|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
benobledark
Registered User
Jan 1 2014, 10:03pm
Post #1 of 26
(3400 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hobbit Blu Ray Aspect Ratio
|
Can't Post
|
|
Does anyone know why the Aspect Ratio on the BR Release of The Hobbit & Extended Editions are so tight? I figured, shooting in 5K and all, that we would be getting a full widescreen ratio, but it turned out to be the tightest aspect ratio presentation in my collection.
Does anyone have any idea why, amidst the huge resolution that the film was shot in, the aspect ratio is so tight?
The answer I usually get is "the aspect ratio a film is shot in is what the BR release is in," but I figured with the 5K that they would be able to output in any number of ratios..
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
hexxenpanda
Lindon
Jan 1 2014, 10:49pm
Post #2 of 26
(3138 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Most screens in the world exhibited the movie in 2.35:1 ratio,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
which is the standard aspect ratio for most movies. Since the Lord of the Rings trilogy's blu-rays are in this aspect ratio, it only makes sense to continue this size for the 2d blurays. I don't know about the 3-d blu ray, but I think that's the format that would greatly benefit from a full-screen presentation. I can't see how 2.35 ratio could be the tightest video size you have in your collection, since most blockbuster movies come out in that ratio. Maybe it's your tv settings or the shape of your screen? I mean compared to Ben-hur's blu-ray release on 2.75:1, The Hobbit isn't too bad. I had the same questions about Skyfall, which was exhibited on IMAX theatres in the original source aspect ratio, I think the IMAX release of The Hobbit got the same treatment.
|
|
|
benobledark
Registered User
Jan 1 2014, 10:58pm
Post #3 of 26
(3114 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure the exact aspect ratio, but it's a full widescreen HDTV, 1080p at 240hz.
My settings are all proper as far as the TV goes, but I see the aspect ratio change from BR to BR depending on what AR they're presented in. Suprisingly, Hobbit was the tightest I've come across yet, almost reminds me of Letterbox on the ol' 4:3s, which is just so odd.
The extended edition was even advertised as "enhanced for 16x9 TV's", which got me even more hopeful for a full wide presentation.. I don't mind, I was just curious if anyone happened to know.
Thanks for the reply!
|
|
|
Lindele
Mithlond
Jan 1 2014, 11:18pm
Post #4 of 26
(3100 views)
Shortcut
|
that you wish The Hobbit was in 16x9 like your tv?
It is the exact same aspect ratio as LOTR, and most other films, as it should be.
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Nargothrond
Jan 1 2014, 11:19pm
Post #5 of 26
(3126 views)
Shortcut
|
it doesnt matter what it was shot in outputs for bluray are 1080p on a hdtv this is the max resolution most home tvs can go too at the moment.
it is exactly the same 'ratio' as what was in the cinema.if you changed the ratio youd either be stretching the picture, or chopping some off the sides.
aspect ratio and resolution are different things, i think this may be where you are getting confused. you could shoot at 10,000k but the aspect ratio would still be the same.
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
(This post was edited by book Gandalf on Jan 1 2014, 11:23pm)
|
|
|
Kendalf
Nargothrond
Jan 2 2014, 12:45am
Post #8 of 26
(3048 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you did, yes; if Jackson did, no
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if you changed the ratio youd either be stretching the picture, or chopping some off the sides.
If you did on your TV, yes.
But, I believe, the vast majority of movie cameras actually film in a ratio much closer to 1.85:1 from which the best 2.35:1 slice is taken from across the middle. I'm pretty sure Jackson could release a full-screen 1.85:1 Hobbit if he wished; the pixels are out there, somewhere.
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Nargothrond
Jan 2 2014, 12:59am
Post #9 of 26
(3029 views)
Shortcut
|
but the cgi isnt!! i doubt they did all the extra cgi just incase!
did anyone see how the west was won on tv over xmas? shown in the cinerama format!! very interestin! thats 3 35mm cameras in a row!
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Nargothrond
Jan 2 2014, 1:09am
Post #11 of 26
(3016 views)
Shortcut
|
yeah i sat down to watch it and was like, why is this so damn wide!! its funny cos you can see the joins of the three different images. id love to see it in the original circular cinema though!
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
cats16
Gondolin
Jan 2 2014, 2:01am
Post #12 of 26
(2992 views)
Shortcut
|
It was a few months back, but I do remember seeing it in that format on TV. It's a very neat experience, indeed.
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Nargothrond
Jan 2 2014, 2:10am
Post #13 of 26
(2991 views)
Shortcut
|
apparently the actors couldnt look each other in the eye because in the final edit they didnt look like they were looking at each other due to the different cameras being at different positions. something mckellen understands all to well!
nothing has changed it seems!!
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Dor-Lomin
Jan 2 2014, 3:42am
Post #14 of 26
(2986 views)
Shortcut
|
it was shot in the same frame as Avatar and Avatar takes up my entire beautiful 45 inch HDTV.
I am fire.. I am death. -Smaug the magnificent
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Nargothrond
Jan 2 2014, 3:48am
Post #15 of 26
(2986 views)
Shortcut
|
it was shot in the same frame as Avatar and Avatar takes up my entire beautiful 45 inch HDTV.
nope it wasnt! avatar was shot 16.9 or there abouts. the same aspect as your tv!
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Dor-Lomin
Jan 2 2014, 4:13am
Post #16 of 26
(2976 views)
Shortcut
|
they shot it in a extremely high frame rate, for IMAX, they could have easily made it full screen. For sheer epicness sake.
I am fire.. I am death. -Smaug the magnificent
|
|
|
RaoulJ
Ossiriand
Jan 2 2014, 6:24am
Post #17 of 26
(2956 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think some confuse framerate, resolution and aspect ratio with eachother... :)//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Nargothrond
Jan 2 2014, 9:46am
Post #18 of 26
(2923 views)
Shortcut
|
they shot it in a extremely high frame rate, for IMAX, they could have easily made it full screen. For sheer epicness sake.
nope, frame rate has nothing to do with screen size lol!!!
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
Wilfred
Nevrast
Jan 2 2014, 10:28am
Post #19 of 26
(2918 views)
Shortcut
|
Without wanting to sound patronising, and until someone with better technical understanding and a more concise manner comes along:
Frame rate is how many still images per second are used to display the film. The norm is 24 fps (frames per second), which is enough to convince the human eye that it's watching actual movement, instead of a sequence of still images. The Hobbit is filmed at 48 fps (also called high frame rate, HFR). The means very fast movement (such as the action in combat scenes or the background rushing by in a chase) is much clearer - twice as clear, in fact, because the camera is catching twice as many still images per second. IIRC some sports (e.g. Wimbledon) are filmed at 1,000 fps to enable a crystal clear image for very slow motion replays.
Resolution (e.g. high definition vs. ultra high definition) enables the picture to be displayed on bigger and bigger screens without losing definition (or clarity) because of the number of pixels. High definition blu ray is 1080 rows of pixels. Ultra high definition is 4,000 rows of pixels. A standard DVD is 576 rows. If you sit 2' away from even a 'true' HD screen, the image is garbage. If you sit 2' away from an ultra HD screen, the image is as clear is if you were sitting 8' away from a true HD screen. Also, if you display a 1080p film on a 32" screen, it's much clearer than the same film on a 50" screen because the 50" screen is simply stretching the pixels.
Aspect ratio is the ratio of the height of the image to its width - this is the shape of the image you're watching. 16:9 (or 1.77:1) is a standard widescreen TV. If the image fills this screen entirely, with no black borders, then you're either losing part of the original cinema presentation from the left and right edges, or you're gaining more at the top and/or bottom of the image because cinema presentations are usually 2.39:1. Old TVs were 4:3 (or 1.33:1), which is why they look closer to being a square.
|
|
|
benobledark
Registered User
Jan 2 2014, 2:11pm
Post #21 of 26
(2880 views)
Shortcut
|
I was hoping with the ultra-high resolution and "enhanced for widescreen TVs" jargon that we would get a full widescreen presentation!
But yeah, problem solved - I didn't realize that, even though filming at 5k, he was still filming in a standard aspect ratio.
For some reason I thought the massive resolution would permit flexible AR outputs - but it's okay. Was just looking for an answer, and I got it!
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Dor-Lomin
Jan 2 2014, 7:31pm
Post #22 of 26
(2841 views)
Shortcut
|
nonetheless its a shame it doesn't take up the whole screen like Avatar, there are such epic shots of things in these films.
I am fire.. I am death. -Smaug the magnificent
|
|
|
Wilfred
Nevrast
Jan 2 2014, 7:42pm
Post #23 of 26
(2834 views)
Shortcut
|
I feel ever-so-slightly cheated by a full screen presentation because I know they've chopped the left and right edges off the cinema presentation to make it fit into the TV's aspect ratio. I'd much rather have black borders on the top and bottom and be confident I'm seeing the whole picture.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Dor-Lomin
Jan 2 2014, 10:18pm
Post #24 of 26
(2830 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Different definition of "full Widescreen"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
From my perspective, "full widescreen" means a WIDER screen format, which The Hobbit is - at the 2.35:1 ratio.
"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Jan 2 2014, 10:20pm)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Dor-Lomin
Jan 2 2014, 10:22pm
Post #25 of 26
(2828 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I actually hate that Avatar is in 1.78:1.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Every time I saw the film in theaters, it was 2.35:1 - and that's the framing I became accustomed to (I think it's much more cinematic and epic). Technically, both are acceptable - since it was shown in theaters in both ratios (depending on the screen size), but I just wish Cameron had made both available on Blu-ray and DVD.
"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Jan 2 2014, 10:24pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the blu-ray also allows you to watch the film in a bizarre "bendy" ratio, too, to simulate the curved screen: wide at the sides, narrow in the middle, concave edges. I did actually watch the entire second half like that. Memorable to say the least 
1
