Originally Posted by dschulz
Yes, I think content should be presented without letterbox bars, at CIH, irrespective of whether it aired originally on broadcast/cable TV, a streaming service or a cinema. Here's my logic:
The appropriate size of a screen is determined largely by the *height*, as in, a comfortable screen height is roughly half the viewers' distance from the screen (some people prefer to sit 1.5X screen height, others closer to 2.5X screen height, but there is a cluster around 2X). Once you've determined the correct *height* of your screen, you'll find the *width* doesn't matter. At a viewing distance of 2X screen height, you can make the screen *wider* without affecting the comfort of the viewer, and in fact making the screen wider simply makes the experience more cinematic, more immersive. TV looks great with a screen this size at 1.78:1, Jurassic Park looks great at 1.85:1, Stranger Things looks great at 2.0:1, Star Wars looks great at 2.39:1. This is why CIH advocates are so vocal for their support of the CIH format.
But Sully! you'll cry. Here's my assertion: Sully does not need to be bigger than Jurassic Park. In fact, I don't believe for a hot second that Clint Eastwood *wanted* Sully to be bigger than Jurassic Park. I think he framed it in 'Scope, and had a safe image area for IMAX, because IMAX has a large box office percentage and it behooves filmmakers and studios to give IMAX what they want.
The *only* movies that should be shown in an IMAX ratio (where the screen height is more like 1X viewing distance, as in, overwhelming in scale) are traditional IMAX documentaries, filmed in 15/70 IMAX (with its attendant utra-high-resolution image) and meant to be overwhelming, and the films of Christopher Nolan, because Nolan understands the utility of IMAX and is framing in the native AR of each of his film cameras - 2.39:1 for anamorphic 35mm, 2.2:1 for 5/70, 1.43:1 for 15/70.
So with the notable exception of a handful of nifty IMAX documentaries and a half-dozen Christopher Nolan movies, CIH *perfectly* conveys the intended experience of *thousands* of movies and TV shows, and remains, IMO, the gold standard for home cinema.
Should we put James Wan (Aquaman), James Cameron (Avatar), Christopher McQuarrie (MI Fallout), Damien Chazelle (First Man) on the list with Eastwood some of these only expand for a few minutes some for nearly the whole movie and some the entire movie. I think most directors are like Nolan and use the format that best displays their work. I’m willing to bet Eastwood never gave Jurassic Park a thought when filming Sully and he only knows if he made the IMAX version to get into those venues to make more money from the film. We know he liked the scope version enough he made it the version people get to watch at home on BD on their 16:9 TVs. Or maybe if he and the studios were thinking about money and knowing IMAX Enhanced releases were in the works held back the 1.89 version knowing down the road they would get the IMAX seal of approval and start selling it all over again. It’s all speculation isn’t it? I will predict we even see an IMAX Enhanced 4k BD of Avatar at some point as the program goes past just AR.
We are drifting a little off topic but I agree 2.0 x SH for most would be a CIH limiter and that would equate to 1.5 x SH for nature IMAX and Nolan movies if you don’t think those other guys are in the same caliber.
2.0 x SH is just a little much for me and my setup and I like about 2.3 x SH and 1.7 x SH for IMAX @ Home. We are all different. Although I enjoy many Academy AR movies at 2.0 x SH. Keep in mind the 1.0 x SH IMAX nature movies are no longer for sale in the 1.43 AR for home viewing when you buy the new Enhanced versions they are the 16:9 variety. So really nothing modern for the home market as far as I know requires an AR taller than 16:9
Getting back to shortened TV ARs it is your opinion even though the directors know their target audience will be TV viewers with 16:9 TV sets with black bars. They are as
proposes visionaries and are filming with a cinematography process like motion pictures and will be ready when TV makes it’s next big move away from 16:9 to something like 2.35:1. The 2.35 TVs had a chance a couple years ago and never gained traction. Seems people hate black bars on the sides even more than top and bottom.
If you and Josh are correct those of us with projectors and can do what we like with the new media don’t want black bars all around then we are making a decision to change a size based around content and in effect equating the TV show Good Omens to any of the other great scope movies of all times, in terms of presentation.
I actually agree with that and as we all know I’m not opposed at changing my presentation based around my perception of the content. When we elevate Good Omens TV to a scope movie presentation that’s exactly what we are doing.
I will say the directors of that if visionaries are really out there in their thought process in hopes TV AR will be changing anytime soon.
There is another idea I have about AR and that it possesses its own beauty regardless of size or the amount of our vision it consumes. This is the reason we are compelled to watch 2.35 movies in a movie theater no matter what row we like to sit in. Because I do my wacky method of presentation and sometimes limit my immersion in favor PQ and such for me it doesn’t affect the beauty of the filmmakers work. Could it be the directors of these TV shows simply want that framing and are willing to make the vast number of people watch it less immersive because of how they want to frame.