1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cinemax HD Aspect Ratio

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by AED55, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    For me...

    Preference #1 is Original Aspect Ratio. I always want to see in the intended aspect, even if that means unused parts of my TV screen.

    Preference #2, I will admit my eyes wouldn't be offended if more 16x9 original aspect was generated. I suspect most things generated for TV airing will be that way... and theatrical releases will continue to have variances... but if movie studios started framing more new movies for 16x9 and made that a "standard" for the future, I'd be ok with that too.

    Mainly, I just want it the way it was intended.. and if the intentions happen to go towards 16x9 that would be fine with me.
     
  2. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    Well they are not going to begin "filming" in 16:9 because film does not have that format. 1.85:1 is as close as it gets. There is no 16:9 original aspect ratio for film. If the original format was digital, then it may well start out as 16:9. However if that is the case, then the movie is probably intended for direct-to-video release. So far I have not really seen many decent movies done this way, but I guess it could happen. It sure is a lot cheaper to make a movie on HD-digital than it is to use film.
     
  3. CorpITGuy

    CorpITGuy Godfather

    432
    0
    Apr 11, 2007

    I second this motion! :D

    Instead of giving us the content and style we want, though, the directors and movie theaters will blame Internet downloaders and violate at least two constitutional amendments trying to sue college students.
     
  4. BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    It's been that way since the 1960s! Movie theaters have 2.35:1 screens, and use curtains to "crop" the screen down to fit any alternate aspect ratios.

    I remember clearly being a 7-year-old kid seeing Star Wars (in 1977) and knowing that it was about to start when the curtains opened all the way (after showing trailers in 1.85:1).
     
  5. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    On the digital front, I believe one or two of the last-released Star Wars movies was shot on digital cameras... but not at 16x9.

    I know film isn't 16x9 either, but lots of directors frame for a different aspect than the larger film size... so IF 16x9 TV users keep screaming, there may be a move for more mainstream 16x9 aspect movies.

    In any case, I want to see what is intended.
     
  6. Bobby H

    Bobby H Legend

    231
    0
    Mar 23, 2008
    What an ignorant statement.
    :rolleyes:

    The 16X9 ratio is not a standard aspect ratio for making movies. It never has been. the only reason why HDTV monitors have a 16:9 ratio screen is because the 16:9 ratio is an "average" between numerous, different aspect ratios.

    The most common aspect ratios are:
    1.33:1 "academy format"
    1.66:1 European Widescreen
    1.85:1 American Widescreen
    2.39:1 Super Widescreen

    16X9 is a decent average between those formats without letting black bars from letter boxing or pillar boxing get too large on the screen.

    I am absolutely against any campaign to pan and scan any and all movies to the 16X9 ratio. It's probably even worse than the routine panning and scanning seen on old 4:3 television sets. The super wide movies would get seriously cropped at the sides and old classics in academy format would have their film frames all screwed up as well.

    If someone has a problem with movies having black bars then they just need to stick with watching TV shows.

    Finally, the notion that filmmakers need to get with the times and start making all their movies for HDTV is a destructive mindset. The situation is very simple. If the movie industry had no movie theaters there would be NO movie industry. Then everything would be made for 16X9 televisions, with a "made for TV" low budget and vying for air time on a TV network.
     
  7. olds403

    olds403 Godfather

    344
    1
    Nov 20, 2007
    amen
     
  8. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    Right on, Bobby H.
     
  9. BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    Episode 1 had many scenes shot with an early, pre-production Panavised Sony CineAlta F900, while Ep 2 was shot entirely with a production CineAlta F900 and Ep 3 with a CineAlta F950.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. olds403

    olds403 Godfather

    344
    1
    Nov 20, 2007
    And the significance of this is?
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Someone had noted not knowing of any movies shot on digital cameras that weren't 16x9 and either for TV or direct-to-video. I replied that I believed the recent Star Wars movies might have been shot with digital cameras and not at 16x9.
     
  12. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    HDMe it is the other way around. I was suggesting there are no movies shot on film that are 16x9 and that it is reasonable to expect the only films that are shot in 16x9 are digital video. This doesn't mean it could be expected that all or likely any movies made for cinema are going to be shot in 16x9 format regardless of whether they are shot on a handi-cam or Panavision.
     
  13. CorpITGuy

    CorpITGuy Godfather

    432
    0
    Apr 11, 2007
    You speak of this as if it is a bad thing. :lol:

    I am, of course, only joking... but, it really is time for a change in Hollywood. They've become stale, predictable, expensive, arrogant and demanding. DRM is just the beginning.
     
  14. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I realized that after-the-fact... I was just explaining the "what does that have to do with anything" post. I over-simplified in my original reply, but figured if I tried to correct all that now it would get even more confusing! :)
     
  15. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    Yeah I figured. It's an easy logical circle to get into :)

    Here's the elementary version for those not following the whole thread:

    1. film-based movies are not ever shot in 16:9 original aspect ratio (normally 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 in the USA)
    2. because of #1, most movie theaters are equipped to show films in aspect ratios other than 16:9 since what they play is on actual film which is never 16:9 (usually 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 in the USA).
    3. it is possible for film makers to use digital video format to shoot a movie that will have a 16:9 OAR but there is no reason for them to do so unless the movie is not intended to be played in a movie theater (i.e. direct-to-video, or made-for-TV)

    So, Cinemax HD is cropping virtually every movie they play, changing it from the original aspect ratio, in order to play it in 16:9.

    There are a number of reasons why I prefer watching movies on DVD over Cinemax HD, and this is one of them.
     
  16. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,008
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I too thought that 1.78:1 (16:9) is a good middle ground. But then again, I have an older black framed 42" Pany plasma mounted against a flat-black painted wall framed by flat-black painted shelving with all black components (except for that stupid Wii my wife and the rest of the family had to have). Black bars in this situation are essentially invisible to the mind.

    Ignoring 1.33:1 (4:3), the "worst case" on a 42" 16:9 TV are 2½ inches top and bottom bars for super widescreen which I haven't found distracting once my brain handles the change. The 1¼ inches on each side with European Widescreen is invisible. As for American Widescreen, we're talking about on each side less than a ½" of bar or cropping, neither of which is critical.

    Yes, 4:3 TV is annoying to me but apparently not to my wife. In my case, it is only because those 3½ sidebars cause my brain think "be annoyed as I'm missing something" which I am except for old TV shows. The sooner that size offering goes away the better. But I really don't fret over those few things I have to watch in 4:3.

    Admittedly, I don't know how I'd feel about these numbers increased proportionately from a 42" TV to a 72" TV. But they never have bothered me on a theater screen.
     
  17. jclewter79

    jclewter79 Hall Of Fame

    1,833
    0
    Jan 8, 2008
    Just because a movie is made to fill up a TV screen means that it is low budget and has to vye for network time? I do not beleive that. I think that one day in the near future you will see that movies will be released in the theater, on DVD, and On demand all on the same day. The customer will get to pick how he wants to view his entertainment. If this happens and more people decide to watch at home than the theater then, it would only be smart to make that movie in 16x9 to fill the majority of the customers screens. The minority of the customers that are at the theater can just watch it in a nice average aspect ration such as 16x9 and it can fill most of their theater screen. If the movie industry does not adapt to the changing market their will be no movie industry but it wont be because of 16x9 aspect ratio. Just ask the music industry how well holding onto the old ways gets you.
     
  18. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    In terms of altering original aspect to fit 16x9... The 1.85:1 is the lease offensive at least. While it does result in some loss, it is minor compared to what would happen to a zoom/crop job on the 2.39:1.

    When we used to have Voom, and still sometimes now with HDNet, I do see some 1.85:1 and there are tiny slivers of black at the top/bottom on my widescreen set... so IF they modified that to fit I would have a harder time noticing.

    But other than that one situation, I prefer the original aspect and IF the movie is good, I find myself appropriate immersed in the experience and forget all about those black bars on the screen. IF I find myself noticing those bars, it usually means the movie is boring me and I should find something better to watch.
     
  19. Bobby H

    Bobby H Legend

    231
    0
    Mar 23, 2008
    I agree major Hollywood studios and the giant media companies who own them need to stop it with all the derivative movies. Countless sequels of movies whose original was too crappy to be made. How about those TV shows turned into movies? There is a reason why it was a TV show: it wasn't good enough to be made into a movie! Super hero movies have had a good run, but Hollywood will be sure to beat that horse long after it is dead.

    Media corporations only like predictability. They like being able to forecast growth to stock holders and predict customers will buy even more of the same old vanilla flavored slop they've been selling and re-selling for many years. That approach doesn't work with a creative business like the movie industry or music industry. Fresh changes are often required. But that requires taking chances on new ideas. Big corporations hate taking risks on new ideas.

    Regardless of how bland the movie industry has become, it is still very important to the TV broadcasting and cable/satellite industries. Hollywood movies drive a big part of electronics industry sales -especially HDTV sets and the like.

    That's viewing the situation from the narrow prism of the HDTV set in a living room and not seeing the overall bigger picture.

    That concept is a business fantasy that will not work. The people promoting the "day and date" idea are bean counting types looking only for short term gain. The productions of many movies are financed with borrowed money that accrues interest -a lot of it. The bean counters merely want to repay those loans as soon as possible. That's all.

    The bean counters ignore the truth if movies are released in theaters and on home video the same day most people will just watch the video. Very simple math. Not anywhere near enough people will continue going to theaters for them to stay in business.

    Theater profit margins are narrow enough as it is. Theater circuits like AMC, Carmike and at least several others have either been in and out of bankruptcy or close to it over the last 10 years.

    Hollywood needs movie theaters because that release "platform" earns the studios and their productions a lot of extra money. They wouldn't see that coin if all their productions went direct to video. The commercial movie theaters give Hollywood's biggest and most important movie productions a unique showcase apart from the countless numbers of direct to video movie releases.

    Even if someone doesn't see a certain movie in a movie theater, chances are he will be more aware of that movie because it played in movie theaters.

    Commercial movie theaters are part of what legitimizes a movie as being a real movie instead of some piece of direct to video trash. Even low budget independent films fight hard to get on at least a few movie theater screens in major cities. It's a pretty important issue -especially in marketing terms.
     
  20. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    Another good post from Bobby H.

    The one movie I saw that was an effort to release all at once in cinema, DVD and TV was "Bubble". That's one of Mark Cuban's big dreams, to release movies in three formats at once. That movie wasn't worth watching on DVD, or even the time spent watching it for free on TV, and I can't imagine someone actually paying for a ticket to see it in a theater. Step 1 in the movie business is to make a good movie that people want to see. There is a higher bar for movies releasing in theaters than there is for those on DVD, and then a still-lower bar for the ones releasing on TV. From what I've seen, the lowest bar is for movie(s) released for all three at once.

    Maybe since home theaters are improving in quality we may see more quality movies making it to direct-to-DVD (or blu-ray) or direct-to-VOD/HD, but it will have to include movie-ticket style pricing to become viable for serious movies. Be careful what you wish for. The demise of the movie theater may come at the cost of DVD rentals $10/ea and VODs at $20.
     

Share This Page