[kaitlyn2004]

I loved square monitors... I found the real estate much better! Sucked for watching movies so years ago I got the 16:9 TVs. Lately even that "doesn't work" with so many movies now being in the 2.35:1 format...


Why are 99% of TVs you find in an electronics store 16:9 when 2.35:1 is seemingly becoming more and more popular?


Most of my recent movies are this wider screen format, so I have black bars... even on my widescreen TV. It's really annoying!

 

[Toe]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kaitlyn2004 /forum/post/20794968


I loved square monitors... I found the real estate much better! Sucked for watching movies so years ago I got the 16:9 TVs. Lately even that "doesn't work" with so many movies now being in the 2.35:1 format...


Why are 99% of TVs you find in an electronics store 16:9 when 2.35:1 is seemingly becoming more and more popular?


Most of my recent movies are this wider screen format, so I have black bars... even on my widescreen TV. It's really annoying!

Because most HD cable/tv is 1.78 would be my best guess.

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe /forum/post/20794994


Because most HD cable/tv is 1.78 would be my best guess.

...and about 50% of released movies are 1.85 (very close to 1.78). Also many 2.35 movies are P&S to 1.78 for broadcast so that leaves 2.35 in the minority for most TV viewing.

 

[ABCTV99]

Because in the early days of HD it was decided that 16:9 (1.77) would be a compromise between 4:3 and wider film formats. In fact much of the 'look' of television comes from 4:3's restrictions (and the small size of old screens). It forced lots of closeups and less of the wide shots and panoramas that the wider formats allow. So while a movie presented 4:3 filled the screen, you were actually seeing less of the picture content. The HD revolution changed all that and allowed you to see and compose more cinematically (though ironically nowadays Hollywood films look more like TV in terms of style and shot composition).


Remember 2.35 is ONLY a feature film format (and only maybe half of all feature films at most are produced in that aspect ratio.) This format is designed to maximize theatrical exhibition not home video, so the black bars are kinda the best compromise. These days with many films shot digital or on Super 35, TV and DVD content is often 'protected' during filming so the movie can be re-framed for 16:9, without sacrificing too much.


Studios and tv broadcasters have become much more caring of the 2.35 aspect ratio since the advent of DVD, it used to be butchered with P&S, zoom, crop, etc. I suppose we should be grateful for the tradition of 2.35 in cinema because there aren't really economic advantages to it since most of the rest of the digital world is 16:9 (or 1.85) and usually people don't watch movies because they're in a particular aspect ratio over the other.


But the video standard is 1.77 (even movies shot on video use largely 16:9 shaped sensors and then crop down to 2:35) and I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.

 

[CAVX]

I look forward to the day that 21:9 replaces 16:9 (which replaced 12:9). It won't happen anytime soon.

 

[Franin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAVX I look forward to the day that 21:9 replaces 16:9 (which replaced 12:9). It won't happen anytime soon.

Definitley wouldnt be holding my breath.

 

[CAVX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franin Definitley wouldnt be holding my breath.

Exactly. In AU it took 9 years from the introduction of the first 16:9 TV (1992) until the first free to air 16:9 broad cast (2001).

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/20807759


Exactly. In AU it took 9 years from the introduction of the first 16:9 TV (1992) until the first free to air 16:9 broad cast (2001).

On the other hand we dont need 21:9 broadcast the same way we needed 16:9 broadcasts. A quality HD source has enough resolution for a pleasant scope experience.


Watching upzoomed VHS on a 16:9 wasnt the best thing in the world. The less pixel you have the more they count.

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/20907276


The less pixel you have the more they count.

Ain't that the truth

 

[Vlubbers]

While I understand and generally agree with everything said, it ignores the fact that 21:9 is a way of precipitating a change out of the existing consumer equipment base. And 21:9 fits hand-in-glove with the mine is bigger than yours syndrome. In this case, mine is wider than yours. Post recession era.

Content owners can reformat material and resell it. Crass? Maybe.

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlubbers /forum/post/20907522


While I understand and generally agree with everything said, it ignores the fact that 21:9 is a way of precipitating a change out of the existing consumer equipment base. And 21:9 fits hand-in-glove with the mine is bigger than yours syndrome. In this case, mine is wider than yours. Post recession era.

Content owners can reformat material and resell it. Crass? Maybe.

Why companys loves to make us buy new stuff, we should not forget that there actually is a demand for screens that replicate the theater experience. 16:9 was just a practial solution for home use. 21:9 is the real deal for filmlovers.

 

[R Harkness]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/20806220


I look forward to the day that 21:9 replaces 16:9 (which replaced 12:9). It won't happen anytime soon.

I don't.


I like scope a lot. It tends to be my favorite movie AR (when that extra width is used cinematic ally, anyway). But I wouldn't want it to become the default standard size. Now that TV's are "widescreen" (16:9), scope is one of the last ways that watching a movie is differentiated from just watching TV (aside from sheer size in a projection set up). So I don't mind keeping scope as a "special" format for movies, rather than the default screen AR across the board.

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/20910038


I don't.

Now that TV's are "widescreen" (16:9), scope is one of the last ways that watching a movie is differentiated from just watching TV (aside from sheer size in a projection set up). So I don't mind keeping scope as a "special" format for movies, rather than the default screen AR across the board.

Yes and I agree to the end part in particular. But even if it does become mainstream, 16:9 will always be used for TV broadcasts. Sports are really the only "TV" that would benefit from the wider AR. I could not see everything being shot in Scope - there is really no point. It would come down to artistic choices with dual ARs the way cinema is now.


As for the change of display, the same could have be said for 4 x 3 TVs a few years back. They were the "default" shape for TV and suddenly 16:9 TVs appear and there was more rejection than celebration. 21:9 TVs have appeared and we are seeing the same reaction all over again. And until true 21:9 program comes out on packaged media like BD, there will be no reason for people to want to change.

 

[taffman]

I don't think the general public will have much interest at all in 21:9 TV's. Heck, everywhere I go people are watching 4:3 programming stretched out to 16:9 and don't even notice how ridiculous that is! Also, the vast majority of people with 1080p TV's are still hooked up to standard definition sources. So most people don't even comprehend 16:9 never mind about 21:9.

Not that I mind, because as Rich and Mark have pointed out, that leaves 2,35 as a very special home theater projection experience.

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman /forum/post/20912132


Not that I mind, because as Rich and Mark have pointed out, that leaves 2,35 as a very special home theater projection experience.

And special it will continue to be. The good thing is that its nothing that going to prevent us from enjoying it for the rest of out lives. A screen and a projector is all we need.


For the rest of the world, they can sit there in their homes and watch 4:3 pan&scanned movies, stretched and upconverted on a 1080P display with composite cables. Its their loss.

 

[Dan Hitchman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kaitlyn2004 /forum/post/20794968


I loved square monitors... I found the real estate much better! Sucked for watching movies so years ago I got the 16:9 TVs. Lately even that "doesn't work" with so many movies now being in the 2.35:1 format...


Why are 99% of TVs you find in an electronics store 16:9 when 2.35:1 is seemingly becoming more and more popular?


Most of my recent movies are this wider screen format, so I have black bars... even on my widescreen TV. It's really annoying!

Get used to 'em unless you spend the money for a projector, lens, and a scope screen.


I wouldn't want to start seeing Blu-ray and other new formats cropping or open-matting scope movies because people didn't like black bars. Thankfully, only a tiny few scope movies have had that done on Blu.


We went through that whole mess with VHS, laserdiscs, and DVD's...

 

[PLB]

Your vision field - just looking out of your eyes - is wider than it is tall. That's because you have two eyes side by side. Each eye's view has a roughly circular field of view (except for your nose). Two eyes give an approximately rectangular aspect ratio to what you see. That's why although there have been many aspect ratio experiments nobody ever shot a movie for a tall thin screen.


In the legitimate theater when the curtain went up you saw a rectangular stage picture. It was wider than it was tall. So the original aspect ratio for film started at nearly square and has evolved to be closer to what you might see at the opera, ballet or stage play.


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.


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 - just like my old 12" TV. 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.


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.


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 expect that 2.35:1 will go the way of Smell-O-Vision.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I expect that 2.35:1 will go the way of Smell-O-Vision.


And I'd suspect 3D will disappear long before scope / 2.40:1 cinematography...


The cropping or open-matting of scope films is one large reason I don't subscribe to HBO and those types of pay channels.


They'll have to pry my Blu-ray's out of my cold, dead hands.

 

[Vlubbers]

PLB


How did you arrive at this conclusion?


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.


Vince

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB /forum/post/20913388


Your vision field - just looking out of your eyes - is wider than it is tall. That's because you have two eyes side by side. Each eye's view has a roughly circular field of view (except for your nose). Two eyes give an approximately rectangular aspect ratio to what you see. That's why although there have been many aspect ratio experiments nobody ever shot a movie for a tall thin screen.


In the legitimate theater when the curtain went up you saw a rectangular stage picture. It was wider than it was tall. So the original aspect ratio for film started at nearly square and has evolved to be closer to what you might see at the opera, ballet or stage play.


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.


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 - just like my old 12" TV. 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.


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.


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 expect that 2.35:1 will go the way of Smell-O-Vision.

 

[CAVX]



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.