Trend towards 16:9 or 2.35:1?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Opticreep, Oct 11, 2004.

  1. Opticreep

    Opticreep Guest

    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, Oct 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Opticreep

    Biz Guest

    "Opticreep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Biz, Oct 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Opticreep

    Invid Fan Guest

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

    > "Opticreep" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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 shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
     
    Invid Fan, Oct 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Opticreep

    John C. Guest

    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
     
    John C., Oct 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Opticreep

    Doonie Guest

    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..
     
    Doonie, Oct 12, 2004
    #5
  6. Opticreep

    Moe Belli Guest

    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, Oct 12, 2004
    #6
  7. 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
     
    Brian The Demolition Man Little, Oct 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Opticreep

    Doonie Guest

    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.
     
    Doonie, Oct 12, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Garrett Hord

    Security+ plus counting towards MCP designation

    Garrett Hord, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,193
    Garrett Hord
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. Jethic

    A+ & N+ credit towards MCSA

    Jethic, Sep 25, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    784
    Jethic
    Sep 30, 2004
  3. AM
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    562
    Walter Roberson
    Nov 10, 2004
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    517
    Guest
    Aug 26, 2003
  5. Sanjay
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    379
    Guest
    Oct 27, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page