CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

drice1234 · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1309 Location: Allen, Texas

I have noticed that probably 8 out of the last 10 movies that I have watched have been in the 2.35 format. Does it look like this will be the new "standard" like 16x9 used to be? It is very disappointing to be unable to utilize a good portion of my 16x9 screen. I already have my screen as large as I can go for the wall space (110" diagonal) and the PJ back as far as I can fit in my setup. I have not researched it yet but it is my understanding that there is a work around for this with digitals. I have a Mitsubishi HC3000 that I had picked up on the cheap. This issue may drive me to experimenting with a digital to be able to use my full screen. Is this my only choice?
Thanks
Dan

kschmit2 · Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject:

It's your choice of movies.

In my movie DB it is more like 60 percent 2.35:1 (or wider), and the rest 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 or 1.37:1, with some odd in between ratios like 2.00:1 or 2.20:1

drice1234 · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1309 Location: Allen, Texas

Man that is screwed up. I cannot believe that they would not standardized on something as basic as the size that a movie should be displayed in. Forget the now dead battle between BluRay and HD DVD. I would rather they standardize on a film size.

emdawgz1 · Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 7949

As movies move to digital you may get closer, but if the industry hasnt gone standard yet... you may be waiting a while Neutral

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject:

But, there's really no reason to standardize, Dan. At least, not for the reason you think.

Theater projection equipment is designed to accommodate a variety of film formats, so budget, subject matter, and creative vision determine the format of the film and how it should be shot and edited. Think about it. Imagine an action film with wide vistas, lots of moving point-of-view, lots of horizons, scenery, etc... 2.35 makes perfect sense, right? Big, wide panoramas. That's what 2.35 is about. It's epic cinema. Grandioseness at its best. Now, how about a New York City apartment living room for a comedy. Most of the film is tight 1- and 2-person shots, bedroom shots, car interiors, it's intimate and rarely horizontal. 1.85 works perfectly in that situation.

If you see something that's truly 1.78 (16:9), it's probably because it was shot in HD, not on film.

Even if a newer digital production is shot on a 1.78 device, it can still be matted to 2 or 2:35 if that's what the look the director wants.

Film-makers make movies for the theater, not for CE 16:9 living room display devices.

SC

MikeEby · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 5237 Location: Osceola, Indiana

One issue now the CIH guys have that run 2:40/2:35 screens are many Blu-rays have sub-titles in the black bars so those people with scope screens can't read the sub-titles. I have probably 1/2 dozen disks that are encoded this way.

BTW HBO crops most scope movies to 16:9 Thumbs Down

Mike

**kal** · Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject:

SC is exactly right.

"Standardizing" doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like trying to standardize on one of size of artist's canvas so that all paintings were all exactly the same size.

2.35:1 is not newer than 16x9 (1.78:1) either. As others have said there have been a wide variety of aspect ratios used over the years and it all depends on the directors intent. There's no right, wrong, or standard.

Kal

jask · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 10187 Location: kamloops BC