 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Why is it that when the powers above decide that the rest of the world needs wide screen they can't even format all there movies to one (full) format of true 16:9.
Funny how 4:3 allway fills the standard screen.
Follow Ups:
> Why is it that when the powers above decide that the rest of the
> world needs wide screen they can't even format all there movies to
> one (full) format of true 16:9.Film has had a ton of aspect ratios... and 16:9 was never one of them. Also, some of the earliest film ratios were nearly square: watch Gone With the Wind in its original ratio and you'll see what I mean (I've read 1.33:1, but when I saw it they must not have been masking the top and bottom as much). Much of this is based upon the film stock being offered at the time.
Aspect ratio gradually got wider over time for a variety of reasons, mosly having to do with technology and who owned it. Many of these advances came to a head in the 1950s - this is when Cinerama (a process that used 3 different projectors for an extremely wide aspect ratio) made its debuts and when 3D films became fairly common.
Of course coming up with new technology means someone has to make some money off of it... and give it a new, snazzy name. Just to put it into perspective, here are a few of the different processes out there and their corresponding aspect ratios:
Cinerama - 3:1 2.77:1, 2.75:1 2.59:1
CinemaScope - 2.66:1 2.55:1 2.35:1
VistaVision - 1.96:1 1.85:1 1.66:1
Todd-AO - 2.35:1 2.20:1
Technirama - 2.35:1 many others
Ultra Panavision 70 - 2.76:1
Panavision - 2.35:1 1.85:1
Super 35 - 2.35:1
(http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2933/favaspectratio.html)16:9 is a compromise that was arrived at through very logical means (and not just because of the squares of 3 and 4) and was explained in a graphic I once saw but can't seem to locate now. Note that 16:9 transfers down to about 1.77:1, which is still off from 1.85:1 and very different from 2.35:1.
> Funny how 4:3 allway fills the standard screen.
Ok, i'm guessing that means "always fills" but that's just a guess...
And could that have something to do with the fact that television has always had a standard? Hmm... might that have something to do with the fact that film doesn't have to worry as much about broadcast standards? Also, that theatres have always had movable masking?
Look, if you like 1.33:1, fine. It's great for everybody loves raymond and the brady bunch. I just don't think it's quite as effective for something like 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia... or even Eurotrip.
To sum it up, 16:9 is a compromise to allow multiple standards. No film format has used it. I know that won't satisfy some people's anger that a portion of their precious TV screens isn't occupied with vibrant colors and bombastic motion, but I have a weird feeling that these are the same people who thought colorized movies were a good idea and that we should put arms on those Greek and Roman statues in the museums...
As far as movies go, it seems the more epic movies have a wider screen format.
I took his question to be about video, not theatrical films. I do agree that panavision 2.35 x 1 is used for the more epic films and Academy Flat 1.85 x 1 for more intimate films.
I'm confused. Is your issue with those that set the standards for ATSC for not coming up with an aspect ratio that matches motion picture aspect ratios or the motion picture industry for not making movies to match the 16:9 AR. If it is the ATSC people your are talking about, I honestly can't say why they chose 16:9. Rico gave a good answer and my guess would be that at the time the tv manufactures believed manufacturing tv's with picture tubes of that ratio would be the most cost effective. Keep in mind though that the purpose of television is not just to display movies whether they be from DVD or broadcast. TV is also used for news, sports, live events, prime time programming, etc. Movies most likely make up a small percentage of the total TV content. Therefore in most cases the 16:9 AR shouldn't be an issue.
If your issue is with the MP industry, directors will frame their film in the way they feel matches their vision of the work. No different than a painter deciding whether to paint a subject on a verticle or horizontal canvas. Movies for the most part are intended to be shown in theaters which due to screens with masking systems can handle a variety of ARs.
16 x 9 (i.e., 1.78 x 1) was derived as the square of 1.33 (4 x 3) and was arrived at by video people who did not consult Hollywood, which, as you know, uses primarily two formats, Panavision 2.35 x 1 and Academy Flat 1.85 x 1. The cinematographers did bitch about 16 x 9 but it was too little and too late. So now, when watching films on a wide screen display device NOTHING fits, as you point out: 4 x 3 has side bars, 1.85 is lopped off, and 2.35 has black bars.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
