«

In the past 10 years, approximately what is the ratio between films
that were filmed for 16:9 and those that were for 2.35:1? I used to
think that they were pretty much even; but then again, I hardly notice
the difference between the two when I'm in a theater.

Is there a trend in Hollywood *films* towards preferring one aspect
ratio over the other? I would think that as HD-TV gains in
popularity, so would the 16:9 ratio (over the 2.35:1).

"Opticreep" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> In the past 10 years, approximately what is the ratio between films
> that were filmed for 16:9 and those that were for 2.35:1? I used to
> think that they were pretty much even; but then again, I hardly notice
> the difference between the two when I'm in a theater.
>
> Is there a trend in Hollywood *films* towards preferring one aspect
> ratio over the other? I would think that as HD-TV gains in
> popularity, so would the 16:9 ratio (over the 2.35:1).

Just a thought, but since most of them are still intended to be shown in
theaters, whereas filling some idiot's tv screen isnt the priority, movies
will continue to be a mix of AR's that suit the composition of the film's
material. The same as it it now.

People need to understand that the AR of your tv has no bearing over a made
for theater presentation movie.

In article
<sLAad.530027$>, Biz
<> wrote:

> "Opticreep" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > In the past 10 years, approximately what is the ratio between films
> > that were filmed for 16:9 and those that were for 2.35:1? I used to
> > think that they were pretty much even; but then again, I hardly notice
> > the difference between the two when I'm in a theater.
> >
> > Is there a trend in Hollywood *films* towards preferring one aspect
> > ratio over the other? I would think that as HD-TV gains in
> > popularity, so would the 16:9 ratio (over the 2.35:1).
>
> Just a thought, but since most of them are still intended to be shown in
> theaters, whereas filling some idiot's tv screen isnt the priority, movies
> will continue to be a mix of AR's that suit the composition of the film's
> material. The same as it it now.
>
> People need to understand that the AR of your tv has no bearing over a made
> for theater presentation movie.
>
Well, widescreen films become more common when tv became popular, as a
way to make the theatrical release seem more special. I can see some
film makers doing the same thing now, to get people to actually go out
instead of waiting for the dvd.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

On 11 Oct 2004 11:06:20 -0700, (Opticreep) wrote:

>In the past 10 years, approximately what is the ratio between films
>that were filmed for 16:9 and those that were for 2.35:1? I used to
>think that they were pretty much even; but then again, I hardly notice
>the difference between the two when I'm in a theater.
>
>Is there a trend in Hollywood *films* towards preferring one aspect
>ratio over the other? I would think that as HD-TV gains in
>popularity, so would the 16:9 ratio (over the 2.35:1).
I am not aware of any Hollywood releases that are in 16:9. Some are in
2.35:1, others are in 1.85:1, which is close to 16:9, which is 1.77:1.
Wiseass aside, most action films are in 2.35, most others are in 1.85,
just as a general rule. A 1.85 film will often slow very "slight"
black bars top and bottom on a 16:9 set.
John

On 11 Oct 2004 11:06:20 -0700, Opticreep wrote:

>In the past 10 years, approximately what is the ratio between films
>that were filmed for 16:9 and those that were for 2.35:1?

I don't think I've ever seen a movie in a theater projected at
16:9..

Being a cameraman, I don't think there's a trend over one format or
another, but there is a trend in the last few years that could explain this.

Aspect ratio is part of pciture style and a big, big decision made by
producers and directors.

Traditionally 1:85 (close to video's 16x9) is reserved for drama, indies
-- any film that's a non popcorn/action movie.

Scope, 2.35:1 is left for big budget action, SF, horror and stuff. The
feeling is that car chases, explosions, huge costly sets, etc look
better with anamorphic lenses (wide, wide screens) then dramas which in
fact, are hard to frame using extremely wide aspect ratios.

So, maybe studios are producing "bigger pictures" and more popcorn
movies that would benefit by 2.35 and so forth.

I mean look at "48 Hours" and "Bad Boys 2". Both buddy cop pictures, one
produced twenty years ago was 1:85:1 and the other is 2:40:1. What I'm
saying is that studios can't just release a simple drama anymore, it's
got to also have a love story, a chase scene, cool CGI, some explosions,
comedy and a couple of stars -- and of course 2:35:1 and up.

Moe Belli wrote:
> Traditionally 1:85 (close to video's 16x9) is reserved for drama,
> indies -- any film that's a non popcorn/action movie.

There has been some popcorn/action movies done at 1.85:1,
"Hellboy" is one of the most recent examples I can think of
off the top of my head right away.

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
TNAImpact.com Admin
BestBuySux.org Moderator

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:12:06 -0500, Brian The Demolition Man Little
wrote:

>Moe Belli wrote:
>> Traditionally 1:85 (close to video's 16x9) is reserved for drama,
>> indies -- any film that's a non popcorn/action movie.
>
>There has been some popcorn/action movies done at 1.85:1,
>"Hellboy" is one of the most recent examples I can think of
>off the top of my head right away.

Spider-man.