 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do the side bars really bother people? I don't notice them. I prefer them to people stretching the picture. And I don't need to have 2 TVs in one room to watch my classic shows and movies in their original aspect ratios. Meh.
I would rather they keep making VHS players for my tape collection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did I miss this completely inane thread? I guess the OP has never seen a film noir in a movie theater, or any other Academy ratio in a theater, because to have seen it he would have to have been a certain age, which he clearly is not. The curtains would open and there was the Academy ratio screen, surrounded on the sides by large black masking - same top and bottom. That was also the case with 1.85, but not so much with scope although in many theaters the top black masking would come down for scope.
This is the same kind of person who, in the 4.3 TV days would be screaming for 16x9 TVs so he wouldn't have the top and bottom bars on 1.85 and scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did I miss this completely inane thread? I guess the OP has never seen a film noir in a movie theater, or any other Academy ratio in a theater, because to have seen it he would have to have been a certain age, which he clearly is not. The curtains would open and there was the Academy ratio screen, surrounded on the sides by large black masking - same top and bottom. That was also the case with 1.85, but not so much with scope although in many theaters the top black masking would come down for scope.
This is the same kind of person who, in the 4.3 TV days would be screaming for 16x9 TVs so he wouldn't have the top and bottom bars on 1.85 and scope. This is the kind of reply I get from those who enjoy ridiculing others and/or are too lazy to read the OP's original statement. If you and the rest did you'd see that I specifically proposed owning TWO TVs: A 4:3 TV system in one room and a 16:9 TV system in another room. This way-as I also stated-you get the best way to view all content, exactly the way the director and DP of the movie or TV show intended their work to be viewed. AND you get zero burn-in risk to your displays. Condolences to those of us who may lack the financial means to do so
You are the OP, chum. I'm not ridiculing you, I'm saying your original post is inane, which it was and is. And of course you ignore the black masking in theaters, which is no different to the black masking on your widescreen TV. When you watch an Academy ratio film on a widescreen TV you are getting the content exactly as the director and DP intended. You can't really be this foolish, can you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
The OP was making a sales pitch, replete with links to best justify the product. The fact that it had several subsequent responses from the OP doesn't make it any less spam. It's also worth noting that in the post just prior to mine, the OP refers to themselves in the 3rd person. I absolutely cannot believe the volume of paranoia I'm finding here. Spamming?? Sales pitch? If you're referring to my posting of these Chinese TV brands https://www.sharptvusa.com/contact/ http://www.konka.com.hk/Contact/
https://skyworthusa.com/contact/ https://e.huawei.com/us/how-to-buy/contact-us
https://www.hisense-usa.com/contact/ I did so only to point out that as OLED is by now a very mature technology, and given that the more competitive Chinese TV brands have been pushing for and winning entrance to the US TV market, quality "niche" OLED products-like 4:3 TVs-could be had affordably.
But I've absolutely no product to sell nor have I been compensated by any one for doing anything. And it's not my fault if vertical black bars annoy the crap out of me when watching 1.33:1 content on 16:9 displays, as I stated repeatedly, while the same situation doesn't phase others in the least. Why the hell else would I settle for watching such content on a tiny 32" CRT TV? If people were not different than we'd all be the same. Well, Duh! The only guilt I do admit to is trying to politely persuade those here AND at other forums that it's hardly "wrong" to ask the TV brands to consider supplying 4:3 OLED TVs to a segment of cinephiles, photographers, cinematographers, gamers and others who are more numerous than most here are aware of, or who may care to acknowledge.
I also pointed out that using separate 4:3 and 16:9 OLED TVs to natively display 1.33:1 and the wider aspects ratios, respectively, not only lets viewers see the work far more in the way the director and DP had intended (little if any vertical or horizontal bars), but totally eliminates any burn-in and differential pixel aging risks in the 4:3 OLED and almost completely so in the 16:9 OLED. The only reason for the latter display not gaining zero risk would be if the viewer watched loads of content much wider than 1.85:1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 7:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
You are the OP, chum. I'm not ridiculing you, I'm saying your original post is inane, which it was and is. And of course you ignore the black masking in theaters, which is no different to the black masking on your widescreen TV. When you watch an Academy ratio film on a widescreen TV you are getting the content exactly as the director and DP intended. You can't really be this foolish, can you?
First, the last time I ever paid to seeing anything in cinemas was “Fahrenheit 9-11”, during its 2004 premiere run. But I’ll never forget that even with my ear plugs (which I never go anywhere without) the SPLs were all but deafening. I jumped out of my seat, ran out into the lobby and stayed there for at least 8 minutes. Ever since then, and for lots of other reasons, you couldn’t pay me to go and see any movie in any theater.
As for black masking of theater screens, talk about inane, chum. I can’t believe you’d be this “foolish” to make a point with this. When was the last time that a 1.33:1 movie was ever shown in Joe Schmo’s local multiplex? Even back in the 60s they’d have to be black taping for a week on a screen the size of our beloved but long gone Syosset Theater, which while having a bunch those huge Altec VOTT speakers management took care to keep the volume at safe levels. https://incinerama.com/syosset.htm Besides, I was too young and poor back then to see much there. I only recall seeing the “Sound of Music” (70mm) and a couple James Bond movies with my family, so I don’t think you’d be apt to see much content on that screen that needed the black tape treatment.
Okay, maybe that version of Spike Lee’s “Da 5 Bloods” that came out last year. Lee’s done some really great stuff but the war genre’s not my thing. However, I think that’s about all the 1.33:1 stuff that might have ever been shown at anyone’s local multiplex. If I’m wrong let me know.
But here’s where you’re wrong. Films like “Gilda” (1946), “Double Indemnity” (1944), “Scarlet Street” (1942), “Whirlpool” (1949), “Tension” (1949), “Where Danger Lives” (1950), “Out of the Past” (1947), “Cat People” (1942), “Leave Her to Heaven” (1945), “Five Fingers” (1952), “Inferno” (1953), several other favorites and all films commercial Hollywood films made before circa 1953-were shot in 1.33:1 or very close to it.
Accordingly, there were NO screens to be found in any commercial US theater any wider than that aspect ratio. Why would there be? And yes, therefore, viewers always saw content exactly as the creators of same intended. But no, you are NOT getting what those filmmakers back then intended when you watch their 1:33:1 production on a widescreen TV because there WERE no widescreens at all at least prior to 1953, and certainly no widescreen TVs-nor would there be for watching all TV shows from I Love Lucy, through to Mary Tyler Moore and on into the first couple seasons of X-Files at least 40 years later, as all of those were-you guessed it-shot in 1.33:1. Get the picture, chum.
And it would remain so until the film studios found themselves struggling to maintain ticket sales when they suddenly got blitzed by the explosive and skyrocketing popularity of TV. And this, primarily, is why despite technical failures like 1954’s Cinerama (needing three projectors, a huge three panel screen and multichannel sound), Panavision and Cinemascope widescreen formats took hold very soon afterwards. Only then did theater owners rush to replace their screens with wide ones. And ever since then virtually no US theaters have run any 1.33:1 content, nor would such films be accepted by the vast majority of commercial distributors which theaters rent movies from for all of the above reasons.
Black taping of screens in commercial theaters? LOL! Your entire reply reveals that you didn’t know any of these facts about the history of commercial film making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are the OP, chum. I'm not ridiculing you, I'm saying your original post is inane, which it was and is. And of course you ignore the black masking in theaters, which is no different to the black masking on your widescreen TV. When you watch an Academy ratio film on a widescreen TV you are getting the content exactly as the director and DP intended. You can't really be this foolish, can you?
First, the last time I ever paid to seeing anything in cinemas was “Fahrenheit 9-11”, during its 2004 premiere run. But I’ll never forget that even with my ear plugs (which I never go anywhere without) the SPLs were all but deafening. I jumped out of my seat, ran out into the lobby and stayed there for at least 8 minutes. Ever since then, and for lots of other reasons, you couldn’t pay me to go and see any movie in any theater.
As for black masking of theater screens, talk about inane, chum. I can’t believe you’d be this “foolish” to make a point with this. When was the last time that a 1.33:1 movie was ever shown in Joe Schmo’s local multiplex? Even back in the 60s they’d have to be black taping for a week on a screen the size of our beloved but long gone Syosset Theater, which while having a bunch those huge Altec VOTT speakers management took care to keep the volume at safe levels. https://incinerama.com/syosset.htm Besides, I was too young and poor back then to see much there. I only recall seeing the “Sound of Music” (70mm) and a couple James Bond movies with my family, so I don’t think you’d be apt to see much content on that screen that needed the black tape treatment.
Okay, maybe that version of Spike Lee’s “Da 5 Bloods” that came out last year. Lee’s done some really great stuff but the war genre’s not my thing. However, I think that’s about all the 1.33:1 stuff that might have ever been shown at anyone’s local multiplex. If I’m wrong let me know.
But here’s where you’re wrong. Films like “Gilda” (1946), “Double Indemnity” (1944), “Scarlet Street” (1942), “Whirlpool” (1949), “Tension” (1949), “Where Danger Lives” (1950), “Out of the Past” (1947), “Cat People” (1942), “Leave Her to Heaven” (1945), “Five Fingers” (1952), “Inferno” (1953), several other favorites and all films commercial Hollywood films made before circa 1953-were shot in 1.33:1 or very close to it.
Accordingly, there were NO screens to be found in any commercial US theater any wider than that aspect ratio. Why would there be? And yes, therefore, viewers always saw content exactly as the creators of same intended. But no, you are NOT getting what those filmmakers back then intended when you watch their 1:33:1 production on a widescreen TV because there WERE no widescreens at all at least prior to 1953, and certainly no widescreen TVs-nor would there be for watching all TV shows from I Love Lucy, through to Mary Tyler Moore and on into the first couple seasons of X-Files at least 40 years later, as all of those were-you guessed it-shot in 1.33:1. Get the picture, chum.
And it would remain so until the film studios found themselves struggling to maintain ticket sales when they suddenly got blitzed by the explosive and skyrocketing popularity of TV. And this, primarily, is why despite technical failures like 1954’s Cinerama (needing three projectors, a huge three panel screen and multichannel sound), Panavision and Cinemascope widescreen formats took hold very soon afterwards. Only then did theater owners rush to replace their screens with wide ones. And ever since then virtually no US theaters have run any 1.33:1 content, nor would such films be accepted by the vast majority of commercial distributors which theaters rent movies from for all of the above reasons.
Black taping of screens in commercial theaters? LOL! Your entire reply reveals that you didn’t know any of these facts about the history of commercial film making.
My goodness, you really use a lot of words to completely not understand my post. I don't need you to lecture me on film, ratios, or anything else, chum. Ever. Unlike you, I saw films in theaters prior to widescreen. And it doesn't matter what ratio I'm talking about, there was always masking: When I saw Singin' in the Rain during its original run, here's what happened: The curtains opened and you saw an Academy ratio screen and since the curtains were opening WIDER than the screen, there was BLACK MASKING top/bottom and on the sides, just like when you're watching Academy on your OLED. How old are you? You can't explain things to trolls because, well, they're trolls. Take a hike friend. You're not going to win with me. I've been involved in the film business longer than you've been alive. But here, let me help you out: All that black masking bother you, you know, on the sides? Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 8:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
eriknelson
(Member)
|
[quote] My goodness, you really use a lot of words to completely not understand my post. I don't need you to lecture me on film, ratios, or anything else, chum. Ever. Unlike you, I saw films in theaters prior to widescreen. And it doesn't matter what ratio I'm talking about, there was always masking: When I saw Singin' in the Rain during its original run, here's what happened: The curtains opened and you saw an Academy ratio screen and since the curtains were opening WIDER than the screen, there was BLACK MASKING top/bottom and on the sides, just like when you're watching Academy on your OLED. How old are you? You can't explain things to trolls because, well, they're trolls. Take a hike friend. You're not going to win with me. I've been involved in the film business longer than you've been alive.
I can attest to what you're saying, but my experience was 20+ years later. Back in the mid-70s the Continental Theatre in Denver, a major 70mm house, ran SINR as part of a summer revival series. As I recall the series was sponsored by the cigarette company Benson & Hedges. The curtains opened just as you described but, before the show, a couple trailers were shown in a wider aspect ratio. When it came time for the main feature the projectionist adjusted the masking to fit the Academy ratio without closing the curtains. So there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please, gang, can we lower the temperature here, before a moderator uses the fire-hoses on us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's only one person in this thread who is keeping the temperature rising and it's the original poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
