Joined
·
1,068 Posts
There may not be a better example of group-think
. This is presently called the “2.35:1 CIH” forum, yet movies in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio went out in about 1971 and 2.39:1 or the more industry-accepted “2.4:1” is the actual aspect ratio of UltraWide movies ever since. Every day at Panamorph we advise movie enthusiasts asking about 2.35:1 to actually order a 2.4:1 screen as a better fit when using our lenses (or even when not). Sure, it’s not that big of a difference and you’re probably overscanning a bit onto the screen border for other reasons as well. It’s only 32 horizontal pixels lost on each side from a 4K (specifically UHD/3840) projector. But if there’s no additional cost then why not be accurate? Where did this come from?
Group think – I think. This 2.35:1 CIH forum has been around for about 13 years in a niche that is still only touching the surface of the market (“why” and future evolutions being a topic for another discussion). That’s actually a long time for an expression to sink in when there are actually very few other resources out there. And as a niche that forum title has significant authority when most people are coming here to learn. But why or where did it start in the first place? My inclination is to suggest IMDB.com. It’s seems like almost any time a new UltraWide movie comes out IMDB lists the aspect ratio as 2.35:1. IMDB was around during the start of the AVS Forum as one of the few reference databases out there. A classic example? In the early AVSF days the Leeloo jump shot from The Fifth Element was used almost as a reference image. Go to IMDB and the aspect ratio is shown as “2.35:1”. The movie was actually filmed at 2.39:1 – the industry standard. This inconsistency is very consistent throughout IMDB.com for most UltraWide movies – about 80% of the most popular movies made, and may be a primary reason “2.35:1” ended up in the forum title those many years ago. Why not trust the largest and most referenced movie database?
Unfortunately this has spawned the classic group think phenomenon. When I ask others in our own industry why they say “2.35:1” instead of “2.4:1”, when just about everybody in the industry knows the difference, they say it’s because they don’t want to confuse people who are already thinking about “2.35:1”. They’re actually reinforcing the issue.
Is this forum the actual source for today’s home theater (cinema) enthusiasts and perhaps the entire industry using the “2.35:1” phrase? If so then perhaps we should request the powers that be to consider changing the forum title so that we can get everybody on the same page where the width is both simply and exactly 12/5 times the height and 12/13 times the diagonal.
And yes, I’ve started the outreach to IMDB.com to ask them to update their tech specs.
For now though, if you are thinking of creating your own cinema format theater, please consider ordering a 2.4:1 screen rather than 2.35:1. On a 4K/UHD projector with an anamorphic lens that’s around 100,000+ more pixels on your screen you’ll get for free.
Group think – I think. This 2.35:1 CIH forum has been around for about 13 years in a niche that is still only touching the surface of the market (“why” and future evolutions being a topic for another discussion). That’s actually a long time for an expression to sink in when there are actually very few other resources out there. And as a niche that forum title has significant authority when most people are coming here to learn. But why or where did it start in the first place? My inclination is to suggest IMDB.com. It’s seems like almost any time a new UltraWide movie comes out IMDB lists the aspect ratio as 2.35:1. IMDB was around during the start of the AVS Forum as one of the few reference databases out there. A classic example? In the early AVSF days the Leeloo jump shot from The Fifth Element was used almost as a reference image. Go to IMDB and the aspect ratio is shown as “2.35:1”. The movie was actually filmed at 2.39:1 – the industry standard. This inconsistency is very consistent throughout IMDB.com for most UltraWide movies – about 80% of the most popular movies made, and may be a primary reason “2.35:1” ended up in the forum title those many years ago. Why not trust the largest and most referenced movie database?
Unfortunately this has spawned the classic group think phenomenon. When I ask others in our own industry why they say “2.35:1” instead of “2.4:1”, when just about everybody in the industry knows the difference, they say it’s because they don’t want to confuse people who are already thinking about “2.35:1”. They’re actually reinforcing the issue.
Is this forum the actual source for today’s home theater (cinema) enthusiasts and perhaps the entire industry using the “2.35:1” phrase? If so then perhaps we should request the powers that be to consider changing the forum title so that we can get everybody on the same page where the width is both simply and exactly 12/5 times the height and 12/13 times the diagonal.
And yes, I’ve started the outreach to IMDB.com to ask them to update their tech specs.
For now though, if you are thinking of creating your own cinema format theater, please consider ordering a 2.4:1 screen rather than 2.35:1. On a 4K/UHD projector with an anamorphic lens that’s around 100,000+ more pixels on your screen you’ll get for free.