What's the deal with widescreen?

[mfacey]

Having just recently bought my first widescreen (16:9) tv I've been looking into the different widescreen aspect ratios available on DVDs and such.
I find it really odd that there seem to be 2 different ratios. There is 16:9 (often listed as 1.77:1), which is the standard widescreen tv ratio, but there is also 2.35:1, which I presume is the ratio used in cinemas. Oh and there there's your standard fullscreen or 4:3 which is still available is countries like the US where widescreen has taken longer to break through.
My biggest irritation is the 2.35:1 ratio. Even on my widescreen this leaves the inevitalbe black bars top and bottom. I can understand this is a great aspect ratio for cinemas and possibly for people using beamers/projectors, but doesn't the average consumer just have a regular 16:9 or 4:3 screen?

Anybody have any ideas as to why the movie industry constantly releases movies in this aspect ratio or why tvs aren't made in this ratio instead of 16:9?

 

[virus1]

My biggest irritation is the 2.35:1 ratio. Even on my widescreen this leaves the inevitalbe black bars top and bottom. I can understand this is a great aspect ratio for cinemas and possibly for people using beamers/projectors, but doesn't the average consumer just have a regular 16:9 or 4:3 screen?

I completely agree.

Anybody have any ideas as to why the movie industry constantly releases movies in this aspect ratio or why tvs aren't made in this ratio instead of 16:9?

i have no idea

 

[LethalWolfe]

Filmmakers chose an aspect ratio that they feel best benefits the story they are telling. The most common aspect ratios are 4:3, 1.78:1 (16:9), 1.85:1, and 2.35:1. Obviously making a TV that supports every ratio "w/o black bars" is impossible so 16:9 was chosen. Why? Not sure, but maybe because it provided a good "middle ground?"

Asking filmmakers to always shoot in "TV friendly" aspect ratios would be like asking painters to always use a specific canvas size because it's easier to center it over your couch.


Lethal

 

[Anonymous Freak]

And heck, movies went widescreen in the first place to make them DIFFERENT than TV. Go watch some movies from the '40s or earlier. They are all 4:3. Then TV came out, and the movie studios had to differentiate themselves. So they came out with widescreen. Unfortunately, there were competing companies that made the cameras, with different aspect ratios. So now, it's a matter of either:
A. money (the studio mandates the cheaper option,)
B. artistic license (the film maker decides on whichever one he likes best.)

Watch Dr. Strangelove on DVD, it's a mishmash of aspect ratios. It alternates between 4:3 and widescreen often. (Kubrick was odd that way.)

So, yes, when the TV companies decided to go widescreen, they had to pick a ratio. They chose 16:9 as the 'lowest' widescreen, so you'd end up with black bars on top and bottom for 'wider' movies, but you'd never end up with bars on the sides (for modern theatrical movies. Obviously you do for native 4:3 movies or SD TV shows.)

 

[irmongoose]

The cinema is where you are supposed to watch films. TVs are a substitute for when you're too lazy to take the walk to the nearest cinema.

I understand that in this day and age more people watch films on TV and blah blah but that's tough. Heh.




irmongoose

 

[Anonymous Freak]

The cinema is where you are supposed to watch films. TVs are a substitute for when you're too lazy to take the walk to the nearest cinema.

What about films that are no longer showing in the theaters? Hrm?

(And where I live now, the nearest theater is 3 non-pedestrian-friendly miles away. I used to live a couple blocks from a cool brewpub arthouse theater, but I don't any more. )

 

[LethalWolfe]

What about films that are no longer showing in the theaters? Hrm?

Revival theater's baby. I've seen Jaws, 2001, and Escape from New York projected in 35mm goodness (although the print for Escape from New York was in pretty bad shape).


Lethal

 

[mfacey]

I usually don't really like going to the cinema. You have to leave the house, you're stuck to their viewing times. And most of all, here in Holland you can buy potato chips to eat during the movie. I can tell that that is just about as irritating as people talking during the movie. All that bloody crunching and ruffling of the chips bags. Ggrrrrrr
That's why I'd rather just watch at home.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Revival theater's baby. I've seen Jaws, 2001, and Escape from New York projected in 35mm goodness (although the print for Escape from New York was in pretty bad shape).

Lethal

But you don't have any option on what movies are playing at such theaters. I frequent them often, but every once in a while, I just REALLY want to watch a movie that isn't playing anywhere...

Like Labyrinth, for example.

 

[3dit3r]

And heck, movies went widescreen in the first place to make them DIFFERENT than TV.

Certainly the advent of TV accelerated the move to widescreen films. However, anamorphic lenses were around since the 20's. I believe a frenchman developed the first lens. Hollywood is notoriously fickle when it comes to technology changes and also are afraid of disorienting audiences. This happened when they switched to sound. Because of the space needed for an optical track, perfs, etc., the aspect ratio threw audiences off. They fixed that problem with the Academy Ratio. So, they were reluctant to experiment with anamorphic lenses and open mattes. Plus, filmmakers and DP's were not exactly open to it either. It meant a completely different way of shooting. I think TV essentially forced them to try widescreen or continue losing revenue.

So, yes, when the TV companies decided to go widescreen, they had to pick a ratio.

I wouldn't say that the TV companies were the key players in 16:9. It was more of an industry-wide, governement approved decision based on several factors that would be too boring to talk about here. Several formats for HDTV were proposed for reasons such as camera technology, lines, vertical and horizontal fields and resolution, viewing distance, frequency, etc...boring stuff as you can see.

Not trying to disagree, but just point out that both of these moves or decisions were based on several factors...

 

[MacNut]

try this.
http://www.high-techproductions.com/widescreen.htm

Cinerama

2.77:1 to 3.00:1 aspect ratio. When transferred to video in its full ratio, this format produced the most "letterboxing" effect. This method of filming actually used three cameras, after which the three images were interlocked together. Any transfer to video (and the only one is "How the West Was Won") would be from a 35mm 'scope reduction print and therefore have a 2.35:1 ratio.

CinemaScope

2.35:1 (originally 2.66:1) aspect ratio. This was once the most commonly used method of filming movies because its only major requirement was a special CinemaScope projector lens, which was available at virtually every movie theatre. CinemaScope was originally created by 20th Century Fox, but it is no longer in use by studios other than Fox. All of the original 3 "Star Wars" movies and even the 1997 animated version of "Anastasia" were filmed in CinemaScope.

Panavision

2.40:1 aspect ratio. The Panavision company became the most successful maker of wide screen lenses, and in the 1970s their Panavision lenses became the "standard" for wide screen. Panavision still makes the lenses for most of the major studio productions today. Panavision also makes lenses for films made with matting as opposed to true wide screen. These matted films are not necessarily 2.40:1, but are most likely 1.85:1.

 

[sushi]

Even on my widescreen this leaves the inevitalbe black bars top and bottom.

The bars never bothered me.

I much prefer to see a movie in a Widescreen version than 4:3.

 

[mfacey]

The bars never bothered me.

I much prefer to see a movie in a Widescreen version than 4:3.

Same here. But its a bummer when you fork out a substantial amount of money for a nice widescreen tv and you end up still not having full screen picture!

 

[portent]

The cinema is where you are supposed to watch films. TVs are a substitute for when you're too lazy to take the walk to the nearest cinema.

I understand that in this day and age more people watch films on TV and blah blah but that's tough. Heh.

irmongoose

Yeah. A movie just ain't a movie unless the lady two seats over is giving an impromptu running commentary, and the guy behind you won't shut off his cell phone. Take those things out and you're not getting the full impact of the filmmaker's vision.

 

[jdechko]

I guess it is a good thing that widescreen TV's are 16:9, though, as they are capable of accommodating all widescreen aspect ratios.

 

[eXan]

I prefer viewing widescreen media on my 4:3 TV. Yes it leaves black bars. Yes the image is smaller. But with widescreen you see more graphical info on the sides of the footage (unless the editor just cut the Y of the video)

When I watch my SW: Episode 2 on a VHS (4:3), I feel trapped in the small space... dont know really how to say it in english.

But when I watch for example SW: Ep 3 on my DVD (widescreen, dont remember which ratio), it feels ok