AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Actually a lot of Netflix original series and even a lot of broadcast/cable dramatic series, now, are being done 2:1(16:9 is 1.77:1).

Physical media, or lack there of, shouldn’t really have any bearing on aspect ratio of the content. Heck, I had letterboxed content on VHS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I worry about this to, but I still went with a 2.35:1 screen. But really thats about all the height I can get anyway so I'm not sure if it was just 16:9 I could go much bigger.

I sit about 10-12 feet away from a 141" 2.35:1 screen. I have a 10-12' stage and I'm in a 8 ft basement. There is a soffit in the front to a column so that lowers that ceiling by about 12 inches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,524 Posts
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,
That's not at all correct. The following thread has a list of almost 400 TV shows (growing daily) with aspect ratios wider than 16:9. Streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu are leading that trend.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/3015918-list-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html

And that doesn't account for one-off original movies and other specials, which also frequently use wider ratios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nathan_h

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,558 Posts
That's not at all correct. The following thread has a list of almost 400 TV shows (growing daily) with aspect ratios wider than 16:9. Streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu are leading that trend.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/3015918-list-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html

And that doesn't account for one-off original movies and other specials, which also frequently use wider ratios.
It is virtually imposable for a TV show to be wider than 16:9 because of the very nature of TV shows are being made to be played on TV and TV is 16:9.

When Netflix or other make a TV show say 2.0:1 that they are doing a lot these days they understand 99.99% of the people that view it will view it shorter than 16:9 not wider.

It therefore is their intent it is shorter than normal TV. For them to make a TV show and assume the end user was going to not only have a projector but also a setup to do CIH scope presentation would be absurd. Such a small percentage of homes have projectors and of them even a smaller percentage do CIH 2.4:1 presentation.

We have no control over what Hollywood does or what Netflix does. The only thing we really know is TV is 16:9, BluRay is 16:9, most projectors are 16:9 and the widest format is Scope and IMAX and the tallest is IMAX and that would be 16:9 on media.

If you want to future proof and be inclusive of everything you need an IMAX immersion screen that is 16:9. Of course that wont be a real IMAX screen unless your media room is 80’ high. Just so the OP understands immersion takes into account seating distance. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
That's not at all correct. The following thread has a list of almost 400 TV shows (growing daily) with aspect ratios wider than 16:9. Streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu are leading that trend.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/3015918-list-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html

And that doesn't account for one-off original movies and other specials, which also frequently use wider ratios.
It is virtually imposable for a TV show to be wider than 16:9 because of the very nature of TV shows are being made to be played on TV and TV is 16:9.

When Netflix or other make a TV show say 2.0:1 that they are doing a lot these days they understand 99.99% of the people that view it will view it shorter than 16:9 not wider.

It therefore is their intent it is shorter than normal TV. For them to make a TV show and assume the end user was going to not only have a projector but also a setup to do CIH scope presentation would be absurd. Such a small percentage of homes have projectors and of them even a smaller percentage do CIH 2.4:1 presentation.

We have no control over what Hollywood does or what Netflix does. The only thing we really know is TV is 16:9, BluRay is 16:9, most projectors are 16:9 and the widest format is Scope and IMAX and the tallest is IMAX and that would be 16:9 on media.

If you want to future proof and be inclusive of everything you need an IMAX immersion screen that is 16:9. Of course that wont be a real IMAX screen unless your media room is 80’️ high. Just so the OP understands immersion takes into account seating distance. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Thanks. This makes sense. So sounds like 16x9 is the ticket as I have ceiling height.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,524 Posts
It is virtually imposable for a TV show to be wider than 16:9 because of the very nature of TV shows are being made to be played on TV and TV is 16:9.
Give it a rest, Bud. What is your purpose posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Height forum when all you ever do is tell people not to do 2.35:1 Constant Height?

Thanks. This makes sense. So sounds like 16x9 is the ticket as I have ceiling height.
Sounds like you came here wanting to be sold on a 16:9 screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
It is virtually imposable for a TV show to be wider than 16:9 because of the very nature of TV shows are being made to be played on TV and TV is 16:9.
No it isn't.

When Netflix or other make a TV show say 2.0:1 that they are doing a lot these days they understand 99.99% of the people that view it will view it shorter than 16:9 not wider.
So you have statistics on how many view it on phones or computers with wider displays? Care to share?

It therefore is their intent it is shorter than normal TV. For them to make a TV show and assume the end user was going to not only have a projector but also a setup to do CIH scope presentation would be absurd. Such a small percentage of homes have projectors and of them even a smaller percentage do CIH 2.4:1 presentation.
Source on "their intent"?

We have no control over what Hollywood does or what Netflix does. The only thing we really know is TV is 16:9, BluRay is 16:9, most projectors are 16:9 and the widest format is Scope and IMAX and the tallest is IMAX and that would be 16:9 on media.
The fact that a 16:9 container is used doesn't matter in the slightest with how someone chooses to view material. 16:9 IMAX is cropped and a miniscule niche.

If you want to future proof and be inclusive of everything you need an IMAX immersion screen that is 16:9. Of course that wont be a real IMAX screen unless your media room is 80’ high. Just so the OP understands immersion takes into account seating distance. :)
Future proof for a niche format that is stagnating on growth. Great advice :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Thanks. This makes sense. So sounds like 16x9 is the ticket as I have ceiling height.
It only makes sense if your viewing favors 16:9 content. Meaning the actual content is 16:9 and not a film or show in a different AR inside a 16:9 container (Lord of the Rings is a 2.35:1 film that is encoded inside a 16:9 container). If your primary viewing is film then 16:9 is not a good choice. Anything wider than 16:9 is going to be greatly diminished in impact.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
26,161 Posts
It is virtually imposable for a TV show to be wider than 16:9 because of the very nature of TV shows are being made to be played on TV and TV is 16:9.

When Netflix or other make a TV show say 2.0:1 that they are doing a lot these days they understand 99.99% of the people that view it will view it shorter than 16:9 not wider.

It therefore is their intent it is shorter than normal TV. For them to make a TV show and assume the end user was going to not only have a projector but also a setup to do CIH scope presentation would be absurd. Such a small percentage of homes have projectors and of them even a smaller percentage do CIH 2.4:1 presentation.

We have no control over what Hollywood does or what Netflix does. The only thing we really know is TV is 16:9, BluRay is 16:9, most projectors are 16:9 and the widest format is Scope and IMAX and the tallest is IMAX and that would be 16:9 on media.

If you want to future proof and be inclusive of everything you need an IMAX immersion screen that is 16:9. Of course that wont be a real IMAX screen unless your media room is 80’ high. Just so the OP understands immersion takes into account seating distance. :)
By you explanation, why did we have 2.35:1 movies when TV screens were only 1.3:1?

OP

It all comes down to content you watch, seating distance, screen wall size and your personal preference. But to think 2.35:1 (scope content or movies) will be obsolete....IMO, the answer is no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
By you explanation, why did we have 2.35:1 movies when TV screens were only 1.3:1?

OP

It all comes down to content you watch, seating distance, screen wall size and your personal preference. But to think 2.35:1 (scope content or movies) will be obsolete....IMO, the answer is no.

He is saying because movies were made to be shown and showcased in a movie theater where most screens are CIH. So a 2.35:1 movie will be seen by the masses wider in a movie theater than a 1.85:1 movie or 1.33 movie.

But TV shows and Amazon, Netflix, etc original movies are never shown in a movie theater on a CIH screen. They are made to be primarily shown and showcased for the masses on home televisions and computer screens.

The vast, vast majority of people consuming this 16:9 and 2.0:1 aspect content will be using CIW TV screens and computer screens where the black bars will be varying on the top and bottom. So they will mostly view 2.0:1 less tall than 16:9.

So if the content makers know their content is not being showcased and consumed on CIH screens in movie theaters, it’s reasonable to think they are targeting CIW screens since that is how the vast majority of their content will be consumed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,979 Posts
So if the content makers know their content is not being showcased and consumed on CIH screens in movie theaters, it’s reasonable to think they are targeting CIW screens since that is how the vast majority of their content will be consumed.
Google ultrawidescreen monitors. These are not projectors, but they clearly show that 16x9 may very well not be destined to be the standard in the future. 32x9 is a monitor option today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,524 Posts
But TV shows and Amazon, Netflix, etc original movies are never shown in a movie theater on a CIH screen. They are made to be primarily shown and showcased for the masses on home televisions and computer screens.

The vast, vast majority of people consuming this 16:9 and 2.0:1 aspect content will be using CIW TV screens and computer screens where the black bars will be varying on the top and bottom. So they will mostly view 2.0:1 less tall than 16:9.

So if the content makers know their content is not being showcased and consumed on CIH screens in movie theaters, it’s reasonable to think they are targeting CIW screens since that is how the vast majority of their content will be consumed.
Actually, 2:1 has solidified as a popular new standard because it matches the shape of many smartphone screens.

Google ultrawidescreen monitors. These are not projectors, but they clearly show that 16x9 may very well not be destined to be the standard in the future. 32x9 is a monitor option today.
Yup. This is the monitor I'm reading this forum on right now.

 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: rossandwendy

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,558 Posts
He is saying because movies were made to be shown and showcased in a movie theater where most screens are CIH. So a 2.35:1 movie will be seen by the masses wider in a movie theater than a 1.85:1 movie or 1.33 movie.

But TV shows and Amazon, Netflix, etc original movies are never shown in a movie theater on a CIH screen. They are made to be primarily shown and showcased for the masses on home televisions and computer screens.

The vast, vast majority of people consuming this 16:9 and 2.0:1 aspect content will be using CIW TV screens and computer screens where the black bars will be varying on the top and bottom. So they will mostly view 2.0:1 less tall than 16:9.

So if the content makers know their content is not being showcased and consumed on CIH screens in movie theaters, it’s reasonable to think they are targeting CIW screens since that is how the vast majority of their content will be consumed.
Thanks for reading my post and understanding the intent.

As to the other comments I never said Scope movies are not here for the long run or that CIH with a 2.4:1 AR screen isn’t a beautiful way to proceed if the majority of what you watch are movies and it most closely copies what you would have found in commercial theaters for the last 50 years.

When you think about modern TV being 16:9 and old TV being 4:3 the new AR is CIH as inclusion of TV at the time it was selected. It was a compromise I’m sure but think of the outrage if they would have jumped to 2.4:1 as the TV AR in the beginning and fit 4:3 into it as CIH TV. As it was people were complaining that had 36” tube sets that still watched 4:3 content how much smaller the image was on the early flat panels. It is not like they can’t make flat panels in 2.4:1 AR it was done and some were even curved like cinema screens and it failed totally in consumer market. Likewise there is no reason 2.4:1 native projectors couldn’t be made and again that was tried and that also was not successful.

CIH is just a frame of mind it is just CIH until someone makes a movie wider than 2.4:1 like The Hateful Eight and then suddenly your 2.4:1 screen becomes CIW.

As to my assertion that 99.99% of the people watching TV watch it on TVs that was intended as hyperbole, who knows the number could be much smaller. Yes people watch movies on wide shaped monitors like Josh has and iPhones and some use iPads and are back to CIW. Some people don’t know enough to turn their phone sideways when watching a movie on it or when taking a movie on it. Some people buy monitors like Josh has and then use the feature that flips them 90 degrees as they are nice for looking at a legal sizes document or a long column / page of text without scrolling, but none of that makes a case one way or the other for home presentation in a front projection media room. If movies were to be watched on phones even made for TV movies and that was the directors intent with this 2.0:1 craze that is a sad comment on TV directors mindset catering to the iPhone generation. I can hear it now in the board room at Netflix “I want to make this prestige TV series and I want to make it 2.0:1 so it looks epic on everyone’s iPhone.” Didn’t Quibi just try and reinvent entertainment based around everyone wanting to just use phones? How did that go over?

There is not a written down set of rules between TV and motion pictures in terms of presentation. For years they existed as two totally different animals. For the past few years I have been pointing out the lines are fading and overlapping. I never said IMAX wasn’t a niche market, and how a person deals with it is up to them. Recently Amazon regarded as mostly TV in their made content produced an IMAX framed movie The Aeronauts. None of us know the trend line of what they were thinking it played in IMAX theaters and a week or two later was on their site for consumption by TV and iPhones alike. It looked ok I would think on an iPhone and most likely looked great on someone’s 75” TV and of the .00001% of the world that have front projectors set up at home that had the foresight to size a screen for CIH+IMAX in terms of seating immersion it was wonderfully amazing. If that was the only movie I opened my screen up for last year IMO it would have been worth having it for.

To the OP @NewbeeBekind you may have misunderstood my suggestion for 16:9 to mean do what is called CIW and show everything as large as will fit into a 16:9 rectangle and basically use your projector as an enormous TV. That was not my suggestion. You need to know that although movies and TV are changing and in some ways coming together 2.40:1 scope format is not going away. There is IMAX that is larger and IMO that’s also not going away, and even more important TV is changing to match our new TV sets size and quality. The cinematography that made I love Lucy for 20” CRT B&W TVs is much different than what was used to make Planet Earth or Game of Thrones and people even with TV are responding to the higher overall quality and sitting and watching TV more immersive than they did in the 1950s.
My suggestion to you is get your projector and if it has abilities to automatically zoom to change immersion and such, paint a wall white and use that as a screen and play around with seating distances and screen sizes for all kinds of content movies and TV and keep in mind these questions you are asking. Then read up more on presentation and know there are many different methods. Try them all out and pick the one that makes you feel the best. Then figure out a screen size and AR that works for you. After all the only person you have to make happy is yourself. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,558 Posts
Actually, 2:1 has solidified as a popular new standard because it matches the shape of many smartphone screens.



Yup. This is the monitor I'm reading this forum on right now.

Josh:
I find it interesting you posted the picture of the LG ultra wide monitor from their ad. It shows how handy it is to have a ultra wide monitor and they show as an example of that how well it holds seven 16:9 windows one that looks to be 4:4 and one tall skinny window that looks like a 1:2 iPhone standing tall.

Just think if you would have bought a 4:3 monitor the same width as your new LG it wouldn’t take up more room on your desk and you could have 16 more attendees at your cyber meeting.

I have one of my sources to my projector my PC so I can do these same things and have a few times putting windows all over my wall. With Covid19 I actually did a family get together with a half dozen or more people chatting just like your illustration. It worked out great for me with a massive screen but some of the people on the other end were using phones and it got a little cramped on their 5” screens.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,524 Posts
There is IMAX that is larger and IMO that’s also not going away,
The movie theater industry as a whole may not survive this pandemic. In which case, yes, IMAX will go away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,558 Posts
The movie theater industry as a whole may not survive this pandemic. In which case, yes, IMAX will go away.
It is funny shortly after Edison invented moving images and invented a machine that you had to pay to see them in, the clamor was that would never fly why would people pay for something they can walk around town and see for free. That was well over 100 years ago.

Motion pictures have survived two world wars and a great depression not to mention dozens of other good reasons to RIP, but they always came back and came back stronger.

I doubt this Covid19 is going to make a dent in them. In fact I think the end result might just be good as I have been getting updates from my local theater chain and all they talk about is how they plan on cleaning better. That’s one of the things that drove me away from commercial theaters in the first place along with a generation of moviegoers that don’t seem to have any respect for others.

Who knows maybe IMAX will do better now, as they seem to want to cater to the more appropriate crowd of moviegoers.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Josh:
I find it interesting you posted the picture of the LG ultra wide monitor from their ad. It shows how handy it is to have a ultra wide monitor and they show as an example of that how well it holds seven 16:9 windows one that looks to be 4:4 and one tall skinny window that looks like a 1:2 iPhone standing tall.

Just think if you would have bought a 4:3 monitor the same width as your new LG it wouldn’t take up more room on your desk and you could have 16 more attendees at your cyber meeting.
People had a choice for years to go narrow/square vs. wider and they soundly rejected the former. I have zero purchasing requests for narrow monitors, but a slowly increasing demand for 21:9 as they get more and more affordable.

There is IMAX that is larger and IMO that’s also not going away,
I don't think IMAX is going away, but it shows no signs of breaking out and becoming a larger presence in the market. You continue to use it as a poster boy for narrow/tall screen selection when it is a tiny fraction of the market. To me that makes no sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,558 Posts
People had a choice for years to go narrow/square vs. wider and they soundly rejected the former. I have zero purchasing requests for narrow monitors, but a slowly increasing demand for 21:9 as they get more and more affordable.



I don't think IMAX is going away, but it shows no signs of breaking out and becoming a larger presence in the market. You continue to use it as a poster boy for narrow/tall screen selection when it is a tiny fraction of the market. To me that makes no sense.
Human choice in selecting products is a fickle thing. I go out and about and half the young women are wearing blue jeans that are ripped and frayed exposing skin in the middle of the winter from hip to ankle. I say look at that poor girl that can’t afford a good pair of jeans and I’m told oh no she bought them that way and paid 5 times the price of new jeans. I think back to how embarrassed I was that my mother had to iron patches in my knees and I had to wear them to school.

My last cell phone before a smart phone was part of a race to make phones smaller and smaller and wasn’t much larger than a pack of gum. Then smart phones were invented and the race for bigger and bigger screens/phones went in the other direction.

I don’t doubt 21:9 monitors are all the rage in the workplace and I doubt most employers encourage watching scope movies at work, but what do I know in today’s culture maybe it is ok to watch movies at work as the tasks of working are now all automated.

A site like this one uses an inch and a half of my window to the left to show me the name of who I’m talking to and three inches of the right to put advertisements we have all learned to ignore then right in the middle is roughly a square area where the business of the forum takes place because that’s the right shape for reading text. From the days of Gutenberg printed book pages have been taller than wide. Newspapers print stories in columns. When you download an e-book it comes in pages. I have always wondered why pages in an e-book, why not just scroll the words past so you don’t have to move your eyes? We are conditioned.

Why do projector cases all have different shapes to them? After all we don’t even look at them when we use them. They could all be rectangular boxes that would be simple to make and have adjustable feet on both sides. Why make them all streamline and aerodynamic look? They don’t go anywhere.

21:9 monitors fall into this space IMO. For every example you can show me where data fits better on a 21:9 screen I can show you an example of how a 4:3 screen fits other applications better. In JoshZ’s example I gave maybe he has a bookshelf right above his monitor and he is like the guy with low ceilings doing a scope projection screen claiming height limited. I understand that. But if he had the same width he has now and his screen was taller what could he do on the lower screen he couldn’t do on the higher screen. It is easy to see with the taller screen he could do more.

Before I retired the craze was to have two or more monitors some guys claimed they needed four monitors to be productive then a few guys started getting one massive monitor that looked like a 48” TV maybe they were TVs I don’t know, so the trend was again changing.

As to IMAX I’m glad you don’t see it going away that means maybe I will keep getting 1-2 movies a year that way. Always good to have something to look forward to. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
I don’t doubt 21:9 monitors are all the rage in the workplace and I doubt most employers encourage watching scope movies at work, but what do I know in today’s culture maybe it is ok to watch movies at work as the tasks of working are now all automated.
That's not why they are being bought. Not sure why you would think that. Your comment was to buy a very tall/narrow monitor instead. There was a very long time you could buy 4:3,5:4 and 16:9. The market soundly rejected the square/narrow options.

21:9 monitors fall into this space IMO. For every example you can show me where data fits better on a 21:9 screen I can show you an example of how a 4:3 screen fits other applications better. In JoshZ’s example I gave maybe he has a bookshelf right above his monitor and he is like the guy with low ceilings doing a scope projection screen claiming height limited. I understand that. But if he had the same width he has now and his screen was taller what could he do on the lower screen he couldn’t do on the higher screen. It is easy to see with the taller screen he could do more.
You are glossing over the fact that people are choosing multi horizontal displays or ultrawides because it ergonomically works better. Narrow/square died for a reason no matter how much you want to babble on about it. No one wants to sit at their desk craning their necks up for a gigantic square picture. If they did they had every opportunity to speak with their wallets. They didn't.

As to IMAX I’m glad you don’t see it going away that means maybe I will keep getting 1-2 movies a year that way. Always good to have something to look forward to. :D
And continue to act like they have much more significance in the grand scheme of what we watch no doubt.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top