alt Hacker NewsAspect ratio by itself tells you very little about the theatrical viewing experience. What really matters is the "angular image size," i.e. the horizontal and vertical angle that the image fills in your field of view. This is determined by the aspect ratio of the image, but also critically the size of the screen and the distance from the screen to the viewer.
1.43 IMAX screens are really really big and fill more of your field of view than most other cinema screens. You can't just look at the 1.43 aspect ratio and say "it's skinnier than 2.39 scope" or "it's wider than 2.39 anamorphic." It would be more accurate to say "in your field of view, it's both wider and taller than most theater's 2.39 anamorphic projection."
This is also why pleas for the 1.43 aspect ratio on home video are slightly misguided. It's not the shape of the 1.43 IMAX image that's so compelling. It's the angular image size! And you probably are not going to view an IMAX film at home with the intended image size. (To be clear, I think it would still be interesting to see that 1.43 image at home, and in VR it's reportedly an excellent experience.)
Replies
Related: Chart Of Common Viewing Angles from Steve Yedlin, ASC https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/#:~:text=Chart
I chuckle at the thought of going back to letterboxing with people arguing that “we need to see the top and bottom of the frame, like the director intended!” What’s old is new again. Are hemlines up or down this year? Skinny jeans or baggy?
> Aspect ratio by itself tells you very little about the theatrical viewing experience.
Yes, but also no.
to a whole generation of millenials -> boomers 4:3 == analogue and or cheap, "widescreen" is HD and better quality.
Thats why a lot of people were really happy to have streched 4:3->16:9 because wide screen == more modern and higher resolution. Unless you acutally care about that sort of thing you're never really twig that its just streched. I mean sure of you ask people about and compare side by side, they'll go "oh yeah"
The point now is that 4:3 is a allusion to a specific point in time, in the same way techincolour, or black and white, noir or infomercial are.
> This is also why pleas for the 1.43 aspect ratio on home video are slightly misguided. It's not the shape of the 1.43 IMAX image that's so compelling. It's the angular image size! And you probably are not going to view an IMAX film at home with the intended image size.
Yes, exactly. If you really care about the theatrical experience, you'll be using a projector at home... and it's really up to your particular space whether you'd be able to fit in a bigger screen at a 1.43 or a 16:9 aspect ratio.
For some rough math, I rule-of-thumb 5 feet vertically as a reasonable max size for a home projector - it gives you a couple feet at the bottom for coffee tables, consoles etc. and doesn't reach too high, so you don't need to be looking too far upwards or to invest in stadium seating. 60 inches vertically gives you a 105 inch 1.43:1 screen, or a wider 122 inch 16:9 screen. Assuming you don't have other constraints (brightness, horizontal space, etc.) you may as well get the wider/bigger screen.