Marty Chinn
Member
What? No it's not. It's bottom tier.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do you actually like Letterboxing?
- Thread starter Fbh
- Start date
What? No it's not. It's bottom tier.
Well just to be clear I'm not advocating for content to be cropped or opened up into 4:3; my opinion is based on being perfectly fine with black bars and properly displaying content in it's intended aspect ratio.
I just wish huge HD 4:3 TVs were a thing. 2 player splitscreen gaming would be great on an HD 4:3 TV and make great use of space. As it stands splitting a 16:9 screen in half creates a pretty maddeningly wide image.
Warm Machine
Member
In a 2.35:1 frame if you have a scene with a person on each end of a long table...well, just like the opening of Blade Runner as an example the visual composition quite literally means something. They are pitched at odds to one another and isolated on other sides with a fan swirling above them. Adding extra height to fill a 16:9 frame ruins this composition and the frame no longer has the same metaphorical impact. The visual weight of the frame changes and thusly the composition is effected. Aspect rations are chosen creatively and then films are shot with the motivation of the frame.
Aliens is one of those movies that unfortunately chose a 16:9 aspect and as a result compositionally looks less cinematic than Alien. All the Star Wars movies and even The Clone Wars TV show all chose 2.35:1 because it looks cinematic. Star Wars in 16:9 like Rebels when broadcasted actually looks wrong and cheap.
Aliens is one of those movies that unfortunately chose a 16:9 aspect and as a result compositionally looks less cinematic than Alien. All the Star Wars movies and even The Clone Wars TV show all chose 2.35:1 because it looks cinematic. Star Wars in 16:9 like Rebels when broadcasted actually looks wrong and cheap.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
So you are saying Aliens, Jurassic Park, Godfather, and any film that is 1.85:1 is less cinematic because it isn't wide enough?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
how does this keep happening.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
PhoncipleBone
Banned
This gif speaks for many of us I think.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
The human eye can't see more than two-four-oh anyway.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Well, you have noise instead. Or added grain, like in Stranger Things.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Your deployment of this gif is impeccable.
mariachi507
Member
Give me 2.35:1 or give me death.
Edit: why did I read the thread? I could have just left this silly post here and gone about my day, but I just had to read the thread. How is this conversation even happening? It's as if I've travelled back in time to 1999 and I'm once again trying to convince my dad that there is nothing wrong with the Shaft DVD he rented and that's how you're supposed to see it.
People in here wanting to limit art because there are some incidental black bars on the top and bottom of their TV screen.
Edit: why did I read the thread? I could have just left this silly post here and gone about my day, but I just had to read the thread. How is this conversation even happening? It's as if I've travelled back in time to 1999 and I'm once again trying to convince my dad that there is nothing wrong with the Shaft DVD he rented and that's how you're supposed to see it.
People in here wanting to limit art because there are some incidental black bars on the top and bottom of their TV screen.
Master Of Illusion
Member
Stranger Things' biggest flaw is not being shot on 35mm film.
Warm Machine
Member
I don't think they are less cinematic as films but the aspect ratio isn't as thraditionally thought of as cinematic as 2.35:1 is. Wider scope automatically makes a movie look bigger. John Carpenter thought as much when he made Halloween on no money but chose the aspect because it lended itself a more expensive look.
Cameron himself wishes he shot Aliens in 2.35:1 but didn't feel comfortable with effects work in anamorphic. Jurassic Park probably had the same issues.
hendersonhank
Member
It drives me crazy that Guillermo del Toro always does 1.85. His movies look so great, but they just feel kind of cramped without the beautiful width of 2.40.
Too 4:3.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
It's reserved for special cases.
That would just inflate the budget for no good reason. You can easily replicate the look on digital footage.
There was a whole video about it, I believe.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Original Aspect Ratio tho
He chose 1.85 because Dinosaurs are tall
"cinematic" as a descriptor tends to refer more to lighting/production design than it does the shape of the frame.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
Remember when Big Pimpin' dropped in 4:3 widescreen with white letterbox bars. Whoa.
game dun changed
game dun changed
Beer Monkey
Member
I saw Wonder Woman in projected in 4K with Atmos and realized immediately that they shot it in 35mm. Looked beautiful, the grain fit it nicely.
The Last Jedi was shot mostly on film; not just the IMAX sequences. Saw the 70MM trailer, it looked great.
Digital is great too FWIW, the Alexa 65 is INSANE. Let the cinematographers and directors choose their weapons.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
What makes the HD set so great. Glad they stuck to their guns.
Even though I think I championed a selectable option at the time, I still think it would be neat.
Forgot about that. And now when you watch it on YouTube you get white letterbox and black pillarbox together.
I know people that hate it. One guy that I was watching Dunkirk with actually commented on it how much he hated it after the movie.
I was like
I have a full screen version of The Sting someone gave me years ago. Haven't watched it. I've still got a CRT TV that I keep for my older game systems. Maybe I'll watch it on that one day.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Even though Freaks and Geeks was broadcast in 4:3, I have to admit I do enjoy watching the widescreen version (it was shot on 35mm). It doesn't really throw off the composition too much.
(Not that Netflix gives me much of a choice, anyway. UK doesn't have the Blu-Ray, unfortunately.)
(Not that Netflix gives me much of a choice, anyway. UK doesn't have the Blu-Ray, unfortunately.)
Bottom tier would be around $100-$200, like the TCL, Sceptcre, and Hitachi TVs.
At $500 you'll be getting some really massive TVs, and beyond that you start getting into enthusiast level TVs.
😂I know people that hate it. One guy that I was watching Dunkirk with actually commented on it how much he hated it after the movie.
I was like
Beer Monkey
Member
Wow, he must hate a LOT of old films. Was this a 75MM presentation? The grain in Dunkirk 70MM Imax was absolutely tiny compared to Wonder Woman.
Even though the current DCP of Blade Runner final cut is only 2K (despite being taken from a 4K digital intermediate), the grain is quite apparent when watching it.
broncobuster
Banned
I love grain in movies but dislike film grain options in games like Mass Effect and The Evil Within.
Marty Chinn
Member
Nah, it's still in the bottom tier range assuming three different tier levels. Mid range TVs don't start to come into the picture until closer to $1000 and go up through around the low $2000s. Above that is the high end. Most TVs in the $500 range aren't good at all still. Heck you can't even get a decent 4K TV until you hit $650 and there's only even one under $1000 that even qualifies.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yeah, I think a lot of the misunderstandings and problems (especially on this forum) come from people whose introduction to visual storytelling comes via games, and so their frame of reference for cinema (and what that word can mean) is borne from a medium that often consists of a very strange blend of cinematic imitation and visual necessities that are very different than films.
Basically, games and films are often trying to do the same thing in fundamentally separate ways, and people tend to just take what they (kinda) learned about storytelling in games and just 1:1 paste it across to film like a TV Tropes entry.
Which is borked from jump, and apparently leads to this circular/repetetive/reductive argument against things like "artistic intent" for the sake of making movies work the way your games do.
Not sure I can take an idea that a $1k TV is considered mid-range.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
The variety of aspect ratios is an essential aspect (heh) of cinema. Embrace.
Marty Chinn
Member
I don't think you're well versed enough in the range of TVs if you think $1k is considered high end. My projector retails for $800 and I consider that entry level still.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
800 is entry level for a projector
But entry level price for a projector isn't necessarily entry level price for a TV, either. They don't run straight across like that.
But entry level price for a projector isn't necessarily entry level price for a TV, either. They don't run straight across like that.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'm not saying they do; I'm just saying entry level can still cost a significant amount of money despite you being able to get a projector for $300. Just because you can get a cheap TV for $200 doesn't mean a $500 TV is suddenly mid range and $1000 is high end as well. Plus, I'd bet this $800 projector is still better than most $500 1080p sets too.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
An $800 42" TV probably isn't really "entry level" anymore, tho.
Besides which, we're dealing with kind of a vague tier structure here. It's not like a strict delineation here.
XOMTOR
Member
Oh god. And now we're talking about what aspect ratios are inherently "cinematic".
I guess only 2:39:1 is cinematic. I mean c'mon, it's even referred to as "cinemascope". Seriously though, original aspect ratio or bust.
Marty Chinn
Member
Well, I did say closer to $1000 and in my mind, $800 is about where I start classifying closer to $1000 so that would fit with what I had in mind. But like you said, it's vague, so I didn't want to put hard price point limits since things can violate those. But if I did put hard numbers, I'd say anything under $800 is probably still entry level, $800 to $2100 or $2200 is probably mid tier, and anything above that falls into high end. But again, I agree there's no strict delineation that 100% of the time has TVs falling into those tiers at those price ranges. Depending on who makes it, what the street price is due to age, feature set, etc can change where a TV set would fall in those price ranges. Still, as a rough guideline, I find it hard to consider $500 TVs as mid tier. They're still mostly entry level in general. The TCL that everyone loves is a solid set, but I still consider that entry level range. Also people need to consider that TV quality doesn't scale linearly with price either.
Lys Skygge
Member
Nah, with good budgeting, 35mm can actually be cheaper than digital. 16mm would even be cheaper (The Walking Dead is shot on 16mm). But it all depends on the circumstances; sometimes digital is cheaper, and sometimes film is.
I think the reason Stranger Things is shot digitally is because that's what Netflix mandates for all their films and tv shows.
hikarutilmitt
Member
Hey OP, I made you a pan and scan pizza.
I see your pan & scan pizza and raise you the proper AR!
NekoFever
Member
Spielberg chose 1.85 for Jurassic Park because he wanted the frame to look taller to emphasise the height of the dinosaurs.
It's true that early digital effects-heavy films weren't usually shot anamorphic, though, because it makes compositing more difficult. Hence the unusual amount of Super 35 for big movies in the late 80s through mid 90s.