 
|
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: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? posted by Carl Eber on December 17, 2001 at 20:07:50:
...to even attempt to answer the question of why 2.35:1 is so overused when producing DVD's. All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1). THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THE "16:9" ASPECT FOR TELEVISION WAS CONCEIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE...TO BETTER MATCH THE ASPECT RATIO OF 35mm MOTION PICTURES.SO I ASK AGAIN...WHY CROP OFF THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF A 35mm NEGATIVE/PRINT just to make it a slender 2.35:1, and then put in on a DVD that will play on a 16:9 tv set?
Also, why automatically assume (in a closed-minded way) that "2.35:1" is the original screen aspect ratio, when in reality it isn't? I've seen this myself on several occasions...and seeing is believing. I'm fully aware that "2.35:1" is the PROPAGANDA that the movie studios vomit forth as "original aspect ratio"...but it's a LIE. It's NOT the original aspect ratio for many movies...again, I've seen it myself with Star Wars Phantom Menace...it's just that apparently anyone who might read this post never actually saw this film in the theater in it's entirety, so they didn't "see it" for themselves...or otherwise they don't remember, or even care.
Again, SW EP1 was NOT 2.35:1 as shown in movie theaters.
Even if it was somehow presented in 2.35:1 in theaters OTHER than the THREE different ones (from two different theater chains) I saw it in, then it is my assertion that such a film's print was CROPPED FROM THE TOP AND BOTTOM, just as the DVD is.
MY POINT HERE IS: The SW,PM DVD's picture has had information removed from the top and bottom of every shot, to fit into this myth that "2.35:1" is "origninal aspect ratio".
So far a-asylumers, thanks for nothing...it's what I expected from you though.
HERE'S MY CHALLENGE: How about forgetting I'm Carl Eber, leave your petty sophomoric antagonisms elsewhere, and seek out someone (who produces/masters DVD movies for any of the major movie studios) who may actually shed some REAL light on my question...if you can that is. Otherwise, I DON'T NEED TO READ ANYMORE IGNORANT AND IDLE SPECULATION (and especially any antagonism) FROM ANY OF YOU.
What I asked was a valid question, I explained it lucidly, AND IT DESERVED NO ANTAGONISM...I even ASKED for none to begin with: "...so no cheap shots are appreciated/tolerated". CAN YOU READ THAT RICH? Read it several times dude, and then shut the hell up...
Oh, and Happy Holidays to anyone who celebrates them!
Follow Ups:
"All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1)."First, film in and of itself has no aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is a combination of the motion picture camera film gate mask and lens used - anamorphic making a squeezed image, or circular making an unsqueezed image. The format can be whatever the camera is setup for - 1.85:1, 2.2:1, 2.35:1, etc., with the appropriate matching lens.
Secondly, a motion picture is not shot to fit television as its major market. Films are shot to be projected in a motion picture theater. Many directors and DPs choose the 2.35:1 format (Panavision) as it gives more visual impact than the 1.85:1 format. In use, the formats are the same height and the theater simply draws back the masking curtains on the right and left sides of the screen when changing from 1:85 to the 2:35 format.
Lastly, many directors use a 1:85 safe action area in the 2:35 format so to allow better translation of the image when it is rescaled for television in the 16:9 format or panned and scanned for 4:3 television format.
"Lastly, many directors use a 1:85 safe action area in the 2:35 format so to allow better translation of the image when it is rescaled for television in the 16:9 format or panned and scanned for 4:3 television format"I am aware of this. My complaint was that if the original happened to be 1.85:1, then why modify it when producing the DVD?
"Secondly, a motion picture is not shot to fit television as its major market. Films are shot to be projected in a motion picture theater."
I'm also aware of this. My point was that if the original was shot at 1.85:1, why modify it to be 2.35:1 for the DVD release, regardless of whether or not the "official" stated original aspect was supposed to be 2.35:1. You yourself said it was shot at 1.85:1, so what would occur in order to make this image 2.35:1? Wouldn't the top and bottom need to be cropped when mastering the DVD? (my point, complaint, and reason for this entire thread)
***...to even attempt to answer the question of why 2.35:1 is so overused when producing DVD's. All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1). THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THE "16:9" ASPECT FOR TELEVISION WAS CONCEIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE...TO BETTER MATCH THE ASPECT RATIO OF 35mm MOTION PICTURES.
SO I ASK AGAIN...WHY CROP OFF THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF A 35mm NEGATIVE/PRINT just to make it a slender 2.35:1, and then put in on a DVD that will play on a 16:9 tv set?***Answering your question would put an end to your floundering about. No one wants to be deprived of your entertaining buffoonery.
nt
As an inmate who tried to shed a little light on the subject by stating a neutral fact, I feel personally offended by the tone of voice in this last post of yours, CarlEber.Anyhow I will try to answer your question, and yes, these are my personal speculations. Please feel free to dismiss/not read them.
I can not speak for the majority of DVD releases but will stick with the specific case, The Phantom Menace (TPM). You claim to have seen TPM in the aspect ratio 1.85:1 in a movie theater. AFAIK this may be true or it may not be. Either way, the fact that IMDb lists the aspect ratio to be 2.35:1 AND the fact that the DVD release is 2.35:1, strongly indicate that 2.35:1 is the "original" aspect ratio of the movie. By "original" I mean "as intended by the director". We do presume that George Lucas has approved the aspect ratio of the DVD release, right?
It is not downright impossible, however, that you may have seen more top/bottom footage in a movie theater - but in the light of beforementioned facts, this might as well as anything else be due to a fault on the theater's account.
Best,
Thom
"As an inmate who tried to shed a little light on the subject by stating a neutral fact, I feel personally offended by the tone of voice in this last post of yours, CarlEber."-Technically there's no "tone of voice" with text, but I take your meaning (it’s a shame you only remember the 5% of the post that reflected my frustration, rather than the point of the post).
You did provide a succinct and relevant reply that was neutral. I thank you. However, I feel under attack here for no justifiable reason, and it does appear to be a concerted effort. Also, um, this last post wasn’t directed specifically at you (and yet you somehow still felt the need to respond as if it was, and indeed even took personal offense to it, even though you weren’t mentioned by name in this particular post…or indeed in any of them by name…so you taking personal offense to it has me wondering if such a thing is justified in your case…if it had been directed specifically at you, it would have been a reply to your first response, and not a reply to my own initial thread posting).
I realize I used the words "no one"...they should have read, "no one but Thom P". And in any case, again it is me who feels offended here, and that above post merely reflects my own justifiable sense of frustration. Perhaps you mean to suggest that you or others are allowed to offend me, but that I cannot defend myself? I hope not.
And exactly what part of “I stand by what I have said, so there's obviously an error on the part of IMDb...” offends you, sir? Do you own that organization? I see no implied offensive tone in that statement, and since that’s the only time I’ve spoken to you in this thread (other than now), I have to wonder why you’re offended to such a personal degree, by anything I’ve said at all?
I retract (for now) any implication of you in my above post that you cite, and you need not have personalized it.
Since I see no personal attack on you here by me, I see no reason to apologize in a technical sense, to you. However, if you are offended by THIS reply, then I DO apologize. Again, your first reply was relevant information, so again I thank you, but my response to it wasn’t offensive, it was merely my thoughts as they related to the subject (which was obvious, I believe).
This post is horrific and terribly inappropriate. You are clearly out of line here. You owe the inmates an apology.
Gary, my apologies for offending you...but as always, I give what I get. As soon as I get an apology for the tone used in the first replies to my thread (when I specifically asked for "no cheapshots"), then I'll be all to happy to apologize to those individuals for reciprocating said attacks with a quite justifiably defensive posture.Actually, when you say "this post is horrific and inappropriate"...I hope you're referring to my tone, and not to the post's subject (which you conveniently ignore)...I was discussing Star Wars The Phantom Menace on DVD (and trying to get my original question answered by someone who actually knows the answer...hence my frustration, quite justified imo, when people speculate all sorts of inappropriate and personal things and avoid answering the question at hand, for motives hidden)...
...I presume you've seen the film, Gary? And if you mean to attack the film or my discussion of it, then I take offense to you AND your post in my thread, sir. I have every right to discuss DVD's here, sir. I also take offense at those who would question the honesty of my experience on this subject, or of my observations on this subject.
If I say I saw a film and it appeared a certain way in the theater, then that's how it was.
Good day to you sir, and get a thicker skin, as people have had occasion to tell me, here (which I find a bit hypocritical).
There's such a thing as an equal and opposite reaction to every action...and I have no intention of ever apologizing to "all" inmates for participating here and posing an honest and relevant discussion (which is quickly met with antagonism for no reason whatsoever)...which is perhaps not outside the realm of what you seem to imply by framing your response with "this post" (since about 95% of "this post" is regarding DVD and movie aspect ratios). There's a lot in that post, so how about commenting on the rest of it now? thanks...
I appreciate your apology.I was indeed referring to your tone, not the subject matter. Phantom Menace, and everything Star Wars, is my 2nd hobby next to being an audiophile. I am intimately familiar with this subject.
My getting a "thicker skin" is not necessary. I would instead suggest that you re-examine your tone when attempting to elicit mature responses from the inmates. Etiqutte is everything.
Additional responses to your original post is not warranted. If you so wish to rephrase your post in a mature and non-aggressive tone, I would be more than happy to provide you my opinion on the subject matter.
Yawn....Perhaps you could take a look at Rich's tone, for example, to see that there was indeed a context for my own "tone" (it was even mentioned in that post of mine that you are pretending to be so upset about)...that is, IF you actually care a wit (not that I think you do)...he's called me an imbecile, and I hardly think that such name-calling was called for in my original post. Rich Morgan has added nothing to this thread of mine, and I don't see you complaining about him...so forgive me if I am unmoved by your complaints about my "tone". Your observations come from a rather narrow and even one-sided perspective...that of ignoring the context.
Frankly, the fact that you have had nothing to ad regarding the subject matter so far, makes me not interested in anything further from you here. "I am intimately familiar with this subject." Ok, fine...but (no offense) I certainly am not going to beg anyone to think if they don't want to...whether or not they can back up such a claim or not.
To sum it up...you are a bore Gary, but don't take it personally. Sometimes one gets overcome by emotion, so I understand.
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 ]
