- Joined: February 2004
- Location: St. Hubert, Quebec
- Post Count: 2,074
I went out of my way to buy widescreen VHS releases to watch on my 13" Sharp CRT in order not to miss anything (I just sat closer to the TV). At the very least, OAR should be the released version (or as close to it as possible)--any cropping or zooming should be left in the hands of the individual--not forced on the audience in general.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRLEV120 
.
I also think that the Hollywood producer are powerful people. Why don't they put pressure on TV maker or the organisation that sets the standard for TV to make 2:35 TV. I know the TV broadcaster are also powerful. But for the broadcasters they had to transit to 16/9 so a change for 2.35:1 wouldn't matter that much.
Thanks guy for all your response it's nice to have a different point of view.
The reason that HDTV is 16x9 and not some wider ratio, is because when the specs were being drawn up (in the late 1970's early 80's) it was felt by the TV makers that a glass tube wider than 16x9 would be to fragile and would have too much breakage in shipping. Of course these were the days before flat panel screens.
However 16x9 is a nice compromise between 1.37:1 (4x3) and 2.40:1 (CinemaScope) which is another good reason to recommend it for a fixed ratio screen. Now projectors where the masks can be move, is another story. But that is a tiny fraction of the market.
Also changing the broadcast standard is NOT like flipping a switch. Here in the U.S. it requires an act of congress. It took 30 years from the first HDTV proposals in 1978 till we finally got an HD system.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: August 2001
- Location: New York City Area
- Post Count: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EdReedFan20
I think one of the reasons that make 16X9 look so great is because of what in math is called "the golden ratio".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ratio
The size and shape of the rectangle that makes up 16X9 is naturally pleasing to the eye. I think a wider TV would stand out too much. But trying to get my family to understand why there are black bars is useless. Back in the DVD days, they would always get fullscreen. A few of my Blu-Rays my own repurchases of the movies that were fullscreen. Now I can watch the movies how they are meant to be seen.
Don't let Vittorio Storaro know about that.
Actually, 16x10 would be closer to that Golden Ratio, but you have a good point there -- at least in the case where the audience cannot be completely immersed by the FOV of the image (and would thus be impacted at least subconsciously by the AR/shape of the display).
OTOH, if the desire is to provide a completely immersive experience, then wider (than that ratio) is probably better -- and is likely why there are so many wider films, particularly for their more epic look-and-feel...
_Man_
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".
- Joined: February 2004
- Location: St. Hubert, Quebec
- Post Count: 2,074
Look up Constant Image Height (CIH) projection. It seeks to emulate theatre screens by using anamorphic lenses (or, on rarer occasions, other means) to have all the movies fill the same height on the screen--the width is adjusted by masks (just like the curtains at the cinema). For that kind of setup, you have a "full-screen" all the time. There are some problems with this approach--only projectors can do it (limited application in most people's homes, if practical at all); subtitle placement can be problemmatic if they are fixed below the image (as is the case for a number of films) and the equipment to do it right is fairly expensive.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
-
ATimson
- Andrew Timson
-
- offline
- Joined: September 2008
- Post Count: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PaulDA
Look up Constant Image Height (CIH) projection. It seeks to emulate theatre screens by using anamorphic lenses (or, on rarer occasions, other means) to have all the movies fill the same height on the screen--the width is adjusted by masks (just like the curtains at the cinema).
Well, depends on the cinema. Maybe in the larger theaters at the multiplex they adjust the width, but as I recall at my local theater the smaller screens where films go before dying are constant image width, and mask vertically.
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others."
--Brendan Moody
- Joined: February 2004
- Location: St. Hubert, Quebec
- Post Count: 2,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ATimson
Well, depends on the cinema. Maybe in the larger theaters at the multiplex they adjust the width, but as I recall at my local theater the smaller screens where films go before dying are constant image width, and mask vertically.
The intention, though, is to remain at the constant height. That some smaller cinemas do it differently does not alter that situation. The 'scope ratio is intended to make the whole movie look "more majestic" than the 1.85:1 releases and CIH is the way to do that.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
