Goldsmithfan 3 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 This is a completly random question, but I'm curious as to what widescreen aspect ratio the people of JWfan like the best. I'm sure that most people will either pick 2.35:1 or 1.85:1, but we can't forget about the weirdos out there like 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 2.20 and 2.40:1.I'm a 2.35:1 guy myself. It allows for a great sense of scope (no pun intended) and looks better to my eyes than 1.85:1 or the others, well except 2.40:1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 5,520 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 2.35:1Scope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1.Still, there should always be the right aspect ratio for the right film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckM 1 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 As Pontiac says: "Wider is better." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 But something like 2.70:1 seems a bit much to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delorean90 32 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 2.35:1 is definitely my favorite, particularly when it's a movie that's either epic or classy. I don't mind a less wide aspect ratio for a comedy or smaller film as much, but overall, 2.35:1 is my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 2.35:1. It give it more of a cinematic, epic feel to me. And the fact that a lot of TV shows are shot in 1.85 nowadays doesn't help (or is that hurt?). Ever since the DVD craze started I've been surprised how many films Spielberg has shot in 1.85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delorean90 32 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Yes--cinematic! That's a great word for it.And speaking of that--since TV shows are being shot in widescreen, why don't they just start airing movies in their original aspect ratio all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 2.35:1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeNewGuy 0 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Depends on the movie. 2.35:1 for a SW or LotR type flick, 16:9 for comedies and TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 44 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 2.35:1 for movies, definitely. The thinner aspect Bond movies (the first three, then Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun) just don't have that spaceous feel that the wider angle ones have. 2.66:1 is too wide I think. It may have looked great on the big screen, but Ben Hur is always a bit of a strain to watch on even the biggest of TVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 2,924 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 2:35:1 for the cinema1:85:1 for HDTV's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckM 1 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 It doesn't really matter to me what genre of movie it is, I will pretty much always want it as wide as it comes. (as long as I've got a big enough screen of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,064 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 2.35:1 , much easier on the eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 317 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Since now I've been well versed in the differences (thanks to Neil and Mr. Breathmask) I'm a 2.35:1 myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I like what's best for the film.i think to many movies these days are being filmed in Super-35 and released at 2.35:1 and it may not be appropriate for the subject.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendal_Ozzel 32 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I love the shape of a CinemaScope image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I prefer a 1:1 ratio....perfect square shape.Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 126 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Indeed 2:35 when it's appropriate and suitable. They shouldn't use it and stick to 1:85 when that's better for the film itself.Incidentally, they showed Ben Hur on TV this weekend, full screen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1.Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melange 446 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Pan & Scan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I like what's best for the film.Obviously.i think to many movies these days are being filmed in Super-35 and released at 2.35:1 and it may not be appropriate for the subject.Not entirely sure about that. But I loved seeing a film like Ghostbusters in Panavision. It gives the movie so much more gravitas, when it's really just a perfect joke from beginning to end.- Marc, who loves Ghostbusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 44 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Incidentally, they showed Ben Hur on TV this weekend, full screen!Ouch! I'd take the 2.66:1 "tiny images" ration over full screen any day! Those incredible shots of the chariot stadium would look awful in full screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I've only ever seen Ben-Hur in fullscreen.It was... rather unpleasant.- Marc, who can hardly believe he sat through the whole thing that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 That might have something to do with the film itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier 5 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I confess I am totally lost. Obviously, when getting a DVD, I only buy widescreen formats and shun the truncated versions, but I cannot tell the difference between those formats watching a movie.It also seems obvious that some movies call for a specific format rather than another.Could you post pictures to illustrate your preferences, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant 1,093 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I prefer...what I like the most ...is a good manuscript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendal_Ozzel 32 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Could you post pictures to illustrate your preferences, please?Check out this link. It explains the differences in aspect ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Great article with effective examples...I know some people who should definitely check that out. I still have at least one cousion who always asks for full-screen versions. Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Sadly there are still people out there who don't get it when it comes to widescreen vs full screen.My wife had a co worker who used to invite herself over to watch our widescreen TV and she always complained about letterboxed films, saying it gave you less picture. I finally got tired of trying to explain and told her if she wanted full screen she didn't need to waste her time coming over.Haven't seen her in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Fucktwat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 317 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Sadly there are still people out there who don't get it when it comes to widescreen vs full screen.My wife had a co worker who used to invite herself over to watch our widescreen TV and she always complained about letterboxed films, saying it gave you less picture. I finally got tired of trying to explain and told her if she wanted full screen she didn't need to waste her time coming over.Haven't seen her in years.I know what you mean. My brother David is the same way. He prefers full-screen instead of widescreen because of the "black bars" even though he knows the differences. A lot of times I just wanted to smack my brother upside the head for that...After showing my parents the differences between full screen and widescreen, for the most part they hate full screen now, unless it was originally filmed that way. I always see my dad buying widescreen movies now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckM 1 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Unfortunately, my entire immediate family hates wide-screen. They do know that full-screen is losing half of the movie, they just don't care. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Pan and Scan is great.For me to poop on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxfan 24 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Theatrically I always prefer 2.39. At least it uses an entire frame's resolution and is just unsqueezed. 1.85 movies only use up part of the screen (with black bars physically on the print) and have to been zoomed to fill the screen, resulting in less detail, more grain, and more jumpiness).It is true though that even for 2.39 movies people often get cheated out of a good resolution picture when the stupid filmmakers use Super-35 (since only part of the frame gets used so it requires a blow-up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 126 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 2.39? 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