Some of us prize extras very highly
You could stretch the vertical during mastering or do it in the BD player or the projector (see below) and then use an anamorphic lens. But you can't only use an anamorphic lens because that would simply distort the picture.Ernest said:Mark my math is correct the difference in our answers results in the figures we are multiplying. I researched through Google and these were the pixels various sites were reporting based on the formula they used. It doesn't matter I was only trying to say expanding the picture using an anamorphic lens does not increase picture quality it eliminates the black bars. That is a good thing I am all for getting rid of the black bars as long as the picture quality is not compromised.
Good points and I doubt we will see this but an even better compromise would be something around 2.1:1.If you do the math you will find that the two most current cinematic aspect ratios are 2.39/2.40 and 1.85. Both would occupy an almost identical amount of screen real estate on a 2.1:1 screen/TV.Yorkshire said:Interesting comments Martin. Do you not think that the future may be 2.00:1, both for TV and cinema? It'd make a lot of sense. 'Scope films would still be wider than 1.85:1. Lazy projectionists/non-purists at home could crop both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 without losing too much (probably easily to protecty for when shooting), and good cinemas/purists can continue to watch in the OAR without large black bars (the bars at either side or top & bottom on a 2.00:1 screen are minimal). Meanwhile you don't get a significant drop in resolution. Probably very easy to set up and switch between for both the projectionist and on your TV. Steve W
I know that Constant Image Area screens are 2.05:1. I'm moving back into my dedicated cinema room this Autumn and I'm getting a 2.00:1 screen. It gives me the largest screen size for each aspect ratio - it'll take up the full width of the room, so 'scope couldn't be any larger, but 1.85:1 would be smaller.OliverK said:Good points and I doubt we will see this but an even better compromise would be something around 2.1:1.If you do the math you will find that the two most current cinematic aspect ratios are 2.39/2.40 and 1.85. Both would occupy an almost identical amount of screen real estate on a 2.1:1 screen/TV.
True.Moe Dickstein said:Don't forget people still watch 1.33 material so you can't just split the difference between 1.85 and 2.4...
I think 16:9 is a bit like the qwerty keyboard, we're stuck with it now. I think it's fine, it's as close to 1:85 as to make no odds, & I don't mind the black bars for 'scope films. The worlds economy is in the basement right now, so there won't be any change for quite some time, & anyway, just how good can a 40's, 50's 60's film look? I love CD's, they haven't changed since 1982, theres a lot to be said for not changing things too often.Yorkshire said:True.
I think 1.78:1 was a compromise which included 1.33:1.
Steve W
I use two screens: a scope wall screen and a 16x9 pulldown right in front of it. This allows me to have a larger 16x9 image than if I were to show it on my scope screen. I come from a film projection background and back then had a full set of aperture plates and lenses for my 35mm projector. We would also mask the screen for the film we were showing. I wouldn't want a CinemaScope film not to be wider than a 1.85 one. I guess a perfect scenario for me would to have a large scope screen with the ability to mask it to any ratio. They do sell these but I will have to do with what I have presently, for now.Yorkshire said:I know that Constant Image Area screens are 2.05:1. I'm moving back into my dedicated cinema room this Autumn and I'm getting a 2.00:1 screen. It gives me the largest screen size for each aspect ratio - it'll take up the full width of the room, so 'scope couldn't be any larger, but 1.85:1 would be smaller.
Steve W
Easily done with side curtains. That's what I use. Fully open my screen is 2.35:1. The curtains can be closed all the way to 1.33:1John Hermes said:I use two screens: a scope wall screen and a 16x9 pulldown right in front of it. This allows me to have a larger 16x9 image than if I were to show it on my scope screen. I come from a film projection background and back then had a full set of aperture plates and lenses for my 35mm projector. We would also mask the screen for the film we were showing. I wouldn't want a CinemaScope film not to be wider than a 1.85 one. I guess a perfect scenario for me would to have a large scope screen with the ability to mask it to any ratio. They do sell these but I will have to do with what I have presently, for now.
Well, I'd like to be able to mask top and bottom too for CinemaScope 2.55 and the oddball stuff like 2.76. I find my 120" diagonal 2.35 too small to show 1.33 or 1.78/1.85 at the size I like. That's why I use a second, pulldown, screen.Mark-P said:Easily done with side curtains. That's what I use. Fully open my screen is 2.35:1. The curtains can be closed all the way to 1.33:1
I only used the two most widespread cinema aspect ratios.In my experience 1.33 material still looks quite good on such a screen.Moe Dickstein said:Don't forget people still watch 1.33 material so you can't just split the difference between 1.85 and 2.4...
With a big enough room and screen we could just go with 2.76:1, curtains from the sides and 2 or 3 rows of seatingJohn Hermes said:[background=#f7f7f7]Well, I'd like to be able to mask top and bottom too for CinemaScope 2.55 and the oddball stuff like 2.76. I find my 120" diagonal 2.35 too small to show 1.33 or 1.78/1.85 at the size I like. That's why I use a second, pulldown, screen.[/font]
Except that 99% of the population doesn't own a front projector.OliverK said:I only used the two most widespread cinema aspect ratios.In my experience 1.33 material still looks quite good on such a screen.
I would think that it can also look good on a TV screen but obviously these do not exist.Worth said:Except that 99% of the population doesn't own a front projector.
Just waiting for that Powerball windfall to happen - then I can get it just right.OliverK said:With a big enough room and screen we could just go with 2.76:1, curtains from the sides and 2 or 3 rows of seating
When you get that Powerball windfall you will of course also have to bring out 4k UHD versions of Khartoum and Fall of the Roman Empire to properly fill that ultrawide screenJohn Hermes said:Just waiting for that Powerball windfall to happen - then I can get it just right.