 
|
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 |
83.94.167.75
I am considering screen format 16:9 or 1,85:1 for a room with low ceiling height.A 45"x80" 16:9 screen or a 47"x87" widescreen is my choice.
I want maximum wide screen and placing center loudspeaker just below screen. And I do want the center loudspeaker to be about 45" up from the floor, so actors voices are resonable high up.It seems to me that widescreen is the best choice for varying formats, because you get the biggest picture for film.
A cinema change the screen width, not the height.
But 16:9 screens seems the standard. Why?On DVD, how big a percentage of movies are in widescreen 1.85:1, how many are wider out of total?
Follow Ups:
My collection of 600 DVD movies has about 90 standard frame DVDs.
I have about 280 1.85 frame movies and the rest are 2.35 with a very few 2.4 and 2.2 aspect ratio movies.
PS: my Sony plasma is really aspect ratio of 1.70 not even 1.77
The best setup is a constant height projector/screen combo. When you watch a 2.35:1 movie vs a 1.85:1 movie on such a setup, the height of both movies is the same but the width of the 2.35:1 movie is wider (a la the theater/cinema). The reason we have 16x9 (aka 1.78:1) is because the movie people are snobs and the TV people were short-sighted: both are stupid.
A long time ago in an era far, far away...
...theater screens were or were very close to 4x3 (aka 1.33:1). When TV emerged, the screens naturally followed this form of its bigger cousin. The movie industry wanted to differentiate itself from its little cousin. Theaters and the movies which were shown in them moved (around the early '50s) to wider presentations. Obviously TV didn't follow this trend and the two stayed in their own little worlds for a long time.Fast forward to recent history. The TV people have decided that they need to go wider as well. They form a gathering to exchange ideas and invite the movie industry to participate. The snobs decided that they didn't want to be a part of the television industry's party: none of them showed. The short-sighted TV people picked a "compromise" between the "then" current 4x3 (1.33:1) format and the wider 1.85:1 format, thus the asinine 16x9 (1.78:1) format was launched.
What did the snobs and short-sighted industries accomplish by not cooperating with each other? They created a 4th format where only 3 had existed. Movies are either 1.85:1 or 2.xx:1 (2.20, 2.35, 2.40 -- I group all of these goofy shits together) and television is 4x3 (1.33:1). Why create another format (16:9/1.78:1) when you could have picked one of the existing ones as the new television standard? There's no way in hell you could stretch 4x3 (1.33:1) to 2.xx:1 and still keep viewers. Stretching 4x3 (1.33:1) to 1.85:1, which is only slightly wider than 16x9/1.78:1, wouldn't have been that big of a deal. Using 1.85:1 makes at least one match with existing formats and keeps the number of formats to 3, thus the wisest choice would have been to select 1.85:1 as the new television format.
Duh!!!
An EXCELLENT wxplanation. It is indeed ironic that on a 1:78 x 1 TV display 1:85 films are slightly cropped and 2:(whatever) x 1 films have black bars.BTW the Cinematography folks did bitch about 16 x 9 but far too late to have any impact.
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 ]
