is fucking 2:35:1 aspect ratio, fuck you lucas
Printable View
is fucking 2:35:1 aspect ratio, fuck you lucas
LOL, that bearded shit fucked you over hehehe
Episode 3 was ok, really good effects, shame the acting sucked, My company took us all to see it in the cinema, hired out the screen for us. We were laughing so much when the characters said 'Younglings', that was classic :kekeke:
Yeah, 'younglings' sounded pretty gay. Couldn't they just have called them young paduans or cadets or some shit? I'm reminded of that gag clip of yoda doing blow with that faggy teenager. "Good blow, this is!"Quote:
Originally Posted by beh3moth
Blame Yoda for that one. What he says, goes. Yoda was the one that gave them that name.
So I'm guessing that the widescreen version doesn't properly go to 16x9, then?
On disc 1, go to the language and sound set up section. Highlight the THX logo. Press 1138 on your remote and hit enter!
Does that open an easter egg that shows Lucas giving you the double deuce?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mawdsley
Dancing Yoda I believe but your idea sounds better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesagwa
So... what's the problem? If this was the original aspect ration for the film, then I'd rather have that then something hacked to fit specifically on 16x9. You wouldn't lose as much going from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 as you would going from 2.35 or 1.85 to a 4:3 ratio, but it'd still be hacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashK
Unless it was some other ratio that you were looking for and he stretched it to 2.35?
I guess I'm not really seeing what the issue is.
because 2:35:1 isnt fucking 16x9, there are bars on a 16x9 TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by slerch666
my anger was why lucas didn't fucking film the movie in true 16x9 like most everyone does nowadays. hollywood made 16x9 a standard for HDTV for a reason, when you get a widescreen set this will piss you off, i'm actually returning this move tommarow to target and swapping it out for something else.
Did you buy this movie because you like it or did you buy it because it's some shiny digital technowonder?
If you actually enjoy a movie a couple centimeters of black bars shouldn't bother you. If you're buying it to show off your TV there has to be some 10 minute long demo disc you could use instead... because episode 3 is a terrible movie. If you really enjoyed the movie and not just its visual quality on your particular set you wouldn't be returning it because of a small black bar.
This reminds me of people that are way, way too into audio. So many audiophiles will listen to shit because of the quality of sound on their systems, not the quality of music. That doesn't make any sense to me.
RETARDED.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashK
You are as much of a dumbass for this, as a 85 year-old man in Arkansas is for not wanting to watch the widescreen version of a movie on a regular tv. Using your logic, all filmmakers should have been filming all movies in a tv sized aspect ratio all these years. No thanks. Boo hoo...black bars! Suck it up.
I can't believe there are still people who aren't soccer moms or WW2 vets who still complain about black bars.
True. Too bad it will still sell like hotcakes cause it has pretty colors and the Star Wars logo on the box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
The digital technowonder factor is what also sold so many copies of that shit movie The 5th Element.
Whoa, I love that fucking movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Nemoperson
But we are united by our hatred of the new Star Wars, so for now we can enjoy a gentle embrace.
For now.
Let's hug it out bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
I heart letter boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
Ehhh their is nothing really wrong with the movie. I just found it kinda mediocre. The action scences were pretty dull. And that black dude as the president was such a shit actor I wanted to walk up to the tv and spit on him.
When you talk when we're hugging like this I can tell what you've been eating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Nemoperson
You've been eating pasta.
That black dude was fucking Zeus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Nemoperson
ZEUS.
You get no more hugs and are banished.
are you some kind of faggot? 5th element fucking owned, stay off wasabis coke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Nemoperson
Im not the one who bought SW:E3 :glee:Quote:
Originally Posted by DashK
Movies are made for the cinema, and cinema screens are wide for a good reason. I don't mind some bars in my DVDs (and all our tvs still are 21'' 4:3 anyway). If you don't want bars then just look for a wider TV set-up (if it's available which I'm not sure).
LOL, we had to deal with letterboxed games here forever until recent times, you get used to it :kekeke:
LMAO! :kekeke:Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthtownKid
Shit falls out whenever you open your mouth, seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashK
Hollywood didn't choose 16:9 (not "16x9", ape). It's a broadcast standard, not a film standard. I won't even get into a debate with you over artistic merit and the reasons why there are several different aspect ratio standards in the film industry, nor will I explain why 16:9 was chosen as the broadcast standard. It's not the filmaker's job to make movies that fit your puny TV. That's why they make films and leave garbage like CSI and Survivor to lesser humans.
I hate the fact that you're this forum's most vocal HDTV proponent. You're fucking clueless. It's bad enough that DVD enthusiasts had to fight studios for proper widescreen releases while boneheads like you wanted movies to "fit my square TV". Looks like we're going through it all over again because mongoloids such as yourself want 2.35:1 films cropped to fit your HDTV.
Wow, I didn't expect a complaint that was this stupid.
Completely off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
How much did you enjoy Episode 3... the new Star Wars in general?
Dinkins is curious like a kitty.
Boo Hoo Hooo you fucking baby...
Get yourself an adjustable Monitor or even a Projector if you want to do shit proper.....
Then you can adjust it to your liking.....
I watched a Burned DVD of Master and Commander Last night.... Frickin Scum Burned it in 4:3.... But I'm not complaining...
PS I won't be watching this movie because Epp 1 sucked and epp 2 put me to sleep.
Ep. 3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
The opening battle sequence was boring.
R2's comedy routine was gay.
Annakin's turn to the dark side was way too fast.
The acting and dialog were better overall this time around, but certainly not Oscar-worthy.
The CGI was great.
Palpatine kicked serious ass. The prequel trilogy was really all about him. Best character of the series. Evil bastard.
The prequels had incredible moments that were drowned out by horrible dialog, wooden acting, and lame fart jokes. None of the charm and wit that made the original trilogy good was present.
Fucking fart jokes. Fart jokes! In Star Wars!
I still bought them all :oh_no:
If you look at it from Episode II on out then it doesn't seem all that fast. Virtually everything he did was not what the Order would have wished and he let his anger get the best of him. The beggining of Episode III pretty much showed he was already too far gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
I'm pretty much on the same page, except I thought that the CGI was horrid in parts... I felt like I was watching a PS2 cutscene. The acting and dialogue was equally as poor... except its assness was more consistently bad. Palpatine's acting was good in parts, and silly in others. It was the most silly in the part when Anakin killed Windu.Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
I didn't find any part of the new Star Wars to be incredible. Shame on them.
Actually, that's not really true. There are a lot of 2.35:1 movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashK
MOST movies, though, as you've said are 1.85:1.
Back in the day when TV first became standardized and showed up in a lot of homes theatres saw ticket sales decline. Their solution was to offer a wide viewing screen that couldn't be fully replicated on the small 4:3 screen (ever notice that movies before the 50s were 4:3?). In my opinion, the 2.35:1 is sort of the equivalent. If you want the "full experience" it must be experienced in the theatre. This then begs the problem, since movies usually only see a single run through the theatres these days, that you can only ever experience the full effect if you go see it in the theatre, whereas back in the day they'd cycle the same movies through many times over the years.
LotR is 2.35:1 as well, and I wouldn't change that for anything.
I guess the next evolution of TV will be to the 2.35:1 ratio. If it takes as long to adapt as 4:3 to 1.85:1 though, you won't be buying a 2.35:1 TV/display until something like 2040 (though I doubt it's THAT far off).
I agree that his fall was played out well, but the way he turned was very abrupt. He kills Windu and then immediately swears allegiance to Palpatine. No reflection whatsoever on what he'd done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark of the Wolves
I used to think the prequels were 100% shit, but after watching them a few times, there are definitely great moments there. It's just hard to separate them from the overwhelming crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
And there were bad CGI scenes in ROTS. It was mostly pretty impressive though, I think.
Let's put it this way: I'm more of a LOTR fan these days. Those are great fantasy films and solid proof that traditional special effects, CGI, and quality writing/acting can be blended seamlessly for involving storytelling. Lucas should've executive produced the prequels and left the writing and directing to more qualified people.
It makes sense actually. He was making some pretty rash decisions. He probably thought if he had come this far there's no turning back.Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
It's N-G.com, what do you expect? Certainly nothing better than this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobak
Many enthusiasts put anamorphic lenses in front of their 16:9 projectors to produce a 2.35:1 display. Scalers or HTPCs are used to remove the black bars and stretch the remainder to fit the display.Quote:
Originally Posted by slerch666
Canon also just introduced a digital projector with a 2.5:1 aspect ratio. The info is limited, so I'm not sure if it's a 16:9 chip with an anamorphic lens built-in, or if it's two 16:9 chips placed side-by-side and then blended.
There are also laser-based projection displays in development that don't use fixed pixel panels and can theoretically take on any aspect ratio you want them to.
Or, now get this Genjiglove, this is a more likely scenario: Bad writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by genjiglove
Your sarcasm is on par with Jedah Doma's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by DashK
Hollywood did not set 16:9 as the standard (note the 16:9, NOT 16x9). 16:9 is the standard for HDTV. The original aspect of films are what the director wants them to be. Making a film “enhanced for widescreen” and forcing into 16:9 is just as pad as Pan-and-scan.
Also it's 2.35:1 (not 2:35:1), if you're going to come on here preaching about original aspect ratio please don't be a dumb ass when you do...
Mark my words Genjiglove, I'm going to kill you with hugs and squeezes!Quote:
Originally Posted by genjiglove
I'm with you there. I cringe when I see that part and hear "I need him." :oh_no:Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
I will welcome this honorable death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
Now that is cool. I had no idea (because I'm not an enthusiast, I just like to watch shit in an unmolested (ie. not pan and scan) format) shit like that existed. Whenever I decide to upgrade my display, not likely in at least a year or more, the projector + screen seems like a likely option... Do you know if it distorts the image at all? I'm hoping not, as then most likely enthusiasts probably wouldn't be doing it...Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
Now if only someone could design something for DashK's TV. :kekeke:
Oooo, shit. I guess I should have read al the posts. I missed thirdkind’s rant. Oh well, I guess he beat me to it.
I found an interesting website that describes the different terms and different ways different formats are filmed and viewed in the cinema. Check it out.
Dashk is the Technob version of my ghetto friends that always insist on 4:3.....
And no Subtitles..... Enlish Language Dubs,,
Corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by slerch666
Depends on the quality of the lens. There are cheaper lenses you can get for $500 (Prismasonic is the company I believe), and there's a German manufacturer who makes a lens called the ISCO. Sells for a few thousand I think, but it's massive and very high-quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by slerch666
With a good lens, the geometric distortion is minimal. If the screen is properly masked, you shouldn't notice the small curvature along the screen edges.
If I were fantastically rich I would have an actual theater.
You heard me.
I would also have a mullet and a classic muscle car, but an actual theater would take precedent.
A non famous rich person with a mullet, that would be awesome.