• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Channels Showing Full Widescreen Films
<<
<
72 of 136
>>
>
d'@ve
15-05-2012
I sometimes wonder when reading threads like this, how full HD enthusiasts who are also OAR enthusiasts manage to recoconcile these two seemingly contradictory quality indicators.

On mainstream 16:9 widescreen TVs, it's one or the other, right? By that, I mean that zooming in to 16:9 aspect ratio when making the video transfer will potentially provide more detail for viewers, but on a smaller 'stage', will it not? Like the difference between a photo taken with a moderate wideangle camera lens (OAR) and a standard lens (16:9 transfer)?

I think both methods have their uses, benefits and disadvantages.
Libretio
15-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“I sometimes wonder when reading threads like this, how full HD enthusiasts who are also OAR enthusiasts manage to recoconcile these two seemingly contradictory quality indicators.

On mainstream 16:9 widescreen TVs, it's one or the other, right? By that, I mean that zooming in to 16:9 aspect ratio when making the video transfer will potentially provide more detail for viewers, but on a smaller 'stage', will it not? Like the difference between a photo taken with a moderate wideangle camera lens (OAR) and a standard lens (16:9 transfer)?

I think both methods have their uses, benefits and disadvantages.”

To be honest, I don't think it's as difficult to reconcile as you might imagine. Full HD is the best TV presentation currently available, until Ultra HD makes its bow on the home consumer stage, and most enthusiasts would accept that the presentation of any material outside the 16:9 box (whether 1.33:1, 1.37, 1.66, 1.75, 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, 2.55, 2.59 or 2.76) will lead to a small degree of visual compromise when 'letterboxed' or 'pillarboxed' within the HD (16:9) window. The loss in visual quality and detail is barely noticeable, except to those most sensitive to such things.
mwardy
15-05-2012
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“The loss in visual quality and detail is barely noticeable, except to those most sensitive to such things.”

Surely, strictly speaking, there isn't a loss in visual quality, is there? Detail may be more apparent on a 16:9 zoomed version because it's bigger (proper solution: get a bigger screen, or sit closer ) but the scaling can only degrade the image, at best not by so much that it's very noticeable.
Libretio
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by mwardy:
“Surely, strictly speaking, there isn't a loss in visual quality, is there?”

I'm not a techie, but a letterboxed image doesn't use the full 16:9 frame and therefore occupies fewer of the 1080 'lines' of resolution - this is especially true of 'scope' movies - which inevitably results in a slight loss in detail. But as I say, it isn't really noticeable to most people.
d'@ve
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“I'm not a techie, but a letterboxed image doesn't use the full 16:9 frame and therefore occupies fewer of the 1080 'lines' of resolution - this is especially true of 'scope' movies - which inevitably results in a slight loss in detail. But as I say, it isn't really noticeable to most people.”

When showing a 2.35 film in OAR, there is an almost identical percentage loss in vertical resolution as there is on BBC/BBC1 HD in horizontal resolution by them having 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080 (24% to 25% loss). The vertical resolution falls to about 820 lines, and is therefore closer to 720HD than 1080HD.

You should see the grief that the BBC get over in the technical forums (and sometimes in here) from the "full HD" resolution enthusiasts - yet broadcasting 2.35 movies in OAR is just as "bad" from a resolution standpoint, and 2.39 or greater is worse. I agree that in both cases, the differences are insignificant for most viewers, it's just the "HD Max" enthusiasts I was wondering about, as many of them would tend to be OAR enthusiasts too.
mwardy
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“When showing a 2.35 film in OAR, there is an almost identical percentage loss in vertical resolution as there is on BBC/BBC1 HD in horizontal resolution by them having 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080 (24% to 25% loss). The vertical resolution falls to about 820 lines, and is therefore closer to 720HD than 1080HD.

You should see the grief that the BBC get over in the technical forums (and sometimes in here) from the "full HD" resolution enthusiasts - yet showing a 2.35 movies in OAR is just as "bad". I agree that in both cases, the differences are insignificant for most viewers, it's just the "HD Max" enthusiasts I was asking about.”

I don't think this is the same thing at all. The resolution is the same at 16:9 and 21:9, if we think of it in terms of pixel density, i.e the number of scan lines per unit of height. This is very different from the jump from 1440 to 1920, which involves stretching/scaling the image horizontally to fit the 1920 px wide screen. The analogous operation for vertical resolution would be to take an 820 px high image (if that's what scope films typically show) and stretch it to occupy the 1080 px high screen.

Of course it's more complex than that, for starters because the film master is at a much higher resolution, so isn't as liable to degradation in being blown up to 16:9 as in that scenario.

PS the differences between 1440 and 1920 broadcasts on the BBC are plain to see! But that's for another forum.
d'@ve
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by mwardy:
“I don't think this is the same thing at all. The resolution is the same at 16:9 and 21:9, if we think of it in terms of pixel density, i.e the number of scan lines per unit of height.”

I have assumed scanning at the appropriate AR from an HQ HD movie master. The 21:9 scan would lose about 24% of its vertical definition when displayed on a 16:9 full HD TV at OAR, due to 24% of the TV's vertical pixel count being unused, even if all 1080 'lines' were used for the transmission itself (but I don't know if that would be the case, due to lack of technical knowledge!).

While writing the above, I started to wonder if the horizontal resolution of objects in the displayed part of the picture would similarly be affected - perhaps they will, or perhaps I think too much!
mwardy
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“I have assumed scanning at the appropriate AR from an HQ HD movie master. The 21:9 scan would lose about 24% of its vertical definition when displayed on a 16:9 full HD TV at OAR, due to 24% of the TV's vertical pixel count being unused, even if all 1080 'lines' were used for the transmission itself (but I don't know if that would be the case, due to lack of technical knowledge!).”

Hmm. This may just be a matter of definition (no pun intended ).

Assuming there is no loss in transferring the master to 16:9, I have problems with the idea that a 21:9 broadcast 'loses 24% of its vertical definition'. More specifically, the 'its'. The 21:9 image has the appropriate vertical definition for an OAR broadcast. It's possible to get more definition (ideally but probably not always or exactly 24% more) by zooming in and recovering more from the master, but this is an artificial exercise which as we all know has significant costs in terms of lost lateral information.

Fair enough?

BTW I'm not sure what you are referring to in your point involving lack of technical knowledge. I've just measured a frame from Inglourious Basterds and the image is, rather neatly, 800 px high with black bars at 140 px each. Does that help at all?
mwardy
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“While writing the above, I started to wonder if the horizontal resolution of objects in the displayed part of the picture would similarly be affected - perhaps they will, or perhaps I think too much! ”

Yes, I suppose they would...
theonlyweeman
16-05-2012
Regardless of how much detail lost I'd rather the cinematography was how the artists intended (obviously not on stuff that wasn't aiming for good cinematography)
mwardy
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Regardless of how much detail lost I'd rather the cinematography was how the artists intended (obviously not on stuff that wasn't aiming for good cinematography)”

Absolutely--don't we all?
d'@ve
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by mwardy:
“Hmm. This may just be a matter of definition (no pun intended ).

Assuming there is no loss in transferring the master to 16:9, I have problems with the idea that a 21:9 broadcast 'loses 24% of its vertical definition'. More specifically, the 'its'. The 21:9 image has the appropriate definition for an OAR broadcast. It's possible to get more definition (ideally 24% more) by zooming in and recovering more from the master, but this is an artificial exercise which as we all know has significant costs in terms of lost lateral information.

Fair enough?

BTW I'm not sure what you are referring to in your point involving lack of technical knowledge. I've just measured a frame from Inglourious Basterds and the image is, rather neatly, 800 px high with black bars at 140 px each. Does that help at all?”

I agree with that. So the viewer would potentially see 24% more detail of any given object, in a 16:9 broadcast compared to a 21:9 broadcast of the same film. But you lose 24% of the picture at the sides. It's a square peg/round hole kind of problem - the square peg will will fit if you either shrink it a bit, or if you chop off the corners!

By lack of technical knowledge, I mean on broadcast standards, I'm not sure If the "loss of detail" occurs at the point of broadcast or on display.
jzee
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“By lack of technical knowledge, I mean on broadcast standards, I'm not sure If the "loss of detail" occurs at the point of broadcast or on display.”

There's not much more to it, than as long as the 16:9 crop is made from a Super HD master, you will see more detail, but lose some of the picture, with OAR 2.35:1, you'll lose some detail, but see the full frame as the director intended.
mwardy
16-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“I agree with that. So the viewer would potentially see 24% more detail of any given object, in a 16:9 broadcast compared to a 21:9 broadcast of the same film. But you lose 24% of the picture at the sides. It's a square peg/round hole kind of problem - the square peg will will fit if you either shrink it a bit, or if you chop off the corners! ”

OK--fair enough then. But just to add, that assumes a perfect transfer from a high quality master, which is not always the case--I've seen some grim looking things even on the main channels (before turning over anyway because they're not in OAR ).
Libretio
17-05-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Regardless of how much detail lost I'd rather the cinematography was how the artists intended (obviously not on stuff that wasn't aiming for good cinematography)”

I'd agree with all of this, except to say that even those movies where the cinematography isn't exactly Oscar-worthy deserve to be seen as they were originally intended. It won't make a bad movie any better, but at least the viewer is able to make a judgement one way or the other based on the actual film as it was meant to be seen. Besides, one person's 'bad' cinematography is another person's painterly masterpiece, if you see what I mean.

As for all the other stuff posted recently, concerning lines of resolution and how much is lost at one ratio versus another - someone hand me a hieroglyphics chart, just so's I can make head or tail of it!!...
DVDfever
17-05-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Con Air in OAR on BBC Three...”

I know, obviously, this was mentioned the other day, but I saw it on the rerun last night and it is one of those guilty pleasures, even though I've seen it a zillion times and wasn't watching it in HD/DD5.1/DTS/etc.
mwardy
17-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“By lack of technical knowledge, I mean on broadcast standards, I'm not sure If the "loss of detail" occurs at the point of broadcast or on display.”

On this, the amount of detail/information available is set at the broadcaster's end. Displays cope as well as their design allows.
Libretio
18-05-2012
(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)


Scope and 3-D movies across the Freeview platform for the coming week (19 - 25 May):


Saturday (19 May)

• AMELIA (Film 4) [Hawk Scope]
• A COCK AND BULL STORY (BBC 2)
• DR. DOLITTLE 2 (C5)
• EDEN LAKE (ITV 4)
• THE GAME (ITV 4)
• THE LEGEND OF ZORRO (5*)
• MAXIMUM RISK (5 USA)
• RUSH HOUR 3 (C4) [Panavision]
• STAR TREK: INSURRECTION (Film 4) [Panavision]
• A TIME TO KILL (Film 4) [Panavision]
• TITANIC (C4)
• ZULU DAWN (5 USA) [Panavision]


Sunday (20 May)

• 10,000 BC (ITV 1)
• BANDSLAM (C4)
• BRIDE & PREJUDICE (C4) [Anamorphic]
• CUTTHROAT ISLAND (Film 4) [Panavision / Technovision]
• DEEP IMPACT (BBC 2)
• FREE WILLY (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• FREE WILLY 2: THE ADVENTURE HOME (C5) [Panavision]
• HAPPY FEET (ITV 2) [CGI]
• THE LEGEND OF ZORRO (5*)
• MONGOL (BBC 4)
• MONSTER-IN-LAW (Film 4)
• PERFECT STRANGER (C5)
• TWO TIMES TWO EQUALS FOUR [Do Dooni Chaar] [दो दूनी चार] (C4) [Anamorphic]
• THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (ITV 2) [Panavision]


Monday (21 May)

• 4: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER (Film 4)
• ANOTHER STAKEOUT (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE ENFORCER (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• FAINTHEART (C4)
• LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME (More 4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• MOONFLEET (Film 4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• SHROOMS (C5)
• UP PERISCOPE (Film 4) [WarnerScope]
• THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (ITV 2) [Panavision]


Tuesday (22 May)

• DEEP BLUE SEA (ITV 2)
• ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• FAR NORTH (Film 4) [Panavision]
• HOW TO STEAL A MILLION (C4) [Panavision]
• LAST HOLIDAY (Film 4)
• THE OUTRAGE (More 4) [Panavision]
• WHITE FEATHER (Film 4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]


Wednesday (23 May)

• BLADE: TRINITY (Film 4)
• BLAZING SADDLES (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• COPYCAT (Film 4) [Panavision]
• HELEN OF TROY (C4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• I AM LEGEND (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• KIDNAPPED (More 4) [Panavision]
• PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (BBC 3)
• PRACTICAL MAGIC (5*)
• SILENT HILL (E4)
• SURROGATES (BBC 1)
• VANITY FAIR (ITV 3)


Thursday (24 May)

• CONSPIRACY THEORY (C5) [Panavision]
• THE DARJEELING LIMITED (Film 4) [Panavision]
• LAKE TAHOE (Film 4) [Lomoscope]
• MR. HOBBS TAKES A VACATION (C4) [CinemaScope]
• ON DEADLY GROUND (ITV 4) [Clairmont Scope]
• RUSHMORE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• STAR TREK: INSURRECTION (Film 4) [Panavision]


Friday (25 May)

• AMELIA (Film 4) [Hawk Scope]
• EDEN LAKE (ITV 4)
• GET RICH OR DIE TRYIN' (Film 4)
• NORTH TO ALASKA (More 4) [CinemaScope]
• RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY (Film 4) [Panavision]
• X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (Film 4)
Libretio
18-05-2012
By the way, just in case no one else noticed it, Film 4 ran the terrestrial scope 'premiere' of UP PERISCOPE the other day, which has been shown cropped on all channels - including the C4 platform - until now.
DVDfever
20-05-2012
BBC2 are currently showing A Cock and Bull Story in 16:9, but didn't they show it in 2.35:1 last time? IMDB lists that ratio and I'm sure that's how it was presented last time? (without searching back through this thread)

Edit: I searched. It was 2.35:1. Last July.
bearbum72
20-05-2012
It should b left to the customer to choose the aspect ratio, otherwise whats the point. I still have an old 4:3 tv an its fab. I hate not being given the oppertunity to choose my own ratio. Challenge tv are the worst for this not turning on there force bob, so when the ads come on its all out of aspect.
DVDfever
20-05-2012
Originally Posted by bearbum72:
“It should b left to the customer to choose the aspect ratio, otherwise whats the point. I still have an old 4:3 tv an its fab. I hate not being given the oppertunity to choose my own ratio. Challenge tv are the worst for this not turning on there force bob, so when the ads come on its all out of aspect.”

Well, you can crop from 16:9 to 4:3 (which will also crop a 2.35:1 film down to 16:9) but for someone to do that, they should instead switch off and return their TV to the shop because they're too silly to own a TV.
mike65
20-05-2012
• DEEP IMPACT (BBC 2)

Will no one rid me of this film?
jenzie
20-05-2012
where does this rubbish, that you get more detail if you zoom in a picture come from???

more lies from the fullscreen mob i wager

the more stuff in it's original form the better!
d'@ve
20-05-2012
Originally Posted by jenzie:
“where does this rubbish, that you get more detail if you zoom in a picture come from???

more lies from the fullscreen mob i wager”

If you read the discussion again, you will see that nobody has said that. It would need to be done before transmission from a higher definition copy than broadcast HD. Zooming-in at home won 't do it.
<<
<
72 of 136
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map