Will content availability making 2.35:1 obsolete? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 9Likes
  • 2 Post By howiee
  • 1 Post By Craig Peer
  • 1 Post By howiee
  • 1 Post By Run&Gun
  • 1 Post By Craig Peer
  • 1 Post By NewbeeBekind
  • 1 Post By steve1106
  • 1 Post By bud16415
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 Old 06-30-2020, 08:32 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NewbeeBekind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Will content availability making 2.35:1 obsolete?

I was about to make a 2.35:1 screen purchase (it will be primarily for movies). But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu as streaming providers moving in this direction, compounded by the rumored eventual elimination or severe reduction of physical media availability.

Thoughts? TIA.
NewbeeBekind is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 07:39 AM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
I was about to make a 2.35:1 screen purchase (it will be primarily for movies). But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu as streaming providers moving in this direction, compounded by the rumored eventual elimination or severe reduction of physical media availability.

Thoughts? TIA.
Get a scope screen with the height you want for 16:9. Job done! Assuming your room has the width and/or your pj has the lumens to drive it. This is my plan, at least.

You could also get two screens - one regular and one scope.
Craig Peer and nathan_h like this.
howiee is offline  
post #3 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 08:24 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NewbeeBekind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 12
At a macro level, why get a 2.35:1 if eventually most content will be 16x9. A width maximized screen would give you a larger 16x9 picture while maintaining the size of the 2.35:1, so unless you get an anamorphic lens, the content availability trend push further toward 16x9.

But I am looking for input on what others know/think about this format trend and if there is validity.
NewbeeBekind is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 10:03 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,019
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8057 Post(s)
Liked: 10652
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
At a macro level, why get a 2.35:1 if eventually most content will be 16x9. A width maximized screen would give you a larger 16x9 picture while maintaining the size of the 2.35:1, so unless you get an anamorphic lens, the content availability trend push further toward 16x9.

But I am looking for input on what others know/think about this format trend and if there is validity.
There is no validity to that trend. Picard was in scope. And just because theaters are closed now due to covid 19 doesn't mean they always will be. Films will continue to be made in scope format. But howiee said it best - " You could also get two screens - one regular and one scope " - that's what I did. Besides - there is a massive back catalog of movies in scope to be watched.
Tom Bley likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #5 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 10:13 AM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
At a macro level, why get a 2.35:1 if eventually most content will be 16x9. A width maximized screen would give you a larger 16x9 picture while maintaining the size of the 2.35:1, so unless you get an anamorphic lens, the content availability trend push further toward 16x9.

But I am looking for input on what others know/think about this format trend and if there is validity.
Sure, but there's a maxiumum size 16:9 screen you'll be comfortable with from your seating distance and you will likely be fine with the same height scope screen due to the vertical (in most cases, I believe) dictating how comfortable viewing is. What you're describing only gives a bigger 16:9 image if you're width restricted for your seating diastance. For what it's worth, I don't think we'll be seeing the end of scope as it will always have the potential to be more impresive (large venues). Plus there's all the current scope movies out there (over 70%?) - why relegate them to tiny pillar box duty? A constant image area setup with decent masking could be the best option? Considering imax.
rossandwendy likes this.

Last edited by howiee; 07-01-2020 at 10:17 AM.
howiee is offline  
post #6 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 10:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 9,871
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3052 Post(s)
Liked: 2132
It is possible to use the IMDB or similar sources and see the trends.......and conclude rightly that there isn't a trend in any one direction, for all kinds of content.

But that's not what matters.

What matters is what YOU watch and which compromises YOU are willing to live with.

Keep track of your movie viewing and see what the majority of content looks like.....and then choose whether you want black bars on the sides, top and bottom, or to get fancy with a dual screen setup (though in my experience you'll still have many kinds of content that don't fit either screen so you'll still get black bars one place or another).

Frankly, EVERY option will have compromises of some kind with some content.

Heck, I've got more than six different aspect ratios programmed into my remote, and here is the order by frequency of use (top is most used).

I was surprised to see 2:1 so high in the list but then remembers that that is a popular aspect ratio with streaming shows like on Netflix. I was disappointed to see 1.78 so high on the list, because it is often movies that were shot on 1.85 that have been cropped a little to fill the full 16:9 (1.78:1) screen, losing a little image off the sides of the original content.

2.4:1
1.78:1
1.33:1
2:1
1.85:1
1.66:1
2.35:1
2.7 or 2.8:1
2.2:1

---

In other words 2.35:1 may be obsolete as YOUR major source, so you may want to take that into account. For me, even if the top two positions in this ranking change, I'll still be interested in keeping my scope screen since it is the most cinematic experience I can achieve --- I don't just mean at home, since most theaters in my area don't use widescreen anymore, either, but just project scope movies onto screens requiring letterbox bars....


My current setup.
Recommended podcasts: The Next Picture Show, the /filmcast, AV Rant.

Last edited by nathan_h; 07-01-2020 at 10:25 AM.
nathan_h is offline  
post #7 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Run&Gun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
I was about to make a 2.35:1 screen purchase (it will be primarily for movies). But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu as streaming providers moving in this direction, compounded by the rumored eventual elimination or severe reduction of physical media availability.

Thoughts? TIA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
At a macro level, why get a 2.35:1 if eventually most content will be 16x9. A width maximized screen would give you a larger 16x9 picture while maintaining the size of the 2.35:1, so unless you get an anamorphic lens, the content availability trend push further toward 16x9.

But I am looking for input on what others know/think about this format trend and if there is validity.
Why do you think that most content will eventually be 16:9? I presume you’re referring to “movies” and other dramatic/narrative type content, not “normal” TV. Actually Netflix and a lot of broadcast and cable dramatic/narrative shows and series have been going to 2:1(16:9 is 1.77:1).
nathan_h likes this.
Run&Gun is offline  
post #8 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 02:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
AlexLac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan_h View Post
I was surprised to see 2:1 so high in the list but then remembers that that is a popular aspect ratio with streaming shows like on Netflix. I was disappointed to see 1.78 so high on the list, because it is often movies that were shot on 1.85 that have been cropped a little to fill the full 16:9 (1.78:1) screen, losing a little image off the sides of the original content.

2.4:1
1.78:1
1.33:1
2:1
1.85:1
1.66:1
2.35:1
2.7 or 2.8:1
2.2:1

---

In other words 2.35:1 may be obsolete as YOUR major source, so you may want to take that into account. For me, even if the top two positions in this ranking change, I'll still be interested in keeping my scope screen since it is the most cinematic experience I can achieve --- I don't just mean at home, since most theaters in my area don't use widescreen anymore, either, but just project scope movies onto screens requiring letterbox bars....
1.78:1 was the most common TV format till David Fincher brought 2:1 back to life (I recall 3 movies I ever saw with such an AR before, and I can't even remember which) and all hell broke loose.

2.40:1 is much more common in modern cinema than 2.35:1.
AlexLac is online now  
post #9 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NewbeeBekind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
I was about to make a 2.35:1 screen purchase (it will be primarily for movies). But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu as streaming providers moving in this direction, compounded by the rumored eventual elimination or severe reduction of physical media availability.

Thoughts? TIA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
At a macro level, why get a 2.35:1 if eventually most content will be 16x9. A width maximized screen would give you a larger 16x9 picture while maintaining the size of the 2.35:1, so unless you get an anamorphic lens, the content availability trend push further toward 16x9.

But I am looking for input on what others know/think about this format trend and if there is validity.
Why do you think that most content will eventually be 16:9? I presume you’️re referring to “movies” and other dramatic/narrative type content, not “normal” TV. Actually Netflix and a lot of broadcast and cable dramatic/narrative shows and series have been going to 2:1(16:9 is 1.77:1).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
It already is there. In the US, netflix, vudu and hulu stream in 16x9 including movies...even if the original content is not shot in 16x9.
It already is there. In the US, netflix, vudu and hulu stream in 16x9 including movies...even if the original content is not shot in 16x9.
NewbeeBekind is offline  
post #10 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NewbeeBekind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
At a macro level, why get a 2.35:1 if eventually most content will be 16x9. A width maximized screen would give you a larger 16x9 picture while maintaining the size of the 2.35:1, so unless you get an anamorphic lens, the content availability trend push further toward 16x9.

But I am looking for input on what others know/think about this format trend and if there is validity.
There is no validity to that trend. Picard was in scope. And just because theaters are closed now due to covid 19 doesn't mean they always will be. Films will continue to be made in scope format. But howiee said it best - " You could also get two screens - one regular and one scope " - that's what I did. Besides - there is a massive back catalog of movies in scope to be watched.
It is true, like it or not. In the US many streaming services stream in 16x9....I am not talking about what it is shot in so unless you are using physical media, 16x9 is the trend.

Btw how are you able to use two screens......one retractable or are you using a masking system? Just curious. TiA.
NewbeeBekind is offline  
post #11 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 09:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Run&Gun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 55
I think I see the confusion. You're wanting NATIVE aspect ratio content, not content letterboxed to fit within a 16:9 frame. So you're considering, say a 2.40:1 movie, that is letterboxed to fit within a 16:9 frame, as 16:9?
Run&Gun is offline  
post #12 of 17 Old 07-01-2020, 10:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 23,786
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2636 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by howiee View Post
... due to the vertical (in most cases, I believe) dictating how comfortable viewing is.

That's not my experience.

A 16:9 image is already much wider than tall, and I find it harder to take in an wider one, as it requires lateral scanning and/or head movement.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #13 of 17 Old 07-02-2020, 06:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,019
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8057 Post(s)
Liked: 10652
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
It is true, like it or not. In the US many streaming services stream in 16x9....I am not talking about what it is shot in so unless you are using physical media, 16x9 is the trend.

Btw how are you able to use two screens......one retractable or are you using a masking system? Just curious. TiA.
I have two separate electric screens - https://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wh...l#post58887750
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart Cima Neve 2.jpg
Views:	47
Size:	68.0 KB
ID:	2751972   Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart both screens 2.jpg
Views:	47
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	2751974   Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart StudioRek 130 scope screen 2.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	67.4 KB
ID:	2751976  
Don Stewart likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #14 of 17 Old 07-02-2020, 08:33 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
NewbeeBekind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
It is true, like it or not. In the US many streaming services stream in 16x9....I am not talking about what it is shot in so unless you are using physical media, 16x9 is the trend.

Btw how are you able to use two screens......one retractable or are you using a masking system? Just curious. TiA.
I have two separate electric screens - https://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wh...l#post58887750
That is bad a$$! The total solution! Nice work.
Craig Peer likes this.
NewbeeBekind is offline  
post #15 of 17 Old 07-02-2020, 09:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
DigsMovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arriving Somewhere...
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbeeBekind View Post
I was about to make a 2.35:1 screen purchase (it will be primarily for movies). But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu...
I disagree with the premise. The vast majority of the content we watch is in an aspect ratio other than 16:9- from Netflix streaming to movies. 2.00 content has become so common that I just programmed my projector and screen for it. A 16:9 screen makes sense for some people based on available wall space, and for others who watch primarily sports and certain other content- so in that respect it's a personal decision. For me, a 2.40 screen is an absolute no-brainer, and I would not even consider any other aspect ratio. Going 2.40 was one of the best decisions I made in my theater.
DigsMovies is offline  
post #16 of 17 Old 07-02-2020, 01:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,195
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked: 585
For our home, a 151.5" 16:9 was the perfect solution. First, it matches our native 16:9 projector. Second, it allows us to use every available inch of width and height for our screen. Third, "every aspect ratio is maximized in terms of size". Fourth, watching content is as simple as sitting down and turning on the projector and letting the projector do all the work for us. Finally, it matches the amount of time, effort and money I want to put into home cinema.

Using 132" of width, the comparison between 151.5" 16:9 and 143.5" 2.35:1.

http://displaywars.com/151,5-inch-16...-d%7B2,35x1%7D


Is 2.35:1 obsolete? No, but the home cinema experience has changed in the last few years. Aspect ratios are all over the place from variable aspect ratio movies to IMAX to Netflix's 2:1 to Amazon series in 16:9/etc. Why would I want to limit my 2:1 to a tiny 125.6" with a 2.35:1 screen when I get 147.6" with a 16:9? Why would I want to limit my 16:9 experience to a tiny 114.6" when I can have 151.5"? Why would I want to watch an old 4:3 movie in a tiny 93.65" vs 123.79". Why would I want to limit all other aspect ratios for the same 143.5" of 2.35:1 that I get with a 16:9 screen?

Some on the forum say that watching 16:9 larger than scope "magically" diminishes scope. Nope. I can put in a variable aspect ratio movie like Aquaman and the family doesn't even notice. Even with the bad "Ghostbusters" from a few years ago none of us noticed that the movie was a variable aspect ratio movie until the end credits. Oops, I still don't see how we missed it given the quality of the movie.

rossandwendy likes this.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3800/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 4K Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #17 of 17 Old 07-03-2020, 09:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,546
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked: 1340
I tried to explain in your other thread in the CIH forum that there is size and there is Aspect Ratio and the two do not go hand in hand making the most pleasant viewing experience for me.

The term is immersion and here is an example.

Schindler’s List is a 1.85:1 movie sometimes called flat AR.
The Aeronauts is an IMAX movie 1.89:1
The Nightly News with David Muir is 1.77:1 and is TV
The Super Bowl is also TV and is 1.77:1

These four things are so close in AR that it is hard to tell one from the other when just viewing the rectangle shape, but the sizes of those rectangles can be greatly different and equally as comfortable to watch do to how they are shot. That is because of the cinematography used.

The nightly news is not made better viewed as large as an IMAX action movie. Schindler’s list was never intended by the director to fill an IMAX screen it was intended to be as tall as a scope movie 2.40:1 and shown in a scope theater. Some (myself included) will say there is merit in watching the super bowl larger than CIH would allow and larger than the nightly news.

Steve is correct there is nothing wrong with showing everything as large as you can if that is your thing. Movie theaters have rows and rows of seats and if you sit in the front row or the back row the change in immersion more than covers that CIW range.

So it boils down to personal preference as it is your personal theater you are building and you only get one or two rows to pick from at home.

I don’t think 2.4:1 is going away, and I also don’t care what new ARs they come out with. My projector is 16:9, the media I watch has a max capacity of 16:9 be it disc or broadcast or streaming it is 16:9 max filled in with black bars where they don’t have image to fill it. So it is simple for me I need a screen that has a 16:9 area large enough for the largest thing I would ever want to watch both in width and height and I need a projector with enough zoom to go from that to the smallest thing I will ever want to watch. As long as I have those two points let Hollywood or Netflix or whoever throw whatever they want my way and I can watch it how I want.

I just watched Da 5 Bloods the other day and it would have drove anyone trying to control presentation nuts as it jumps around between 4 or 5 ARs in different sizes. I knew parts of it were 2.4:1 scope and some of it then was IMAX-like 16:9 so I zoomed out and let it rip. I didn’t really care for the movie but the presentation was fun.
rossandwendy likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off