Tron = All aspects available?

andyuk

Active Member
Hi there i have been currently looking at all the aspect ratio to all my blu-rays as i am planning a Projector set up later this year & was debating on whether to go 16:9 or 2:40 screen & noticed that my Tron Blu-ray states all aspect ratios available which i have never seen before? So i take it that the disc just changes itself to the set up its being played on?

Will this become the norm for all blu-rays in the future?

Andy
 
Hi there i have been currently looking at all the aspect ratio to all my blu-rays as i am planning a Projector set up later this year & was debating on whether to go 16:9 or 2:40 screen & noticed that my Tron Blu-ray states all aspect ratios available which i have never seen before? So i take it that the disc just changes itself to the set up its being played on?

Will this become the norm for all blu-rays in the future?

Andy
I can't find where that is written, but Tron switches aspect ratios, so it's both. I don't think that the ratios have been separated. It would be interesting if they have.
 

andyuk

Active Member
on the back sleeve top right mine states 16x9/2.35:1 & 1.78:1

Not watched it yet but i thought when i read the back great! it can actually play in both aspects did not realise the film changes aspects through the film!
 

KRW

Active Member
It changes for the Imax bits, and its quite wonderful - you feel like it would suddenly be quite possible to fall into the image. Same as The Dark Knight disc. My projector is 16:9 and it looks great on that, but I do watch an awful lot of 1.33.1 or 1:66.1 stuff so wouldnt really have gone for 2:35.1 screen.
 

nwgarratt

Member
There are no Imax bits. There is no quality jump like as with Dark Knight, it just changes aspect ratio.

The whole film was blown up to 70mm/1.78:1 for Imax from the 35mm.
 
There are no Imax bits. There is no quality jump like as with Dark Knight, it just changes aspect ratio.

The whole film was blown up to 70mm/1.78:1 for Imax from the 35mm.
And yet, oddly it still gives you the 16:9 oomph appeal, which just says to me that 16:9 is better.
 
And you'd be wrong. ;)
Then how can it work as it does? If the two aspect ratios have the same appeal why does 16:9 give a film a wow factor? What would happen if a film was made in 16:9, and then dropped to 2.35:1 to give you a wow factor.. it wouldn't work. Therefore... using actual proof, and experimental evidence..

..you are wrong. ;)
 
Last edited:
Because you're watching films on a device built at that ratio.

Oh look, picture filling the screen, what joy.


The film should keep you engrossed, not the shape of it.
Yet you are posting in a thread where the expanding shape of the film is an extra feature to that film. And Dark Knight is one of the best Blu Rays to own because of this feature also. So basically you are saying that you disagree with proof.

I remember when I first posted that if we can't have 16:9, then films should just switch aspect ratios for the fuller scenes. I got nothing but arguments over many pages. Then Dark Knight came out, and everybody loved it.
 
Last edited:

Indiana Jones

Moderator
I thought everyone loved The Dark Knight because of the quality jump, not because it suddenly filled the screen :confused:
 
I thought everyone loved The Dark Knight because of the quality jump, not because it suddenly filled the screen :confused:
Well Tron proves that partly untrue. Although it is less noticeable, but the larger ships do have some appeal.
 

Garrett

Moderator
Yet you are posting in a thread where the expanding shape of the film is an extra feature to that film. And Dark Knight is one of the best Blu Rays to own because of this feature also. So basically you are saying that you disagree with proof.

I remember when I first posted that if we can't have 16:9, then films should just switch aspect ratios for the fuller scenes. I got nothing but arguments over many pages. Then Dark Knight came out, and everybody loved it.
Half agreeing with you again PP.

Many a time in the a 2.35:1 ratio realy shows of scenes eg outdoor landscapes it gives you a feeling of openness. On the other hand I don't know why some films need to be in the scope Spider-Man was in 16:9 and was Ok yet switched to W/S which i could not see the point. Also Terminator 2 was filmed in 16:9 one cut to 4:3 for original TV showings now shown in 2.35:1. Why not 16:9 for the new TV you was willing to cut the sides off for 4:3 and show extra top and bottom, but think its OK to cut the top and bottom of not to fill the screens on 16:9 sets.

Have to say when watching TDK when the IMAX scenes come on its like someone opening a window up.
 

IAN P

Novice Member
And Dark Knight is one of the best Blu Rays to own because of this feature also.
So basically you are saying that you disagree with proof.
I remember when I first posted that if we can't have 16:9, then films should just switch aspect ratios for the fuller scenes.
I got nothing but arguments over many pages.
Then Dark Knight came out, and everybody loved it.

And Dark Knight is one of the best Blu Rays to own because of this feature also.



No, I own it because I like the film. Could've been filmed 4:3 and I'd still buy it. As long as the Director wanted it that way.



So basically you are saying that you disagree with proof.



:rotfl:



I remember when I first posted that if we can't have 16:9, then films should just switch aspect ratios for the fuller scenes.




What fuller scenes would they be then?






I got nothing but arguments over many pages.





That's a given.







Then Dark Knight came out, and everybody loved it.




Except CIH users.
 
And Dark Knight is one of the best Blu Rays to own because of this feature also.



No, I own it because I like the film. Could've been filmed 4:3 and I'd still buy it. As long as the Director wanted it that way.



So basically you are saying that you disagree with proof.



:rotfl:



I remember when I first posted that if we can't have 16:9, then films should just switch aspect ratios for the fuller scenes.




What fuller scenes would they be then?






I got nothing but arguments over many pages.





That's a given.







Then Dark Knight came out, and everybody loved it.




Except CIH users.
But your first argument is to go with director's intent, and director's intent is a mental approach to movies rather than a visual one. But movies are visual. So to go with the mental approach only has one meaning, and that meaning is that you will follow a director because you are a follower, and not a leader. I want to lead the directors to a better understanding of public appeal, not to follow them through the 4:3 mistaken belief that they can lead me into following them. I can't be taught to ignore my senses. I am a hypnotists nightmare. :D

Your second point is to what parts of a movie work best in 16:9. They are the vertical parts. Vertical ships, vertical King Kong, things that fill the screen vertically.. buildings.. etc. But logic says that 16:9 just works better anyway, as the length of the screen will always fit in a war scene, and even though you are better focused on that panoramic scene, it doesn't really hurt to put the sky in that scene.
 

Garrett

Moderator
I think 16:9 is far far nearer to normal eyesight ratio than 2.35:1.
 

IAN P

Novice Member
But your first argument is to go with director's intent, and director's intent is a mental approach to movies rather than a visual one. But movies are visual. So to go with the mental approach only has one meaning, and that meaning is that you will follow a director because you are a follower, and not a leader. I want to lead the directors to a better understanding of public appeal, not to follow them through the 4:3 mistaken belief that they can lead me into following them. I can't be taught to ignore my senses. I am a hypnotists nightmare. :D

Your second point is to what parts of a movie work best in 16:9. They are the vertical parts. Vertical ships, vertical King Kong, things that fill the screen vertically.. buildings.. etc. But logic says that 16:9 just works better anyway, as the length of the screen will always fit in a war scene, and even though you are better focused on that panoramic scene, it doesn't really hurt to put the sky in that scene.


I have no rebuttal for that statement,except to say I'm going to lie down in a darkened room and weep.:D
 

KRW

Active Member
There are no Imax bits. There is no quality jump like as with Dark Knight, it just changes aspect ratio.

The whole film was blown up to 70mm/1.78:1 for Imax from the 35mm.
So how does that work? The 2.35/1 bits looked framed perfectly to me, did they reframe those bits for Imax, or is the 2.35.1 version masked? Either way, it looks ****ing awesome in both aspect ratios.
 

rebel_scum

Distinguished Member
It was obviously framed for 2.35:1, the amount of redundant room at the top and bottom of frame, during the fake Imax scenes, is quite telling. They just removed the mattes for these sequences.

And unlike Avatar, which doesn't really work cropped to 2.35:1 on a CIH display, due to re-framing and re-rendered displays, etc, Tron Legacy's Imax scenes, look pretty much spot on.
 
Last edited:

iainl7

Well-known Member
Also Terminator 2 was filmed in 16:9 one cut to 4:3 for original TV showings now shown in 2.35:1. Why not 16:9 for the new TV you was willing to cut the sides off for 4:3 and show extra top and bottom, but think its OK to cut the top and bottom of not to fill the screens on 16:9 sets.
Really? Have we honestly reached the point where a Moderator on AVForums is arguing against releasing a film in the theatrical aspect ratio?
 

lgans316

Distinguished Member
Donno what's the big deal with changing aspect ratios. Agree that the IMAX scenes in Tron don't have the 3D pop like TDK or TF2 but the overall PQ is certainly better than TDK which is tampered with artificial sharpening.
 

figrin_dan

Active Member
Really? Have we honestly reached the point where a Moderator on AVForums is arguing against releasing a film in the theatrical aspect ratio?
I agree. T2 was shot in Super 35(4:3) for 2.35, anything other than 2.35 is a bodge.
 

Geoff_D

Distinguished Member
And unlike Avatar, which doesn't really work cropped to 2.35:1 on a CIH display, due to re-framing and re-rendered displays, etc, Tron Legacy's Imax scenes, look pretty much spot on.
Avatar doesn't disgrace itself in 2.35, but you're right, it doesn't always work. Tron Legacy, on the other hand, looks absolutely PERFECT in constant 2.35. The 'IMAX' 16:9 shots were framed with a 2.35 safe area (as with the rest of the film), and to my eye there's soooo much dead space at the top of the 16:9 image.

I agree. T2 was shot in Super 35(4:3) for 2.35, anything other than 2.35 is a bodge.
This. T2 wasn't shot in "16:9".
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: CES 2021 Special - Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, TCL and Hisense TV news and more...

Latest News

Sky seals Studiocanal movie deal
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
iFi Audio launches iDSD Diablo DAC/Headphone amp
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Galaxy Buds Pro
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Galaxy S21, S21+ and S21 Ultra smart phones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Mola Mola debuts Kula integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom