nedadar amadeus janine

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Cynthia Skane

unread,

Aug 2, 2024, 8:16:17 AM8/2/24

to birnnarpuncpell

As Stuart says, it's a compromise between Netflix not wanting overly-large black bars that annoy viewers, and the widespread belief that wide aspect ratios are a shortcut to giving television shows a cinematic look.

2.35 is talked about every now and then in preprod but all the people end up using the 2.39 anyway when the show goes to post, no one would like to leave black bars on the sides of the frame or export their show to 2k flat just because wanting that very small aspect ratio difference...

technically one could letterbox the 2.35 to the dci 2048x1080 frame but I have never seen anyone use that format in real life, it may be that the post people just want to make projectionist's life easier by not adding third dcp format to the list of choices to complicate things (how did they manage in the film era or were the projectionists just more experienced back then, having to change gates and anything... compared to the current lazy iPad remote controlled work :rolleyes: )

So why have 2.35 -1 markers in just about every camera.. if no one uses this old aspect ratio.. thats my question.. ?.. is it a TV aspect ration with less black bars.. ? Ive only shot a cropped version of 16-9 ..with a" common head room".. andI I guess they just played around with the crop in post shot by shot.. but still I wonder.. why the prevalence of 2.35-1 markers in all modern camera,s EVF..?

It is called Univisium. Storaro invented the aspect ratio 1:2.00 (18:9) as a compromise. For him it was clear that the TV aspect ratio 16:9 will have sucess and that in the future many will film digital or 65mm film stock. And the aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2,2. So he choosed as an average 1:2.00.

And what I really do not like is that Storaro also reframed his old work in this aspect ratio for new realeases. Why do not use the original aspect ratio? It is not only a decision of the cinematographer to choose a aspect ratio. And if it is choosen then also other departments are working for this aspect ratio! I do not like later reframing...

...now I was more interested and looked up in my "old" book about some some formats. I did not found the two you mentioned. Maybe because it is a book from Germany and the system was never used in Europe.

Comparing image in Netflix app on TV, iPad and PC its pretty clear on the Sony TV everything is stretched. It doesn't matter which format it originially has (old, new movies same), the app on the TV will stretch the image a tiny bit making sure it fits perfectly in the frame of 16:9. This is hardly noticeable, but for me who's picky about these things its very annoying.

The big problem is you cannot change screen control (skjermkontroll in Norwegian) on internet content. On my HDMI channels it's set to wide and no matter what format plays there it will always show correct.

If I play the Matrix on Netflix (which is very wide format), it will offcourse not fit the screen to 16:9, but have small black bars up and below picture, which it should. However, it is still a bit stretched (or squeezed upwards is a better description).

Anyone else have this problem? It's really annoying. It just doesn't make sense to me why the Netflix app on the TV is a tiny bit stretched (or squeezed). You wont notice it unless you compare with your pc/ipad image. Then its very clear. Heck I've been watching Netflix on my TV since last summer and only now did I notice. Most noticeable with cars in the image, they seem a bit skinny, like squeezed. Sorry if I'm not explaining well.

I just played a DVD of Longmire on my Blurayplayer. And it's the same image problem there. So Im starting to think it's not the Netflix app, but the TV itself. I read about a guy having similar problems, offcourse I cannot find that now. He had a different Sony TV, but it appeared that his TV wasn't full HD ready (allthough advertised as), mentioning missing something like 30mm for a full 16:9 format. That's 1,5cm each side. I'm starting to think that's the problem I've got as well, it certainly would explain the squeezed image! So it must also inflict when I watch via tuner. Funny though, I've never noticed anything as the aspect ratio seems to be normal there when comparing. but now I'm starting to get angst it's always been squeezed there as well (allthough a quick test shows its normal). Another funny thing, is my pc is connected to the TV. And watching movies via the TV from my pc, the format is normal. So I'm becoming very confused here, it'd be simpler if the squeeze problem was on everything. Edit: No, I just watched Netflix via chrome via pc to tv (hdmi) and it's still squeezed. So it appears all a squeezed image on internet content, pc source and bluray. Tuner and chromecast has normal aspect ratio. This shouldnt be possible as there is a full image edge to edge on all sources, so why th differnce?

Suppose I just have to live with it... buying a new TV is a no no as I'm thrilled with this one, finally got the display settings/colors I'm happy with, which I spent months trying to get right to my liking. Oh well

Embarassing I only found this out now, have had this TV for many years. But only noticed it when I compared to other images on ipad, pc, even the phone. Me being so picky about correct aspect ratio, colors etc. it's funny how I've never noticed this watching tv in general, as mentioned before most easily noticeable on cars that seems "skinny". But you really need an image to compare to, or you just wont see it.

I actually already tried that, sadly to no avail. The reason full pixel doesn't work (I think) is because it only applies to the HDMIs, not internet content. But from what I can see, the full pixel sorta only "zooms out/show full", it doesn't affect aspect ratio/zoom/pixels on Netflix. Thanks for the tip though

I am just curious if your Netflix streams 5.1, 7.1, stereo, DD +. Also, is the dynamic range the same as playing a bluray? DD + was made for digital stream and a lower bitrate. Movie playback for me is most dynamic with a bluray disc compared to streaming. What is you take on this topic? Maybe I should also ask are you streaming from a PC, BDP, Smart TV, Roku, ect. and what is doing the decodings, the player or avr?

I stream Neflix from my Apple TV, and I believe the audio is dictated by the source of the programming you are watching, for example: Breaking Bad, House of Cards, and the movie The Avengers were all Dolby Digital. However most of the programming seams to be Stereo and I don't think they have any offerings in DD+ yet and that Hulu and VUDU are the only 2 that offer that level of audio at this time. And IMO, NO! none of these even come close to the audio (or video quality for that matter) of a Blu-Ray disc. But again it's more convenient, and we are a lazy society. So sadly it seams that streaming is the future and not Blu-Ray disc. I have over 150 Blu-Rays, but I only watch one every now and then. I stream daily and I cut the cord over a year ago and haven't looked back.

i really like netfix. tons of good political videos and true documenturies. kids movies are good. action movies lack imo although getting better. and i can run it in every room and other houses for $8 monthly

I stream Netflix from my Sony BDP or Samsung TV. My Denon AVR is doing the decoding in 5.1 DD+. I use Vudu for new releases. I think the video is much better than Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. I don't run an optical and use just one HDMI from TV to the Denon. ARC channel. Vudu is obviously not as good as bluray discs but the video is very close but the audio does lack and I usually have to run at -5 to reference on the volume. Blurays I run the volume at -10 and that is quite loud for me.

The type of streaming seams device and app controlled. My TV and one BDP will stream in stereo and I can matrix to sound. My newer BDP can do DD + up to 7.1. The dynamic range just is not there for me that if I really like a movie, I have to get the disc. And yes, When I watch the disc I get a better movie experience. I am not sure if DD+ is better or same as matrix 5.1. Something tells me it shoud be roughly the same since we are talking about digital tranfer of data.