[opendtv] Re: Popular screen aspect ratios

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:32:39 -0600

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

>> Around and around. Because it does.
>
> To you.

No, Craig. It's just that you refuse to listen or to observe, if what everyone 
around you is saying doesn't agree with some political position you seem 
compelled to hold. You would not see virtually every wide screen TV habitually 
distorting images if people didn't care about black bars. Get over it.

> As for the TV problem, it is a reality that the world is dealing with.

Yes, Craig. The reality is that 16:9 is becoming the norm for both TV and PC 
monitors, if maybe not for small hand-held devices. Also something you seem 
compelled not to accept.

> Give it up Bert. Hollywood still uses a large number of formats.

No, Craig, as I explained below:

>> And for that matter, do you really, really believe that there's a big
>> "artistic" difference between, say, the old 1.96:1 anamorphic
>> VistaVision and the old 2:1 Superscope? Or, between the old matted
>> 1.85:1 VistaVision, and the new matted 1.85:1 regular 18 X 24 35mm
>> frame? Or between the 2.21:1 Super Panavision 70mm and the modern day
>> 2.35:1 35mm widescreen?
>
> I don;t care. what I DO care about is watching the content undistorted

The point you continue to miss is, the actual purpose of the vast majority of 
those historical formats, leaving aside the ultra wide two, was engineering, 
not art. It was a way of using the biggest possible film area for the image. 
The ratios themselves were not much different, or any different, from the 
common ones of today. VistaVision being the perfect example.

1.85:1 is 1.85:1, no matter how you get there. But using VistaVision, you get 
less grain. Similarly, 2.21:1 is hard to tell apart from 2.35:1. But with 70mm, 
you got to use a much bigger negative, which is especially important in the 
old, large theaters. And the 70mm 2.21:1 didn't need anamorphic squeeze.

I expect that the anamorphic 70mm 2.76:1 was a tour de force meant to obsolete 
Cinerama, since some people seemed to object to the frame joints in Cinerama. 
Besides which, the newer superwide Cinemascope 2.55:1 had just about reached 
Cinerama's 2.58:1, even if the screen wasn't slightly curved in Cinemascope. I 
guess something with a greater wow factor was needed. But these "wider than 
2.35:1 formats" aren't used anymore, Craig. And even back then, very few films 
we shot that way. We're talking 1950s and 1960s, Craig.

So your broad brush "Hollywood still uses a large number of formats" is just 
not true. Get down to specifics, Craig. Hollywood uses 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 these 
days, for regular theaters.

> You never did buy into the notion that there should be as much freedom
> with video as there is for every other form or imaging.

I never bought into the notion that this should translate to "no monitor 
standards (or guidelines) for TV." There's a huge difference.

Bert
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2010