16:9 vs ???

Post by r***@optonline.net
Just curious if anyone knows. Why is it that in this day of flat, wide screen
TV's at 16:9 aspect ratio, is Hollywood making films with other aspect ratios?
Seems to me that knowing that within months of a movie being released that it
would go to on demand or pay-per-view or even direct DVD sales, they would make
movies that fit the 16:9 TV screens without having to screw around with
settings.

For hundreds of years, artists chose the size and aspect ratio of
their painting for their own reasons.... most because of what they
wanted to "portray", that's probably the same reason film makers
choose the sapect ratio they choose.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-06-08 21:08:13 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net
Just curious if anyone knows. Why is it that in this day of flat, wide screen
TV's at 16:9 aspect ratio, is Hollywood making films with other aspect ratios?

ummmmm....they've been making films in a variety of width/length ratios
since the dawn of filmmaking.

That the TV people chose a standard for broadcast, doesn't mean it has
anything to do with the filmmakers or that the filmmakers are obligated
to follow a single standard.

Post by r***@optonline.net
Seems to me that knowing that within months of a movie being released that it
would go to on demand or pay-per-view or even direct DVD sales, they would make
movies that fit the 16:9 TV screens without having to screw around with
settings.

Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what you or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

Stewart

2013-06-11 22:50:08 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net
Just curious if anyone knows. Why is it that in this day of flat, wide screen
TV's at 16:9 aspect ratio, is Hollywood making films with other
aspect
ratios?

ummmmm....they've been making films in a variety of width/length ratios
since the dawn of filmmaking.
That the TV people chose a standard for broadcast, doesn't mean it has
anything to do with the filmmakers or that the filmmakers are
obligated
to follow a single standard.

Post by r***@optonline.net
Seems to me that knowing that within months of a movie being
released that it
would go to on demand or pay-per-view or even direct DVD sales,
they would
make
movies that fit the 16:9 TV screens without having to screw around with
settings.

Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what you or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-06-12 10:45:27 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what you or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Those people will buy their crapola no matter what, and they know it.

Only a handful of them obssess over "black space on my screen! wah!
wah!" like Sheldon Cooper.

Gene E. Bloch

2013-06-12 19:05:33 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what you or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Those people will buy their crapola no matter what, and they know it.
Only a handful of them obssess over "black space on my screen! wah!
wah!" like Sheldon Cooper.

I admit to being more concerned about the black spaces at the edges of
my mind :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Stewart

2013-06-13 23:52:39 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what
you
or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Those people will buy their crapola no matter what, and they know it.
Only a handful of them obssess over "black space on my screen!
wah!
wah!" like Sheldon Cooper.

I admit to being more concerned about the black spaces at the edges of
my mind :-)

Yes, mine seem to be more prevalent as the years......what was it that
we were talking about???

Post by Gene E. Bloch
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch

2013-06-14 03:36:59 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what
you
or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Those people will buy their crapola no matter what, and they know it.
Only a handful of them obssess over "black space on my screen!
wah!
wah!" like Sheldon Cooper.

I admit to being more concerned about the black spaces at the edges of
my mind :-)

Yes, mine seem to be more prevalent as the years......what was it that
we were talking about???

Were we talking?

...In truth, my brain isn't much flakier than it was when I was
relatively young :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Stewart

2013-06-16 12:42:47 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what
you
or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Those people will buy their crapola no matter what, and they know it.
Only a handful of them obssess over "black space on my screen!
wah!
wah!" like Sheldon Cooper.

I admit to being more concerned about the black spaces at the
edges
of
my mind :-)

Yes, mine seem to be more prevalent as the years......what was it that
we were talking about???

Were we talking?
...In truth, my brain isn't much flakier than it was when I was
relatively young :-)

Metaphorically speaking, of course ;-)

Post by Gene E. Bloch
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch

2013-06-16 21:59:29 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Seems to me that the filmmakers don't give two shits about what
you
or
any other TV-oriented audience thinks.

They should with home theater use on the rise, br-dvd and video
streaming all proven as viable revenue streams for their films.

Those people will buy their crapola no matter what, and they know it.
Only a handful of them obssess over "black space on my screen!
wah!
wah!" like Sheldon Cooper.

I admit to being more concerned about the black spaces at the
edges
of
my mind :-)

Yes, mine seem to be more prevalent as the years......what was it that
we were talking about???

Were we talking?
...In truth, my brain isn't much flakier than it was when I was
relatively young :-)

Metaphorically speaking, of course ;-)

I guess I need Selsun Blue for the Brain (tm)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

the dog from that film you saw

2013-06-08 21:50:04 UTC

in cinemas a 2.35:1 image is usually bigger than a 1.85:1 - the opposite
of at home.
having said that, i have been in some cinemas where the screen is 1.85:1
and masked off for 2.35:1 films.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

gumby_dammit

2013-06-09 18:53:54 UTC

Post by the dog from that film you saw

I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home
_theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

in cinemas a 2.35:1 image is usually bigger than a 1.85:1 - the opposite
of at home.
having said that, i have been in some cinemas where the screen is 1.85:1
and masked off for 2.35:1 films.
--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

m***@large

2013-06-09 20:12:09 UTC

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home _theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

Because even a home theater will sometimes be used to show the great
number of old movies and TV shows shot in or near 4:3. 16:9 is a
compromise between 4:3 and the wider aspect ratios of most current
movies. No matter what was chosen, shows in other aspect ratios would
have to be zoomed and cropped or stretched in one direction or
another, both of which I find offensive, or shown with black bars on
the sides or top and bottom, which doesn't bother me. If it bothers
you, then you need to do what movie theaters do: mount adjustable
curtains around your screen.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-06-09 20:52:56 UTC

Post by m***@large

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home _theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

That.

Mark F

2013-06-10 19:08:03 UTC

Post by m***@large

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home _theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

I think there is an even worse way to make things cover the screen:
Change the stretch ratio in different parts of the screen.
I think that some of the old "Doctor Who" TV shows that BBC America
has shown the last couple of months are proceeded that way.

The seem to be several ways it is done:
1. center is normal, sides stretched
. so circles aren't and the changing distortion of
things moving across the screen make me uncomfortable.
(The things can be moving the are staying still and the
camera is moving.)
2. the main subject is tracked and distortion kept to a
minimum near the main subject. The subject can be moving
across the screen or the subject is still but the camera
is tracking something else.

Post by m***@large
or shown with black bars on
the sides or top and bottom, which doesn't bother me. If it bothers
you, then you need to do what movie theaters do: mount adjustable
curtains around your screen.

Bill Gill

2013-06-11 13:15:00 UTC

Post by Mark F

Post by m***@large

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home _theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

Change the stretch ratio in different parts of the screen.
I think that some of the old "Doctor Who" TV shows that BBC America
has shown the last couple of months are proceeded that way.
1. center is normal, sides stretched
. so circles aren't and the changing distortion of
things moving across the screen make me uncomfortable.
(The things can be moving the are staying still and the
camera is moving.)
2. the main subject is tracked and distortion kept to a
minimum near the main subject. The subject can be moving
across the screen or the subject is still but the camera
is tracking something else.

I haven't seen anything like that, but I did notice some distortion
on a Dr. Who when I was scanning the channels one time, so it may
have been happening. It doesn't matter, I will not watch any program
that is distorted to fit in the HD aspect ratio. Have you seen
RoseAnne on WE?

Bill

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-06-09 20:52:30 UTC

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home
_theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

The manufacturers didn't pick it; the broadcast industry chose it for HD.

Ask them.

the dog from that film you saw

2013-06-09 21:39:32 UTC

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home
_theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

The manufacturers didn't pick it; the broadcast industry chose it for HD.
Ask them.

and if the mood takes you there are 2.35:1 (more or less) screens out there.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-06-10 09:53:43 UTC

Post by the dog from that film you saw

Post by gumby_dammit
I'd say the better question to ask is why did the manufacturers of TV's for
home
_theater_ pick an aspect ratio atypical of what's in the theaters?

The manufacturers didn't pick it; the broadcast industry chose it for HD.
Ask them.

and if the mood takes you there are 2.35:1 (more or less) screens out there.

I'm waiting for the pixel-tall screens that are a mile wide, and the
nutcases that brag about how they have the "true wide screen".

whosbest54

2013-06-09 00:57:57 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@optonline.net
says...

Some theater movies are made in 16x9 (1.85:1), but many are in 2.35:1 to fit many
movie theater screens. Other aspect ratios are used as well by movie makers.
The widescreen home TV aspect ratio has really nothing to do with how producers
and directors pick their film aspect ratio for the theater.

Perhaps movies made for TV now are often in 16x9.

whosbest54

--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html

Alan

2013-06-09 05:07:04 UTC

Post by whosbest54
Some theater movies are made in 16x9 (1.85:1), but many are in 2.35:1 to fit many
movie theater screens. Other aspect ratios are used as well by movie makers.
The widescreen home TV aspect ratio has really nothing to do with how producers
and directors pick their film aspect ratio for the theater.

16:9 is actually 1.78:1 (well, really 1.777777777777777777...:1). 1.85:1
movies often don't show bars above and below due to slight overscan or clipping
of the edges.

But you are right on in that the film ratio is picked for the theater, not
the TV screen shape.

Alan

Gene E. Bloch

2013-06-09 22:11:18 UTC

Post by Alan

16:9 is actually 1.78:1 (well, really 1.777777777777777777...:1). 1.85:1
movies often don't show bars above and below due to slight overscan or clipping
of the edges.
But you are right on in that the film ratio is picked for the theater, not
the TV screen shape.
Alan

I would have preferred it if you had put in *all* of the 7's

:-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Andrew Rossmann

2013-06-09 12:26:49 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, rfdjr1
@optonline.net says...

You may want to look at this web site:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.comcast.net/~andyross

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-06-09 15:37:04 UTC

Post by Andrew Rossmann
@optonline.net says...

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

yeah, there's someone with some time on his hands.

Put to better use, he'd have cured cancer by now.

Bill Gill

2013-06-09 13:33:11 UTC

I recall from back in the late 80s or early 90s some discussion
of what the HD aspect ratio should be. I read about it somewhere.
There were a lot of ideas about what it should be, so that it
would be able to fit all the different movie aspect ratios into
it. I recall at least one statement that if you really want
to fit any possible aspect ratio on it it should be square

Bill

Les Cargill

2013-06-09 15:57:14 UTC

Post by Bill Gill

Square? Yeah, if the screen is extremely large; otherwise
the thing would look like one of those toolbars
people keep wanting us to download..

From ... Scorcesse's docu. about the history of fillum, all
movies were 4:3 forever, then wider was chosen to make movies more
competitive with TV.

The ratios beyond 16:9 were just some sort of showing off. Unless
you do human-pan-and-scan, you can't see all of it. I forget
the exact limit where frontal vision ends and peripheral vision
starts but it's less than you'd think.

--
Les Cargill

Stewart

2013-06-11 22:48:05 UTC