1.78:1. Will this ever be the standard for movies? (1 Viewer)

[Michael St. Clair]

If all TV programming will be required to be HD

No such requirement exists or is planned.

 

[MickeS]

The comparisons with painters and authors don't work, since it's not at all a similar situation.

All I know is that if I was a filmmaker I'd think long and hard about using 2.35:1. Unless the movie absolutely demanded it, I would consider the fact that the movie in all likelyhood will look completely butchered when people watch it in a non-theatrical presentation (which is where most people will see it).

I know, as long as it comes out on DVD in OAR, I'll be happy. But being the pessimist that I am, I fear that it won't be long before the P&S plague has spread to DVD. I really hope this won't happen, and I hope that people don't care if their sets have black bars (I'm not bothered by them, I honestly don't see why other people are). However, the J6P's of the world rule, and they want their screens filled. I hope they change. I hope the studios don't pay attention to them. I hope everything turns out fine.

BUT, if it doesn't I would take the lesser of two evils, namely movies with pictures composed for 16:9 theatrically, that will also play in their OAR glory on TV sets.

I hope it doesn't have to come to this though!

/Mike

 

[Micheal]

You said this...

Quote:

I bolded the word "cinema" for you just in case you missed it again...
Don't misquote people and try to make it look like they are talking about something else entirely different. You've done that to myself, John and others continuously.
If you continue to post in such a trollish manner I can only guess how long you will last around here.
Regards,
Mike

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

:rolleyes
Troy, i've been a member here long enough to know when something is a waste of my time, and when to say enough, well that time is now.
You don't know me, if you did, you would know that my loyalty to OAR is INCREDIBLY strong! If you loved OAR as much as you claim, you would never have started this thread.
Pardon me here, but what kind of an OAR lover are you if you want every film in the same ratio just to fill your 16x9!?
This is an oxymoron if i've ever heard one.
If your going to reply with yet another rolleyes smiley, please don't.

 

[MickeS]

What kind of an OAR lover are you if you want every film in the same ratio just to fill your 16x9!?

That's not what he's saying. He wants it in 16:9 to eliminate P&S.

The whole purpose of the thread and the original question was that it's easier to convince everyone involved in non-theatrical presentation of movies to preserve the OAR if it would be the same in homes as it is in the theater, thus completely eliminating the need for P&S. Since the home aspect ratio on a WS TV is 16:9, and theaters are already equipped to handle this, it would be much easier to change the theatrical aspect ration, than to change the equipment in homes.

John, you really seem to take this far too personal. It's been a good and interesting discussion, IMO.

/Mike

 

[John Berggren]

I think the whole thing can be summed up as this, and I beleive that the HTF mission statement would be best served by the following:

To change or modify the OAR of a film at the front end (disallowing a director or cinematographer from using more than 1 different AR) or the back end (modifying a pre-existing aspect ratio (pan and scan)) is against our strongly held feelings about the nature of cinema.

As cinema is art, and home theater is a venue for that art, we ought not encourage the standardization of that art. Art should not suit technology, technology should suit art. Also, art appreciation comes from education, not from standardization.

For something to be considerred art, it cannot be confined to any rules. Just as paintings can be black and white, color; realistic, impressionistic; wide, tall; photographic, paint -- and on and on... Cinema can be wide and tall, black and white and color, digital and celluloid, mono and dts, and on and on. The pallette with which the artist chooses to express him or herself within is that of their own choosing, regardless of the framing of technology.

I challenge anyone who says otherwise to find an artform where there are such rigid unbreakable rules.

Although I think it's healthy to have such discussions, it seems when these discussions go on for a couple of pages it just becomes a back and forth between people stating and restating their points. And each volley gets more and more heated. Everyone is welcome to their preferences and opinions, but I think it can be said that at the HTF we support an artist's right to his vision, and our right to be treated to that vision in it's original intended scope. We also feel it's the right of the artist not to have his or her vision modified for the "benefit" of those who do not wish to partake of the original composition.

Good? good....

 

[Sean Conklin]

Hello, without J6P cinema would not exist! J6P is the one who plops his $8.50-$10.00 for most major movies! J6P doesn't know the differences in aspect ratios for the most part and goes to see a movie for the movie itself. It's the so called 'elitist' who know the difference, care about the difference and these are the same ones who don't go to the movies anymore because of whatever reason.

We don't contribute to cinema? We don't count for anything? I'm sure there is a good percentage of cinema goers that are film enthusiasts/elitists/OAR supporters/P&S haters.

Troy, if your interest lies in ridding us of P&S, then if J6P doesn't know the difference in AR's, then why should we conform to a standard AR? So J6P doesn't have black bars on his DVD?

So I stand by my question: Why should we care to please J6P, since according to you, does not know the difference between AR's? If he enjoys the diversity of AR's at the cinema, then he can enjoy them at home on his DVD! He will except it if the film industry does away with P&S. So AR standardization makes absolutely no sense.

He can live with 2.35 on his DVD, in fact he will conform to the only Home format that caters to enthusiasts and provides OAR: DVD!

Everything would be fine if we just leave the AR's the way they are and rid the world of the ugliness of P&S!

Film/DVD enthusiasts need to concentrate our/their efforts on getting rid of P&S ONLY releases, and to promote all releases in OAR!! NOT standardizing film AR's!

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

quote:
Do we need to standardize the number of pages in a book, so they look nice and tidy in our bookshelves, or should we let the author be the judge of that?
Apples and oranges!

I don't agree, I think it's a perfectly valid comparison, and I notice you conveniently left out my part about paintings and frame sizes , is that also apples and oranges? We don't need to standardize the number of pages in a book, nor the size of it, nor the font used to print it, as we don't, IMHO, need to standardize the size of the movie frame, nor its colors, language used and so on (you get my point )

 

[Paul Mason]

There are only a few things I am certain of in this life. In terms of things you never do, here is my list -
1) Never get involved in a land war in Asia
2) Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
3) Never get involved in an AR debate on the internet

(apologies to Messrs Reiner and Goldman)

 

[Jerry Gracia]

The whole purpose of the thread and the original question was that it's easier to convince everyone involved in non-theatrical presentation of movies to preserve the OAR if it would be the same in homes as it is in the theater, thus completely eliminating the need for P&S.

This is completely ridiculous.
What you guys are basically saying is:
Lets tie the film makers hands so that they could only shoot for 1.78:1 to eliminate some person's problems at home with black bars.
How moronic is that?
The whole point of "O.A.R." would be moot. What would be the point of using the term anymore?
Under this same mentality, we should just format everything in 4:3...why not do it now then?
:rolleyes

 

[Richard Kim]

Under this same mentality, we should just format everything in 4:3...why not do it now then?

Well up until the 1950s, that's how it was done. :p)

 

[cafink]

Lets tie the film makers hands so that they could only shoot for 1.78:1 to eliminate some person's problems at home with black bars.

Actually, it's just the opposite, isn't it? Not standardizing the aspect ratio to appease the black-bar haters — they'll always have their "bar-free" versions anyway — but to appease the pan-and-scan haters. In Troy's scenario, they (we!) would from then on ALWAYS get films in their original aspect ratio, a marked improvement from the current situation, where OAR is the exception, not the rule.

That said, I respectfully disagree with you, Troy. I don't think we should restrict filmmakers to a certain aspect ratio any more than we should restrict writers to a certain amount of pages and such. It's not apples and oranges. Both are artistic choices, and in the end, it's the ARTIST who should be making them.

 

[Micheal]

Both are artistic choices, and in the end, it's the ARTIST who should be making them.

Bingo!

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Carl Fink,

I totally don't get the argument you set forth towards me.

Well up until the 1950s, that's how it was done. :p)

Not sure I should respond to this.

 

[Troy LaMont]

There are only a few things I am certain of in this life. In terms of things you never do, here is my list -
1) Never get involved in a land war in Asia
2) Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
3) Never get involved in an AR debate on the internet

Very true!
Epilogue
People, I'm not wrong because I suggested a proposal for standardization of an aspect ratio. It was an idea and if people were to be persecuted and ridiculed for offering up new ideas then what do we live for, on any level?
I read each and every response to this thread and I respect everyone who took the time to share an opinion. Let's not forget that we are expressing just that, an opinion. No one is truly wrong here, including myself.
With that in mind I think that my time spent on this thread is at an end.
Hopefully everyone who viewed and/or participated in this thread learned something from it.
Regards.
Troy

 

[Seth Paxton]

So if it's easier to print 200 pages we should get all authors to stop writing at that point???

Maybe a home video oriented director might want to do 1.78 for that reason, or some money-only sellout director might be thinking only of how to sell his crap the most places.

For me, I would be thinking of the FILM STOCK, the lenses available, the look of the stock combined with the lenses, my lighting choices, and the composition of the frame.

I would NOT be thinking about the stupid home video transfer and whether or not it would look best on home video. Even in today's market.

That's like writing a radio-friendly song rather than what you want to write. To bad Pink Floyd didn't know about 3 minute only songs before doing the Wish You Were Here album.

You know what, this IS a great idea. Since no one owns a black and white TV anymore why not make the standard 1.78 COLOR FILM ONLY?

This makes the same amount of sense. Really, people complain about B&W films just as much as LBXing.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Here we are at the Home Theater Forum where the goal is to make the home environment as much LIKE THE THEATER as possible.
Your answer, fuck the theater, make it like the home. Problem solved.
You belong at the Theater as HomeVideo Forum. You can start threads like "when will they install new projectors for 4x3 35mm so we can get "Friends" into the theater".
The whole reason the HTF exits is because the CINEMA exists. The CINEMA comes first, then the home applications designed to bring that home somehow. That's what OAR is about, theatrical cuts, etc. Home video should have to adjust to the theater as the theater came first and is what the cinema arts are about. TV art is another subject.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Seth, you are my hero!! Great posts!