 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? posted by kotches on December 17, 2001 at 21:05:04:
I DID DO the math, and it comes out to 1.777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777, etc. and continuing on infinitely..... it's NOT "1.78:1" as you state above, so perhaps your calculator needs oiling? So, YOU "aren't quite right there"...Actually, I never said there were NOT films out there that were wider than 2.35:1...read my post again if you don't believe me. "Cinerama" is actually wider than 2.66:1 for instance, in case you were ignorant of that. NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHY 2.35:1 IS SO OVERUSED WHEN PRODUCING DVD's, HOWEVER...
"3) It was George Lucas' project, and he can release the DVD in whatever format he desires, if you're unhappy with the results, complain to Lucas Films Ltd, as they made the decisions."
-Oh, come on now, what in hell makes you think I could complain to Lucas Films Ltd. about anything whatsoever and have it result in action? Get real dude...nobody's that idiotic, are they? Why don't YOU call up Bill Gates personally whenever you have a problem with a Microsoft product? 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T...
"You do understand the concept of Original Aspect Ratio, right?"
-You do understand the concept of reading a question, and attempting to actually answer it rather than ducking it and being a smartass, and attempting to change the subject in order to antagonize....RIGHT??
Follow Ups:
"I DID DO the math, and it comes out to 1.777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777, etc. and continuing on infinitely..... it's NOT "1.78:1" as you state above, so perhaps your calculator needs oiling? So, YOU "aren't quite right there"..."It is insights like this that bring me back to this board time and time again. I obviously have so much to learn.
Will you teach me Carl Eber?
joe
"Well, on second thought, no...the bosses will do terrible things to me if me going back there..."I'm a blithering idiot, according to all the armchair oldtimers here. Rich is your man, he loves to teach men things...that is, if they'll sit still long enough and pay attention...and therein lies the rub, :)
Carl,Several people have pointed out that the OAR of TPM was 2.35:1, and still you persist (You saw it in the theater as 1.85:1 so what you saw is how it was released everywhere) Never mind that I saw it in a THX theater, and it was 2.35:1 in that theater. The IMDB lists the films OAR as 2.35:1, and still you persist (it must be wrong).
You so obviously missed the point on the Lucas Films reference to the DVD so I'll say it this way:
If the TPM DVD was released at a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio (it was) and the director had control (he did), what he wanted was a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio delivered to the consumer. Is that clear enough this time?
I give you credit, you are persistant, which doesn't make you correct.
Talking louder doesn't make you correct either.Regards,
Alright, you saw it in a THX theater and it appeared to you to be 2.35:1, and that is irrefutable in your mind. Never mind the fact that two of the three theaters I saw it in were also THX certified theaters, complete with the THX sound logo-advertisement played before the movie on those occasions."You so obviously missed the point on the Lucas Films reference to the DVD."
-Actually, you had no point, so I didn't miss it.
"If the TPM DVD was released at a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio (it was)..."
-No kidding Sherlock...I mentioned this in my original thread post, perhaps you missed it? It's only like, the basis for this entire discussion, is all...
"and the director had control (he did),"
-Exactly where do I state that a director wouldn't have control?
"what he wanted was a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio delivered to the consumer. Is that clear enough this time?"
-Hey, my question wasn't whether or not that's what the director wanted delivered to the consumer. The question was WHY...IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? I doubt a windy Arizona morning at 5000 feet over the Grand Canyon, after a dry cold front, would be clear enough for you...
"I give you credit, you are persistant, which doesn't make you correct. Talking louder doesn't make you correct either."
-Well said, and it applies to you as well. Thanks for the credit...can I use that with a shiny quarter to call someone that knows the answer to my question? If you say "no", my heart will be broken.
Why 2.35:1 (or wider) vs. 1.85:1? A wider image has more visual impact.If you compare the typical humans field of view for image width vs image height, the width has much more range.
Your specific complaint about TPM is a preference and Lucas' preference doesn't align with yours.
You could get a DVD player such as the Panasonic RP-91 (or many others) others with scaling/zoom to expand the image to fit a 16:9 screen and get a similar effect to taken the 2.35:1 OAR into a 1.85:1 or 1.78:1.
Regards,
The point was, that there is information missing in the 2.35:1 version on the DVD (from the top and bottom)."If you compare the typical humans field of view for image width vs image height, the width has much more range."
Ah, but what is that range? Is it exactly 2.35:1, with squared borders? And, what does this have to do with anything anyway?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
