The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
New films are almost always shot in one of two aspect ratios: 1.78:1 (widescreen/16:9) or 2.35:1 (cinemascope, I think it's called). Widescreen TVs are becoming ever more popular and more and more TV programmes are being broadcast in this ratio so it looks like this will be the next 'normal' screen size.
I currently use a 21 inch 4:3 TV (which I may be upgrading to a widescreen one sometime in the near-ish future). Every film I watch on it is in letterbox format (with black bars, top and bottom - sorry if I sound insultingly patronising to most people here) so it's something which I just have to accept.
However this problem will not go away when I do get a widescreen TV because those shot in 2.35:1 will still need to be shrunk to fit the screen and so will have black bars (about the same size as 16:9 ones do now). Surely the point of a widescreen TV is to make full use of the screen size available?
Is there any need for films to be shot in such a wide ratio? Isn't widescreen enough? Many films seem to think so but cinemascope seems to be ever increasingly common.
How long will it be before we can buy TVs built to this ratio which have black bars at the side for thinner sizes. I'd much prefer it this way because the image wouldn't need to be shrunk to fit the screen as on current widescreen TVs - they would all still be the same height, regardless of how much of the TVs width they take up.
Ooooh, it's all just such a mess. Why is everywhere so keen to jump on the latest technology bandwagon without thinking about the alternatives which may be just around the corner?
I currently use a 21 inch 4:3 TV (which I may be upgrading to a widescreen one sometime in the near-ish future). Every film I watch on it is in letterbox format (with black bars, top and bottom - sorry if I sound insultingly patronising to most people here) so it's something which I just have to accept.
However this problem will not go away when I do get a widescreen TV because those shot in 2.35:1 will still need to be shrunk to fit the screen and so will have black bars (about the same size as 16:9 ones do now). Surely the point of a widescreen TV is to make full use of the screen size available?
Is there any need for films to be shot in such a wide ratio? Isn't widescreen enough? Many films seem to think so but cinemascope seems to be ever increasingly common.
How long will it be before we can buy TVs built to this ratio which have black bars at the side for thinner sizes. I'd much prefer it this way because the image wouldn't need to be shrunk to fit the screen as on current widescreen TVs - they would all still be the same height, regardless of how much of the TVs width they take up.
Ooooh, it's all just such a mess. Why is everywhere so keen to jump on the latest technology bandwagon without thinking about the alternatives which may be just around the corner?
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
New films are almost always shot in one of two aspect ratios: 1.78:1 (widescreen/16:9) or 2.35:1 (cinemascope, I think it's called). Widescreen TVs are becoming ever more popular and more and more TV programmes are being broadcast in this ratio so it looks like this will be the next 'normal' screen size.
I currently use a 21 inch 4:3 TV (which I may be upgrading to a widescreen one sometime in the near-ish future). Every film I watch on it is in letterbox format (with black bars, top and bottom - sorry if I sound insultingly patronising to most people here) so it's something which I just have to accept.
However this problem will not go away when I do get a widescreen TV because those shot in 2.35:1 will still need to be shrunk to fit the screen and so will have black bars (about the same size as 16:9 ones do now). Surely the point of a widescreen TV is to make full use of the screen size available?
Is there any need for films to be shot in such a wide ratio? Isn't widescreen enough? Many films seem to think so but cinemascope seems to be ever increasingly common.
How long will it be before we can buy TVs built to this ratio which have black bars at the side for thinner sizes. I'd much prefer it this way because the image wouldn't need to be shrunk to fit the screen as on current widescreen TVs - they would all still be the same height, regardless of how much of the TVs width they take up.
Ooooh, it's all just such a mess. Why is everywhere so keen to jump on the latest technology bandwagon without thinking about the alternatives which may be just around the corner?
I currently use a 21 inch 4:3 TV (which I may be upgrading to a widescreen one sometime in the near-ish future). Every film I watch on it is in letterbox format (with black bars, top and bottom - sorry if I sound insultingly patronising to most people here) so it's something which I just have to accept.
However this problem will not go away when I do get a widescreen TV because those shot in 2.35:1 will still need to be shrunk to fit the screen and so will have black bars (about the same size as 16:9 ones do now). Surely the point of a widescreen TV is to make full use of the screen size available?
Is there any need for films to be shot in such a wide ratio? Isn't widescreen enough? Many films seem to think so but cinemascope seems to be ever increasingly common.
How long will it be before we can buy TVs built to this ratio which have black bars at the side for thinner sizes. I'd much prefer it this way because the image wouldn't need to be shrunk to fit the screen as on current widescreen TVs - they would all still be the same height, regardless of how much of the TVs width they take up.
Ooooh, it's all just such a mess. Why is everywhere so keen to jump on the latest technology bandwagon without thinking about the alternatives which may be just around the corner?