What's your favorite ASPECT RATIO on video?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Dick, Oct 13, 2001.

  1. Dick

    Dick Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 1999
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Real Name:
    Rick
    I'm not talking about your favorite ratio in a theater, but at home, on your television. I prefer 1.66:1, and it has nothing to do with how much of the area on my screen is taken up with image (if that was the issue, I'd obviously prefer 1.33:1). I love 2.35:1 in theaters, but for whatever reason, I find the 1.66:1 ratio on my t.v. to be the most aesthetically pleasing. I just love that SHAPE. I can remember seeing 1.66 in some theaters thirty or forty years ago or so, and I loved it then, too.
     
  2. Jason Merrick

    Jason Merrick Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2000
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Simi Valley, CA (Los Angeles)
    Real Name:
    Jason Merrick
    1.85:1... still gives that WIDESCREEN look, but don't need magnifier to view it on my 27" JVC.
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Jason Whyte

    Jason Whyte Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have none, since it all depends on the intentions of the filmmakers. I just look at the frame and not the aspect of it.
    Jason
    ------------------
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [email protected] 2001 Film List I Am Jack's DVD List
    ICQ: 16733922 AOL IM: JayLo Whyte
    "Are we gonna let the elevator bring us down?
    Oh no! Let's go...let's go crazy!" Prince, Purple Rain
    My Own Film Review Website Is Coming Soon!
     
  4. Bruce Hedtke

    Bruce Hedtke Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    2.35/1 is my favorite. It just gives the picture a more dramatic look and feel.
    Bruce
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
    Welcome aboard the Satellite of Love
     
  5. Matthew Chmiel

    Matthew Chmiel Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    1.33:1
    No, no... I'm just kidding.
    I like 1.85:1 and 2.35:1/2.40:1 both the same.
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
    My DVD Collection / AOL IM: MrMatthew / ICQ: 96444542
    "I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."
     
  6. MichaelPe

    MichaelPe Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 1999
    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Original
    ------------------
    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/005780-2.html
    MY TOP 20 OF 2001
     
  7. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
  8. Scott W.

    Scott W. Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 20, 1999
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    2.35:1

    Scott
     
  9. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    Jason, I agree with you. But i'm a sucker for a good anamorphic 2.35:1 movie, even on my 27" VVEGA. I really love the lens flares.
    ------------------
    God bless the USA and the men and woman of our military and their families!
     
  10. Dick

    Dick Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 1999
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Real Name:
    Rick
    I vguess I need to explain my intention for starting the thread - of course any of us on the HTF want the OAR. I am only interested in what SHAPE pleases your eye most on the t.v.
     
  11. Rob Tomlin

    Rob Tomlin Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    It really depends on the film and the subject matter. I would say overall that the 2.35:1 does tend to appear a bit more "dramatic" for lack of a better word.
     
  12. TomRS4

    TomRS4 Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 1999
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    2.35:1 is my favorite. It gives that big theatrical feel, and I like seeing the black bars on my 16:9 tv. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    Tempus Fugit
     
  13. Adam Tyner

    Adam Tyner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Nate Anderson

    Nate Anderson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always get a charge when I see a movie was shot in scope 2.35:1. It always leads to a grander, although less cramped shot. If you want to do a two shot, it always looks better in 2.35:1, although it sucks when you have to Pan and Scan it.
    Long live OAR.
    ------------------
    "This is not a drill. This is the apocolypse!"
    My Extensive DVD collection.
     
  15. Keith_R

    Keith_R Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    FL
    Real Name:
    Kyle
    I like 1:85:1. I like it because when viewing a movie a movie on my 20 inch Sony it doesn't make the movie seem like it is dilutted or smaller like 2:35:1 sometimes does. Of course OAR is important no matter what.
    ------------------
    -Keith-
     
  16. brentl

    brentl Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 7, 1999
    Messages:
    2,921
    Likes Received:
    1
    2.05:1
    Brent L
    OAR works too [​IMG]
    ------------------
    OK guys ..... The tour of the Paradigm
    plant is now being planned. GO TO THE HOME THEaTER
    MEETS PAGE and register.
     
  17. JohanK

    JohanK Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2000
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    2.35 for wide shots like a battle scene; 1:85 for interpersonal scenes.
    ------------------
    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/bbs/equipment/28687.html
     
  18. Jeffrey Forner

    Jeffrey Forner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 1999
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love 2.35:1 simply because I think it offers more exciting composition possibilities. When done right. 2.35:1 movies look absolutely amazing.
    ------------------
    -J.Fo
    "Why do I always get a warped one?"
     
  19. Dominik Droscher

    Dominik Droscher Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2000
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am with Jeffrey here. I watched "Thin Red Line" yesterday which is magnificentally photographed. You could hang every single frame as a poster on your wall.
    ------------------
    -Dominik Dröscher ICQ: 25318265
    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes."
     
  20. Richard Kim

    Richard Kim Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    For sweeping epic landscape type shots, 2.35:1, but for more intimate close up shots, 1.85:1 or 1.33:1 is better.(why do I feel like I'm the only who'll vote 1:33? [​IMG] )
     

Share This Page