16:9 is a television aspect ratio, movies are meant to be wide so you see more of the scene. I did not buy an ultrawide TV to see letterboxing on movies! Quite the opposite in fact!
shareha haaaa sux to be you Richie Rich!!!
shareThe AR was 1.85:1
Now don't you just feel silly?
"Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be....NOT magic." -Tim Minchin
Not really! 16:9 is the same as 1.79:1 So "The Lobster" is much closer to TV aspect ratio than to a standard film cinema. My TV is 2.35:1, and most movies are filmed with a ratio between 2.35:1 up to 2.39:1
Directors have started opting for taller aspect ratios so their films will look better on TVs, especially if they believe the theater audience will be small. It kills the immersion of the film; aspect ratios are large so that the screen can fill peripheral vision and we can see ample amounts of the scene and setting at once. Just my $.02
So do you just avoid watching older tv shows or pre-1950 films?
shareTypically I watch older movies on my computer. They're easier to find online and they're not technically impressive enough to warrant a watch on the big screen. I don't watch older TV shows at all, they all seem too cheesy to me.
shareWow, I didn't realize that 2.35:1 TVs even existed. I can imagine that the image on a TV with that aspect ratio has got to be really small. You'd probably need like a 70" TV to equal the same screen height as a 50" 16:9 TV.
Also, about half of movies produced are presented in 2.35:1 (CinemaScope). Big epics are usually filmed in Cinemascope. The other half of movies are released in 1.85:1. Those have been the two main widescreen formats since 1954. I really doubt that any director is altering their creative scope just because it "will look better on TVs". Most directors absolutely aim for a theatrical release of their films. A theatrical release is usually a requirement in order to even qualify for awards and some festivals. If I was gonna make a visually driven movie, I'd choose 'Scope over regular widescreen (1.85:1) for its additional coverage. If I was filming a drama or comedy, then I'd use 1.85:1. Just my 2ยข.
movies are meant to be wide so you see more of the scene.Not true, that was just a marketing gimmick and industry's survival strategy to make people still wanna go to the movie theaters in the days that TV-sets were conquering the market. Originally, theatrical movies were in 4:3 format, and changed to other formats when TVs (which also had 4:3 screens) were invented.
I did not buy an ultrawide TV to see letterboxing on movies!I think you meant pillarboxing, not letterboxing.
Then you're gonna love Kubrick movies.
shareThe 1.85:1 aspect ratio has been around since the 1950s, decades before the existence of widescreen televisions.
And for the record, your avatar is from A Scanner Darkly, a film presented in that aspect ratio.
Yeah, someone already pointed out to me that widescreen is a more recent phenomenon than I had realized. It kills me that Scanner Darkly isn't in a wide aspect ratio, it really would have benefitted from it.
shareWidescreen is not really a recent phenomenon at all. Both widescreen formats have been in regular use since 1954. CinemaScope (2.35:1) is usually reserved for big visual epics. Everything else is usually released in standard widescreen (1.85:1). Every once in awhile you'll get some crazy aspect ratios like the sooooper wide Cinerama format or big tall square IMAX format.
shareYou watched this on a tv?
Get a projection screen peasant.
Jeez, yet another thing for people to say 'mine is better than yours'?
While I'm here I don't get extreme wide screen formats for anything except epics and such. But 5 minutes in, and if I'm immersed in a story, it makes as much difference as the font in a novel: Zip.
Also contributes to burn-in on OLED televisions.
share