Why aren't television shows shot with anamorphic and/or shown in 2.35?

[Reuel Gomez]

I know there are a lot of technical problems with anamorphic lenses but I still don't see why television shows can't or aren't being shown in the 2.35 aspect ratio

[James Steven Beverly]

They often are, especially on TCM. I also hate it when the film is shown in a "pan and scanned" version because it's NOT the director's vision, but especially lately, many films are projected in their original aspect ration and on DVD, sometimes they are able to see it either way. (ain't technology wonderful!). TV shows are shot for academy and sometimes on rare occasions for 9:16 but that's a legacy thing so basically you're stuck with it.

[Reuel Gomez]

But you don't see any shows on network television that would probably benefit from the 2.35 aspect ratio using it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Network shows had a hard enough time being convinced to go for 1.78 since there are still some standard def channels and TV sets out there, so 1.78 appears letterboxed on those -- it can even appear windowboxed on a 16x9 HDTV set, the standard def 1.78 letterboxed signal reduced to being bordered on all sides in HDTV.

 

So throwing 2.35 into the mix is just not ideal in the minds of a lot of broadcasters unless they have no choice (like with a scope movie). Seems OK for music videos and even some commercials though. But the general feeling is that for narrative and reality shows, the less letterboxing the better.

[Freya Black]

TV channels tend to mandate the aspect ratio of the production. Generally 16:9 these days. No choice is given to the production company.

 

Freya

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Little old ladies call in to complain they don't get the whole picture since there is black on the top and bottom. Once I worked on a big budget film with Peter O'Toole in a small part, it was beautifully shot in 2.35 and a certain North American broadcasting company demanded a 4/3 panscan version. A nightmare if you ask me.

[Phil Connolly]

Channel 4 in the UK have commissioned a couple of drama series in 2.35:1

 

Top Boy - shot with 1.3 Hawk anamorphics:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830379/

 

and Utopia:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2384811/

 

So it does happen, its just very very rare.

[James Steven Beverly]

Little old ladies call in to complain they don't get the whole picture since there is black on the top and bottom. Once I worked on a big budget film with Peter O'Toole in a small part, it was beautifully shot in 2.35 and a certain North American broadcasting company demanded a 4/3 panscan version. A nightmare if you ask me.

My mother does that. it drives me crazy. 'Course she also loves 3d movies. She went to see "Man Of Steel" specifically to see it in 3D so whatcha gonna do? :D She and my brother when to see Star Trek: into Darkness in an Imax theater in Phoenix and she when bananas over it. I had to smile at that. B)

Edited July 6, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Jock Blakley]

... it was beautifully shot in 2.35 and a certain North American broadcasting company demanded a 4/3 panscan version. A nightmare if you ask me.

 

I happened to come across Fox "Classics" on cable showing BEN-HUR in 16:9. To really drive the point home, the opening titles were shown in about 2.3:1 letterbox (which is the safe area on the titles plus about a pixel) and then as soon as the titles ended CUT TO pan-scan. Ridiculous.

[Brian Drysdale]

In the UK it's not unusual for films to be screened in the scope ratio, especially on Channel 4. Other channels tend to be rather mixed, but they usually screen in 16;9, unless the original transfer to video is 4x3. So it's possible for scope films to be transmitted on 4 x 3.

 

"Burton and Taylor" was transmitted in scope on BBC4

Edited July 27, 2013 by Brian Drysdale