(2020-08-07, 11:42 AM)Kynch Wrote:

(2020-08-06, 03:44 PM)WATCHMEN-NEO Wrote: Question from a newbie：why some movie sequels change their theatre AR ？

Say Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes 1 has an AR of 1.85:1, but later on A Game of Shadows change it into 2.35(or 2.39?). So did The Avengers 2, it has a 2.35:1 AR(or 2.39?), but the first one is in 1.85. Such changes make me a little unadaptable no matter what AR i personally like.

I remember the first trailer of both JL and WW were released on the same day(on SDCC?), before that i was expecting JL a lot more because of Zack Snyder, his visual style and all that. But after watching them i was very disappointed in JL mostly for its AR choise. Zack's "epic" compositons fit with 2.35 the most IMO, and in my memory he's never changed it before(300,Watchmen,Man of Steel,BVS etc). I can say mainly for this reason i never went to the big screen to see it(criticism aside).

I think the composition style for Justice League can be attributed to the fact that a lot of the film was shot in 1.43:1 for IMAX, which means that it would have been very hard to reframe it down to 2.35:1. 1.78:1 was a good middle-ground compromise.

Well，i looked it up ，IMDB says JL used these cameras：

Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses
Arri Alexa XT, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arricam LT, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arricam ST, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arriflex 235, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arriflex 435 ES, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses

As a layman i dont see “IMAX” in them，and if you didn't shoot the film in IMAX，why bother make it 1.85?Plus i didn't hear there was a 1.43 version of the film for either theatre or bluray,but BVS did use IMAX cameras and you could see it in theatre.Anyway maybe i just don't like 1.85 that much，especially in theatre.

PS: Zack said the remaster will show the film in 1.43 AR，that's good news i guess.

(2020-08-09, 12:59 PM)WATCHMEN-NEO Wrote:

(2020-08-07, 11:42 AM)Kynch Wrote:

(2020-08-06, 03:44 PM)WATCHMEN-NEO Wrote: Question from a newbie：why some movie sequels change their theatre AR ？

Say Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes 1 has an AR of 1.85:1, but later on A Game of Shadows change it into 2.35(or 2.39?). So did The Avengers 2, it has a 2.35:1 AR(or 2.39?), but the first one is in 1.85. Such changes make me a little unadaptable no matter what AR i personally like.

I remember the first trailer of both JL and WW were released on the same day(on SDCC?), before that i was expecting JL a lot more because of Zack Snyder, his visual style and all that. But after watching them i was very disappointed in JL mostly for its AR choise. Zack's "epic" compositons fit with 2.35 the most IMO, and in my memory he's never changed it before(300,Watchmen,Man of Steel,BVS etc). I can say mainly for this reason i never went to the big screen to see it(criticism aside).

I think the composition style for Justice League can be attributed to the fact that a lot of the film was shot in 1.43:1 for IMAX, which means that it would have been very hard to reframe it down to 2.35:1. 1.78:1 was a good middle-ground compromise.

Well，i looked it up ，IMDB says JL used these cameras：

Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses
Arri Alexa XT, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arricam LT, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arricam ST, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arriflex 235, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses
Arriflex 435 ES, Leitz SUMMILUX-C Lenses

As a layman i dont see “IMAX” in them，and if you didn't shoot the film in IMAX，why bother make it 1.85?Plus i didn't hear there was a 1.43 version of the film for either theatre or bluray,but BVS did use IMAX cameras and you could see it in theatre.Anyway maybe i just don't like 1.85 that much，especially in theatre.

PS: Zack said the remaster will show the film in 1.43 AR，that's good news i guess.

Short of a movie being shot on IMAX 70mm film, IMAX has become kind of a marketing gimmick meaning that you have a higher image, which is kind of nonsensical really. It may make sense for actual cinemas because you need a higher screen and different hardware to show a higher image (without having black bars left and right), but on a computer IMAX is literally meaningless because your screen determines how big your image is going to be.

In short, it just means the aspect ratio and these cameras already shoot at an aspect ratio that has more head-(or foot-)room than scope or even 16:9 would require.

The SUMMILUX-C don't appear to be anamorphic cinemascope lenses, so the image on the film would simply be the full unmatted negative unless they used some form of in-camera matting. In other words, the image on the film would actually allow for an even more ridiculous aspect ratio than he promised. Films have been shot like this basically for as long as 35mm has existed (a long time) but now they act like it's some revolutionary new thing to have a 4:3-ish aspect ratio lol!

On the Arri Alexa that may be a slightly different story, it has a resolution of 3424x2202, so for 1.43:1 they would have to crop off a teeny tiny bit of the sides.

Really they shouldn't be calling it IMAX and simply say "the aspect ratio is X". But they need to impress the plebs and "IMAX" sounds more impressive than "my artistic vision says it should have an aspect ratio of 1.43:1".

(2020-08-09, 01:36 PM)TomArrow Wrote: Short of a movie being shot on IMAX 70mm film, IMAX has become kind of a marketing gimmick meaning that you have a higher image, which is kind of nonsensical really. It may make sense for actual cinemas because you need a higher screen and different hardware to show a higher image (without having black bars left and right), but on a computer IMAX is literally meaningless because your screen determines how big your image is going to be.

(...)

Really they shouldn't be calling it IMAX and simply say "the aspect ratio is X". But they need to impress the plebs and "IMAX" sounds more impressive than "my artistic vision says it should have an aspect ratio of 1.43:1".

Yup!

Alright everybody, but specifically @TomArrow @spoRv and @Lio . I got a chance to do some comparing and contrasting  between SDR/HDR viewing of The Shining and Terminator 2. First thing I should probably say is I am not viewing these via the 4K Ultra HD disc. I don't have a 4K Blu Ray player. BUT. The Blu Ray file and the 4K iTunes file are the same version.

Do you remember earlier when I posted that YT link of T2 compare and contrasts, of Skynet version vs 4K version? And how I was told not to view that channel again... Well I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that even If that's how the video looks, it's "supposed" to be viewed on an HDR monitor. So that's what I did! ... 95% sure. 

The processed I used for these images is, well, not the best BUT it did  get the job done. I pointed a DSLR are  my TV and got the image to be as accurate as possible (some photoshop help, but the same adjustments were applied to  all of the images). I compared between:
1. SDR tv.
2. HDR tv.
3. SDR TV with Apple TV in HDR mode (looked the exact same as just HDR tv)
4. HDR TV with Apple TV in HDR mode (appears to be attempting  to  HDR and HDR'd image...)
so it was interesting.

Through the  changing  of  the  display I did not find many differences. At one point, for The Shining, I put in the Blu Ray disc and switched the input back and forth between it and the Apple TV. And then did the same sort of tests. 


MY FINDINGS RESULTED IN THIS: HDR on TV as display does alter the viewing experience of the movie. Slightly. It simply appeared to make the picture pop from the screen even  more than setting the standard display at the max Backlight. However, it desaturated the image a bit. Overall, there wasn't much change in image quality other than the screen popping more.


Are these movies remastered in HDR so there is just a universal file and that way any TV can display it as accurately as possible? So users can just click HDR on their TV settings and the image will actually be accurate (I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's gone over to a friend's house and been horrified by the settings used on the TV.)

AND ONE FINAL QUESTION. Using The Shining as an example - the colors are off quite a bit for the UK Blu Ray and the recent 4K HDR release. Why is this? Does this alteration of colors have anything to do with CRT displays and altering the color for that? If it matters, the American DVD and the UK DVD, although using different aspect ratios (16x9 and 4x3 respectively), have the same color. And as we know, DVD came before Blu Ray.

THANK YOU FOR READING.

The images of the Shining below depict the Above images as belonging to the UK Blu Ray (strange colors), and the Below images as  belonging to the 4K HDR release.  P.S. - any way to make these images show up directly on this page? I see them on desktop, but not mobile.

https://imgur.com/0adLwv3
https://imgur.com/h6Pw8QB
https://imgur.com/ZpuKi0K
https://imgur.com/FGBQF0q
https://imgur.com/BmOptsG
https://imgur.com/sWUbi5P
https://imgur.com/euovQb4

After all of this, I don't even remember how I got here. I think it had something to do with "if they release a movie in HDR, is that how it's supposed to be viewed?" and then we got onto displaying a movie and i'm like... why won't it Just Work? HDR movie but not on HDR display (say, T2 on iPad... Does it matter the display really if it's remastered in HDR and you are viewing that source video?).
Ok I'm done now, good night.

ADMIN EDIT: to show up images from imgur (and other sites) you must include the direct link of each image; I did it for you this time!

Just to clarify, did you watch iTunes' HDR 4K version or the normal 4K SDR version? Most streaming services offer an SDR 4K version too. Typically the display will somehow indicate that the current image is HDR.

(2020-08-13, 08:54 PM)TomArrow Wrote: Just to clarify, did you watch iTunes' HDR 4K version or the normal 4K SDR version? Most streaming services offer an SDR 4K version too. Typically the display will somehow indicate that the current image is HDR.

Terminator 2 was solely through iTunes.

The Shining was both UK Blu Ray and standard Blu Ray of the 4K release. 

I did a compare and contrast between The Shining 4K version standard Blu Ray (again, I must emphasize standard as I have no idea if there is a different look on the version that works in a 4K blu ray player) [but this is the version remastered in HDR]  and the  iTunes version. They look the exact same on my TV and computer displays. Attached is an image of all of those  comparisons, but as I'm comparing 6 images together as taken from a DSLR of my TV, they're not the greatest quality for image comparison (see T2 images).


(I used the "insert an image" button this time. Hopefully it works.)
P.S. which admin was kind enough to insert the images on the previous post? thanks.

Sorry, maybe I phrased myself poorly. What I meant was if you are sure that what you were seeing was actually HDR. It might have been the version that is HDR remastered, yes, however the streaming services also sometimes (or often) offer tonemapped versions of that HDR version. If you aren't explicitly in HDR mode, it might be showing you that. Watching such a tonemapped version, even on a HDR display, would just give you an SDR experience. So that's why I wanted to ask for clarification, as it's rather important.

(2020-08-14, 04:57 AM)crumpled666 Wrote: (I used the "insert an image" button this time. Hopefully it works.)
P.S. which admin was kind enough to insert the images on the  previous post?  thanks.

Sadly it does not work...
And I inserted images, by the way!

(2020-08-14, 07:36 PM)spoRv Wrote:

(2020-08-14, 04:57 AM)crumpled666 Wrote: (I used the "insert an image" button this time. Hopefully it works.)
P.S. which admin was kind enough to insert the images on the  previous post?  thanks.

Sadly it does not work...
And I inserted images, by the way!

Okay, I am about to respond with updated findings Re: whether  or  not  it was actually HDR. However, I would like to  know if there is a better source for sharing these images than Imgur? I'm going to insert 3 versions of the  same picture that didn't show up.
1. Using this forum's "insert image" of image's link,
2. Imgur image link
3. Imgur Direct Link
4. Forum's "insert image" of the direct link.
     5. I tired to Attach the image but it's over 500 KB, so I'm just not going try for this test.
Please let me know which works and on what device you are using.
     The difference between Image and Direct Image is just that the HTML ends in ".jpg"
I wish the frame I'd compared was not one at night. Don't worry though, I'll make an updated post shortly.

Here we go.
1. 
2. https://imgur.com/Wg7CgQM
3. [Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/Wg7CgQM.jpg)
4. [img][Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/Wg7CgQM.jpg)[/img]

On my computer all 4 of them show up, on mobile they only appear as links.

On my PC, link 1 does not show up, and the other 3 do only appears as link.

So, use https://postimages.org - drop images there, then click on the image to zoom in at max resolution (needed for bigger images), and get its adress - should start with https://i.postimg.cc - and then insert image here with that link.

Or, better, use http://www.framecompare.com - here you can insert up to six images, and compare them directly. HINT: better to use same resolution in this case.