my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Television Series in 2.0:1 Aspect Ratio (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Television Series in 2.0:1 Aspect Ratio Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-27-2018 12:48 PM                     I was not sure if this belongs here or in the Afterlife section. I decided here because this does not really apply to films that have had a prior theatrical release. Does anyone know why many streaming TV shows are being released in 2.0 aspect ratio, across many different streaming services? As these are made for TV series that will never be shown theatrically, and the majority of the viewers are going to watching them on a 16:9 flat screen TV, I have to ask why the producers would want those black bars at the top/bottom of the picture. Examples: Travelers - Netflix Star Trek: Discovery - CBS All Access & Bluray The Handmade's Tale - Hulu & Bluray There are a lot more. It's not like any one of these is ever going to be mistaken for a theatrical release.  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2018 01:44 PM                     It's simply a stylistic choice. It's how the producers want their TV show to look. It is nowhere written that the content's aspect ratio MUST conform to 16:9, if they instead want to compose for a wider or narrower frame.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-27-2018 02:32 PM                     I think the lack of masking and the otherwise acceptance of letterbox means that one can have whatever black space they want above/below the picture and get away with it. For better or worse. What does it matter to the home viewer how much black space there is?  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-27-2018 04:06 PM                     > It's simply a stylistic choice...What does it matter to the home viewer how much black space there is? While I agree with this for TV and home videos of theatrical films, where desire to maintain the original shot composition overrides the general public's dislike of wasted black space, it makes no sense (to me) to shoot something purposely in an aspect ratio that does not match the display devices. The difference between 1.78 (16:9) and 2.0 is so small that this seems to less a matter of stylistic choice and more a matter of film maker arrogance. Many home viewers do care how much black space there is. How many people out there watch 1.37 films "stretched" out to fill the screen, no matter how bad that looks.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-27-2018 05:11 PM                     Many uneducated viewers simply consider letterbox bars as 'cinematic'. Maybe the idea is to give these shows a more 'professional' look towards this crowd. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 12-28-2018 06:33 AM                     It's exactly that... those "bars" are perceived as being cinematic. On the other hand, those wide bars you get with scope on 16:9 are a nuisance for many people. So, this 2:1 is a trade-off between cinematic looks and being a nuisance. Stranger Things is also one for the list. We've shown the first season in our screening room as an experiment. The screen in the screening room is close to 2:1, so we had almost the entire screen exposed. It definitely looks more "cinematic" than 16:9 or "flat", even on a big screen.  |  IP: Logged Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 12-28-2018 12:20 PM                     There have been a number of theatrcial releases in 2:00 also. I do not like it. TV shows and Flat theatrical movies should be 1:85.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 12-28-2018 07:41 PM                     The biggest gripe I have regarding "2.0" cinematic A-list releases is that many locations aren't set-up to play this kind of content. In the worst case, you'll end up with letterboxed flat on an unmasked, scope-sized screen...  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-30-2018 03:54 AM                        quote: Mike Croaro TV shows and Flat theatrical movies should be 1:85. no, tv shows should be 1.33:1. always were, for the longest time.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2018 10:00 AM                     Frankly, I don't care which ratio! Just pick one and stick with it!  |  IP: Logged Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 12-30-2018 10:40 AM                     Carl, it makes no sense to make TV shows 1:33 anymore. All TV's today are 1:85. As such, this is the most logical format to make TV shows in. Mike  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-30-2018 12:27 PM                        oh i know (well, 1.78:1 i think it is). but they should have kept the tvs at 1.33:1 as well. i guess the idea was to make them more amenable to showing movies made after 1953. but movies were made for theaters and that is where they should be seen. historically, it has been hard enough for the "professionals" in theaters to get the aspect ratio of a movie right. now every tv owner can futz it up. not to mention (ok, i'll mention it) the 50 or so years of actual tv programs made (and preserved) before these widescreens came along that now cannot be watched without some sort of compromise--the least of which, black bars on the side, runs a distant third to stretch-vision and zoom-vision. humbug.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2018 06:27 PM                     I'm okay with AR-1.33 programming being boxed on the sides. That is the ratio that they were created in and that's the ratio they should be shown in. Since it is easy to fit 1.33 content onto a wide screen without cropping, boxing in the sides is the natural thing to do. No problem, IMO.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 12-30-2018 08:50 PM                     I guess with the odd exception of a few 2.35:1 screens and a bunch of very old leftover 4:3 screens, all TVs sold in the last 10 or so years were 16:9 screens. So, besides some odd artistic choices, it would be pretty useless to produce any new series in "4:3". I personally, want to see classic 1.33 content in exactly that aspect ratio, but I know that people are easily annoyed by black bars on the sides. They are used to horizontal black bars, but those vertical black bars need to go. Often, they keep pushing buttons, until stretch-o-vision removes them..,,  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 12-31-2018 12:36 AM                        As most of us know, analog SD TV's were 1.33:1 because movies were 1.33:1 at the time the NTSC TV standard was developed. Movies went widescreen in the 1950's to compete with TV by differentiation. I think it's absolutely ludicrous, 60 years later, to think that TV shows should still be 1.33:1. Modern TV's are 1.78:1 (not 1.85) because 1.78 was an exact compromise between 1.33 and 2.35. It was based in part on the notion that 1.33 TV shows would be around for a long time and that 1.33 production would continue for television, but the industry converted to HD far quicker than SMPTE anticipated. The Director's Guild wanted the HDTV format to be 2.0:1 and IMO, that would have been better because 2.35 movies would have taken up more of the screen. While anyone sophisticated in the matter would always want to see original aspect ratio, ignorant consumers HATE black bars ("I paid good money for this TV and I don't want to see a smaller picture!"). They really don't get that they're missing 23% of the image. That's why even HBO frequently shows 2.35/2.4 movies at 1.78. I hate that. I'll pay for a subscription when they show films at the proper aspect ratio. At least TCM almost always plays film at proper AR, although my current cable provider only has the SD version. I don't know why some filmmakers are bothering with 2.0. Frankly, I don't think I noticed that Stranger Things was at 2.0. I'm going to have to check an episode again. I probably thought it was 1.85. It used to annoy me when 1.85 movies were opened up to 1.78 on Blu-ray and TV, but restorian Robert A. Harris once wrote that he thought it was fine and if it's okay with him, I guess it has to be okay for me.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.