Don;t forget that a large poportion of movies are still released in 1.85:1 which is closest to 16:9. 2.35:1 results from more expensive film stock and is therefore reserved for big blockbuster movies and epics.
I'd be willing to bet if you took a look at all the available content out there (2.85:1 on down to 4:3) you'd find that 16:9 is as close to happy medium as was possible. 2.35:1 sets would be a niche product if they appeared at all.
I rent almost only BluRays. Over 95% of them are 2.35:1.
And I'm tired of it. There are very few theaters in this country where a 2.35:1 movie gets more screen space than a 1.85:1 screen. Most of them just move the curtain matte in on top and bottom to make a smaller picture.
And of course, no TVs that do it.
So Hollywood, stop robbing us of picture space at home and the theater, make your films 1.85:1 or 16:9.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
minimalist @ Jul 25th 2008 9:16AM
Don;t forget that a large poportion of movies are still released in 1.85:1 which is closest to 16:9. 2.35:1 results from more expensive film stock and is therefore reserved for big blockbuster movies and epics.
I'd be willing to bet if you took a look at all the available content out there (2.85:1 on down to 4:3) you'd find that 16:9 is as close to happy medium as was possible. 2.35:1 sets would be a niche product if they appeared at all.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jul 25th 2008 4:07PM
I rent almost only BluRays. Over 95% of them are 2.35:1.
And I'm tired of it. There are very few theaters in this country where a 2.35:1 movie gets more screen space than a 1.85:1 screen. Most of them just move the curtain matte in on top and bottom to make a smaller picture.
And of course, no TVs that do it.
So Hollywood, stop robbing us of picture space at home and the theater, make your films 1.85:1 or 16:9.