SCREEN-L Archives

December 1997, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:43:08 -0600
TEXT/PLAIN (38 lines)
Leo Enticknap suggests:
> Of course, if you encounter technical problems at a film show, the impulse is
> to blame the projectionist, as (s)he is the nearest link in the technical
> to the spectator.  Walter Lassally (see the last "Image Technology") has
> that one single w/s ratio ought to be standardised across the film and
> television industries, as this would solve all the problems both with
> theatrical presentation and the televising of w/s films, HDTV and so on.  He
> has suggeted 16:9 (about 1:1.77 in my language).  In other words, he wants a
> sort of Academy ratio for the next century.
> My own view is that that is a bit restrictive and that the system ought to be
> capable of supporting a wide range of rations.  If that technical chain were
> somewhat better integrated, then the results would be positive all round: the
> good projectionists would be able to put on almost perfect shows, and the bad
> ones would be less likely to make severe aspect ratio cock-ups (for example,
> the West End venue which showed a re-release of 'Casablanca' in 1:1.85 would
> not have done).
It's interesting to notice that DVDs are being marketed with both
letter-boxed and pan-scan options for viewers.  Consider also those new
cameras that allow one to format pictures in three different ways.  It
would seem that aspect ratio may become yet another point of consumer
choice, as the Market carves out new economic territories to conquer.
Don Larsson
Donald Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
[log in to unmask]
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.