I actually think you two may be closer than you realize. Michael did say (I think) a couple of times that 2.35 works only if and when you have sufficent height. Unless you are saying that between two screens with the same height you still prefer the 1.78?
What I’m saying is that I prefer a 1.78:1 or similar ratio screen if neither height nor width is a limiting factor. I find those ratios more natural and aesthetically pleasing. Images that are much narrower either vertically or horizontally reminded me more often that I’m watching a screen.
I think we need to backtrack to why I commented in the first place. Note I’m not making multiple quotes to be a pinhead just to reset the discussion to the beginning in hopes of clarification.
Michael_d asked:
Why would anyone want 1.78 if they can have 2.35 in all it’s glory without black bars.
To which Potatohead responded:
Lots of reasons. If someone is limited in screen width for whatever reason if they go 2.35, the 1.78 image is much smaller than it would be with a 1.78 screen, and you have bars on the sides anyway.
To which michael_d responded:
That's one reason and I see your point. What are all the others? Cost of the lens or a video processor doesn't count seeing how we are talking about enjoyment and not money.
My first point that money is a factor in enjoyment since one can only separate the two in a theoretical discussion not in the real world so I don’t see the point in limiting the discussion by that parameter. Michael and I clearly disagree on this.
My other point was that some people, like me, prefer an image ratio of 1.78:1 or similar because for most material we find it a more natural way of viewing the world therefore finding it more engaging making it easier to suspend disbelief.
That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate 2.35:1 or similar in some cases. Looking at large armies arrayed on the battlefield looks very impressive. However, in most shots even outdoor shots like in “Dark Night” I prefer an image framed closer to 1.78:1.
I believe Einstein once suggested that films be shot in various aspect ratios depending on the content of the scene. I don’t agree as it is a little distracting, reminding you for a bit that you are just watching a movie. But like with Dark Knight the distraction came for me when switching back to 2.40:1 and not the other way because the image seemed less natural and more like watching a film when in a 1.78:1 ratio.
Finally Michael, I am genuinely curious about the your comment that there will be a day when 2.35 projectors are mainstream and that it will cause a shift in the market. Considering the market penetration of 16:9 HDTV displays. That most affordable projectors right now have a native resolution of 16:9. That HDTV content is in that format and from my impression (no evidence) that more directors are framing their movies in 1.85:1 (presumably because of the proliferation of 16:9 displays) what would drive the market for projectors toward a 2.35 aspect ratio. Not that they won’t perhaps become more prevalent as costs of making projectors drops but what why would this drive a shift in the market? It seems to me that right now everything is moving in the other direction.
