 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 10:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
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?
According to IMDB, SITR was filmed in 1.37:1, not the 1.33:1 Academy format, but where the extra width allows both optical and magnetic tracks to be added, as I recall reading. And no surprise there as it was released in 1952.
You say that you saw SITR during its debut run and on an Academy screen which indeed would fit that film perfectly. Of course, no argument there. But tape around the screen because of the curtains? Sorry, you lost me. Speaking of which, unless they are as black as what’s behind that screen in that screenshot of what I can only assume is or was an actual theater (and it doesn’t look very real), curtains can obviously be distracting. One of many reasons why I fled cinemas long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 10:55 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
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!
Sure, a widescreen venue in an affluent city during the 70s; Academy screens gone. But whether the projectionist was somehow able to project black light on the rest of the screen beyond the Academy aperture projecting SITR, or had partially closed the (black??) curtains to hide the white edges of the screen or by some other means-and however well it worked for most audiences-applying and removing black tape on a widescreen OLED to view 1.33:1 and widescreen content, respectively, I think could become annoying and end up not to being aesthetically pleasing.
In any case, if you watch as much 1.33:1 content as I often do you run the risk of screen burn-in and differential pixel aging, as Sony clearly warns viewers. And I’m certainly not going to stretch or crop any content, as they suggest. Precisely why Sony or at least one OLED brand should offer 4:3 OLEDs.
I wonder if that was the Denver theater where I saw Roger Corman’s “Wild Angels” (1966), when it debuted. That was quite a summer night’s experience for a 13 year old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2021 - 11:32 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
eriknelson
(Member)
|
Sure, a widescreen venue in an affluent city during the 70s; Academy screens gone. But whether the projectionist was somehow able to project black light on the rest of the screen beyond the Academy aperture projecting SITR, or had partially closed the (black??) curtains to hide the white edges of the screen or by some other means-and however well it worked for most audiences-applying and removing black tape on a widescreen OLED to view 1.33:1 and widescreen content, respectively, I think could become annoying and end up not to being aesthetically pleasing.
In any case, if you watch as much 1.33:1 content as I often do you run the risk of screen burn-in and differential pixel aging, as Sony clearly warns viewers. And I’m certainly not going to stretch or crop any content, as they suggest. Precisely why Sony or at least one OLED brand should offer 4:3 OLEDs.
I wonder if that was the Denver theater where I saw Roger Corman’s “Wild Angels” (1966), when it debuted. That was quite a summer night’s experience for a 13 year old.
No, the Continental didn't exist back then. It is located at I-25 and Hampton Avenue, which was undeveloped in 1966. As far as I know, it is still equipped to present films in 70mm format. My favorite recollection from those days was a midnight screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey in Cinerama. During the second act the "light show" sequence began and suddenly smoke arose from the audience as people were partaking in their favorite herb. What a hoot!
Getting back to that SINR screening, I don't recall any visual distractions arising from the black masking. And this is a screen that, as I recall, measures 40' x 100'. The only other screen I recall being that large was, amazingly, also in Denver: the legendary Cooper Cinerama. It was demolished to make way for a Barnes and Noble bookstore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 9, 2021 - 12:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
No, the Continental didn't exist back then. It is located at I-25 and Hampton Avenue, which was undeveloped in 1966. As far as I know, it is still equipped to present films in 70mm format. My favorite recollection from those days was a midnight screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey in Cinerama. During the second act the "light show" sequence began and suddenly smoke arose from the audience as people were partaking in their favorite herb. What a hoot!
Getting back to that SINR screening, I don't recall any visual distractions arising from the black masking. And this is a screen that, as I recall, measures 40' x 100'. The only other screen I recall being that large was, amazingly, also in Denver: the legendary Cooper Cinerama. It was demolished to make way for a Barnes and Noble bookstore.
I think right at the end of the showing of the "Wild Angels" a promo film had Nancy Sinatra dancing while lip syncing the title track (sung by Barbara Pittman). Not surprisingly they were selling soundtrack LPs in the lobby. Before or after the movie we went to this arcade where they had these huge tables for electric model car racing. But I'm not surprised that Denver had such impressive theaters, as today a big chunk of eastern Colorado's economy is devoted to high performance audio and video displays and some very high end A/V gear design and manufacturing. In the early 60s and 70s, Ampex , long devoted to designing industry standard professional audio tape machines and who later inventing videotape recording, had a large facility in CO Springs. PS Audio and I think Audio Ayre are also in CO and the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest meets a few times a year where you can here sound systems yielding tremendous sonic realism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You say that you saw SITR during its debut run and on an Academy screen which indeed would fit that film perfectly. Of course, no argument there. But tape around the screen because of the curtains? Sorry, you lost me. Speaking of which, unless they are as black as what’s behind that screen in that screenshot of what I can only assume is or was an actual theater (and it doesn’t look very real), curtains can obviously be distracting. One of many reasons why I fled cinemas long ago.
So as well as the distracting black bars at sides of TV screens when viewing 1.33:1 material, theatre curtains are also “obviously” distracting. Well, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that very few theatres have curtains nowadays. Maybe without such a “distraction” you can feel safe to return to cinemas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2021 - 11:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rameau
(Member)
|
An OLED will be my next TV. I'm nursing along my plasma right now, but I know it won't go on forever.
There's a really solid chance my next TV will be a 65" LG CX OLED. My only hesitation is that my living room gets pretty bright in the afternoon and OLEDs don't get as bright as my current LCD, either in SDR or HDR. But a friend has last year's C9 and the picture is stunning.
My plasma is still going strong, but I've been looking around, & a Panasonic OLED (about £2500) should do the trick, but hopefully not for a while.
Ahhh, I spoke early. My lovely plasma died today, so I have to join the OLED club, but not £2500, after reading lots of reviews it's a £1200 Panasonic 4K OLED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2021 - 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
Hello, ajant, I saw a post, almost verbatim, on Audiokarma from the same time last year, so I assume that was you. No problem, I assume your idea was to stir interest there as well. I'm sure you can understand how some folks might have thought it to be spam with all those links you attached, so I can appreciate the fact that you have indeed responded tactfully to those whom may have been somewhat gruff in their comments.
So, my question: Have you had any good luck? Would it be helpful in your quest to have your own web page?
Just curious and I wish you good luck in your quest.  Yes, it was I who posted this same “pitch” at Audiokarma, Anandtech, Tom’s Hardware, AVS forum, What’s Best and at the blogs of photographers who discussed the resurgence of the 1:33:1 format. I also managed to have my review of last year’s top Sony OLED posted at the Sony website, where though duly praising that model’s performance raised the same points I did here for requesting Sony’s release of a 4:3 OLED.
Far from trying, much less having, any product to sell, as some only at this forum had somehow inferred, my only aim was to motivate fellow collectors of pre-1953 movies and pre-1999 TV shows to inform OLED TV brands of their wish to own a ~ 50” 4:3 OLED TV.
The sad reality is that at least half the eight or more OLED brands supplying the US market have no or poorly designed feedback web pages and/or no readily accessible email addresses for welcoming consumer requests for new products, much less any product this “radical”. And no matter how many feedback forms sent or direct email addresses to OLED TV marketing directors and division VPs I could find, most never replied, and those doing so never spoke of OLED TVs at all. At most it might have been LG and TCL who said they would consider my request. And the few brands specializing in commercial OLED displays said they were unwilling or unable to market such a product-even when I pointed out to them, as I had to Sony, Philips, Panasonic, LG, TCL, Konka and Skyworth-that whichever brand jumped on this niche market demand could likely end up permanently dominating it.
So while I don’t regret the time I spent pursuing this, it’s disheartening that my intentions, particularly at this forum and one other, failed to gain any acceptance, but which I know to be technically sound and plausible reasons for advocating this kind of TV were ignored and often rejected out of what I could only surmise as pigheaded tunnel vision. For I did emphasize from the beginning that I couldn’t explain why the vertical bars are , in fact, highly distracting and badly detract from my viewing experience. But they certainly do. Why else would I have spent all this time and effort lobbying OLED brands and trying to gain support at forums like this to see release of an OLED TV with a native Academy aspect ratio? As for those who don’t suffer this inexplicable disorder all I can say is lucky them.
Likewise, these same OLED owners also have apparently no problem braving the burn-in and differential pixel aging risks if they watch lots of 1.33:1 content-without stretching or cropping content-despite being warned against doing so in the OLED manuals.
And as all of the OLED brands are likely well aware of all of this, I therefore gave up on this quest months ago. Thus, I am resigned to watching 1.33:1 content on a 32” CRT TV. Someday, when I retire and move from a co-op to a house I’ll have a separate room big enough for projector with a 4:3 lens, as that will probably still be the only way to obtain a ~ 50” screen size in that aspect ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
According to IMDB, SITR was filmed in 1.37:1, not the 1.33:1 Academy format, but where the extra width allows both optical and magnetic tracks to be added, as I recall reading. And no surprise there as it was released in 1952.
You say that you saw SITR during its debut run and on an Academy screen which indeed would fit that film perfectly. Of course, no argument there. But tape around the screen because of the curtains? Sorry, you lost me. Speaking of which, unless they are as black as what’s behind that screen in that screenshot of what I can only assume is or was an actual theater (and it doesn’t look very real), curtains can obviously be distracting. One of many reasons why I fled cinemas long ago.
I'm not sure how anyone could misinterpret the black masking around the screen in the photo I posted. That's the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. Heard of it? Curtains, masking - you really are a piece of work, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this about scores for film noir movies that were filmed in 4:3?
MALTESE FALCON
CASABLANCA
I don’t think the complete scores for these two films have been released yet (Casblanca not without dialogue).
Anyone know if/when they will get a release?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it was I who posted this same “pitch” at Audiokarma, Anandtech, Tom’s Hardware, AVS forum, What’s Best and at the blogs of photographers who discussed the resurgence of the 1:33:1 format. I also managed to have my review of last year’s top Sony OLED posted at the Sony website, where though duly praising that model’s performance raised the same points I did here for requesting Sony’s release of a 4:3 OLED.
Far from trying, much less having, any product to sell, as some only at this forum had somehow inferred, my only aim was to motivate fellow collectors of pre-1953 movies and pre-1999 TV shows to inform OLED TV brands of their wish to own a ~ 50” 4:3 OLED TV.
The sad reality is that at least half the eight or more OLED brands supplying the US market have no or poorly designed feedback web pages and/or no readily accessible email addresses for welcoming consumer requests for new products, much less any product this “radical”. And no matter how many feedback forms sent or direct email addresses to OLED TV marketing directors and division VPs I could find, most never replied, and those doing so never spoke of OLED TVs at all. At most it might have been LG and TCL who said they would consider my request. And the few brands specializing in commercial OLED displays said they were unwilling or unable to market such a product-even when I pointed out to them, as I had to Sony, Philips, Panasonic, LG, TCL, Konka and Skyworth-that whichever brand jumped on this niche market demand could likely end up permanently dominating it.
So while I don’t regret the time I spent pursuing this, it’s disheartening that my intentions, particularly at this forum and one other, failed to gain any acceptance, but which I know to be technically sound and plausible reasons for advocating this kind of TV were ignored and often rejected out of what I could only surmise as pigheaded tunnel vision. For I did emphasize from the beginning that I couldn’t explain why the vertical bars are , in fact, highly distracting and badly detract from my viewing experience. But they certainly do. Why else would I have spent all this time and effort lobbying OLED brands and trying to gain support at forums like this to see release of an OLED TV with a native Academy aspect ratio? As for those who don’t suffer this inexplicable disorder all I can say is lucky them.
Likewise, these same OLED owners also have apparently no problem braving the burn-in and differential pixel aging risks if they watch lots of 1.33:1 content-without stretching or cropping content-despite being warned against doing so in the OLED manuals.
And as all of the OLED brands are likely well aware of all of this, I therefore gave up on this quest months ago. Thus, I am resigned to watching 1.33:1 content on a 32” CRT TV. Someday, when I retire and move from a co-op to a house I’ll have a separate room big enough for projector with a 4:3 lens, as that will probably still be the only way to obtain a ~ 50” screen size in that aspect ratio.
Sorry, but your idea will never take hold with the manufacturers - period. The only way it could possibly take hold is if you were to convince them that there is a HUGE market for such a set. And there simply isn't. I guarantee it.
Why am I so confident in saying this? Because I was directly involved in a project with several major studios, the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association), the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) and Panamorph to help develop a content delivery system that offered higher resolution for movies shot in the Scope (2.35:1) format. This project also involved Philips and Samsung, who were pushing 21:9 (2.35:1) TVs at that point in time. I won't get into all the details of the project; suffice to say I was brought in as a consultant because I had a foot in both the consumer electronics and professional post production worlds. Essentially it was a way to offer anamorphic Scope content via Blu-ray, much like DVD had the capability to offer higher resolution for 16:9 displays when 4:3 was still the standard. For reference, this was only about 5 or 6 years ago.
Needless to say, 21:9 TVs are not with us any more. This, despite the fact that over 75% of major Hollywood movies made since 1956 have been shot in the Scope format, and both Samsung and Philips putting major marketing dollars into pushing the format. Keep in mind that Scope is still with us and it's still true that the majority of big budget Hollywood films are shot in the Scope format. In the case of 4:3, you are looking at a format that was on its way out in 1999 for television and 1956 for motion pictures.
So essentially you are asking consumer electronics companies to invest R&D money, retool their production lines, and invest major marketing dollars to bring back a format that they consider dead. It's simply not going to happen. You would have to present a SOLID business case to them on how they could possibly recoup a major investment in R&D, tooling and marketing (not to mention buy shelf space at Best Buy and Walmart) in order to please, what, maybe 1% of the market?
There are other ways to do what you ask, anyhow. Buy a projection system and get a masking screen. My own projector / screen combo will mask to 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, and 2.40:1. Or wait a bit and tile based video walls will come down enough in price so you can literally assemble a wall display in any aspect ratio you like.
BTW, hate to rain on the parade even more, but there are no projectors with a "4:3 lens." The shape of the image on a projector is dictated by the shape of the imaging chip, not the lens. The shape of the chip in almost all modern home theater projectors is 16:9 (though there are a couple of high end models with a 2.35:1 chip). You could probably find an old pre-2004 4:3 business or home theater projector somewhere, but the contrast and color reproduction are going to be awful compared to modern projectors (plus they won't even accept a modern HDMI input).
Last point - with a true OLED TV the pillarbox bars are a perfect deep black. You can't even see them in a truly dark room. Not sure what the issue is here. Burn-in is not an issue UNLESS you are literally playing 4:3 content all day long with zero breaks in between. Almost any video source has a screen saver, so again, not sure what the big deal here is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgot to mention - Samsung's marketing efforts around their 21:9 TV even included a press event and personal endorsement from Michael Bay. Went nowhere. A 4:3 set would go nowhere even faster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
