Starz-HD: Hollywood Homicide at 9pm tonight! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sean Mota
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 1K
Did not watch it except for the ending. The PQ was excellent for what I saw. No OAR here but the credits were OAR and you can compare the PQ and it looked fantastic! Hope to catch it at another time.
I really don't understand your beef with HD mainly using the 16x9 format instead of the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. There are very few movies made today that really need (or use properly) that kind of aspect ratio. And I don't understand how you think that reducing the area of the 16x9 screen used to present the picture is going to provide better detail. As far as I'm concerned, unless you are watching a great scope movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" in which the director and cinematographer utilized every square inch of the scope frame, it does not harm the integrity of the movie's presentation to be in a 16x9 format. And the 16x9 HD format will give you a lot more detail (almost 1/3 more vertical resolution) than having a 2.35:1 ratio movie in HD with black bars across the top and bottom of the screen. Perhaps you are just wanting to compare the DVD version to the HD version, but I get the impression that people in this forum tend to like the OAR better.
Most of the movies shot today are actually framed and shot for a standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio and the scoped versions either contain extraneous extra viewing area to the side that was never really important to the shot or the 1.85:1 aspect ratio film was modified by chopping off part of the top and bottom of the picture to give the impression of a wider 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I know that sounds rediculous to shoot for 1.85:1 and then cut the top and bottom of the picture off to make it 2.35:1, but just check out the Harry Potter movies when they are on HD (especially the Sorcerer's Stone). Watch the HD version and the DVD version side by side and you will see that the 2.35:1 ratio on the DVD was achieved by that exact method.
Most of the movies shot today are actually framed and shot for a standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio and the scoped versions either contain extraneous extra viewing area to the side that was never really important to the shot or the 1.85:1 aspect ratio film was modified by chopping off part of the top and bottom of the picture to give the impression of a wider 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I know that sounds rediculous to shoot for 1.85:1 and then cut the top and bottom of the picture off to make it 2.35:1, but just check out the Harry Potter movies when they are on HD (especially the Sorcerer's Stone). Watch the HD version and the DVD version side by side and you will see that the 2.35:1 ratio on the DVD was achieved by that exact method.
Try to look at these movies on a screen larger than 60". Older movies shot with 35 mm film when transfers to HD show grainy and the picture quality would look much better if it was shown with black bars top/bottom (OAR). Look at a movie like 633 Squadron playing on Cinema 10 yesterday. It started OAR and within 5 minutes it changed to 16x9 and the PQ was never the same. Look at the Gladiator version in OAR or the LOTR in OAR and you will see that PQ does suffers when you blow up the picture with the only intend of filling the screen.
Well, that is like saying that movie theaters need to shrink the size of their screens because I can start to see the grain of the film. Do you go to movies in the theater and curse them for not refocusing the picture onto a smaller screen so that the film grain will be eliminated? I seriously doubt it.
I do know about the grain effect that you are talking about, but I also know that there will be greater detail in the picture overall with an HD picture utilizing the full 16x9 frame than if you "letterbox" it into a smaller area. You may be able to see the grain, but there is a lot of detail in that image you will lose with a OAR ratio version of films.
Just for reference sake, I have a 100-inch diagonal screen projected from a Sanyo PLV-60HT.
I do know about the grain effect that you are talking about, but I also know that there will be greater detail in the picture overall with an HD picture utilizing the full 16x9 frame than if you "letterbox" it into a smaller area. You may be able to see the grain, but there is a lot of detail in that image you will lose with a OAR ratio version of films.
Just for reference sake, I have a 100-inch diagonal screen projected from a Sanyo PLV-60HT.
mccujo said:
Not at all. 35mm film has the highest resolution and the Movie Theaters take advantage of this by using equipment that are much better than my 720p or 1080i HDTV/Projectos. As a matter of fact HD 720p or 1080i is a downresolution from 35mm film.
I do not get your point about movies in its original aspect ratio (OAR). It is a known fact that when you blow up the HD transfer movie (just for the mere purpose of filling the 16x9 screen) not only you lose picture quality in the HD transfer but you also lose part of the picture. These are two of the basic arguments why most DVD's have their movies in its OAR.
Look at the Matrix Triology DVD and tell me if you find a version that was done just to fill the screen (16x9). HBO decided to show it that way and still shows excellent details of the HD Transfer but it would have been even better had HBO shown its OAR.
Most older movies like the Cinema 10 movies will also benefit from OAR and no cropping.
I don't understand you logic and I see these two statements you made as contradicting each other:
"35mm film has the highest resolution and the Movie Theaters take advantage of this by using equipment that are much better than my 720p or 1080i HDTV/Projectos. As a matter of fact HD 720p or 1080i is a downresolution from 35mm film."
AND
"It is a known fact that when you blow up the HD transfer movie (just for the mere purpose of filling the 16x9 screen) not only you lose picture quality in the HD transfer but you also lose part of the picture."
If the HD 1080i picture is a downresolution from the 35mm original, than how is it that cutting off the sides of the picture to fit it in a 16x9 format will cost you picture quality? You do lose part of the picture, but the picture quality should contain more detail since it comes from the higher resolution 35mm master.
Now, the only way you could lose picture quality is if you are reffering to the greater bandwidth required to send a full 16x9 picture instead of the OAR version with the black bars at the top and bottom (which in turn requires less data and more of the data-stream can be used on the OAR picture). Is this the "loss" of picture quality you are reffering to?
Please explain where I am missing your rationale about the lower picture quality. I understand the desire for the entire scoped picture, but I do not understand how your picture quality argument works.
Thanks for the discussion. I am new to this site. Please respond and let know your thoughts, Sean. Thanks.
LONG LIVE THE RESISTANCE!
"35mm film has the highest resolution and the Movie Theaters take advantage of this by using equipment that are much better than my 720p or 1080i HDTV/Projectos. As a matter of fact HD 720p or 1080i is a downresolution from 35mm film."
AND
"It is a known fact that when you blow up the HD transfer movie (just for the mere purpose of filling the 16x9 screen) not only you lose picture quality in the HD transfer but you also lose part of the picture."
If the HD 1080i picture is a downresolution from the 35mm original, than how is it that cutting off the sides of the picture to fit it in a 16x9 format will cost you picture quality? You do lose part of the picture, but the picture quality should contain more detail since it comes from the higher resolution 35mm master.
Now, the only way you could lose picture quality is if you are reffering to the greater bandwidth required to send a full 16x9 picture instead of the OAR version with the black bars at the top and bottom (which in turn requires less data and more of the data-stream can be used on the OAR picture). Is this the "loss" of picture quality you are reffering to?
Please explain where I am missing your rationale about the lower picture quality. I understand the desire for the entire scoped picture, but I do not understand how your picture quality argument works.
Thanks for the discussion. I am new to this site. Please respond and let know your thoughts, Sean. Thanks.
LONG LIVE THE RESISTANCE!
Check this thread: How an HD Transfer of old movie is done?
The state of master film determines how good the HD transfer is. If grainy is in the original, grainy will appear in the HD transfer. As you blow up the image, the pixels on your tv/projector will intensify the grainy. Just as an example.
The state of master film determines how good the HD transfer is. If grainy is in the original, grainy will appear in the HD transfer. As you blow up the image, the pixels on your tv/projector will intensify the grainy. Just as an example.
