My argument was that directors shoot in 2:35 when they don't need to. They are not utilizing the wider picture in contrast to 1:85.
They don't need to justify anything. Obviously they can do what they want.
I personally always end up disappointed with many films that use the ratio and scratch...
I have to say your home theatre looks magnificent in your gallery.
Extremely envious. Must have cost a fortune too.
Hard to believe it's 6 metres by 4. The room looks huge to me.
I don't think Stanley was an artist that made films with an ounce of thought for future TV and cable sales.
I also think he would have been aware of technology in relation to TVs and video and probably knew how it would have evolve over time.
However, you could be correct so I won't say you...
The reason I assume it is because it simplifies his intent.
If he said I have designed the frame for 1:66 but compose it in 1:85 wouldn't it confuse the recipients?
Or I have designed the frame for both 1:66 and 1:85 but focus on 1:85.
He does state protect the full 1:33 picture. If it wasn't...
The point is it could not have been shown in 1.66 anyway in cinemas. All films that were shot in 1.66 would have been masked to 1.85.
See murrayThompson's post in this thread who was a projectionist for over 35 years who says that cinemas had/have 2 ratios which were 1:85 and cinemascope which...
I do envy people with projectors for their home theatres.
At the moment I do not have the resources or a property big enough to support one as I currently live in a small flat.
In my opinion it seems if you are going to have a projector system then you need to make the investment to ensure you...
I don't personally have a preferred ratio.
I only wish to watch a film exactly in the correct ratio as the filmakers intended it to be seen in.
However, I must say it is beginning to annoy me how many modern movies are 2:35 which seems to be de rigueur.
In my opinion, not many filmakers...