Isn't fullscreen much better than wide screen?

[Simon Wyss]

I've always wondered why the aspect ratio of 1.33:1 or 4:3 was settled upon in the early days of cinema, with the Lumiere Brothers in Europe and Edison and Co State side.

 

Does anybody know?

 

Did it have anything to do with the then state of lens manufacturing, poor by todays standards, which resulted in optics that could only direct the light to an aspect ratio approximating a square, without resulting in some vignetting?

 

One. The Lumière pictures are slightly less than 20 mm on 25 mm on the film, the film pull down is 20 mm.

 

Two. It was not Thomas Alva Edison. It was his first engineer and house photographer William Kennedy Laurie Dickson together with locksmith John Kruesi (Krüsi actually, from Switzerland) who developed and constructed all of the Edison motion-picture devices after mere abstract orders from the boss. The aspect ratio of three to four comprises the diagonal of five, a very dynamic geometric attribute. Dickson arranged 16 images over one foot of film length, film pulldown was ¾ of an inch until 1909 when the European producers Pathé, Gaumont, Méliès, Messter, and others enforced adoption of 19 mm. Dickson also designed two times four holes per picture, 64 hole pairs per foot, because synchronisation with the phonograph always remained a technical task somehow. The boss wanted so.

 

Three. Photographers and cinematographers in the 1890s experienced just the evolution of fine optical instruments that allowed modern photography for the following 50 years. In those years the Cooke triplet was built, the Tessar and Heliar besides a number of double Gaussian systems. The Lumière projected with a f/1.5 lens. Vignetting has nothing to do with this.

 

Four. You can find all that information in the forum. Try and learn to use the very valuable search function. There are other fora, and there are books. Read.

[Tobias Marshall]

Whats your problem Simon? He even said:

"Thanks in advance for any insight"

 

Which you removed. You took the time to answer his question but also took the time to be very rude.

[Simon Wyss]

Tobias, I experience that not for the first time, to be read as rude. While never my intention I think that it’s got to do with a deep cultural and verbal difference between the Anglo-Saxon and the German worlds. I might be a tick dryer in writing than someone else in German but I am not understood as rude or harsh so far.

 

I admit that I can be the teacher. In fact, I do work as a teacher, even for English in this country with problems like students unable to say little, bottle, single. The german tongue brings out littel, bottel, singel.

 

Must I not remove anything from a citation? O, help, time of right or wrong!

[Bill DiPietra]

I understand how Simon's tone could be taken as a bit condescending, but in the end he's right. Reading books, researching and watching as many films as possible on your own is how you truly learn.

[James Steven Beverly]

To my way of thinking, aspect ratio is as much an artistic decision as color pallet and staging. You tell a story on film using ALL the tools you have at your disposal. Laurence of Arabia needed the vast expanse of the desert to convey it's epic majesty as did Ben Hur. The intimacy used in A Place in the Sun would have been ruined by a scope ratio. Citizen Kane which made superb use of deep staging to create an artistic statement.The grittiness of The French Connection needed to be shot in widescreen because it's the closest aspect ratio to the human eye (although some have made an argument for 1:66 which is rarely used in the US) and therefore creates a feeling of reality. As David said, there IS no right or wrong aspect ratio except when it's applied to a given movie that is with a caveat, it is ALWAYS WRONG when the film is panned and scanned (my mom watches movies like that 'cause she doesn't like the black "bars" and it drives me crazy! :D) I would shoot a movie today in 1:37 if there was an artistic reason to do so like wanting to create a claustrophobic feel or a sense of not know the whole picture within the plot OR just for the simple intimacy or nostalgic ambiance it can invoke. I'm planning on shooting Blood Moon Rising is scope as well as The Hunted in techniscope to enhance to feeling of isolation in a vast, unforgiving desert. I have a comedy called Bum that will be shot in 1:85 because it will help cement a sense of reality for the audience in a film where outrageous things happen to this poor man. All I can ask is why would any film maker limit the possibilities of their artistic choices to one? B)

Edited February 19, 2013 by James Steven Beverly