why?
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
why?
>>51747879
the only good matrix is the first one
whyyyy
>>51747895
This
bump
>>51747879
>>51747907
>pirate bay
Don't give in to the power of the dark side of the force.
>>51747879
are you saying that the pirate has a wider frame?
if that's true then where does the pirate come from?
>>51747895
wrong, the other two films go into a lot more detail of the fictional universe
>>51747907
>>51747879
the wider shots are better composed. the "piratebay" version is for idiots who think film should cater to television aspect ratio.
>>51748010
>where does the pirate come from?
that is the real question.
the gladiator rip come from a canadian tv rip. so they must had a special file to fully fit the 16/9 tv screen. but normally they do that by cropping/zooming the file. here it is the opposite!!!
>>51748051
>posed. the "piratebay" version is for idiots who think film should cater to television aspect ratio
OP here, I mad the screenshot myself, its not a fake pic. And idiots no, because you can see more on the pirated version !
>>51747907
>muh cinematic feel
unfortunately retards like >>51748051 think that having cut off heads is good cinematography.
>>51748121
amen
>>51748121
you can have the same height of view as muh 4:3 but at the same time expand in the horizontal direction
the blu ray is the original anamorphic, the piratebay version is the broadcast aspect ratio
![Gladiator IMAX.mkv_snapshot_00.00.00_[2015.12.08_13.39.37].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PfcM8Bf.jpg "Gladiator IMAX.mkv_snapshot_00.00.00_[2015.12.08_13.39.37].jpg")
first pic of the gladiator full 16/9 TVRIP.
its from canada
>>51747907
Because one was taken from the original bluray release and one was taken from the imax bluray rerelease? What the fuck is this picture trying to convey?
>>51748160
>broadcast aspect ratio
so does it mean you can find broadcast aspect ratio of any movies? I prefer this format a lot!
>>51748154
But they didn't. That's the point of this thread.
>>51748112
hes saying that's not what the director intended retard.
>>51748200
no because allot of film makers refuse.
>>51748212
oh I see
meep
http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-155743.html
from doom9 :
can anybody explain why we can sometime find different aspect ratios for the same movie?
For exemple, Gladiator is listed on imdb as a having a 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/technical
But when the movie aired on TV it had a 1.78 aspect ratio! How come??!!
I have 2 screenshots from the DVD and my HDRip of the same scene that shows what I'm talking about. We can clearly see that the movie was shot in 1.78 and not 2.35. We are losing about 1/5th of picture with the theatrical or DVD version so do you know why the movie technicians would have cropped it?
It is normal these days in the blockbuster movie industry to shoot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio for theatrical release but to frame scenes so as to be able to make a release for TV or home use in 16:9. Indeed all the essential action will be within a 4:3 frame..... It varies from country to country but generally the public don't like black bars on their 16:9 screens - so the decision is a marketing one. A sad marketing decision albeit but finally it's the $$$$ that count. In Europe and Australia most films are shown in their original aspect ratio on TV if the distributors supply that format .
For more details on the history science and philosophy of aspect ratio go to the Widescreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm#main%20index
bluray
bev mpeg2
>>51748051
>he thinks chopped off heads at the top are a good think.
this is how i know that you are underage.
>>51748660
you "think" I am underage because I know how photography (and spelling) work?
>>51748687
Don't bother. Hes clearly retarded.
Actually noticed this today. What is up with that?
my next goal in life is to find as much as possible good movies in 1.78 ratio
God i fucking hate 2.35:1
Looks absolutely stupid and all for what? So some faggot director can be all edgy and try to get some head from his edgy director friends?
I want to watch a fucking movie, not look through the eye slats of ned kellys fucking armor
>>51748900
>not 1.618
>>51749025
>not 1.0
>>51749014
AMEN!
its 2016 soon, fill up my 60inch screen
>>51747895
>the only good matrix is the first one
Wait, is someone trying to imply that there were sequels, or something? Because there weren't. If you think so, then you're wrong. The Matrix was a completely self-contained story with nothing left to tell.
>>51747895
lol
>>51747879
>pirate bay version
>>51749073
This is why I love you anon. We always agree.
>>51748046
Turning a solid stand alone "question everything" cerebral action movie into a money grab american king fu cyber lite adventure
>>51747879
>>51747907
Hey guys what meme is this?
>>51747879
>>51747907
Well, goy, it's your choice. You can either buy the circumcised version for $40 or pay $10,000 in fines to see the full, uncut version of the film.
>>51747879
Don't go full retarded, OP.
>>51748527
>>51748545
Exactly the same.
>>51750292
fines are just there for the shitskins burning and selling them
>>51748321
hang on, if they make a 1.78 version because home users don't want to see bars...
why in the holy fuck are the dvd/bluray releases in 2.35?
>"lets make a home-friendly version then release the cinema version to homes"
>>51748687
you must be retarded if you think less screen=better because the director is a fucking idiot, like you.
>>51747879
>>51747907
The only thing I see is 16:9 vs 21:9 or am I missing something?
You're losing a lot of vertical space.
>>51750211
The first one was psuedo intellectual bullshit that everybody seems to think is much deeper than it actually is. The sequels weren't any better or worse in terms of that, just everybody who thinks the first movie is the only good one seem to have the odd belief that they are worse.
I liked all 3 movies. But because they were all cool stylish action flicks.
>>51750310
One has 1/3 of the content cut out with black bars you dumbass
>>51750391
b-b-b-but thats the directors artistic vision! to have you see two big black bars!
>>51748527
Not only is it badly cropped, but it has an ugly sharpening filter too.
So if movies are mainly distributed through Blu-ray for high resolution, which have the bars, where do these versions with more vertical space come from?
THE HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE ABOVE CINEMATIC 30FPS
So let's assume that the bluray editions have cropped out video, where as the pirated versions which are likely ripped from blurays have more information. How is this extra information being magicked into existence?
>>51750330
>faggot thinks he knows better than the fucking director.
kek
>>51748154
Yup. All other crops should be made from the 21:0 one, not the other way around.
>>51750510
>faggot thinking that having a different opinion makes you wrong
I bet you're american.
>>51747907
>MPC-HC
how's being part of the botnet like?
>>51750552
colossal retard detected
>>51750510
The director almost certainly shot at 24fps and didn't think it was shit, so his opinion can be immediately discarded.
But not all directors are total idiots, eg. I have a DVD copy of Robocop in director approved 1.66:1 ratio (open matte from 1.85:1 theatrical release).
>>51750545
you're the one saying directors are wrong.
thats there fucking job. why not recut the film as well?
>>51750582
I wouldn't be watching any questionable chinese cartoons on it if I was you friend
>>51750591
>fps
go back to your games faggot.
>>51750625
It's possible that some people are so slow they really do think 24fps looks good. "Room temperature IQ" isn't just a joke. Who's helping you post on 4chan?
>>51750460
DVD.
Notice how all these comparison screenshots are low resolution? It's so you can't tell that the 16:9 ratio ones have much less detail.
Anybody else notice how piratekikes have absolutely shit taste?
>>51750655
if only the godfather had ten more frames per second it would be a masterpiece.
>>51750708
34fps is still too slow. 60fps should be the bare minimum, and 120fps for action movies.
>>51750706
I wouldn't know. Never been there.
>>51750736
why? you're not the one shotting.
>>51750770
Because it's supposed to be a "motion picture", not a fast slideshow. 24fps can't show anything faster than static camera talking scenes without breaking up.
>>51750211
it was never stand alone, they did a fuckton of world building in the later two films, the problem is that they stretched a script meant for one film into two films and didn`t elaborate enough.
Doesn`t matter any more, I find Fight Club and Dark City to be a million times more re-watchable, now that the novelty of CGI has wore off and many scenes reveal their flaws in the Matrix Trilogy. In fact I prefer the Animatrix to the trilogy.
>>51750803
allot of films do it to capture a feeling like the grand budapest hotel.
>>51748051
>if I want to see the "bluray" version but only have the "piratebay" version:
>set up a crop filter in mpv
>if I want to see the uncropped version, but I have the bluray
>???
>>51750847
>falling for the "film look" scam
Imagine if TV got color before film did, all the film retards would be going on about how black and white is more atmospheric or some bullshit.
>>51748185
Fucking this, you can get the imax version on blue ray
>>51750803
24fps is fine for action if the camera remains more or less static
24 fps goes to shit with the shaky camera effect, zooming in and general motion of the camera, like for instance anything Michael Bay created, who is undeniably a shit cinematographer.
>>51750803
just got home from the thearters. im so use to seeing 30+fps in games and tv now that when i saw a 24fps thing i was thinking the frame rate is countable.
when we had film as a limiting factor, sure, 24 fps was good enough, but now that we be digital, there is no excuse for anything less than 60, and its tough to argue that 120 wouldn't be better.
>>51750871
but Im not saying one looks better than the other. they both look different and film makers now that
>>51750871
it definitely can be, remember, you light a black and white set differently than color, so it brings out a different feel through lighting alone.
>>51750890
You can get that version on Kat too.
>>51750460
HDTV broadcasts. They often utilize an "open gate" format that allows more of the image recorded on the film to be seen.
Some say this impinges on the artistic integrity of the film, some prefer to have their screen filled.
>>51750871
Whats wrong with black and white?
>>51750930
I mean if your trying to make an argument that pirating is cheaper then i'm not sure why we are talking. Of course pirating things is gonna be cheaper.
>>51750946
Tv watchers are the same retards that use pan and scan and lose half the picture because they want a filled screen.
i bought a dvd on the strength of a nude scene once. tv version showed pussy, dvd version was cropped. never again
Only time I get bent about aspect rations is when it fucking changes throughout the movie. Fucking Interstellar changes like 6 times.
>>51750901
>24fps is fine for action if the camera remains more or less static
It literally can't show action. You can't have realistic fight scenes because if you punch somebody at full speed it will be over in a single frame so you won't see any motion. Why do you think movie fight scenes have those stupid sound effects?
>>51750902
Exactly. 24fps is an obsolete cost cutting measure, not an artistic choice.
>>51750923
Film makers blindly use 24fps because they're too dumb to think for themselves.
>>51750926
Film got color before TV, so they don't have to pretend it's shit to avoid looking bad. Black and white movies actually are an artistic choice, because unlike with frame rate there's no industry wide conspiracy to suppress that choice.
>>51750956
It provides less information than color, just like low frame rate provides less information than normal frame rate. Imagine if all films were black and white and people said color was "soap opera effect" just because TV had color first.
>>51750963
4:3 pan may have been required for the time, but they sure are on to something with wanting the most of their HDTV by removing that extra space with no horizontal scene loss.
I love how the hobbit looked at 48FPS, is that available on blue ray? With the higher frame rate?
>>51750986
No there isn't any reason to wasn't to watch something not in its original aspect ratio unless there is a new hd remaster of it.
>>51750984
What about black and white photographer?
If directors wont more "information" they can have it. it's their choice.
>>51750984
if you think a film maker is dumb then don't watch their films.
>>51750984
>You can't have realistic fight scenes because if you punch somebody at full speed it will be over in a single frame so you won't see any motion.
fun fact though, punches are usually that fast that you won`t see much motion anyways. Just try it yourself, do a whipping motion with your hand and see how much of the motion is visible. 24 fps is fine.
>>51747879
>different frames of video
>piratebay version isnt cropped to shit
>>51751047
Yes, it really is a choice in that case. It's not all forced to be the same like frame rate it.
>>51751093
120fps can show real punches.
Art is Art...
>>51751108
>120fps can show real punches.
I strongly doubt that, unless we`re talking slow motion, which is one of the reasons got popular in the first place, because it allowed you to see motion in detail.
>>51751108
if you think fps look different then why cant it be a choice as well? if the film is meant to look old then it would only have 24 fps.
>>51751128
you've got it the wrong way round. it would be more like taking it off the frame to see what we weren't meant to see.
>>51751134
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6228040.stm
>His average punching speed was measured out at 25mph (40km/h) - giving opponents less than one tenth of a second to move out of the way.
Which is 12 frames at 120fps, which is plenty to show the whole trajectory. But at 24fps it's only 2 frames, which hardly counts as "motion". And very fast punches are even faster than that.
>>51751159
>if you think fps look different then why cant it be a choice as well?
There are no full length movies at 60fps or higher. The best we have so far is 48fps (and not even true 48fps, but 2*24fps for each eye), and that is very rare. There is no choice because of idiots talking about "soap opera effect".
The blueray one has been re-matted to accommodate wider modern TV's
However, it was not re-framed, and so its just chopping of chunks of the top and bottom original to achieve the matting.
This is the most lazy way to re-mat and its very common.
>>51751177
your brain fills in the gap.
>>51751185
pointing out that films only gos to 48fps doesnt answer the question. im saying they dont use 48 fps to make it look old.
>>51751248
>your brain fills in the gap
If I wanted by brain to fill in the gaps I'd read a book.
>they dont use 48 fps to make it look old
No, they don't use 48fps (or better) because of stupid people complaining about "soap opera effect".
>>51751259
>If I wanted by brain to fill in the gaps I'd read a book.
your brain fills the gap anyways, all you see is a series of flashing lights projected unto a 2D surface nigga, the rest is the brain doing its magic
>>51751248
>your brain fills in the gap.
this is the weakest argument against better quality, you can use it literally in any case
it is true, but that doesn't make the lower quality option any more enjoyable
>>51751259
>If I wanted by brain to fill in the gaps I'd read a book.
you're not conscious of it.
>No, they don't use 48fps (or better) because of stupid people complaining about "soap opera effect".
you're the only one bring up the "soap opera effect" argument. im saying some do it to make it look old.
>>51751287
i didn't say it was more enjoyable.
>>51751287
>this is the weakest argument against better quality
it`s not an argument against better quality, it`s an argument if "better quality" is relevant when the effect is marginal at best.
>>51751346
>marginal at best.
even if the motion is blurry, 60fps blur is still much nicer to track/watch than 24fps blur
track is a keyword here, if something is so fast that it moves across the screen in only a few frames, it can be very hard to track its movement with your eyes
>>51751438
I honestly can barely tell apart games that run at 30 fps with motion blur enabled and 60 fps without
>>51751468
that's fine, and i'm sure plenty will agree with you, but many people can tell the difference
>>51751438
The problem is that in order to add realistic looking blur to 60fps recording you need to do it in post because you don't have enough shutter time to play around with when you are taking that many frames in a second, which means more work.
>>51751339
>you're not conscious of it.
I'm almost always conscious of the low frame rate when I watch a movie. In some cases (eg. Rec) it completely spoils my enjoyment of the movie, because Rec was obviously shot in 50i and deinterlaced+slowed to 24p. The whole time I was thinking "you idiots, you fucked up the deinterlace".
>im saying some do it to make it look old.
Nobody does that, because it would require a "new" look to exist for comparison (beyond a few rare cases eg. The Hobbit).
>>51751346
>the effect is marginal at best
It's not. I've watched Showscan film. The difference is huge.
>>51751536
Modern sensors have great sensitivity. You can take decent night shots with a hand-held micro 4/3rds camera. Lack of shutter time is no longer an excuse.
>>51751128
Whoever made this image is an idiot. The "Black Bars" seen on movies is because the film was framed in a 2:35.1 aspect ratio, but because TVs are 16x9 there is space between the screen and image. They don't just crop movies for shits and gigs.
>>51751653
>the film was framed in a 2:35.1 aspect ratio
It wasn't. It was filmed in 16x9 and then cropped for the theatre/bluray release. The TV version is the original.
>>51751571
>Nobody does that, because it would require a "new" look to exist for comparison (beyond a few rare cases eg. The Hobbit).
the new look may not exist yet but it wouldn't stop a film like the grand budapest hotel looking dumb in 48fps.
>>51751673
because that was the artistic intent.
inb4
>film isn't art
it is.
>>51750605
even mspaint is a botnet
>>51751128
but sometimes its not even that bad this way, mad max for example was really good in this ratio
>>51751673
Yes the film IS cropped because if it's film or digital non shoot in a native 2:35.1 frame. The cinematographer has bars on his monitor to frame the image then they crop it in post. The same if the movie was shot on 35mm film, which if it's Super 35 then the aspect ratio is more like 4:3 so even if you like the "Non Cropped" version it has still been cropped from what was originally recorded. It all comes down to artistic intent and how the film makers want the film to look.
>>51750391
The other has more content cropped out to remove those black bars
>>51749014
>>51749053
I loved that the first Avengers was 1.78. Sadly the sequel is 2.35