Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The NEW 4K standard...

Status
Not open for further replies.
:innocent:
 
Cinema is an experience. Letterbox presentation on 16:9 or 4:3 displays has a negative affect on the impact of the cinematic experience.

The shape is irrelevant - accessibility is key.

I love letterbox formats don't me wrong, but everything has it's place, and for TV playback it's not appropriate.

Sam Druckerman said:
If people do Not enjoy viewing cinema on a TV with black bars.... maybe they should consider how much interest they have in cinema? Film makers are visual artists, and as a rule a visual artist doesn't want there image / frame violated.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?

Who exactly is benefiting out of this 2:1 resolution? The editor, the director and the producers.

Sam Druckerman said:
The logic of cropping a movie to fit a TV screen is like cropping all the great paintings to fit a standard size book. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Surely it's a mark of a poor artist, to be incapable of creating a work of art with the tools he has to hand?

Let's put it this way; are you still a great engineer, if your beautifully designed work of mechanics is 6" too wide, and draws 2amp more than the PSU can supply?

*whatever*
 
Pan_scan should be punished by death… or something close.

no arguing possible :angry02:
 
Storaro is a God, but his 2:1 crusade has too much going against it -- namely hundreds of millions of TVs and computer LCDs at 16:9 already in place, effectively settling the "format war" if there even was one.

Some projects call for 1.85, some for 2.35, etc. It all depends on things like how much sky you might want to have the picture, for example.

The idea I like better from Storaro is everyone moving go 25p. This whole idea that we cling to a framerate as absurd as 23.976fps is clear insanity.
 
Adthrawn said:
Cinema is an experience. Letterbox presentation on 16:9 or 4:3 displays has a negative affect on the impact of the cinematic experience.

The shape is irrelevant - accessibility is key.

I love letterbox formats don't me wrong, but everything has it's place, and for TV playback it's not appropriate.
Click to expand...

Actually, the shape is not at all irrelevant, and quite frankly, TV is the only place where letterboxing/pillarboxing is appropriate. Where else would it be appropriate? Certainly not in a theater, where one can adjust the screen shape to the proper aspect ratio of the image being projected.

It may "draw you out of the experience" to have black bars at the top or bottom of the screen, but quite frankly, the composition of the image, which is in a large part determined by the shape of the frame, is far more important to the experience of watching a movie for anyone with any respect for the artistry of filmmaking than the fact that there are black bars on the screen. A few filmmakers, like Kubrick on some of his movies, have tried to get around this by trying to compose a frame that would work both at 1.85:1 and 4:3, but this is an exception rather than the rule.

Adthrawn said:
Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?

Who exactly is benefiting out of this 2:1 resolution? The editor, the director and the producers.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say that your friend has no interest in cinema, but really, if he's more worried about losing vertical resolution than butchering a movie's framing while watching on his $30,000 system, or, God forbid, losing horizontal framing when watching a movie that was shot 1.66:1 or Academy ratio, then I'd say he may have an interest in the technology, but little respect for the artistry of cinema. Which I think many people would feel pretty comfortable labeling a "lack of interest in cinema."

Also, if this is the really worst thing you've heard in a long time, you should read the news more often. :sarcasm:
 
OH' give me a brak..If the output is for home TV crop to 16x9! you still have all the resolution you need.
 
Adthrawn said:
Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?

Surely it's a mark of a poor artist, to be incapable of creating a work of art with the tools he has to hand?
Click to expand...

Congradulations... you completely missed the point!

If your friend with the $30,000 home theater crops all of his movies to 16:9. Yes he doesn't deserve to claim to have a true interest in cinema. It's not a question of "losing resolution". It's a question of whether or not you 'edit' the film to fit your television aka... pan and scan. Pan and scan is a form of editorializing art work. Same as reading abridged books. Or seeing the TV-Edit.

16:9 is an acceptable delivery format as long as the true aspect ratio is maintained. Nobody is saying your friend needs to run out and buy a 1.85 $70k projector they're saying your friend doesn't get to buy pan and scan movies.
 
Disc-shaped. It's gonna catch on...

1908_1189975292.jpg
 
Adthrawn said:
Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, ...

*whatever*
Click to expand...

Adthrawn, I think you misunderstood the poster's point... He was referring to PAN and SCAN...
Pan and Scan is a technique where they chop about 45 procent away from the image (if the original aspect ratio is 2.35) so people could see the movie without black bars on their 4:3 television set.
So they really distroy the vision of the director and cinematographer.
Look at this links for more information (ps one of them is in Dutch, but just look at the pictures!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan

http://www.dvd.nl/achtergrond.php?id=15&page=2



It's not about watching the footage in letterbox or 16/9, it's about keeping the original aspect ratio (well, that was what the poster you replied too, was talking about)
 
im.thatoneguy said:
Congradulations... you completely missed the point!

If your friend with the $30,000 home theater crops all of his movies to 16:9. Yes he doesn't deserve to claim to have a true interest in cinema. It's not a question of "losing resolution". It's a question of whether or not you 'edit' the film to fit your television aka... pan and scan. Pan and scan is a form of editorializing art work. Same as reading abridged books. Or seeing the TV-Edit.

16:9 is an acceptable delivery format as long as the true aspect ratio is maintained. Nobody is saying your friend needs to run out and buy a 1.85 $70k projector they're saying your friend doesn't get to buy pan and scan movies.
Click to expand...

No, I think you've actually missed the point. My retort, was to the statement that anybody who dislikes the "black bars" has no interest in cinema.

Pan & Scan is a crap-fest, and pandoras box for fan websites (like Luke Skywalkers Lightsabre disappearing then reappearing courtesy of cropping).

My point, is that if your target audience is 16:9, then it's your fault that there are black bars on their screens. Sure, it's nice to shoot 2:1, but if nobody can see your art in the same way you see it in the edit suite, and they have to see it with a lower resolution (and yes it is lower, cos' you've stuffed two black bars in the image) - then something's gone wrong along the way...
 
Adthrawn said:
Cinema is an experience. Letterbox presentation on 16:9 or 4:3 displays has a negative affect on the impact of the cinematic experience.

The shape is irrelevant - accessibility is key.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be argumentative, but your couldn't be more wrong. Cinema is a visual art form, and big part of that is the composition of the frame. Shape is relevant to the artist who created the image and the audience who cares for the medium.

Adthrawn said:
I love letterbox formats don't me wrong, but everything has it's place, and for TV playback it's not appropriate.
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to be confused. If you are creating content for TV, then you should frame for TV. If your watching cinema on a TV, why not respect the film makers and watch the film in it's intended aspect ratio?

Adthrawn said:
So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?
Click to expand...

Tell your friend that if he wants to get the most out of his home theater experience he should consider buying a anamorphic lens for his projector.

Anamorphic lens on a projector is a very common solution to using all the resolution available, and keeping the aspect ratio of the film intact.

Adthrawn said:
Surely it's a mark of a poor artist, to be incapable of creating a work of art with the tools he has to hand?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with a film maker choosing to work in a aspect ratio wider than TV? Again, would you limit the frame size of a painter to something convenient for shipping?

Adthrawn said:
Let's put it this way; are you still a great engineer, if your beautifully designed work of mechanics is 6" too wide, and draws 2amp more than the PSU can supply?
Click to expand...

It seems that you would be happy in a world of conformists. Artists tend to chose there own path.

Adthrawn said:
*whatever*
Click to expand...

LOL Ahhhhhhh, at last..... something we can both agree on.
 
Adthrawn said:
My point, is that if your target audience is 16:9, then it's your fault that there are black bars on their screens. Sure, it's nice to shoot 2:1, but if nobody can see your art in the same way you see it in the edit suite, and they have to see it with a lower resolution (and yes it is lower, cos' you've stuffed two black bars in the image) - then something's gone wrong along the way...
Click to expand...

Well, this is assuming that the target audience is television/home viewing, and not a theater. And quite frankly, many people shooting features still shoot for theaters, not TV, (though, granted, TV's certainly had a major influence on how movies are made and framed).

Of course, outside of shooting anamorphic and using an optical anamorphic projector, you'll still be losing vertical resolution, since 4K spec crops down to 'scope, while retaining a 4K horizontal resolution.

More resolution is fine, but it's not the most important thing. Composition and framing are still far more critical than resolution.
 
Hey Adthrawn
What is it exactly that you propose?
Shall we all shoot 16/9 because consumer tv are 16/9?
By the way I'm still to find a modern non crt tv that is able to display a movie properly in terms of image quality aka respect of the original colors and saturation, proper contrast, and resolution.
No way I'm gonna frame my pictures for their crapy displays.
 
Emmanuel Cambier said:
...I'm still to find a modern non crt tv that is able to display a movie properly in terms of image quality aka respect of the original colors and saturation, proper contrast, and resolution....
Click to expand...

Word.

I managed to find and buy a 16x9 31" Sanyo CRT with 1080i resolution and HDMI connection at Walmart two years ago for $600 for this very reason, and, while it's no production monitor, I'm still happy with that purchase, even though some SD content looks like complete crap on it.

CRT HDTVs now seem to be totally absent in the line-ups at local retailers, even though, in my opinion, CRT quality still trumps LCD technology.

Hopefully, I can hang on with the Sanyo until the next best thing comes along at a reasonable price and 1080P resolution. TDELs, anyone?

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/electroluminescent-ifire-imaging-20060620/
 
Look, I may be playing devils' advocate here, but this is something that constantly frustrates me.

I've come from an industry where your skills and talent mean jack, if your consumers can't properly experience your product.

My point throughout this has been to identify that the viewing needs are greater than the artistic needs. Or should I paraphrase that - the delivery medium should be appropriate for the audience (and not the other way around).

A good example; I adore the series Rome - filmed for 16:9 HD playback, beautiful images, completely immersive. Last week, I watched the Russell Crowe epic Gladiator, and was surprised how easy it was to loose concentration - it feels disconnected, in it's little slither wrapped top and bottom in black packaging. In reality 99% of that, is the quality of the writing, acting, directing, editing and the cinematography, but still, it's not doing the experience any good.

Is filming in >2:1 genuinely an artistic choice, or just the usual "I'm bigger than you, and can afford to shoot letterbox" arrogance? I find the "artistic" and "being different" excuses somewhat lacking.

And anyway, technology is the means, and not the end.

Again, *whatever*, flame me, burn me, at least I'm being different :P
 
A final thought before I pass out...

I don't fear the competition of another Red user, but I do of the teenager with a $300 HDV camera, and a *vision*.

The camera is the tool, don't let it get in your way, or cramp your vision.
 
Give us the most resolution possible that can be recorded out of the sensor then let everyone do what they will. I don't think a soul would disagree with that... but I could be wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top