|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Television Series in 2.0:1 Aspect Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-27-2019 06:54 PM
I work in the video editing lab in the college's Film Department and on night a student working on his nearly completed film project...rendering it for a screening, came to me to ask how he could get his "film" to have those black bars on the top and bottom. I asked why he would want to crop the image that he composed both in his head and in the camera viewfinder, in 16:9 to be screened instead in something other than 16:9? He seemed confused. I said, "You will be cutting off part of the picture that you originally wanted to be there; what's the reason you want black bars?" He thought for a good 2 or 3 minutes and then simply said it was because that's the way movies "look." So really it's an aesthetic thing.
Carsten and Marcel are right, it's the perception of seems this entire video generation. This is how they see films on their flat panels; 1.85 and 2.39 bars mean they are watching a movie. "Normal" tv is always full 16:9. I said he should talk to his professor about that; the professor might have a thing or two to say about cropping an image to make it look more cinematic after it was composed differently. Actually the Prof should have told the class about making a decision to shoot in one AR over another before they shoot the project. I told him I'd be interested in what the Prof has to say on the matter. I then pointed out that while he may think that letterboxing looks more like "movies," in a movie theatre, you never see those black bars...then I thought, well, at least not while it was FILM being projected.
I think since video, aspect ratios have no real absolutes. If you are doing constant width (which is what TV is), those black masks can be where ever the director wants them and it doesn't mean a hill of beans to the younger viewer. At least it's better than geometrically distorting the image to force-fit it. But you see people PURPOSELY stretching images to fill their full flat screen and thinking that's fine too, so multiple ARs may be now forever part of the display landscape. Best we either let it not bother us or take up drinking.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-27-2019 10:26 PM
I remember that people used to say that digital media would bring about "democratization" of the film and television industries. That turned out to be true to a great extent. It has made it easier for people who aren't well connected to network or studio insiders to make movies or shows and have them seen by a greater audience.
However, it has also allowed more people who don't know what they are doing to get their inferior product to market and I think that it has had a negative effect on the industry as a whole.
Now, virtually any idiot with a video cam can be a movie director and he doesn't even need to know the first thing about making movies.
There are a lot of things, such as the establishment of aspect ratios, that were decided upon for very sound technical, aesthetic or historical reasons but, now, any idiot can come in and trample over established standards just because he thinks it looks cool.
These wankers unknowingly make a lot of trouble for themselves and others just because they are too lazy or stupid (or both) to study the craft and adhere to standards set by those who came before.
There is a legend which says that the width of movie film was decided on because 35 millimeters was closest to an even multiple of the width of the windows in George Eastman's house.
I don't know if I really believe it or not but it is plausible and it does make a good story.
Anyway, legend has it that Eastman took a window pane and progressively cut it in half until he came upon a width that he thought would be convenient. Those strips of glass were used as the models which set the standard for the 35mm film we use, today.
As the story unfolds, Thomas Edison (who probably stole the idea from LePrince) used Eastman's patterns to decide upon the original 1:1.33 aspect ratio that early films were shot in. Further on down the line, aspect ratios were "improved" for specific reasons. It could be said that the 1:1.66 ratio was chosen because it is the closest practical size to the Golden Ratio. Other ratios were chosen in order to "improve" the viewing experience and make it more difficult to show filmed movies on television. Other wide-screen ratios were chosen for specific reason on their own rights.
Whether you believe the Eastman story or the Edison story, or whether the truth is different, my point is that there are good reasons why things are done a certain way.
But, when you tell people that the things they are trying to do are in violation of standards and you try to explain why those standards exist, those idiots roll their eyes at you.
This is why we have so many problems like wonky aspect ratios or out of control sound levels.
People are stupid, they are lazy and they don't want to take the time to learn their craft.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic