Nice site that explains home theater, screen aspect, etc..

[theedge]

http://www.homestead.com/klyckproductions/screenformats.html

[JimRochester]

Nice site, I'll add the link to my FAQ thread.

[reverb]

Wow. That site is rife with errors.

In the order that I am reading them:

1) Academy is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1.
2) Neither 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 translate to 16:9.
3) 2.35:1 need not be Cinemascope or Panavision
4) Letterbox is not simply a term used to describe a 16:9 picture fitted to a 4:3 frame.
5) 16:9 ARs are of no relation to human peripheral vision, nor are any other film ARs.

[JimRochester]

Originally posted by reverb
Wow. That site is rife with errors.

In the order that I am reading them:

1) Academy is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1.
2) Neither 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 translate to 16:9.
3) 2.35:1 need not be Cinemascope or Panavision
4) Letterbox is not simply a term used to describe a 16:9 picture fitted to a 4:3 frame.
5) 16:9 ARs are of no relation to human peripheral vision, nor are any other film ARs.

I agree the first 4 points, however for the newbie who is looking to get some insight on what this all means, it is a good starting point. Even educated theaterphiles interchange terms so often the original meaning is often lost. With overscan, 1.37 v. 1.33 or 1.78 v. 1.85 will have little to no difference. It is probably a good idea if we drop your thoughts to the author so he can make the corrections. On point 5 I think he worded it poorly but the point that widescreen better suits our peripheral vision is true, we do see wider than we see tall.

[reverb]

Originally posted by JimRochester
On point 5 I think he worded it poorly but the point that widescreen better suits our peripheral vision is true, we do see wider than we see tall.

You're correct, human vision field of view is greater horizontally than vertically. However, that has absolutely no consideration when filmmakers select and compose for various ARs, nor a relation to viewing films in general. One would have to view films by staring directly at the center of the screen throughout the presentation, and the screen would have to be phenomenally large. An encompassing peripheral vision experience only comes into play with such presentations as IMAX.


As to the other points, while I understand your meaning, any misinformation is a bad thing. As has been proved out over and over, the new misunderstanding just leads to more confusion later. IMO, it doesn't matter if a "newbie's" information is closer to right than very wrong, either way it's inaccurate.

Regards

[milo bloom]

Originally posted by reverb


You're correct, human vision field of view is greater horizontally than vertically. However, that has absolutely no consideration when filmmakers select and compose for various ARs, nor a relation to viewing films in general. One would have to view films by staring directly at the center of the screen throughout the presentation, and the screen would have to be phenomenally large. An encompassing peripheral vision experience only comes into play with such presentations as IMAX.


As to the other points, while I understand your meaning, any misinformation is a bad thing. As has been proved out over and over, the new misunderstanding just leads to more confusion later. IMO, it doesn't matter if a "newbie's" information is closer to right than very wrong, either way it's inaccurate.

Regards


reverb, I know you know your stuff, you seem to be in the industry, but I think maybe you're a little too close to the issue or something. I'm just getting into (amateur) film study in the last few years here with DVD, but I've studied a variety of subjects before that including psychology, art and biology, and I have to say I really think a wider AR (than 1.33 at least) is more conducive to human vision. Just from watching shows like Enterprise and Angel, where I don't get the impression they're putting a lot of thought into the 1.77 composition, nonetheless, it just "looks" better. I watch an episode of another Trek series or Angel's sister show Buffy in 4:3 and I keep catching myself looking at all that head and footroom that seems so unneccesary.

Yeah, maybe I'm not some expert, but I can only go on what I see. And since I'm not alone in preferring letterboxed versions of even softmatte films that cover up information to create a widescreen image, I think we may be onto something.

Beside the point of the thread, I know :) , but something I do believe in.

cheers

[reverb]

milo bloom,

There is no disputing that a wider aspect ratio is generally a greater approximation of the field of view of human vision at "normal" focal lengths... But again, it would have to be a remarkably large screen your viewing, and if you are moving your eyes around the frame, you are negating the relevance. The idea originally came about as marketing fodder during the 1950s, and this topic is addressed in numerous film and cinematography books.

Regarding the comment you made about Buffy and 4:3 and head and "footroom"... That is an issue of composition, not the AR. One could counter by claiming that they saw a bunch of 16:9 stuff, which had the same headroom feel but they were drawn to the space on the sides which seemed unneccesary. Do you know what I mean? It's the use of the frame. Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate... I do that a lot;)

Incidentally, typically, I concur. 1.78:1 just happens to be my favorite AR for composition.

As far as being to close to the issue... What issue? Seriously:)

[reverb]

Originally posted by milo bloom
And since I'm not alone in preferring letterboxed versions of even softmatte films that cover up information to create a widescreen image

Oh, you are not alone. Nearly every 1.85:1 OAR film is composed within a 1.37:1 exposed aperture, nearly all of those soft matted. Your preference is right on.

[theedge]

Hmm.. now the page seems to be down... see what you did! :)