater plays before the lights go down. That's not the purpose of shooting in scope format.
> . . .
> Now, if your particular home theater room does not have enough wall space to accommodate a 2.35:1 Constant Height screen with a suitably large 16:9 center, that's a limitation of your room and a compromise you'll have to decide for yourself. But that does not invalidate the concept of Constant Image Height as a projection practice. It just means that it doesn't work in your specific room.


Since I'm projecting scope films as large as possible in my theater - eleven feet four and a half inches wide by almost five feet tall high, ten feet in front of my couch, for crying out loud! - I'm doing _nothing_ to decrease the impact of scope.

Only by insisting on comparing that to how I show 16:9 do you try to say I'm somehow _denigrating_ scope.

*Why can't each film be evaluated on its own merits without a "mine is bigger than yours" comparison being made?*

We're not kids in the locker room any more.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> OK, thanks. I'm going to keep this on the list with The Dark Knight, Tenet, etc.
> 
> When you initially said "scope-safe," I thought it might be like The Horse Whisperer or Galaxy Quest, with some footage widowboxed inside the scope frame which then expands sideways.


Sorry, when I describe "scope-safe" I usually mean that it can be viewed in scope (either a-lens or zoomed with masking) and nothing of major consequence will be missed....but I will rephrase it from now for this thread since I can see now what you were asking.


----------



## bryantc

Josh Z said:


> Nevertheless, you have said several times that you "don't believe in overriding the choice made by a film's maker." Yet that's exactly what you do every time you watch a scope film smaller than 16:9. No filmmaker has ever chosen to photograph a movie in 2.35:1 wanting it to be projected smaller than the Diet Coke ads the theater plays before the lights go down. That's not the purpose of shooting in scope format.


In my memory I have never been to a movie theater in my life that was Scope or CIH.

They are all constant width. I've been to some fancy ones in the past that had curtains that would come down from the top and bottom to mask the screen. But most these days just project scope movies in the middle of the screen.

Somebody should probably let the filmmakers know that their movies are indeed smaller than the diet coke ads.


----------



## Josh Z

bryantc said:


> In my memory I have never been to a movie theater in my life that was Scope or CIH.


That's kind of hard to believe, as that used to be the most common practice until digital projection took over and all the theaters fired their projectionists.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> Since I'm projecting scope films as large as possible in my theater - eleven feet four and a half inches wide by almost five feet tall high, for crying out loud! - I'm doing _nothing_ to decrease the impact of scope.
> 
> Only by insisting on comparing that to how I show 16:9 do you try to say I'm somehow _denigrating_ scope.
> 
> *Why can't each film be evaluated on its own merits without a "mine is bigger than yours" comparison being made?*
> 
> We're not kids in the locker room any more.


Because now we're getting into the realm of Bud's "Constant Random Zooming" practice of changing the size of the image based on whim or whatever mood he's in that day.


----------



## bryantc

Josh Z said:


> That's kind of hard to believe, as that used to be the most common practice until digital projection took over and all the theaters fired their projectionists.


It would have been around the early to mid 90s that I started to pay attention to technical things like aspect ratio. That was long before digital and I've been to theaters all over the country. In that time I can say with certainty I've never seen a Scope screen.


----------



## nathan_h

That’s amazing. I mean I know that has become the majority of screens in the US during the past few decades. But I didn’t realize how extreme is has become. 

Im so glad my favorite local cinema is a CIH theater. I forget how lucky I am. 

Of course I’m an old fart and just about every place I went before multiplexes took over was CIH. I didn’t realize how good we had it.


----------



## Philnick

Philnick said:


> Since I'm projecting scope films as large as possible in my theater - eleven feet four and a half inches wide by almost five feet tall high, for crying out loud! - I'm doing _nothing_ to decrease the impact of scope.
> 
> Only by insisting on comparing that to how I show 16:9 do you try to say I'm somehow _denigrating_ scope.
> 
> *Why can't each film be evaluated on its own merits without a "mine is bigger than yours" comparison being made?*
> 
> We're not kids in the locker room any more.





Josh Z said:


> Because now we're getting into the realm of Bud's "Constant Random Zooming" practice of changing the size of the image based on whim or whatever mood he's in that day.


Say what? As a response to my post, yours is totally unintelligible, as well as being a gratuitous insult of a good guy, @bud16415.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> Say what? As a response to my post, yours is totally unintelligible, as well as being a gratuitous insult of a good guy, @bud16415.


Despite posting in the Constant Image Height forum, Bud does not do Constant Image Height. He also does not do Constant Image Width either. Bud does not do "constant" anything. He zooms the size of his image up and down arbitrarily based on however he's feeling about the content that day.

This is not an insult to Bud. It's just an explanation of what he does. 

Your comment that "Why can't each film be evaluated on its own merits?" just reminded me of that. 

Enjoying the latest Adam Sandler Netflix comedy? Zoom that sucker to super-size! It'll be even funnier when each of his nose hairs is the size of your couch. Feeling bored with Lord of the Rings today? Shink it down to iPhone scale. Anything goes and nothing matters.


----------



## bud16415

bryantc said:


> In my memory I have never been to a movie theater in my life that was Scope or CIH.
> 
> They are all constant width. I've been to some fancy ones in the past that had curtains that would come down from the top and bottom to mask the screen. But most these days just project scope movies in the middle of the screen.
> 
> Somebody should probably let the filmmakers know that their movies are indeed smaller than the diet coke ads.


It all started when the large theaters were busted up into Cineplex deals and they fit screens and seating as best they could to make 6 theaters out of 1. Later they built complexes that had one or two larger quality theaters for the good stuff first run and then a half dozen or more smaller taller screens for all the rest.

Going way back the first step was when grand Academy AR theaters were retrofit for wide screen and the proscenium that held the massive 1.37:1 screen was not removed but a scope screen and drop curtains were fitted. Seating was not relocated but seat selection changed. Some of these theaters had 2500 seats so it was not an issue unless you wanted to sit in the back row.

It is hard to find proper presentation in most of the USA. Be glad if the image is in focus. Masking and alignment is a thing of the past. The projectionist is a high school kid running a dozen theaters at once. Oh plan your theater selection careful if an action movie is playing in the theater next to your RomCom you will hear the rumble next door.

I dropped masking at home a few years ago as with good light control and a bright projector with a good CR and a gray screen today’s digital movies look ok self masked and everyone but me never noticed anyway. I came up with the idea watching Dunkirk with friends and asked them if the black bars bothered them when the AR changed? They said “what!”.
Most directors and studios I’m told are now more interested getting to the home streaming market and beyond as quickly as they can. About 99.999% of those are 16:9 TV sets and a good part of those are people saying get rid of the black bars on my 65” TV set. Disney and Marvel are addressing that with releasing the IMAX cuts. We will have to see how that works out for them.


----------



## nathan_h

I like this example of the conversion of old movie palaces to the widescreen era.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Most directors and studios I’m told are now more interested getting to the home streaming market and beyond as quickly as they can. About 99.999% of those are 16:9 TV sets and a good part of those are people saying get rid of the black bars on my 65” TV set. Disney and Marvel are addressing that with releasing the IMAX cuts. We will have to see how that works out for them.


Streaming content - both movies and TV shows - are moving to aspect ratios wider than 16:9 at an astonish rate. 

People said for decades that movies would move to narrower aspect ratios to be more TV friendly. Didn't happen in the past. Isn't happening now. Won't happen in the future.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Despite posting in the Constant Image Height forum, Bud does not do Constant Image Height. He also does not do Constant Image Width either. Bud does not do "constant" anything. He zooms the size of his image up and down arbitrarily based on however he's feeling about the content that day.
> 
> This is not an insult to Bud. It's just an explanation of what he does.
> 
> Your comment that "Why can't each film be evaluated on its own merits?" just reminded me of that.
> 
> Enjoying the latest Adam Sandler Netflix comedy? Zoom that sucker to super-size! It'll be even funnier when each of his nose hairs is the size of your couch. Feeling bored with Lord of the Rings today? Shink it down to iPhone scale. Anything goes and nothing matters.


I will have to say that is not a true depiction of what I proposed as an alternative method of presentation. The reason it was placed in this forum was because it was a presentation method that was inclusive of CIH, CIA and most importantly CIH+IMAX and CIA+IMAX. I did not include CIW as a prime objective even though it is in there if so desired.

It is not Willy Nilly at all as I have no desire for viewing Adam Sandler’s nostrils any more than you do. It is a structured system that IMO overcomes some of the shortfalls of watching a mixture of motion pictures and TV Prestige TV and other TV and Media that doesn’t even qualify as TV and is not motion picture such as YouTube.

In addition as time went on I found that not all people going to a commercial theater like to sit in the same row/immersion level. I thought how nice would it be to indulge myself watching alone like a child would watching an action movie as immersive as I could stand. And then have a respectable adult viewing of Shindler’s List with company as immersive as if we were sitting in the middle row of a proper theater.

I never proposed watching Lord of the Rings shrunk to iPhone size. Even though I bet a million people have watched it on an iPhone.

You yourself would watch Stranger Things a 2.0:1 TV Series more immersive than the movie I mentioned above Shindler’s List 1.85:1 within a CIH method of presentation. Some might feel that was a little out of line. I wouldn’t of course because that is what you like to do.
Random would be to spin a wheel and it lands on IMAX so tonight we will watch Barney Miller at IMAX immersion. That’s totally not what I do. I do have a system and for the most part conventional movies fall into CIH.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> I like this example of the conversion of old movie palaces to the widescreen era.
> 
> View attachment 3204033


Some did that and many others didn’t want to demolish the opulent proscenium and fit the screen to it as wide as they could. You can still tell in the ones that are left if they got chopped.

Most of the palaces had deep stages and still used them for live shows. Ours had a giant elevator so the orchestra could be hidden below. There were all kind of stuff built into the sides of the stage.
Screen size wasn’t as big of an issue as far as I can remember as it was rare to ever fill the place with people. Kids back then seemed to crowd the front but most people never gave immersion a thought as long as they could watch the movie.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I will have to say that is not a true depiction of what I proposed as an alternative method of presentation. The reason it was placed in this forum was because it was a presentation method that was inclusive of CIH, CIA and most importantly CIH+IMAX and CIA+IMAX. I did not include CIW as a prime objective even though it is in there if so desired.


Bud, I may tease, but I honestly have no problem with you doing whatever you want to do in your home theater, even if I wouldn't do it myself.

However, as a writer and an editor, I do wish that you'd stop abusing the word "constant." There is nothing constant about anything in your presentation method. It is not Constant Height. It is not Constant Width. It is not Constant Area. It is none of those things.


----------



## Philnick

@bud16415 If I could propose yet another expansion of your CIA acronym: Constant Image Appreciation.

That is - or should be - what our projection setups should be about!


----------



## Philnick

In Arlington, Massachusetts. the next town over from where I live, there's a neighborhood institution called the Regent Theater that has resisted the multiplex trend by staying with one large theater but using it not only for movies but live concerts by local - and sometimes touring - musicians. It's a very nice old place with a good mixing console for music in the front of the balcony - the best place to sit at a live concert is right behind the sound engineer, so you hear the mix the way it's intended. 

One frequent headliner there is a versatile guitarist who frequently puts on shows devoted to playing the hits of musicians from the sixties and seventies, from a show of Paul Simon's music to recreating The Band's _Last Waltz_ concert.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Bud, I may tease, but I honestly have no problem with you doing whatever you want to do in your home theater, even if I wouldn't do it myself.
> 
> However, as a writer and an editor, I do wish that you'd stop abusing the word "constant." There is nothing constant about anything in your presentation method. It is not Constant Height. It is not Constant Width. It is not Constant Area. It is none of those things.


My method doesn’t have constant in the name it is as I call it PIA personal image area. The screen area I use does on the other hand provide an area large enough to cover CIH, CIA, CIH+IMAX etc.

In the opening post to that thread I explain that a newcomer to projection with a wall or screen of sufficient size to suit PIA could try all these methods of presentation and find out what is right for them.

Nowhere in that thread do I suggest people watch content the way I do. It is one of the reasons @Philnick feels welcome there as his take on PIA is different than mine but we both have realized that the P in personal is what it is all about.
I actually have wished I put an F in the name for freedom as that was the feeling I got the first time I watched The Hateful Eight as tall as I would watch a scope movie only wider. It is great not having to worry if a movie was on one of your lists or a TV show on the other as everything shows up just as intended and changes just as intended and sub titles are always right there as intended. The one and only control I have to worry about is my active zoom level.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> My method doesn’t have constant in the name it is as I call it PIA personal image area. The screen area I use does on the other hand provide an area large enough to cover CIH, CIA, CIH+IMAX etc.


This is what I'm talking about. You can't say that your "Personal Image Area" approach "covers" or is "inclusive of" CIH or CIA. These are all different things!

The word "constant" means "always the same." Constant Image Height means that the height is _always _the same. Constant Image Area means that the overal area square footage is always the same. These are two totally different, irreconcilable things things already. You can't mix them together.

Your PIA system is not "constant" anything. The height changes regularly. The overall image area can change regularly.



> It is not Willy Nilly at all as I have no desire for viewing Adam Sandler’s nostrils any more than you do. It is a structured system that IMO overcomes some of the shortfalls of watching a mixture of motion pictures and TV Prestige TV and other TV and Media that doesn’t even qualify as TV and is not motion picture such as YouTube.


Who makes the determinination about what qualifies for large immersion and what doesn't qualify? You do. Based on what? Are there any rules for this, or is it just personal preference and gut feeling?

Again, it is 100% your prerogative to project things in your home theater however you want to project them. I'm not trying to tell you to change what you do. I'd just like you to stop claiming that your process is "inclusive of" CIH when in fact it is very much anti-CIH.


----------



## nathan_h

bud16415 said:


> Some did that and many others didn’t want to demolish the opulent proscenium and fit the screen to it as wide as they could. You can still tell in the ones that are left if they got chopped.
> 
> Most of the palaces had deep stages and still used them for live shows. Ours had a giant elevator so the orchestra could be hidden below. There were all kind of stuff built into the sides of the stage.
> Screen size wasn’t as big of an issue as far as I can remember as it was rare to ever fill the place with people. Kids back then seemed to crowd the front but most people never gave immersion a thought as long as they could watch the movie.



Yes, true, theatrical compromises were not uncommon. And have become more common over time.

I guess I should share this image, from an explanation of how Cinemascope was _intended to work_ even if actual practice sometimes fell (and falls) short.

(This is from the documentation that accompanied the first Cinemascope feature, the Robe.)










I should add that I don't think this means home theaters should all work this way. Too many people have rooms that cannot work this way, or like their content in other presentation methods.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> This is what I'm talking about. You can't say that your "Personal Image Area" approach "covers" or is "inclusive of" CIH or CIA. These are all different things!
> 
> The word "constant" means "always the same." Constant Image Height means that the height is _always _the same. Constant Image Area means that the overal area square footage is always the same. These are two totally different, irreconcilable things things already. You can't mix them together.
> 
> Your PIA system is not "constant" anything. The height changes regularly. The overall image area can change regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> Who makes the determinination about what qualifies for large immersion and what doesn't qualify? You do. Based on what? Are there any rules for this, or is it just personal preference and gut feeling?
> 
> Again, it is 100% your prerogative to project things in your home theater however you want to project them. I'm not trying to tell you to change what you do. I'd just like you to stop claiming that your process is "inclusive of" CIH when in fact it is very much anti-CIH.


The fact you don’t seem to understand is that the size and shape of your screen does not dictate the presentation method you employ. The presentation method is adhering to a set of rules you want to follow.

Any screen sized for the width of scope say and then 16:9 AR is not necessarily a CIW presentation method. It can easily be used for 100% of all flat, scope and academy movies you will ever watch as CIH. If all you ever watch is motion pictures in those 3 formats the top and bottom of the screen will always remain black. Now lets say once a year Nolan or some other fine director shoots a movie in IMAX 1.89 you would then have the option to use that top and bottom and display the full film. If you are a person like Phil or myself you may just enjoy that. If not you could turn on your blanking and watch it cropped.

Now suppose you are watching a Netflix scope movie and it is a film in a language you don’t speak and the subtitles happen to fall below the scope frame you can let this larger screen display the subs.

All this is CIH on a 16:9 screen with the exception of IMAX and that also is closer to what the director would like you to see.

Now lets say the screen was even wider and once every 4-5 years some director wants to make a 2.55:1 motion picture. You with a 2.39:1 screen doing CIH are faced with a problem. Do I chop off the sides to make it the correct height or do I fit it to the width and not have CIH? When you view the screen as determining your presentation rather than viewing the presentation as a discipline that’s what happens.

Now lets take it a step more into areas I know you would never watch in your theater but many of us do. That would be content that was never directed or intended to be played in any theater. It is called television or TV for short. How large or immersive should say NASCAR race be in a theater relative to say The Sound of Music? Show me something where it explains how big NASCAR should be in my FOV. I have friends that watch it and if they have a 32” TV they want a 65” TV and then a 85” TV and when they come over and they see it IMAX size that’s even better. The most expensive seats in sporting events are court side. People sit for hours watching tennis flipping their heads back and forth and love it. This stuff including Breaking Bad are TV not motion pictures and don’t need to follow CIH or constant anything BUT they can if you want.

Now the real crux of the matter in simulating a real CIH theater in the home. When any of us walk into a movie theater that is properly designed for CIH presentation we know our preferred immersion level and when we get to that row and central seat we find it full of people maybe several rows each side full of people. We have a Sheldon issue as do we ask the people to move sitting in our seat or do we adjust our immersion for a seat that is open. Lets say we adjust. Do we go more or less immersive? Lets say we are with another Sheldon like person that likes less immersion than we do. Do we not sit together?

I contend immersion is not a “Constant” rather a variable based person to person and that’s where “Personal” comes in we may well have a Personal CIH but I know for a fact there is not a Universal CIH. I know what you will say and that is it is your theater and anyone you invite in better like your level of immersion if you are with them or not. That’s fine and is everyone’s choice. I will say my method allows for my personal immersion level along with everyone else if I want to provide it.
People sometimes ask me how many rows I have in my HT and to keep it simple I tell them 100.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> Yes, true, theatrical compromises were not uncommon. And have become more common over time.
> 
> I guess I should share this image, from an explanation of how Cinemascope was _intended to work_ even if actual practice sometimes fell (and falls) short.
> 
> (This is from the documentation that accompanied the first Cinemascope feature, the Robe.)
> 
> View attachment 3204472
> 
> 
> I should add that I don't think this means home theaters should all work this way. Too many people have rooms that cannot work this way, or like their content in other presentation methods.


IMAX built pretty much on that early model of cinemascope and took it up and down as well as side to side in the 1960s.

Theater like the 1.37:1 movie palaces in the timeframe they developed were in center city locations and went up with seating with balconies and fit into more narrow lots on city blocks. People lived in the cities and walked to the theaters.

When urban sprawl started and theaters moved from downtown to the suburbs many were anchors in strip malls and land was cheap and they had big parking lots. The art deco style was being replaced with the lower more space age theaters with wide scope screens and wrap around seating, and of course the drive-in movies.

It is amazing how many old Academy theaters are still around converted to playhouses and other things in small towns.
I got to thinking a few years back about all the theaters that were in our city years ago and at that time our city was the third largest city in the state. I asked someone to guess how many movie theaters were in our city and they guessed something like 20. I told them nope zero in the city proper all the theaters are in the small town suburbs around the city. That was kind of a sad thing to realize.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> All this is CIH on a 16:9 screen with the exception of IMAX and that also is closer to what the director would like you to see.


What you're describing is CIH+IMAX. Except that you don't just watch IMAX content at IMAX size. As you admit in this same rambling post, you also watch NASCAR, and tennis, and TV shows like Breaking Bad at IMAX size, or anything else that you decide on that day ought to be IMAXed.

That is not CIH. It is not CIH+IMAX. It is not "constant" anything.

Again, if that's what floats your boat, by all means enjoy it. I just ask that you please stop insisting that it has anything to do with Constant Image Height, because it does not.


----------



## bud16415

It doesn’t matter how I watch or Phil watches or even how you watch. We have all made up our minds what we are happy doing. Newcomers are seeking information and a way to see with their own eyes what they want to do. You simply tell them they should do CIH and buy a scope screen. I suggest a method that allows them to see for themselves with their own eyes all methods of presentation. At the very worst they make two black masking panels and have a scope screen that could be used for IMAX and subs if they wanted.

Maybe they find like Rob Hahn did that something like CIA is there cup of tea.

Face it nothing is constant. With a CIW screen academy is not constant width it is constant height. With a CIH screen a 2.55:1 movie is not a constant height.

I don’t say what I’m doing is constant anything. I describe it as variable. I do relate it in terms of constant presentations because that is the bench mark here. It doesn’t mean I have no rules or logic on what scale I show at.
I have said a 1000 times that CIH is far better than CIW IMO. I have also said a 1000 times if masking 100% of the time is very important to you and you don’t want to spend countless hours messing around with manual masking and don’t have an enormous budget for automatic 4way masking then don’t conceder variable presentation.


----------



## Josh Z

It's hard enough to educate people on the point and purpose of CIH. Confusing the issue by throwing in a bunch of "Yeah, but what if you did stuff completely different!" variables just makes that exponentially more difficult.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> It's hard enough to educate people on the point and purpose of CIH. Confusing the issue by throwing in a bunch of "Yeah, but what if you did stuff completely different!" variables just makes that exponentially more difficult.


Actually, what makes it difficult for you to convince people whose rooms don't have low ceilings to install scope screens is telling them that using a screen that's as wide as their projector can throw a scope image in their room but is taller than a scope screen somehow forces them to "shrink" scope films, when they're actually showing scope films as large as is possible in their rooms - simply because the screen can handle films with other aspect ratios at the same magnification.

Insist on something that they can see for themselves is false - and they won't listen to you.

You're making an historical argument based on the comparative width of scope films when introduced - to lure folks away from their 4:3 TVs and back into theaters.

You need to understand that, except in a room with a low-ceiling, a scope screen is the _least_ flexible way to set up a theater to show what's available _now_, and those who try to enforce a rigid view of how to show films that artificially limits the options of those with higher ceilings are _sidelining themselves_.


----------



## Josh Z

Most people don't install home theaters at the far end of a narrow hallway with a cathedral ceiling.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Most people don't install home theaters at the far end of a narrow hallway with a cathedral ceiling.


See I learn something here everyday I didn’t know before. Constant, constant learning here at AVS.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> It's hard enough to educate people on the point and purpose of CIH. Confusing the issue by throwing in a bunch of "Yeah, but what if you did stuff completely different!" variables just makes that exponentially more difficult.





Philnick said:


> Actually, what makes it difficult for you to convince people whose rooms don't have low ceilings to install scope screens is telling them that using a screen that's as wide as their projector can throw a scope image in their room but is taller than a scope screen somehow forces them to "shrink" scope films, when they're actually showing scope films as large as is possible in their rooms - simply because the screen can handle films with other aspect ratios at the same magnification.
> 
> Insist on something that they can see for themselves is false - and they won't listen to you.
> 
> You're making an historical argument based on the comparative width of scope films when introduced - to lure folks away from their 4:3 TVs and back into theaters.
> 
> You need to understand that, except in a room with a low-ceiling, a scope screen is the _least_ flexible way to set up a theater to show what's available _now_, and those who try to enforce a rigid view of how to show films that artificially limits the options of those with higher ceilings are _sidelining themselves_.





Josh Z said:


> Most people don't install home theaters at the far end of a narrow hallway with a cathedral ceiling.


Wow! You're really at the end of your argumentative rope. You posted that around lunchtime yesterday - no "middle of the night" excuse this time. Remember, we both live in suburbs of Boston - in the same time zone.

My theater is 14' wide with a standard 8' ceiling, and nearly square - less than two feet deeper than it is wide - measured to the front of the alcove in which my projector is mounted, with its lens 15' 9" away from the screen - hardly "the end of a narrow hallway with a cathedral ceiling."

At that 15' 9" of throw, my projector, in digital zoom mode, can throw an image 11' 4" wide by 4' 10" tall for scope films, 11' 4" wide by 6' tall for 1.85:1 films, and, in standard mode for 16:9 films, 10' 8" wide by 6' tall.

My 16:9 films are thus 8" narrower (6 2/3%) than scope films. You should be pleased that at least it's not constant image width!

While I didn't include the dimensions of my room in my signature, my maximum image size of 11' 4/5" wide by 6' tall - which _is_ in my signature - hardly requires a cathedral ceiling or a long hallway for throw. Even leaving room underneath for a horizontal center channel speaker, a standard 8' ceiling is all that's needed.

My throw is not long enough for an anamorphic lens - which - if one _could_ be used, would produce an image wider than would fit in my room. As the logical consequence of all this, my scope films are shown as large as possible in my room. The shape of my screenwall imposes no limit on the scope image beyond the basic physics of the throw distance and projector. Mounting a 2.35:1 screen on the wall would not make scope images any larger. All it would do is force shrinking non-scope films to fit vertically.

Because of the physical limit on how big an image I can throw, I have room on either side of the image for left and right tower speakers and on the floor under the image for a horizontal center channel speaker of the same design as the towers.

The only shrinking of an image would be if I obeyed your dictum that nothing other than "true IMAX" (whatever meets your criteria) may be taller than scope, and accordingly used the lens' optical zoom to shrink my non-scope films by almost 17% for 1.85:1 films and almost 20% for 16:9 films, reducing my enjoyment of those films.

Why should I do that? Because _you_ think that they don't deserve to be experienced as immersive as my theater can show them? There are no TV commercials in what I watch - I watch ordinary TV on a flat panel TV outside my theater. Tell the people who made my non-scope films that their films are second-rate because of their aspect ratio and they'd probably call you things I can't post here for demanding that their films be shown reduced in size - not that I'd call you that myself.

Who do you think you're convincing by resorting to caricature and distortion of others' positions? You may actually persuade some CIH proponents to reconsider their position when they see the lengths you need to go to in order to try to justify forcing everything into the frame of a scope screen.


----------



## Josh Z

I'm so tired of having this same argument. It's obvious that you still do not grasp the concept, because you do not ever want to. 

If this doesn't make it abundantly clear to you, then nothing ever will










CIH isn't about shrinking 16:9. It's about _not _shrinking scope. It's about maintaining the same scale of objects for both aspect ratios, as they are actually photographed and composed.

If you have room limitations that prevent you from doing CIH, fine, don't do it. No one is forcing you to. If you simply are not interested in CIH, fine, don't do it. No one is forcing you to. 

But what is the point of posting in the Constant Image Height forum to do nothing but piss all over the idea of Constant Image Height? What does that do for you? Do you think you're going to school us on the glory of maximum height 16:9 at all costs? That's not going to happen.


----------



## fatherom

Suggestion: both of you block each other and just stop discussing this.


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> Suggestion: both of you block each other and just stop discussing this.


As I said once before, I don't have a problem with Phil personally. We get along fine in other threads, and have conversed in PM. It's just this one topic where we lock horns because he stubbornly refuses to concede any merit in CIH while posting in the CIH forum.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> ....he stubbornly refuses to concede any merit in CIH while posting in the CIH forum.


DING! DING! DING!


----------



## bud16415

Has anyone here ever thought about the artistic representation of an image framed in a certain AR on its own merit. Regardless of its immersive relationship to other different ARs. There is beauty in the shape of the container and how the image is within that container.

For every image of James Bond where the two Bonds are relative in size regardless of the AR, I can show you 10 that show two Bonds different sizes from a close up to a panoramic Bond where he is tiny against a landscape. I can watch a scope movie on my 40” TV from across the room one day and watch it very immersive the next day in my theater and still enjoy the cinematography for what it is in being scope.

Rodger Ebert used to watch movies from the back row at a showing when his counter parts all sat in the front row. When he was asked about it he said the back row was closer to the bathroom.

The cinematography is not reliant on what row you sit in even though we have preference and a strong case can be made when you find an immersion you like many people will like both scope and flat from the same distance. I agree with that for the most part.

Rodger Ebert was not destroying the enjoyment of any movie or its AR from sitting in the back row. He was simply watching it less immersive.

I find I gain great pleasure when watching many action movies more immersive and IMAX even more so and a documentary or romantic comedy may be less entertaining overly immersive. I like loud music at a live concert but not in an elevator. Classical music and The Rolling Stones Live are two different things.

Relative immersion is good and CIH presentation provides that and as I have said many times IMO it is better than CIW if you feel the need to pick one. CIH was the standard for a long time, but at that same time theaters didn’t have just one row of seats. So there has always been some degree of variable built into CIH.
The point is scope and flat ARs stand on their own artistically without the need for size/immersion.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> For every image of James Bond where the two Bonds are relative in size regardless of the AR, I can show you 10 that show two Bonds different sizes from a close up to a panoramic Bond where he is tiny against a landscape. I can watch a scope movie on my 40” TV from across the room one day and watch it very immersive the next day in my theater and still enjoy the cinematography for what it is in being scope.


I chose those two frames because they both represent a standard medium shot with the camera the same distance from the subject. If you want to compare two close-ups to each other, or two wide shots from the same distance, you will find the same results.

Of course, you would not compare a tight close-up in one aspect ratio to a wide shot a mile from the subject in another. That is not an apples-to-apples comparison.



> Rodger Ebert used to watch movies from the back row at a showing when his counter parts all sat in the front row. When he was asked about it he said the back row was closer to the bathroom.


If he always sat in the back row, scope movies would still be wider than 1.85:1 movies.

Yes, you can decide to sit in the front row of the theater one day and the back row of the same theater the next day. At home, you can sit closer or further from the TV, or lay down on the floor and watch the whole movie upside down if you feel like it. It's your prerogative as a viewer to do whatever you want.

And that extends to this debate. If you decide that you simply absolutely hate scope movies and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS want 16:9 to be the biggest thing you ever watch no matter what.... then go right ahead and do it that way. No one's going to tell you not to.

But your personal preference does not invalidate the concept of Constant Image Height as a display practice. Just because Phil prefers 16:9 to be bigger than anything else, or because you zoom content up and down based on some arbitrary criteria only understood by yourself, doesn't make Constant Image Height wrong. It just means that you personally like something else, and that's _all _it means.


----------



## bud16415

Let me ask the question then. Where else on AVS do people talk about projection presentation methods?
Rodger Ebert always sat in the front of the theater with the rest of the film critics. Later on as he got older he moved to the back row.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> But your personal preference does not invalidate the concept of Constant Image Height as a display practice. Just because _Phil prefers 16:9 to be bigger than anything else_ [italics added by Phil] or because you zoom content up and down based on some arbitrary criteria only understood by yourself, doesn't make Constant Image Height wrong. It just means that you personally like something else, and that's _all _it means.


Phil here. Actually, I prefer every film to be seen at its largest, regardless of its aspect ratio, and its size compared to some other film doesn't enter my mind. 

I'd love it if I could show scope films six feet tall and 14' 4" wide but I can't with my projector and room, but that's not going to lead me to shrink other formats to maintain an artificial "parity" in image height.

What I can't get behind is saying "You shouldn't watch that so large - it's not scope!" 

That - in my humble opinion - applies irrelevant considerations to the watching of movies.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> As I said once before, I don't have a problem with Phil personally. We get along fine in other threads, and have conversed in PM. It's just this one topic where we lock horns because he stubbornly refuses to concede any merit in CIH while posting in the CIH forum.


Tne reason I post here is not because it's in the CIH forum but because it's the place for discussion of Variable Aspect Ratio films. When I found this thread and enthusiastically praised a few of my favorite such films I was astounded to be flamed for that because - I then learned - this thread is used by some folks as a way to _avoid_ them - or at least minimize the impact of their defining characteristic.

That would be like using a review thread for Chinese or Italian restaurants only as a way to find food the most like what you can get in the freezer case at your supermarket.

And no, I don't want to start my own VAR film thread - threads here should be seen as gathering points for folks interested in discussing a subject, and differing viewpoints should be welcome, as long as debate doesn't descend to ridicule or abuse of each other.


----------



## bud16415

Like Phil I was kind of astonished when I found a thread about variable AR movies it wasn’t to embrace the changing technology but rather a warning list and ways to work around. I didn’t want to muddy the waters so I did start a positive variable presenation thread figuring it is just one thread and easy enough to ignore if variable presentation wasn’t your thing. Instead I got 100s of comments that for the most part were telling me to take it someplace else it didn’t belong in a forum that was about scope presentation. As far as I knew when say a Nolan movie would change to 2.39:1 it was changing into a scope presentation.
When a single thread can’t be ignored I doubt a forum about variable presentation would stand a chance. Maybe the CRT forum might be a place to try. I don’t see much traffic there these days.


----------



## Josh Z

This is a thread about Variable Aspect Ratio movies within the Constant Image Height forum. The purpose of this thread is to help CIH users identify and deal with these movies. Hence the reason it is posted here.

If the thread had been posted in, say, the Blu-ray forum or the Movies forum on this site, it would not be expected to focus on the needs of CIH users there.

What you two are doing is akin to going to a Ferrari forum, clicking on a thread about Best & Worst Tires to Install on a Ferrari, and complaining that, "All you guys ever talk about is Ferrari this and Ferrari that! Why don't you ever talk about how great these tires work on a Hyundai?"


----------



## Philnick

Quick show of hands: Any non-CIH readers of this thread here other than @bud16415 and myself?

If not, Josh can stop worrying that we're corrupting the youth - or the oldsters.

If so, maybe the scope of this thread can be - dare I say it? - _widened_ a bit.


----------



## fatherom

Philnick said:


> If not, Josh can stop worrying that we're corrupting the youth - or the oldsters.
> 
> If so, maybe the focus of this thread can be - dare I say it - _widened_ a bit.


I love how both outcomes don't involve you changing your approach/tactics in any way.


----------



## Killroy

It has time for this thread to be closed and for Josh to create a new database thread with specific instructions that no off-topic CIW talk is allowed. Then he can ask the mods to either clean up OT discussion...not that they would do that. /ducks

I mean, what is the point of having a CIH discussion in a CIH sub-forum that was created specifically for CIH lovers? I remember when this sub-forum was created and it was done specifically to keep most OT stuff out since CIH was such a rare art.


----------



## Philnick

fatherom said:


> I love how both outcomes don't involve you changing your approach/tactics in any way.


Since you've been following the discourse here over the past several days, you know I've not started any of the exchanges but merely responded to Josh's jibes - and my arguments "have been, and always will be" (Thanks, Spock) that we should enjoy each film on its own merit, without comparing its presentation to that of other films. I initially came to this thread to praise films I enjoyed and find more like them. I'm an enjoyer, not a criticizer. 

I would hope that kind of attitude would be encouraged.

The call to "battle stations" over aspect ratios benefits no one.


----------



## vila2k

Unfortunately as a 'database' the thread has shown itself to have inaccurate information and be more of a thread of how Josh likes to watch movies.


----------



## Killroy

vila2k said:


> Unfortunately as a 'database' the thread has shown itself to have inaccurate information and be more of a thread of how Josh likes to watch movies.


Completely 100% disagree. The first three posts that Josh has kept updated since day-one is a wealth of information for us CIH users.


----------



## vila2k

Killroy said:


> Completely 100% disagree. The first three posts that Josh has kept updated since day-one is a wealth of information for us CIH users.



Yet the Nolan films are still listed as safe to crop when it is 100% demonstrable that cropping them creates a different framing from the 2.39:1 theatrical presentation the filmmakers chose.

It's misleading and just what Josh prefers.


----------



## Killroy

Well, those parts is discussed within the discussions. They note which ones are not scope-center friendly....absolutely nothing misleading. It dopes not change the fact that the database specifically keeps track of VAR films.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> Unfortunately as a 'database' the thread has shown itself to have inaccurate information and be more of a thread of how Josh likes to watch movies.


What inaccurate information would that be?



vila2k said:


> Yet the Nolan films are still listed as safe to crop when it is 100% demonstrable that cropping them creates a different framing from the 2.39:1 theatrical presentation the filmmakers chose.
> 
> It's misleading and just what Josh prefers.


Being different than Nolan's personal re-framing does not mean that it is unsafe to crop. No important picture information is lost with a center crop.

In any case, the post you're complaining about explicitly states: 

"*NOTE:* These results may be subjective. Filmmakers sometimes adjust their shot framing in post-production, and a center-crop from the Variable Aspect Ratio version of the movie may differ in some ways from the filmmaker's prepared 2.35:1 scope version. However, such differences are often not noticeable without a direct comparison."


----------



## vila2k

Very misleading


----------



## Killroy

How is that in anyway misleading...it tells you exactly how they will be shown and if anything is missing if cropped to scope?


----------



## vila2k

Killroy said:


> How is that in anyway misleading...it tells you exactly how they will be shown and if anything is missing if cropped to scope?



Transformers ROTF is described as "The 2.35:1 safe zone was originally positioned high in the frame, not in the center. " and put in a separate category of "*Mostly safe to crop.*


Interstellar is in the* Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Safe to Crop to 2.35:1 *category and is described as "No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area" when we know cropping it does not give you the correct theatrical framing.

Tenet is similarly listed 


Putting Nolan films in the same category as other films that ACTUALLY use the the center of the frame for scope theatrical framing is misleading to forum members that want to read that list as a factual database.


----------



## bud16415

Really when this forum was established it should have been called (Projection Presentation Methods) That would have been logical as they didn’t create a group for methods other than CIH. Why shouldn’t presentation methods be compared otherwise how can you select what is right for you.

Times have changed for many in what is normal media to be viewed projected and people do have opinions and also questions about if I select this method what do I then do about these pieces of media that don’t fit well?

As Phil mentioned being inclusive is a way to talk to more people and perhaps more people will get thinking about presentation and see the merits of CIH and adapt it. When people come here and are excited that Disney is releasing their beloved Marvel movies as IMAX and are told just chop them to scope it will be fine. They retreat back to CIW. The logic is always the same, There are just not enough movies to make a difference. The number keeps growing. 

To look at it with Josh’s analogy about sports cars. If you have a Ferrari forum and someone says I read an article and the Lamborghini beat the Ferrari last week in a race. Then everyone in the forum starts telling the guy get out of here this is the Ferrari forum go find a Lamborghini forum for that nonsense.
Maybe the mods will change the name to (Projection Presentation Methods). After all the world is trying to be more inclusive not less.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> Transformers ROTF is described as "The 2.35:1 safe zone was originally positioned high in the frame, not in the center. " and put in a separate category of "*Mostly safe to crop.*
> 
> Interstellar is in the* Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Safe to Crop to 2.35:1 *category and is described as "No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area" when we know cropping it does not give you the correct theatrical framing.
> 
> Tenet is similarly listed
> 
> Putting Nolan films in the same category as other films that ACTUALLY use the the center of the frame for scope theatrical framing is misleading to forum members that want to read that list as a factual database.


Again, it says right in that same post:

_The following lists will be based on CIH viewers' results of cropping variable ratio movies to 2.35:1. Please share your experiences and opinions in the thread. *NOTE:* These results may be subjective. Filmmakers sometimes adjust their shot framing in post-production, and a center-crop from the Variable Aspect Ratio version of the movie may differ in some ways from the filmmaker's prepared 2.35:1 scope version. However, such differences are often not noticeable without a direct comparison. _

Your entire argument seems to be centered on not understanding what the word "subjective" means.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> Again, it says right in that same post:
> 
> _The following lists will be based on CIH viewers' results of cropping variable ratio movies to 2.35:1. Please share your experiences and opinions in the thread. *NOTE:* These results may be subjective. Filmmakers sometimes adjust their shot framing in post-production, and a center-crop from the Variable Aspect Ratio version of the movie may differ in some ways from the filmmaker's prepared 2.35:1 scope version. However, such differences are often not noticeable without a direct comparison. _
> 
> Your entire argument seems to be centered on not understanding what the word "subjective" means.




Then why include specific information for the Transformers disc stating "The 2.35:1 safe zone was originally positioned high in the frame, not in the center. " and putting it in a different category when you including no such information for the Nolan films? 


Why not just add the information that is factual?


----------



## Killroy

vila2k said:


> Transformers ROTF is described as "The 2.35:1 safe zone was originally positioned high in the frame, not in the center. " and put in a separate category of "*Mostly safe to crop.*
> 
> 
> Interstellar is in the* Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Safe to Crop to 2.35:1 *category and is described as "No essential picture information outside the 2.35:1 area" when we know cropping it does not give you the correct theatrical framing.
> 
> Tenet is similarly listed
> 
> 
> Putting Nolan films in the same category as other films that ACTUALLY use the the center of the frame for scope theatrical framing is misleading to forum members that want to read that list as a factual database.


ROTF is described perfectly! It is just as stated "mostly safe to crop".

Interstellar is 100% center cropped and nothing is missing from the original theatrical scope presentation. If you have evidence otherwise I would love to see it as I watched this on a 85-foot wide scope screen the day it came out. The IMAX version was ONLY shown in IMAX screens which means that 96.5% of all world-wide screen ONLY saw the scope center cropped version.

Tenet has maybe three or four scenes that are not center cropped.


----------



## bud16415

As to cropping any IMAX movie into scope and calling it scope safe IMO does not say the movie hasn’t been altered in a meaningful way. I watched a scope the other day streaming called Yesterday and the cable company cropped the scope version into 16:9. They felt it was 16:9 safe and in watching the movie I didn’t find myself wondering what was going on outside the cut so it was functionally safe enough. Of course I wished they didn’t do it and if given free will I would never crop a scope movie against the directors intent. Nolan has his intent when he crops IMAX down to scope and I wouldn’t presume I can do it better. Also when asked what version he prefers better he will say the IMAX original. I don’t think he is cropping stuff to make it better he is doing it to fit into more venues that insist on scope framing.
IMHO every IMAX framed movie has loss when cropped to scope safe or not when watched fully immersive.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> As to cropping any IMAX movie into scope and calling it scope safe IMO does not say the movie hasn’t been altered in a meaningful way.


OMFG!!!! Most so-called IMAX movies were shown in 96.5% screens around the world in scope... the exact same scope that you can get at home by center cropping the so-called IMAX version. Nothing is lost when cropping compared to what 96.5% of all people saw in the scope presentation.

Anyhow... this thread and this entire sub-forum has become an absolute joke. There should not be any CIW discussions on since the sub-forum is dedicated to the art of CIH.

Sorry Josh, I am out for good. I will not contribute to this thread any longer when I find new VAR content that is scope-safe or not.


----------



## vila2k

Killroy said:


> ROTF is described perfectly! It is just as stated "mostly safe to crop".
> 
> Interstellar is 100% center cropped and nothing is missing from the original theatrical scope presentation. If you have evidence otherwise I would love to see it as I watched this on a 85-foot wide scope screen the day it came out.


Here you go - I went through all of the Nolan films that had Imax scenes at the start of the year and quickly found differences in the framing if you just applied a center drop and did post about it in the thread.


----------



## vila2k

Whats funny @fatherom?


----------



## fatherom

vila2k said:


> Whats funny @fatherom?


If I tried to explain, I don't think you would understand.


----------



## vila2k

fatherom said:


> If I tried to explain, I don't think you would understand.


It kind of seems like your just trying to troll and be insulting.


----------



## fatherom

vila2k said:


> It kind of seems like your just trying to troll and be insulting.


That would be an incorrect interpretation.


----------



## vila2k

fatherom said:


> That would be an incorrect interpretation.


Explain then....

Did my post not show framing from Interstellar that was not from the center?

Why was that _funny_ to you?


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


> ROTF is described perfectly! It is just as stated "mostly safe to crop".
> 
> Interstellar is 100% center cropped and nothing is missing from the original theatrical scope presentation. If you have evidence otherwise I would love to see it as I watched this on a 85-foot wide scope screen the day it came out. The IMAX version was ONLY shown in IMAX screens which means that 96.5% of all world-wide screen ONLY saw the scope center cropped version.
> 
> Tenet has maybe three or four scenes that are not center cropped.


Of all movies to pick to say nothing is lost between IMAX and scope I would put Interstellar last on the list. That movie is all about peripheral vision immersion both in the scope cut and the IMAX version. Don’t forget peripheral vision extends in both directions. And in cropping the top and bottom you are taking away 2/3 or more of the peripheral vision filling content.

To say that 96.5% of the people saw it in scope should be a sad statement of fact not justification that is how it should be shown at home. It is great you got to see it on an 85’ wide screen just to bad it wasn’t 48’ high.

I have a hard time trying to figure out why more isn’t better than less and I can get it for some romantic comedy that has really no place in IMAX in the first place I even question the ones in scope sometimes. But Interstellar and movies like that I just don’t get it. Show 1000 people Interstellar at 48’x85’ and then 35’x85’ and ask them what they liked better. I wont even mention 60’x85’.
Trust me I totally understand having a scope HT and being locked in and it not being logical to rip it all out and start over for 5% of the movies or less you may watch. I understand it is even good enough. But it is never going to be an equal movie experience.


----------



## bud16415

vila2k said:


> Here you go - I went through all of the Nolan films that had Imax scenes at the start of the year and quickly found differences in the framing if you just applied a center drop and did post about it in the thread.
> 
> View attachment 3206569


That image from Interstellar is a great example of IMAX framing. When someone says look at the mountain and then you hear that’s not a mountain and it appears as a mile high wave coming at your living room to get you. That’s when you grab for your armrests. There really is no good crop for that one as without the sky you don’t know what you are seeing and without the bottom of the wave it doesn’t look so tall.

I can site a thousand examples of similar places in IMAX movies.
For me if the director wants to make a scope movie I’m 100% fine with it and if he wants to do a modern IMAX version that’s ok also. I even get trying to make an ok scope safe version doing some pan n scan stuff. The idea of just filling the top and bottom with nothing or making it a distraction from the movie does not compute. I’m sure some directors and studios are doing that and just taking IMAX money. If they are shame on IMAX for agreeing to it.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> Then why include specific information for the Transformers disc stating "The 2.35:1 safe zone was originally positioned high in the frame, not in the center. " and putting it in a different category when you including no such information for the Nolan films?
> 
> Why not just add the information that is factual?


I feel like I need to explain the meaning of every English word to you.

Revenge of the Fallen is labeled "Mostly Safe to Crop" and very clearly explains that some shots have overly-tight headroom with a center crop, but this is rarely bothersome as the movie cut-cut-cut-cut-cuts from shot to shot (some IMAX, some not) so rapidly you hardly have time to notice how a shot is framed. Hence _mostly _safe.

Once again, that post explicitly states that these opinions are subjective. Do you understand what the word "subjective" means or don't you?

The Dark Knight is not even mentioned in that post.

Interstellar is labeled "Safe to Crop" because I watched that whole movie with a center 2.35:1 crop and not one single shot looked awkward or misframed. The comments on Tenet were quoted from member magi1500, who explained his rationale. (I have not seen Tenet and have no opinion on it, as I've completely given up on Christopher Nolan after suffering through the ungodly messes of Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises.)



vila2k said:


> I went through all of the Nolan films that had Imax scenes at the start of the year and quickly found differences in the framing if you just applied a center drop and did post about it in the thread.


Just because Nolan's preferred crop is different than a center crop, does not automatically mean that a center crop looks wrong or is unsafe to watch.

By "unsafe," I mean that critical picture information is noticeably missing, or the shot just looks awkward or wrong even without a side-by-side comparison.

You can talk about the crest of the wave in that one shot, but no movie is made up entirely of static images. These are motion pictures. Things in the frame move. The camera may pan or tilt. One shot cuts immediately to another shot that shows a different view. 

I watched that scene and never thought, "OMG WHY CAN'T I SEE THE CREST OF THE WAVE?!" Probably because I did see the crest of the wave one second earlier or one second later. You have cherry-picked one still frame where you say something is wrong. Had your first time watching the movie been with a 2.35:1 center crop, you would not have noticed anything wrong about that shot.


----------



## vila2k

QUOTE="Josh Z, post: 61243808, member: 39264"]
You have cherry-picked one still frame where you say something is wrong. Had your first time watching the movie been with a 2.35:1 center crop, you would not have noticed anything wrong about that shot.
[/QUOTE]

The frame pans up from the astronaut head to the crest of the wave.

The first time I watched the film was in scope but it looked correct because it was the correct theatrical framing.

The still shows exactly how your implication that the film is safe to crop is misleading to readers as it alters the theatrical framing of the scene but I guess you don't care about how a DOP and director frames a shot.




Josh Z said:


> feel like I need to explain the meaning of every English word to you.
> 
> Revenge of the Fallen is labeled "Mostly Safe to Crop" and very clearly explains that some shots have overly-tight headroom with a center crop, but this is rarely bothersome as the movie cut-cut-cut-cut-cuts from shot to shot (some IMAX, some not) so rapidly you hardly have time to notice how a shot is framed. Hence _mostly _safe.
> 
> Once again, that post explicitly states that these opinions are subjective. Do you understand what the word "subjective" means or don't you?



Then why not include the relevant information if its to be used as a database?




Josh Z said:


> Just because Nolan's preferred crop is different than a center crop, does not automatically mean that a center crop looks wrong or is unsafe to watch.



So filmmakers intent is important to how wide an image is projected but not to its framing?


----------



## Philnick

Killroy said:


> Completely 100% disagree. The first three posts that Josh has kept updated since day-one is a wealth of information for us CIH users.


I'm with Killroy on this one, with one modification - it's a wealth of information for _all_ users. Josh is doing a great job here and shouldn't stop.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> Then why not include the relevant information if its to be used as a database?


That information is included in the post. This conversation is growing infuriating.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> That information is included in the post. This conversation is growing infuriating.



No it isn't - the post doesn't explain how Nolan films are affected by a centre crop.

In fact the post doubles down on confusing the issue by listing them under

*Variable Aspect Ratio Blu-rays that Are Safe to Crop to 2.35:1*

and including accendotal information such as ;

*Tenet - matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition etc."
Interstellar - "matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition etc."*

When its demonstrable that this alters the intended scope framing of the shot.

Its misleading information like this that perpetuates the falsehood the Nolans films are just framed for scope with extra information and the scope version is a center crop.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> I'm with Killroy on this one, with one modification - it's a wealth of information for _all_ users. Josh is doing a great job here and shouldn't stop.


I agree with Phil I enjoy the list as a resource and also the associated information about the cropping process. Even though it doesn’t enter directly into my presentation.

I remember watching Tenet and almost feeling Nolan let me down a little as about 80% of the IMAX framing was quite subtle and not overly adding to the feeling IMAX & Nolan normally provides. On the other hand IMO it didn’t distract so that may be the intent as well.
The listing is great I have found several movies I wouldn’t have thought to watch on the list and they were great.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> No it isn't - the post doesn't explain how Nolan films are affected by a centre crop.
> 
> Its misleading information like this that perpetuates the falsehood the Nolans films are just framed for scope with extra information and the scope version is a center crop.


*NOTE:* These results may be subjective. Filmmakers sometimes adjust their shot framing in post-production, and a center-crop from the Variable Aspect Ratio version of the movie may differ in some ways from the filmmaker's prepared 2.35:1 scope version. However, such differences are often not noticeable without a direct comparison.

--
Really can't be any clearer than that. Please stop wasting our time with this bizarre argument.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> *NOTE:* These results may be subjective. Filmmakers sometimes adjust their shot framing in post-production, and a center-crop from the Variable Aspect Ratio version of the movie may differ in some ways from the filmmaker's prepared 2.35:1 scope version. However, such differences are often not noticeable without a direct comparison.
> 
> --
> Really can't be any clearer than that. Please stop wasting our time with this bizarre argument.


Its not complicated .... it certainly could be clearer....


Just put them under a separate heading like Transformers.... or add accedotal comments to Nolans films about what a center crop does to the framing.

Not accendotes that matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition etc." "matching the disc’s letterbox at 2.2 is good to go. No issues with the forced subs or composition etc."


----------



## Josh Z

I'm not responding this you on this topic any further, vila2k. The post already says that the filmmaker's prepared crop may differ. It also already very clearly says that opinions in that post are subjective.

That you don't like my labels for the categories is your own personal hang-up, no one else's. I disagree with your complaint. I do not feel that the post needs to be edited any more than it already has been. The disclaimer is there for a reason, and it is perfectly clear. 

Please move on. Thank you.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> I'm not responding this you on this topic any further, vila2k. The post already says that the filmmaker's prepared crop may differ. It also already very clearly says that opinions in that post are subjective.
> 
> That you don't like my labels for the categories is your own personal hang-up, no one else's. I disagree with your complaint. I do not feel that the post needs to be edited any more than it already has been. The disclaimer is there for a reason, and it is perfectly clear.
> 
> Please move on. Thank you.


And this is why the list is sadly flawed as a database because its based around Josh's personal preference for how films should be displayed rather than facts.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> Here you go - I went through all of the Nolan films that had Imax scenes at the start of the year and quickly found differences in the framing if you just applied a center drop and did post about it in the thread.
> 
> View attachment 3206569


Well well well, would you look at this. Vila2k posts a screenshot from Interstellar which allegedly proves that a 16:9 center crop of the Blu-ray would cut out vital picture information (the crest of the wave) from the IMAX VAR version of the movie. Zoom this up and you can see a time code of 1:10:33.

So, I put popped that Blu-ray into my player and cued up the scene. Here's a photo of the full 16:9 aspect ratio at 1:10:33. Yup, indeed the crest of the wave is pretty high up in the frame, outside the 2.35:1 safe zone. That portion of the image would in fact be lost with a center crop... in this specific frame.










(Forgive the quality of these images. These are just photos taken quickly off a TV screen.)

The thing is -- and this is _really _interesting -- here's what that Blu-ray looks like three seconds earlier at 1:10:30.










Huh. The crest of the wave is completely off screen even in the 16:9 version here.

And here's what it looks like at 1:10:35.










Wait a second, in this one the crest is down much lower, very safely within the 2.35:1 center crop area.

As it turns out, this shot involves a camera tilt upward. The shot starts with the wave completely engulfing the screen, and then the camera tilts up to reveal the crest. This reveal works perfectly fine either in 16:9 full-screen or with a 2.35:1 center crop.

In order to "prove" that the Blu-ray cannot safely be cropped to 2.35:1 without ruining the movie, Vila2k has cherry-picked an individual frame that looks wrong that way, willfully ignoring the motion of the wave, the camera movement, and in fact the whole artistic purpose of the shot (the slow reveal) - which perfectly come into view within 2 seconds of the frame he selected. 

I mean... wow... That's some serious skullduggery right there. He was obviously banking on nobody actually fact-checking his supposed evidence.

As I've said all along, even if Nolan's prepared 2.35:1 version of Interstellar may not be a direct center extract, the Blu-ray is still entirely safe to center-crop to 2.35:1 without anything noticeably missing or affected in any meaningful way. I stand by that statement now more than ever.


----------



## Philnick

Considering that I can't even tell whether vila is an IMAX supporter or a scope user frustrated with center-cropping scope from VAR and just wants a director-approved scope crop, I'm beginning to understand how beleaguered Josh feels.

Please don't stop maintaining this resource, Josh. Those of us who care about VAR films would miss your efforts to make us aware of films that are available in VAR in releases other than the ones we may have seen before - even if that wasn't your original intention in creating this thread.

And maybe - just maybe - you may begin to see why I say "Just Enjoy Films! Don't focus on criticism."

There's a great bumper sticker that says "Wag More - Bark Less." It's a happier way to live.


----------



## vila2k

Josh Z said:


> Well well well, would you look at this. Vila2k posts a screenshot from Interstellar which allegedly proves that a 16:9 center crop of the Blu-ray would cut out vital picture information



Actually Josh I was responding specifically to the question below with a scene the sprung to mind from when Id looked at the movie before




Killroy said:


> Interstellar is 100% center cropped and nothing is missing from the original theatrical scope presentation. If you have evidence otherwise I would love to see it


I posted a image of the 'iTunes' Scope version of the film overlaid on the IMAX Framing showing It clearly isn't just a center crop











Josh Z said:


> As it turns out, this shot involves a camera tilt upward. The shot starts with the wave completely engulfing the screen, and then the camera tilts up to reveal the crest.


As I stated before



vila2k said:


> The frame pans up from the astronaut head to the crest of the wave.


So it must have shown the crest of the wave earlier.

If we want to look at the 10 seconds around that clip you can notice more differences if you start the clip at 1:10:27 and apply a 2.35:1 crop to the IMAX version you straight away notice its a different starting frame on Matthew McConaughey

Itunes Version










Imax cropped to 2.35:1











The Camera does indeed pan up to the wave as I previous stated.

It in iTunes version it hits the top of the wave quicker and holds the shot longer compared to a center cropped version of the Imax framing.
You can also say you've cherry picked an individual frame - ignoring the composition of the shots the filmmakers chose and the Candace of the scene.





Josh Z said:


> As I've said all along, even if Nolan's prepared 2.35:1 version of Interstellar may not be a direct center extract, the Blu-ray is still entirely safe to center-crop to 2.35:1 without anything noticeably missing or affected in any meaningful way. I stand by that statement now more than ever.


Its been clear for some time Josh that you DONT CARE about film makers intent when it comes to framing except with it comes to the width of projected image.


Josh Z said:


> It appears that Nolan selectively reframes shots when doing the 2.39:1 extraction from the IMAX footage. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a center masking looks "wrong."


But some of us care what framing a DOP and Director chose and want to recreate the theatrical experience.

You only seem to care than the image fills your screen.


----------



## Technology3456

bud16415 said:


> That image from Interstellar is a great example of IMAX framing. When someone says look at the mountain and then you hear that’s not a mountain and it appears as a mile high wave coming at your living room to get you. That’s when you grab for your armrests. There really is no good crop for that one as without the sky you don’t know what you are seeing and without the bottom of the wave it doesn’t look so tall.
> 
> I can site a thousand examples of similar places in IMAX movies.
> For me if the director wants to make a scope movie I’m 100% fine with it and if he wants to do a modern IMAX version that’s ok also. I even get trying to make an ok scope safe version doing some pan n scan stuff. The idea of just filling the top and bottom with nothing or making it a distraction from the movie does not compute. I’m sure some directors and studios are doing that and just taking IMAX money. If they are shame on IMAX for agreeing to it.


Do you have a way of having your HT be able to do the full height of IMAX, but also, able to have maximum resolution for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies? To get the latter, you tend to need to use an anamorphic lens, but to get the former (in a one-projector set up), correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have to slide the anamorphic lens out of the way, and use lens memory to electronically zoom in the projector? I have read that then when you want to go back to watching a scope movie a day later, the memory lens shift and zoom and focus are not exact enough, so it will cause problems with your anamorphic lens alignment. So what way is to achieve both goals in the same HT with one 2D projector that doesn't require having to re-align the anamorphic lens every day?

Again correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I have heard to have scope without black bars, and IMAX ratio screen as well, in the same HT, besides dual screens and dual projectors (one for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1, one for IMAX), is variable masking to give you all your aspect ratios, however in that case, you are not getting maximum resolution on the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies unless you are also creating the lens memory + anamorphic lens alignment issue.

The reason I bring this up is, I would also like to have the choice to watch the taller versions of these movies in some cases, since I have more room in my space vertically for the screen than horizontally. The tall wave you described in Interstellar is something that from your description I imagine I would agree with you about. However even though I agree, I feel like I have to choose between one compromise or the other. To get that experience for a handful of movies, I would have to (but I say again ahead of time, correct me if I'm wrong) compromise using an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies, and get less resolution for those movies. So how would you weigh that?


----------



## vila2k

Philnick said:


> Considering that I can't even tell whether vila is an IMAX supporter or a scope user frustrated with center-cropping scope from VAR and just wants a director-approved scope crop, I'm beginning to understand how beleaguered Josh feels.
> 
> Please don't stop maintaining this resource, Josh. Those of us who care about VAR films would miss your efforts to make us aware of films that are available in VAR in releases other than the ones we may have seen before - even if that wasn't your original intention in creating this thread.



To be clear Phil I guess I'm both.

I'm a purist and primarily care about filmmakers intent.

In fact on the issue of should scope films be wider than 1.85:1 films I'm in agreement with Josh in terms of ideal presentation.

When using the projector I'm very happy to zoom and blank VAR films where the center of the image is the correct scope presentation.

But this clearly isn't the case with the Imax Nolan films and I quickly realized it when watching projected crop versions and comparing to the iTunes framing on a laptop.

I appreciate the intent of the thread and find that intent VERY useful but clearly Josh has his own agenda when it comes to representing the facts, and it seems to contribute to misleading people to understanding the issue.


----------



## Josh Z

vila2k said:


> If we want to look at the 10 seconds around that clip you can notice more differences if you start the clip at 1:10:27 and apply a 2.35:1 crop to the IMAX version you straight away notice its a different starting frame on Matthew McConaughey
> 
> Itunes Version
> View attachment 3206879
> 
> 
> 
> Imax cropped to 2.35:1
> View attachment 3206880


First, absolutely nothing of significance is missing in either version of this frame.

Second, you are once again ignoring the fact that this is a motion picture. The actor is moving in this shot. It's a handheld shot and the camera moves with him. If seeing the tip-top of McConnaughey's space helmet is of vital importance to you, it's fully in view within a couple frames of this one you've cherry-picked.



> It in iTunes version it hits the top of the wave quicker and holds the shot longer compared to a center cropped version of the Imax framing.
> You can also say you've cherry picked an individual frame - ignoring the composition of the shots the filmmakers chose and the Candace of the scene.


Christopher Nolan is a hardline IMAX purist. His _intention _is that you watch the movie in an IMAX 15/70 theater. The scene was actually composed for 1.43:1 IMAX. Every other version of the movie is a compromise to that composition and cadence. The 16:9 Blu-ray and UHD are one compromise. The 2.35:1 iTunes version is another compromise. A 2.35:1 center-crop from the Blu-ray is a slightly different compromise.

Everything of actual importance in this movie is visible in the 2.35:1 center crop. The experience of watching the movie is not affected in any meaningful way.


----------



## bud16415

Technology3456 said:


> Do you have a way of having your HT be able to do the full height of IMAX, but also, able to have maximum resolution for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies? To get the latter, you tend to need to use an anamorphic lens, but to get the former (in a one-projector set up), correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have to slide the anamorphic lens out of the way, and use lens memory to electronically zoom in the projector? I have read that then when you want to go back to watching a scope movie a day later, the memory lens shift and zoom and focus are not exact enough, so it will cause problems with your anamorphic lens alignment. So what way is to achieve both goals in the same HT with one 2D projector that doesn't require having to re-align the anamorphic lens every day?
> 
> Again correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I have heard to have scope without black bars, and IMAX ratio screen as well, in the same HT, besides dual screens and dual projectors (one for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1, one for IMAX), is variable masking to give you all your aspect ratios, however in that case, you are not getting maximum resolution on the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies unless you are also creating the lens memory + anamorphic lens alignment issue.
> 
> The reason I bring this up is, I would also like to have the choice to watch the taller versions of these movies in some cases, since I have more room in my space vertically for the screen than horizontally. The tall wave you described in Interstellar is something that from your description I imagine I would agree with you about. However even though I agree, I feel like I have to choose between one compromise or the other. To get that experience for a handful of movies, I would have to (but I say again ahead of time, correct me if I'm wrong) compromise using an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies, and get less resolution for those movies. So how would you weigh that?


Technology3456 if I can be honest after reading a lot of your questions I believe most of the time your thoughts land on the side of over complicating the situation.

I will give you my slant on this as I’m a person that always seeks the least complicated method of solving a problem.

First off there are legitimate reasons and advantages to using an A-lens in doing scope presentation. That being said there are many less complicated methods that do not use an A-lens and achieve a very similar outcome. Those are my methods of choice.

Zooming with the projector is the method most chosen and some projectors come with a blanking feature that turn the pixels off outside the scope frame within the projectors frame. In that case and with a movie that expands between scope and IMAX nothing needs to change if you want to watch it scope safe except turning on the blanking feature. If you do mot have that feature then you need black velvet masking panels to absorb the part you don’t want to see.

Another method less used is to process the entire movie thru a device that allows for scaling and or blanking. Doing zooming digitally instead of with lens in the projector.

My method is perhaps the most budget friendly and because I want to see everything that is encoded in the media just as whoever intended it to be. And my projectors are basic simple projectors without a lot of features, I do my zoom by moving the projector on an inclined ceiling track. The movement changes my image size and the incline gives me vertical shift all at once. Focus remains constant. I chose to project to a stealth DIY screen surface that has no size or shape with boarders. The image I watch is bright and colorful and the area around the image looks black because my room is well treated for ambient light reflections. There is a slight difference between black outside the frame of the projector and projected black bars, but it is slight and not distracting to me.
There are a few others doing self masking / no masking, but as far as I know I’m the only one doing a slide for zoom and shift.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> First, absolutely nothing of significance is missing in either version of this frame.


This is maybe the center of the debate the word “significant” and what is our personal definition of what we are trying to accomplish.

Lets look at it in terms of sound. I have a friend that has a nice HT and he is an audio guy foremost and he ports his theater audio out stereo speakers. He says I only have two ears. Myself I find greater audio immersion in movies with what I guess is 4.2 sound where I run a phantom center most of the time even though I have a 5.2 available. Others come over and tell me I’m still in the stone age of movie audio and I need 7, 9…… configurations and are laughing that I only have two 12” subs

There is nothing I’m not getting or my friend with stereo is not getting of significance we hear the dialog and feel the explosions. Late at night I watch with headphones and there is nothing of significance I miss out on in a movie. Sometimes I watch a movie on my PC with a cheap little speaker and I can watch the movie and hear what I need to hear with nothing significant being lost.

Now the visual experience of a scope movie or an IMAX movie in terms of visual immersion for me is no different. Yes it is a different sense one is hearing the other is visual, but in both cases the sense is being overwhelmed with more immersion even if detail is not significant to the core of what we are getting out of it.

If this wasn’t true none of us would have projection HT we would all have 32” TVs with factory speakers.

It is not as simple as center crop or Nolan crop or moving action compared to still frames.
I don’t expect you to buy into my argument, as I know you will do that. The whole reason I post this is for others on the line new to projection wondering why would I want a projector or thinking what is different about going out to see a movie in a theater compared to watching it at home. Scope is a wonderful immersive format and IMHO IMAX takes that up a step more. Clearly some people don’t find that true and many others do. I have watched almost every IMAX movie I can get my hands on both ways and find I like them all better without cropping.


----------



## Philnick

Technology3456 said:


> Do you have a way of having your HT be able to do the full height of IMAX, but also, able to have maximum resolution for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies? To get the latter, you tend to need to use an anamorphic lens, but to get the former (in a one-projector set up), correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have to slide the anamorphic lens out of the way, and use lens memory to electronically zoom in the projector? I have read that then when you want to go back to watching a scope movie a day later, the memory lens shift and zoom and focus are not exact enough, so it will cause problems with your anamorphic lens alignment. So what way is to achieve both goals in the same HT with one 2D projector that doesn't require having to re-align the anamorphic lens every day?
> 
> Again correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I have heard to have scope without black bars, and IMAX ratio screen as well, in the same HT, besides dual screens and dual projectors (one for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1, one for IMAX), is variable masking to give you all your aspect ratios, however in that case, you are not getting maximum resolution on the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies unless you are also creating the lens memory + anamorphic lens alignment issue.
> 
> The reason I bring this up is, I would also like to have the choice to watch the taller versions of these movies in some cases, since I have more room in my space vertically for the screen than horizontally. The tall wave you described in Interstellar is something that from your description I imagine I would agree with you about. However even though I agree, I feel like I have to choose between one compromise or the other. To get that experience for a handful of movies, I would have to (but I say again ahead of time, correct me if I'm wrong) compromise using an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies, and get less resolution for those movies. So how would you weigh that?


The dead simple solution to the black bars issue is to use a low gain (unity or less) screen, framed to match your projector's largest possible image - or just an unframed screen (in my case, I simply painted the entire screen wall with low gain screen paint).

On a low gain screen, the black framing bars are not terribly obvious. My projector's black background is only visible to me if there's no actual image on the screen and my eyes have dark-adapted. Once there's an actual image on screen, the black bars are not noticeable.

It's only on highly-reflective screens that the letterbox bars are visible during movies with a good projector. That can be mitigated by allowing a minor amount of splashback light from the walls and ceiling, which can help raise the black area around the letterbox bars to the same level. (I'm such a heretic!)

I used a matte black paint on my ceiling and side walls that's designed to create a surface like a classroom blackboard - it's dark enough to maintain contrast in the image but not so dark as to make the letterbox bars stand out against the rest of the wall. No triple black velvet for me!

My first projector, a Dell 480p PowerPoint portable, actually framed its 4:3 image with a 10% grey border - which I masked by tacking black cardboard to the wall so the 10% grey frame would fall on a black area and not be visible. My next projector, a 1080p Panasonic, didn't really need masking, but I did the same for it.

When I rebuilt my theater in fall 2019 with my JVC, I found that there was no need to mask the image at all, since the JVC has very good black levels.

That's my solution to the black bars issue.

Now to your questions about image size and resolution.

With a 15' 9" throw in a room 14' feet wide I don't use an anamorphic lens for a number of reasons:
(1) The throw distance is less than specified for those lenses.
(2) If I could use one of those lenses, it would throw an image wider than my room.
(3) I've never been convinced that using a distorting lens - which is what an anamorphic lens is - can render the image as clearly as simply using optical or digital zoom with a lens designed to produce a normal image.

Instead, I use a projector with 17x9 (1.89:1) imaging panels and a switchable digital zoom that enlarges the 16x9 digital envelope that disks and streaming services give us by 6 2/3% (both horizontally and vertically) so that the full width of the imaging panels is used. (Scope images - and all other aspect ratios - are letter-boxed or pillar-boxed within that 16x9 envelope.)

When activated, this digital zoom gives me a maximum image size of 11' 4" wide by 6' tall. I have never seen any loss of image quality from doing this, except that with truly 16x9 images - which would be 6' tall even before the digital zoom - about 3 1/3% of the image is shaved off at each of the top and bottom, so I don't use the digital zoom for those films.

This setup gives me an 11' 4" wide image in zoomed mode for scope that nearly fills the area between my left and right tower speakers. A 2.35:1 image in that mode is 4' 10" tall.

For 1.85:1 films, some image is shaved off top and bottom, but only about 1 2/3% top and bottom. I'm ok with that, since both that and the 3 1/3% top and bottom loss for 16x9 are probably within the area that most cinematographers treat as potentially lost in cropping by consumer displays, so they don't put anything important there. Some folks are thus willing to use the digital zoom even on 16x9.

Of course, on anything 17x9 (1.89:1) or wider, nothing would be shaved off except letterbox bars.

For VAR films like _Interstellar_ I don't use the digital zoom unless I'm sure that the taller aspect ratio doesn't use the screen's full height. While zoomed scope films are 11' 4" wide by 4' 10" tall in my room, to avoid cropping the tall scenes, I leave the zoom off and show the full image at 10' 8" wide by 6' tall for the tall sequences and scope sequences the same width but 4' 6.5" tall. If the first tall sequence shows me that the film's height maxes out at less than 6' - and thus that it's 1.89:1 or 1.85:1 - I'll turn on the digital zoom. I've set up a macro in a free theater control program written by a member here (see the link to "HTWebRemote" in my signature below) which gives me one-button instant switching of the digital zoom on or off - I control the theater with a tabbed web page in my phone's browser (which I've put a shortcut to on my phone's home screen).

Notice that I've made no reference to using memorized shift and lens zoom. I keep my projector at the same optical zoom and focus, and aimed at the same position on the wall, all the time - the only adjustment I make is a one-tap instantaneous switching of digital zoom on or off. This also avoids the time-consuming process of having my projector switch setup memories, which can add up to 15 seconds of sitting in the dark waiting for the image to come back on.

In fact, I have the theater automation program return my projector to normal (non-zoomed) mode - which takes less than a second - as part of the "theater off" macro I run at the end of a session. And once I know what a film's aspect ratio(s) are, I make note of that info in my listing of films (also linked in my signature here) so I'll know next time I watch it.


----------



## Technology3456

bud16415 said:


> Technology3456 if I can be honest after reading a lot of your questions I believe most of the time your thoughts land on the side of over complicating the situation.
> 
> I will give you my slant on this as I’m a person that always seeks the least complicated method of solving a problem.
> 
> First off there are legitimate reasons and advantages to using an A-lens in doing scope presentation. That being said there are many less complicated methods that do not use an A-lens and achieve a very similar outcome. Those are my methods of choice.
> 
> Zooming with the projector is the method most chosen and some projectors come with a blanking feature that turn the pixels off outside the scope frame within the projectors frame. In that case and with a movie that expands between scope and IMAX nothing needs to change if you want to watch it scope safe except turning on the blanking feature. If you do mot have that feature then you need black velvet masking panels to absorb the part you don’t want to see.
> 
> Another method less used is to process the entire movie thru a device that allows for scaling and or blanking. Doing zooming digitally instead of with lens in the projector.
> 
> My method is perhaps the most budget friendly and because I want to see everything that is encoded in the media just as whoever intended it to be. And my projectors are basic simple projectors without a lot of features, I do my zoom by moving the projector on an inclined ceiling track. The movement changes my image size and the incline gives me vertical shift all at once. Focus remains constant. I chose to project to a stealth DIY screen surface that has no size or shape with boarders. The image I watch is bright and colorful and the area around the image looks black because my room is well treated for ambient light reflections. There is a slight difference between black outside the frame of the projector and projected black bars, but it is slight and not distracting to me.
> There are a few others doing self masking / no masking, but as far as I know I’m the only one doing a slide for zoom and shift.


Thanks for the response. Your slide method is very cool. It seems like you have achieved everything with that except maximum resolution for each AR of film, but that goes to my post that it is very difficult to do that and have IMAX as well.

When you say your method is to find the least complicated method of solving a problem, whereas I am complicating it, you found a great method to solve one problem, the variable aspect ratios, but not the problem of maximizing resolution for all AR's as well. I don't know the best example to use here, but let's say when Boeing engineers are engineering a new airplane, of course it would be less complicated to only solve the problem of the airplane taking off, without also solving the problem of landing the airplane. Doing both together is by nature more complicated, not something _they _are responsible for complicating. I think that is a good way to put it. And it is even more true in this situation where doing one directly prevents doing the other.

So I think if it were doable, most people would want the same thing: to watch every movie in its director-intended aspect ratio, at the maximum resolution possible, and to achieve this at an affordable cost. In other words, to not compromise any of these things. This is often not possible, which then leads to the question, "since I have to compromise somewhere, where should I compromise?" Or "what is the best combination of all these different interlocking HT pieces for my HT (like lenses, masking, projectors, aspect ratio of screens, video processors, etc), and at what costs?"

And that is by default very complicated. Whereas, the average HT user probably doesn't even know there are other options available besides 16:9 TVs/projectors+screens, like masking, A-lenses, etc, so that simplifies it for them. If someone has only heard of 16:9 screens, and never heard of A lenses or masking, then there is nothing complicated for them to learn about, they will just get a 16:9 screen. Obviously you _do _know about the different options, and it sounds like you chose to have AR variability over using an A lens to have a higher pixel count. There is probably no best choice, just different, and it seems like most of us will have to choose one or the other. But just in case you had a way to do both, I wanted to check, so that's what I was asking about.

This is why a lot of people pay for professional integrators and designers with decades of experience in the industry, and knowledge of all the products, to fit everything together for them. To learn to do it all yourself, complexity is impossible to avoid. There are many different choices of what to do, and ten different ways of achieving each one. Slowly over the last year I have learned about each option, and that is what will give me the knowledge to weigh which one is best for me. But if you don't learn about them in the first place, it's not so much you are not complicating the choice as it is you are just choosing the standard option, like a 16:9 screen with letterbox bars and that's it, without looking into other options that might be better for your HT. Of course I could do that also, and then it wouldn't be complicated, same as with anyone else, but I don't want to spend the money on one thing and use it for years if there might be something that works better. And to determine that, you have to learn about the different more complicated options as well.



Philnick said:


> The dead simple solution to the black bars issue is to use a low gain (unity or less) screen, framed to match your projector's largest possible image - or just an unframed screen (in my case, I simply painted the entire screen wall with low gain screen paint).
> 
> On a low gain screen, the black framing bars are not terribly obvious. My projector's black background is only visible to me if there's no actual image on the screen and my eyes have dark-adapted. Once there's an actual image on screen, the black bars are not noticeable.
> 
> It's only on highly-reflective screens that the letterbox bars are visible during movies with a good projector. That can be mitigated by allowing a minor amount of splashback light from the walls and ceiling, which can help raise the black area around the letterbox bars to the same level. (I'm such a heretic!)
> 
> I used a matte black paint on my ceiling and side walls that's designed to create a surface like a classroom blackboard - it's dark enough to maintain contrast in the image but not so dark as to make the letterbox bars stand out against the rest of the wall. No triple black velvet for me!
> 
> My first projector, a Dell 480p PowerPoint portable, actually framed its 4:3 image with a 10% grey border - which I masked by tacking black cardboard to the wall so the 10% grey frame would fall on a black area and not be visible. My next projector, a 1080p Panasonic, didn't really need masking, but I did the same for it.
> 
> When I rebuilt my theater in fall 2019 with my JVC, I found that there was no need to mask the image at all, since the JVC has very good black levels.
> 
> That's my solution to the black bars issue.
> 
> Now to your questions about image size and resolution.
> 
> With a 15' 9" throw in a room 14' feet wide I don't use an anamorphic lens for a number of reasons:
> (1) The throw distance is less than specified for those lenses.
> (2) If I could use one of those lenses, it would throw an image wider than my room.
> (3) I've never been convinced that using a distorting lens - which is what an anamorphic lens is - can render the image as clearly as simply using optical or digital zoom with a lens designed to produce a normal image.
> 
> Instead, I use a projector with 17x9 (1.89:1) imaging panels and a switchable digital zoom that enlarges the 16x9 digital envelope that disks and streaming services give us by 6 2/3% (both horizontally and vertically) so that the full width of the imaging panels is used. (Scope images - and all other aspect ratios - are letter-boxed or pillar-boxed within that 16x9 envelope.)
> 
> When activated, this digital zoom gives me a maximum image size of 11' 4" wide by 6' tall. I have never seen any loss of image quality from doing this, except that with truly 16x9 images - which would be 6' tall even before the digital zoom - about 3 1/3% of the image is shaved off at each of the top and bottom, so I don't use the digital zoom for those films.
> 
> This setup gives me an 11' 4" wide image in zoomed mode for scope that nearly fills the area between my left and right tower speakers. A 2.35:1 image in that mode is 4' 10" tall.
> 
> For 1.85:1 films, some image is shaved off top and bottom, but only about 1 2/3% top and bottom. I'm ok with that, since both that and the 3 1/3% top and bottom loss for 16x9 are probably within the area that most cinematographers treat as potentially lost in cropping by consumer displays, so they don't put anything important there. Some folks are thus willing to use the digital zoom even on 16x9.
> 
> Of course, on anything 17x9 (1.89:1) or wider, nothing would be shaved off except letterbox bars.
> 
> For VAR films like _Interstellar_ I don't use the digital zoom unless I'm sure that the taller aspect ratio doesn't use the screen's full height. While zoomed scope films are 11' 4" wide by 4' 10" tall in my room, to avoid cropping the tall scenes, I leave the zoom off and show the full image at 10' 8" wide by 6' tall for the tall sequences and scope sequences the same width but 4' 6.5" tall. If the first tall sequence shows me that the film's height maxes out at less than 6' - and thus that it's 1.89:1 or 1.85:1 - I'll turn on the digital zoom. I've set up a macro in a free theater control program written by a member here (see the link to "HTWebRemote" in my signature below) which gives me one-button instant switching of the digital zoom on or off - I control the theater with a tabbed web page in my phone's browser (which I've put a shortcut to on my phone's home screen).
> 
> Notice that I've made no reference to using memorized shift and lens zoom. I keep my projector at the same optical zoom and focus, and aimed at the same position on the wall, all the time - the only adjustment I make is a one-tap instantaneous switching of digital zoom on or off. This also avoids the time-consuming process of having my projector switch setup memories, which can add up to 15 seconds of sitting in the dark waiting for the image to come back on.
> 
> In fact, I have the theater automation program return my projector to normal (non-zoomed) mode - which takes less than a second - as part of the "theater off" macro I run at the end of a session. And once I know what a film's aspect ratio(s) are, I make note of that info in my listing of films (also linked in my signature here) so I'll know next time I watch it.


If you have say a 0.2 gain screen instead of a 1 gain screen, then don't you need a projector five times as bright to achieve the same brightness? In which case would the black bars then also be the same brightness? Also the fact you are projecting black bars at all means you are not getting full resolution. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but my post was asking, is there a way to get all the different aspect ratios without ever sacrificing resolution? Anamorphic lenses for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 allow you to use the full resolution of the projector, but then you can't get IMAX. So that was the point of my post. Your guys' solutions are very cool and achieve one thing at the expense of another, while using anamorphic lenses are also very cool and also achieve one thing at the expense of another (IMAX, and constant image _width_ 16:9). And so far, the only options I am aware of all include this trade-off.

I have not yet heard of a way to do IMAX aspect ratios, 16:9 aspect ratios, and 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 aspect ratios, all using maximum resolution of your projector, without multiple 2D projectors. Is there a way? That's what my post is asking. I have not even heard of a way to do 16:9 and 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 aspect ratios at full resolution with the 16:9 image being equal width as the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 image, without two 2D projectors, let alone IMAX also. (That would somewhat go against the purpose of 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 anyway, if it's no wider than your 16:9, but since most spaces are limited horizontally more than vertically, I bring it up).

That is the question. *Is there a way to do it all without compromises to either resolution, aspect ratio, or image size, and without multiple 2D projectors? *So far I have not heard of one, although I have heard of lots of very cool, creative solutions like you guys have done to minimize the amount of compromises to, seemingly, the lowest possible number. But is it possible to get that number all the way to zero? I have not seen such a solution so far, except with multiple 2D projectors and either multiple screens, or variable masking on a single screen.


----------



## Technology3456

If it's still not clear what I'm asking, what I'm asking is how can someone, with just one 2D projector, and just one screen with variable masking, achieve all three of the following things?

1. IMAX aspect ratio movies using the full resolution of the projector
2. 16:9 movies using the full resolution of the projector
3. 2.35:1-2.4:1 movies using the full resolution of the projector

And possibly even having the same image width for 16:9 and 2.35:1-2.4:1, and only less width for the IMAX movies.

Or since IMAX movies are still pretty rare, masked black bars on the sides for the IMAX movies might be the most sensible thing to compromise, and then just achieve 2 and 3, having full resolution for both 16:9 and 2.35:1-2.4:1, but not constant image _height, _constant image _width_ instead. Which is not exactly an ideal solution either because now your scope movies are not wider than your 16:9 movies, they're just less tall. But since many spaces have more height available than width, it causes a small 16:9 image when using constant image _height_. So there will be a compromise no matter what, but by knowing every option available, you can choose the compromise that matters least to you.

From everything I've read so far, achieving 1, 2, and 3 all together, or even 2 and 3 together, is not possible, but I am not an expert, so I wanted to check if Bud had found a way, or someone else knows a way.

Edit: I may have thought of one way to achieve 2 and 3 (from my list at the top of this post), but only with a native 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 projector. With such a projector, when you play 2.35:1 movies, you naturally get full resolution, and you play those into the center of a constant image width 16:9 screen using 2.35:1 masking. And then when you play 16:9 movies, it scales and stretches them to 2.35:1 first within the masking, and then you have a lens that stretches it back up and down to 16:9, and you unmask the screen.

But, this is cheating because none of the projectors I or most people would choose would be 2.35:1 projectors, since there are few options available. I'm only asking a way to do it with 16:9 projectors.

Edit 2: I may have thought of a way to do it with a 16:9 projector also. It would be a 16:9 projector plus a dual sliding lens system plus a constant image width 16:9 screen with 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 masking. One lens would be an anamorphic lens, which gives you 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies at full resolution within the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 masking, and one would be a 16:9 zoom lens that stretches the 16:9 movies both vertically and horizontally to fill a constant image width 16:9 screen. I think maybe Navitar makes a lens like this but it would also have to zoom the correct amount, which I do not know. In any case the way it would work _if _the hardware is available is that when one lens would slide in, the other would slide out. Two lenses on the same slide. It's complicated but again, it's not me that's complicating, it just might be the only way it would work. In fact _if _this would work, then I just came up with the _least_ complicated way to do this with a single 2D projector that I have seen, heh. This could actually be a cool idea that is viable for a lot of people, but only if a quality zoom lens of the correct ratio exists. You'd just need a slide that has stops on both sides, and the center, instead of just both sides. Using the "drawing" below, if the letter "A" represents the A-lens and "Z" represents the 16:9 zoom lens, and if the projector is lined up with whichever lens is in the center of the slide, then the slide would work like this:

For watching 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies:

________A______Z

Then watching 16:9 movies constant image width, both lenses slide 50% to the left, like so:

A_______Z_______

It probably already exists but if not, I expect royalties after one of you great engineers on avs makes it! And the disclaimer that there may be no 16:9 zoom lens available to make use of it for this application also still applies. But it at least has potential to be able to do both 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 and 16:9 at full resolution, in a constant image width configuration, with a single 2D projector, unlike any idea I've seen so far.

Another reason I care about this personally is that screens seem to become too big for my eyes sooner going horizontally, with 2.35:1, than vertically with 16:9. I think ideally, rather than a setup where either 2.35:1 is say 33% wider than 16:9, or where 2.35:1 and 16:9 are the same width, I would probably be best off with a setup where 2.35:1 is only 16% wider than 16:9, so it still gives me some extra width for scope movies like scope is supposed to, but so my 16:9 movies are not so small and lacking height as well. But doing this brings all the same challenges if you want to do it with maximum resolution for both aspect ratios as doing it with constant image width would, and possibly even more masking challenges. If there is a way though, that would be my preference.


----------



## Philnick

Dear @Technology3456,

Any image you show will be at the resolution of the data stream sent to the projector, assuming the magnification is kept constant and is rectilinear. The difference between the different aspect ratios is not in resolution but in how much of the resolution is used to show the picture and how much to show black framing bars. The actual picture will be at the same pixel density - governed by the delivery encoding - regardless of aspect ratio.

Keep the magnification constant and the resolution stays constant for any delivery stream. A DVD image's resolution is not affected by the shape of its image any more than a UHD image's

The only thing that might be thought to break this pattern - but doesn't really - is the use of an anamorphic lens, which deliberately distorts the image grid by stretching it horizontally, after the picture has been deliberately stretched vertically on the imaging grid.

This accomplishes magnification of the image and additional brightness on scope images by lighting up _all_ of the imaging grid, but this does not add any resolution - that was baked into the image as encoded in the source signal. There may have been more copies of the vertical pixels painted on the imaging panels to fill their vertical area, but that's not additional resolution. The same pixels are merely enlarged electrically and optically - hopefully proportionally in both directions.

So the answer to your question is that any method of projection and any aspect ratio gives you the same resolution - regardless of what you do. The resolution is always the same as the data stream sent to the projector.

About the only way to accomplish greater pixel density is to project the image _smaller_ - but that's not what we're about at AVS, are we?

As to your question about how dark is my image: when I painted my screen wall, I believed that the screen paint had a gain of 93%. I recently measured with a hand held meter and got a result that looked more like 55%.

My projector is not a light cannon, but I'm happy with the image it provides me running on high lamp with the aperture just one nearly imperceptible notch down from wide open (to avoid ghosting from internal reflection on credit scrolls).


----------



## Technology3456

Philnick said:


> This accomplishes magnification of the image and additional brightness on scope images by lighting up _all_ of the imaging grid, but this does not add any resolution - that was baked into the image as encoded in the source signal.


Good call bringing this up. That's another intrinsic complicated element. If I understand correct, the higher resolution isn't on the disc, but it can be scaled to full resolution and then the full imager of your projector can display it at full resolution, albeit upscaled, but apparently there is still benefit to this. Smaller pixels, higher resolution. If you watch a scope movie on a 16:9 projector without an A lens, you have less pixels onscreen than if you watch a scope movie with an anamorphic lens.


----------



## Philnick

Technology3456 said:


> Good call bringing this up. That's another intrinsic complicated element. If I understand correct, the higher resolution isn't on the disc, but it can be scaled to full resolution and then the full imager of your projector can display it at full resolution, albeit upscaled, but apparently there is still benefit to this. Smaller pixels, higher resolution. If you watch a scope movie on a 16:9 projector without an A lens, you have less pixels onscreen than if you watch a scope movie with an anamorphic lens.


The A-lens process does not add any pixels, just horizontally and vertically stretched copies of the original pixels. It may add brightness and create an enlarged image, but not a sharper one. There's no increase in resolution.


----------



## Technology3456

Philnick said:


> No. The A-lens process does not add any pixels, just enlarged - stretched - copies of the original pixels. It may add brightness and create an enlarged image, but not a sharper one.


Without the A lens. with scope content, the projector is projecting black bars top and bottom. With the A lens, the image is scaled to use all the pixels, so the entire 16:9 area is now projecting the image itself not black bars, and then the A lens stretches the image to the right shape. So I believe you do get more pixels. The projector cannot stretch its own pixels, so when it stretches an image vertically it can only do that by using more pixels. The horizontal number of pixels per line across the screen is the same, but the vertical number is higher, and therefore the overall number is higher. The pixel size should therefore be the same horizontally but smaller vertically.


----------



## Philnick

Technology3456 said:


> Without the A lens. with scope content, the projector is projecting black bars top and bottom. With the A lens, the image is scaled to use all the pixels, so the entire 16:9 area is now projecting the image itself not black bars, and then the A lens stretches the image to the right shape. So I believe you do get more pixels. The projector cannot stretch its own pixels, so when it stretches an image vertically it can only do that by using more pixels. The horizontal number of pixels per line across the screen is the same, but the vertical number is higher, and therefore the overall number is higher. The pixel size should therefore be the same horizontally but smaller vertically.


The projector expands the image to fill the imagers vertically by showing additional copies of the same pixels - essentially stretching them, and the lens then optically stretches them horizontally. This does not amount to additional resolution, just a larger copy at the same resolution.

Resolution means ability to define _detail. _The level of detail is not increased, so the level of resolution is not increased.

If you show a DVD through a 4K projector, it doesn't get sharper, just bigger - and big enough it looks _less_ sharp. Each dot of detail is just drawn multiple times next to itself to make it larger. That's all that happens with anamorphic projection - it can give you a larger and brighter projection, but it can't produce a sharper projection. If anything, projecting something larger just makes its lack of detail more obvious.


----------



## bdht

sorry to interrupt but



Josh Z said:


> skulduggery


O.O cant believe you said skulduggery

A gift for you for


----------



## Technology3456

Philnick said:


> The projector expands the image to fill the imagers vertically by showing additional copies of the same pixels


First I've heard this after hearing the opposite many times. Are you sure? What about using an external scaler to do the stretching not the projector? Id be surprised if there is no way to both upscale and stretch not just stretch.


----------



## Technology3456

bdht said:


> sorry to interrupt but
> 
> 
> O.O cant believe you said skulduggery
> 
> A gift for you for


Your music taste is even less mainstream than mine lol. This is the type of music, which I have experienced the exact same thing with music I listen to, where it sounds one way to you, and you are feeling every bar of the song, and wanting to share it with other people, but they are hearing something totally different, and from the looks on their faces, you can tell it just sounds like absolute garbage to most of them. 🤣 🤣 🤣 

Listening to the first couple minutes, I like the drums in this, the crispness of the drum track and the guitar track working together. The vocals, complete opposite reaction, but, I am listening on tiny little computer speakers. Still think it would take me awhile to get on the same wavelength as this though even with good speakers though, but hopefully some others will get enjoyment out of it.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> If it's still not clear what I'm asking, what I'm asking is how can someone, with just one 2D projector, and just one screen with variable masking, achieve all three of the following things?
> 
> 1. IMAX aspect ratio movies using the full resolution of the projector
> 2. 16:9 movies using the full resolution of the projector
> 3. 2.35:1-2.4:1 movies using the full resolution of the projector


The short answer is no. The only way to maximize the number of pixels onscreen for 1 and 2 is to project the full image, with no scaling and no anamorphic lens. The only way to maximize the number of pixels onscreen for 3 is to use a scalar (whether the projector's internal scalar or an external scalar)+anamorphic lens. 

The easiest ting to do is to use a 16:9 screen and project everything exactly as it appears on your content, whether full screen for 16:9 material, letterboxed for 2.39 material, and pillarboxed for Academy ratio material. This puts all of the native pixels on the content onscreen. I would recommend using top and bottom masking for this approach. 

If you choose to build a CIH theatre, which many of us for good reason believe is the best approach for home theatre, then your options are to use a projector with good lens memory, and simply zoom in widescreen content so that the letterbox bars fall off onto the masking. This still puts all of the available pixels in the _content_ onscreen. If you want to fill the screen with all of the available pixels from the _projector,_ then an anamorphic lens on a sled lets you use every pixel for both flat (with the lens moved out of the way) or Scope (with the lens in line). 

Another approach for CIH is to leave the lens permanently in place but scale all content so it displays appropriately. This latter approach has both pros and cons: the pro being that you maintain perfectly consistent light levels and pixel densities across all content, the con being that you are now compromising the resolution of your non-widescreen content. 

For the record, if I was building a theatre from scratch I would use that final method (permanent A-lens+scalar) but there is a very convincing case to be made that with modern 4K projectors simply zooming is absolutely good enough.


----------



## dschulz

Philnick said:


> The projector expands the image to fill the imagers vertically by showing additional copies of the same pixels - essentially stretching them, and the lens then optically stretches them horizontally. This does not amount to additional resolution, just a larger copy at the same resolution.
> 
> Resolution means ability to define _detail. _The level of detail is not increased, so the level of resolution is not increased.
> 
> If you show a DVD through a 4K projector, it doesn't get sharper, just bigger - and big enough it looks _less_ sharp. Each dot of detail is just drawn multiple times next to itself to make it larger. That's all that happens with anamorphic projection - it can give you a larger and brighter projection, but it can't produce a sharper projection. If anything, projecting something larger just makes its lack of detail more obvious.


Modern scalars do more than just copy pixels, there is some computation going into calculating what the interpolated pixels need to be. You're right that you can't _create_ resolution that isn't there, but a decent term for what they do is _simulate_ increased resolution. A DVD played back on an HDTV using even the internal upscalar looks better than just being a DVD-quality image blown up.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> The short answer is no. The only way to maximize the number of pixels onscreen for 1 and 2 is to project the full image, with no scaling and no anamorphic lens. The only way to maximize the number of pixels onscreen for 3 is to use a scalar (whether the projector's internal scalar or an external scalar)+anamorphic lens.
> 
> The easiest ting to do is to use a 16:9 screen and project everything exactly as it appears on your content, whether full screen for 16:9 material, letterboxed for 2.39 material, and pillarboxed for Academy ratio material. This puts all of the native pixels on the content onscreen. I would recommend using top and bottom masking for this approach.
> 
> If you choose to build a CIH theatre, which many of us for good reason believe is the best approach for home theatre, then your options are to use a projector with good lens memory, and simply zoom in widescreen content so that the letterbox bars fall off onto the masking. This still puts all of the available pixels in the _content_ onscreen. If you want to fill the screen with all of the available pixels from the _projector,_ then an anamorphic lens on a sled lets you use every pixel for both flat (with the lens moved out of the way) or Scope (with the lens in line).
> 
> Another approach for CIH is to leave the lens permanently in place but scale all content so it displays appropriately. This latter approach has both pros and cons: the pro being that you maintain perfectly consistent light levels and pixel densities across all content, the con being that you are now compromising the resolution of your non-widescreen content.
> 
> For the record, if I was building a theatre from scratch I would use that final method (permanent A-lens+scalar) but there is a very convincing case to be made that with modern 4K projectors simply zooming is absolutely good enough.


The problem is if I set up a 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 screen at the correct viewing angle for my eye comfort, now the 16:9 movies are too small. And if I do constant image width, now the 16:9 movies are the perfect size, but the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies are not any wider than the 16:9 movies which defeats the effect.

All the advice I've read about determining your comfortable viewing angle is that you base it off the width of the screen. Meaning, whatever is the correct viewing angle for 2.35:1 movies would also be the same correct viewing angle for constant image width 16:9, since constant image width means the same width. And yet, all the advice I've read is that to have the correct 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 effect, the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 image needs to be wider than the 16:9 image.

So it's a contradiction in terms. To get the right viewing angle, it has to be based on image width, but to get the right 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 effect, it needs to have a different width. Meaning you can either have the correct scope effect for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1, or you can have the correct viewing angle for both 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 and 16:9, but not both. How do you get both?

If there's some way to do something like a constant image square footage, not constant image height or width, that's probably what I would like. I want the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 movies to be wider than my 16:9 viewing, just not 30% wider where my 16:9 viewing has no more height than 2.35:1 - 2.4:1. I want 16:9 to be a little taller but a little less wide, and 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 to be a little wider. But not 33% wider or whatever the percentage is exactly for "constant image height" otherwise I end up with too small a 16:9 image, because my eye comfort already dictates a fairly small 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 image in the first place.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> All the advice I've read about determining your comfortable viewing angle is that you base it off the width of the screen. Meaning, whatever is the correct viewing angle for 2.35:1 movies would also be the same correct viewing angle for constant image width 16:9, since constant image width means the same width. And yet, all the advice I've read is that to have the correct 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 effect, the 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 image needs to be wider than the 16:9 image.


It is my firm, firm belief that comfortable viewing angle is a function of screen _height_ not _width_. Somewhere between 2x and 3x screen height is the right distance from the screen (the number varies from person to person, but worth noting that the Academy, THX, Dolby and SMPTE standards all use multiples of screen height as their recommended distance from screen, and all fall between 2x and 3x). 

What you'll find is that if you size your screen so that the 16:9 image is comfortable, which will be around 2x to 3x screen height, then 2.39 will be _equally_ comfortable but larger and more epic feeling.

That insight is all that Josh Z is trying to convey, and the whole reason for the existence of CIH as a concept and the CIH subforum.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> It is my firm, firm belief that comfortable viewing angle is a function of screen _height_ not _width_. Somewhere between 2x and 3x screen height is the right distance from the screen (the number varies from person to person, but worth noting that the Academy, THX, Dolby and SMPTE standards all use multiples of screen height as their recommended distance from screen, and all fall between 2x and 3x).
> 
> What you'll find is that if you size your screen so that the 16:9 image is comfortable, which will be around 2x to 3x screen height, then 2.39 will be _equally_ comfortable but larger and more epic feeling.
> 
> That insight is all that Josh Z is trying to convey, and the whole reason for the existence of CIH as a concept and the CIH subforum.


Ahh interesting. I have been seeing people use screen width to calculate viewing distance, which makes it complicated. Once I have my projectors finalized for the forseeable future, Im going to have to do a lot of experimenting with a test screen before getting a final screen, is what it sounds like. What I have done so far with the projectors I have so far, I feel like the width is the issue, not the height. From like 1.5x screen width away, the height even with 16:9 content is all in my view, but with width I still have to turn my head or eyes, which is fine I just mean, it's pushing my horizontal peripheral vision more than my vertical.

And of course you can say, "well everyone's eyes are different, so maybe for you, a scope screen is not the best option then," however all our eyes might be different, but the movies aren't. Most movies are watch are in 2.35:1 whether it's ideal for my eyes or not. 

I'm wondering if a 2:1 screen with 4-way variable masking to make something like "Constant image square-footage" 2.35:1 and 16:9 images would be best for me, and then use a secondary projector for 16:9, and an A-lens to max resolution for 2.35:1 on my main projector. It would also give me an excuse to keep one of the nice used projectors I bought even after I upgrade, provided the upgrade doesn't require keeping two of them for 3D anyway. Maybe the 3D screen could be 16:9 and I could watch 2D through the 3D filter if it doesnt hurt the color too much.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> For the record, if I was building a theatre from scratch I would use that final method (permanent A-lens+scalar) but there is a very convincing case to be made that with modern 4K projectors simply zooming is absolutely good enough.


I also want to give a hat tip to this. This may be an unsung advantage of 4K projectors over 1080p. It's possible that even with 25% or 30% of the projector's pixels dedicated to black bars, a 4K projector still has a high enough pixel count that you would see no visible difference between that method, and the A-lens method that uses all the projector's pixels to project the image, just like how people see no difference between 4K and 8K. Whereas I currently have used high-end 1080p projectors, and even the model I plan to upgrade to is 1080p. Obviously I wouldn't do this if I didn't feel it overall had advantages vs the 4K options out there, but it may benefit more from the added complexity of an A-lens, and have less flexibility as a result when it comes to constant image width setups, and IMAX setups. 

So I think you guys with 4K projectors may have different calculations to make than people with 1080p, and what may make sense for one person may not make sense for another person. Although, I have seen plenty of people using A lenses on 4K projectors not just to use the full 4K pixels, but even a little more since some of the 4K panels are... you guys tell me the exact ratio... 16:10 instead of 16:9, or something like that. But whether there is a benefit to that except for people who sit very close, I do not know.


----------



## nathan_h

dschulz said:


> worth noting that the Academy, THX, Dolby and SMPTE standards all use multiples of screen height as their recommended distance from screen, and all fall between 2x and 3x).
> 
> What you'll find is that if you size your screen so that the 16:9 image is comfortable, which will be around 2x to 3x screen height, then 2.39 will be _equally_ comfortable but larger and more epic feeling.


Visually represented by this diagram....(which makes is easier for someone like me to picture).


----------



## bud16415

Technology3456 said:


> I also want to give a hat tip to this. This may be an unsung advantage of 4K projectors over 1080p. It's possible that even with 25% or 30% of the projector's pixels dedicated to black bars, a 4K projector still has a high enough pixel count that you would see no visible difference between that method, and the A-lens method that uses all the projector's pixels to project the image, just like how people see no difference between 4K and 8K. Whereas I currently have used high-end 1080p projectors, and even the model I plan to upgrade to is 1080p. Obviously I wouldn't do this if I didn't feel it overall had advantages vs the 4K options out there, but it may benefit more from the added complexity of an A-lens, and have less flexibility as a result when it comes to constant image width setups, and IMAX setups.
> 
> So I think you guys with 4K projectors may have different calculations to make than people with 1080p, and what may make sense for one person may not make sense for another person. Although, I have seen plenty of people using A lenses on 4K projectors not just to use the full 4K pixels, but even a little more since some of the 4K panels are... you guys tell me the exact ratio... 16:10 instead of 16:9, or something like that. But whether there is a benefit to that except for people who sit very close, I do not know.


Technology you finally came around to the correct rational.

It is not about brightness or number of pixels it is about unit brightness or unit pixel density. Lumens per square foot or number of pixels per square foot. Then you factor in seating distance and lastly factor in the acuity of your eyes.

4k was a game changer for almost everyone. 1080p was a game changer for many. IMO 720p was still compromise for most people in terms of immersion.

Once you are sitting as close as you will ever want to sit to your screen of any given size you have reached your max desired immersion level based on unit pixel density. And for 99.99% of the people 4k has exceeded their visual acuity. At least people with 20/20 vision.

If you want to view IMAX content, that will be the highest level of immersion you will likely ever watch. If that image passes your visual acuity and has a unit brightness adequate for your needs then every image smaller than that will also pass the test. If zoomed it will only get better and if scaled it will stay the same.

In my case I zoom with moving the projector so my aperture remains full, and in making the image smaller I get increased unit brightness. This works in my favor as one of my smaller sizes is TV viewing that IMO isn’t intended to be as huge as cinema. TV viewing also IMO is best done with some bias lighting in the room and the extra brightness is perfect for that.

So when I said my solution was simplest I was considering these options.
Like Phil mentioned I also have a simple dark gray .5 gain in my case screen and that helps with self-masking along with ALR of reflected light and bias light. I do though need double the brightness I would need for a 1.0 gain white screen.


----------



## Vern Dias

Technology3456 said:


> I also want to give a hat tip to this. This may be an unsung advantage of 4K projectors over 1080p. It's possible that even with 25% or 30% of the projector's pixels dedicated to black bars, a 4K projector still has a high enough pixel count that you would see no visible difference between that method, and the A-lens method that uses all the projector's pixels to project the image, just like how people see no difference between 4K and 8K. Whereas I currently have used high-end 1080p projectors, and even the model I plan to upgrade to is 1080p. Obviously I wouldn't do this if I didn't feel it overall had advantages vs the 4K options out there, but it may benefit more from the added complexity of an A-lens, and have less flexibility as a result when it comes to constant image width setups, and IMAX setups.
> 
> So I think you guys with 4K projectors may have different calculations to make than people with 1080p, and what may make sense for one person may not make sense for another person. Although, I have seen plenty of people using A lenses on 4K projectors not just to use the full 4K pixels, but even a little more since some of the 4K panels are... you guys tell me the exact ratio... 16:10 instead of 16:9, or something like that. But whether there is a benefit to that except for people who sit very close, I do not know.


Except that, regardless of the the projector's pixel size, you are ignoring the fact that you are still throwing away 25% to 30% of your screen brightness by choosing to zoom. (and in the process messing with any black and white levels calibration you may have done)


----------



## Technology3456

Vern Dias said:


> Except that, regardless of the the projector's pixel size, you are ignoring the fact that you are still throwing away 25% to 30% of your screen brightness by choosing to zoom. (and in the process messing with any black and white levels calibration you may have done)


I'm not trying to ignore it, it's just not something you would do if you didn't have a bright enough projector. Unlike some other questions that there is no black and white answer about, that is a question where I learned the clear answer like 10 months ago, so I haven't needed to bring it up relating to this discussion. But if I were to use zoom method, I would definitely factor in the brightness loss. If others reading the thread are not aware of it, then it's good you brought it up. That's definitely one of the biggest advantages to using an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 - 2.4:1 if your projector is not bright enough to compensate for the lost light output.

As for calibration, you don't think people who set up for the zoom method would also set up calibration that way? Or have one calibration for each? 

I'm personally not planning to use zoom method. I already bought the A-lens. Even my upgraded projector is 90% going to still be 1080p, so maybe the extra resolution from upscaling will be beneficial. So I'm not thinking about brightness loss using zoom method. I'm just saying for people that use it, especially with 4K projectors, that I respect their setups, and acknowledging to them that there's probably less of a hit to perceived resolution for them doing it with 4K than if I did it with 1080p.


----------



## bud16415

If there was a big demand for a 2.4:1 projector the hold back would not be the shape of the imager chip 16:9 is fine it would be the usage of the light source and the wasted brightness. That was solved 15 or more years ago when the first scope projectors were sold and they put an internal lens that compressed the lamp light into a 2.4:1 shape and they just masked the unused pixels at the chip. This could easily be done today with a 4k projector along with self-contained CIH scaling. If there was a demand a scope projector is no problem to make. The first time they were introduced there was little demand. The same is true when scope TV came out for a short time. There is some interest in wider AR computer monitors for some people who like their work arranged that way.

A big factor in this with projectors is how people plan to use their projectors. If you embrace IMAX then you need the option of a large 16:9 image and the light it takes to make that bright enough. Most people are ok with CIW not knowing anything different and those that truly use projectors in media rooms that include games and TV sports along with cinema have a strong desire for the full image. Quite a few when experimenting freely at home find what @Technology3456 spoke about being CIA constant image area. There are a lot of personal choices to be made Phil likes what he likes. I feel CIH left me wanting more immersion from Academy movies and also I like the IMAX movies IMAXed not cropped better.

Someone above mentioned playing a DVD into a 1080p or 4k projector and the scaling helps but is not the same thing as a 1080 or 4k source. I happen to have over 3000 DVDs and little desire to replace them. In the day of 720p projectors I watched them less immersive because of 720 resolution. Today I watch them less immersive because they look clearer. I gladly trade some immersion for a visually better experience.
The light advantage is now the biggest reason to add a lens IMO. If you factor in a lens and a 1080p projector compared to a 4k projector that is bright enough I would clearly favor 4K both in cost and quality. If you add in IMAX un-cropped then there is no question.


----------



## nathan_h

Vern Dias said:


> Except that, regardless of the the projector's pixel size, you are ignoring the fact that you are still throwing away 25% to 30% of your screen brightness by choosing to zoom. (and in the process messing with any black and white levels calibration you may have done)


I just had Chad do a calibration for zoom at 2.4 and one for zoom at 1.78. Turned out the only appreciable difference was the iris position in my case. YMMV.


----------



## Technology3456

bud16415 said:


> If there was a big demand for a 2.4:1 projector the hold back would not be the shape of the imager chip 16:9 is fine it would be the usage of the light source and the wasted brightness. That was solved 15 or more years ago when the first scope projectors were sold and they put an internal lens that compressed the lamp light into a 2.4:1 shape and they just masked the unused pixels at the chip. This could easily be done today with a 4k projector along with self-contained CIH scaling. If there was a demand a scope projector is no problem to make. The first time they were introduced there was little demand. The same is true when scope TV came out for a short time. There is some interest in wider AR computer monitors for some people who like their work arranged that way.
> 
> A big factor in this with projectors is how people plan to use their projectors. If you embrace IMAX then you need the option of a large 16:9 image and the light it takes to make that bright enough. Most people are ok with CIW not knowing anything different and those that truly use projectors in media rooms that include games and TV sports along with cinema have a strong desire for the full image. Quite a few when experimenting freely at home find what @Technology3456 spoke about being CIA constant image area. There are a lot of personal choices to be made Phil likes what he likes. I feel CIH left me wanting more immersion from Academy movies and also I like the IMAX movies IMAXed not cropped better.
> 
> Someone above mentioned playing a DVD into a 1080p or 4k projector and the scaling helps but is not the same thing as a 1080 or 4k source. I happen to have over 3000 DVDs and little desire to replace them. In the day of 720p projectors I watched them less immersive because of 720 resolution. Today I watch them less immersive because they look clearer. I gladly trade some immersion for a visually better experience.
> The light advantage is now the biggest reason to add a lens IMO. If you factor in a lens and a 1080p projector compared to a 4k projector that is bright enough I would clearly favor 4K both in cost and quality. If you add in IMAX un-cropped then there is no question.


I agree with everything, just the last paragraph... it just depends.The 4K DLP market is not developed like the 4K lcos market, so the 4K options most people would have to choose between are 4K lcos. 4K lcos is not fully resolving 4K despite having 4K pixels. Someone more knowledgeable would have to explain why. Maybe it's the diffusion caused by the liquid crystal layer, or other things too, I'm not sure. And DLP has an inherent sharpness advantage when the resolution is equal, so how do you compare 1080p DLP to 4K lcos? I've only compared once, and not in the same room, and the resolution and sharpness looked the same to me. I think the biggest advantage on 4K lcos models vs 1080p DLP models is the black level in low ADL scenes.

I saw a post recently that someone preferred the Sim2 HDR Duo Plus, which is 1080p, to the Sony 5000. Others have preferred lesser 1080p DLP's to NX models. Meanwhile, the new JVCs coming out have also made big improvements in mid-ADL contrast compared to the NX lineup or the Sony 5000ES, which is great, and then on the DLP side there is 1080p 3-chip DLP with RGB laser and 100% bt2020 also available. So Lcos 4K resolution is something 1080p projectors don't have, but some of them have things the lcos 4K models don't also, so everyone has to weigh everything overall and make their choice. I wish I could get the same DLP projectors for the same prices, but 4K instead of 1080p, just like if I was buying 4K lcos, I would wish it also had some things the DLP projectors had. I think the best combination would be native 4K DLP with lcos (or better) black level, and right now that unfortunately still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## bud16415

Technology3456 said:


> I agree with everything, just the last paragraph... it just depends.The 4K DLP market is not developed like the 4K lcos market, so the 4K options most people would have to choose between are 4K lcos. 4K lcos is not fully resolving 4K despite having 4K pixels. Someone more knowledgeable would have to explain why. Maybe it's the diffusion caused by the liquid crystal layer, or other things too, I'm not sure. And DLP has an inherent sharpness advantage when the resolution is equal, so how do you compare 1080p DLP to 4K lcos? I've only compared once, and not in the same room, and the resolution and sharpness looked the same to me. I think the biggest advantage on 4K lcos models vs 1080p DLP models is the black level in low ADL scenes.
> 
> I saw a post recently that someone preferred the Sim2 HDR Duo Plus, which is 1080p, to the Sony 5000. Others have preferred lesser 1080p DLP's to NX models. Meanwhile, the new JVCs coming out have also made big improvements in mid-ADL contrast compared to the NX lineup or the Sony 5000ES, which is great, and then on the DLP side there is 1080p 3-chip DLP with RGB laser and 100% bt2020 also available. So Lcos 4K resolution is something 1080p projectors don't have, but some of them have things the lcos 4K models don't also, so everyone has to weigh everything overall and make their choice. I wish I could get the same DLP projectors for the same prices, but 4K instead of 1080p, just like if I was buying 4K lcos, I would wish it also had some things the DLP projectors had. I think the best combination would be native 4K DLP with lcos (or better) black level, and right now that unfortunately still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Yes I was comparing all things equal except resolution and in the real world there are always a million variables.

For what it is worth I’m still sticking with 1080p dark chip 3 RGBRGB projector. That tech is well proven and is what it is. My next projector I’m hoping will be a solid state DLP without the need for a color wheel. If I was at all unhappy with what I have now I would be upgrading, but no one is complaining including myself. With time the bugs get worked out and prices drop.
I used to be an early adopter of tech and now I would rather be a late adopter.


----------



## Technology3456

bud16415 said:


> Yes I was comparing all things equal except resolution and in the real world there are always a million variables.
> 
> For what it is worth I’m still sticking with 1080p dark chip 3 RGBRGB projector. That tech is well proven and is what it is. My next projector I’m hoping will be a solid state DLP without the need for a color wheel. If I was at all unhappy with what I have now I would be upgrading, but no one is complaining including myself. With time the bugs get worked out and prices drop.
> I used to be an early adopter of tech and now I would rather be a late adopter.


I think 1080p DLP is still a strong performer. You shouldnt be at a deficit for sharpness or mid-high ADL. If there are no rainbow effect issues, then I think the biggest thing you are missing vs 4K lcos is the black level in low ADL, and probably color gamut. And some people still prefer DLP motion too. What model do you have?


----------



## bud16415

Technology3456 said:


> I think 1080p DLP is still a strong performer. You shouldnt be at a deficit for sharpness or mid-high ADL. If there are no rainbow effect issues, then I think the biggest thing you are missing vs 4K lcos is the black level in low ADL, and probably color gamut. And some people still prefer DLP motion too. What model do you have?


I also have a short throw requirement so I’m using the Viewsonic Pro7827hd. It is now out of production but was selling dirt cheap before they retired it. with the .65” chip it does a great job. IMO Viewsonic should have kept it or made a new generation based on this projector and features.


----------



## Philnick

Technology3456 said:


> . . . 4K lcos is not fully resolving 4K despite having 4K pixels. Someone more knowledgeable would have to explain why.
> . . .


Say what? I've never heard anything of the sort - I suspect you've read criticism of e-shift projectors that try to simulate 4K by wiggling 1920x1080 panels real fast to emulate 3840x2160 and thought they were talking about the real thing, which those are not. E-shift projectors are commonly referred to as being "Faux K" (a pun on Four K that means "fake 4K"). I've never heard anyone say that JVC's true 4K projectors don't fully resolve 4K.

My first theater projector, a portable Dell 480p unit, was a DLP, and it had a bad case of rainbows where there should have been none, and had nowhere the contrast or image quality of the 1080p LCD Panasonic PT-AE2000 that took its place for ten years.

My LCOS JVC DLA-RS1000 - their bottom of the line true 4K lamp model (also known as the DLA-N5 and NX5) - puts both of its predecessors in my theater to shame.


----------



## Technology3456

Philnick said:


> Say what? I've never heard anything of the sort - I suspect you've read criticism of e-shift projectors that try to simulate 4K by wiggling 1920x1080 panels real fast to emulate 3840x2160 and thought they were talking about the real thing, which those are not. E-shift projectors are commonly referred to as being "Faux K" (a pun on Four K that means "fake 4K"). I've never heard anyone say that JVC's true 4K projectors don't fully resolve 4K.
> 
> My first theater projector, a portable Dell 480p unit, was a DLP, and it had a bad case of rainbows where there should have been none, and had nowhere the contrast or image quality of the 1080p Panasonic PT-AE2000 that took its place for ten years.
> 
> My LCOS JVC DLA-RS1000 - their bottom of the line true 4K lamp model (also known as the DLA-N5 and NX5) - puts both of its predecessors in my theater to shame.


The JVC NX5 is nice. Best option out there, new, for the money. Better than those other models, and after reading more comments about it, I'd take it over e-shift despite the better black level on JVC e-shift. But yeah even the native ones do not fully resolve 4K even though they have "4K" panels, if you are comparing it to a direct view native 4K display, or a native 4K DLP display. But good luck buying either in 100"+ inches or more for anywhere close to the NX5 price, and it's only been recently that there have been some native 4K DLP projectors with overall contrast to keep with 4K lcos either (still not competing at 0.5% ADL and below, except for the Christ Eclipse, but over the full ADL range I mean).

What I recall is that it is because lcos uses a layer of liquid crystal which causes the light to become diffuse, and maybe something with the lenses. In the "New 4K projectors 2021" thread there was some talk about it maybe 100 pages ago in the thread, where people were posting the brown fox test pattern and showing it, and making comments like "JVC needs to resolve 4K better before worrying about 8K," and stuff like that. Compared to native 4K DLP projectors it tended to look a bit less focused let's say, more diffuse. Whereas DLP has one mirror per pixel and the mirror reflects the light directly, it's not passing through anything that would blur it or diffuse it. Lcos also I guess has some overshoots and less fast pixel response, the ANSI is not as high which apparently is not just an indicator for contrast at 50%, but also an indicator of the projector's ability to resolve bright pixels next to dark pixels. So the lower the ANSI, it creates I forget if it's just more streaking, or also blooming or haloing or some other term, so then that is also making it resolve less than 4K. The lens also affects the MTF but I don't know why that would be any different for lcos than DLP. @bdht is great with the details on this question, maybe he can chime in.

But don't get me wrong. As people have been saying, the only perfect projector is the Christie Eclipse. I think you own the best projector for the money, new. Some people depending on their preferences might choose some used older model to combine with madvr or something like that, but there is no 4K projector you can buy new that for the price of an NX5, that I know of, that is better overall, or even as good.


----------



## bdht

Technology3456 said:


> the brown fox test pattern


this is due to panel convergence error, wobulation overlap, and/or lens chromatic aberrations



Technology3456 said:


> the ANSI is not as high which apparently is not just an indicator for contrast at 50%, but also an indicator of the projector's ability to resolve bright pixels next to dark pixels. So the lower the ANSI, it creates I forget if it's just more streaking, or also blooming or haloing or some other term


mtf/ansi are mostly related to bit depth and gradients



Technology3456 said:


> Lcos also I guess has some overshoots and less fast pixel response


and the black to white pixel response to motion resolution and real time shading accuracy of video playback

all n all just technically accurate shading


----------



## Technology3456

bdht said:


> this is due to panel convergence error, wobulation overlap, and/or lens chromatic aberrations
> 
> 
> mtf/ansi are mostly related to bit depth and gradients
> 
> 
> and the black to white pixel response to motion resolution and real time shading accuracy of video playback
> 
> all n all just technically accurate shading


DLP can have all of the first three too. He's asking why does native 4K lcos not fully resolve 4K but native 4K DLP does (or does more, at least)? Is it primarily because of the liquid crystal layer, or what's the main cause? Taking e-shift out of it completely, just native 4K lcos.


----------



## bdht

when you compare the brown fox test pattern and shading in general, those are the reasons why it looks different. liquid crystal vs a mirror would affect perceived luminance, which i suppose could impact shading as well, but that's not what's causing artifacts in shading with the fox pattern.


----------



## Josh Z

As always, Technology3456 speaks from a place of someone who has read too much crap on the internet but has no direct experience of his own with any of the products in question.

Anyone who has actually compared LCoS to DLP will immediately know that LCoS is superior.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> As always, Technology3456 speaks from a place of someone who has read too much crap on the internet but has no direct experience of his own with any of the products in question.
> 
> Anyone who has actually compared LCoS to DLP will immediately know that LCoS is superior.


at black level in low ADL scenes, yes.

I do have some direct experience since I've seen two of the best DLP projectors until the 3-chip RGB laser models came out this year, as well as a JVC RS4500. And I dont think reading a lot makes you less informed, I think it is informative. You should read Kris' comparison of the Sony GTZ-380 to the Griffyn AS. He preferred the Griffyn AS. He even said DLP could have higher motion resolution. I don't even know if I still believe that, at least that there's enough difference for me to notice, but if it's true then that is more important than any other aspect of display performance to me. But I have zero doubt that the better mid-high ADL performance (actually about 99.5% of the ADL range or so for the Griffyn vs the 380, but preliminary estimates say above 5% ADL compared to the NZ line), sharpness, pixel-to-pixel contrast, and wider color gamut are real. I'm not saying I'd never buy lcos though. It's a case by case comparison. I wish the NZ line was RGB laser, but I do think JVC engineers did an amazing job on that lineup, if the first reported numbers are true and not just a hand-picked sample. Based on what's been reported, they did a great job.


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> You should read Kris' comparison of the Sony GTZ-380 to the Griffyn AS. He preferred the Griffyn AS.


Why are you citing reviews of $80k to $110k projectors? What relevance can that possibly have to anything you will ever plan to do in life?


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Didn't you do all this "research" and wind up buying a pair of antiquated 720p projectors for like $100 a piece?


No, not 720p, and not cheap.



> Why are you citing reviews of $80k to $110k projectors? What relevance can that possibly have to anything you will ever plan to do in life?


Just answering about lcos vs DLP in general, since you said everyone knows lcos is superior full stop. If you want to go more specifi, almost everyone I've talked to who compared a Lumis to an NX model preferred the Lumis, for example. One reason for that was the Lumis overtook its contrast pretty low up the ADL ladder. Now that has changed a lot with the NZ lineup (reportedly), so would they now prefer the NZ models? Maybe! It would depend whether that was the only major reason they preferred the Lumis. If it's true (again I don't know that it is) that DLP has better motion resolution than lcos, then that should hold true for most quality DLP projectors even down to relatively low used prices these days (less than an NX model), not just $80k - $110k models. They all use Texas Instruments chips and all the 3-chip ones use the 3 of them. Barring a major issue in processing or frame cadence, the motion should be scale similarly through the price ranges as lcos models would, maybe getting a slight bump on each with better lenses, but I dont know how much better lenses, past a certain point, affect motion resolution. In any case, both lcos and DLP can use equal quality glass, so that's not a differentiator in comparing lcos and DLP overall.

Then you have the 1DLP rgbLED models that have a specific use case: < 120" diagonal 16:9 screens, for the most part. But for that screen size, they are still the only way, under much higher prices, to get 80% - 90% bt2020 colors right now. And the image is very calm and nice, with single chip DLP sharpness. And some of them also have better mid-high ADL contrast than the NX series, and even the NZ series although, same as with the Lumis, it now only comes after a much higher point than before.

So I'd agree with you that some lcos projectors are better than some DLP projectors. And it sounds like the JVC engineers did a great job with the NZ lineup, so it's possible now the NZ8 and NZ9 would leapfrog some DLP models that until that point many people preferred to the NX lineup. But I wouldn't just say lcos is better than DLP period. You have to look case by case. I may know where you are coming from though. I think if you have just been comparing the recent models that came out new in the consumer price ranges the last few years, then it is a reasonable statement to say lcos is better across the board than the 4K pixel shift DLP models that came out like the Optoma UHZ65, etc, at least if rainbows bother you on the UHZ65. But what you may not have known about is that the last ten years there were $30,000 - $50,000 retail cost 1080p projectors that maybe most people did not even hear about, which can now sometimes be found used for fractions of the cost, and many feel if you find one in good condition, they outperform the current consumer 4K pixel shift DLP projectors and even in some cases 4K lcos models.

I prefer to compare on a model-by-model basis and compare as many specifics as possible. As you said, that's taken a lot of reading and polling peoples' opinions, but I now know a lot about each model's pros and weaknesses that help me make as informed decisions as I can about it. At the end of the day though, there are always pros and cons on each side, so there is no wrong answer! It sounds like you have a great lcos projector that you're really happy with, and that's awesome. Hopefully when my HT is done I will be happy with it too.


----------



## Josh Z

Back to the actual topic of this thread, reviews have confirmed that No Time to Die is constant height 2.35:1 on Blu-ray and 4K UHD.


----------



## nathan_h

Anyone take a look at the digital on demand version of the French Dispatch? Even in the theater, it was variable within a 16x9 overall frame, so I'm assuming the home version will be like that.


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> Anyone take a look at the digital on demand version of the French Dispatch? Even in the theater, it was variable within a 16x9 overall frame, so I'm assuming the home version will be like that.


I assume it will be treated like The Grand Budapest Hotel, and put it in post 2.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I assume it will be treated like The Grand Budapest Hotel, and put it in post 2.





Josh Z said:


> I assume it will be treated like The Grand Budapest Hotel, and put it in post 2.


This should be an interesting one for presentation as it switches between 1.37 Academy and 2.39 Scope. Just watching the previews it is in no way filmed to be scope safe. On a CIH scope theater it will need to be shown using the Academy preset leaving the scope really small.
I watch Academy at IMAX height so it will be perfect for me. Looking forward to watching it.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> This should be an interesting one for presentation as it switches between 1.37 Academy and 2.39 Scope. Just watching the previews it is in no way filmed to be scope safe. On a CIH scope theater it will need to be shown using the Academy preset leaving the scope really small.
> I watch Academy at IMAX height so it will be perfect for me. Looking forward to watching it.


Again, I assume that French Dispatch will work the same way Grand Budapest Hotel does. Grand Budapest has a variety of aspect ratios framed inside a 1.85:1 container. It is not intended to be Constant Height or constant anything. The black letterbox and pillarbox bars are part of the artistic design of the picture.

The trailer for French Dispatch appears to work exactly the same. Although primarily pillarbox 4:3, it has some footage at 1.85:1 and some at 2.35:1 that are wider than the 4:3 portions.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Again, I assume that French Dispatch will work the same way Grand Budapest Hotel does. Grand Budapest has a variety of aspect ratios framed inside a 1.85:1 container. It is not intended to be Constant Height or constant anything. The black letterbox and pillarbox bars are part of the artistic design of the picture.
> 
> The trailer for French Dispatch appears to work exactly the same. Although primarily pillarbox 4:3, it has some footage at 1.85:1 and some at 2.35:1 that are wider than the 4:3 portions.


So you will select your 1.85:1 preset and when the movie is in 1.37:1 you will have giant black bars to each side and when it changes to 2.39 you will have black bars on all 4 sides?
Sounds a little under immersive but I guess it will work.


----------



## nathan_h

Josh Z said:


> Again, I assume that French Dispatch will work the same way Grand Budapest Hotel does. Grand Budapest has a variety of aspect ratios framed inside a 1.85:1 container. It is not intended to be Constant Height or constant anything. The black letterbox and pillarbox bars are part of the artistic design of the picture.
> 
> The trailer for French Dispatch appears to work exactly the same. Although primarily pillarbox 4:3, it has some footage at 1.85:1 and some at 2.35:1 that are wider than the 4:3 portions.


I can confirm that the digital copy streaming now is the same as grand budapest and what you describe in the trailer: all within a 1.78:1 container, whether at that ratio, or 2.35:1, or 4:3 -- and it looks like 4:3 is the majority of it. 

(And for Wes Anderson fans, this movie is a real treat, imo.)


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> I can confirm that the digital copy streaming now is the same as grand budapest and what you describe in the trailer: all within a 1.78:1 container, whether at that ratio, or 2.35:1, or 4:3 -- and it looks like 4:3 is the majority of it.
> 
> (And for Wes Anderson fans, this movie is a real treat, imo.)


According to imdb.com the only two ARs used inn the movie are 1.37 and 2.39 and the trailer only shows those two no 1.85 or 1.78 although the container seems to be one of those two. The 1.37 expands in height out of the 2.39 and the movie is closely framed like CIA. 
Looking forward to watching it The Budapest Hotel we have enjoyed many times.


----------



## Philnick

bud16415 said:


> According to imdb.com the only two ARs used inn the movie are 1.37 and 2.39 and the trailer only shows those two no 1.85 or 1.78 although the container seems to be one of those two. The 1.37 expands in height out of the 2.39 and the movie is closely framed like CIA.
> Looking forward to watching it The Budapest Hotel we have enjoyed many times.


I just bought it in 4K through VUDU and have begun watching it through Prime (which is linked to my VUDU account through Movies Anywhere). It is a visual feast. It is at its tallest 1.85:1 or less, and so is safe for users of JVC 17:9 4K projectors to use the Aspect:Zoom feature that enlarges the image by 6 2/3%, as that costs only about 1% of a 1.85:1 image being shaved off at each of the top and bottom.

I also switched to VUDU to confirm that the stream looked the same, and the image height was the same.

While the digital package is probably 1.78:1 - of necessity for compatibility with consumer equipment - at no point is that aspect ratio used by this film. Even the 1:37:1 sections stay within the height of a 1.85:1 image.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> So you will select your 1.85:1 preset and when the movie is in 1.37:1 you will have giant black bars to each side and when it changes to 2.39 you will have black bars on all 4 sides?
> Sounds a little under immersive but I guess it will work.


The bulk of the film will look the same as any other Academy Ratio movie. The 1.85:1 portions will be Constant Height. The 2.35:1 portions will be smaller, but again that is part of the artistic design of the film. It is not meant to be immersive.



bud16415 said:


> According to imdb.com the only two ARs used inn the movie are 1.37 and 2.39 and the trailer only shows those two no 1.85 or 1.78 although the container seems to be one of those two.


The trailer has at least one instance of a split-screen effect with text underneath it that is framed at approximately 1.85:1.


----------



## dschulz

bud16415 said:


> So you will select your 1.85:1 preset and when the movie is in 1.37:1 you will have giant black bars to each side and when it changes to 2.39 you will have black bars on all 4 sides?
> Sounds a little under immersive but I guess it will work.


That's what it looked like in the cinema; the DCPs were a Flat container (1.85).


----------



## bud16415

dschulz said:


> That's what it looked like in the cinema; the DCPs were a Flat container (1.85).


I haven’t seen the film yet to determine for myself immersion, but if the trailer is indicative of the movie I would have to say the Academy sections are filmed very much in a cinematic form of Academy movies of old and the wide screen sections are filmed very much in the cinematic form of scope movies.

Of course if the movie were shown in any scope or flat commercial theater it wouldn’t be cropped so the best we could get would be flat level of immersion. This of course has to be assumed is the director and cinematographer intent.

The director as far as I know hasn’t talked about his intent for immersion and he is very aware theaters have multi row seating so viewers can adjust their immersion to suit their tastes, as that has always been a personal choice to the moviegoer.

Given my preference and how I remember Academy in Academy commercial theaters in terms of immersion. Along with Phil’s review above. I think I would be quite happy watching it in a commercial theater sitting about ¼ of the way back, and will likely duplicate that at home.
It is great seeing a movie mostly shot in Academy what a great lost AR that was.


----------



## Josh Z

It sounds to me like you've never seen any Wes Anderson movie before. Anderson has always employed a very off-kilter sense of composition. He'll sometimes stick the main subject of a shot in the lower corner with 16 miles of headroom above them, just to be weird. It's his own peculiar sensibility, and has nothing to do with immersion.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> The trailer has at least one instance of a split-screen effect with text underneath it that is framed at approximately 1.85:1.


Those are "then and now" comparisons of what the same street looked like in the past (in black and white) and now (in color).

By the way, the use of color in this film is highly romanticized. If you remember the days of 35mm color slide film, with Kodachrome being the clinically accurate color and Ektachrome's color "swinging for the fences," so to speak, this film's color palette is definitely Ektachrome. (BTW, that's one thing that Paul Simon got wrong in his song lyrics. He was really singing about Ektachrome.)

Anderson's sense of humor is, by comparison, quite dry. The film is set in the mythical French town of Ennui, on the banks of the river Blasé - referred, in at least one on-screen caption, as the town of "Ennui sur Blasé."


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> It sounds to me like you've never seen any Wes Anderson movie before. Anderson has always employed a very off-kilter sense of composition. He'll sometimes stick the main subject of a shot in the lower corner with 16 miles of headroom above them, just to be weird. It's his own peculiar sensibility, and has nothing to do with immersion.


 I believe I have seen all his movies and most several times.

You are confusing artistic intent what the director and cinematographer are creating with where any patron going to a movie may prefer to sit in relation to the screen.
Wes Anderson could care less if I sit in the front row or the back row, but he is aware there is a front row and a back row I’m sure.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Those are "then and now" comparisons of what the same street looked like in the past (in black and white) and now (in color).


I agree I saw them as more of a frame break than an AR change as well.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> You are confusing artistic intent what the director and cinematographer are creating with where any patron going to a movie may prefer to sit in relation to the screen.


Yeah, and at home you can sit with your nose pressing against the screen or watch your neighbor's TV from your own house through the windows.  



bud16415 said:


> I agree I saw them as more of a frame break than an AR change as well.


Nevertheless, the shot is framed with width extended past the 4:3 portion, yet is not as letterboxed as the 2.35:1 shots.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Yeah, and at home you can sit with your nose pressing against the screen or watch your neighbor's TV from your own house through the windows.
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the shot is framed with width extended past the 4:3 portion, yet is not as letterboxed as the 2.35:1 shots.


Yep you and me and Wes Anderson don’t care where anyone sits in terms of immersion to their screen at home or in a movie theater. We agree on that at least. Although I wouldn’t recommend looking in your neighbors windows at night.

You are correct when the image expands to show the text below the 2.39:1 image it is a new and different AR. It should also be noted during that short period of time there is also an image shift as the top black bar does not move but the lower drops.
Isn’t it amazing how especially now with digital processing they can just do anything inside that 16:9 rectangle. I’m fond of the morphing changes in AR. No need for a jarring switch when it can change slowly. Each frame is a new AR.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Isn’t it amazing how especially now with digital processing they can just do anything inside that 16:9 rectangle.


1968. Fully analog. Nothing digital required, just good old-fashioned filmmaking ingenuity.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> 1968. Fully analog. Nothing digital required, just good old-fashioned filmmaking ingenuity.


Yep great example. Only difference is today all you need is an iPhone and a gimbal stick.


----------



## Philnick

My comments about the 1.85:1 height of _The French Dispatch_ were based on watching its trailer and part of the film on my laptop at 1080.

I watched the whole film at last night through Prime Video with my wife on her 1080 flat panel TV - and it used the full 16:9 height, so I'm puzzled. I'll be testing out the UHD stream in my theater and will report back what I find.

PS It is a seriously silly film and highly recommended - and it's clear from the end credits, both from the dedications to a bunch of editors and writers from _The New Yorker_ magazine - and mock front covers of the _Dispatch_ that look like covers from_ The New Yorker_ - what this film was inspired by.

We saw _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ a few years ago and she didn't like it. I'm going to give it another try.


----------



## Philnick

In my theater, projected in 4K, it is in 1.85, so I guess my wife's Sharp Roku TV automatically expanded it to 16x9. Unexpected behavior.

Also, while VUDU shows it in BT.2020 color, Prime Video uses BT.709.

Weird. BTW, it's in DD+ 5.1 on both services.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> In the theater, projected in 4K, it is in 1.85, so I guess my wife's Sharp Roku TV automatically expanded it to 16x9. Unexpected behavior.


Sounds like the Roku TV has some overscan by default.


----------



## Philnick

That would do it. Thing is, I think I remember seeing something in 1.85 on it that _did _have some thin black bars at top and bottom - maybe that was a disk and was treated differently.


----------



## bud16415

I think the mild trimming of 1.85 to fit 16:9 is happening more than we know with so many streaming locations and all the normal TV outlets. The casual streamer would notice the slight black bars more than the trim.


----------



## dschulz

bud16415 said:


> I think the mild trimming of 1.85 to fit 16:9 is happening more than we know with so many streaming locations and all the normal TV outlets. The casual streamer would notice the slight black bars more than the trim.


Not just streaming, that's very common on DVD/Blu Ray as well. Although I haven't bothered to keep a tally, I'd go so far as to say that more often than not Flat films are lightly cropped to 16:9 for home video distribution.


----------



## Josh Z

dschulz said:


> Not just streaming, that's very common on DVD/Blu Ray as well. Although I haven't bothered to keep a tally, I'd go so far as to say that more often than not Flat films are lightly cropped to 16:9 for home video distribution.


More likely slightly open matte rather than cropped.

Warner Bros. and Paramount both open the mattes on 1.85:1 movies to 16:9 as a matter of policy. Some other studios are hit-and-miss with how they'll treat them.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> More likely slightly open matte rather than cropped.
> 
> Warner Bros. and Paramount both open the mattes on 1.85:1 movies to 16:9 as a matter of policy. Some other studios are hit-and-miss with how they'll treat them.


Blu-ray.com usually reports the original and "on disk" aspect ratios of films - the implication is that if it says originally 1.85:1, on disk as 1.78:1 I can safely use my JVC's 6 2/3% zoom because what's being shaved off at the top and bottom is mostly the result of opening up the matte to master the disk.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Pompo: The Cinephile is mostly in 1.85:1 but has some scenes that go to 2.35:1.

Spider-Man: Homecoming, Far From Home and No Way Home have some scenes in 4:3 and 16:9 windowboxed within a 2.35:1 frame.
They are still windowboxed in the 2.35:1 frame even in IMAX, so they still do not expand to the full height of the IMAX image.

Eternals has some scenes in 16:9 windowboxed to 2.35:1 even in IMAX.



Josh Z said:


> More likely slightly open matte rather than cropped.
> 
> Warner Bros. and Paramount both open the mattes on 1.85:1 movies to 16:9 as a matter of policy. Some other studios are hit-and-miss with how they'll treat them.


Paramount has some recent releases that are in 1.85:1 like The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, and Warner Bros. is lately sticking with 1.85:1 mattes on their films rather than opening up to 16:9, as can be seen with Space Jam 2 and Joker. Even catalogue releases that have been opened up to 16:9 like Beetlejuice, The Shawshank Redemption and Space Jam 1 have been cropped to 1.85:1 on 4K UHD. The only exception seems to be the Kubrick films, which are still 16:9 on 4K UHD.


----------



## nathan_h

Hydra Spectre said:


> The only exception seems to be the Kubrick films, which are still 16:9 on 4K UHD.


When those films were first being transferred to digital (maybe DVD editions) there was some hubub about a few like Eyes Wide Shut where one if his longtime assistants (Vitali?) said that Kubrick actually shot at least that movie 4:3 and cropped it down as required by WB for theatrical release (or knew it would be or that he had to) so it was shot to be "safe" for 1.85, but his preference (and certainly the negative) was 4:3, so one of the first digital releases (must have been DVD) was 4:3, iirc.

If that is the case, it doesn't feel bad that Warner is opening up the theatrical 1.85 to 1.78 now. (I sure hope they aren't cropping the sides of the theatrical 1.85 framing to get a 1.78 image!)


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> When those films were first being transferred to digital (maybe DVD editions) there was some hubub about a few like Eyes Wide Shut where one if his longtime assistants (Vitali?) said that Kubrick actually shot at least that movie 4:3 and cropped it down as required by WB for theatrical release (or knew it would be or that he had to) so it was shot to be "safe" for 1.85, but his preference (and certainly the negative) was 4:3, so one of the first digital releases (must have been DVD) was 4:3, iirc.
> 
> If that is the case, it doesn't feel bad that Warner is opening up the theatrical 1.85 to 1.78 now. (I sure hope they aren't cropping the sides of the theatrical 1.85 framing to get a 1.78 image!)


Leon Vitali was Kubrick's assistant for many years. There's a documentary about him called 'Filmworker'. It used to be on Netflix, but appears to only be available by VOD currently. It paints a very sympathetic portrait. In a lot of ways, I feel bad for the guy. Kubrick did not treat him well.

Vitali has worked his way into a self-appointed position as the gatekeeper of Kubrick's legacy. Unfortunately, he has not proven to be particularly knowledgeable about technical matters. It was Vitali who was responsible for the initial DVD releases of Kubrick's films being released as full-screen 4:3, allegedly because Kubrick told him a thousand times that was what he wanted. Later, he changed his story and instructed those same films be transferred at 16:9 on Blu-ray, again because Kubrick had supposedly told him so.

When Barry Lyndon was released on Blu-ray in 16:9, rather than 1.66:1 as previous transfers for the film had been, Vitali's response was that Kubrick hammered into his head that the movie was indisputably composed for an exact ratio of 1.77:1 and no other framing would do. When film critic Glenn Kenny then dug up a memo that Kubrick had personally written to theater projectionists explicitly stating that the film was to be projected at 1.66:1, Vitali suddenly clammed up and tried to brush off the difference as no big deal. The later Criterion Blu-ray was transferred at 1.66:1.

Along similar lines, storyboards for The Shining contain very clear notes from Kubrick specifying that the image was to be framed for 1.85:1 - contrary to Vitali's version of the story.

Sadly, the history of Stanley Kubrick's movies on home video is kind of a mess when it comes to accurate aspect ratios, and most of that is Leon Vitali's fault.

To the best of my ability to sort things out, I believe that Lolita, Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon ought to be framed at 1.66:1, while The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut should be 1.85:1. Spartacus and 2001 were shot in 65mm for a ratio of 2.20:1. His earlier work should all be Academy Ratio 1.37:1.


----------



## nathan_h

Josh Z said:


> To the best of my ability to sort things out, I believe that Lolita, Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon ought to be framed at 1.66:1, while The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut should be 1.85:1. Spartacus and 2001 were shot in 65mm for a ratio of 2.20:1. His earlier work should all be Academy Ratio 1.37:1.


What you say makes sense. 

_Maybe WB can market the full frame version of Eyes Wide Shut as enhanced for IMAX _- just kidding.

I think the first version of Strangelove I owned was actually a variable aspect ratio. (I'm not saying that's the right presentation, but it's what I recall.)

Sure would seem like Kubrick would have made explicit instructions in writing for theaters for all his films, so that we would know what he intended.

Anyway, now I'm going down a rabbit hole of internet videos, discussions, and arguments about Kubrick aspect ratios. This wasn't a dumpster fire I had previously paid attention to.


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> I think the first version of Strangelove I owned was actually a variable aspect ratio. (I'm not saying that's the right presentation, but it's what I recall.)


Yes, early versions of the film on Laserdisc and DVD (including the Criterion LD) varied from 4:3 to about 1.66:1 from shot to shot. That was a consequence of lifting all mattes to expose the entire camera negative. But some shots in the film were photographed with an in-camera hard matte that blocked light from exposing the top and bottom of the frame, and could not be removed. IIRC, the frame edges around those mattes were also kind of fuzzy. During theatrical projection, none of that would have been visible.

I believe it was actually Kubrick himself who told Criterion to do that. To be honest about it, Kubrick was kind of a black bar hater and liked his movies to fill a TV screen. To be fair, at the time he knew that most people would watch those movies on 4:3 TVs with about 20" screens. He didn't live very long into the home theater era that blossomed when DVD hit the market.

For theatrical exhibition, he still preferred wider ratios. 

Nevertheless, it was his instructions for VHS and early Laserdisc that Vitali latched onto and insisted were still to be honored even as TV screen sizes increased significantly and HDTV made 16:9 the new standard screen ratio.



> Sure would seem like Kubrick would have made explicit instructions in writing for theaters for all his films, so that we would know what he intended.


He actually was pretty good about that, but many of those documents either didn't survive or haven't been released to the public. As I said, detailed instructions for Barry Lyndon to be projected at 1.66:1 have surfaced (you can see a copy here), and storyboards for The Shining specify a 1.85:1 ratio. At a retrospective of his work near the end of his life, I believe he instructed the festival to project most of his movies at 1.66:1 if they didn't have the ability to switch projection mattes from film to film.


----------



## nathan_h

Thanks. Love this!

https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lyndon-letter.jpg


----------



## Josh Z

And here's The Shining:

"THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1:85
Obviously you compose for that
but protect the full 1-1:33 area."


----------



## nathan_h

Josh Z said:


> "THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1:85
> Obviously you compose for that
> but protect the full 1-1:33 area."


Where is this quote from?

Have more storyboard frames been published?


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> Where is this quote from?


It's on the sticker note Kubrick attached to the storyboard. Upper right corner.

Kubrick was very detail-oriented and meticulously planned everything he did.



> Have more storyboard frames been published?


Possibly. This is one I happened to have at hand from a previous discussion on the subject. In 2008, there was a documentary called Stanley Kubrick's Boxes in which archivists dug through the vast collection of research materials and documents that Kubrick kept for every movie he made or planned to make. He was a hoarder, so sorting through all that content was a huge challenge.

Edit: I believe Taschen has published some expensive coffee table books with collections of Kubrick's planning materials. The Design Museum in London has also had several exhibitions devoted to Kubrick.









Stanley Kubrick: The Exhibition


Discover never before seen material from the personal archives of the extraordinary director, filmmaker and cinematic legend, Stanley Kubrick.




designmuseum.org


----------



## nathan_h

I saw that exhibit in SF when it was traveling the world. Good stuff. I picked up the smaller taschen book at the time. I'll take a look back at that and see if there is more. (I don't recall much.)










(PS for anyone thinking of getting this book, if you can afford the larger version, get it. I cheeped out and bought the $20 compact version. I think it has all the same text but upon review, there are more and larger pictures in the larger version of the book. It lists for $80 but in retrospect I should have found the extra cash -- and these days goes for $55 online.

Or, for a specific example, that storyboard image you posted is in the small book -- spread across two pages, and that's a GOOD CASE. In others some images are shrunk to a thumbnail, or are missing entirely in the smaller version of the book.)


----------



## flyers10

Going back and forth on whether to get a 2.4, a 16x9, or a 2.0 screen. Reading through this, with a film like Dunkirk, Dark Knight, etc is the movie completely unwatchable with a 2.4 screen? Or some parts are but most is not? Trying to grasp what I would be in for. I have no way to test out ahead of time.


----------



## Josh Z

flyers10 said:


> Going back and forth on whether to get a 2.4, a 16x9, or a 2.0 screen. Reading through this, with a film like Dunkirk, Dark Knight, etc is the movie completely unwatchable with a 2.4 screen? Or some parts are but most is not? Trying to grasp what I would be in for. I have no way to test out ahead of time.


Most Variable Aspect Ratio films are safe to crop to 2.35:1 (or 2.40:1). They are composed for that, and that's how they play in all theaters other than IMAX. The majority of them - for example, literally every single "IMAX Enhanced" title from Marvel - take the 2.35:1 extraction directly from the center of the frame, and leave the top and bottom loose with some extra headroom. By zooming the image up to fill a scope screen, and then using a Blanking feature in the projector to mask off anything at the top and bottom, you are 100% recreating the regular theatrical experience as seen in all theaters other than IMAX.

Christopher Nolan gets a little fiddly with it. He prepares his movies for each format (IMAX 1.43:1, IMAX 1.90:1, home video 16:9) by selectively reframing each shot to what he feels works best. So, in The Dark Knight, you'll get some IMAX scenes where the 2.35:1 extraction comes right from the center, some where it comes a little higher in the frame, and some where it comes a little lower. Just zooming up and blanking with your projector won't be able to match his exact 2.35:1 framing.

I've watched The Dark Knight and Interstellar both zoomed up and cropped, and in general I think they look fine. Some of the framing may be different than what Nolan chose, but you wouldn't notice without a direct comparison. Nothing really stood out to me as looking "wrong" or "bad" in either movie watched that way.

Your mileage may vary, and we've had one member in this forum who felt that even 1mm of difference visible for 0.5 seconds was unacceptable.

I cannot speak for all of Nolan's later movies, as I lost patience with the declining quality of his films and don't own copies of them.

Star Trek into Darkness is another problematic title, as on-screen text was moved up in the IMAX version and edges outside the 2.35:1 zone. That isn't the case with the 2.35:1 Blu-ray, and I recommend watching that instead. Or you can choose a slightly lesser zoom such as 2.20:1 before you crop and deal with a little windowboxing in the 2.35:1 scenes.

Most of these VAR movies have 2.35:1 CIH options available to watch somewhere, if not on disc then on streaming. The Dark Knight is 2.35:1 on HBO Max, for example. The Marvel movies are mostly 2.35:1 on Blu-ray and UHD disc, and Disney+ offers you a choice of whichever version you'd prefer to watch.


----------



## Philnick

flyers10 said:


> Going back and forth on whether to get a 2.4, a 16x9, or a 2.0 screen. Reading through this, with a film like Dunkirk, Dark Knight, etc is the movie completely unwatchable with a 2.4 screen? Or some parts are but most is not? Trying to grasp what I would be in for. I have no way to test out ahead of time.


Try it out on your wall before you decide on a screen. I'm an opponent of using framed screens at all, and particularly scope-framed screens, as they make it very hard to watch VAR films like you're talking about. I simply put screen paint on my wall. There's now a whole thread hosted by Josh about the advantages and disadvantages of scope screens versus taller screens.

There's quite a lively debate going on over there right now.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Belle (2021) is mostly in 2.40:1 with some scenes pillarboxed in 16:9 within the 2.40:1 frame.
I saw a Polish WEBRip leak of it and there are some 16:9 windowboxed scenes in the US trailers.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Eternals has some scenes pillarboxed in 16:9 within a 2.39:1 frame even in the IMAX version, similar to the MCU Spider-Man films.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Double post, please delete this.


----------



## nathan_h

Hydra Spectre said:


> Eternals has some scenes pillarboxed in 16:9 within a 2.39:1 frame even in the IMAX version, similar to the MCU Spider-Man films.


Is this on the blu ray or the streaming version?


----------



## Hydra Spectre

nathan_h said:


> Is this on the blu ray or the streaming version?


When I saw it in the cinema, there were some pillarboxed 16:9 scenes.
I don't know if it's still windowboxed within the 2.39:1 frame for the IMAX scenes or whether it is fullscreen but I can safely assume the former because that was the approach for the Spider-Man films.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> When I saw it in the cinema, there were some pillarboxed 16:9 scenes.
> I don't know if it's still windowboxed within the 2.39:1 frame for the IMAX scenes or whether it is fullscreen but I can safely assume the former because that was the approach for the Spider-Man films.


I will wait for confirmation on what the disc or streaming editions look like before updating the list, thanks.


----------



## fatherom

According to another poster, this is the case for Eternals:

*Today Disney released Eternals. With Atmos. And the IMAX Enhanced version actually has three aspect ratios. The few scenes that were 1.43 in Laser IMAX are full screen 1.78 here. Then there’s 1.9 and 2.39.*

For Spiderman films, I've watched the available imax versions several times, and I don't remember any pillarboxing. The AR is either 2.39:1 and then expands the top/bottom for the imax scenes, but I don't believe there's any 16:9 scenes pillarboxed within the 2.39 frame.


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> According to another poster, this is the case for Eternals:
> 
> *Today Disney released Eternals. With Atmos. And the IMAX Enhanced version actually has three aspect ratios. The few scenes that were 1.43 in Laser IMAX are full screen 1.78 here. Then there’s 1.9 and 2.39.*


Thanks. This is getting confusing. I saw this stated on another forum, which kind of lines up with your post:

_*Those Disney Marvel films are presented at their true IMAX ratios - they were composed to switch from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1 and that’s what they do. The only exception to that is Eternals, which theatrically switched from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1 for most of the film, but had about eight minutes that were 1.44:1 in theaters that could show that ratio - otherwise it was 2.40/1.90 at every other IMAX locations. There’s only like a dozen IMAX theaters domestically that play commercial Hollywood films that can do 1.44:1.*_

This sounds to me like the movie did not have any pillarboxed 16:9 scenes.


----------



## AFU

I think Hydra mistook the 1.43:1 scenes with pillarboxing.
It seems as though the only differenxe between the truest IMAX release of Eternals and IMAX Enhanced are the 1.43:1 scenes which are now cropped to 16:9.

1 thing that caught my eyes in the start post:
Catching Fire is missing the IMAX ratio in Germany's Blu-ray (by StudioCanal) as well; probably not just Australia and Germany. I suppose they didn't wanna pay the licensing fee to IMAX Corp.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Leon Vitali was Kubrick's assistant for many years. There's a documentary about him called 'Filmworker'. It used to be on Netflix, but appears to only be available by VOD currently. It paints a very sympathetic portrait. In a lot of ways, I feel bad for the guy. Kubrick did not treat him well.
> 
> Vitali has worked his way into a self-appointed position as the gatekeeper of Kubrick's legacy. Unfortunately, he has not proven to be particularly knowledgeable about technical matters. It was Vitali who was responsible for the initial DVD releases of Kubrick's films being released as full-screen 4:3, allegedly because Kubrick told him a thousand times that was what he wanted. Later, he changed his story and instructed those same films be transferred at 16:9 on Blu-ray, again because Kubrick had supposedly told him so.
> 
> When Barry Lyndon was released on Blu-ray in 16:9, rather than 1.66:1 as previous transfers for the film had been, Vitali's response was that Kubrick hammered into his head that the movie was indisputably composed for an exact ratio of 1.77:1 and no other framing would do. When film critic Glenn Kenny then dug up a memo that Kubrick had personally written to theater projectionists explicitly stating that the film was to be projected at 1.66:1, Vitali suddenly clammed up and tried to brush off the difference as no big deal. The later Criterion Blu-ray was transferred at 1.66:1.
> 
> Along similar lines, storyboards for The Shining contain very clear notes from Kubrick specifying that the image was to be framed for 1.85:1 - contrary to Vitali's version of the story.
> 
> Sadly, the history of Stanley Kubrick's movies on home video is kind of a mess when it comes to accurate aspect ratios, and most of that is Leon Vitali's fault.
> 
> To the best of my ability to sort things out, I believe that Lolita, Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon ought to be framed at 1.66:1, while The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut should be 1.85:1. Spartacus and 2001 were shot in 65mm for a ratio of 2.20:1. His earlier work should all be Academy Ratio 1.37:1.


So is this guy just straight up lying about what the aspect ratio should be? It should be pretty straight forward that either Kubrick's final decision when he released the movie was in this aspect ratio or that one (or a combination of one and another in the case of IMAX Enhanced or something like that). Not a lot of grey area. What you wrote doesn't indicate that it happened just one time, but more of pattern of him saying Kubrick wanted something one way only for it to be completely disproven later. Unless Kubrick purposefully told him the wrong thing just to mess with him or something... in which case, his advice about how the transfer is supposed to go is still not reliable, then it's hard to explain it. Or maybe Kubrick changed his mind during production (unlikely) in which case shouldn't his top assistant know that if his role was really the way he describes it?

Edit: Note, I watched the documentary about him awhile ago. I had no idea there were this controversy. The documentary made it seem cut and dry that this guy was Kubrick's #1 assistant who knew how Kubrick wanted things, and that his advice about grading the film transfers has been invaluable.


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> So is this guy just straight up lying about what the aspect ratio should be? It should be pretty straight forward that either Kubrick's final decision when he released the movie was in this aspect ratio or that one (or a combination of one and another in the case of IMAX Enhanced or something like that). Not a lot of grey area. What you wrote doesn't indicate that it happened just one time, but more of pattern of him saying Kubrick wanted something one way only for it to be completely disproven later. Unless Kubrick purposefully told him the wrong thing just to mess with him or something... in which case, his advice about how the transfer is supposed to go is still not reliable, then it's hard to explain it. Or maybe Kubrick changed his mind during production (unlikely) in which case shouldn't his top assistant


I don't necessarily think Vitale's lying, so much as that he doesn't actually understand these technical matters as well as he wants people to believe that he does, and when confronted will instinctively double-down on his position and insist, "I alone know what Stanley wanted. I was his closest confidante and nobody knows better than me."

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Kubrick did have some conflicting ideas about aspect ratio. His composition for theatrical exhibition was very exact, but he did not like letterbox bars when his movies were watched on small 4:3 TVs. And he didn't live very long into the home theater era where screen sizes increased and TV aspect ratios got wider.

When watching The Shining on a 20" CRT set, yeah, Kubrick did instruct for that to be full-screen open-matte, because he thought letterbox bars were distracting at that size. But Vitale misinterpreted that to mean that Kubrick 100% wanted 4:3 to be the only aspect ratio for the film on any screen size or shape - even despite storyboards specifying a precise 1.85:1 composition. 



> Edit: Note, I watched the documentary about him awhile ago. I had no idea there were this controversy. The documentary made it seem cut and dry that this guy was Kubrick's #1 assistant who knew how Kubrick wanted things, and that his advice about grading the film transfers has been invaluable.


Yeah, that's always the problem with an "authorized biography." Not enough outside perspective.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> When watching The Shining on a 20" CRT set, yeah, Kubrick did instruct for that to be full-screen open-matte, because he thought letterbox bars were distracting at that size. But Vitale misinterpreted that to mean that Kubrick 100% wanted 4:3 to be the only aspect ratio for the film on any screen size or shape - even despite storyboards specifying a precise 1.85:1 composition.


Ah OK well that's different if it was a misunderstanding. Still, the documentary made it sound like Kubrick gave him so much work with all the fine details exactly like story boards... it's been too long since I saw the documentary to remember if they mentioned story boards specifically, but I recall it being many things like that things like that, that Vitali would work with it so much he would it all memorized by heart by the end of production for each film. So it's odd he wouldn't have seen the storyboards and remembered that what they said about the aspect ratio.

Which Kubrick films would you say are actually available now in the correct aspect ratio for home theater on 4K and bluray?


----------



## Hydra Spectre

AFU said:


> I think Hydra mistook the 1.43:1 scenes with pillarboxing.
> It seems as though the only differenxe between the truest IMAX release of Eternals and IMAX Enhanced are the 1.43:1 scenes which are now cropped to 16:9.
> 
> 1 thing that caught my eyes in the start post:
> Catching Fire is missing the IMAX ratio in Germany's Blu-ray (by StudioCanal) as well; probably not just Australia and Germany. I suppose they didn't wanna pay the licensing fee to IMAX Corp.


There are scenes with Karun, Kingo's valet, filming a documentary, whenever the film is being seen as filmed from the documentary camera, the film shrinks to 16:9 in a 2.39:1 frame, even in IMAX. This is similar to the MCU Spider-Man films.

Also, the YouTube movie The Internet and You (by Scott the Woz) changes aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 in some scenes. It is formatted differently between the original YouTube release and the limited VHS-only home video release. It is in a 16:9 container on the original YouTube release with the 4:3 scenes pillarboxed while the VHS release is in a 4:3 container with the 16:9 scenes letterboxed.
The VHS version can also be viewed on YouTube (but not on Scott's main channel and rather on his Scott's Stash subchannel) which opens with a brief history of the film and its VHS release including an unboxing, all in full 16:9 (though the 16:9 scenes in the film itself are still windowboxed within the 4:3 container).

Scott Wozniak's The Internet and You is true cinema. It is much more well-made and professional than most mainstream films and television shows here in the Philippines.



fatherom said:


> According to another poster, this is the case for Eternals:
> 
> *Today Disney released Eternals. With Atmos. And the IMAX Enhanced version actually has three aspect ratios. The few scenes that were 1.43 in Laser IMAX are full screen 1.78 here. Then there’s 1.9 and 2.39.*
> 
> For Spiderman films, I've watched the available imax versions several times, and I don't remember any pillarboxing. The AR is either 2.39:1 and then expands the top/bottom for the imax scenes, but I don't believe there's any 16:9 scenes pillarboxed within the 2.39 frame.


I'm pretty sure there was a vlog in Homecoming that was in pillarboxed 4:3 and a school project video in Far From Home that was in windowboxed 16:9 even in IMAX.


----------



## johnnyjunek

*IMAX


*


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Technology3456 said:


> Ah OK well that's different if it was a misunderstanding. Still, the documentary made it sound like Kubrick gave him so much work with all the fine details exactly like story boards... it's been too long since I saw the documentary to remember if they mentioned story boards specifically, but I recall it being many things like that things like that, that Vitali would work with it so much he would it all memorized by heart by the end of production for each film. So it's odd he wouldn't have seen the storyboards and remembered that what they said about the aspect ratio.
> 
> Which Kubrick films would you say are actually available now in the correct aspect ratio for home theater on 4K and bluray?


Barry Lyndon, Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove are all in their intended 1.66:1 aspect ratios. Barry Lyndon was in 16:9 on its first Blu-ray release but it has been fixed with the Criterion Blu-ray.
Dr. Strangelove did, however, have a variable aspect ratio on its fullscreen presentation on VHS, LaserDisc and the earliest DVDs. The film can go from 4:3 to 1.66:1.

Also, to argue for 16:9 in Kubrick's later films on home video, Kubrick wanted as little black bars as possible while not being cropped beyond his intended aspect ratio.
For the films he shot in 4:3 safe for 1.66:1/1.85:1, he would prefer them in open matte 4:3 (with a variable aspect ratio in Dr. Strangelove's case).
16:9 is the new TV standard and if he were still alive today, it is safe to say he would prefer the 16:9 home video presentation over a slightly letterboxed 1.85:1 presentation.
16:9 also opens up the 1.85:1 image by just a bit.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Also, to argue for 16:9 in Kubrick's later films on home video, Kubrick wanted as little black bars as possible while not being cropped beyond his intended aspect ratio.
> For the films he shot in 4:3 safe for 1.66:1/1.85:1, he would prefer them in open matte 4:3 (with a variable aspect ratio in Dr. Strangelove's case).
> 16:9 is the new TV standard and if he were still alive today, it is safe to say he would prefer the 16:9 home video presentation over a slightly letterboxed 1.85:1 presentation.
> 16:9 also opens up the 1.85:1 image by just a bit.


Kubrick's objection to black bars had mostly to do with the TV screen sizes available at the time. There's no telling if he still would have wanted his movies transferred "full-screen" (16:9) for HDTV, or if the larger screen sizes that are now available for home theater would have changed his position on the mild letterboxing to bring back their theatrical 1.85:1.


----------



## Technology3456

Hydra Spectre said:


> Barry Lyndon, Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove are all in their intended 1.66:1 aspect ratios. Barry Lyndon was in 16:9 on its first Blu-ray release but it has been fixed with the Criterion Blu-ray.
> Dr. Strangelove did, however, have a variable aspect ratio on its fullscreen presentation on VHS, LaserDisc and the earliest DVDs. The film can go from 4:3 to 1.66:1.
> 
> Also, to argue for 16:9 in Kubrick's later films on home video, Kubrick wanted as little black bars as possible while not being cropped beyond his intended aspect ratio.
> For the films he shot in 4:3 safe for 1.66:1/1.85:1, he would prefer them in open matte 4:3 (with a variable aspect ratio in Dr. Strangelove's case).
> 16:9 is the new TV standard and if he were still alive today, it is safe to say he would prefer the 16:9 home video presentation over a slightly letterboxed 1.85:1 presentation.
> 16:9 also opens up the 1.85:1 image by just a bit.


Thanks that helps a lot. As for Kubrick possibly preferring 16:9 for home video if he was alive today because of the black bars issue, people with "scope" screens, or 16:9 with masking, won't have any black bars at the top and bottom. Plus even the 16:9 TV market is going the way of OLED and other "true black" technologies so black bars may not be as much of an issue anymore for TV owners. They're only an issue when they're not actually black. Once they're black you may as well have a 2.35:1 TV for 2.35:1 movies, just smaller (but you can buy a bigger size to anticipate that). I would hope these classic releases are always released the way they were in theaters, and the way that is the best framing for the film itself, not the best framing within limitations of what displays most people own at home. If the film is available in "scope," it's always possible for people at home to change their displays, whereas if the film isn't available in "scope," there's nothing anyone can do about it. (I'm assuming you mean 16:9 cropped from a 2.35:1, rather than more added top and bottom. Either way though it's changing the framing). 

Maybe I should have phrased my question as which Kubrick releases are not available on physical media or at least streaming in the aspect ratio they were shown in theaters?


----------



## denimjunkie82

Looks like Dune is getting a 1.78:1 Blu-ray release. Anyone know anything about this?








Dune (hmv Exclusive) Limited Edition 4K Ultra HD Steelbook | 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray | Free shipping over £20 | HMV Store


Denis Villeneuve (Director) | Cale Boyter (Producer) | Joe Caracciolo Jr. (Producer) | Mary Parent ( Dune (hmv Exclusive) Limited Edition 4K Ultra HD Steelbook 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Free shipping over £20




store.hmv.com


----------



## nathan_h

I hope it’s true but I suspect copy editing error in the listing.


----------



## Philnick

Just received (via eBay) the 3D version of _Titanic, _which is bundled with a 2D Blu-ray and a digital code that lets you register it with either VUDU or iTunes.

While Blu-ray.com's tabular listing at the top suggests that the 3D is a variable aspect ratio film (by listing the film's aspect ratio as 1.78:1 and 2.39:1 on disk, 2.39:1 theatrically) it turns out that the 2D versions (disk and streaming) are constant 2.39:1 and the 3D version is a constant 1.78:1. In the text of the review they say that Cameron decided to open up the Super35 film to 1.78:1 for 3D.

Haven't yet watched it in my theater, but scanned through all three versions on my laptop with an external Blu-ray drive to verify their aspect ratios for my listing of films, which is a great convenience in my theater in deciding how to set my projector before starting a film (see my signature).


----------



## Josh Z

Titanic is on the list in post 1 under this heading:

*Movies that Played in IMAX Theaters with an Open-Matte Aspect Ratio (Entire Movie) and Are Open-Matte on Blu-ray or Ultra HD (and Some Streaming)* 

Titanic (3D only)


----------



## Josh Z

denimjunkie82 said:


> Looks like Dune is getting a 1.78:1 Blu-ray release. Anyone know anything about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dune (hmv Exclusive) Limited Edition 4K Ultra HD Steelbook | 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray | Free shipping over £20 | HMV Store
> 
> 
> Denis Villeneuve (Director) | Cale Boyter (Producer) | Joe Caracciolo Jr. (Producer) | Mary Parent ( Dune (hmv Exclusive) Limited Edition 4K Ultra HD Steelbook 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Free shipping over £20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> store.hmv.com





nathan_h said:


> I hope it’s true but I suspect copy editing error in the listing.


I'm sure that this is just a case of the person doing the data entry neglecting to update that field on the form template.


----------



## denimjunkie82

Josh Z said:


> I'm sure that this is just a case of the person doing the data entry neglecting to update that field on the form template.


This has probably been said already (I only followed this thread recently) but it seems like such a sad waste to film in more open ratios just to show it for a few weeks in the imax theater and then never be able to see it again. Same with 1917 and Blade Runner 2049 and I'm sure many others. Beautiful and breathtaking in IMAX (or even IMAX enhanced). And no way of seeing it at home.

At least marvel movies stream in IMAX enhanced format on D+. Too bad I'm not a big fan of MCU.


----------



## bud16415

denimjunkie82 said:


> This has probably been said already (I only followed this thread recently) but it seems like such a sad waste to film in more open ratios just to show it for a few weeks in the imax theater and then never be able to see it again. Same with 1917 and Blade Runner 2049 and I'm sure many others. Beautiful and breathtaking in IMAX (or even IMAX enhanced). And no way of seeing it at home.
> 
> At least marvel movies stream in IMAX enhanced format on D+. Too bad I'm not a big fan of MCU.


Quite a few agree with you.
Imagine if Scope movies were only shown full width in theaters and then pan n scan to fit TV on home media how upset people would get. Oh I forgot we tried that for a while and people were not happy and that was done to try and fill TV screens. In this case filling the screen is just a happy byproduct. Nothing chopped just getting the whole film area.
It is pretty illogical for a lot people I think.


----------



## Philnick

bud16415 said:


> Quite a few agree with you.
> Imagine if Scope movies were only shown full width in theaters and then pan n scan to fit TV on home media how upset people would get. Oh I forgot we tried that for a while and people were not happy and that was done to try and fill TV screens. _In this case filling the screen is just a happy byproduct. [Italics added]_ Nothing chopped just getting the whole film area.
> It is pretty illogical for a lot people I think.


Except for those who've set up systems that are scope-shaped, making the theatrical open ratio films - particularly those that have scope sections - an inconvenience for them - they either have to shrink them down to fit their screens vertically or have their projector block out the material above and below their screen ("vertical pan and scan"?). That, ironically, is why this thread was set up - to catalog where to find scope versions of open ratio films! 

My uncle was a cellist in an international string quartet based in Cincinnati, Ohio. One of the foreign members loved to collect and use American idioms, which he used correctly, though he often misheard the words. His most famous American idiom (famous in my family) was based on his mishearing of "To each his own" - which he, and now we, render as "The itch is on."

As to differing film aspect ratios and the presentation of them in home theaters, the itch is definitely on!


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Except for those who've set up systems that are scope-shaped, making the theatrical open ratio films - particularly those that have scope sections - an inconvenience for them - they either have to shrink them down to fit their screens vertically or have their projector block out the material above and below their screen ("vertical pan and scan"?). That, ironically, is why this thread was set up - to catalog where to find scope versions of open ratio films!
> 
> My uncle was a cellist in an international string quartet based in Cincinnati, Ohio. One of the foreign members loved to collect and use American idioms, which he used correctly, though he often misheard the words. His most famous American idiom (famous in my family) was based on his mishearing of "To each his own" - which he, and now we, render as "The itch is on."
> 
> As to differing film aspect ratios and the presentation of them in home theaters, the itch is definitely on!


I will agree but with one thought.

About 99.999% of media consumed at home is done so on 16:9 devices. I understand why some here a very small minority are invested in wanting to show a wider format when a wider and taller could be available. Anyone able to show scope plus IMAX in proper presentation with projection are even a smaller minority. I would guess in today’s world more people have 85” TV than projectors even.

The decision as to what goes on streaming or disc media I have to think is made with absolutely no thought given to projector users CIH or others. The directors and whomever else makes the decision I’m sure are aware how the vast number of paying customers will be viewing it, and I would assume it is on some kind of a 16:9 TV.

With that in mind I can only think of two reasons why the scope version is picked over the IMAX version. One whoever is in charge thinks it would look better on TV without the IMAX areas filled and black bars look better. Or for some business reasons giving us the IMAX content is not in the cards.
If it was the first reason I would think once in a while some directors that made a entire movie IMAX would say “ya know that looks good, give it to them.” other than only seeing it in expanding movies. We got one early on with Avatar so it can be done.
If it is the second reason could they be holding back making it a big deal when they do it like D+ and Marvel are doing. Marketing.
Like I always say time will tell.


----------



## mattsteg

flyers10 said:


> Going back and forth on whether to get a 2.4, a 16x9, or a 2.0 screen. Reading through this, with a film like Dunkirk, Dark Knight, etc is the movie completely unwatchable with a 2.4 screen? Or some parts are but most is not? Trying to grasp what I would be in for. I have no way to test out ahead of time.


Most films are certainly watchable. Most are even the way they were presented in most theaters. Some are "better" on a taller screen, some just different.

As long as space allows, get a screen that is WIDE enough to show 2.35:1 content at its maximum comfortable, most-immersive size, and TALL enough to view flat content at its maximum comfortable, most-immersive size.

CIH is a pretty good approximation of that for the majority (even vast majority) of content.

What this means is that whatever you do, DON'T go CIH if you cannot fit a "wide enough" screen (which mostly means a screen that is too short).

My normal recommendation is to size your screen for optimum 16:9 viewing, then make it wider to 2.35 (i.e. CIH)...If you can't make it wide enough to accomplish this then do NOT go CIH. After doing this revisit your height and decide if you want it even taller (either for VAR/imax films, for bumping up other content, etc.). And consider whether masking is important to you as well.

Just be sure not to end up with an undersized scope screen or too-narrow 16:9 screen.


----------



## flyers10

mattsteg said:


> Most films are certainly watchable. Most are even the way they were presented in most theaters. Some are "better" on a taller screen, some just different.
> 
> As long as space allows, get a screen that is WIDE enough to show 2.35:1 content at its maximum comfortable, most-immersive size, and TALL enough to view flat content at its maximum comfortable, most-immersive size.
> 
> CIH is a pretty good approximation of that for the majority (even vast majority) of content.
> 
> What this means is that whatever you do, DON'T go CIH if you cannot fit a "wide enough" screen (which mostly means a screen that is too short).
> 
> My normal recommendation is to size your screen for optimum 16:9 viewing, then make it wider to 2.35 (i.e. CIH)...If you can't make it wide enough to accomplish this then do NOT go CIH. After doing this revisit your height and decide if you want it even taller (either for VAR/imax films, for bumping up other content, etc.). And consider whether masking is important to you as well.
> 
> Just be sure not to end up with an undersized scope screen or too-narrow 16:9 screen.


Thanks. I have a fairly close seating position so with a 2.4 i'd can be about a 55.5 to 57.5 degree angle and would make the 16x9 around 42 to 44 degrees. I could fit the same width 16x9 screen but i can't handle a 55 to 57 angle with that extra height. The 2.0 might be bit big but not sure. Currently I've been used to a 43.5 angle on a 16x9 screen in my old room.


----------



## mattsteg

flyers10 said:


> Thanks. I have a fairly close seating position so with a 2.4 i'd can be about a 55.5 to 57.5 degree angle and would make the 16x9 around 42 to 44 degrees. I could fit the same width 16x9 screen but i can't handle a 55 to 57 angle with that extra height. The 2.0 might be bit big but not sure. Currently I've been used to a 43.5 angle on a 16x9 screen in my old room.


So it sounds like you'd effectively be moving from what you have now in a 16:9 screen to a 2.35 scope screen in a CIH sort of move, and that you like the (angular) size of your current screen. That's generally pretty close to ideal, and the smallest screen I would use.

Depending on the degree that you care about masking (and your interest in doing so), you "could" go with a taller screen but only use the extra height for things like VAR/IMAX films that are composed so that the extra height should be more in your peripheral (CIH+IMAX).

There's no rule that you MUST project 16:9 material to vertically fill your screen. You can project it shorter, and if you want set up masking and mask off a 2.0 or 16:9 screen to CIH 95% of the time.


----------



## nathan_h

bud16415 said:


> I will agree but with one thought.
> 
> About 99.999% of media consumed at home is done so on 16:9 devices. I understand why some here a very small minority are invested in wanting to show a wider format when a wider and taller could be available. Anyone able to show scope plus IMAX in proper presentation with projection are even a smaller minority. I would guess in today’s world more people have 85” TV than projectors even.
> 
> The decision as to what goes on streaming or disc media I have to think is made with absolutely no thought given to projector users CIH or others. The directors and whomever else makes the decision I’m sure are aware how the vast number of paying customers will be viewing it, and I would assume it is on some kind of a 16:9 TV.
> 
> With that in mind I can only think of two reasons why the scope version is picked over the IMAX version. One whoever is in charge thinks it would look better on TV without the IMAX areas filled and black bars look better. Or for some business reasons giving us the IMAX content is not in the cards.
> If it was the first reason I would think once in a while some directors that made a entire movie IMAX would say “ya know that looks good, give it to them.” other than only seeing it in expanding movies. We got one early on with Avatar so it can be done.
> If it is the second reason could they be holding back making it a big deal when they do it like D+ and Marvel are doing. Marketing.
> Like I always say time will tell.


I think the third reason is possibly that licensing the imax version may cost extra money.

And fourth: There is also an emerging aesthetic of black bars. I see directors using it as a another tool in their toolbox…..people like Wes Anderson who probably saw most classic Panavision movies on a letterboxed dvd the first time…… This is kind of like making movies in black and white today is something of an artificial choice but a clear artistic choice none the less, even though there is a full color container available (just like a full 1.78 screen is available) that the creator is choosing not to use for a conscious reason. 

——

And I agree that no one releasing movies for the home market is trying to accommodate CIH projection setups, much as I wish they might be! — since CIH is what I prefer when I have the space.


----------



## Philnick

PS Re: _Titanic 3D_ - I watched the first 45 minutes of it last night. I hadn't seen it for many years and had forgotten the details.

What a great film! The acting is good, the sets are convincing, the 3D works quite well, opening it up vertically adds to the immersion and "epic" feel - and it has an accurate star field, courtesy of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who had complained to Cameron at a dinner about the star field in the original film being wrong. 

The story Tyson tells is that when they were doing the re-release in 2012, he got a phone call from a technician who said, "Cameron says you have a sky for us."

The opening sepia "newsreel" footage of the great ship leaving the dock and everyone waving goodbye as a newsreel cameraman winds the crank on his camera repeats later in color and 3D, of course.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> I think the third reason is possibly that licensing the imax version may cost extra money.
> 
> And fourth: There is also an emerging aesthetic of black bars. I see directors using it as a another tool in their toolbox…..people like Wes Anderson who probably saw most classic Panavision movies on a letterboxed dvd the first time…… This is kind of like making movies in black and white today is something of an artificial choice but a clear artistic choice none the less, even though there is a full color container available (just like a full 1.78 screen is available) that the creator is choosing not to use for a conscious reason.
> 
> ——
> 
> And I agree that no one releasing movies for the home market is trying to accommodate CIH projection setups, much as I wish they might be! — since CIH is what I prefer when I have the space.


IMAX requiring some or too much money could well be the reason.

As to the idea black bars could be used as an aesthetic element I hadn’t thought of. I would think the aesthetic element would be the 3.39:1 image shape but you could be correct some directors like the appeal of the black bars. I see often 4:3 shown with rounded corners and slight curve and low resolution on purpose to create a TV period feeling why not scope as well. I know Anderson has gone both directions with black bars so that is likely it. The slight black bars with this new thing on TV going 2.0:1 is a little puzzling to me. Some call this Prestige TV and that might be playing on our feelings for black bars in a similar way. 
There were some TVs made to the 2.4:1 AR over the last few years and they didn’t catch on. Just think what if they did catch on and the TV industry adopted the 2.4:1 AR as the standard. We would then be getting the news and The View and game shows scope. It would in turn ruin the whole scope movie experience.


----------



## magi1500

I have to say - I kind of hate the Titanic open matte 3D version. Way worse than Avatar open matte. In Titanic, you’ve got shots with all this empty space above and below the image (especially above) that was so obviously never intended to be seen. The compositions are all so unbalanced and it feels unfinished. Sucks that this is probably the version we can expect someday in 4K. Guess I’ll be watching the old 2D Blu-ray forever. So at least I’ve got an option - unlike Avatar.

but that’s just me.


----------



## bud16415

magi1500 said:


> I have to say - I kind of hate the Titanic open matte 3D version. Way worse than Avatar open matte. In Titanic, you’ve got shots with all this empty space above and below the image (especially above) that was so obviously never intended to be seen. The compositions are all so unbalanced and it feels unfinished. Sucks that this is probably the version we can expect someday in 4K. Guess I’ll be watching the old 2D Blu-ray forever. So at least I’ve got an option - unlike Avatar.
> 
> but that’s just me.


Are you watching at IMAX immersion levels? If so the areas in question should be well into your upper and lower vision closer to how your eyes see normally during your non-movie watching life. When I have a conversation with another person there is a lot of my unused vision above their head that I never notice.
I will agree watching a scope or IMAX or 3D on a smaller screen than fully immersive is lacking that wow factor.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Are you watching at IMAX immersion levels?


You do not have an IMAX screen in your home, Bud.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> You do not have an IMAX screen in your home, Bud.


You are correct. What I do have is a screen that provides for variable aspect ratio movies on blu-ray as per the title of your thread. I never asked the OP if he had an IMAX screen in his home as well only if his immersion level was similar to IMAX immersion. That could be the case on a 32” TV and that is clearly not an IMAX screen.
Likewise that I do not have a 60’ tall IMAX screen at home you do not have a 40’ high commercial cinemascope screen in your home. So perhaps all this simulation of theater design at home is all false and we should ask the forum to just close down all talk of creating a theater experence within anyone’s home.


----------



## Josh Z




----------



## nathan_h

Perhaps more apropos would be to understand how Cameron came to the decision to release the IMAX framing on some films. Did he think any of us have IMAX immersion field of view ratios? Or was he just trying to get rid of black bars? Did he frame the IMAX to work on a tv sized screen?


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> Perhaps more apropos would be to understand how Cameron came to the decision to release the IMAX framing on some films. Did he think any of us have IMAX immersion field of view ratios? Or was he just trying to get rid of black bars? Did he frame the IMAX to work on a tv sized screen?


For Titanic, only the 3D version is open-matte. The 2D version that was released on Blu-ray simultaneously was in the 2.35:1 OAR. I believe Cameron's rationale was that he was hoping the open-matte image would help counteract the miniaturizing effect that 3D often has.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> Perhaps more apropos would be to understand how Cameron came to the decision to release the IMAX framing on some films. Did he think any of us have IMAX immersion field of view ratios? Or was he just trying to get rid of black bars? Did he frame the IMAX to work on a tv sized screen?


This same question could be asked of any of the directors making any of the IMAX movies that expand or not.

Josh has no idea of the answer or how 3D somehow shrinks the image. I have watched a lot of 3D and I don’t feel the image smaller. Immersive is immersive IMO. It could be people that want to watch a 3D movie are seeking more of an experence and that experence is quite similar to an IMAX experence.

Cameron actually spoke about Avatar and his reasoning for doing it on home releases and he’s a pretty smart guy so I assume he knows people would watch it on TV sets. He said he liked it better as the extra area made the flying feel more exciting and real. There is nothing in that space that couldn’t be cropped out but that doesn’t mean it has nothing to add.
If an IMAX image adds nothing and can be cropped or as some feel is even better cropped why make it in the first place. If I was a director I would hate to admit the movie that I made and told people to go see in IMAX and pay more is actually better in scope.


----------



## Philnick

magi1500 said:


> I have to say - I kind of hate the Titanic open matte 3D version. Way worse than Avatar open matte. In Titanic, you’ve got shots with all this empty space above and below the image (especially above) that was so obviously never intended to be seen. The compositions are all so unbalanced and it feels unfinished. Sucks that this is probably the version we can expect someday in 4K. Guess I’ll be watching the old 2D Blu-ray forever. So at least I’ve got an option - unlike Avatar.
> 
> but that’s just me.


"Who needs all those stars overhead, all that water, or that blue sky? What a waste of screen space!" Is that what you're saying?

And what about conveying the feeling of being in the middle of a huge ocean?

There's an aphorism about folks with that kind of attitude, "Don't cast your pearls before swine."

And it only makes the actors smaller if you've zoomed the projector down to make it fit on a scope screen.

That's why I call a screen limited to scope height a Procrustean bed.

PS How often have you gotten out of a city's light pollution to where you can actually see the stars?

They're actually very beautiful - even if they don't have any dialog to add to the plot.

Same with a beautiful blue sky or the ocean's waves. Can't waste screen space on them, can we?


----------



## Technology3456

bud16415 said:


> This same question could be asked of any of the directors making any of the IMAX movies that expand or not.
> 
> Josh has no idea of the answer or how 3D somehow shrinks the image. I have watched a lot of 3D and I don’t feel the image smaller. Immersive is immersive IMO. It could be people that want to watch a 3D movie are seeking more of an experence and that experence is quite similar to an IMAX experence.
> 
> Cameron actually spoke about Avatar and his reasoning for doing it on home releases and he’s a pretty smart guy so I assume he knows people would watch it on TV sets. He said he liked it better as the extra area made the flying feel more exciting and real. There is nothing in that space that couldn’t be cropped out but that doesn’t mean it has nothing to add.
> If an IMAX image adds nothing and can be cropped or as some feel is even better cropped why make it in the first place. If I was a director I would hate to admit the movie that I made and told people to go see in IMAX and pay more is actually better in scope.


If they shoot the whole movie for IMAX, especially if they put crucial info in the IMAX area but even if they don't, then seeing it in theaters in IMAX is definitely worth it at least to see that version once. But they barely ever do that. Whereas, the changing ratios can be annoying. But as long as it's not happening constantly then I can see the value. Whether it's better or not depends on the scene and people's preferences, but it's a nice option to have if you can have every option available without any tradeoffs (which is not realistic for most people). I'm guessing the big wave in Interstellar is better in IMAX than in scope, as one example, but the format is not being consistency used right now. Sometimes it's just used here and there as almost a gimmick, and whatever extra image info it adds is outweighed by the annoyance of constantly switching ratios, plus the fact that no crucial information is included in the IMAX framing.


----------



## Philnick

Technology3456 said:


> If they shoot the whole movie for IMAX, especially if they put crucial info in the IMAX area but even if they don't, then seeing it in theaters in IMAX is definitely worth it at least to see that version once. But they barely ever do that. Whereas, the changing ratios can be annoying. But as long as it's not happening constantly then I can see the value. Whether it's better or not depends on the scene and people's preferences, but it's a nice option to have if you can have every option available without any tradeoffs (_which is not realistic for most people_). I'm guessing the big wave in Interstellar is better in IMAX than in scope, as one example, but the format is not being consistency used right now. Sometimes it's just used here and there as almost a gimmick, and whatever extra image info it adds is outweighed by the annoyance of constantly switching ratios, plus the fact that _no crucial information_ is included in the IMAX framing._[Italics added.]_


The key phrase is "crucial information." There is, however, the director's and cinematographer's intended composition of the image - which can be set to convey feelings of scale - "how small we are."

There doesn't have to be activity essential to following the plot on every part of the screen for me to want to experience the intended composition of the filmmaker.

Sure, you're not going to lose track of the story cropping off the sky and sea - so why not just listen to the audiobook with the reading speed cranked up high? You'll still know what happened, but you won't feel like you were there.

And as far as the "not realistic for most people" comment goes, the need to keep the screen short to get the projector's widest image size goes applies only in rooms with low ceilings.

Has anyone ever done a survey on how many folks actually _need_ to use a scope screen to get their projector's widest image? I'm willing to bet that's _not_ most people..


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> The key phrase is "crucial information." There is, however, the director's and cinematographer's intended composition of the image - which can be set to convey feelings of scale - "how small we are."
> 
> There doesn't have to be activity essential to following the plot on every part of the screen for me to want to experience the intended composition of the filmmaker.


The "intended composition of the image," you say? Remind me, what aspect ratio was Titanic composed for?

Did Titanic play in IMAX theaters in 1997? No, it did not. IMAX theaters did not play Hollywood movies in 1997. Titanic played exclusively in 2.35:1 ratio in 100% of theaters worldwide.

Titanic was absolutely composed for 2.35:1. There is no ambiguity on that subject.

The change to open-matte 16:9 was only made for the 3D conversion many years after the fact. The film was never actually composed for 16:9.



bud16415 said:


> Josh has no idea of the answer or how 3D somehow shrinks the image. I have watched a lot of 3D and I don’t feel the image smaller. Immersive is immersive IMO.


You've allegedly watched a lot of 3D and never noticed how 3D often makes objects in the image look smaller and further away? Uh huh. Right. 

It took me all of three seconds on Google to find some scientific documentation of the problem.









Controlling Miniaturization in Stereoscopic 3D Imagery


Viewers of stereoscopic 3D imagery can perceive the absolute size of objects within a scene. On larger screens the perceptual size of objects commonly appears bigger than reality, which matches viewers' expectations for big-screen “larger than life” theatrical experiences. The geometry involved...



ieeexplore.ieee.org





_"The geometry involved in stereoscopic imaging can cause the perceptual size of objects to appear smaller than reality (“miniaturization”). Miniaturization can be distracting for viewers and is more extreme on smaller screens like 3DTV and handheld 3D devices. — A common misconception is that miniaturization occurs only when the stereo camera separation (interaxial) is larger than the human eye separation (interocular) 2.5 inches. Counter-examples of this misconception will be provided as well as an analysis framework that allows stereo-camera-operators to accurately predict when the miniaturization effect will on any screen size."_


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> The "intended composition of the image," you say? Remind me, what aspect ratio was Titanic composed for?
> 
> Did Titanic play in IMAX theaters in 1997? No, it did not. IMAX theaters did not play Hollywood movies in 1997. Titanic played exclusively in 2.35:1 ratio in 100% of theaters worldwide.
> 
> Titanic was absolutely composed for 2.35:1. There is no ambiguity on that subject.
> 
> The change to open-matte 16:9 was only made for the 3D conversion many years after the fact. The film was never actually composed for 16:9.
> . . .


And who made the change to open-matte? Some faceless beaurocrat against the wishes of James Cameron?

No, it was Cameron'own artistic decison - and the cinematographer who shot the original Super35 film that Cameron opened up the mattes on clearly framed it that way, since there aren't any boom mikes and light stands showing as a result of opening the mattes.

The only one trying to override Cameron's artistic vision for Cameron's film is you.

Ever heard of toxic fandom? Or the fans who said "George Lucas has ruined my childhood" when he released his prequel trilogy? Or who refuse to watch _Star Trek: Discovery_ and _Picard_ because they're different from the earlier Trek series?

The audience doesn't own these artistic creations - the ones who created them do.

"Life is change; how it differs from the rocks" _Crown of Creation_, The Jefferson Airplane.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> And who made the change to open-matte? Some faceless beaurocrat against the wishes of James Cameron?
> 
> No, it was Cameron'own artistic decison - and the cinematographer who shot the original Super35 film that Cameron opened up the mattes on clearly framed it that way, since there aren't any boom mikes and light stands showing as a result of opening the mattes.


Being _protected _for open-matte (so that the movie wouldn't look terrible in its later broadcast on TV, for which letterboxing was almost unheard of at the time) is not the same thing as being _composed _for open-matte. 

The film was composed for 2.35:1. That was its Original Aspect Ratio in all theaters worldwide.



> The only one trying to override Cameron's artistic vision for Cameron's film is you.


Only the 3D edition is open-matte. The 2D edition that Cameron supervised at the same time was 2.35:1.



> Ever heard of toxic fandom? Or the fans who said "George Lucas has ruined my childhood" when he released his prequel trilogy? Or who refuse to watch _Star Trek: Discovery_ and _Picard_ because they're different from the earlier Trek series?


Ever heard of filmmakers doing stupid things to retroactively change their old movies for no reason?


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> The "intended composition of the image," you say? Remind me, what aspect ratio was Titanic composed for?
> 
> Did Titanic play in IMAX theaters in 1997? No, it did not. IMAX theaters did not play Hollywood movies in 1997. Titanic played exclusively in 2.35:1 ratio in 100% of theaters worldwide.
> 
> Titanic was absolutely composed for 2.35:1. There is no ambiguity on that subject.
> 
> The change to open-matte 16:9 was only made for the 3D conversion many years after the fact. The film was never actually composed for 16:9.
> 
> 
> 
> You've allegedly watched a lot of 3D and never noticed how 3D often makes objects in the image look smaller and further away? Uh huh. Right.
> 
> It took me all of three seconds on Google to find some scientific documentation of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling Miniaturization in Stereoscopic 3D Imagery
> 
> 
> Viewers of stereoscopic 3D imagery can perceive the absolute size of objects within a scene. On larger screens the perceptual size of objects commonly appears bigger than reality, which matches viewers' expectations for big-screen “larger than life” theatrical experiences. The geometry involved...
> 
> 
> 
> ieeexplore.ieee.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The geometry involved in stereoscopic imaging can cause the perceptual size of objects to appear smaller than reality (“miniaturization”). Miniaturization can be distracting for viewers and is more extreme on smaller screens like 3DTV and handheld 3D devices. — A common misconception is that miniaturization occurs only when the stereo camera separation (interaxial) is larger than the human eye separation (interocular) 2.5 inches. Counter-examples of this misconception will be provided as well as an analysis framework that allows stereo-camera-operators to accurately predict when the miniaturization effect will on any screen size."_


Of course 3D makes objects look further away and some closer that is the point of 3D it cause real depth perception to be evoked. Adding back in the scope safe areas will not change how our eyes perceive depth perception as the two images are the same except where the scope safe areas are at and you have told us a million times they contain nothing of importance.
3D works best on larger screens and with higher immersions and having the open matte or the scope safe areas in play provides more background for the 3D to work within. Ironically there is 3D within 2D movies and the type of 3D I prefer it is done with camera work and DOF and the scope safe areas play a huge part in that as well. You would know this if you ever allowed yourself to watch that rather than hurry to crop it off.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> . . .
> You've allegedly watched a lot of 3D and never noticed how 3D often makes objects in the image look smaller and further away? Uh huh. Right.
> It took me all of three seconds on Google to find some scientific documentation of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling Miniaturization in Stereoscopic 3D Imagery
> 
> 
> Viewers of stereoscopic 3D imagery can perceive the absolute size of objects within a scene. On larger screens the perceptual size of objects commonly appears bigger than reality, which matches viewers' expectations for big-screen “larger than life” theatrical experiences. The geometry involved...
> 
> 
> 
> ieeexplore.ieee.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The geometry involved in stereoscopic imaging can cause the perceptual size of objects to appear smaller than reality (“miniaturization”). Miniaturization can be distracting for viewers and *is more extreme on smaller screens like 3DTV and handheld 3D devices*. — A common misconception is that miniaturization occurs only when the stereo camera separation (interaxial) is larger than the human eye separation (interocular) 2.5 inches. Counter-examples of this misconception will be provided as well as an analysis framework that allows stereo-camera-operators to accurately predict when the miniaturization effect will on any screen size." *[Bolding added]*_


Nonsense. Once again, you ignore the key statements in your quote: that the effect you're complaining of is most extreme on smaller screens like 3DTV and handheld 3D devices, and that the reverse is true on large screens:

"On larger screens the perceptual size of objects commonly appears bigger than reality, which matches viewers' expectations for big-screen "larger than life" theatrical experience."

Watching 3D movies projected 10'8" wide (the projector's 6 2/3% digital zoom to 11'4" is disabled during 3D display), the only things that might get smaller are objects in the distance, but all that really happens is that there are pairs of images displaced enough from each other to create the impression of distance.

I'm not using a "3DTV" or a "handheld device" but a "larger screen." Please spare us irrelevant quotes by actually reading your authorities before posting them.

And you've never responded to my observations about vertical pan and scan sacrificing the inherent beauty of star fields, large skies, and expanses of ocean - and their use to convey the idea of how small we are in the grand scheme of things.

Your devotion to "just the facts, maam" - the central area of the film - is the same approach that has made most attempts to film the Lewis Carrol _Alice in Wonderland_ stories fall flat - yeah, they've got the plot but not the poetry and the wordplay.


----------



## Josh Z

I know that you two love to argue just for the sake of arguing, but the "miniaturizing" effect 3D can have is perfectly evident even on 50-foot tall IMAX screens. Please don't pretend you've never noticed this.


----------



## cpc

What does all this mean for watching movies at home on a projector? Does this mean if I have zoomed a mostly 2.39:1 movie to fill my 2.39:1 screen, or used an anamorphic lens, sometimes the screen is going to expand vertically for certain scenes?


----------



## Philnick

cpc said:


> What does all this mean for watching movies at home on a projector? Does this mean if I have zoomed a mostly 2.39:1 movie to fill my 2.39:1 screen, or used an anamorphic lens, sometimes the screen is going to expand vertically for certain scenes?


What this all means is that when the film is not 2.39:1 but goes to 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 (or in the case of Wes Anderson, 1.37:1), there will be image that's above and below your 2.39:1 screen. Some folks here have the projector just mask off anything above and below 2.39:1 (the contemporary vertical version of "pan and scan"). Others zoom the lens down (manually or automatically) to make these sections fit on the screen, at the cost of shrinking the image. Still others simply look long and hard to find a version of the film that stays in 2.39:1 throughout, which is the principal reason Josh Z set up this thread.

Certainly don't spend time praising the films that change aspect ratio here - that will just rattle the denizens' cages and get you attacked.


----------



## nathan_h

cpc said:


> What does all this mean for watching movies at home on a projector? Does this mean if I have zoomed a mostly 2.39:1 movie to fill my 2.39:1 screen, or used an anamorphic lens, sometimes the screen is going to expand vertically for certain scenes?


Two different answers at least, depending on whether you use the zoom method or an anamorphic lens.

Zoom: You'll get overflow above and below unless you use blanking.
Anamorphic: Usually you will not see it at all (the extra expanded bits) unless you have a fancy system that detects the change to 16x9 and shrinks things to show it all, in the middle of your screen.

This is probably not the best thread for getting into more detail, since this is about the software (movies) rather than about how to handle things in ones setup?


----------



## Josh Z

cpc said:


> What does all this mean for watching movies at home on a projector? Does this mean if I have zoomed a mostly 2.39:1 movie to fill my 2.39:1 screen, or used an anamorphic lens, sometimes the screen is going to expand vertically for certain scenes?


If you have a 2.39:1 screen and you watch a typical 2.39:1 movie, the image will fill your screen appropriately. The black letterbox bars will either overspill onto your wall (if zooming) or be cropped off (if using an anamophic lens). In either case, it will look fine in a darkened room.

This very small handful of IMAX variable ratio movies are more problematic. If zooming, you will get image on your wall in some scenes. 










If your projector has a "Blanking" feature (many home theater models do), you can use that to turn those pixels into letterbox bars. *Most *of these IMAX VAR movies are photographed with that in mind and are safe to crop that way.

However, a very small subset of that handful of titles do not crop so well and may chop off characters' foreheads or something. In which case, you should reduce the zoom a little until it looks better to you. Or you can seek out another copy of the movie that doesn't have the variable aspect ratio. The Dark Knight movies, for example, are Variable Ratio on Blu-ray but are 2.35:1 Constant Height on HBO Max. 

If you have piles of disposable cash on hand that you're itching to part with, you can also consider buying a MadVR Envy video processor, which can automatically detect aspect ratio changes and shrink the 16:9 scenes to pillarbox them in the center of your 2.39:1 screen. That will most likely cost more than your projector did, though.


----------



## cpc

Thanks folks. I guess I am asking the obvious, but hopefully I don't come across a lot of movies like this. For now I will just keep the movie list in this thread and refer to it and the odd google search before I watch a movie I suspect may have variable aspect ratios.


----------



## Josh Z

cpc said:


> Thanks folks. I guess I am asking the obvious, but hopefully I don't come across a lot of movies like this. For now I will just keep the movie list in this thread and refer to it and the odd google search before I watch a movie I suspect may have variable aspect ratios.


The list in Post 1 is up to date. That's all of them.

As you can see, many of these movies have alternate 2.35:1 CIH versions available _somewhere_, either on disc or streaming.


----------



## cpc

Well I want to get the most of each movie I watch and I tend to want to see it all the way it's supposed to look according to the original release etc, but.... I am not a fan of these switching aspect ratios within the same movie. I don't like it at all. It's a pain when you do CIH. The closest thing to this issue I can remember is when special features on some dvd's were 16:9 or 4:3 when the movie was not. Some dvd players had an amazingly handy feature of auto-pillar boxing the image to the correct aspect ratio so you didn't have to change anything. Sounds like BD players and projectors don't help us do that especially when using CIH zooming or with a lens.


----------



## Josh Z

cpc said:


> Well I want to get the most of each movie I watch and I tend to want to see it all the way it's supposed to look according to the original release etc, but.... I am not a fan of these switching aspect ratios within the same movie. I don't like it at all. It's a pain when you do CIH.


There's a long discussion which has sequed into a fiery argument in another thread here, but the truth of it is that these movies are composed for multiple aspect ratios during production, and play as 2.35:1 in all theaters other than IMAX. The 2.35:1 CIH version is a fully legitimate viewing option. 

The variable ratio version is intended specifically for IMAX screens of 50-feet or more tall, which should exceed your field of vision. That effect cannot be replicated in the home.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> There's a long discussion which has sequed into a fiery argument in another thread here, but the truth of it is that these movies are composed for multiple aspect ratios during production, and play as 2.35:1 in all theaters other than IMAX. The 2.35:1 CIH version is a fully legitimate viewing option.
> 
> The variable ratio version is intended specifically for IMAX screens of 50-feet or more tall, which should exceed your field of vision. That effect cannot be replicated in the home.


Neither can the scope effect. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. A true scope screen would have to be a lot wider and taller than what any of us can fit in our homes.


----------



## fredworld

Josh Z said:


> There's a long discussion which has sequed into a fiery argument in another thread here, but the truth of it is that these movies are composed for multiple aspect ratios during production, and play as 2.35:1 in all theaters other than IMAX. The 2.35:1 CIH version is a fully legitimate viewing option.
> 
> The variable ratio version is intended specifically for IMAX screens of 50-feet or more tall, which should exceed your field of vision. That effect cannot be replicated in the home.





Philnick said:


> Neither can the scope effect. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. A true scope screen would have to be a lot wider and taller than what any of us can fit in our homes.


@Josh Z is correct and I, respectfully, disagree with @Philnick because there are many home theaters that replicate, very effectively, through projection method, seating distances, room lighting control and decor, the scope experience with their CIH screens.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> Neither can the scope effect. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. A true scope screen would have to be a lot wider and taller than what any of us can fit in our homes.


CinemaScope was not designed to exceed your field of vision. IMAX very specifically was.


----------



## bud16415

fredworld said:


> @Josh Z is correct and I, respectfully, disagree with @Philnick because there are many home theaters that replicate, very effectively, through projection method, seating distances, room lighting control and decor, the scope experience with their CIH screens.


This is true and I believe Phil was not really saying a scope experence could not be replicated at home as much as any shortcomings IMAX at home may have so will scope. Many people are building HT to include IMAX titles and they scale every bit as convincingly as scope.
When I walk into someone’s scope HT I don’t tell them this is not a real scope theater because your screen is not 40’ tall. Likewise if they have planned for an IMAX at home theater I wouldn’t expect a 60’ tall screen.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> CinemaScope was not designed to exceed your field of vision. IMAX very specifically was.


Are you serious?


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Are you serious?


CinemaScope was designed to fill your horizontal field of vision.

IMAX was designed to _exceed _your vertical field of vision.

*Filling *your field of vision and *exceeding *your field of vision are two different things. You are not meant to be able to see the entire IMAX picture at once. You should need to crane your neck way up to see the top of the IMAX screen (thereby no longer seeing the bottom of the screen at the same time). 

That is not how CinemaScope works. You should not need to swing your head side to side to see the entire scope image. It is very common in scope photography to frame two characters at opposite ends of the screen, or to have multiple characters spread out across the entire width of the frame. 

You should be able to see all of these characters at the same time without turning your head.










IMAX works on an entirely different principal, where the top of the frame falls beyond your sightline.










Of course, this has been explained to you many times before. I don't actually expect you to acknowledge or concede this point. Nonetheless, for the benefit of anyone who is not Bud or Phil, this is how the two formats actually work.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> CinemaScope was designed to fill your horizontal field of vision.
> 
> IMAX was designed to _exceed _your vertical field of vision.
> 
> *Filling *your field of vision and *exceeding *your field of vision are two different things. You are not meant to be able to see the entire IMAX picture at once. You should need to crane your neck way up to see the top of the IMAX screen (thereby no longer seeing the bottom of the screen at the same time).
> 
> That is not how CinemaScope works. You should not need to swing your head side to side to see the entire scope image. It is very common in scope photography to frame two characters at opposite ends of the screen, or to have multiple characters spread out across the entire width of the frame.
> 
> You should be able to see all of these characters at the same time without turning your head.
> 
> View attachment 3229755
> 
> 
> IMAX works on an entirely different principal, where the top of the frame falls beyond your sightline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, this has been explained to you many times before. I don't actually expect you to acknowledge or concede this point. Nonetheless, for the benefit of anyone who is not Bud or Phil, this is how the two formats actually work.


Yes you have explained it to many times and I understand what your point is.

For the benefit of all the other people reading the above explanation I will again point out the screen grabs Josh has posted show a screen grab Showing IMAX in its 1.43:1 IMAX theater framing. The neck craning places that are few and far between with the 70’ tall screens and the steep stadium seating. The IMAX we are all talking about are the IMAX movies we can view at home they are the IMAX 1.89:1 AR movies that are a little more wide screen than TV that is 1.77:1 or 16:9. They are the IMAX movies that come to us streaming or on disc and many people, well most people play on their TVs at home and a few of us watch projected. They are IMAX movies because they say IMAX on the case.

The IMAX movies of the 1960s-70s are not what we are talking about a couple directors each year make a movie in those formats and they play in the few places that still show them and depending on your vision and what seat you sit in they may well exceed your FOV. On the same note I can go to my mall cinema and sit in the front row and watch any movie they happen to be showing and also exceed my FOV.

These couple 1.43 movies made each year are also cropped to 1.89 and 2.39 at the very same time they are playing on the 70’ tall screens and shown more regular theaters in a lot more locations not requiring a chiropractor after watching to adjust your neck. These same 1.89 and 2.39 movies are then put out streaming and on disc for people to enjoy at home on TVs and a few of us with projectors.
I wont get into what is FOV and what is visual acuity within our FOV. Along with what is eye movement and comfortable eye movement. I will leave it up to all the people reading along to pop in any of these movies like Dunkirk and turn on your TV or projector and let us know if you find yourself with a sore neck and fatigue after watching IMAX 1.89 for a couple hours.


----------



## Philnick

Josh Z said:


> CinemaScope was not designed to exceed your field of vision. IMAX very specifically was.


Why do you never respond to my actual point - in this case, that you don't have an actual cinemascope screen any more than I have an actual IMAX screen?

Nor have you ever responded to my comparing the practice of having the projector mask off everything above and below the shape of a scope screen to the "pan and scan" practices of the past by calling it "vertical pan and scan."

You appear to be selectively deaf to any argument that you have no valid response to.

I've never heard you respond to such arguments fairly or at all.


----------



## Josh Z

Philnick said:


> Why do you never respond to my actual point - in this case, that you don't have an actual cinemascope screen any more than I have an actual IMAX screen?
> 
> Nor have you ever responded to comparing to having the practice of having the projector mask off everything above and below the shape of a scope screen to the "pan and scan" practices of the past by calling it "vertical pan and scan."


The scope experience can be recreated at home. It is possible to install a home theater screen that fills your horizontal field of vision.

The IMAX experience cannot be recreated at home. It is not possible to install a home theater screen that exceeds your vertical field of vision.

Cropping an IMAX VAR picture to 2.35:1 is not the same as "pan and scan" because these movies were explicitly photographed to be projected as 2.35:1 in all theaters other than IMAX. Both the IMAX VAR and CIH 2.35:1 are 100% legitimate versions of the movie. To the contrary, scope movies are not photographed to be cropped to 1.85:1 in non-scope theaters. You are trying to force an invalid comparison.



> You appear to be selectively deaf to any argument that you have no valid response to.
> 
> I've never heard you respond to such arguments fairly or at all.


Funny how you immediately clammed up when I deconstructed your "Bud didn't say slide shows were as important as IMAX" argument (in fact, that is exactly what he said).


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> The scope experience can be recreated at home. It is possible to install a home theater screen that fills your horizontal field of vision.
> 
> The IMAX experience cannot be recreated at home. It is not possible to install a home theater screen that exceeds your vertical field of vision.
> 
> Cropping an IMAX VAR picture to 2.35:1 is not the same as "pan and scan" because these movies were explicitly photographed to be projected as 2.35:1 in all theaters other than IMAX. Both the IMAX VAR and CIH 2.35:1 are 100% legitimate versions of the movie. To the contrary, scope movies are not photographed to be cropped to 1.85:1 in non-scope theaters. You are trying to force an invalid comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you immediately clammed up when I deconstructed your "Bud didn't say slide shows were as important as IMAX" argument (in fact, that is exactly what he said).


Huh I better let the SMPTE know that I have recreated IMAX1.89 immersion levels at home. Maybe apply for a patent on the concept of a big screen and close seating distance.

Oh dang IMAX already did that. For the small sum of $500,000 they will come to your house and build a theater and give it the IMAX rubber stamp of approval. I guess I can’t offer the stamp of approval, but for 50 bucks I will offer anyone the BudMAX seal of approval stating your screen size and seating distance is equal to that of some given row in an IMAX theater. For 40 bucks you can get the official BudMAX cert of scope experence seal of approval.
As to the issue of slide shows being as important as IMAX I don’t agree. In my family slide shows are more important than IMAX.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Huh I better let the SMPTE know that I have recreated IMAX1.89 immersion levels at home. Maybe apply for a patent on the concept of a big screen and close seating distance.


Geez, Bud, I thought you weren't telling people to sit closer for IMAX? Which is it today?

Can you see the entire screen without moving your head? If so, you don't have IMAX immersion.



> Oh dang IMAX already did that. For the small sum of $500,000 they will come to your house and build a theater and give it the IMAX rubber stamp of approval.


I can write "IMAX" in Sharpie on my phone and call it IMAX. Doesn't make it real IMAX, though.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Geez, Bud, I thought you weren't telling people to sit closer for IMAX? Which is it today?
> 
> Can you see the entire screen without moving your head? If so, you don't have IMAX immersion.
> 
> 
> 
> I can write "IMAX" in Sharpie on my phone and call it IMAX. Doesn't make it real IMAX, though.


What IMAX are we talking about? The one that is on a Nolan BD where the IMAX is the same width as scope. If it is that IMAX no seat moving is required as on a 150” screen the top and bottom only change by 9.5”. That small amount really doesn’t hurt my vision at all.
Please provide some documentation that says IMAX1.89 is supposed to exceed my FOV.


----------



## vila2k

Philnick said:


> in this case, that you don't have an actual cinemascope screen any more than I have an actual IMAX screen


In fact technically 'cinemascope' was designed to be projected with an anamorphic lens. 

Not a 16:9 projected image zoomed and cropped.


----------



## dschulz

vila2k said:


> In fact technically 'cinemascope' was designed to be projected with an anamorphic lens.
> 
> Not a 16:9 projected image zoomed and cropped.


That was true when movies were projected on film; in every commercial cinema in the world today modern Scope movies are projected without an anamorphic lens.


----------



## vila2k

dschulz said:


> That was true when movies were projected on film; in every commercial cinema in the world today modern Scope movies are projected without an anamorphic lens.


I haven't seen many current digital theaters describe themselves as cinemascope although Barco do have some digital projectors with a wider panels and beyond 4k resolution that they describe as such.

Nevertheless, language certainly evolves and its use is expanded just as 'Imax' now encompasses several aspect ratios and formats.


----------



## dschulz

vila2k said:


> I haven't seen many current digital theaters describe themselves as cinemascope although Barco do have some digital projectors with a wider panels and beyond 4k resolution that they describe as such.
> 
> Nevertheless, language certainly evolves and its use is expanded just as 'Imax' now encompasses several aspect ratios and formats.


You're right that the language has evolved. In commercial digital cinema there are two permitted aspect ratios for DCPs, Flat (1.85) and Scope (2.39). The packages are formatted and labelled as such. All DCI-compliant digital cinema projectors have a setting to select which aspect ratio is being projected.

The situation is not quite analogous to consumer media, where it is understood that there is an HD or UHD container with optional letterboxing or pillarboxing, which means the delivery ratio could be essentially anything. Although the DLP chip itself is a superset of both ratios (and IMAX uses the Full Container), Flat and Scope as ratios really are adhered to quite rigorously. A Scope DCP does not contain any letterbox bars, it contains only the Scope picture. This was done by the standards bodies quite deliberately.


----------



## bud16415

dschulz said:


> You're right that the language has evolved. In commercial digital cinema there are two permitted aspect ratios for DCPs, Flat (1.85) and Scope (2.39). The packages are formatted and labelled as such. All DCI-compliant digital cinema projectors have a setting to select which aspect ratio is being projected.
> 
> The situation is not quite analogous to consumer media, where it is understood that there is an HD or UHD container with optional letterboxing or pillarboxing, which means the delivery ratio could be essentially anything. Although the DLP chip itself is a superset of both ratios (and IMAX uses the Full Container), Flat and Scope as ratios really are adhered to quite rigorously. A Scope DCP does not contain any letterbox bars, it contains only the Scope picture. This was done by the standards bodies quite deliberately.


Does IMAX always use the full container for home media? I know some directors cut 16:9 from a 1.43:1 IMAX others use some kind of open matte to fill the sliver. Is some IMAX native 1.89:1 would they crop the sides to force 1.77:1?


----------



## vila2k

dschulz said:


> A Scope DCP does not contain any letterbox bars, it contains only the Scope picture.


Interesting stuff - if there are no letterbox bars and no lens is the projector is performing an anamorphic squeeze on the image to correct the aspect ratio then?


----------



## dschulz

bud16415 said:


> Does IMAX always use the full container for home media? I know some directors cut 16:9 from a 1.43:1 IMAX others use some kind of open matte to fill the sliver. Is some IMAX native 1.89:1 would they crop the sides to force 1.77:1?


Home media is in a sense always full container: 1920 x 1080 (or double that for UHD). I'm not sure what IMAX is doing for most of their IMAX Enhanced titles, although they seem to be pushing very hard on the "only IMAX fills your whole screen" idea, so I would imagine they mostly try to fill 1.77:1.


----------



## dschulz

vila2k said:


> Interesting stuff - if there are no letterbox bars and no lens is the projector is performing an anamorphic squeeze on the image to correct the aspect ratio then?


Anamorphic squeeze + lens is permitted in digital cinema, but in practice no one does it that way. The alternative, which is what CIH cinemas actually do, is to zoom the Scope image to fit the screen. The unused pixels on the DLP chip are not illuminated at all in a Scope presentation.

Intuitively one would think that 2048 x 858 pixels zoomed in to fill a 60 foot wide screen is simply not enough to provide a pleasing image, but it turns out that it is! One reason I am entirely fine with using the Zoom method for CIH home theatre.


----------



## dschulz

There is one use case in which anamorphic lenses are still used in cinemas today: that's how IMAX fills a 1.43:1 giant screen in the old-school IMAX houses that have converted to digital projection - they use a vertical anamorphic lens to expand the Full Container image to 1.43:1. In theory this means the 1.90 material (if any) is resolution compromised compared to what you'd see in a native 1.90 IMAX house, but I'm not sure whether or not that compromise is visible


----------



## FoLLgoTT

dschulz said:


> A Scope DCP does not contain any letterbox bars,


That's right. But the horizontal resolution stays (nearly) constant in DCP, too. 1.89:1 use the same 4096 horizontal resolution as 2.39:1. The lack of black bars is not relevant. The problem is that horizontal resolution stays constant and thus cinemascope has less pixels per inch than flat on a constant height screen. And flat must be downscaled or zoomed for constant height.


----------



## Philnick

FoLLgoTT said:


> That's right. But the horizontal resolution stays (nearly) constant in DCP, too. 1.89:1 use the same 4096 horizontal resolution as 2.39:1. The lack of black bars is not relevant. The problem is that horizontal resolution stays constant and thus cinemascope has less pixels per inch than flat on a constant height screen. And flat must be downscaled or zoomed for constant height.


If 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 (and 16x9, by the way) all have the same horizontal resolution in the source file (which is true for consumer Blu-ray and UHD as well), isn't that an argument for CIW?

Is it ok for scope to be enlarged further than the other formats, producing a lower projected resolution for scope than for flat? It's ok for scope to be wider, but not as sharp?

Shouldn't the others be shown at the same magnification so they're not sharper? 
Can't have scope be the least sharp format!


----------



## FoLLgoTT

Philnick said:


> It's ok for scope to be wider, but not as sharp?


Of course it is ok. Because it is not the relevant question. The right question should be: "What is intended to be larger?". And in this case the answer is simple: 2.4:1.

The data format is not really relevant. The current 16:9 format just makes it easier to project 2.4:1 smaller than 16:9. 25 years ago 16:9 was even smaller than 4:3, because the DVD and the panels were only in 4:3 format. But I'm not a person who let the technical progress dictate my home theater experience. 

Just take a look at the actors and how they become smaller and smaller with CIW. With CIH every format up to 2.4:1 just looks correctly sized on my screen (161" wide curved).


----------



## Philnick

I guess you didn't spot the ironic smiley icon at the end of my post.

I was just yanking the chain.


----------



## FoLLgoTT

Philnick said:


> I guess you didn't spot the ironic smiley icon at the end of my post.


Sorry, I din't got that.


----------



## nathan_h

FoLLgoTT said:


> Of course it is ok. Because it is not the relevant question. The right question should be: "What is intended to be larger?". And in this case the answer is simple: 2.4:1.
> 
> The data format is not really relevant. The current 16:9 format just makes it easier to project 2.4:1 smaller than 16:9. 25 years ago 16:9 was even smaller than 4:3, because the DVD and the panels were only in 4:3 format. But I'm not a person who let the technical progress dictate my home theater experience.
> 
> Just take a look at the actors and how they become smaller and smaller with CIW. With CIH every format up to 2.4:1 just looks correctly sized on my screen (161" wide curved).
> 
> View attachment 3232701
> 
> 
> View attachment 3232702


These are nice examples.

Quibble: even us diehard CIH fans aren't likely to do it, but your screen shot of the hateful8 shows that we should really build 2.76 screens and not 2.4 screens!

Warning: someone will bring up the awkward use of variable aspect ratio and IMAX enhanced, opinions which are not without merit, but demonstrate that no one solution is perfect for every use case -- so each of us needs to decide which compromise is the most acceptable (and some of that is based on what the room can accommodate).


----------



## Philnick

nathan_h said:


> These are nice examples.
> 
> Quibble: even us diehard CIH fans aren't likely to do it, but your screen shot of the hateful8 shows that we should really build 2.76 screens and not 2.4 screens!
> . . .


Wait for it: "Oh no, I don't want to shrink my 2.4:1 films to fit onto a 2.76:1 screen!"

But everything's supposed to be the height of the widest format, right? 

Can't let anything be bigger than the format whose filmmakers want it to be the biggest. 

Showing 2.76:1 on a 2.4:1 screen is like showing 2.4:1 on a 16x9 screen. It's -  - CIW!


----------



## nathan_h

I see what you did there


----------



## magi1500

Just a couple minor thoughts based on some of the above…

Flat DCPs do not have the same vertical (active) image as scope DCPs. In 4K, you’re looking at 3996 X 2160 (flat) versus 4096 X 1716 (scope). 

It is beyond the scope of this thread to keep track of the nichiest of the niche, but there is a video format that favors the scope version because the majority of their customers are CIH: Kaleidescape. They do their own encoding so they request the scope masters when available. They have full scope versions of several titles that were scope on commercial cinemas but VAR on 4K Blu-ray. Off the top of my head - Dark Knight and Star Trek Into Darkness are fully scope (not variable) on Kscape in 4K HDR. I know Kscape is not competitively priced. But their commitment to CIH is unmatched.


----------



## nathan_h

magi1500 said:


> Just a couple minor thoughts based on some of the above…
> 
> Flat DCPs do not have the same vertical (active) image as scope DCPs. In 4K, you’re looking at 3996 X 2160 (flat) versus 4096 X 1716 (scope).
> 
> It is beyond the scope of this thread to keep track of the nichiest of the niche, but there is a video format that favors the scope version because the majority of their customers are CIH: Kaleidescape. They do their own encoding so they request the scope masters when available. They have full scope versions of several titles that were scope on commercial cinemas but VAR on 4K Blu-ray. Off the top of my head - Dark Knight and Star Trek Into Darkness are fully scope (not variable) on Kscape in 4K HDR. I know Kscape is not competitively priced. But their commitment to CIH is unmatched.


Are you saying the 2.35 films on kscape have a higher vertical resolution than on other platforms?

More germane to this thread: Is kscape good about telling customers ahead of time about aspect ratios, etc.? 

While it is interesting and appealing for many people that they show a film like the Dark Knight in the theatrical 2.35 framing, what do they do with something like Grand Budapest Hotel? (If you tell me they send it natively in each aspect ratio, instead of letterboxing the 2.35 sections, my wallet is going to scream and go hide behind the sofa.)


----------



## magi1500

nathan_h said:


> Are you saying the 2.35 films on kscape have a higher vertical resolution than on other platforms?
> 
> More germane to this thread: Is kscape good about telling customers ahead of time about aspect ratios, etc.?
> 
> While it is interesting and appealing for many people that they show a film like the Dark Knight in the theatrical 2.35 framing, what do they do with something like Grand Budapest Hotel? (If you tell me they send it natively in each aspect ratio, instead of letterboxing the 2.35 sections, my wallet is going to scream and go hide behind the sofa.)


My comments about vertical resolution were about DCPs and not Kscape. I was replying to someone earlier in this thread that implied flat & scope DCPs had identical active image vertical resolution. That is incorrect.

Kaleidescape lists the aspect ratio for every movie on their store right alongside the audio and subtitles etc. It is still delivered in a 16:9 container with letterboxes or pillarboxes just like every other home video format. I don’t have Budapest but their website says 1.85.
And just to be clear - they’re not just cropping Star Trek Into Darkness to scope, for example. They have the scope framed master like most commercial cinemas had. The forced narrative texts are still in the frame (unlike the 4K Blu-ray that moves them down when it opens up to 1.78). And this is the 4K HDR version.


----------



## dschulz

Philnick said:


> Wait for it: "Oh no, I don't want to shrink my 2.4:1 films to fit onto a 2.76:1 screen!"
> 
> But everything's supposed to be the height of the widest format, right?
> 
> Can't let anything be bigger than the format whose filmmakers want it to be the biggest.
> 
> Showing 2.76:1 on a 2.4:1 screen is like showing 2.4:1 on a 16x9 screen. It's -  - CIW!


Well, I was watching Khartoum on a 2.40 screen and got to thinking how annoying the letterbox bars are, and after doing some research and finding there are at least 10 movies filmed in Ultra Panavision, and that a 2.76 screen only costs a couple of hundred bucks more than a 2.40 screen, and if I had a 2.76 screen I could run widescreeen racing simulators side-by-side for head-to-head racing I find myself thinking there's no real downside to a 2.76 screen...


----------



## Philnick

dschulz said:


> Well, I was watching Khartoum on a 2.40 screen and got to thinking how annoying the letterbox bars are, and after doing some research and finding there are at least 10 movies filmed in Ultra Panavision, and that a 2.76 screen only costs a couple of hundred bucks more than a 2.40 screen, and if I had a 2.76 screen I could run widescreeen racing simulators side-by-side for head-to-head racing I find myself thinking there's no real downside to a 2.76 screen...


As long as your 2.76:1 screen is as tall as your 2.40:1 screen presently is, and your projector has enough zoom left to fill it, go for it, since you've already decided that 1.85:1 and 16x9 films are tall enough already in your room.

I still think that you'd have the most flexibility if you made the new screen the width and height of the largest image your projector can throw. Then way you could show anything any size you consider appropriate.


----------



## fatherom

Philnick said:


> I still think that you'd have the most flexibility if you made the new screen the width and height of the largest image your projector can throw. Then way you could show anything any size you consider appropriate.


But most people don't project on a wall; they project on an actual screen. If you make the screen as large as your projector can throw, then you have to deal with all the masking situations, because (at least for me), black bars are noticeable on my screen.

Also, just because the projector CAN project an image as wide/tall as possible, that may not be the ideal image size to throw. Contrast, brightness, etc...it all comes into play when deciding throw distance and the size of the image you're projecting.


----------



## Philnick

fatherom said:


> But most people don't project on a wall; they project on an actual screen. If you make the screen as large as your projector can throw, then you have to deal with all the masking situations, because (at least for me), black bars are noticeable on my screen.
> 
> Also, just because the projector CAN project an image as wide/tall as possible, that may not be the ideal image size to throw. Contrast, brightness, etc...it all comes into play when deciding throw distance and the size of the image you're projecting.


So size your projected image to what you consider appropriate, knowing that you have the ability to show a larger image in your back pocket for when you want to use it. 

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.


----------



## Josh Z

magi1500 said:


> It is beyond the scope of this thread to keep track of the nichiest of the niche, but there is a video format that favors the scope version because the majority of their customers are CIH: Kaleidescape. They do their own encoding so they request the scope masters when available. They have full scope versions of several titles that were scope on commercial cinemas but VAR on 4K Blu-ray. Off the top of my head - Dark Knight and Star Trek Into Darkness are fully scope (not variable) on Kscape in 4K HDR. I know Kscape is not competitively priced. But their commitment to CIH is unmatched.


I don't think this is unique to Kaleidescape. Most streaming services that carry these movies have the letterboxed CIH versions. 

The Dark Knight movies are 2.35:1 CIH on HBO Max. Star Trek into Darkness is 2.35:1 CIH on Paramount+ and on VUDU.


----------



## magi1500

Josh Z said:


> I don't think this is unique to Kaleidescape. Most streaming services that carry these movies have the letterboxed CIH versions.
> 
> The Dark Knight movies are 2.35:1 CIH on HBO Max. Star Trek into Darkness is 2.35:1 CIH on Paramount+ and on VUDU.


True. But I wasn’t really counting streaming because of the compression.
But Kscape have also stated specifically that their preference is the Scope master because that’s what their customer base prefers.

I’m still a physical media first guy. But Star Trek Into Darkness is an example where I use K over physical media because I want the 4K Blu’s quality with the scope image used in most commercial cinemas.

I realize some folks use this thread to find out where they can get the VAR versions. But I use it to confirm the opposite.


----------



## cricket9998

This may be a stupid question but if I play interstellar which switches between 2.4 and 16:9 (or so), how do I optimize my 2.4:1 screen? Or should I watch it on my 16:9 screen? I have both but the 16:9 is ALR so not as nice as the scope. 

And depending on the answer I may sell it and buy a better 16:9 screen. I would love if I could use the scope’s full area and automatically adjust when it goes 16:9, but seems like I can only choose one for variable aspect movies.


----------



## bud16415

cricket9998 said:


> This may be a stupid question but if I play interstellar which switches between 2.4 and 16:9 (or so), how do I optimize my 2.4:1 screen? Or should I watch it on my 16:9 screen? I have both but the 16:9 is ALR so not as nice as the scope.
> 
> And depending on the answer I may sell it and buy a better 16:9 screen. I would love if I could use the scope’s full area and automatically adjust when it goes 16:9, but seems like I can only choose one for variable aspect movies.


The movie switches between IMAX and scope and the IMAX parts should be shown as wide as scope and taller. Of course with a 3.35:1 screen that is imposable to do.

These movies are filmed in a manner to be scope safe as they played in scope theaters cropped down from IMAX. Because of that many people don’t mind cropping the movie at home. Others myself included don’t like to do that as we feel there is some importance in seeing the full frame and we size our 16:9 screen for a presentation method I call CIH+IMAX. Some people feel the need to add top and bottom masking for scope films others are not as bothered by the projected black bars. That depends on the person, screen and projector.
A case is often made that of all the movies made these expanding movies and IMAX in general make up a small amount of the total movies. That is true and the number is slowly growing. There are other benefits of a screen sized like that and there is a thread running now where we are discussing the pros and cons.


----------



## Dennis.Mitchell

bud16415 said:


> …there is a thread running now where we are discussing the pros and cons.


Which thread are you referring to?


----------



## bud16415

Dennis.Mitchell said:


> Which thread are you referring to?











General "Why Should (or Shouldn't) I Do...


I often find that other threads on this site get sidetracked with discussion (or arguments) about Constant Height. Rather than continue to derail those threads from their original intended topics, I thought it would be useful to create a more appropriate thread in the CIH forum to move the...




www.avsforum.com





This topic along with other methods of presentation often become controversial. I don't really understand why. So Josh started a thread to have the talk rather than having it mixed into many threads.


----------



## cricket9998

bud16415 said:


> The movie switches between IMAX and scope and the IMAX parts should be shown as wide as scope and taller. Of course with a 3.35:1 screen that is imposable to do.
> 
> These movies are filmed in a manner to be scope safe as they played in scope theaters cropped down from IMAX. Because of that many people don’t mind cropping the movie at home. Others myself included don’t like to do that as we feel there is some importance in seeing the full frame and we size our 16:9 screen for a presentation method I call CIH+IMAX. Some people feel the need to add top and bottom masking for scope films others are not as bothered by the projected black bars. That depends on the person, screen and projector.
> A case is often made that of all the movies made these expanding movies and IMAX in general make up a small amount of the total movies. That is true and the number is slowly growing. There are other benefits of a screen sized like that and there is a thread running now where we are discussing the pros and cons.


What do I need to set up to do CIH+IMAX?


----------



## Josh Z

cricket9998 said:


> What do I need to set up to do CIH+IMAX?


You would need an oversized 16:9 screen, which would you apply masking to in order to use it as 2.35:1 CIH for the majority of your viewing. You'd remove the masking and expose the full height of the screen only for IMAX content.

Alternately, if you projector has a "Blanking" feature, you can adjust that to black out the pixels on the top and bottom of the image, turning them into letterbox bars, and then watch it the same as you would any other 2.35:1 movie. 

Interstellar played as 2.35:1 CIH in all theaters other than IMAX. The photography is composed to be safe for this. I have watched the Blu-ray this way at home, and there was not even one second of footage in the whole thing that looked like it was missing anything.


----------



## cricket9998

Josh Z said:


> You would need an oversized 16:9 screen, which would you apply masking to in order to use it as 2.35:1 CIH for the majority of your viewing. You'd remove the masking and expose the full height of the screen only for IMAX content.
> 
> Alternately, if you projector has a "Blanking" feature, you can adjust that to black out the pixels on the top and bottom of the image, turning them into letterbox bars, and then watch it the same as you would any other 2.35:1 movie.
> 
> Interstellar played as 2.35:1 CIH in all theaters other than IMAX. The photography is composed to be safe for this. I have watched the Blu-ray this way at home, and there was not even one second of footage in the whole thing that looked like it was missing anything.


Thanks that makes sense. My 2.4 screen is 12% larger in area but 6 inches shorter. If I were to use it as my primary screen, would I really notice that 6 inch deficit in height? It’s 157”


----------



## bud16415

cricket9998 said:


> Thanks that makes sense. My 2.4 screen is 12% larger in area but 6 inches shorter. If I were to use it as my primary screen, would I really notice that 6 inch deficit in height? It’s 157”


The director of Interstellar thought it important enough to include the IMAX expansions in the home release of his movie even though he could have made it all 2.40 as many directors do with scope safe releases of movies that played in IMAX. I happen to agree with the director the content is visually worth it that way, thus the reason I suggest CIH+IMAX sized screen.
As to your screen sizes and ARs and what screen and immersion will suit your needs best. That is really hard for us to decide as it is a personal choice. Many here will tell you that if your 2.40 screen is correct for you for scope movies then your 16:9 screen is overly large in comparison. I say it is a personal choice based what you like to watch on each screen and how it feels right for your needs.


----------



## Philnick

cricket9998 said:


> Thanks that makes sense. My 2.4 screen is 12% larger in area but 6 inches shorter. If I were to use it as my primary screen, would I really notice that 6 inch deficit in height? It’s 157”


I'm a believer in using a screen area large enough for any image your projector can throw, so you have the capability in your back pocket to see the full images of any film. As long as scope films are being seen as large as they would on a scope-shaped screen, nothing is lost and flexibility is gained.


----------



## nathan_h

Apropos the title of this thread, Tick Tick Boom on Netflix is CIH safe. The few sections that are less wide than the main feature’s 235 aspect ratio all fall within the 235 image area with pillarboxing on the sides.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Netflix's Adam by Eve: A Live In Animation is mostly in 2.35:1 but has some scenes in 16:9 windowboxed within the 2.35:1 frame (according to the trailer).
Pixar's Turning Red is mostly in 1.85:1 but it has some scenes pillarboxed to 4:3 (according to a Canadian TV spot).


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Netflix's Adam by Eve: A Live In Animation is mostly in 2.35:1 but has some scenes in 16:9 windowboxed within the 2.35:1 frame (according to the trailer).


I don't know what to make of this one. This trailer is nutso. I'm not sure that split-second flashes of what look to be camcorder POV shots really count at "variable aspect ratio" for the purposes of this list. Probably depends on how extensively that footage is used in the movie. 






I'm impressed that you were even able to catch something like this.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Pixar's Turning Red is mostly in 1.85:1 but it has some scenes pillarboxed to 4:3 (according to a Canadian TV spot).


Do you have a link to this? Not seeing it in the regular trailers.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Josh Z said:


> Do you have a link to this? Not seeing it in the regular trailers.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


>


OK, thanks. I've added it to the list, but I'll be honest that I don't how I feel about movies with brief camcorder POV shots like this.


----------



## Josh Z

I've received confirmation that the Japanese 3D edition of Eternals is 2.35:1 CIH, just like the 2D Blu-ray and Ultra HD. This means that the only way to watch the VAR version is on Disney+.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Pixar's Turning Red is mostly in 1.85:1 but it has some scenes pillarboxed to 4:3 (according to a Canadian TV spot).


I watched Turning Red with the kids over the weekend. The movie is 1.85:1, with maybe 15 seconds of POV footage from a camcorder that's shown pillarboxed to 4:3.

I struggle with things like this. At the moment, I'm feeling that this is not meaningfully "VAR" and I've removed it from the list. However, I am open to discussion if someone feels strongly about it.


----------



## nathan_h

Josh Z said:


> I watched Turning Red with the kids over the weekend. The movie is 1.85:1, with maybe 15 seconds of POV footage from a camcorder that's shown pillarboxed to 4:3.
> 
> I struggle with things like this. At the moment, I'm feeling that this is not meaningfully "VAR" and I've removed it from the list. However, I am open to discussion if someone feels strongly about it.


The only reason I feel strongly about it is in an otherwise 235 movies where I suppose some filmmakers might have opened up the 4:3 content to be taller than the 235 content....which would be something I would want to know.


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> The only reason I feel strongly about it is in an otherwise 235 movies where I suppose some filmmakers might have opened up the 4:3 content to be taller than the 235 content....which would be something I would want to know.


Right, anything the "breaks" CIH like that will definitely go on the list. 

In this case, the brief 4:3 footage is windowboxed within the 1.85:1 container, maintaining constant top and bottom framelines. The only reason to put it on the list (and it would go in post 2) would be for trivia purposes. But even then, this one hardly seems worth including.


----------



## nathan_h

Easier to include it than try to decide on each gray area case?


----------



## Josh Z

nathan_h said:


> Easier to include it than try to decide on each gray area case?


I'd kind of like to keep the lists to a manageable length, if possible.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Finding 'Ohana on Netflix is mostly in 1.85:1 but goes to 2.35:1 for flashback scenes.

Also, I'm not sure if this should count but Plan 9 From Outer Space was shot in 1.37:1 with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio in mind.
However, the film uses a lot of pre-widescreen stock footage which was shot in 1.37:1 and would look too cramped in 1.85:1.
Ideally, the film would have to be presented in a variable aspect ratio going between 1.37:1 and 1.85:1, since presenting the film in open matte 4:3/1.37:1 shows obvious studio equipment.

The film, however, is usually presented in 1.37:1, even in the Blu-ray release. And I don't think a variable aspect ratio release exists anywhere.
There is, however, a 1.85:1 matted print airing on Turner Classic Movies where the stock footage has been adjusted to fit better within the shorter aspect ratio.

One can feel free to make a variable aspect ratio version since the film is in the public domain.


----------



## bud16415

I really don’t have reason to comment to this thread as I use a presentation method that accommodates the changing without issue. I believe the list was started to give advance warning to those with scope screens when the movie was one that would somehow go outside that frame. Mainly IMAX movies and allow the home projectionist to make the adjustments required to show all movies scope safe.

Some of us that enjoy movies going outside the box use the list to identify movies when we might want to lift our CIH+IMAX masking in advance, although if the whole movie was intended as IMAX it wouldn’t be on the list so we mostly know by reading reviews what’s coming along and how it was intended to be presented. We know what was shown in IMAX theaters and wonder how we will get it at home so we look to see if it is on the list. Just because a movie jumps to scope doesn’t mean it is intended to be IMAX when it is full screen.

I think it is fine to keep track of all the obscure movies where the director feels the need to play with ARs, but when it is happening within the CIH frame it really has little to do with adjusting presentation and just a cataloging endeavor.
With time and digital abilities I doubt this stuff will only continue to grow the number of movies with some kind of AR shifting going on. The list might get pretty long.


----------



## dschulz

Josh Z said:


> Right, anything the "breaks" CIH like that will definitely go on the list.
> 
> In this case, the brief 4:3 footage is windowboxed within the 1.85:1 container, maintaining constant top and bottom framelines. The only reason to put it on the list (and it would go in post 2) would be for trivia purposes. But even then, this one hardly seems worth including.


I'm on team "not on the list." Shifting screen area within a constant presentation aspect ratio doesn't count as VAR, IMO. No one watching Turning Red would adjust their masking or zoom in or out or anything.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Disney's Fantasia 2000 is in a 16:10 aspect ratio (matted to 1.85:1 for standard cinemas and DVD; presented in 16:10 in IMAX and cropped to 16:9 on Blu-ray) but is pillarboxed to 4:3 for The Sorcerer's Apprentice segment, which returns from Fantasia (1940).

This actually gave me a bit of weirdness when I was a kid and The Sorcerer's Apprentice was in a much smaller resolution in my 4:3 CRT when viewing Fantasia 2000 than when I saw Fantasia 1940 (which filled up the whole TV) or the rest of the film (which was letterboxed to 1.85:1).

Also, The Incredibles opens in 4:3 before expanding to 2.35:1.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Hideaki Anno's Love & Pop (his very first live action film and made in a shoestring budget despite being made on the coattails of Evangelion's surprise blockbuster success) not only switches aspect ratios, but also framerates.
The film is mostly 4:3 HFR 60fps (when properly deinterlaced) shot on digital SD video but there is an end credit sequence in 1.75:1 24fps shot on 35mm film. The film is contained within a 16:9 container and the film expands whenever it goes to a 1.75:1 aspect ratio.
There are also some other widescreen scenes spread throughout the film.

I haven't seen the film in a long time and I cannot recall if the widescreen scenes were shot on film or on video. It is quite easy to tell them apart since the film scenes are 24fps while the video scenes are HFR 60fps.
I will give updates soon.

The film had the framerate reduced to 24fps and the full 60fps motion would only be restored for the Japanese Director's Cut DVD and the Blu-ray upscale.

The changes between film format (if the aspect ratio changes as well) should be mentioned like in Brainstorm. In that film, the 2.35:1 scenes are shot in 70mm while the 1.66:1 scenes are shot in 35mm.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Hideaki Anno's Love & Pop (his very first live action film and made in a shoestring budget despite being made on the coattails of Evangelion's surprise blockbuster success) not only switches aspect ratios, but also framerates.
> The film is mostly 4:3 HFR 60fps (when properly deinterlaced) shot on digital SD video but there is an end credit sequence in 1.75:1 24fps shot on 35mm film. The film is contained within a 16:9 container and the film expands whenever it goes to a 1.75:1 aspect ratio.


Is it 1.75:1 or 1.85:1? IMDb says 1.85:1, but those specs aren't always accurate.


----------



## Josh Z

Added _Everything Everwhere All at Once_ to post 2.


----------



## Danchu

Spider-man: No Way Home is confirmed to be in IMAX ratio in Bravia Core streaming (and presumably other IMAX Enhanced-enabled services).


----------



## dschulz

Danchu said:


> Spider-man: No Way Home is confirmed to be in IMAX ratio in Bravia Core streaming (and presumably other IMAX Enhanced-enabled services).


Is it in the theatrical IMAX ratio of 1.90:1, or is it full-screen 16:9?


----------



## darknut

Kill Bill Volume 2 changes aspect ratio to 4:3 when she is captured and before she is buried.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Lightyear would be the first animated film to have an expanded aspect ratio in IMAX.
And this is not just opening up the negative from 1.85:1 to 1.60:1 like with Disney's CAPS IMAX releases, but full on opening from 2.39:1 to 1.43:1.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness will also be fully in 1.90:1 in IMAX.
Thor: Love and Thunder, however, would not be fully in IMAX, even if the film was shot entirely with IMAX cameras.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Lightyear would be the first animated film to have an expanded aspect ratio in IMAX.
> And this is not just opening up the negative from 1.85:1 to 1.60:1 like with Disney's CAPS IMAX releases, but full on opening from 2.39:1 to 1.43:1.


Where you did hear about this? IMDb currently claims:



Aspect Ratio  1.90 : 1 (IMAX Version: some scenes) 
2.39 : 1


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Josh Z said:


> Where you did hear about this? IMDb currently claims:
> 
> 
> 
> Aspect Ratio 1.90 : 1 (IMAX Version: some scenes)
> 2.39 : 1











Lightyear In IMAX Will Feature 1.43:1 Aspect Ratio Scenes


It has been revealed the upcoming Disney Pixar movie Lightyear, which gives the backstory behind the much-loved hero from the Toy Story series, will be presented in IMAX 1.43:1 aspect ratio; the first animation ever to be created specifically for this format.




www.forbes.com












Pixar Created a Fully Virtual IMAX Camera to Shoot Lightyear


Pixar Animation Studios has long been at the forefront of groundbreaking innovations for animated [...]




comicbook.com


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Lightyear In IMAX Will Feature 1.43:1 Aspect Ratio Scenes
> 
> 
> It has been revealed the upcoming Disney Pixar movie Lightyear, which gives the backstory behind the much-loved hero from the Toy Story series, will be presented in IMAX 1.43:1 aspect ratio; the first animation ever to be created specifically for this format.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pixar Created a Fully Virtual IMAX Camera to Shoot Lightyear
> 
> 
> Pixar Animation Studios has long been at the forefront of groundbreaking innovations for animated [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comicbook.com


OK, thanks. It seems as though the movie is still variable ratio scene-to-scene, not open matte for the entire movie.



> Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness will also be fully in 1.90:1 in IMAX.


Recent TV ads have suggested that some scenes in this movie will be 2.35:1 with frame-breaking effects in the letterbox bars. If anyone goes to see this in IMAX, please report back here as to how it's actually presented. Thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

I've received confirmation from someone who watched Doctor Strange 2 in IMAX that the entire movie is open-matte there.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

It looks like Disney is planning on releasing non-Marvel Studios IMAX Enhanced movies on Disney+ since they mentioned Lightyear might be released in IMAX Enhanced.
I really hope they release the following:
- Alien: Covenant (variable aspect ratio, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+ Star; Russian torrents exist in 16:9)
- Alita: Battle Angel (variable aspect ratio, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+)
- Avatar (Open Matte 16:9 in IMAX and home video, no 4K HDR release but one is in the works)
- Beauty and the Beast (1991) (IMAX Special Extended Edition was presented in open matte 1.66:1, the Platinum Edition DVD was 1.85:1 and future releases on Blu-ray 2D, 3D, 4K UHD and Disney+ are 16:9)
- Beauty and the Beast (2017) (Open Matte 1.90:1 in IMAX, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+; Russian torrents exist in 16:9])
- Fantasia 2000 (premiered in IMAX in open matte 1.66:1, the Disney+ stream is not in 4K HDR and is cropped to 16:9)
- Inhumans (the first two episodes were shot in IMAX and played at IMAX cinemas, but the TV versions were cropped to 16:9 and not 1.90:1)
- The Lion King (1991) (IMAX Special Edition was presented in open matte 1.66:1, this version is on the Platinum Edition DVD but future releases only have a visually tweaked version of the original theatrical cut that is cropped to 16:9)
- Nomadland (Open Matte 1.90:1 in IMAX, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+ Star)
- Prometheus (Open Matte 1.66:1 in IMAX, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+ Star; Russian torrents exist in 16:9)
- Star Wars: The Force Awakens (variable aspect ratio, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+)
- Titanic (open matte 16:9 in IMAX 3D, no open matte 2D release and no 4K HDR release; Disney has international rights while Paramount has the domestic rights)
- Treasure Planet (shown in IMAX in open matte 1.66:1, the Blu-ray and Disney+ streams are also open matte 1.66:1 but there is no 4K HDR)
- TRON: Legacy (IMAX variable aspect ratio on Disney+ but no 4K HDR)
- The Young Black Stallion (filmed in IMAX 70mm and only released in IMAX, not available on Blu-ray but available in a 4:3 DVD; hoping Disney releases it in Disney+ in 4K with a 1.43:1 aspect ratio)


----------



## Philnick

I have a few of those on 3D Blu-rays, and can add a few details:

_Avatar 3D_ is 16x9 throughout.
The 3D versions of the entire _Star Wars_ sequel trilogy are in scope.
_Tron Legacy 3D_ is VAR.

PS _Titanic 3D_ is in 16x9 and is beautiful. Since it's an older movie shot on film, I'm amazed that they were able to make such a flawless conversion so many decades later.


----------



## nathan_h

Hydra Spectre said:


> It looks like Disney is planning on releasing non-Marvel Studios IMAX Enhanced movies on Disney+ since they mentioned Lightyear might be released in IMAX Enhanced.
> I really hope they release the following:
> 
> Alien: Covenant (variable aspect ratio, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+ Star; Russian torrents exist in 16:9)
> Alita: Battle Angel (variable aspect ratio, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+)
> Avatar (Open Matte 16:9 in IMAX and home video, no 4K HDR release but one is in the works)
> Beauty and the Beast (1991) (IMAX Special Extended Edition was presented in open matte 1.66:1, the Platinum Edition DVD was 1.85:1 and future releases on Blu-ray 2D, 3D, 4K UHD and Disney+ are 16:9)
> Beauty and the Beast (2017) (Open Matte 1.90:1 in IMAX, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+; Russian torrents exist in 16:9])
> Fantasia 2000 (premiered in IMAX in open matte 1.66:1, the Disney+ stream is not in 4K HDR and is cropped to 16:9)
> Inhumans (the first two episodes were shot in IMAX and played at IMAX cinemas, but the TV versions were cropped to 16:9 and not 1.90:1)
> The Lion King (1991) (IMAX Special Edition was presented in open matte 1.66:1, this version is on the Platinum Edition DVD but future releases only have a visually tweaked version of the original theatrical cut that is cropped to 16:9)
> Nomadland (Open Matte 1.90:1 in IMAX, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+ Star)
> Prometheus (Open Matte 1.66:1 in IMAX, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+ Star; Russian torrents exist in 16:9)
> Star Wars: The Force Awakens (variable aspect ratio, CinemaScope only on Blu-ray and Disney+)
> Titanic (open matte 16:9 in IMAX 3D, no open matte 2D release and no 4K HDR release; Disney has international rights while Paramount has the domestic rights)
> Treasure Planet (shown in IMAX in open matte 1.66:1, the Blu-ray and Disney+ streams are also open matte 1.66:1 but there is no 4K HDR)
> TRON: Legacy (IMAX variable aspect ratio on Disney+ but no 4K HDR)
> The Young Black Stallion (filmed in IMAX 70mm and only released in IMAX, not available on Blu-ray but available in a 4:3 DVD; hoping Disney releases it in Disney+ in 4K with a 1.43:1 aspect ratio)


Sure would be nice to have the choice, like with the Marvel movies.
But I also hope they would continue to provide the director-framed theatrical ratios, too.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> Sure would be nice to have the choice, like with the Marvel movies.
> But I also hope they would continue to provide the director-framed theatrical ratios, too.


Keep in mind the IMAX version of a movie is the “director-framed theatrical ratio” also. In theory he was free to make the movie any AR he wanted and if he felt the scope AR did the best job of capturing his movie he could have only made that version and IMAX theaters would have no trouble showing it as well.

Without us knowing what is in the directors head IMO we should view the IMAX cut as the premier product that the director has gave his blessing to be cropped down for scope venues. This is really totally different than taking a movie made to be scope and opening the matte and calling it IMAX when it isn’t and never was intended to be opened.

This is why I object to the common term of calling IMAX open matte.

I do agree both versions should be an option and I don’t understand why with today’s tech blanking the cropped areas wouldn’t be simple to do on ether hard media or with streaming. Just the same way some projectors can do this. Just change what is IMAX to black.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Keep in mind the IMAX version of a movie is the “director-framed theatrical ratio” also. In theory he was free to make the movie any AR he wanted and if he felt the scope AR did the best job of capturing his movie he could have only made that version and IMAX theaters would have no trouble showing it as well.
> 
> Without us knowing what is in the directors head IMO we should view the IMAX cut as the premier product that the director has gave his blessing to be cropped down for scope venues. This is really totally different than taking a movie made to be scope and opening the matte and calling it IMAX when it isn’t and never was intended to be opened.


Many filmmakers feel that the IMAX versions of their movies are only applicable to IMAX theaters specifically. In venues with normal screen sizes (both theatrical and home video), they prefer scope composition.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Many filmmakers feel that the IMAX versions of their movies are only applicable to IMAX theaters specifically. In venues with normal screen sizes (both theatrical and home video), they prefer scope composition.


This could be true. I don’t know that many filmmakers and haven’t seen where that many feel that way. I could see that as the reason possibly why so many IMAX ARs don’t make it to home media if it were true.

I don’t know about the directors but do know there is a lot of clamor from the movie fans to ether give us the choice with offering both versions packaged together in some form or just give us the IMAX version.

It seems odd given somewhat more than 99% of all home media is played on 16:9 TVs that people prefer black bars to something there.

I will agree IMAX movies are best viewed in IMAX venues so I will agree with the directors there, but at the same time I have to feel that scope movies are best viewed in a scope venue as well. Nothing is best viewed on a TV when it comes to a motion picture.
I wonder what makes Marvel movies different than other movies, as it seems the home IMAX versions are going over well enough?


----------



## nathan_h

bud16415 said:


> I do agree both versions should be an option and I don’t understand why with today’s tech blanking the cropped areas wouldn’t be simple to do on ether hard media or with streaming. Just the same way some projectors can do this. Just change what is IMAX to black.


I'm not sure what you are describing for sure but if you mean a center crop, that is not necessarily the right thing for the scope version.



bud16415 said:


> Keep in mind the IMAX version of a movie is the “director-framed theatrical ratio” also.


This appears to be increasingly true for presentation on IMAX screens, where the vertical field of view is a different standard than for scope. 

But since they now know it is possible it will appear in various ratios in various places, I'm inclined to say either both are compromised compositions (scope and max) or that only one or the other is the preferred framing (and even then that preference might differ based on screen size relative to the viewer).



bud16415 said:


> I wonder what makes Marvel movies different than other movies, as it seems the home IMAX versions are going over well enough?


In general I find that people like to see as much of the screen filled with image as possible, especially on smaller displays that don't have a cinematic theatrical field of view, like essentially all Flat Panel TVs. In other words, the popularity is more about being "full frame" than being "Imax" I suspect.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> This could be true. I don’t know that many filmmakers and haven’t seen where that many feel that way. I could see that as the reason possibly why so many IMAX ARs don’t make it to home media if it were true.


Here's are a couple that were very clear about it:

Doctor Strange Director Never Intended IMAX Version for Home Viewing

Brad Bird accepts his mission

_Bird would like to explain why the transfer of Ghost Protocol is the 2.35:1 widescreen presentation shown in conventional theatres rather than the split-format version produced for exhibition in IMAX. Basically, he found the shifting aspect ratios (as seen on the Dark Knight Blu-ray) distracting on the home screen.

"I didn't want it to be the definitive one for home [viewing]," he says. "What it does is it makes the Panavision look small to me, rather than making the full-frame stuff look large. There's also the problem of the aspect ratio itself; do you put black bars on the left and right of the screen? It starts to become this kaleidoscope thing ... unless you're seeing it on a screen that's five stories high and you're forced to sit close. That's the IMAX experience." _

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of these VAR versions of movies are created as a result of contract negotiations between the studio and the IMAX Corporation, so that IMAX can promote having an exclusive product only available in their theaters. It has little to nothing to do with filmmaker intent.



> It seems odd given somewhat more than 99% of all home media is played on 16:9 TVs that people prefer black bars to something there.


It's the same reason that many hundreds of TV series have moved to wider aspect ratios despite the fact that they will almost universally be watched on 16:9 TVs. The black bars and wider ratio lend the content a "cinematic" feel that the creators find desireable.



> I wonder what makes Marvel movies different than other movies, as it seems the home IMAX versions are going over well enough?


The Marvel movies were released on most media (DVD, Blu-ray, UHD, TV syndication, most streaming) in 2.35:1 CIH. The VAR versions only appear on Disney+, and in some cases on 3D Blu-ray (which is usually only sold in foreign territories).


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> I'm not sure what you are describing for sure but if you mean a center crop, that is not necessarily the right thing for the scope version.
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be increasingly true for presentation on IMAX screens, where the vertical field of view is a different standard than for scope.
> 
> But since they now know it is possible it will appear in various ratios in various places, I'm inclined to say either both are compromised compositions (scope and max) or that only one or the other is the preferred framing (and even then that preference might differ based on screen size relative to the viewer).
> 
> 
> 
> In general I find that people like to see as much of the screen filled with image as possible, especially on smaller displays that don't have a cinematic theatrical field of view, like essentially all Flat Panel TVs. In other words, the popularity is more about being "full frame" than being "Imax" I suspect.


I know all 2.4 cuts out of the IMAX image are not central but for the most part they are. With all the interactive stuff that can be done with BD and UHD BD I would think some cleaver programmer could tell a BD frame by frame what to make black instead of the image showing thru. If that is impossible then maybe the old DVD trick of one side being the IMAX the other the scope. If that is impossible then just give me two discs and charge me 5 bucks more for the combo pack.

Most of the people here that do zoom CIH just use the center crop feature on their projectors for IMAX. 
I agree it is a fill the screen mindset that most people are going for and it is what people like. It seems directors have a different idea what people like. Theater going is kind of becoming a lost pastime for a lot of people. It is sad that it is happening for me, but I’m guilty of not supporting that experience that I love the most.


----------



## Philnick

I wonder how many of the directors who are against home video distribution of the VAR version are aware that the "screening room" experience they're familiar with is much more common than it was a generation ago. Yes, we're a minority, but one that's economically-viable enough to support the sale of projector setups that cost many thousands of dollars.

I think that what is being done through Disney+ with some Marvel films may be market research - "a finger in the wind" so to speak - that could lead the rest of the industry to re-evaluate demand for VAR and IMAX formatted home releases.

As Bud suggests, it would cost them very little to include a VAR or IMAX copy in a combo pack of disks.


----------



## bud16415

I agree with Brad Bird that if the changing ARs bother you they will bother you even more the smaller the screen size. The only thing I have to go by is the other directors that include the 1.89 to 2.4 changes and if they went full on IMAX 1.43 they are cropping those the same as they did for the 1.89 theaters. I agree not many want the 1.43 version black bars to the sides and then switch to 2.4 with black bars to the top and bottom. Of all the people I have watched the Nolan like movies with no one complained about the changes and in fact no one even noticed it was happening. Even with me knowing about it there were quite a few I missed as the movie had me interested in other things than AR.

I also agree with him when the IMAX footage is included it makes the scope seem smaller. I think that is one of the main things IMAX is about. It is supposed to look larger and I guess it does on TV as well according to Brad Bird.

My big question is what about a movie that is shot for IMAX 1.89 and cropped for scope theaters and 100% of the movie is IMAX 1.89. A movie like Sully. Knowing 99+% of people buying the disc or streaming the movie will be watching it on a 16:9 display, what logic is there in making it in the first place for IMAX 1.89 and then watching it forever as scope? I get if the director likes the artistic look of scope then just make it that way. If not then offer it both ways but with a warning similar to what they used to put on DVDs.

(This film has not been altered in any way and it will fit your TV screen. It is the full theatrical IMAX version. The scope version has been altered to fit 2.40:1 screens and will be shown on your TV with black bars.)
Netflix or one of the streaming services can offer the selection as Phil suggests and they can keep track of what people select. Would be a great experiment.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> My big question is what about a movie that is shot for IMAX 1.89 and cropped for scope theaters and 100% of the movie is IMAX 1.89. A movie like Sully. Knowing 99+% of people buying the disc or streaming the movie will be watching it on a 16:9 display, what logic is there in making it in the first place for IMAX 1.89 and then watching it forever as scope?


Maybe they feel that the audience doesn't need to look at six miles of empty headroom above the characters.

They logic behind making the movie that way in the first place goes something like: 

"IMAX is going to fund $xx million of the movie's budget, and all you have to do is give them an open-matte version they can market as SPECIAL IMAX EXCLUSIVE!!!"


----------



## bud16415

Spoken like a true fan of IMAX. I bet your grandfather said the same thing about Cinemascope when it came out and how he couldn’t watch 6 miles to each side and pay attention to the action in the middle. Back then it was more like thousands of dollars to produce something so wide people would come back to the theaters to see what it was all about.
That’s the nature of the industry it is a money making endeavor and whatever it takes to fill a seat.


----------



## nathan_h

To be fair, CinemaScope for the first few decades deliberately placed important content at the edges of the screen. It was in their style guide for directors and cinematographers. (Sort of the opposite of IMAX which is not placing critical information at the lower and upper extremes but using the size for immersion.)

By the 1980s with so much widescreen stuff getting pan and scan treatment for TV then home video, directors and cinematographers stopped doing that for a time, because important story details would get lost. 

Beltons book has some great examples of early Cinemascope films from the 50 though 70s where directors used the full wide screen to glorious impact……which then looked totally stupid, sometimes even incoherent, on TV, when half the frame was missing. And then goes on to quote filmmakers who started framing CinemaScope with eventual viewing on a TV in mind. They didn’t necessarily put all the important content in the center but they made sure it could all be seen when pan and scan capture was employed.


----------



## Philnick

In other words, @nathan_h, they took to composing scope films to be "TV safe," much as those with scope screens hope IMAX films are composed to be "scope safe."

Of course, since modern 1.89 or 1.78 IMAX is a superset of the other formats, there's no need to compose any other format to be "IMAX safe" since it can contain the other formats with no need for cropping.

IMAX could quote Walt Whitman's _Song of Myself_ - "I contain multitudes."


----------



## nathan_h

I guess I didn't explain that well: For most of the Cinemascope era they weren't TV safe. Then for a decade or two they tried to be pan and scan safe. Then letterboxing became a thing and they stopped doing that. So, yes, for less than 1/5 of the history of 2.35:1 movies there was a push to make things pan and scan safe. Critical action would have to be in 1/3 of the screen, so the telecine operator could move the TV capture to the right spot in the widescreen image. This was not necessarily the center. And it only obliquely corresponded to directors intent in that the telecine operator had to assume they could decipher what the filmmaker intended. It was a crappy system if accuracy was intended, just like any system that leaves a lot of ambiguity with regard to final presentation.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> To be fair, CinemaScope for the first few decades deliberately placed important content at the edges of the screen. It was in their style guide for directors and cinematographers. (Sort of the opposite of IMAX which is not placing critical information at the lower and upper extremes but using the size for immersion.)
> 
> By the 1980s with so much widescreen stuff getting pan and scan treatment for TV then home video, directors and cinematographers stopped doing that for a time, because important story details would get lost.
> 
> Beltons book has some great examples of early Cinemascope films from the 50 though 70s where directors used the full wide screen to glorious impact……which then looked totally stupid, sometimes even incoherent, on TV, when half the frame was missing. And then goes on to quote filmmakers who started framing CinemaScope with eventual viewing on a TV in mind. They didn’t necessarily put all the important content in the center but they made sure it could all be seen when pan and scan capture was employed.
> 
> View attachment 3280261


I agree lots of the greatest Cinemascope movies of the early years used the full frame to hold our interest. Sometimes shifting all the action to one side sometimes both and forcing us to move our heads around to catch it all. Something many today feel is the strain of IMAX. It goes back to even before motion pictures. Things like the three-ring circus where it was imposable to see it all. Or even further back to spectacles in the Roman Colosseum. Today’s live sports in person place the best seating where it is imposable to see it all and we pay extra for being extra immersive.

IMO all media should stand on its own and Cinemascope shouldn’t have been made less because of TV just as IMAX shouldn’t be lessened by scope.

One thing I see happening is TV size is creeping up on 100” displays and TV show production is closing in on motion pictures blurring the lines. I think shows like Game of Thrones and many others are beginning to see they have a more immersive TV audience and are adjusting to it. I still don’t quite understand TV content that spends millions of dollars to beam black bars around the world with this 2.0:1 craze.
I think Amazon got it right when they made The Aeronaut make a movie for the new IMAX, crop it if you have to for scope theaters and then quickly move it to the TV market and fill peoples screen with the un-cropped version. Let people sit as close as they like to their TVs.


----------



## Philnick

_The Aeronaut_ is a visual treat, using IMAX's immersion to communicate many things, from the fragility of the balloon and its passengers - by showing it small in a huge sky - to using the balloon as the dot on a line graph showing the altitude they had attained at various points in the film. It's also, as an "Amazon Original," part of the select group of films that they stream with Atmos.

If you own an Atmos or DTS:X film _not_ made by Amazon that's linked through Movies Anywhere to Prime as well as your VUDU and iTunes libraries, watch it through one of those, as Prime will strip out the overhead channels, while the others will send DD+ Atmos. MA is also likely to stream the most extra features, and as discrete items, unlike Prime's habit of rolling them all up into one.


----------



## Philnick

@nathan_h - I just looked at your theater plans and see that you're still in the design stage for your new room. I respectfully suggest if your ceiling is high enough that you consider using a 1.9:1 screen (the format used by JVC NX and NZ projectors) the same width as what you're planning for your scope screen.

This would give you the flexibility to show IMAX and VAR films with no need to vertically crop them.


----------



## flyers10

Philnick said:


> @nathan_h - I just looked at your theater plans and see that you're still in the design stage for your new room. I respectfully suggest if your ceiling is high enough that you consider using a 1.9:1 screen (the format used by JVC NX and NZ projectors) the same width as what you're planning for your scope screen.
> 
> This would give you the flexibility to show IMAX and VAR films with no need to vertically crop them.


Philnick -Why a 1.9:1 and not a 16x9?


----------



## Philnick

flyers10 said:


> Philnick -Why a 1.9:1 and not a 16x9?


Because if you're using a JVC true 4K projector in the NX or NZ series, its imaging panels are not actually 16x9 but are really 4096x2160, which is 1.9:1. (I believe the same is true of some other brands of true 4K projectors.)

While these JVCs default to only using the central 3840x2160 16x9 area, they can be easily toggled over with their remotes to use the entire width of the panels by enlarging the image by 6 2/3% - which is great for anything 1.9:1 or wider, where the only thing pushed off the top and bottom of the imagers will be part of the black letterbox bars, but it will crop 16x9 images. (I use this zoom setting for 1.85:1 images as the amount cropped off of that aspect ratio is very small.)

This lets you make scope images wider without the need to add an expensive anamorphic lens - not _as much_ wider, but in my room, it expands my image from 10'8" wide to 11'4" wide - which is all I have room for anyway.

I actually make this even easier with _HTWebRemote_, the free LAN-based theater automation program linked in my signature, which in its button programming section has links to the documentation for the hardware it can control. There I found commands to instantly switch to either 1.9:1 or 16x9 mode without having to navigate the menus. I run HTWebRemote from the screen of my phone through a web browser. It gives me a one-button instant switchover from Auto (16x9) to Zoom (1.9:1). It also lets me start up my theater with all devices set to my preferred initial settings, toggle those that are important to have easy access to, shut down the theater gracefully, and even change Blu-ray regions on my Oppo disk player with a single tap.


----------



## dschulz

Not really germane to the home theatre discussion, but an interesting tidbit: commercial digital cinema projectors are also 4096x2160. Flat and Scope are defined as subsets of this pixel array (3996x2160 or 4096x1716 respectively), while IMAX uses the full container. That's why the IMAX aspect ratio is ~1.90.


----------



## flyers10

dschulz said:


> Not really germane to the home theatre discussion, but an interesting tidbit: commercial digital cinema projectors are also 4096x2160. Flat and Scope are defined as subsets of this pixel array (3996x2160 or 4096x1716 respectively), while IMAX uses the full container. That's why the IMAX aspect ratio is ~1.90.


So in a VAR movie like Dark Knight or disney's imax enhanced, is the bigger image a 16x9 or 1.9 or something else?


----------



## dschulz

flyers10 said:


> So in a VAR movie like Dark Knight or disney's imax enhanced, is the bigger image a 16x9 or 1.9 or something else?


In an IMAX theatre the larger image in a VAR presentation is 1.90. For the consumer IMAX Enhanced version it's 16:9.


----------



## flyers10

dschulz said:


> In an IMAX theatre the larger image in a VAR presentation is 1.90. For the consumer IMAX Enhanced version it's 16:9.


Thanks. Same 16:9 for consumer at home applies to things like Nolan films or Transformers Last Knight, etc?


----------



## fatherom

flyers10 said:


> So in a VAR movie like Dark Knight or disney's imax enhanced, is the bigger image a 16x9 or 1.9 or something else?





dschulz said:


> In an IMAX theatre the larger image in a VAR presentation is 1.90. For the consumer IMAX Enhanced version it's 16:9.





flyers10 said:


> Thanks. Same 16:9 for consumer at home applies to things like Nolan films or Transformers Last Knight, etc?


Not totally accurate. It really depends on the film.

The MCU Disney+ films generally expand to 1.90:1 when watching at home on Disney+.

Nolan's films typically go full 16:9 (1.78:1) for their expanded scenes.

Usually, blu-ray.com is a good place to see the specific aspect ratios for a title.


----------



## NxNW

Josh Z said:


> Wonder Woman 1984 (2D, 3D, and Ultra HD. Ratio switches between 2.40:1 and 1.90:1.)


Yep.

Streamed this tonight in UHD on Apple TV

The movie starts 1.9:1

This is close enough to 1.78 that most people will not touch their display settings.

For those projecting on to a wide screen, there will be the usual dark areas on the sides, _and_ two narrow small strips of black (not really thick enough to call letterbox bars) along the top and bottom. The "active image area" mostly fills the height of the screen. Not too bad.

A few scenes into the movie, it changes to 2.4

The effect on the viewer is the "active image area" suddenly becomes smaller. The interesting movie bits are now confined to a narrow area in the middle and huge black areas now fill the top and bottom.

For those who have a wide projector screen and the ability to fill it, this is annoying because you now have full size letterbox bars _and_ full size pillar box bars.

If you zoom your projector (or sled your lens or whatever) at this point, you can watch the subsequent parts of the movie happily, filling your wide screen perfectly top bottom left and right, no black bars, for quite awhile.

But near the end of the movie it switches back to 1.9

If your lens is zoomed, now there is 'active image area' , ie portions of the actual movie scenes, being projected all over your room above and below your screen.

So you scramble to put it back the way it was at the beginning.

I didn't really consider whether the content of the additional image regions included ' useful.' or 'necessary' information, i just didn't want it spilling over.

I know everyone here is familiar with all this.

And it's hard to be too outraged about it when the movie in question has (or at least deserves) a rotten tomatoes score of, like, 2%

Still, this was my experience. The family didn't love me manipulating the display settings mid-movie, and in terms of visual storytelling, it seemed completely unnecessary.


----------



## nathan_h

NxNW said:


> Yep.
> 
> Streamed this tonight in UHD on Apple TV
> 
> The movie starts 1.9:1
> 
> This is close enough to 1.78 that most people will not touch their display settings.
> 
> For those projecting on to a wide screen, there will be the usual dark areas on the sides, _and_ two narrow small strips of black (not really thick enough to call letterbox bars) along the top and bottom. The "active image area" mostly fills the height of the screen. Not too bad.
> 
> A few scenes into the movie, it changes to 2.4
> 
> The effect on the viewer is the "active image area" suddenly becomes smaller. The interesting movie bits are now confined to a narrow area in the middle and huge black areas now fill the top and bottom.
> 
> For those who have a wide projector screen and the ability to fill it, this is annoying because you now have full size letterbox bars _and_ full size pillar box bars.
> 
> If you zoom your projector (or sled your lens or whatever) at this point, you can watch the subsequent parts of the movie happily, filling your wide screen perfectly top bottom left and right, no black bars, for quite awhile.
> 
> But near the end of the movie it switches back to 1.9
> 
> If your lens is zoomed, now there is 'active image area' , ie portions of the actual movie scenes, being projected all over your room above and below your screen.
> 
> So you scramble to put it back the way it was at the beginning.
> 
> I didn't really consider whether the content of the additional image regions included ' useful.' or 'necessary' information, i just didn't want it spilling over.
> 
> I know everyone here is familiar with all this.
> 
> And it's hard to be too outraged about it when the movie in question has (or at least deserves) a rotten tomatoes score of, like, 2%
> 
> Still, this was my experience. The family didn't love me manipulating the display settings mid-movie, and in terms of visual storytelling, it seemed completely unnecessary.


When we etched that movie I just blanked out the extra imax stuff and watched a center slice of the whole movie. No overspill on a 2.37 screen that way and really didn’t seem to lose anything.

Not ideal but unlike a Nolan movie where that might result in improper framing it seemed like WW84 was framed to accommodate my approach.


----------



## bud16415

NxNW said:


> Yep.
> 
> Streamed this tonight in UHD on Apple TV
> 
> The movie starts 1.9:1
> 
> This is close enough to 1.78 that most people will not touch their display settings.
> 
> For those projecting on to a wide screen, there will be the usual dark areas on the sides, _and_ two narrow small strips of black (not really thick enough to call letterbox bars) along the top and bottom. The "active image area" mostly fills the height of the screen. Not too bad.
> 
> A few scenes into the movie, it changes to 2.4
> 
> The effect on the viewer is the "active image area" suddenly becomes smaller. The interesting movie bits are now confined to a narrow area in the middle and huge black areas now fill the top and bottom.
> 
> For those who have a wide projector screen and the ability to fill it, this is annoying because you now have full size letterbox bars _and_ full size pillar box bars.
> 
> If you zoom your projector (or sled your lens or whatever) at this point, you can watch the subsequent parts of the movie happily, filling your wide screen perfectly top bottom left and right, no black bars, for quite awhile.
> 
> But near the end of the movie it switches back to 1.9
> 
> If your lens is zoomed, now there is 'active image area' , ie portions of the actual movie scenes, being projected all over your room above and below your screen.
> 
> So you scramble to put it back the way it was at the beginning.
> 
> I didn't really consider whether the content of the additional image regions included ' useful.' or 'necessary' information, i just didn't want it spilling over.
> 
> I know everyone here is familiar with all this.
> 
> And it's hard to be too outraged about it when the movie in question has (or at least deserves) a rotten tomatoes score of, like, 2%
> 
> Still, this was my experience. The family didn't love me manipulating the display settings mid-movie, and in terms of visual storytelling, it seemed completely unnecessary.


There are only two viable way to watch a movie that changes between IMAX1.89 and Scope 2.39. If you have a scope screen and normally do CIH you center crop the whole movie as if it was deemed scope safe and not worry about the lost IMAX content. Or you have a screen setup for CIH+IMAX and just show the movie and allow the changes to happen.
No one will stop and start a AR changing movie and adjust the zoom at each change.


----------



## nathan_h

bud16415 said:


> There are only two viable way to watch a movie that changes between IMAX1.89 and Scope 2.39. If you have a scope screen and normally do CIH you center crop the whole movie as if it was deemed scope safe and not worry about the lost IMAX content. Or you have a screen setup for CIH+IMAX and just show the movie and allow the changes to happen.
> No one will stop and start a AR changing movie and adjust the zoom at each change.


I've seen folks use MadVR to automatically pull the 16:9 content to the center of a 2.35 screen in real time. I don't have the means to test that in my own setup, so I can't speak to whether it is superior to center cropping.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> I've seen folks use MadVR to automatically pull the 16:9 content to the center of a 2.35 screen in real time. I don't have the means to test that in my own setup, so I can't speak to whether it is superior to center cropping.


The way the movie is intended to be viewed is the 16:9 or 1.89 content is supposed to be as wide as the scope content and then taller. It is IMAX and would be just as wrong IMO to watch it less immersive or maybe even more wrong than chopping it as if it were deemed scope safe.
Of course IMO the best way is to watch the scope as large as you are now and the IMAX that wide only taller. That is the directors intent to wow you with the change to IMAX.


----------



## nathan_h

bud16415 said:


> The way the movie is intended to be viewed is the 16:9 or 1.89 content is supposed to be as wide as the scope content and then taller. It is IMAX and would be just as wrong IMO to watch it less immersive or maybe even more wrong than chopping it as if it were deemed scope safe.
> Of course IMO the best way is to watch the scope as large as you are now and the IMAX that wide only taller. That is the directors intent to wow you with the change to IMAX.


Respectfully, I consider all three options to be a bastardization. 


The center crop misses potential content that was intended to be seen.
The 16:9 screen I can fit in my space cannot achieve the vertical angle of view that an IMAX theater provides, and limits my widescreen presentation size and immersion.
Pillarboxing the IMAX scenes, as you note, messes up the relative size of the images versus an IMAX theater.
So for me its a "pick your poison" situation.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> Respectfully, I consider all three options to be a bastardization.
> 
> 
> The center crop misses potential content that was intended to be seen.
> The 16:9 screen I can fit in my space cannot achieve the vertical angle of view that an IMAX theater provides, and limits my widescreen presentation size and immersion.
> Pillarboxing the IMAX scenes, as you note, messes up the relative size of the images versus an IMAX theater.
> So for me its a "pick your poison" situation.


Oh I never meant to say a CIH+IMAX would fit into everyone’s room. If you have things set up for a scope theater and may have multi rows of seating and ceiling height restriction it can be quite a quagmire. Multi row IMAX “like” at home takes a different mindset about seating angles and riser heights etc.

I knew I wanted to enjoy that IMAX “like” immersion and I didn’t have a room with 60’ ceilings so I devised BudMAX as an alternative. I gave it a different name because I have often been told I don’t have an IMAX at home and I understand that. The simplest way to do it I found out is limiting myself to one row of seats and I opted to go wider to get more seats rather than fewer seats per row and more rows. I felt off angle and immersive was better than on angle and less immersive, and didn’t have to deal with the viewing angle issues.

These movies pose a problem to conventional scope theaters both commercial and at home. The commercial theaters play them scope safe or play a version that is made scope safe with some panning rather than center cut. So most with scope theaters follow that lead and do the same.

If IMAX is something a person enjoys it sometimes requires a fresh look at home presentation to make it work. I don’t have an AT screen and doing IMAX1.89 caused me a center channel issue for an example so I worked around it doing a phantom center as a compromise.
It boils down for most in the discussion are there enough of these movies to make it worthwhile watching them as IMAX. Most will say there are only a handful, but then again this list continues to grow. Only you can make that decision for yourself. For me it was a little easier as I watch other non motion picture media that also required the extra height.


----------



## Philnick

Like @bud16415, I have one row of seats - a couch that seats four. My screen is screen paint on the whole wall, unbordered. My 17x9 projector lights up an area 6 feet tall by 11'4" wide. Scope fills that whole width, as does 1.9 IMAX, which also uses the whole height. 16x9 is narrower, of course, since I don't use the zoom as it would crop off the top and bottom of the image.

I'm still trying to figure out why @NxNW got pillarboxing in the scope section of the film. Maybe his Apple TV did it. No disk would, and I've never seen that behavior from a Roku, Fire TV or Shield with Vudu, Movies Anywhere, or Prime Video. It sounds like the early days of 1080 on TV many years ago. It was known as "tic-tac-toe boxing."


----------



## NxNW

Philnick said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why @NxNW got pillarboxing in the scope section of the film. Maybe his Apple TV did it. No disk would, and I've never seen that behavior from a Roku, Fire TV or Shield with Vudu, Movies Anywhere, or Prime Video. It sounds like the early days of 1080 on TV many years ago. It was known as "tic-tac-toe boxing."


I was using the Apple _app_ on a Roku Ultra. I don't have AppleTV hardware.

Remember the movie started in an aspect that is pretty close to 16:9 . What do most CIH people do with 16:9 content ? They display it at the full height of their scope screen, leaving black areas on the sides. The source is not creating these "pillar box" areas.

When the movie changed aspect ratios, letterbox bars were added to whatever was already happening.


----------



## Philnick

NxNW said:


> I was using the Apple _app_ on a Roku Ultra. I don't have AppleTV hardware.
> 
> Remember the movie started in an aspect that is pretty close to 16:9 . What do most CIH people do with 16:9 content ? They display it at the full height of their scope screen, leaving black areas on the sides. The source is not creating these "pillar box" areas.
> 
> When the movie changed aspect ratios, letterbox bars were added to whatever was already happening.


I get it. You're really acknowledging the Achilles's Heel of the CIH approach. Your statement that

"For those who have a wide projector screen and the ability to fill it,"

Really meant

"For those who force everything to fit into a scope screen."

Unless you have a low ceiling or a permanently-attached a-lens there's nothing stopping you from using a screen that's the width of your scope screen while also as tall as an IMAX screen that width, and getting both formats at full size - even in the same film - with no fiddling.

PS While its predecessor film is definitely more spectacular and satisfying, _WW84_ does have something to say that we need to hear: "Enough is too much" - a phrase I came up with in the 1970s.

There's an expression that goes back hundreds of years: "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Substitute "greedy" for "mad" and you have the plot of _WW84_.


----------



## cricket9998

Every movie should just be shot in 2.4:1 until the end of time 😁


----------



## Philnick

cricket9998 said:


> Every movie should just be shot in 2.4:1 until the end of time 😁


Another believer in "one size fits all" heard from. How dare a filmmaker do something different?

A classic demonstration that "where you stand depends on where you sit."

Unless your smiley indicated that you were being ironic.

To quote Steve Martin's character in _Roxanne_ (1987) - "Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."


----------



## bud16415

Many things in life are simplified when you resolve to go with the flow is what I have found to be true. Rather than beating square pegs into round holes that don’t fit find a round hole large enough the square peg will fall thru.

Everyone seems to be hamstrung over AR first with the projector then the media and lastly the movie on the media. Projection has the greatest feature of all times called zoom. Every shape of movie ever made can be fit into and shape media ever made and with the projectors zoom it can be shown any size desired. What we really worry about is the black stuff that’s not the movie and kind of feel it is wasted somehow by not being used. I say forget about it the director sure didn’t care about it. Worry about what is the movie and play it ether as large as you can or as large as you like and stop watching the black stuff around the movie that is nothing. If it changes shape and size just embrace it and stop worrying it is taking over some of your black space.
I honestly hardly ever think about is something 1.77, 1.85, 2.00, 2.20, 2.35 ARs I know what they are and I show them as large as I like. The same way when I walk into a commercial theater and decide what row I want to sit in.


----------



## cricket9998

Philnick said:


> Another believer in "one size fits all" heard from. How dare a filmmaker do something different?
> 
> A classic demonstration that "where you stand depends on where you sit."
> 
> Unless your smiley indicated that you were being ironic.
> 
> To quote Steve Martin's character in _Roxanne_ (1987) - "Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."


No I’m being serious. I don’t think the benefits of VAR is worth the annoyance of not having a 2.4:1 ratio image unless and until projectors can project 2.4:1 natively. I don’t want to run madvr or anything. I also think 2.4:1 looks the best and most impressive.


----------



## Philnick

cricket9998 said:


> No I’m being serious. I don’t think the benefits of VAR is worth the annoyance of not having a 2.4:1 ratio image unless and until projectors can project 2.4:1 natively. I don’t want to run madvr or anything. I also think 2.4:1 looks the best and most impressive.


Are you using an anamorphic lens? Or do you have a ceiling too low to use a projection area the full width of your 2.4:1 image but tall enough for IMAX?

If not, you don't lose anything by going that route. However, your reference to "native" 2.4 suggests that you _are_ using an A-lens.


----------



## cricket9998

Philnick said:


> Are you using an anamorphic lens? Or do you have a ceiling too low to use a projection area the full width of your 2.4:1 image but tall enough for IMAX?
> 
> If not, you don't lose anything by going that route. However, your reference to "native" 2.4 suggests that you _are_ using an A-lens.


Nope just zoom on my jvc. Brightness and resolution is high enough that it looks great. I have a 157” 2.4 screen so a 16:9 screen with equivalent width would be enormous. Either way, I think wide formats just look more impressive.


----------



## PKerseyML

Such an incredible piece of writing by Josh Z! Thanks!


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Blonde (2022) has a variable aspect ratio and colour.
It switches between 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1.
It also switches between monochrome and colour.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Blonde (2022) has a variable aspect ratio and colour.
> It switches between 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1.
> It also switches between monochrome and colour.


Can you confirm the 2.35:1? IMDb says:


Aspect Ratio1.37 : 1
1.85 : 1

The trailers don't have any scope footage. Is it used for re-creations of Marilyn Monroe movies?


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Josh Z said:


> Can you confirm the 2.35:1? IMDb says:
> 
> 
> Aspect Ratio1.37 : 1
> 1.85 : 1
> 
> The trailers don't have any scope footage. Is it used for re-creations of Marilyn Monroe movies?


0:23 - 0:30 has a Scope scene.
I also saw a scene in 1.66:1.
Lastly, there is no 4:3 footage there, but 1.37:1 is used.
The film is in a 16:9 container and that there are scenes where the full 16:9 image is used.
The slight letterboxing is not visible in some scenes.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> 0:23 - 0:30 has a Scope scene.


I see it now, thanks.



> Lastly, there is no 4:3 footage there, but 1.37:1 is used.


I grabbed a screencap and measured 1440x1080 pixels, which is 1.33:1 (4:3). In any case, I'd argue this is splitting hairs. The difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 is about the same as the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1. The terms "4:3" and "2.35:1" are commonly used as shorthand.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Jurassic World: Dominion is mostly in 2.00:1 but it has a prologue windowboxed 16:9.
GunBuster: The Movie is mostly in 4:3 and colour but the climax expands to 16:9 and black-and-white. The end credits are 16:9 and colour.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> GunBuster: The Movie is mostly in 4:3 and colour but the climax expands to 16:9 and black-and-white. The end credits are 16:9 and colour.


I don't know anything about this anime. Is the movie this:









Gunbuster vs Diebuster: Aim for the Top! The GATTAI!! Movie (2006) - IMDb


Gunbuster vs Diebuster: Aim for the Top! The GATTAI!! Movie (2006) Reference View




www.imdb.com





A condensed version of the two OVA miniseries?


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Josh Z said:


> I don't know anything about this anime. Is the movie this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunbuster vs Diebuster: Aim for the Top! The GATTAI!! Movie (2006) - IMDb
> 
> 
> Gunbuster vs Diebuster: Aim for the Top! The GATTAI!! Movie (2006) Reference View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.imdb.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A condensed version of the two OVA miniseries?


Yes, that's the movie. It's a compilation movie of two OVA miniseries.
The GunBuster half is mostly in 4:3 and colour but the climax expands to 16:9 and becomes black-and-white, with a colour 16:9 end credit/intermission. The DieBuster half is in 16:9 colour.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Top Gun: Maverick is IMAX VAR 1.85:1 (not 1.90:1, strangely enough) and 2.39:1 on streaming, and most likely Blu-ray as well.
Also, Nope is exclusively 2.39:1 on streaming, but it's not yet confirmed if the Blu-ray will be IMAX VAR.

Lastly, King Richard is mostly in 2.39:1 but the ending sequence shows real life historical footage which is 16:9 windowboxed within the 2.39:1 container.


----------



## fatherom

I just looked, and pretty sure Top Gun Maverick is 1.90:1 (the black bars are taller than a 1.85 title like Batman Returns).


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Top Gun: Maverick is IMAX VAR 1.85:1 (not 1.90:1, strangely enough) and 2.39:1 on streaming, and most likely Blu-ray as well.





fatherom said:


> I just looked, and pretty sure Top Gun Maverick is 1.90:1 (the black bars are taller than a 1.85 title like Batman Returns).


The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.90:1 is very small. The best way to tell is to watch on your computer, take a screencap, then crop out the letterboxing and count the pixels.

Maverick was shot with IMAX digital cameras, so I would expect the ratio to be 1.90:1, but you never know until you measure.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.90:1 is very small. The best way to tell is to watch on your computer, take a screencap, then crop out the letterboxing and count the pixels.
> 
> Maverick was shot with IMAX digital cameras, so I would expect the ratio to be 1.90:1, but you never know until you measure.


Fair enough...I did just check a couple other sites, though, and everyone lists it as 1.90:1 (as one would expect, considering recent titles, like Disney+ imax MCU films).

Also, on my 128" 16:9 screen, I can usually tell the difference between the black bars for 1.85 and 1.90...I've just gotten used to how "thick" they are.


----------



## nathan_h

Attack on Finland has a handful of "TV news interludes" that occupy a 1.78 section within the overall scope presentation. (Not sure if this really counts as VAR.)


----------



## Philnick

The very minor difference between 1.85 and 1.90 is why I usually use my 1.90:1 JVC NX projector's 6 2/3% Aspect:Zoom setting for 1.85 and anything wider. I'm not about to apply a 6 2/3% vertical crop to material that already fills the screen vertically, but I'll accept a 1% vertical crop to get an image enlarged by 6 2/3% in both directions.

Since SirMaster's free _HTWebRemote_ LAN-based remote control and macro program (its thread here is linked in my signature) lets me program a single-tap instant aspect change into my phone-based remote, when watching a film the aspect ratio of which I don't know I start it up using the JVC's default 16:9 frame (Aspect:Auto). Once I see that there's any black space above and below the image, I tap my Zoom button and I'm set. (My theater shutdown macro resets the PJ to Auto before turning it off.)


----------



## Hydra Spectre

It says that Belle 2021 is 1.85:1.
This is wrong, the film is 2.35:1 with some scenes windowboxed to 16:9 presented within a CI
Also, the recap in Evangelion: 3.0+1.0 is partially 16:9 but it is CIH in a 2.35:1 frame.

And lastly, in Love & Pop, it’s worth mentioning that the 4:3 scenes are shot on digital video and in HFR 60fps while the 1.85:1 scenes are shot on film and in standard 24fps.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Hideaki Anno's other live action films have variable aspect ratios.
Ritual (aka. Shiki-Jitsu) is mostly in 2.40:1 but has scenes in 4:3 and 16:9 windowboxed in CIH within the 2.40:1 frame.
Cutie Honey (2004) is mostly in 16:9 but it has animated scenes slightly letterboxed in 1.85:1.

Jurassic World: Dominion has a prologue in 16:9/4:3 windowboxed in CIH within the 2.00:1 frame, while the rest of the film is in 2.00:1.


----------



## Josh Z

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story is mostly 2.35:1, but has two or three short flashback scenes in 4:3 that extend to the height of the 16:9 container. They're presented as TV clips, from the news and The Oprah Winfrey Show.

I think it's perfectly watchable cropped to 2.35:1, but some on-screen text is clipped. 

In total, those scenes comprise less than two minutes of screen time in the movie.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> Also, Nope is exclusively 2.39:1 on streaming, but it's not yet confirmed if the Blu-ray will be IMAX VAR.


Based on reviews, the Blu-ray and UHD for Nope seem to be VAR 2.20:1/16:9. I've updated the list.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

A Christmas Story Christmas is mostly 2.00:1 with some scenes that shrink to 2.35:1.


----------



## Josh Z

Hydra Spectre said:


> A Christmas Story Christmas is mostly 2.00:1 with some scenes that shrink to 2.35:1.


Already caught that. It's really just one scene in 2.35:1 (the Black Bart daydream).


----------



## magistingen

Josh Z said:


> From what I can ascertain, it appears that all copies of Alita: Battle Angel (Blu-ray, UHD, and 3D) are Constant Image Height.


You're correct that official releases are in 2.39:1. There is however an open matte release floating around on _less reputable_ websites, and it's very nice.


----------



## Josh Z

magistingen said:


> You're correct that official releases are in 2.39:1. There is however an open matte release floating around on _less reputable_ websites, and it's very nice.


While interesting, I don't think that's something I should add to the official list.


----------

