How do you feel about CinemaScope?

[bedlamfeuder94]

So here's something that has always bugged me as a Blu-ray collector/cinephile - why, with today's TVs, do we bother filming in CinemaScope?

It's a matter of aspect ratio for me. I'd like to see all my movies fill the entire screen without using a "partial zoom" or "fit to screen" mode on the TV, since that cuts off part of the movie filmed. As good as that might look on a movie showing on TV, I don't like knowing what I might be missing on the zoomed-in picture. I can live with those black-barred aspect ratios, but I prefer not seeing them.

Interested to hear what you all have to say about it.

[AmishParadise]

[lilboyblu]

If you want your entire screen filled, you'll need a wider TV. Like this one: http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/50PFL...and-multi-view

Discontinued 5 years ago, but I'm sure they can be found for cheap since nobody bought them.

[Leonidas King]

That more directors should opt for CinemaScope since its such a beautiful format to watch movies in.

[jarrod_inf]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

That more directors should opt for CinemaScope since its such a beautiful format to watch movies in.

I'd be happy if more directors went back to using film over digital in whatever format.

[KINGDANGER]

I love CinemaScope. It has such an epic feel to it, even on a TV. What's more, I've become a big fan of shifting aspect ratios and hope to see the technique used more in the future.

[bedlamfeuder94]

Originally Posted by KINGDANGER

I love CinemaScope. It has such an epic feel to it, even on a TV. What's more, I've become a big fan of shifting aspect ratios and hope to see the technique used more in the future.

Really? For me, it can be somewhat disruptive. As much as I loved the IMAX sequences of The Dark Knight, it made me wish for a "more complete" picture than in only several sequences. I agree about the epic feel to it though, I'm watching Dead Man's Chest as I type and it works great in this aspect ratio.

[bedlamfeuder94]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

That more directors should opt for CinemaScope since its such a beautiful format to watch movies in.

The aspect ratio is something I'm fine with, or else I'd have a hard time enjoying movies at all haha. It just seems like it would be more enjoyable if the film naturally fit the screen for home viewing.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

If you want your entire screen filled, you'll need a wider TV. Like this one: http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/50PFL...and-multi-view

Discontinued 5 years ago, but I'm sure they can be found for cheap since nobody bought them.

Actually, that looks like a really cool TV! And it even has what sounds like passive 3D!

[bedlamfeuder94]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

If you want your entire screen filled, you'll need a wider TV. Like this one: http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/50PFL...and-multi-view

Discontinued 5 years ago, but I'm sure they can be found for cheap since nobody bought them.

If I didn't own an OLED (finally made the jump to 4K), it's something I'd definitely consider - had no idea they made those!

[motorheadache95]

Alright this came out longer-winded then I thought when I started writing it, but here it is:

You gotta remember that movies are still shot for the theater, and many theaters still equip themselves with a wider scope-screen for presentations of those films.

But the other thing is that aspect-ratio is as much a part of the aesthetic presentation of the movie as the cameras used, the color-grading, and the cinematography. It's all based on how the director wants shots to look and how he wants people to feel when watching the film. And at this point its pretty much engrained in our culture that the wider scope looks and feels more "cinematic," which I'm sure is also one of the reasons filmmakers still like using the ratio. Even some TV shows now don't follow the 16:9 standard in order to give their show a more cinematic quality.

But I get why the question is asked-- I know a lot of people will just give people shit for even bringing it up, but I think its worth addressing, especially for newcomers who aren't cinephiles or enthusiasts. I mean, movies have a short theatrical run and afterwards are forever watched on a TV, right? Why not just adopt a 16:9 standard and be done with it?

Well, using that logic, all movies prior to the rise of HDTV should have been conformed to an even narrower 4:3 standard--like they should have never changed the Academy-ratio for films so people could continue to watch any movie on TV with the proper framing. Except that now that would mean all films prior to, say, 2006 would be pillar-boxed on a modern TV.

And finally think about the future-- maybe we won't even have standard TVs 20 years from now. It could be all VR, or holographic projection, or you paint the screen on your wall, who knows? And maybe those images can be wider, and 16:9 isn't a standard screen anymore. Then it would seem silly to have conformed everything to fit your current home box.

[bedlamfeuder94]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Alright this came out longer-winded then I thought when I started writing it, but here it is:

You gotta remember that movies are still shot for the theater, and many theaters still equip themselves with a wider scope-screen for presentations of those films.

But the other thing is that aspect-ratio is as much a part of the aesthetic presentation of the movie as the cameras used, the color-grading, and the cinematography. It's all based on how the director wants shots to look and how he wants people to feel when watching the film. And at this point its pretty much engrained in our culture that the wider scope looks and feels more "cinematic," which I'm sure is also one of the reasons filmmakers still like using the ratio. Even some TV shows now don't follow the 16:9 standard in order to give their show a more cinematic quality.

But I get why the question is asked-- I know a lot of people will just give people shit for even bringing it up, but I think its worth addressing, especially for newcomers who aren't cinephiles or enthusiasts. I mean, movies have a short theatrical run and afterwards are forever watched on a TV, right? Why not just adopt a 16:9 standard and be done with it?

Well, using that logic, all movies prior to the rise of HDTV should have been conformed to an even narrower 4:3 standard--like they should have never changed the Academy-ratio for films so people could continue to watch any movie on TV with the proper framing. Except that now that would mean all films prior to, say, 2006 would be pillar-boxed on a modern TV.

And finally think about the future-- maybe we won't even have standard TVs 20 years from now. It could be all VR, or holographic projection, or you paint the screen on your wall, who knows? And maybe those images can be wider, and 16:9 isn't a standard screen anymore. Then it would seem silly to have conformed everything to fit your current home box.

Well put. I've been collecting for several years but never really posed the question to anyone else except myself while watching movies, and I figured this would be the best place to ask. Thanks for the input! That's an angle I hadn't thought of before.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Directors don't give a #%!* what screen you're watching on.

[shrex]

Originally Posted by yellowcakeuf6

Directors don't give a #%!* what screen you're watching on.

David Lynch does.

David Lynch on iPhone - YouTube

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Alright this came out longer-winded then I thought when I started writing it, but here it is:

You gotta remember that movies are still shot for the theater, and many theaters still equip themselves with a wider scope-screen for presentations of those films.

But the other thing is that aspect-ratio is as much a part of the aesthetic presentation of the movie as the cameras used, the color-grading, and the cinematography. It's all based on how the director wants shots to look and how he wants people to feel when watching the film. And at this point its pretty much engrained in our culture that the wider scope looks and feels more "cinematic," which I'm sure is also one of the reasons filmmakers still like using the ratio. Even some TV shows now don't follow the 16:9 standard in order to give their show a more cinematic quality.

But I get why the question is asked-- I know a lot of people will just give people shit for even bringing it up, but I think its worth addressing, especially for newcomers who aren't cinephiles or enthusiasts. I mean, movies have a short theatrical run and afterwards are forever watched on a TV, right? Why not just adopt a 16:9 standard and be done with it?

Well, using that logic, all movies prior to the rise of HDTV should have been conformed to an even narrower 4:3 standard--like they should have never changed the Academy-ratio for films so people could continue to watch any movie on TV with the proper framing. Except that now that would mean all films prior to, say, 2006 would be pillar-boxed on a modern TV.

And finally think about the future-- maybe we won't even have standard TVs 20 years from now. It could be all VR, or holographic projection, or you paint the screen on your wall, who knows? And maybe those images can be wider, and 16:9 isn't a standard screen anymore. Then it would seem silly to have conformed everything to fit your current home box.

Good post, but you forgot to mention one very pertinent point, cinema-scope only exists because of 4X3 tv's. It was something the theater could offer that your little box at home could not.

What would be some great funny irony is if the theaters went back to 4X3 now that TV's are 16X9! I doubt it will happen, cuz 2.35 or wider makes movies feel bigger and better when shot proper, even with bars at home.

[Blu-Velvet]

I love movies with all different aspect ratios from 1.2:1 through 2.75:1. I watch tons of 1.33/1.37 films, lots of standard widescreen at 1.66, 1.78 or 1.85, a few Superscope movies at 2:1 and lots of CinemaScope at 2.4 and 2.55. Now and then there's a 2.75 film or two. But black bars on the top and bottom or on the sides are a non-issue when using a projector, as others have already noted. My screen height is a constant four feet, and I just pull the side masking in or out to fit the image, and zoom the projector if it's wider than a 1.78 ratio to fill the width of the screen up to 10 feet maximum. When I have people over (or even when I don't) I love to start out a program with a cartoon or short that is Academy ratio, and then while the disc for the feature is loading I click on the zoom preset for 1.85 or Scope and go up to pull out the masking. People who have never been over before are always impressed at the screen suddenly being so much wider.

I enjoy multiple-aspect ratio films (like ENCHANTED or GALAXY QUEST) that keep a standard height, windowboxing the 1.33 or 1.85 parts within the normal scope height, so the picture gets wider on its own for the Scope portions without overflowing the screen height on any of the ratios. What I hate are Blu-ray versions of films like HUNGER GAMES 2 or INTERSTELLAR that are mostly in Scope and partly in IMAX, which forces me to watch the entire movie in 16x9 with the Scope portions letterboxed and the IMAX portions filling the height. If I could suddenly make the screen taller for those sections and zoom back, it would be different.

As far as motorized masking goes, I wish I could afford it for my home theatre (maybe someday), and if Carmike installed it they must have been really splurging. Our theatres have moveable masking but the manager or a doorman must pull it in or out manually to fit whatever movie is on that screen. Sometimes they forget and there's either blank screen on the sides or there's picture flowing over on to the masking. It's a big pain when two films with different aspect ratios share the same screen at different showtimes.

[Boots1985]

I'm a huge fan of cinematography, and photography is a hobby of mine. Sometimes I watch movies just for the cinematography and music, and not the story, such as The Keep.

I watched The Devils (1971) last night, and the movie just wouldn't look as amazing as it does if it was filmed spherical. I love the atmosphere of that movie, especially the church sequences, with the candles burning in the background. The anamorphic bokeh makes them look amazing.

There is something about old lenses from the '70s that aren't replicated these days. It is cool that some directors, like Tarantino and Gareth Edwards are utilizing these old lenses for their movies.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

I love movies with all different aspect ratios from 1.2:1 through 2.75:1. I watch tons of 1.33/1.37 films, lots of standard widescreen at 1.66, 1.78 or 1.85, a few Superscope movies at 2:1 and lots of CinemaScope at 2.4 and 2.55. Now and then there's a 2.75 film or two. But black bars on the top and bottom or on the sides are a non-issue when using a projector, as others have already noted. My screen height is a constant four feet, and I just pull the side masking in or out to fit the image, and zoom the projector if it's wider than a 1.78 ratio to fill the width of the screen up to 10 feet maximum. When I have people over (or even when I don't) I love to start out a program with a cartoon or short that is Academy ratio, and then while the disc for the feature is loading I click on the zoom preset for 1.85 or Scope and go up to pull out the masking. People who have never been over before are always impressed at the screen suddenly being so much wider.

I enjoy multiple-aspect ratio films (like ENCHANTED or GALAXY QUEST) that keep a standard height, windowboxing the 1.33 or 1.85 parts within the normal scope height, so the picture gets wider on its own for the Scope portions without overflowing the screen height on any of the ratios. What I hate are Blu-ray versions of films like HUNGER GAMES 2 or INTERSTELLAR that are mostly in Scope and partly in IMAX, which forces me to watch the entire movie in 16x9 with the Scope portions letterboxed and the IMAX portions filling the height. If I could suddenly make the screen taller for those sections and zoom back, it would be different.

As far as motorized masking goes, I wish I could afford it for my home theatre (maybe someday), and if Carmike installed it they must have been really splurging. Our theatres have moveable masking but the manager or a doorman must pull it in or out manually to fit whatever movie is on that screen. Sometimes they forget and there's either blank screen on the sides or there's picture flowing over on to the masking. It's a big pain when two films with different aspect ratios share the same screen at different showtimes.

What's your opinion on something like the home release of the new Ghostbusters, where the film uses the letterbox space to insert special effects? For instance, the ghosts and streams cross over occasionally into the matting. Wasn't expecting it and it freaked me out at first.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by bedlamfeuder94

So here's something that has always bugged me as a Blu-ray collector/cinephile ...

Cinephile?

[bedlamfeuder94]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

Cinephile?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinephilia

Just the formal term for being movie buffs/collectors/whatever you look at it as