 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 6, 2015 - 7:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
Don’t TODD-AO movies have this same curvature at the sides problem, when shown on TV?
In their original theatrical presentations, didn’t the tilt and curvature of the screen iron out these optical effects ?
I was thinking of mentioning this latter point myself, but the problem of working through it as a thought experiment was too complicated to mentally resolve without any kind of empirical evidence to back it up. It could be that in a theatre environment the leftmost and rightmost parts of the image end up falling on the black, non-reflective over-projection areas and are seldom visible. The truth is, those extreme parts of the image do not cover much surface area anyway. They only really get noticed because the brain tends to see the screen as a single window when those panning shots send everything into motion so that all the objects on the screen are moving linearly in the same direction relative to one another while the unmoving theatre environment itself will enhance the fixed edges of the screen. Ultimately, whether the curvature of the screen unbends the optical effects is hard to figure. There are other distortions that take place within a cinema. For instance, I always prefer to sit somewhere in the central zone to ensure even proportions of the screen are visible to my unaided eye, assuming I will spend just as much time looking to my left or my right. If I am ever forced to sit away from the centre of projection and off to one side, the screen will end up looking bigger on my side due to normal diminishing perspective. God only knows how the brain plays the game of compensating for the overall screen image in such a case. I do find it mildly annoying if I ever get stuck in such a situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
