Search results

Funny you should say that as yesterday I was talking with somebody who is a work colleague of the guy who popularized the conecept in the late 90ies I believe :) I have used a 2.2:1 and 2.15:1 aspect ratios for quite some time in order to make 16:9 and 1.85:1 aspect ratio movies look bigger...

2.4:1 screens are reasonable and would show the vast majority of movies made today to best effect. As for other screen shapes that are not even masked somebody else will have to go and watch movies with such an embarrassing lack of showmanship, I won't.

It is a bit over the top of course to have a screen for a format with at most 5 decent Blu-rays. Maybe 2.55:1 would make more sense as there are mnany more movies in that format. But then I am looking at a screen that is limited in height and I can easily go up to an UP70 aspect ratio without...

No problem really with the Sony 4k projectors currently available but I will probably only use it to zoom between 2.76 and 2.40/2.35 as the rest of the aspect ratios will be arrived at through scaling with a video processor.

He really loved the look of anamorphic 70mm and I resent the theory that this should be wrong. At some point movies got a lot wider to look different from TV while now they build theaters that look like giant TV screens. I will never watch a movie in one of those boxed screen monstrosities with...

It will have a 4k DCP.

Unfortunately seamless branching seems to be mostly a pipedream as otherwise we could accomodate multiple versions on one disc. I am all for having choices as people have different feelings about different cuts, for example I really like the Spartacus scene with Olivier and Curtis as it gives...