Is the IMAX (70mm) popularity proof that the 16:9 ratio becoming standard was just a judaizing trick?
16:9 has never been a cinema standardgo back to /pol/ with your midwittery
>>109400216Im transfering the logic to work for monitors.
>>109400211It's quite ironic that retards are being marketed about analog film formats when 99% of film productions today are shot on digital formats.Go spread your marketing bullshit somewhere else, retard
>>10940021116:9 was basically design by committee, a middle ground, a lowest common denominator aspect ratio. I will never forgive manufacturers for forcing it on people for laptops and monitors.
>16:9 was basically design by committeeas opposed to what? just having a bunch of different formats that will look bad everywhere?
>>109400370As opposed to using formats that make sense for the use case, anything wider than 3:2 is not convenient for work on a computer.
The IMAX aspect ratio was rather arbitrary, it was just chosen to fit on existing 70mm film stock
>>109400397you are 80 years old, if not physically then mentally, like most contrarians here
>>10940042216:9 looks ridiculous on laptops and that's a hill I'm willing to die on. The 4:3 screens on older laptops were superior for actual work.
>the IMAX (70mm) popularityit's just one autist
>>10940021616:9 was just a compromise between 4:3 (then-standard for television) and 2.39/2.4 (standard for cinema)also bonus points for marketers: the further you get from 1:1, the smaller the screen needs to be to reach a particular diagonal screen size, which is the standard way to measure screens ;)a 24" 4:3 display is larger than a 24" 16:9 display
>>109400216>>109400445factual>>109400312analog formats are all the rage with the zoomzooms that never experienced any of that shit. and they still won't since there's only a few cinemas in the entire world that support imax's 70mm standard. everyone else is getting a butchered version with cropping instead
>>109400519zoomer derangement syndrome
>>109400478Now watch the snowball effect.
>>109400527This, im a bit of a late blooming millenial due to having been rehabilitated from a double whamy accident and subsequen inflamation and all the zoomers in college were the same. Once you hit 22 you are set.
>>109400527>not copingnobody cares, zoomzoom.>>109400543>unhinged rambling nonsenseclassic /g/.
>>109400528too expensive and cumbersome
>>109400211what is a chud-approved, anti-jewish kino monitor ratio? 4:4?
>>1094005873:2
>>109400600this but in portrait
>>109400519Any full frame film format is about 4:3 be it 35mm or 70mmCinemascope camera lens squeezes more information on that full frame which is then expanded to 2.35 aspect in theater and this has been the standard format of cinema for agesImax films are often 70mm copies of 35mm source anyway.I don't understand what else there is to know or care about. Except this thread and some other things are just marketing for stupid retards.I bet you can't even tell who was the last director to shot his film in real 70mm anyway...
>>109400667>stupid fucking moron rambles on about 70mm copies of 33mm sources>only film anons talking about anywhere is nolan's cancer>filmed entirely in 70mm for some insane reason, not some copyyou're possibly the dumbest fucking retard i have ever fucking seen>I bet you can't even tell who was the last director to shot his film in real 70mm anyway...don't care, loser. you would probably just google it anyway, say that you know it and try to pretend you're some high iq genius when it's painfully obvious to anyone reading this that you're a lolcow loser that barely understands how light works. you probably think light is communications from jesus or some shit
>>109400575redditors, anon. don't lump 15 birth years worth of people into this
>>109400211i dont get the whole debacle over this IMAX shitcant every cinema just scale it down / letterbox it to fit on the screen?
>>10940021170-5 is best i dont need to see his dick
>>109401069Redditors are millennials all the oldfags slunk off there4chan is zoomer town unc
>>109400216This is just nested cropping. 2.35 is vertically cropped already. True 1.33 is the same width as 2.35 but full height.
>>109400667Less information usually. 2.35 is almost never actually wider, just less tall, with the tops and bottoms of everything in the scene cut off.
https://youtu.be/N_94p2PrgAU>open matte version of the trailer which unlike the theatrical release is in 16:9 aspect ratio, and the VHS which is in 4:3 aspect ratio, you get both vertical and horizontal camera space unmasked. So basically what you’re seeing is the entire film without being cropped, it’s also scanned in 4K which the film has never been released in.2
>>109401239not all of us.i'm ok with being called an "unc", i am actually an uncle now.
>>109400575zoomers love the mr beast face frfr no cap bussin rizz *skull emoji*
>>109400211iirc it had something to being cheaper to produce and therefore shittier standard won, originally computer screens were 4:3
>>1094002111.43 is great on an 85x60ft screen, that doesn't necessarily mean that it would also be good for your computer monitor.
>>109400478Are you retarded? Other directors in the past released movies in 70mm and shilled the format.
>>109400211Movie aspect ratios are a gimmick.My TV is the size it is and that's the bottom line.
>>109400312This is true, but I watched Oppieheimer in a theater that could project analog and you could clearly tell which scenes were digital.
>>109400312most films are shot in analog. it's actually cheaper than digital once you for higher quality and image fidelity.also a lot of cinema still project analog film, because it's much cheaper for the same quality as a good digital projector. well if you're talking about marvel crap, there's no much reason to use analog film because 99% is cgi with actors filmed in shot/reverse shot like a mediocre tv show
>>109402684Can they do HDR on an analog film projector?
>>109402744Film is analog, so there's no meaning in 'bit depth' or 'pixels' because they don't work that way, but technically film has more colors that any digital format.Usually it's estimated to be 13-16 bit per channel, which is current above HDR range. That's the main reason why film is attractive, because you have a more data to work on during editing. Technically, you get slightly more color info in the negatives, so archival scans have even high quality.If you look at Apollo program's 70mm footages, you'll see that the quality is far above what most digital camera can do nowadays, while being filmed in the 60's.
>>109400445I agree with this, I have both a 4:3 laptop and a 16:9 laptop and the latter is a joke device.
>>109400489>16:9 was just a compromise between 4:3 (then-standard for television) and 2.39/2.4 (standard for cinema)iirc 16:9 was one of the actual film frame sizes, that got cropped by putting black sheets on the projector. Some movies however were filmed anamorphic, so the projector would need to optically collapse the height, this would give better image quality.
>>109403159Not talking color, strictly luminance. I don't think they can do dark and bright spots the way digital can in film
Oh, and I don't mean when filming it. Obviously film captures a ton of detail and light. But when projecting it old style I don't think you can achieve as much of a peak as you can by scanning that film and then using digital playback
>da jews are behind 16:9Even if it's a long-running shitpost that's gone on long enough to attract genuine retard believers, this is too retarded to be funny. Just like all the mongoloids who think widescreen is vert- instead of hor+.
>>109403245Well in reality you can't see HDR. The purpose of HDR is to let you modify contrast/brightness/gamma without losing precision or 'burning' the image. If you look at 8bpc RGB colors, your eye can't actually distinguish between two neighboring colors in the RGB/sRGB cube.Since cinema have controlled ambient brightness, on standard white screen. Basically they try to aim for standard 48cd/m2 (which is very low, but cinema rooms have dim lights). HDR just lets you tune the brightness so you can reach that value even if your projector is far away or your screen is very large. Projectors don't actually render HDR colors at all, it's just for processing before displaying anything.Then there's dolby laser projectors, but I've only ever seen them used in very large rooms where they program slop movies 24/7. Overall, film projector and digital projectors both reach the 1:2000 contrast ratio that you can't distinguish and both reach the same foot lambert (~12fL).The only advantage for digital projectors is less noise, although noise on film projector is basically none nowadays, and you also get less light scattering, which once again is pretty much non existent with modern film/projectors.
>>109400422>>109400527>>109401239why are zoomers like this?
>>109400211Are you a Cyclops?
>>109403433>Well in reality you can't see HDRI can absolutely see the difference between the darkest and brightest points and the scale between them
>>109400336Having an industry standard is rare, and better than having black bars on literally everything.
>>1094002113:2 has really been ideal for me. Using a 16:9 just feels weird now. I use 9:16 for reading documents though, which is ideal for me, though a slightly shorter one would do the job better imo.
ITT: anons who just arrived on Earth and aren't familiar with human anatomy, especial vision.
>>109403583That's not what I said. HDR doesn't add any visible contrast. 100% is still as bright as 100% for 8bpc colors, especially since cinema screen are ~50cd/m2 (10x-20x lower than your average TV). And the contrast between 0% and 100% is exactly the same for HDR or 8bpc. HDR just adds more 'nuance', which you cannot actually see, the only purpose of HDR is to give post processing filters more space to work on. That's only useful when you're not in a controlled environment, for instance if you don't know what brightness the screen uses, or if the room's brightness is high or low. It's exactly the same as audio mastering, you can't distinguish 96khz/16bit vs 192khz/32bit audio. The purpose is to give more freedom during mastering. Just like audio, movies are mastered (or 'composed'), and since a cinema room is always dark, the final master doesn't need HDR at all.In the case of displays, displays do mastering internally, they apply your color profile, gamma, contrast, brightness, tone mapping, etc. You typically have to adjust brightness/gamma based or ambient light.HDR does have visible difference over 8bpc when you have a very bright display and still want contrast to be noticeable. typically you see this done in high end TVs, means to be put in rooms with outdoor brightness. However in such scenarios, it's likely the bright colors/ambient light will make darker shades not visible at all, so the gains are marginal.
>>109403669Irrelevant, since its possible to move your eyes and your head to take in the entire scene. In real life the tops and bottoms of things are not cut off. "widescreen" is not really wide, its just horrifically vertically cropped.
>>109405381>t. braindamaged retard who thinks widescreen is handled like pre-2005 videogames
>>109405413Literally every "widescreen" film I have ever seen is incredibly zoomed in, really tight framing. Not even remotely wide. Pretty much every object in every scene has some amount of its top or bottom cut off.Like, I did an experiment once where I cropped some old 4:3 tv shows into 2.35:1 and they were still more generously framed and wider than so called widescreen.
>>109400211>IMAX (70mm) popularityWhat are you talking about?Who's shooting 70mm apart from Christopher Nolan?One movie every few years is "popular"?Even "IMAX" movies are normally 1.9:1, which is wider than your "wide screen" TV.And the vast majority of so-called "IMAX" theaters can't even show 1.43:1, they letterbox Nolan flicks like Oppenheimer and The Odyssey.
>>109405452That's not how it works, retard. Directors zooming the camera in further (exactly the same as how a 4:3 film CROP would be by the way) in the modern era does not mean widescreen is vertically cropped. You're genuinely retarded and think differences in camera filming over time has anything to do with widescreen vs 4:3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r12diz8a_QThis is a film from 1959. Notice how it's widescreen, wider than 16:9 at that, and yet it isn't "cut off". Owing to differences in film and directing styles, the camera tends to be more zoomed out to show a wider scene.
>>109401082>cant every cinema just scale it down / letterbox it to fit on the screen?They letterbox it, yes, it's fine.And when you buy the DVD they chop off the sides.Sometimes they even chop off the sides after letterboxing the original so you lose a part of the image around all edges.The only thing I find dumb is that in the current year with digital downloads they don't offer a choice of several aspect ratios or just serve the original and let software best fit it on whatever screen you happen to use.Sad fact is the movie/streaming industry doesn't give a shit.
>>109405570Most of his body is literally cut off vertically.Also, in general, when averaged over all types of shots. "Widescreen" on average is less tall, rather than being wider. Widescreen is only actually wider on panorama shots at the expense of basically every other type of shot which ends up vertically cropped.
>>109405636No it isn't you absolute ape. You have no clue what you're talking about.
>>109405643If ben hur had been shot in 4:3, you could basically make it the same width in most shots, but not have things cut off. The raft is partially off screen in most of the shots since its so vertically cropped.
>>109405381>its possible to move your eyes and your head to take in the entire scene.It's far more comfortable to move them side to side than up and down though.Real life is indeed "widescreen" because we evolved to scan the horizon not to constantly look up at the sky or down at the ground.IMAX 70mm is that tall because lenses naturally create a circular image so when you project on a big screen it's easier to stay close to the 1:1 ratio.The further from 1:1 the more of the projector's power is wasted.1.43:1 is an acceptable compromise for huge screens but ideally movies would be wider (and the vast majority are).
>>109405685They are only wider because apparently cutting off the tops and bottoms of everything in the scene is considered acceptable for some reason.
Imax looks a bit shit in the corners, if movies were shot so everything was basically in the dead middle and you never moved your eyes it'd work better, many things made for the IMAX were indeed shot that way back in the day, and they even used lenses to correct for the projector so it all looked great and was sharp all the way to the corners.Modern movies aren't shot that way so it's just better to watch them in a VR helmet or whatever gay shit people do now instead of viewing used or pirated movies at home.
>>109405710Every director is free to frame his movie any way he wants.They're also free to pick any aspect ratio, they could shoot 9:16 vertical if they wanted.
>>109405746Yes, and for some demented reason basically every director frames their films in such a way that renders them basically unwatchable. Like looking through a narrow slot hardly able to see anything.
>>109401239Zoomers are actually the majority on reddit.
WIDESCREEN IS NOT MADE BY CUTTING THE TOP AND BOTTOM OFFHOW IS IT EVERY CRTROON-TIER ORANGE SODIUM STREET LAMP-TIER FLAT EARTHER-TIER RETARD IS INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING SIMPLE CONCEPTS
I like turtles
>>109401239There are plenty of oldfags, you never actually leave this place. Oldfags have just been crowded out by retards. Always has been. Will always be.
>>109400216>what is 1.85:1
we watch 9:16 micro dramas on tiktok now uncs...
>>109400211Least convincing actor award.
>>109400211The IMAX itself is a trick to get people to go to the movie theater again, and you fell for it.>>109400216>16:9 has never been a cinema standardRetard, 1.85:1 was the movie standard and 16:9 is a compromise between 2.35:1 and 4:3
>>10940021116:10 is the be all end all, anything else is homosexual.>4:3Can't open two programs next to each other without limiting width, unusable for any serious work>3:2Literally trolling>16:9Useless invention by the industry to get us off of 16:10 in the late 2000's>16:10GOD'S SCREEN RATIO, it is actually 8:5 which is within error of the GOLDEN RATIO. You can open two DIN A4 pages next to each other without wasting screen real estate. Open two programs next to each other and you again have two 8:5 (5:8 really) windows next to each other. Continue ad infinitum.Using anything but 16:10 is HOMOSEXUAL and AN AFFRONT TO GOD.
>>109408922I agree, you got me with the golden ratio
>>109408922>You can open two DIN A4 pages next to each other without wasting screen real estateThat's wrong. 7:5 is a better approximation to sqrt(2):1. Half of 16:10 is 5:4.
>>109400211Why can’t imax just shoot 16:9 lengthwise. Theres no limit to width technically. It will just use more film and be more expensive. But Hollywood loves that.
>>109408959Sure, just get back to me when you find a 7:5 monitor. Fact is, 16:10 is the closest we've got if you factor in the sliver of UI on top or bottom of the screen. Without the UI the closest would be 3:2.Also 5:4 is not half of 16:10, it cannot be because 16:10 is 1.6:1 while 5:4 is 1.25:1
>>109405452You haven't seen very many movies nor do you know about photography so it's kind of weird that you're talking right now
>>109409029Half of 16:10 is 8:10=4:5.Half of 4:3 is 3:2. Half of 3:2 is 4:3. Half of 16:9 is 9:8. sqrt(2):1 is the only aspect ratio that's maintained when you divide it by 2.
>>109408922All we need is for one of these tech channel jews to tell the manufacturers>Hey, make a "gaming" WQXGA monitor, don't you already make the panels for laptops?
>>109400211dumb shit for attention whore industry slop
