▲ 329 ▼ Think about what you're missing (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 month ago by Eyekaytee@aussie.zone to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 59 points 1 month ago* (2 children) It's so strange to me that they can't just shrink the picture down to show everything, like 😫 noooooo we have to use the whole screen!!! permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (4 children) It's partly because people would complain the other way if they only used half the cinema screen to display the full IMAX image. I'm not gonna do the maths, but I think Odyssey being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides. But mostly because it's the main selling point of IMAX films is there's more image than a standard ratio. That more is supposed to be mostly in your peripheral vision rather than where you're focused, directors aren't really putting anything important in these extremities of the image. So to pillarbox that image would just dramatically shrink the bit of the screen the viewer should be focusing on, on an already smaller screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] BlueOysterCultist@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago main selling point of IMAX films is there's *more* image than a standard ratio. This helped me get it, I never considered imax because of the price so I never thought about what it even meant Image max / maximum image permalink fedilink source parent [–] SteveGoob@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children) I'm not gonna do the maths Let me help you out there, since I need something to help me procrastinate anyways lol being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides. I was curious to find out what this came out to as well. Turns out though, on a 16:9 screen, scaling a full 1.43:1 frame to fit only results in side bars that each take up less than 10% of the image, (less than what I was suspecting to be honest). While a ~20% size reduction isn't ideal, so is watching a movie that was composed for a different aspect ratio. IMHO, people should have the choice to watch in whatever way best appeals to their needs. We used to do this on DVDs where you could opt for either the widescreen or fullscreen version of the movie, so there's definitely precedent for it. Unfortunately, the option for the 1.43 version of many of these movies can't be found outside of their IMAX run in theaters. (At least not officially...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (2 children) FWIW, 16:9 is mostly used for wide-screen TV content (about 1.85:1), the effect is more pronounced because cinema screens are typically 2.39:1 with most content being that ratio That's why you still get letterboxes watching films on TV a lot of the time, despite us all having widescreens now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] appearexpressspot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago We lose 20% on each side 1.43*2.39^-1=0.60 permalink fedilink source parent [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) So when they release Odyssey for home viewing on streaming or however it gets released, do they pillar box it? Or they pan and scan edit it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Home releases will almost certainly get the non-IMAX, 2.39:1 crop they've already cut for standard cinemas, and it'll get the standard cinema letterboxing you see for other theatrical releases if you watch on a 16:9 TV. Pan and scan has thankfully died off as a practice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago Makes sense, 16:9 was chosen by TV manufactures because it sat nicely with most common aspect ratios (ranging from 3:4 to 1:2.5) permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago Ugh. The selling point of standard theaters used to be the better aspect ratio permalink fedilink source parent [–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago People seemed to like Obsession a lot and it was 1.5:1, it made nearly $500m permalink fedilink source parent [–] AmyAye@nord.pub 10 points 1 month ago Just show the IMAX version and let the extra fall off the screen and shine on the audience and sell tickets for dudes to sit inside her boobs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (4 children) It's partly because people would complain the other way if they only used half the cinema screen to display the full IMAX image. I'm not gonna do the maths, but I think Odyssey being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides. But mostly because it's the main selling point of IMAX films is there's more image than a standard ratio. That more is supposed to be mostly in your peripheral vision rather than where you're focused, directors aren't really putting anything important in these extremities of the image. So to pillarbox that image would just dramatically shrink the bit of the screen the viewer should be focusing on, on an already smaller screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] BlueOysterCultist@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago main selling point of IMAX films is there's *more* image than a standard ratio. This helped me get it, I never considered imax because of the price so I never thought about what it even meant Image max / maximum image permalink fedilink source parent [–] SteveGoob@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children) I'm not gonna do the maths Let me help you out there, since I need something to help me procrastinate anyways lol being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides. I was curious to find out what this came out to as well. Turns out though, on a 16:9 screen, scaling a full 1.43:1 frame to fit only results in side bars that each take up less than 10% of the image, (less than what I was suspecting to be honest). While a ~20% size reduction isn't ideal, so is watching a movie that was composed for a different aspect ratio. IMHO, people should have the choice to watch in whatever way best appeals to their needs. We used to do this on DVDs where you could opt for either the widescreen or fullscreen version of the movie, so there's definitely precedent for it. Unfortunately, the option for the 1.43 version of many of these movies can't be found outside of their IMAX run in theaters. (At least not officially...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (2 children) FWIW, 16:9 is mostly used for wide-screen TV content (about 1.85:1), the effect is more pronounced because cinema screens are typically 2.39:1 with most content being that ratio That's why you still get letterboxes watching films on TV a lot of the time, despite us all having widescreens now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] appearexpressspot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago We lose 20% on each side 1.43*2.39^-1=0.60 permalink fedilink source parent [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) So when they release Odyssey for home viewing on streaming or however it gets released, do they pillar box it? Or they pan and scan edit it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Home releases will almost certainly get the non-IMAX, 2.39:1 crop they've already cut for standard cinemas, and it'll get the standard cinema letterboxing you see for other theatrical releases if you watch on a 16:9 TV. Pan and scan has thankfully died off as a practice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago Makes sense, 16:9 was chosen by TV manufactures because it sat nicely with most common aspect ratios (ranging from 3:4 to 1:2.5) permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago Ugh. The selling point of standard theaters used to be the better aspect ratio permalink fedilink source parent [–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago People seemed to like Obsession a lot and it was 1.5:1, it made nearly $500m permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BlueOysterCultist@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago main selling point of IMAX films is there's *more* image than a standard ratio. This helped me get it, I never considered imax because of the price so I never thought about what it even meant Image max / maximum image permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SteveGoob@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children) I'm not gonna do the maths Let me help you out there, since I need something to help me procrastinate anyways lol being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides. I was curious to find out what this came out to as well. Turns out though, on a 16:9 screen, scaling a full 1.43:1 frame to fit only results in side bars that each take up less than 10% of the image, (less than what I was suspecting to be honest). While a ~20% size reduction isn't ideal, so is watching a movie that was composed for a different aspect ratio. IMHO, people should have the choice to watch in whatever way best appeals to their needs. We used to do this on DVDs where you could opt for either the widescreen or fullscreen version of the movie, so there's definitely precedent for it. Unfortunately, the option for the 1.43 version of many of these movies can't be found outside of their IMAX run in theaters. (At least not officially...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (2 children) FWIW, 16:9 is mostly used for wide-screen TV content (about 1.85:1), the effect is more pronounced because cinema screens are typically 2.39:1 with most content being that ratio That's why you still get letterboxes watching films on TV a lot of the time, despite us all having widescreens now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] appearexpressspot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago We lose 20% on each side 1.43*2.39^-1=0.60 permalink fedilink source parent [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) So when they release Odyssey for home viewing on streaming or however it gets released, do they pillar box it? Or they pan and scan edit it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Home releases will almost certainly get the non-IMAX, 2.39:1 crop they've already cut for standard cinemas, and it'll get the standard cinema letterboxing you see for other theatrical releases if you watch on a 16:9 TV. Pan and scan has thankfully died off as a practice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago Makes sense, 16:9 was chosen by TV manufactures because it sat nicely with most common aspect ratios (ranging from 3:4 to 1:2.5) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (2 children) FWIW, 16:9 is mostly used for wide-screen TV content (about 1.85:1), the effect is more pronounced because cinema screens are typically 2.39:1 with most content being that ratio That's why you still get letterboxes watching films on TV a lot of the time, despite us all having widescreens now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] appearexpressspot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago We lose 20% on each side 1.43*2.39^-1=0.60 permalink fedilink source parent [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) So when they release Odyssey for home viewing on streaming or however it gets released, do they pillar box it? Or they pan and scan edit it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Home releases will almost certainly get the non-IMAX, 2.39:1 crop they've already cut for standard cinemas, and it'll get the standard cinema letterboxing you see for other theatrical releases if you watch on a 16:9 TV. Pan and scan has thankfully died off as a practice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent
[–] appearexpressspot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago We lose 20% on each side 1.43*2.39^-1=0.60 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) So when they release Odyssey for home viewing on streaming or however it gets released, do they pillar box it? Or they pan and scan edit it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Home releases will almost certainly get the non-IMAX, 2.39:1 crop they've already cut for standard cinemas, and it'll get the standard cinema letterboxing you see for other theatrical releases if you watch on a 16:9 TV. Pan and scan has thankfully died off as a practice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child) Home releases will almost certainly get the non-IMAX, 2.39:1 crop they've already cut for standard cinemas, and it'll get the standard cinema letterboxing you see for other theatrical releases if you watch on a 16:9 TV. Pan and scan has thankfully died off as a practice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I guess I should have said crop rather than pan and scan. But I assume it’s still not a “fixed” crop in that they might change the crop area based on scene or shot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option. I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago Makes sense, 16:9 was chosen by TV manufactures because it sat nicely with most common aspect ratios (ranging from 3:4 to 1:2.5) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago Ugh. The selling point of standard theaters used to be the better aspect ratio permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago People seemed to like Obsession a lot and it was 1.5:1, it made nearly $500m permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmyAye@nord.pub 10 points 1 month ago Just show the IMAX version and let the extra fall off the screen and shine on the audience and sell tickets for dudes to sit inside her boobs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] waitingtech@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (3 children) "Gaze in awe upon the epic prow of Ms. Christina Hendricks" wrote some who is not me. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gnutrino@programming.dev 29 points 1 month ago (3 children) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago My first thought when reading this cover was, 'Christina Hendricks would be the only person I would let try to touch my prostate with an egg beater.' My second thought was, 'oh this isn't a real magazine cover'. It took me longer than it should to realize it. 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 points 1 month ago SEX JESUS NAKED SEX TOUGH PLUS SEX Hmmmmm... Sure am glad I don't like this bullshit permalink fedilink source parent [–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago They say overanalyzing but I say underanalized! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Klear@piefed.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 child) I may be face-blind but I recognised her. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) The chin dimple is unmistakable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago ...she has a chin? I never noticed... permalink fedilink source parent [–] knacht1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago Totally stunning in "Mad Men".. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 29 points 1 month ago (3 children) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago My first thought when reading this cover was, 'Christina Hendricks would be the only person I would let try to touch my prostate with an egg beater.' My second thought was, 'oh this isn't a real magazine cover'. It took me longer than it should to realize it. 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 points 1 month ago SEX JESUS NAKED SEX TOUGH PLUS SEX Hmmmmm... Sure am glad I don't like this bullshit permalink fedilink source parent [–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago They say overanalyzing but I say underanalized! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago My first thought when reading this cover was, 'Christina Hendricks would be the only person I would let try to touch my prostate with an egg beater.' My second thought was, 'oh this isn't a real magazine cover'. It took me longer than it should to realize it. 😆 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 points 1 month ago SEX JESUS NAKED SEX TOUGH PLUS SEX Hmmmmm... Sure am glad I don't like this bullshit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago They say overanalyzing but I say underanalized! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Klear@piefed.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 child) I may be face-blind but I recognised her. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) The chin dimple is unmistakable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago ...she has a chin? I never noticed... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] starik@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) The chin dimple is unmistakable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago ...she has a chin? I never noticed... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago ...she has a chin? I never noticed... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] knacht1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago Totally stunning in "Mad Men".. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago Kinda important to always include floatation devices permalink fedilink source
[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 month ago* "Leave me at the nearest port, never look upon me again. I'll make my way with the strength that you've taught me, only let me have my wedding night." I loved that bitch. permalink fedilink source
[–] Numberone@startrek.website -1 points 1 month ago Just as Nolan intended douche sounds permalink fedilink source
all 27 comments