Posted by moviePig on 12/04/06 03:54

Lincoln Spector wrote:
> "dgates" <dgates@spamlinkline.com> wrote in message
> news:oc04n2drqrml9l8jc0vct1apvhbvv3s50t@4ax.com...
> > On 2 Dec 2006 13:05:07 -0800, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>RichA wrote:
> >>> moviePig wrote:
> >>> > Walter Traprock wrote:
> >>> > > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
> >>> > >
> >>> > > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
> >>> > > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
> >>> > > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.
> >>> >
> >>> > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
> >>> > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
> >>> > and 2:35:1)... with 4:3 getting shortest shrift, which is justifiable
> >>> > considering that older movies generally have coarser resolution to
> >>> > begin with, and thus won't suffer as much, percentage-wise, in a
> >>> > reduced raster-portion.
> >>>
> >>> There should be NO compromise in movie playback. Problem is, too many
> >>> people literally can't tell there is any distortion. How often have
> >>> you seen tvs with uncalibrated colour or basketball player stretched or
> >>> squashed, midget-looking actors and the idiots watching them could care
> >>> less? The moment you start taking cues from those people, you might as
> >>> well jump off a bridge.
> >>
> >>By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.
> >>Of course all films should present, within that field, in their
> >>original aspect ratios, i.e., with no squashing. (Thus, until
> >>Hollywood makes a true 16:9 movie... that'll always mean gray bars.)
> >
> >
> > 1.85:1 movies are pretty darn close to 1.78:1.
> Especially when you consider that films are shot with an assumption of a
> margin of error on the part of the theaters. No professional will shoot for
> 1.85 in such a way that it won't work in 1.78.

But, for the purist, it's not only a matter of the cinematographer
observing the "safe area" rectangle, but also how the film is cut, say,
with regard to choosing the opening frame of an already-panning shot.
(There's only one "right" one.)

--

/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/

[Back to original message]