Why are there so many jerks! (1 Viewer)

[LaMarcus]

It's hard for me to determine what aspect a film is in when watching it at the movies. It's just so big you can't tell. I thought LOTR might have been in 1.85, but we all know the answer to that.

I think the issue of 2.35 may no longer be a issue, last night I went into the service menu and took the overscan off, or down to where I don't have to make the dvd picture smaller. 2.35 is actually not too bad on my tv in reference to the black bars. It was because of overscan and me having to make the picture smaller that was driving me mad.

Everything is cool now (he he). I need to get a ISF bad, I was seeing all of the extra adjustment screens available on VE. Geez, the picture must look incredible when Greg or equivalent is finished with it.

 

[Paul_Scott]

i can almost competely sympathize with your 'problem' LaMarcus.
last winter i bought my first rear projection.
it was 53" of digital heaven.
before that we'd had a 32" wega for 2 years, and before that, the largest screen we'd EVER had was 27".

to say the least i was easily impressed w/ the new equipement.
it took about 4 months before i started to feel let down.
i watch alot of 2.35 movies, and i watch alot of 1.85 movies, and i also own a fair collection of classic films in the old academy ratio, basically 1.33/.37.
that was the rub.
even though the 'live' area of widescreen movies were still larger than any display i'd ever used before, it was just still that much more impressive to go from , say Gladiator to All About Eve.
both great movies, but the vicseral impact of a picture filling your field of vision was lost, in the film were it was intended.
yes, its still great to see it in OAR, but its almost like a large-sized thumbnail.

i will say, making black foam board masks, did help quite a bit. when i was less conscious of the black bars, it did help mitigate the disappointment at the loss of avialable screen real estate.

even though i was still had 8 months of payment on the tv, i couldn't help but read with wistful intrest about front projectors.
luckily i was reading at the right time and ran across a great deal on a presentation pj.
bought it, sold my rp and now i have the constant height/ variable width set-up (or something pretty close to it) that i always dreamed about.

as long as they keep making 'em wide, pjs are going to be the way to go.

and if you can't swing that, really do look into making masks -probably not as important for 16:9 sets, but imo, essential for 4:3 rear projections.

 

[LaMarcus]

yes, its still great to see it in OAR, but its almost like a large-sized thumbnail.

 

[Lew Crippen]

An accurate answer to your question would take a lot of time and typing.

Well, I was right about one thing.

 

[LaMarcus]

I think its funny how I went throught that long debate with all of you and my biggest problem was just overscan. I reduced it to 5%. There was still some picture not being shown, so I went back in and reduced it to 4% at it's perfect. The screen size is still at a level of comfortalbity to me. Now all of a sudden me and 2.35 movies are friends again.
Now all I have to worry about is movies that are 2.40 Guess you can win every battle

 

[BruceSpielbauer]

While it is true that some directors have strong preferences for a particular aspect ratio, I still would maintain that NONE of them are inherently "good" or "bad" or "better." Instead, I would suggest that there is a "best" aspect ratio for each film. I have used this example before: The film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" is best suited to a "narrow" format, such as 1:33:1 or 1:35:1, in order to give the audience the claustrophobic feeling that they are "trapped," for one entire evening, with no possibility of escape (just as Nick and Honey are trapped). Anything wider would "relax" that tension. Similarly, the awe that one feels when looking at the vistas in Lawrence of Arabia do help to convey the sense of the dessert terrain going on forever. Another person above posted on the choices made in Das Boot, and I agree wholeheartedly that it contributed to the film's artistic success.

I am not suggesting that directors always make the correct choices, either... and sometimes they feel that they must "settle" for an aspect ratio which they do not care for. Would Schindler's List have played better in 1:35:1 (rather than the 1:78:1)? I even recall Spielberg claiming for years in the 80s that he would never release E.T. on VHS videotape, because of what panning and scanning would do to hurt his film. (He finally did, and reported that it was because he was offered a deal where it would be available with pan and scan, and also in its original aspect ratio, letterboxed).

I do not believe that it is as simple as "filling the screen" or "the most real estate" or "our eyes are side by side, so we see wider than we see taller." These are only a part of the equation.

And, a user above offered the best metaphor / comparison... If one insisted that all visual artists restricted themselves to a single format, or a single aspect ratio, or a single size, imagine how "Sunday In the Park..." by Seurratt would look if it were not so large, and so horizontal, and so wide. Imagine it it in the same aspect ratio, and even the same size, as DaVinci's Mona Lisa (which is so small, and so vertical, and so intimate). Would that change the work of art, and even make it a lesser work of art? I believe that it would, having seen both of the originals.

Just my thoughts,

-Bruce in Chi-Town

 

[LaMarcus]

Good post "they call me" Bruce.