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…)
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
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
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?
Let me help you out there, since I need something to help me procrastinate anyways lol
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…)
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
We lose 20% on each side
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?
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
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?
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)