>Can anybody suggest why so many recent television commercials are >being shot and shown in a letterbox format? Look at many of the shows shot for NTSC in this country and you'll see "Panavision equipment." My guess is that a lot of TV is being shot with a wider aspect ratio as a "warmup" for HDTV (high definition television). Kind of like some of the shows shot in the 50s anticipating color (Cisco Kid, Superman, etc.) > Someone else wrote: >It also intrigues me why so many video buffs insist on a "letterbox" format >of their favorite film. Not all films benefit from an ersatz "letterboxing". >It is primarily the anamorphic films which require it, but I constantly read >requests for "letterboxed" versions of "Citizen Kane" or other "flat" films. >I think this is also a misplaced idea of one form being inherently superior >to another. It's also evidence of a culture-wide retreat into slogans rather >than serious inquiry into the actual facts. I (personally) prefer letterboxed movies IF it was shot for a wide screen. The first Cinemascope movie was "The Robe" in 1954. So all of the movies (or MOST) were not widescreen. Exceptions include "Big Trail" etc. Later reprints of "Gone with the Wind" masked the picture to make it look like a 70mm print. Yecch! However, I'll admit that letterboxed movies suffer from a few problems: One is the look on my 21" set. The movie is often too small to appreciate. After buying the wide screen version of Ben-Hur my wife has actually suggested we buy a bigger set. Of course, that might not solve the problem with the terrible resolution NTSC offers. Another problem is the fact that some directors shoot wide screen better than others. Some directors "put" things in the screen (2 people talking, etc.) that can be completely missed if you see it cropped on television. Dave Spiceland Appalachian State University Communication Department Boone, North Carolina 28607 (USA) [log in to unmask]