What is the aspect ratio in cinemas???

[magic_impuls]

Films that are shown in the cinema are shown in there true aspect ratio, correct? i.e. nothing is stretched, and nothing is cut off, so u are seeing the full picture, correct?

The aspect ratio in cinema's definately looks wider than a widescreen TV (16:9).

Does anyone know what the apect ratio of cinama films is?

[magic_impuls]

anyone?

[roach76]

I think the screen is set up for 1.85:1, so it's capable of both that ratio and 2.35:1

[proxyx99]

The same screen panel is used for all sorts of movies. Screen size is not the key, it is how the theatre fills it. And don't bet on this, that there is no aspect ratio distortion in the cinema. Depends on the material they use. And that may be different.

[Richard_G]

Some are 1.85:1 (which is 16:9) others are 2.35:1. It's the same when you buy the DVD, some are 1.85:1 so play full screen on a widescreen TV others are 2.35:1 so you get black bars top and bottom if you have the TV set for letterbox or the edges missing if you use pan & scan.

At least this is the case with UK spec region 2 PAL DVDs, from a lot of the posts on this forum, it seems that widescreen TVs are a lot more common over here than in the US. I don't know of anyone with a DVD player that doesn't have a widescreen TV. I hate to imagine what a 2.35:1 DVD would look like on a standard 4:3 TV!

[proxyx99]

Hehe. Looks like a TV stocks ticker!!!

Btw. Widescreens were available in Germany 11 years ago in bigger sizes then most CRT models now in US. I've never seen 34 inch widescreen in Europe. They were all ca. 40 inch and up (tube not rear projection). They were almost flat (with minimal curvature similar to Pana TV Gaoo series). Brand names like Telefunken, Loewe, Nordmende. Those I remember seeing.
And that was YEARS before anybody in US has ever dreamt of such format nor ever thought they will be ever available.

So much for US technological superiority often praised in this forum.
Add to that true PAL broadcast quality with 625 lines vs. 240 cable in North America that we all "enjoy" thanks to our "highly developed" technology. True technological advance you can probably find here only in Cruise Missiles. I live here but am stunned how little people know about what happens around the world.

Sorry about this rant, but I'm fed up with media feeding us with moronic advice and "certer of the world" point of view.

[DVO]

I hate to imagine what a 2.35:1 DVD would look like on a standard 4:3 TV!

To me it looks much better then 4:3 on 16:9.

[bmiller]

I was in Portugal last year,and an electronics store in Lisbon was filled with only 16:9 tv's from 27" up.Most were smaller than 40",as houses and apartments are small.
Weare much slower over here to change,but we are catching up.

[proxyx99]

The other reason for slow growth here is that most people watch TV most of the time. Now. how many have seen a TV picture on a screen 32 inch + screen? Everyone. So why not buy it? When your big screen has 240 lines the picture blown up to big size looks like crap (fat lines accross). So 16:9 is a better deal. Less vertical hight -> better percieved picture -> more buyers + no need to change anything. And if they have 2 fat lines on the sides, so what? Cable is 4:3. So what do you end up with? Same size picture (most of the time - TV) bigger price. That's a good enough reason to swap everyone to 34 inch 16:9 which is 90% of the time used as 25 inch TV. Real deal. Spend 5 grand on a 16:9 and watch DVD's (10 percent of time). My friends having big 16:9 still try to sound convincing when taking about that. But they can't lie to themselves watching fat faces and dwarfs all the time.

[FT Shark]

I have been to some theaters where the movie didn't fit on the screen correctly. They would focus it to fit verticaly but the ends were projecting on the wall. I wish the movie industry would just pick on standard and go with that. 16:9 would be great since the new tv's are heading that way. I hate watching a 2.35:1 on my WS TV. I either have to streatch it to fit the screen or watch it with black bars, both options suck ass. But it still is better than watching them on a 4:3 tv.

[Richard_G]

When your big screen has 240 lines the picture blown up to big size looks like crap (fat lines accross). So 16:9 is a better deal. Less vertical hight -> better percieved picture -> more buyers + no need to change anything. And if they have 2 fat lines on the sides, so what? Cable is 4:3. So what do you end up with? Same size picture (most of the time - TV) bigger price. That's a good enough reason to swap everyone to 34 inch 16:9 which is 90% of the time used as 25 inch TV. Real deal. Spend 5 grand on a 16:9 and watch DVD's (10 percent of time). My friends having big 16:9 still try to sound convincing when taking about that. But they can't lie to themselves watching fat faces and dwarfs all the time.

Damn me, I knew it was grim but never realised it was that primitive in the States!!! 240 lines of picture?? cable at 4:3?? 5 Grand for a widescreen TV?? We have 625 lines, cable is almost ALWAYS 16:9 (except when the original was in 4:3), come to that, most broadcast is in 16:9 these days, and my local Tescos have 32" widescreen TVs on their shelves at £299 (about $500)!! For £2500 (about $4000) you can have a 42" plasma screen!

On the rare occasions you manage to find something in 4:3, you only get fat faces if the TV isn't set up right. You have three choices, stretch the picture (fat faces, looks bloody horrible), display as 4:3 (black lines each side, defeats the point of buying a widescreen in the first place) or what Sony call Smart, Panasonic call Just and various other names where the top and bottom are cropped slightly so the picture fills the screen but isn't distorted.

[MysticE]

When your big screen has 240 lines the picture blown up to big size looks like crap (fat lines accross). So 16:9 is a better deal. Less vertical hight ->

Damn me, I knew it was grim but never realised it was that primitive in the States!!! 240 lines of picture?? cable at 4:3?? 5 Grand for a widescreen TV?? We have 625 lines, cable is almost ALWAYS 16:9 (except when the original was in 4:3), come to that, most broadcast is in 16:9 these days, and my local Tescos have 32" widescreen TVs on their shelves at £299 (about $500)!! For £2500 (about $4000) you can have a 42" plasma screen!

VHS tapes output at 240 lines, not TV or Cable. A standard over the air signal approaches 330 lines.

[proxyx99]

VHS tapes output at 240 lines, not TV or Cable. A standard over the air signal approaches 330 lines

A standard over the air is in what?, 5% of homes?. And, this is the
"simplified" NTSC broadcast (which should be 525 lines) so that we don't get spoiled. You can still enjoy it if you install Yagi antenna (remember those?) and watch whats left of it (ca. 15 channels). Cable, my friend wants to be in 220-240 lines zone cause they want to save the precious bandwidth. Thats why they jump on digital. You can squeeze 6 digital channels in 1 ananlog assigned bandwidth. For the same reason a cable customer here has never seen 525 lines NTSC. More details on how high the definition really is in our ver. of high definition coming soon (I encourage you to start exploring, this is not what you will learn from cable company customer service).
It's like getting 40% percent water content in a glass of water you order.
And if they can bring it lower they certainly will.
For our friends in Europe, you can check our selection in circuitcity.com or bestbuy.com. I do not want to exagerate the differnces in prices, USA still enjoys really resonable levels but... for what merchandise.

I'm really pleased to see how ready are we to defend our (perceived) 330 lines. Thank you. My heart goes out to you.