Originally Posted by hifiaudio2
I agree with this.... the one case where larger isn't always better is with 16:9 screens. The height of the image can become distracting. But I have yet to find a 2:35 - 2:40 screen that bothered me at all, no matter the size. I suppose we are "built" to be able to enjoy wider images more than taller ones.
This is something I would dispute, that wider is naturally more comfortable than taller.
When it comes to movies, cinematographers tend to often place actors in a L/R horizontal relationship, and use negative space to re-enforce this. In other words, you have a wide shot with two people talking: one will be on the left of frame, the other on the right. The closer shots, e.g. a medium shot, medium close up, and even face close ups, will tend to re-enforce this relationship by preserving negative space - the left actor will be framed more to the left of the frame, the right actor framed more to the right of his close. This is even more the case when cinematographers are exploiting the width of the CinemaScope frame. Then you have actors, cars of interest, objects of interest, occurring nearer one side of the frame. The upshot of this is that you increasing the necessity of scanning between actors or points of interest.
A narrower aspect ratio will still use similar types of spacial relationships, but being in a narrower frame, require less "tennis-match" scanning of the action.
I LOVE CinemaScope to be sure. But I definitely find my eyes doing more work, more often within the frame than any of the 1:85:1 movies. Because when I open up to 2;35:1, now actors are much further apart on screen. A taller 1:85:1 image seems easier to watch in that respect, vs a wider scope movie.
Some will say "but usually they put the action in the center of the screen anyway, so you don't have to scan around. But as I mentioned, especially when cinematographers are truly exploiting the widescreen for composition, that's not true. But also, to the extent it IS true of a movie, then that implies you aren't looking at the outlier areas anyway. And it would be just as true of a much larger 1:85:1 framed movie, with the action in the middle and the rest going off into your peripheral vision. So the "natural advantage" to scope doesn't really seem there in practice. (And no one seems to complain about the height of IMAX films, which are striving for a more realistic immersion - they value height as much as width).
Back to the Sony 1000....