Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB /forum/post/20913388
So the idea of a rectangular screen image is natural and appropriate for humans. However just how rectangular is rather arbitrary. Goldfinger (1964) was shot in 4:3. The next one - Thunderball (1965) - was shot in 2.35:1. The audience accepted either aspect ratio.
I wonder how audiences would react if they had to watch the two film back to back on the same screen? Especially if they watched
Thunderball first.
Quote:
Feature films for marketing purposes are shot in 2.35:1. But the really big screen of IMAX that gives you real visual immersion is 4:3
IMAX is actually 1.44:1, slightly wider than the AR originally used for TV. Because of its size, most IMAX features run from about 40min on. They do make 2 hour IMAX films, I find I am ready for a sleep after because they over stimulate the senses. Did you know that the average 40min IMAX only ever has a maximum of 6 cuts or camera changes and they don't pan? It is done this way because there is too much visual input for conventional cinematography. How much film time does TDK or TF2 actually use as full screen IMAX in those hybrid films?
Quote:
Some enthusiasts on this forum make all sorts of claims about various aspect ratios, but the evidence is conclusive. People will accept a wide range of aspect ratios for telling a story with moving pictures. No one AR is inherently superior.
Guilty
and a good point. I still enjoy 4 x 3 program on my Scope screen.
Quote:
Movie theaters are probably on the way out. Home Theater is slowing gaining momentum. At home a 16:9 screen works better than 2.35:1 because of the size and shape of most domestic architecture. So in the long run I expect these extra wide formats to become less popular.
I honestly don't believe this. Whilst older cinemas are shutting down, people pack into the multi-plexes. Part of the reason they do this is because it offers a better Audio/Visual experience than they get at home. The draw back is cost. I used to go to the cinema when ever I wanted. Then I got married and you just can't take a family out to the cinema at will simply because of the costs involved. It has become a very special event now. Add in the additional cost of 3D and well, there is over $100, thanks for coming.
I don't mind missing the premier of a block buster at the cinema because my home systems is as good as I can get it and the only thing that a real cinema has is size. I have managed to capture every other detail, including a 3 way active screen end speaker system.
Quote:
It is true that if you view a 2.35 movie on a 4:3 screen like an old analog TV you lose too much much of the original image and you have to resort to pan-and-scan. P&S is pretty lame and very distracting. But the cable channels like HBO or Starz regularly crop the edges of 2.35 movie images to show on home sets which are now all 1.78 (16:9) and they look fine.
I don't have cable at home anymore and the last time I did watch it, I was horrified that they had centre cropped the scope film they were showing. It did not look OK at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlubbers /forum/post/20913965
At home a 16:9 screen works better than 2.35:1 because of the size and shape of most domestic architecture. So in the long run I expect these extra wide formats to become less popular.
I see heaps of HTs and the biggest common mistake I see is that the 16:9 screen is too tall for the room. It was done because they wanted the extra width for letterboxed Scope films. It makes 16:9 look like wanna-be IMAX and as a result speaker placement is often compromised.
