Search results

Oh, I'm very familiar with the Widescreen Museum -- I've practically memorized it. My grandfather is mentioned there -- Harvey Fletcher, the original developer of multi-channel stereophonic sound, at Bell Laboratories. (It's in the sound processes section.) Where in NJ? I'm from Summit...

I finally understand the miscommunication. You're talking about the frame, and all these frames were essentially that same width, until Vista Vision and ultimately Todd-AO and other 65mm processes. I thought you were talking about the projected image being the same width in all these cases. I...

I see what you're saying Peter, about 1.66 and 1.85. But still, it doesn't make sense that 2.35 and 1.37 would have the sides in exactly the same spot. If they did, they'd have to crop too much off of the top/bottom of the 1.37. My impression of Cinemascope, is that it was meant to be both...

Is that really true, Peter, that in all those ratios, the sides are in the same spot? That doesn't really make sense to me. That would mean that a 1.37 picture would be a lot bigger than a 2.35 picture. It seems like the sides would change -- that curtains would be drawn in, for narrower ARs...

I really wish somebody from Disney would come on here and explain why they did what they did. Why create the 1.66:1 ratio at all? It seems a little unnecessary, those extra columns, left and right. Will this appeal to full-screen users more? Why redo the sound effects? I'm not saying it...