![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was reading an article recently about the blu-ray edition of The Dark Knight. In that edition they are mastering it in two aspect ratios. One being the theatrical aspect ratio and the other filling the whole 16:9 home widescreen ratio. The scenes that where shot in IMAX being the latter and the rest being the former. This supposedly is supposed to give you the full effect the director intended as there is supposed to be more scope so to speak to the IMAX scenes.
That part I have no problem with actually. The thing I do have a problem with is this. There was someone in the comments arguing that full screen is the way to get a view of the entire image and that whenever you are seeing it in widescreen you are seeing a cropped image. That person used the argument that since directors often use non widescreen monitors with the widescreen area framed off in the center that seeing it full screen somehow restores the area outside of the framed widescreen area.
That is only half true. It's true that directors use those monitors when directing a film but the actual camera is widescreen and AFAIK is separate from the video monitoring system. When a director directs a film they frame the image in the widescreen area and the rest doesn't get shot. When you view a film full screen it doesn't "restore" the area beyond the framed area. It just takes the area within the framed area and crops it even further. This removes, not restores image information to the film.
This is true even in the latest 16:9 widescreen sets. That's why there are movies that still have thin letterboxes at top and bottom even on those screens. The true aspect ratio of most films is still beyond most monitors for the home.
This goes back to what people generally tended to think about letter-boxed movies. They used to think that letter-boxing crops the film at the top and bottom and that you are missing information that you see when you view it full screen. But in reality the opposite was true and full screen is a cropping of the movie. Letter-boxing allows you to view the entire image on a non-widescreen TV and even today since the screens still aren't as wide as the theater letter-boxing allows you to view the entire theatrical format of course at the theater the thin bars aren't present as the screens there are made to fit that wider format.
I think I know why they didn't go ahead and make home screens as wide as the theater right away though. There's lots of non-widescreen content and some people choose to stretch that content to fill the screen or crop it and if they did that with the screen as wide as it is at the theater there'd either be too much cropped out or it would look way out of whack stretching a non-widescreen image that wide. People look fatter as it is already stretching those videos to 16:9.
High end home theaters using projectors have screens that can adjust the aspect ratio to fit the video being projected but most people don't have this type of system in their homes.
It's hard to counter misinformation though as confronting people with the facts often reinforces the false beliefs I have read recently. It's called cognitive dissonance.
That part I have no problem with actually. The thing I do have a problem with is this. There was someone in the comments arguing that full screen is the way to get a view of the entire image and that whenever you are seeing it in widescreen you are seeing a cropped image. That person used the argument that since directors often use non widescreen monitors with the widescreen area framed off in the center that seeing it full screen somehow restores the area outside of the framed widescreen area.
That is only half true. It's true that directors use those monitors when directing a film but the actual camera is widescreen and AFAIK is separate from the video monitoring system. When a director directs a film they frame the image in the widescreen area and the rest doesn't get shot. When you view a film full screen it doesn't "restore" the area beyond the framed area. It just takes the area within the framed area and crops it even further. This removes, not restores image information to the film.
This is true even in the latest 16:9 widescreen sets. That's why there are movies that still have thin letterboxes at top and bottom even on those screens. The true aspect ratio of most films is still beyond most monitors for the home.
This goes back to what people generally tended to think about letter-boxed movies. They used to think that letter-boxing crops the film at the top and bottom and that you are missing information that you see when you view it full screen. But in reality the opposite was true and full screen is a cropping of the movie. Letter-boxing allows you to view the entire image on a non-widescreen TV and even today since the screens still aren't as wide as the theater letter-boxing allows you to view the entire theatrical format of course at the theater the thin bars aren't present as the screens there are made to fit that wider format.
I think I know why they didn't go ahead and make home screens as wide as the theater right away though. There's lots of non-widescreen content and some people choose to stretch that content to fill the screen or crop it and if they did that with the screen as wide as it is at the theater there'd either be too much cropped out or it would look way out of whack stretching a non-widescreen image that wide. People look fatter as it is already stretching those videos to 16:9.
High end home theaters using projectors have screens that can adjust the aspect ratio to fit the video being projected but most people don't have this type of system in their homes.
It's hard to counter misinformation though as confronting people with the facts often reinforces the false beliefs I have read recently. It's called cognitive dissonance.
