As with everyone else, I get that wider aspect ratios than 1.77 result in smaller image on my TV and screen. And it’s a bit weird to me that “TV shows” are being made in wider widescreen formats.
On the other hand...it’s interesting. It serves as another data point that “TV” is an art form with its own dignity. It’s no longer the lesser, inferior medium to the One True venue of The Cinema. TV is getting new material with creators exploring formats, as they’ve long done for movies. And it affects the viewing experience. And if the results are good, then good. Higher quality, more intentional art meant for the home viewer.
And who knows...if there is a massive shift to 2.40 aspect ratio content, the industry may consolidate around it and in a decade we’re all replacing our displays with new 16K 12:5 displays. And we’ll grumble about letterboxing or zooming all the 16:9 shows from the 2000’s
On the other hand...it’s interesting. It serves as another data point that “TV” is an art form with its own dignity. It’s no longer the lesser, inferior medium to the One True venue of The Cinema. TV is getting new material with creators exploring formats, as they’ve long done for movies. And it affects the viewing experience. And if the results are good, then good. Higher quality, more intentional art meant for the home viewer.
And who knows...if there is a massive shift to 2.40 aspect ratio content, the industry may consolidate around it and in a decade we’re all replacing our displays with new 16K 12:5 displays. And we’ll grumble about letterboxing or zooming all the 16:9 shows from the 2000’s
Last edited: