The Changing Shape of Cinema: The History of Aspect Ratio
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Please consider supporting us on Patreon: / filmmakeriq
Take the full Filmmaker IQ course on Compositional Techniques for Aspect Ratios with sauce and bonus material: filmmakeriq.co...
Aspect Ratio is one of many choices you make when deciding how to shoot your film. Explore some basic tips on how to visualize your desired ratio and some helpful composition techniques before diving in and creating your own film that explores different aspect ratios.
If you have any further questions be sure to check out our questions page on Filmmaker IQ:
filmmakeriq.co...
My wife and I watch White Christmas each year, and this year when the "VistaVision" screen popped up at the beginning I, having learned all this from your video, began to explain to her all about the images being captured on filmed turn on its side and so forth. "That's nice, dear" is what I got. Oh well, I enjoyed understanding what I was watching. Great video.
Mansplaining is universally under-apreciated . . .
if you get the dear more than 3 times a day your not gettin any for a while
@@QED_ Mansplaining is regarded with patronizing and condescending tune. Telling info as in the original comment above doesn't include any of that. So, why is that a mansplaining?
@@ZiYaD-Bin-Fahad It's humor. Sorry that you don't understand. Maybe ask some native English speaking friends to explain it to you . . .
@@QED_ nah mansplaining is something only females use you must be a female
A few corrections: CinemaScope was originally 2.55:1 Adding optical and magnetic soundtracks reduced the image later. Todd-AO was at 26 fps for the first two and was meant to be shown on a curve screen - this was abandoned after Todd's death making it a flat screen process exactly like Super Panavision MGM Camera 65 dd not become Super Panavision or Panavision/70. Those were separate. It became Ultra Panavision, used in a few films for 70mm Cinema, before being dropped in 1966. It was revived for "the Hateful Eight" and the actual Ultra Panavision lenses are still used, although not displayed in anything other than the current 2.40:1 (The last two Avengers films, for example, include the Ultra Panavision logo.)
This was deeply fascinating. I love old films, particularly the epics from the 1950s and 60s. I never realized aspect ratio played such a large role in these classic films. Excellent presentation.
This is amazing. I learned a lot. Subscribed!
This is incredible. Love your presentation and I've learnt so much. Thanks :)
Correction #2: VistaVision was NOT solely 1.85:1. In fact, the aspect ratio could vary between 1.50:1 and 1.96:1, depending on how much of the film frame was used. Some VistaVision films were shot in 1.66:1, others in 1.75:1, others in 1.85:1.
Correction: In 1953, CinemaScope started with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, utilizing the full silent 35mm frame with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze (the first few Scope films, including "The Robe" were shot in this ratio). However, very soon, they decided to add magnetic sound strips on the frame, which reduced the ratio to 2.55:1. In 1957, they further reduced it to 2.35:1. So, CinemaScope films between 1954 and 1956 (and some in 1957, like "The Bridge of the River Kwai") are actually in the 2.55:1 ratio. The 2.35:1 only came from 1957 onwards.
Unmentioned was what happened to widescreen films when they began to be shown on television, which of course used the older aspect ratio. In some countries, the letterboxed format was used, with black bars at the top and the bottom, so that the entire original image appeared. But in the USA, the technique was called "pan and scan", in which the image was shown at its full height so it filled the TV screen, but with the two ends cut off. When action wasn't happening in the center of the image, then you got a slow pan to the left or the right so it was visible. Not only was this annoying, but it destroyed the intent of the creators of the movie. Unfortunately people in the US got accustomed to this, and when letterboxed movies began to be shown that way, there was whining and complaints about those terrible black bars on the screen and the little skinny image in the center. Oh well.
It wasn't only the US. Don't couch pan and scan as some sort of American conspiracy
Pan and scan made me nauseous--like, full-on motion-sickness. I worked at Blockbuster Video in those days and we'd have two VHS versions of certain films, a pan-and-scan and a widescreen (black bars) and I felt legitimately baffled when people would come in and specifically choose to rent a pan/scan format.
The best explanation I've ever seen. Congratulations and thank you for your work.
Came here from IMDB. This video was linked in the FAQ section of The Hateful Eight. Very informative video.. Subscribed.
Awesome presentation! I feel like a student in a college classroom watching this video!
John Hess could explain grass growing and I would be completely enthralled. Excellent work.
Chris Keyser He has the same gravitas as Robert Osbourne from TCM
Okay, this is some seriously awesome stuff! As a history buff, and the historian for my American Legion post, I found this highly entertaining along with being educational. I shall subscribe and watch them all!
Finally, for me, a definitive explanation of a very confusing subject! Thank you!
A very instructive video with just a few mistaken and glossings over. The first aspect ratio of CinemaScope was not 2.35:1 (that came later) and shooting of 70mm films was (in America) done on 65mm negative film. They were then projected (in suitably equipped cinemas) from 70mm film prints. (The extra 5mm carried the surround sound multi-channels.) But it gets across the important points very well. I like this series.
An excellent, excellent history of cinema. While it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, I found it very engaging and a well-performed, well-illustrated story. I will recommend this to anyone who wants to learn about film technology over more than the last 100 years.
John - Fantastic video. Many people could've read the history of this, but not in such an intriguing way. Thanks for taking us through the history in an incredible 18 minute video.
Wonderful explanation. Thank you!
Epically good video on the subject, stunning images from those old movies specially _How the west was won_, _Ben-Hur_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_. Thanks a lot!
Enters the digital screen. It’s a shame that in spite of the high engineering works, science and arts spent to achieve realism and aesthetics by optical scientists and engineers in the visual productions, it is dismaying to see most people are happy viewing distorted images on their digital screens. For almost two decades following the introduction of digital television and the broadcasting of digital signals on the air, most TV stations continue to transmit their programs in 4:3 format for CRT picture tubes. The viewers watch their 4:3 shows in 16:9 screens. The images are stretched sidewise with the people shorter, broad shoulders, fat faces and flat rounds. Surprisingly, people do not mind the distortion and if you adjust the image to normal, they are bothered by the black spaces at the sides. Shame for all the arts of the Vista Vision and Panavision
@@vlc-cosplayer theyre getting rid of motion interpolation arent they? I saw chris Nolan working with a TV company to have a feature where it's close as it can be to how the filmmakr intended
I think you should also talk about aspect ratio and home video because we put up with pan and scan for a long time to make the picture fill our screens. You could give examples like how horses are cut out of the chariot race in Ben Hur or how a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has cuts between Indy and his father talking to each other when it's supposed to be both in the same static shot. Then there's all the scenes where someone is talking and you can't see them.
Well done, sir! I was a projectionist at a small town theater from the time I was 15 until I was 20. Best job I ever had. When I was doing it in the late 70s and early 80s, we just discerned between "Flat" and "Scope" lenses. The Scope lenses were heavy, and tricky to mount. With a "Flat" film (4:3), you always had to draw in the masking curtains to hide the extra screen. They also used a Vista-Vision projector in a traveling carnival that came to our town They projected the novelty film (the usual fare - racing down a canyon road before vaulting off the edge to become a scenic helicopter flight,etcetera - on the inside wall of a large domed tent filled with people sitting on the floor, swaying in reaction to the film. Same kind of films IMAX used to market itself with when it started trying to become more commercial. As I recall, the carnival called it "The ThrillSphere"...
S Rennie I work at a cinema and we also discern between Flat (1:85) and Scope (2:35).
"Flat" or widescreen is 1.83:1 not 4:3 modern "scope" is 2.39:1
Yet again. Fantastic and entertaining delivery.
Excellent job ! Every filmmaker should watch this !
Concise explanations with a great ending: "Use these tools to make something great."
What I can't understand is why film producers continue cropping old movies filmed in 4:3 and convert them into 16:9. That's like mutilating important information from the film on the top and on the bottom. And even worse... sometimes, that 4:3 converted into 16:9 is even cropped on the tops and bottom (once again) to make it see like a 2:39:1 film. What's wrong with them? Please, respect original aspect ratio... don't chop a movie.
+RayDeLaCroix I know what you mean they did that with all the old The Simpson's episodes from 1989- 2009 that were in 1.33:1 (4:3) and cut off the top and bottom and formatted it to fit on modern TV's and I hate that they did that since I hate missing picture on a cartoon since i'm missing artwork i'd rather they just have left them all in there original aspect ratio and put mirrored images on the left and right that look really good and digitally restore the picture itself but leave the sound the way it originally was as well since for example in the first Christmas episode from 1989 I hate that during one of the scenes at the race track that they made the sound of the guy on the intercom louder since it makes it hard to hear other characters in the show that are reacting in that scene. Because of this i'd rather just watch the old ones on DVD since I can see the whole picture even if I have to look at it stretched to fill the frame or watch it with black bars.
Whenever I see a notification saying “This film has been modified to fit your screen,” I immediately feel uneasy... the information that was recorded should be consistent no matter when you play back the video!
RayDeLaCroix - as at 2019 the cropping of 4:3 movies into 16:9 seems to be regrettably normal in some people's eyes. I stopped buying Hammer movies on Blu Ray when I discovered to my 'horror' that some of the movies had been shorn of 25% of their original image be being reformatted to 16:9.
A great source of older movies and tv series from the 40s to the 60s is UA-cam, where unfortunately they are relentlessly presented in 16:9. Its sad. I view it as a lack of respect.
KAN 6.19 UK
Afterthoughts: I recently had to STOP watching two priceless 60s programmes on Bob Dylan, both originally made in 4:3. The first had been thoughtlessly cropped to 16:9. The result was a disaster with many scenes where he had only half a head! The second disastrous programme brings to me the alternative way of showing 4:3 programmes in 16:9 - just by stretching the 4:3 image across the 16:9 screen. Absolutely crazy. This is what caused me to stop watching the second programme. Everyone looked half their height and twice as broad. Disrespect beyond belief, yet some people think it's ok to watch a movie in this way!!!
Yeah, I hate that too... Maybe the films are heavily damaged and restoration need lots of money...
@@gridlock489 "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your TV." -Every VHS tape of my childhood.
This is very informative and very interesting. I cannot say that it cleared everything up for me, and I'm glad I won't be tested on it, but it answered a lot of the questions I had. By the way, I'm 60 years old, and I was raised on the aspect ratio of television, which is, to me, the standard. Thank you for making it and for posting it here on UA-cam.
Marvellous. There’s the trend in recent years for 2:1 especially in 4K and streaming services and new dramas
Excellently thorough overview of this aspect of visual history. I especially appreciate the great use of film clips. Bravo.
Got to agree with some of the comments below, nice easy relaxed but informative presentation by John Jess. Thank you.
Just ripping off a comment below, but you ARE the VSauce of filmmaking! Wonderful content!
Lovely to listen to a real expert.
Loved this. Thanks. Especially at 16:25 and pausing to see all the shapes together for comparison.
16:9 is a compromise, but also a mathematical reference, 'cause it's 4:3 squared. The next 'natural' exponential step (the third power of 4:3) is 64:27, equal to 2.37:1 (cinemascope). The format was also approximated and renamed 21:9 by Phillips which makes some 'cinematic' monitors with that aspect ratio.
And here I am watching this video on such a "21:9" monitor! There are a few creators who actually make youtube videos in this aspect ratio, and they are pretty glorious on this 34" screen. I do have a couple of them on my channel of a driving game I play at this aspect ratio.
This is an incredibly complete, accurate, and fully entertaining view of this amazing topic. It explains it all so simply, so matter-of-fact. Fantastic!
you have the most informative, indepth, well produced, historical, entertaining videos on cameras and filming/video on youtube that I can find.. can you do a video about your history? it would be cool to know in the same video style how you came to know what you know and got to where you are now! thanks again
Once again: something I thought I knew a lot about and I get taught dozens of things. Fantastic! That 3 camera setup for ultra wide screen is like a modern day 360 camera!
I got more out of this video than some of my college classes. Thanks for uploading great content.
A good overview. You could have usefully mentioned that the original aspect ratio of CinemaScope was a very wide 2.55:1 from 1953 until 1956 when it was reduced to 2.35:1 with the reinstatement of a full-width optical sound track on film prints to appease the many theatre owners who did not want the expense of converting to magnetic sound. This ratio in turn was amended to the current 2.39:1 in 1970 by the SMPTE in order to hide splice marks in the projected image. This ratio is sometimes referred to as 2.4:1, and occasionally (incorrectly) as 2.40:1, in DVD liner notes.
Nicely done. A few tidbits about 1950's widescreen:
Fox's 35mm CinemaScope process included turning the sprocket holes vertically to widen the usable area of the film stock - returning the aspect ratio almost back to the silent era's aspect ratio. Some films used the extra space for an additional on-film audio track (either stereo sound or monaural front with an ambient rear channel, i forget which films did which). Some early anamorphic projection lenses used adjustable prisms to accommodate different aspect ratios. Look at the Panavision logo - it's the three most common aspect ratios ;)
70mm films were shot on 65mm negatives and transferred to 70mm to make room for the audio tracks (though some road show venues used synchronous audio played back on another strip of film in the projection booth). 70mm prints had 4 magnetic audio stripes - 1 on each side of the film frame, and 1 very thin one on each edge of the film outside of the sprocket holes. The outside magnetic stripes were used by bigger theatres for ambient (surround) sound tracks while the two inner stripes carried distinct Left, Center, Right, and a backup Monaural track. Those magnetic stripes made the film thicker, by the way, and the edge stripes were needed to the keep the film from buckling on the reel. The extra audio tracks became a bonus whenthe Tod-A-O system was developed. More modern 70mm releases (mid 80's and up) included an optical track as a backup and added Left Extra and Right Extra audio in place of the Monaural backup track. By the 90's 70mm magnetic audio tracks were replaced with early digital audio systems and that optical backup track became the primary analog audio track for many theatres, increasing the usable area for the image again, great for re-releases of films like Laurence of Arabia.
Now for 35mm prints. With wide screens for Scope movies having been installed in exhibition houses all over the world, a dilemma for threatre owners arose when showing non-Scope movies: the standard 1.35 aspect ratio looked like tiny home movies against that giant screen (curtains and masking started disappearing by the mid 1970's). Theatres began adding magnifying lenses to enlarge the non-Scope films to fill more of the screen, cropping off the top and bottom of the non-anamorphic image. By the 1980's the new, wider aspect 1.85 (or "Flat" aspect ratio) had been adopted by most studios who kept this cropped image in mind when shooting for the screen - I say this because, as a Projectionist, I could always tell a film was shot for television/home video by looking at the frame on the film: if it had wide frame lines, it could be assumed it was designed for cinema.
Anamorphic (Scope) films used the full 1.35 ratio on the print and when Films like The Wizard Of Oz or Gone With The Wind were re-released in the late 80's and early 90's, I was a bit pissed that the took the original 1.35 aspect ratio and squeezed that through the anamorphic process in order to maintain the original height of the projected image- meaning that the image on the film was only a tiny vertical sliver with black pillars on either side. This was probably done so the booming multiplex movie theatres didn't have to remove their magnifying Flat lenses from the automatic lens turrets most projectors had for switching between Flat and Scope. The result looked like 16mm film.
Oh... and one last thing... the curved screen was a must for the 3 projector Cinerama system in order to keep the azimuth of each projector correct which kept the the image from distorting. So why were they used for CinemaScope and Panavision? Focus. Simply focus. the sides of the screen needed to be the same distance from the lens as the center - or you would need to use a very expensive custom-ground-for-that-auditorium anamorphic projection lens.
Love to here from a professional. When were you a projectionist.
Such a great put together video. Thank you 👏
I used to be a projectionist manager many years ago and showing 70mm was amazing the depth and immersive quality is still with me today a different experience to Imax totally.
Wow! A Tour De Force in aspect ratio history!
BRAVO!
SBF
Thank you, John Hess, for your thorough analysis of an intriguing subject. One technical aspect that always seems to allude filmmakers.... DREAMS. That ethereal product of the human mind subconsciously creating images in an aspect ratio no film or video camera will ever truly capture. I've always wished their was a camera that could capture dreams. So many of mine were low on plotlines and heavy on atmosphere. How I wish there was a device that could have saved my dreams from childhood to early adult years. Oh well....🇵🇷🇺🇸😎
OK, so there a couple of omissions from this. Widescreen did not start with Cinerama and cinemascope the first major use was in the mid to late 20s in fact many of the cinemascope cameras were reconditioned cameras from this earlier period. There were other examples too such as the silent epic Napoleon which featured finale of three panels using 3 projectors.
This video is fantastic. Thank you!
These videos are very informative, I became very interested in finding out more about cinerama. One thing I found interesting is that there was a Soviet film (travelogue) showed in the USA (Great is my country). Seems they used the same/similar system in the soviet union called "kinopanorama", although it had a lot more films filmed in that style. Asking my grandfather, he actually worked on projecting some of them at a cinema. Although in russian, there is a movie list on this wikipedia page, which I found interesting ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0. So not only did I find about what cinerama is through this channel, but also about other similar systems. Thank you Fillmaker IQ.
Best video i've seen on aspect ratio. Keep the good work up bro.
The most cogent explanation of this, and its history, I've ever experienced. Thanks!
I could watch John for days. Thank you!
the icing was your voice narration and edits..
This video is really a great cinematography class !!
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge, WE really appreciate it.
cheers and please keep it up :D
Very informative video. For years, I've always wondered to myself "why all the various screen ratios from one film to the next?" and this informative video explained it all.
Thanks John... very informative and entertaining
and today we have vertical video :/
PassCookie
Ah yes. The amateur video shot in 9:16 and severely pillar boxed into 16:9 and then severely letterboxed onto a 9:16 handheld device.
Vertical video is only good for video chat on mobile devices, and for special applications such as display boards and backdrops on concert sets. Although Instagram stories are ok.
PassCookie hahahaha Lol
It's fascinating to look back on how we got to the 9×16 (vertical) aspect ratio that is so common today. Nobody chose 9×16 because it was the "perfect" format for vertical video. We just ended up with 9×16 because everybody has 16×9 screens in their pocket, and when you rotate it 90°, you end up with a 9×16 screen. And we ended up with 16×9 because it was a good compromise between 4×3 and 2.35×1 when HDTV was rolling out in the early 90s. And we ended up with 2.35×1 because it was a convenient aspect ratio to use with 2×1 anamorphic lenses and 35mm film, since it was roughly double the width of 4×3. And we ended up with 4×3 because that was the approximate aspect ratio of "4 perfs" on 35mm film. So decisions that were made way back in the early 1900s ended up having a pretty big impact on the aspect ratios that we are still using today.
The original TV aspect ratio, from John Logie Baird, 30 vertical lines with a vertical picture.
Wow, incredible video! Learning about the 16:9 compromise there blew my mind! Thank you good Asian sir!
John, I have this feeling there are many film classes and archives taking note of your fine work here on UA-cam. I imagine some of your material is already being exhibited for their research. :-)
interesting history, I learned some new aspects about aspect ratios I didn't know before.
Required viewing for film students. Great stuff!
The only missing one is 2K Cinema 2048x1080 or 1.89!
This was great. I just use an aspect ratio hole in the gimbal wimbal box for my aspect ratio needs.
You forgot to mention one early if not the first use of widescreen in the movie Napoleon (1927) directed by Abel Ganze. IT involvesd the simultaneous projection of three reels of silent film arrayed in a horizontal row, making for a total aspect ratio of 4:1 (3× 1.33:1). The director was worried that the film's finale would not have the proper impact by being confined to a small screen. Gance thought of expanding the frame by using three cameras next to each other. The technic was named by a critic polyvision.
+insert name here. Yes, and no reply to the comment that Frenchman Abel Gance first used a Cinerama-like format in Oct 1926. I saw the restored film some years ago - great!
Yet another example of America taking the credit away from true inventors who were in other countries (ie Tessla). Although I believe no copy exists, Gance also tried colour and 3D for the final segment (only monochrome 2D exist today).
The other way to look at it is that we have two eyes that are placed next to each other horizontally. Consequently, we have a "widescreen" field of view, and a widescreen video format therefore is the most suited for our vision.
You guys are so awesome I've learned most of this already and I had to watch it because of your awesome presentation! I love you guys!
This video: 200k+ views
Pissing on strangers just a prank bro: 7m+ views
gj internet
xD
FROM WIKIPEDIA ......The Wes Anderson Collection by Matt Zoller Seitz ISBN 081099741X "...the director shot his eighth feature, The Grand Budapest Hotel, in three different aspect ratios: 1.33, 1.85, and 2.35:1. The movie jumps through three time periods; the different aspect ratios tell viewers where they are in the timeline.”
This is an amazing video, I loved everything about it, except the fake sound of the chalk tapping on the board as the white text appeared, but then if I couldn't find some fault I know I was dead and all this was just a dreamPlease keep making these wonderful videos:)
I love your narration, it's really calm and informative. I'm one or two videos away from subscribing lol
+Nahuel Martínez two videos?? Well good thing we have a few more. Thanks for watching!!
As a director I love 2:35:1 my favorite
Really good - well presented and interesting, even for non-film makers. Thanks
Best explanation ever.
I really think you are amazing, love your INSPIRING and films. THANK you for your sharing of film-creating knowledge... YOU ARE GREAT!!!
Excellent presentation, thoroughly enjoyed the upload.
Well done !
Brilliant videos on your channel John, keep them coming!
At 16:40', this is incorrect. Mark Schubin (of www.schubincafe.com) says that Kerns Powers has confirmed to him that it was Joe Nadan of Philips who came up with 16:9. Source: journal.smpte.org/content/105/8/460.full.pdf+html .
(BTW, I presented about the first 21:9 TV from Philips at Mark's HPA Tech Retreat 2010. This project started as .. 3 LCD panels stitched together !)
+Jeroen Stessen Thanks for the new info!
SHAWSCOPE! Great informative yet engaging video, thank you.
Fantastic. Cheers guys. Incredible presentation. Subscribed.
Excellent and insightful. Thanks! I guess you chose not to mention the many 35mm movies during the '70s, '80s and '90s, shot with spherical (= non-anamorphic)lenses and cut top and bottom (a lot of wasted space) to yield a 1:1.85 ratio in theaters and, if shot in "open matte" (no black masking) a close to 1:1.33 "full frame" for standard tv broadcast, home video and early DVD releases. Even Cameron's "Aliens", as countless others, was shot that way (R. Scott's earlier "Alien" was shot in Panavision anamorphic 1:2.35). And there is Techniscope (35mm 2 perf), the "poor man's Panavision" - used to great effect by the classic Sergio Leone Westerns, allowing for a great depth-of-field and standard sphrerical lenses (it had to be converted to anamorphic through optical printing for theatrical release prints though, yet it performed very well). And of course Super 35mm (both 4 perf and 3 perf) for various aspect ratios, a camera-only format using the basic idea of Techniscope (in 1997' "Titanic" was shot in Super 35, 4 perf). I apologize for the nerdy talk :-) Anyway: these are just minor additions. Great and very informative video. Thanks a lot!
+Christian Schonberger We didn't cover them because they aren't "new" aspect ratios - but new ways to capture the same aspect ratio... but one of these days, we'll go back and revisit those.
+Filmmaker IQ Thanks for the quick reply and logical explanation!
So you watched the video... and you didn't learn that widescreen began in the 1950s, a long time before Television adopted widescreen shapes. That the original widescreen formats were more expensive to produce (including the cumbersome Cinerama process). We've got 60 years of cinematic widescreen, it's not a PR thing, it's a substantial and important aesthetic.
Dickson's original aspect ratio (0.95:0.735, or 190:147) rounds down to 1.29: An actual 4:3 ratio with a 0.735" frame-height would have a 0.98" frame-width. This, however, is about as close to 4:3 as the Academy ratio is, but on the other side.
I was surprised to learn that Oklahoma! was the *first* Todd-AO film (also, as your recent video about frame-rates reminded me, its motion did look futuristic when I first saw it on home video in the '90s, probably because of its high frame-rate) and also that the 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio wasn't just a simplistic squaring of the 4:3 SD aspect ratio (I also hadn't noticed that 2.35 and 2.39 are both very close to the cube of 4/3, which is exactly 2.37037… with "037" repeating thereafter).
I have read that 4:3 aspect ratio has to with human vision field of view. Golden ratio (1.61...) is another pleasant looking ratio thats why some computer monitors use 16:10 which is pretty close to it.
thank you, very well explained.
Brilliantly explained! Cheers
You maybe right. But I read somewhere years ago (So I'm going on memory) but wasn't 16 x 9 (1:77) for next gen TV's chosen as it was about the middle ground between American academy standard of 1:85 and European standard of 1:66. There was talk and many Society of American Cinematographers members lobbied Zenith and other manufacturers to adopt 2:40. Any movie shown with a narrower acquisition was shown with black bars the narrower the wider black bars were. NTSC rejected it because the cost of blow moulding tubes. Remember early HD's weren't Plasma or L.C.D yet, was astronomical. Also NTSC claimed most movies were not shot in Cinemascope or wider ratio's. Meaning only larger epic movies were favoured if they went with 2:4 or it's compromise of 2:1.
I'd like you to make a episode on all the different HD proposals (5 X 3) 1125P analog, 1575p and i, and 1250 i and p Eureka. Among the many, that manufacturers presented hoping their version would be chosen.
Propero's Books a feature was shot on one of the early Analog HD cameras (circa 1981) . 1125 if I remember correctly. Thanks for the upload, enjoyed it immensely.
Very interesting. I remember my Dad taking me to How The West Was Won. And seeing all fo those terms like "filmed in cinemascope" They were real pioneers!
Thanks so much for this crash course! Learned a lot.
Originally CinemaScope was 2.66:1 with the original "Fox Hole" CS Perforations and Magnetic sound 2.35 was adopted with the use of regular Kodak (KS) perforations and optical sound track
MGM camera 65 later became UltraPanavision 70 and Vista Vision was recommended projection aspect wa 1.85 but it was framed for a option of 1.66 ( the defacto european flat standard and 2:1
You forgot about one thing. In 1927, Abel Gance’s five hour epic’s finale. Was, probably the first widescreen. Abel put three cameras and with three screens (just like cinerama) Just a fun fact
Brilliant!
One of the best things i have seen on UA-cam.
Any programme that mentions Todd-AO gets full marks, in my book! Very good overall history with excellent graphics.
This kind of video just makes you automatically subscribe, thank you for this!
Great job. Really well-done video!
Your videos are much better than trying to read Wikipedia or something.
Awesome! A total fan of the History of series. I even show them to my video editing students. So much information with the associated footages.
Do you guys take requests!? Would love to see a History of Color Grading and all the different color spaces used in Cinema.
+Designers Cauldron Thanks for showing these to your students!
Color Grading as we know is actually only about 20 years old - we get into color in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/lRheZ_MUYiY/v-deo.html
We cover some of the practical side in this video which delves more into color theory and production design which is where I think color grading should start:
ua-cam.com/video/v7MdPJqEOU4/v-deo.html
+Filmmaker IQ Awesome. Thank you for linking me to the videos. (y)
I just learned something! Thank you for the insight into that subject! It was very interesting and very well presented!
this is one of the best videos i watched on youtube..thank you!!!!
He is so inviting. Great guy! Very cool information.
Really amazing! Thanks for the valuable information..
Well done man, such a nice job
your tutorials are great,,,very helpful and perfectly described....