I’ve only seen screen shots so far, but something looks very amiss about all these rips (irrespective of the file size)
This is supposed to be an epic sci-fi blockbuster, but all the posted images appear to look very ‘cropped’ and/or low res.
Is the film supposed to look like it only takes up half of the available screen?
I have the one from yts. Stats are
- 1920x696
- 24 fps frame rate
- 2248 kbps data rate
- 2632 kbps total bitrate
It looks like they just went with an unusual aspect ratio to artificially make it seem “even more widescreen”, which isn’t unheard of. Lawrence of Arabia was 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 depending on 70mm vs 35mm.
If you look at this cheat sheet, 2.20:1 isn’t even on there, and 2.35:1 is an oddball 1920x817.
So, could be normal, or maybe not.
edit: the wikipedia page for it says
”To give the film the feel of classic Hollywood epics like Ben-Hur, the filmmakers opted to shoot the film in 2.76:1 ultra-wide aspect ratio.”
which also isn’t on that cheat sheet.
Lol, you know you’re getting old when other people start questioning cinema aspect ratios.
Gareth Edwards just seems like a fan of ultra wide formats, Rogue One was shot in a 2.76:1 format before being cropped slightly to 2.39:1 for release.
As much as I love that a lot of movies have been coming out in taller formats, which look great at home on our 16:9 TVs, there’s something special about the wider formats, at least when you see them on a suitably large screen at a proper theatre.
The film uses an intentionally wide aspect ratio. It also has a lot of added film grain, also intentional. But the grain messes with low bitrate rips. Grab the 20gb+ 4K Web-DL rip to get it in the best possible quality.
It is in a super wide format, so perhaps you are not used to seeing that because it isn’t all that common these days with a lot of big spectacle films moving back to taller formats
