| Author |
Message |
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Watch the dark knight in it's native format. What happens?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| overclkr wrote: | | Watch the dark knight in it's native format. What happens? |
It's too bad Bluray can only encode 16:9 or the scenes that are IMAX would be much taller
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | overclkr wrote: | | Watch the dark knight in it's native format. What happens? |
It's too bad Bluray can only encode 16:9 or the scenes that are IMAX would be much taller |
Why would they? Almost nobody has a 4:3 screen with which to watch it anymore, even if Blu-ray could do it.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | AnalogRocks wrote: | | overclkr wrote: | | Watch the dark knight in it's native format. What happens? |
It's too bad Bluray can only encode 16:9 or the scenes that are IMAX would be much taller |
Why would they? Almost nobody has a 4:3 screen with which to watch it anymore, even if Blu-ray could do it.
SC |
Because 4:3 is a better aspect for the human eye to get an "eye full" so to speak.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | AnalogRocks wrote: | | overclkr wrote: | | Watch the dark knight in it's native format. What happens? |
It's too bad Bluray can only encode 16:9 or the scenes that are IMAX would be much taller |
Why would they? Almost nobody has a 4:3 screen with which to watch it anymore, even if Blu-ray could do it.
SC |
Because 4:3 is a better aspect for the human eye to get an "eye full" so to speak. |
I'm not sure where you're getting that, because it has no basis in reality. Humans with normal binocular vision have about a 200-degree horizontal field of view, and a 135-degree horizontal FOV. This translates to approximately a 1:1.5 aspect ratio. So, technically, 1:1.33 is almost as "wrong" as 1.78. If you include the brow most people have, their FOV is even more horizontal-centric, which makes 1.78 even more relevant and appropriate. IMAX would actually have been far better from an immersion standpoint if it had been 1:1.5 instead of 4:3. That's just immersion, though.
Historical side note: Nobody is quite sure where 4:3 came from. Some think Thomas Edison guessed, or that it was accidentally that ratio after they cut down a piece of 70mm film. Regardless, the TV industry just copied ii and it has nothing to with getting an "eye full".
But, if you want to talk about film and video as a communication medium - as a compositional tool - as the filmmaker's "canvas" so to speak, then 4:3 really sucks. The wider aspect ratios make a much nicer tool with which to frame rooms, conversations between people, roads, vistas, and a lot of the other things in life, because most of us look side-to-side in everyday live, not up-and-down. Our houses are horizontal, or conversations are horizontal, tables, cars, and most everything we interact with work better in the horizontal plane. For the most part, we live horizontally, and a horizontal composition simply works better to convey that horizontal life.
As somebody's who's taking many, many photographs and shot lots of video over the years, I can tell you I much more enjoy and appreciate HD's 1.78 or even 35mm's 1.5 aspect ratio as a compositional canvas. 4:3 is almost square, but not quite. As a creative medium, it just sucks on so many levels.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link. Good read.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crabb, i get that fact from my own eye sight, those figures you quote are garbage. I take very regular eye tests, actual field of CLEAR vision is around a 1.35:1 ratio in my case, as stated to me by my optometrist based on many different tests performed. Feel free to take it up with him any time you like 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That may be the case (pun intended), but Crabb's point is that we live in a horizontal world. How often do you look up or really care what is going on at heights over 10 feet?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecokeman
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:56 am Post subject: 4;3 |
|
|
equipment is OPPO DV-983 H for DVD OPPO BDP 103 for Blu-ray
Screen to be Determined..most likely Draper m1300 120' 4;3
Radiance XS and older moome card in Sony g-90 , ( Possibly swapping out card for newer model..)
80 % of movies are older 4;3..
Thanx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecokeman
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:11 am Post subject: 4;3 |
|
|
80 % of monies are Older 4;3 , Dont care for the new movies today.. only a handfull worth watching...
want LARGE FORMAT..not a little 16;9 ...
Draper 120' M1300 4;3
Sony G90 older Moome card
OPPO DV-983-H and OPPO DBP 103
Radiance XS scaler...
posibly swapping out Moome card for Newer model ???
any suggestions & ADVICE GREATLY"" appreciated... on Set-up and what to expect..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
They need to produce the true IMAX format. That would be the BEE'S KNEES for CRT 
IMAX in Full Phosphor. Yummy.......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Oh, and I believe it is 5:4, please correct me if I am wrong......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Tis 5:4 i believe yes. That is the aspect on my screen for the XG
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Technical_specifications
| Quote: | IMAX (15/70)
spherical lenses
70 mm film, 15 perforations per frame
horizontal rolling loop movement, from right to left (viewed from base side)
24 frames per second
camera aperture: 70.41 mm × 52.63 mm (2.772 in × 2.072 in)
projection aperture: at least 2 mm (0.079 in) less than camera aperture on the vertical axis and at least 0.41 mm (0.016 in) less on the horizontal axis
aspect ratio: 1.43:1
DMR aspect ratio: 1.89:1, 2.39:1 |
So, the standard screen is 4.29:3 - slightly wider than 4:3. The camera aperture is almost exactly 4:3. Nothing 5:4 about it.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
yep. that would be correct
I'm glad I spoke with reprehension. Still bad ass.
Do that HD LOL.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
70mm film is remarkable from a resolution standpoint - no doubt about it.
But, I still say the 16:9 AR is more pleasing to the eye compositionally, works better for filming human interactions, displays better with human vision because of our binocular horizontal field of view, and most certainly works better with sight lines in typical rooms that are much more likely to be height-constrained than width-constrained.
Personally, I could barely even fit a 120" 4:3 screen in my room. Same with any of my friends' rooms. The 4:3 image would be way larger than my screen, with total crap sight lines, and the 16:9 image would be the same as what I have now. There would also be almost no room for a center channel unless I rammed the screen right to the ceiling, and it would still be tight.
I guess if all you watch is old 4:3 content, it's fine... But then I still say you'd be better-served with a smaller screen, because the vast majority of that 4:3 content is going to be crap DVD quality - or worse. I would NOT want to see that blown up 8x6 feet. Unless you have a huge room and your first seats are like 15 feet from the screen. That's my opinion, anyway.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecokeman
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
9 ft. ceilings' and chairs are 12- 15 ft. back..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So its 5.72:4... Its still far from 16:9 isnt it.
I quite easily fit a 125" 5:4 screen in my lounge room. EASY. Here are some old pics during building:
This first one is of the 9PG before it was set up properly
5:4
16:9
2.35:1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL, you know the forum is slow when the argument turns to chocolate vs. Vanilla.  I like the widescreen myself, If I had the money to burn I would go motorized scope screen with the little panels that move, now that's friggin cool. However some old timers like their big-ole square screens and floor mounted center channels, , you can say it's silly but there's no right vs. wrong argument here.
your house, your theater, do whatever you want.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
