this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
321 points (93.7% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

41116 readers
4481 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 41 points 4 days ago (4 children)

It's partly because people would complain the other way if they only used half the cinema screen to display the full IMAX image. I'm not gonna do the maths, but I think Odyssey being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides.

But mostly because it's the main selling point of IMAX films is there's more image than a standard ratio. That more is supposed to be mostly in your peripheral vision rather than where you're focused, directors aren't really putting anything important in these extremities of the image.

So to pillarbox that image would just dramatically shrink the bit of the screen the viewer should be focusing on, on an already smaller screen.

[–] BlueOysterCultist@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago

main selling point of IMAX films is there's *more* image than a standard ratio.

This helped me get it, I never considered imax because of the price so I never thought about what it even meant

Image max / maximum image

[–] SteveGoob@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I'm not gonna do the maths

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...)

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

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

1.43*2.39^-1=0.60
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I guess it's likely they're doing some amount of that, yeah. However I believe the way directors typically approach IMAX is to still centre the shot the way you would without the extra vertical frame, so a centred crop would usually be the best option.

I'd find it hard to believe that they never take the opportunity to shift things a bit if it would make it better anyway

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

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)

Ugh. The selling point of standard theaters used to be the better aspect ratio

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

People seemed to like Obsession a lot and it was 1.5:1, it made nearly $500m