Support NeoGAF

[AFreak]

OP, you get it hooked up yet?

 

[FromTheFuture]

returning for laughs

 

[AndyD]

Is taking into acount an extra 25% of screen space really that difficult? Yes they should take the extra step, after all, they're selling their product to me.

You all think way too highly of film directors.

When you commission movies for your consumption, then you can pick.

Until then, I think the director is in a far superior position to yours in terms of making decisions about what should and should not be in the frame. After all, he is the one getting paid to direct.

For those who don't like lines, use your TV to zoom in. For the rest of us, let us enjoy the movie like it was in the theater and the way the director imagined and framed it. Also, please let us enjoy music uncensored the way singers and bands play it. And books unedited and not banned. And paintings and sculptured not moderated and banned by certain moral patrol groups.

 

[Kyo]

What an amazingly inappropriate comparison. Miles Davis certainly wouldn't have approved of the "unedited" versions of some of his 70s recordings that hit the market in the last decade. Some of that is the musical equivalent of boom mic shots. :lol

 

[Raistlin]

Tell that to Christopher Nolan who somehow managed to shoot the biggest movie of the year while making sure it's maximally enjoyable in a variety of formats (Cinemascope, IMAX, 16:9).



That silly Nolan, maybe he should learn how to shoot films before pursuing such amateurish concepts. :lol

I'm not sure how this is the same.

First off, the film was in fact cropped depending on which version you viewed. So I'm not sure that would match the sort of 'maximally enjoyable' view you're talking about for BluRay. You stated you do not want any cropping or matting iirc?

Second, regardless of which version you saw, obviously there weren't things in the periphery he didn't want you to see.

Finally, you do realize the budget this movie had? If cost was no object, then every film would use IMAX cameras, and then just matte the film for use in normal theaters (thereby gaining some extra resolution).

 

[faceless007]

It's not a new thing; if you work it out several of the popular 4:3 ratios like 1280x1024 are actually 5:4. 1280x960 is the 4:3 equivalent.

I think 1280x1024 is the only popular 5:4 resolution, and it's pretty much only used on 17-19" LCDs. I read somewhere that LCD makers chose it just because it was easier to manufacture or resulted in higher yields.

 

[AndyD]

What an amazingly inappropriate comparison. Miles Davis certainly wouldn't have approved of the "unedited" versions of some of his 70s recordings that hit the market in the last decade. Some of that is the musical equivalent of boom mic shots. :lol

I don't mean unedited, i meant uncensored.

 

[AndyD]

I think 1280x1024 is the only popular 5:4 resolution, and it's pretty much only used on 17-19" LCDs. I read somewhere that LCD makers chose it just because it was easier to manufacture or resulted in higher yields.

It fit well into the large boards they were manufacturing. The same reason we are getting tons of 40 inch and 46 inch TVs and not many 41, 42, 43...

 

[faceless007]

That's only the case if you have to render CG. The rest would be fairly negligeable, with regards to the cost of the rest of the movie.

Yeah, it's not like elaborate CGI is used very much in films these days. Of course the cost is negligible!

 

[TheExodu5]

Yeah, it's not like elaborate CGI is used very much in films these days. Of course the cost is negligible!

God forbid the cost of making their movie goes up by a few percent.

I thought you guys were saying the whole point of 2.35:1 was the "artistic vision". Now you're saying the point is to save money?

 

[Raistlin]

What an amazingly inappropriate comparison. Miles Davis certainly wouldn't have approved of the "unedited" versions of some of his 70s recordings that hit the market in the last decade. Some of that is the musical equivalent of boom mic shots. :lol

So you're saying a directors should be forced into filming 16x9?

Hate to break it to you, but films are made for movie theaters first-off, which can support any number of aspect ratios due to CIH. Regardless of the origins of wide aspect ratios, it's hardly a surprise some directors like panoramic aspect ratios, given the fact humans naturally see wider than 16:9 (even if parts are in your periphery). They sometimes want to envelope as much of your view as possible.

I fail to see how enforcing artificial constraints on an art-form is ever a good idea.




There's a reason HD TV shows are shot in 16x9 ... they are meant specifically for television broadcasts. Film is not.

 

[faceless007]

God forbid the cost of making their movie goes up by a few percent.

I thought you guys were saying the whole point of 2.35:1 was the "artistic vision". Now you're saying the point is to save money?

So you respond to my smartass quip rather than the detailed explanations by PhoncipleBone and Onix.

Figures.

 

[Kyo]

I'm not sure how this is the same.

First off, the film was in fact cropped depending on which version you viewed. So I'm not sure that would match the sort of 'maximally enjoyable' view you're talking about for BluRay. You stated you do not want any cropping or matting iirc?

I don't want any cropping that the director didn't feel OK about. Losing image information that might be important is usually not an option for me. So what if there was more to be seen at the top and the bottom in the IMAX version compared to the others - it's a different experience, but it doesn't ruin my enjoyment of those scenes in their cropped version on Blu-ray Disc. I don't get to see scenes with cut-off heads or anything.

And before anyone brings that up, I do in fact think that this viewpoint is perfectly compatible with me generally liking open matte versions. After all those offer additional image information instead of obscuring possibly essential parts of the image, even if they necessarily end up changing the picture composition.

Oh, excuse me - of course I meant to write they DESTROOOOOY the picture composition! :lol

Second, regardless of which version you saw, obviously there weren't things in the periphery he didn't want you to see.

Well, of course - that is my point, after all. He managed to do that for (at least!) three quite different formats at once, I'm just asking for two. :lol

 

[AndyD]

God forbid the cost of making their movie goes up by a few percent.

I thought you guys were saying the whole point of 2.35:1 was the "artistic vision". Now you're saying the point is to save money?

Artistic vision is the goal. So anything forced on the director beyond it (which is what you are advocating) is a waste of money.

 

[Kyo]

I fail to see how enforcing artificial constraints on an art-form is ever a good idea.

You're just more accepting of one artificial constraint over another, really. All of this is tied to current technology to some extent, you're just more fond of cinema technology than of the typical home setup. Doesn't make either "right", as there are no absolutes when dealing with art.

 

[TheExodu5]

The only way that makes sense is if the original film was shown in 16:9 ... otherwise, you are cropping the sides to force it to 16:9. Correct?


So if you take a film that was originally wider than 16:9, and display it at 16:9, you are cropping the sides. If you then add black bars to get at the original aspect ratio, you are now cropping the top and bottom too. That wouldn't be the original FOV, just the original aspect ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

No, we're not cropping the sides. Many widescreen movies are actually captures at 4:3 using Super 35mm. The intended capture area would be the 2.35:1 frame. It would be recorded with 16:9 in mind as well.

On BRD, you'd have the option to open matte it, giving you a 16:9 image if you so desirved.

 

[Raistlin]

I don't want any cropping that the director didn't feel OK about. Losing image information that might be important is usually not an option for me. So what if there was more to be seen at the top and the bottom in the IMAX version compared to the others - it's a different experience, but it doesn't ruin my enjoyment of those scenes in their cropped version on Blu-ray Disc. I don't get to see scenes with cut-off heads or anything.

And before anyone brings that up, I do in fact think that this viewpoint is perfectly compatible with me generally liking open matte versions. After all those offer additional image information instead of obscuring possibly essential parts of the image, even if they necessarily end up changing the picture composition.

Oh, excuse me - of course I meant to write they DESTROOOOOY the picture composition! :lol

The simple point is that sometimes the director simply wants a wider viewpoint ... and sometimes it isn't even a matting issue. I believe there is film that is wider than 16x9 naturally. But even if not, you are dramatically oversimplifying how easy it would be to not matte things. A normal set is designed for specific heights (especially indoor ones). So you have to either choose between matting, or using a smaller field of view.

Well, of course - that is my point, after all. He managed to do that for (at least!) three quite different formats at once, I'm just asking for two. :lol

You're picking a movie with nearly a $200,000,000.00 budget as your standard bearer for how to film things? Yeah, that's reasonable.

 

[Raistlin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

No, we're not cropping the sides. Many widescreen movies are actually captures at 4:3 using Super 35mm. The intended capture area would be the 2.35:1 frame. It would be recorded with 16:9 in mind as well.

On BRD, you'd have the option to open matte it, giving you a 16:9 image if you so desirved.

As I stated above, I think you're oversimplifying what would happen to budgets (not to mention the artists' vision).

 

[TheExodu5]

As I've said, I really don't think the aspect ratio affects the artistic vision all that much. There are far more important things, like acting, script, camera angles, scenery design, etc...

You know, Half-Life was designed at 4:3...it's a real bitch that I'm destroying Valve's vision by playing in a widescreen resolution.

 

[dallow_bg]

You know, Half-Life was designed at 4:3...it's a real bitch that I'm destroying Valve's vision by playing in a widescreen resolution.

Yuuuuuuuuuuck!

 

[Raistlin]

As I've said, I really don't think the aspect ratio affects the artistic vision all that much. There are far more important things, like acting, script, camera angles, scenery design, etc...

Even discounting artistic vision (which I agree, really only impacts stuff for certain shots when talking about this small of a difference in aspect ratio) ... it would effect costs, and how sets are normally set up. Especially indoor sets.

You know, Half-Life was designed at 4:3...it's a real bitch that I'm destroying Valve's vision by playing in a widescreen resolution.

This is going to sound horrible, but I've never played it :x

However, comparing games to film is a tenuous argument on many accounts.

 

[ithorien]

As I've said, I really don't think the aspect ratio affects the artistic vision all that much. There are far more important things, like acting, script, camera angles, scenery design, etc...

You know, Half-Life was designed at 4:3...it's a real bitch that I'm destroying Valve's vision by playing in a widescreen resolution.

You still don't get that all these movies are made for the theater, which has a flexible way of altering resolution, it's the most universal format, and it's there to make them their money back.

They're not made for your home first.

And about Half-Life, it was made when 4:3 monitors were the standard. How can you even bring that up in your argument. On top of which, video games (for most part) are flexible on adjusting aspect ratios, movies are not.

 

[B-Ri]

As I've said, I really don't think the aspect ratio affects the artistic vision all that much. There are far more important things, like acting, script, camera angles, scenery design, etc...

You know, Half-Life was designed at 4:3...it's a real bitch that I'm destroying Valve's vision by playing in a widescreen resolution.

LOL.

Aspect Ratio is important.

 

[Kyo]

The simple point is that sometimes the director simply wants a wider viewpoint ... and sometimes it isn't even a matting issue. I believe there is film that is wider than 16x9 naturally.

Yeah, sometimes. I'm not debating that. But just as well, sometimes it would be no big deal at all to film a movie for an optional 16:9 home release from the start. You just have to get the idea into people's heads first.

But even if not, you are dramatically oversimplifying how easy it would be to not matte things. A normal set is designed for specific heights (especially indoor ones). So you have to either choose between matting, or using a smaller field of view.

I'm probably oversimplifying things just as you are exaggerating them. There are many open matte versions being produced already (and have been for quite some time) and the Wanda case is a rare exception of a major fuckup in the creation of one such version.

You're picking a movie with nearly a $200,000,000.00 budget as your standard bearer for how to film things? Yeah, that's reasonable.

I'm also picking a very modern movie that actually took advantage of two rather new formats at once. It's something that I would indeed like to see repeated by other directors and big productions like TDK are the ones that can pave the way.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

As I've said, I really don't think the aspect ratio affects the artistic vision all that much. There are far more important things, like acting, script, camera angles, scenery design, etc...

It is funny you mention camera angles and scenery design, because what is visible of those depends on the ratio they chose to shoot in. The camera angle and the layout of the frame alter depending on the format of the frame.

 

[letsbereasonable]

It is funny you mention camera angles and scenery design, because what is visible of those depends on the ratio they chose to shoot in. The camera angle and the layout of the frame alter depending on the format of the frame.

I was just going to post this.

It's laughable for him to believe that camera angles and "scenery design" are important aspects of artistic vision when he discounts the frame they're viewed through.

 

[TheExodu5]

It is funny you mention camera angles and scenery design, because what is visible of those depends on the ratio they chose to shoot in. The camera angle and the layout of the frame alter depending on the format of the frame.

Yes they do. You choose a format and you adapt scenes to that. Even if they choose 2.35:1, they're going to have to make everything fit that format. No reason they can't do the same for 16:9.

What do you think will affect the movie more: having poor camera angles, or having a slightly taller aspect ratio? I seriously doubt adding a bit of vertical space, or zooming in a bit will have an "omg this movie sucks now" effect. I doubt you could even tell the difference.

 

[Raistlin]

Yeah, sometimes. I'm not debating that. But just as well, sometimes it would be no big deal at all to film a movie for an optional 16:9 home release from the start. You just have to get the idea into people's heads first.

But again, it matters how they want to convey the scene ... sometimes they would just prefer a wider vista based on the types of locations they are shooting. Not to mention, this doesn't take into account the effects on sets, lighting, micing, etc.

I'm probably oversimplifying things just as you are exaggerating them. There are many open matte versions being produced already (and have been for quite some time) and the Wanda case is a rare exception of a major fuckup in the creation of one such version.

It obviously matters the movie. While in many cases it may be viable to shoot in 16x9, it certainly does effect costs for some movies. Sets aren't cheap. Forcing 16x9 would cause some to have to reduce the FOV, since they simply can't afford to use sets with that much vertical real estate.

I'm also picking a very modern movie that actually took advantage of two rather new formats at once. It's something that I would indeed like to see repeated by other directors and big productions like TDK are the ones that can pave the way.

That's fine, but again ... look at the budget. How is that viable for most movies?

 

[MisterAnderson]

Not sure if this was posted, but I recommend watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJhM3So4y8

If you still prefer cropping films after watching that, you are an idiot.

 

[Raistlin]

It is funny you mention camera angles and scenery design, because what is visible of those depends on the ratio they chose to shoot in. The camera angle and the layout of the frame alter depending on the format of the frame.

exactly

Yes they do. You choose a format and you adapt scenes to that. Even if they choose 2.35:1, they're going to have to make everything fit that format. No reason they can't do the same for 16:9.

You do realize that costs money? Sets are designed with aspect ratio in mind, and are generally quite vertically stunted to save costs and improve lighting and micing. Obviously sets aren't an issue for on-location shots (though lighting and micing still can be), but few movies are made without sets. But even then, with open air sorts of outdoor sets, it is generally far better looking to have the extended horizon line.


The video MisterAnderson posted shows this well. Look at the desert scene. They could have made it more vertical, but it would lose impact. Then look at the last scene, the one in the dining/living room. That scene makes far more sense being wide. The fact we exist on a horizontal plane due to gravity, lends itself to many scenes simply being more logical when laid out widescreen. You can simply have more things going on in a given scene.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Mr. Hicks!!!! Update us!!!

 

[Kyo]

The video MisterAnderson posted shows this well. Look at the desert scene. They could have made it more vertical, but it would lose impact.

I'm not so sure about that. It's just such common thinking that I don't think gets questioned enough. Yes, obviously the scene loses its impact when you cut off half the image on the sides as shown in the video. That's just ridiculous. But would the impact of the scene really be all that different if you saw a bit more sky above and more ground below (just 12% more height on each side in this case)? I wouldn't bet on it.

Then look at the last scene, the one in the dining/living room. That scene makes far more sense being wide. The fact we exist on a horizontal plane due to gravity, lends itself to many scenes simply being more logical when laid out widescreen. You can simply have more things going on in a given scene.

You could have more going on in the scene if you saw what's going on at the top and bottom of it just as well. Now this scene obviously doesn't work that way, but if you were to make a movie about mountaineering where things at the top of a frame might be very interesting, I don't see why using a wider aspect ratio would necessarily be the right choice just because "we exist on a horizontal plane".

 

[Kyo]

Mr. Hicks!!!! Update us!!!

Just wait, he'll be back to ask which way to plug the HDMI cable in! :lol

 

[Liabe Brave]

What do you think will affect the movie more: having poor camera angles, or having a slightly taller aspect ratio? I seriously doubt adding a bit of vertical space, or zooming in a bit will have an "omg this movie sucks now" effect. I doubt you could even tell the difference.

I guarantee I could tell the difference, but that's irrelevant. While the artistic effects of an aspect change might be minor compared to, say, a terrible script, they exist. And the financial effects would be giant; here's a post of mine you may have missed from last page that lists just some of them:

Do you know how much money it would cost to build every single set 23% higher? Or to light those areas? (Most of the production time spent on movies is during lighting setup, not during actual takes; and this expense relates to locations as much as to sets.) Or, given how ubiquitous CGI is these days, to render larger background plates, remove unwanted elements, or add more objects? For the cinematographer to spend all the extra time digitally grading those areas (or even just color-timing a larger frame)? How about the extra sound setup time to capture clean dialog or live effects when you have to move the booms back by feet? (This is the reason open mattes catch booms so often; you want the mike as close as possible so you don't ruin takes with noise.)

It'd be far, far cheaper to simply demand that appropriate zoom functions be in all TVs. They already are in most, even the really cheap ones; they can't cost very much.

 

[AndyD]

As I've said, I really don't think the aspect ratio affects the artistic vision all that much. There are far more important things, like acting, script, camera angles, scenery design, etc...

http://plum.cream.org/HP/poa.htm

 

[Kyo]

http://plum.cream.org/HP/poa.htm

You're equating movies cropped to half their width with movies that offer an EXPANDED field of view (because that's what people are asking for - not cropped "full screen" crap). I fail to see how the two are comparable.

 

[bitq]

To all the people telling exodus to just zoom the picture so it fills the whole 16:9:

I agree with you, except for one thing. Blu-ray movies in the super wide resolutions don't actually have 1080 vertical lines. They have 800-something. If you zoom, you are basically going from 1080p resolution to ~800p.

SOLUTION: Just up the resolution so they still have 1080 vertical. The total pixel count would actually be higher than normal 1080p. That way, if you crop off the sides you get a perfect 1080p 16:9 image, and the people who like super wide screen can still have that.

Of course there may be some weird technical problem with this that I don't know about. Also, I guess that would limit the length of movie so it will fit on one disc. Dunno whether movies actually fill up the whole blu-ray or not.

 

[AndyD]

You're equating movies cropped to half their width with movies that offer an EXPANDED field of view (because that's what people are asking for - not cropped "full screen" crap). I fail to see how the two are comparable.

Someone above said that he/she does not mind watching a cropped version out of the original "director's intent" full image if it meant that he/she would lose some non crucial stuff and fit his screen better.

This shows that while it is possible to crop to a smaller screen out of the original director's intent and still get the story and the movie, as soon as you alter the original intent, you essentially lose that intent...

So its doable. But how can you argue that anything is non important. Or the corollary, how can you argue that the lack of something is also not important? And thus adding stuff beyond the director's intent is the same as subtracting.

You are asking to add more image that is intended to not be there. Thats the same as saying "I like the Mona Lisa... but I want you to paint me also a church behind her on a hill, and a lamb at her feet. Then it would be perfect."

 

[Raistlin]

I'm not so sure about that. It's just such common thinking that I don't think gets questioned enough. Yes, obviously the scene loses its impact when you cut off half the image on the sides as shown in the video. That's just ridiculous. But would the impact of the scene really be all that different if you saw a bit more sky above and more ground below (just 12% more height on each side in this case)? I wouldn't bet on it.

It's simple art theory. When framing horizontally inclined features, wider aspect ratios are more dramatic (in this case, the main feature is the horizon line). It's no different than when taking a picture. Obviously if you're taking a picture of a sky scraper, to add drama, you do the opposite. You tilt the camera 90 degrees to capture more of the the main element's natural orientation.

You could have more going on in the scene if you saw what's going on at the top and bottom of it just as well. Now this scene obviously doesn't work that way, but if you were to make a movie about mountaineering where things at the top of a frame might be very interesting, I don't see why using a wider aspect ratio would necessarily be the right choice just because "we exist on a horizontal plane".

Oh I completely agree, it matters the scene. I'm saying that in general, most scenes are going to be more horizontal simply because we are bound by gravity. Typically, the director is going to choose to maintain a constant aspect ratio (obviously TDK is not typical in that regard), so they go with the one that fits the most scenes.


Regardless, I still think the main crux of this is actually more about costs. While certainly some scenes artistically mandate a wider aspect ratio, I think more scenes would simply be found problematic due to costs.

 

[Raistlin]

To all the people telling exodus to just zoom the picture so it fills the whole 16:9:

I agree with you, except for one thing. Blu-ray movies in the super wide resolutions don't actually have 1080 vertical lines. They have 800-something. If you zoom, you are basically going from 1080p resolution to ~800p.

No you aren't, since there were only ~800 of actual material anyway.

SOLUTION: Just up the resolution so they still have 1080 vertical. The total pixel count would actually be higher than normal 1080p. That way, if you crop off the sides you get a perfect 1080p 16:9 image, and the people who like super wide screen can still have that.

Of course there may be some weird technical problem with this that I don't know about. Also, I guess that would limit the length of movie so it will fit on one disc. Dunno whether movies actually fill up the whole blu-ray or not.

Yeah, I think you're forgetting several technical issues with that

 

[TheExodu5]

http://plum.cream.org/HP/poa.htm

Well at least that's a movie that actually properly uses the wide aspect ratio. No complaints there.

 

[Raistlin]

Well at least that's a movie that actually properly uses the wide aspect ratio. No complaints there.

But again, the main reason it properly uses the wide aspect ratio is because a majority of scenes are natively much wider than tall. Gravity's a bitch

 

[bitq]

No you aren't, since there were only ~800 of actual material anyway.

I guess I buy that for older film cameras. But state-of-the art 35mm cameras could surely do at least 1080. Plus, many movies are being shot in digital instead of film. That DEFINITELY has enough material. Of course that's another artistic issue (35mm film vs digital).

Yeah, I think you're forgetting several technical issues with that

Like what?

 

[bitq]

Is this relevant? :lol

 

[Kyo]

Someone above said that he/she does not mind watching a cropped version out of the original "director's intent" full image if it meant that he/she would lose some non crucial stuff and fit his screen better.

Yes. That was me. What would that have to do with the Harry Potter example scenes that show countless examples of losing crucial elements of a scene through cropping? Obviously NOT what the director intended at all.

Or the corollary, how can you argue that the lack of something is also not important? And thus adding stuff beyond the director's intent is the same as subtracting.

No, it's not. Not seeing a part of an image where something important is happening is not at all comparable to seeing a bit more of a scene and thus possibly being not quite as focused on whatever the director wanted you to focus on.

You are asking to add more image that is intended to not be there. Thats the same as saying "I like the Mona Lisa... but I want you to paint me also a church behind her on a hill, and a lamb at her feet. Then it would be perfect."

No, that's not the same at all, but nice try.

 

[Raistlin]

I guess I buy that for older film cameras. But state-of-the art 35mm cameras could surely do at least 1080. Plus, many movies are being shot in digital instead of film. That DEFINITELY has enough material. Of course that's another artistic issue (35mm film vs digital).

Sorry, I was referring to what's actually on current BD's. I meant that zooming in isn't reducing resolution.

Like what?

Well it would certainly take more space. That could manifest into several issues. Reduced A/V quality, less extras, higher costs (in case the need an extra disc, or could have gotten away with a BD-25 initially).

From the sound of your solution, are you implying some sort of vertical anamorphic stretch? If so, that would require getting all the CE's on board to modify the HW so it can restretch things back to normal, for all aspect ratios.

If you mean the actual resolution as being higher than 1080p, that would require TV's to change, as well as getting support for the differing resolutions into the HDMI spec.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

I guess I buy that for older film cameras. But state-of-the art 35mm cameras could surely do at least 1080. Plus, many movies are being shot in digital instead of film. That DEFINITELY has enough material. Of course that's another artistic issue (35mm film vs digital).

You don't understand how it works. Its still 1080p, just 280 lines are being taken up by black. Also film stock has a shit load more detail than what our HD tvs offer. You can scan in most quality film stock dating back a good 50 - 70 years at 4k resolutions. Film grain is small and fine enough that there's that much detail there.

I think a lot of people in this thread need to go and read up on how films are shot, how film stock is brought into the digital world and what's really going on with a movie when its on a disc.

Also people should watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw

*edit* as far as movies being shot digitally, as long as they're using the Red camera's and shooting at full res (which for the lowest end Red is like 4k or 8k I can't remember which) then yes they're shooting at much higher than 1080p.

How ever if they're shooting on any of the Sony or Panasonic HD cams, then they're maxing out at 1080p, and some times its not even a real 1080p its 720p with pixel shift to try and fill in the pixels. Stuff like SW Episode 1 is at its max res at 1080p because of the camera is was shot on, where as Casablanca being on film could theoretically go to like double that.

 

[bitq]

Sorry, I was referring to what's actually on current BD's. I meant that zooming in isn't reducing resolution.



Well it would certainly take more space. That could manifest into several issues. Reduced A/V quality, less extras, higher costs (in case the need an extra disc, or could have gotten away with a BD-25 initially).

From the sound of your solution, are you implying some sort of vertical anamorphic stretch? If so, that would require getting all the CE's on board to modify the HW so it can restretch things back to normal, for all aspect ratios.

If you mean the actual resolution as being higher than 1080p, that would require TV's to change, as well as getting support for the differing resolutions into the HDMI spec.

Yeah I meant actually having it be higher than 1080p. Not taller, just wider. I was assuming that bluray players had the ability to scale stuff to fit the screen. Isn't that what zooming is?

 

[Liabe Brave]

Of course there may be some weird technical problem with this that I don't know about. Also, I guess that would limit the length of movie so it will fit on one disc. Dunno whether movies actually fill up the whole blu-ray or not.

Ignore the technical problems. Zooming means you're cutting off the sides of the frame. If that's acceptable, then you shouldn't care about the reduced resolution either. Clearly nothing matters except getting all your pixels lit up.

...(which for the lowest end Red is like 4k or 8k I can't remember which)...

Actually, I think the initial low-end Reds shot in 2K or 4K, and the newer ones are 4K or 8K.

 

[bitq]

You don't understand how it works. Its still 1080p, just 280 lines are being taken up by black.

Ack, that changes everything. I thought the blu-ray player was adding those bars. I guess my idea requires a complete redesign of blu-ray, HDMI, TVs, etc. :[