Stuart Brereton Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 (edited) Cinema has already jeapordised TV by making it 16:9. But I'm a little afraid that if cinema continuos to use more and more different ratios, TV will only copy and before you know it we will have about 5 different sized TV's. "Hmmm.. I think I'll watch Blade today, I must swap TV's around though.." If TV's standard DID become 16:9, then I could quite happily put up with 2.39. But until that day, we will have to put up with big black lines, and/or strectched video. If shooting 2.39 is what makes cinema so great, then so be it. But stop making TV's that conform with it! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Daniel, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'jeapordised'. If you mean Jeopardised, then Cinema in no way jeopardises TV. In fact, cinema enriches and informs TV production. Cinema does not 'continue to use more and more different ratios'. The standard aspect ratios in Cinema are 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 'Scope. These have been in existence for many years and are the subject of various SMPTE standards. Both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 are compatible with 16x9 televisions TV Standards (at least in the UK) WILL specify a 16x9 aspect ratio. This is part of the UK and EU commitment to Digital Television Finally, to my knowledge, no-one makes a 2.39:1 Television. Stuart Edited December 28, 2004 by Stuart Brereton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Well if they are completely different then how is it that cinema is setting the standard for TV? And since as TV is just a "tad" more popular than cinema I think that's kind of absurd. Is Cinema really setting TV standards? 1.78:1 is not a theatrical format, 1.33:1 is not either. How is cinema setting TV standards? Or TV setting Cinema standards. Neither have the same standard. TV has 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 and Cinema has 1.85:1 and 2.39:1.... Sure they are making DVD prints in theatrical format, but thats just because people want the best quality from a DVD, not because its setting a standard. Television and Cinema are not alike, there is somthing about setting in a dark room with a 40-60 foot screen and the smell of popcorn in the air that makes me happy over a million times what watching a TV could. You cant really say TV is more famous than Cinema. Everyone knows what a cinema is and everyone knows what a TV is. So neither can be more famous.... It just happends that TV's are easier to buy than a cinema. Which means that naturally more will exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 (edited) I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'jeapordised'. If you mean Jeopardised Topic title: "time for a new aspect ratio?" or "Mock Daniel's spelling". Judging by the URL, "Cinematography.com" I imagine it's "time for a new aspect ratio?". Give me a break... If you mean Jeopardised, then Cinema in no way jeopardises TV. In fact, cinema enriches and informs TV production. Yes it enriches it with material, but were talking about ratios here, and ratio wise it jeopardises it. To my knowledge it was cinema that brought up the idea of widescreen. Widescreen TV's have been made so they can view widescreen showings without great big black lines. And I wonder where those widescreen showings came from? Television and Cinema are not alike, there is something about setting in a dark room with a 40-60 foot screen and the smell of popcorn in the air that makes me happy over a million times what watching a TV could. Yes, and I'm sure 2.39 footage makes all the difference... You cant really say TV is more famous than Cinema. Everyone knows what a cinema is and everyone knows what a TV is. So neither can be more famous.... It just happends that TV's are easier to buy than a cinema. Which means that naturally more will exist. I like the humour, but tell me that whole paragraph was a joke please. So you go to the cinema as often as you turn on the TV? As I said, cinema is a one off special. It's a treat. Turning on the TV on the other hand, is something most people do everyday. Of course it's not as special, but then again cinema and TV are different in what ways they entertain someone. No matter how entertaining a cinema is, a TV is the bread and butter of it all. Edited December 29, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 29, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 29, 2004 If cinema is a treat, then let's keep it a treat and make it DIFFERENT than a TV experience, otherwise we might as well just stay at home and only watch movies on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 If cinema is a treat, then let's keep it a treat and make it DIFFERENT than a TV experience, otherwise we might as well just stay at home and only watch movies on TV. Ok, good point. I just hope TV doesn't copy it, yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 So you go to the cinema as often as you turn on the TV? About, yeah. I don't watch TV often. In fact, very seldome. My friends think im nuts having this nice TV and stuff, and don't even watch it. But yeah, I work at the cinema 12 here, So I get free movies all I want, so yes I tend to see more movies in the cinema than TV at home. Yes, and I'm sure 2.39 footage makes all the difference... It does, a HUGE difference. Moreso at other theaters than my own, do to its 1.85:1 screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 (edited) About, yeah. I don't watch TV often. In fact, very seldome. My friends think im nuts having this nice TV and stuff, and don't even watch it. But yeah, I work at the cinema 12 here, So I get free movies all I want, so yes I tend to see more movies in the cinema than TV at home. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, yeh, I suppose.. but then again it's a bit different in your case. (Working in he cinema and all) But, you have to admit, TV is what everyone has and what the majority of people use. I have to admit I barely ever watch the TV. But bear in mind Landon that we are of a tiny majority. Everyone in my family always watches TV, and everyone else I know. People turn the TV on to watch the news, comedies, weather reports e.t.c. and even films. It does, a HUGE difference. Moreso at other theaters than my own, do to its 1.85:1 screen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, maybe it does. But my whole point was that TV is copying it. If TV sticks with 16:9, and it standardises itself with 16:9, I think I can put up with anything cinema throws at me. (2.39 e.t.c I don't mind, it will only be a very small black line, aslong as TV doesn't copy it and we end up with yet another sized TV!) Edited December 29, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 (edited) aslong as TV doesn't copy it and we end up with yet another sized TV!) I have to agree there, The minute Samsung or Panasonic makes a 2.39:1 TV, I'm leaving civialized population and go to live with the Sumogo Tribe in Africa (I dont know if Sumogo is actually a tribe, I just though it sounded cute!) You think the Sumogo tribe needs a filmmaker? :huh: lol No, im not just making jokes. You are right on that point daniel, the point that IF tv gets to close to my cinema for comfort, it's not right. As I said, TV has its place, and cinema has its place. As of now though, I dont see Cinema a threat to TV or the other way around. Edited December 29, 2004 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 (edited) I have to agree there, The minute Samsung or Panasonic makes a 2.39:1 TV, I'm leaving civialized population and go to live with the Sumogo Tribe in Africa (I dont know if Sumogo is actually a tribe, I just though it sounded cute!) You think the Sumogo tribe needs a filmmaker? :huh: lol <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it would help their publicity, I hadn?t heard of them until now! lol No, im not just making jokes. You are right on that point daniel, the point that IF tv gets to close to my cinema for comfort, it's not right. As I said, TV has its place, and cinema has its place. As of now though, I dont see Cinema a threat to TV or the other way around. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be honest I can't see them making another sized TV. I hope not anyway. I'll leave my final opinion as this. TV should shoot all programs in 16:9, and it should become the standard for TV. Films on the other hand should be made with something a little smaller, and that size should be exclusive to cinemas. i.e. a 2.39 print is made for cinema, and a 16:9 print is made for TV. Although they should trim the sides off for the 16:9 version, just so people will know that if they had gone to the cinema to watch it, they might have got a bit more out of it. Cinema is something special, and should be kept that way. It should be kept unique, an shouldn't be copied by TV. Because my copying cinema, TV is only jeopardising 4:3/16:9 prints especially made for it. Edited December 29, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now