Widescreen versus 4:3

[roxics]

I watched Casablanca for the first time ever the night before last. Better than I expected. Shot in non-widescreen since it was made in 1942, before that took over.

I've always heard widescreen movies were a response to the introduction and fear of television taking over. Televisions were designed to match film, at 4:3 or thereabouts. Porthole TV and such aside. Once the NTSC TV standard was set, changing the aspect ratio would have been more difficult. But still I wonder what the the film industry would have done if TV makers had tried to match widescreen back in the 1950s by introducing widescreen TVs. Not that there would have been much use for them before a widescreen home video standard. Still, would filmmaker have then gone back to non-widescreen movies just to spite television? Or what if TV had started widescreen, would Hollywood have just not gone down the widescreen route then? Would filmmakers have eventually gravitated toward widescreen no matter what TV did because they liked the variety of aspect ratios?

Just wondering how it might have played out and if widescreen was always inevitable or not.

 

[NorBro]

Humans were always destined to experiment. And as soon as it was possible or easily achievable, moving images were put into different sized rectangles (and squares).

The growth of the internet and the development of interactive channels & networks (social media) further supported this notion and experimentation, which created new standards (or additional ones).

So regardless of film or TV, something new was going to be created and someone was going to like it and do the same thing (or something else).

 

[DLD]

It was immeasurably easier to make a Vista Vision or even a 65mm/70mm camera than to change anything about the TV. Projectors were harder because the theater owners - which for a long time were studios themselves - wanted compatibility. But larger film format brought additional quality to theaters on top of just wide screen.

The TV set manufacturers top goal in the 1950's was to bring prices down. The first color model RCA CT-100 (get it, Color Television!) was $1,000 in 1954. Which was half an an average car (the current average car price is around $45,000, so start counting).

In the 70's and onward, a lot of wide screen films were shown on TV in pan&scan. Which was OK. But sometimes they weren't even desqueezed.

 

[roxics]

Yeah I figured at some point people would at least experiment with widescreen in some form or another. Just didn't know if it was inevitable it would become a standard. But I guess we could say it was since the only evidence we have is that it did. lol

DLD that's crazy about the cost of color TVs isn't it? I'm fascinated by the history of all that stuff. My grandfather actually owned a TV/appliance store in the 1940s or 1950s. I'm not entirely sure when. So my mother had a TV in the house at a young age before most people. He died in a car accident in this thirties, when my mom was still young, so I never got to know him. The only remnant of any of that is a full page newspaper ad my sister has framed in her house from the store he owned. I had a photo copy once but I'm going to have to get her to send me another. Then i can check the date.

 

[NorBro]

Standards are just decisions made by a bunch of people (or a few) at a time in life and in their lives depending on what they think is correct and/or if they think it can make them any money. (Or if they don't have many choices such as technology only offering one or two things at that moment.)

Any number of other decisions could have worked as well, if they were available.

 

[Imamacuser]

Complexity and expense were limiting factor to widescreen aspect ratios, but people still experimented with different size film formats and aspect ratios since the inception of motion pictures. See this Wikipedia list of motion picture film formats.

Wouldn't it be difficult to manufacture rectangular cathode ray tubes?

 

[DLD]

... Wouldn't it be difficult to manufacture rectangular cathode ray tubes?

One could have controlled what was fed into them. I.E, the tubes themselves would be circular but then the signal that they projected would be directed a certain way and the TV cabinet would do the rest.

As to prices, back in 2004 Sony SXRD Qualia 004 Full HD projector was being sold for $27,000, plus $3,000 for the lamp. Or $30,000 for the setup, not counting wiring, screen, audio, mounting brackets, installation labor, etc. An average new car then was ~ $22,000.

Now one can get an HD projector with better specs for around $500 and that famous average car is close to $45,000.

(and do you think the BLS counts its mythical CPI?)

 

[Run&Gun]

Complexity and expense were limiting factor to widescreen aspect ratios, but people still experimented with different size film formats and aspect ratios since the inception of motion pictures. See this Wikipedia list of motion picture film formats.

Wouldn't it be difficult to manufacture rectangular cathode ray tubes?

I don’t know about manufacturing difficulties “back then”, but we had 16:9 CRT’s in (at least) the late 90’s and early 2000’s. As a matter of fact, one of the first HDTV’s I saw in-person was a Zenith HD CRT set that was on the sales floor at my families store.

 

[firehawk]

I didn't notice it at the time, but even in the 80s widescreen monitors were on some TV shows and music videos. For example Duran Duran's "Wild boys" shows stuff happening on a widescreen monitor in the background. (1984)

 

[roxics]

I didn't notice it at the time, but even in the 80s widescreen monitors were on some TV shows and music videos. For example Duran Duran's "Wild boys" shows stuff happening on a widescreen monitor in the background. (1984)

A little bit yeah. Although it looks more like maybe 1.5:1 at most. The CRTs in the video are normal.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I would have to assume that "TV" was front or rear film projection, given the tech of that day.

Just reading up on that video, which I had completely forgotten about (Duran Duran videos were for me a channel changer in the MTV era)--10 day shoot, budget was a million dollars (=2.7 million today). Wow.

 

[markfpv]

Duran Duran videos were for me a channel changer in the MTV era

I knew there were other reasons to agree with you Charles - not just about camera gear. :laugh:

 

[DLD]

Girls on Film, directed by Godley and Cream. Classic music clip.

 

[Jim Feeley]

Girls on Film, directed by Godley and Cream. Classic music clip.

Ah, the "censored" broadcast version... Nearly 20 years ago, I interviewed Lol Creme about the Gizmotron... And this came up in the conversation. IIRC, they filmed the video before MTV was around, and expected it to mainly be played in dance clubs. The original cut had more nudity and suggestively. When it started to be shown, there was a reaction, and notoriety wasn't terrible for anyone's careers and they released a MTV-friendly cut. Again, IIRC...

 

[DLD]

That's how I remember it too ... except, on cable in the Midwest, they always showed a cleaner version and talked about a naughtier clip without ever showing it. I wasn't the band biggest fan but felt they were among better "new wave" groups.

 

[Jim Feeley]

That's how I remember it too ... except, on cable in the Midwest, they always showed a cleaner version and talked about a naughtier clip without ever showing it. I wasn't the band biggest fan but felt they were among better "new wave" groups.

You can find the "original" "uncensored" version with a Google search.

I agree about Duran Duran; had some good songs but not really my bag. Godley & Creme, however.... In high school, I LOVED their oddball album L, which was rather less oddball than their previous triple album Consequences. And geez, they really directed some groundbreaking music videos, huh?

Anyway, a few years ago we saw in a theater the lovely 4K restoration of The Third Man. It was 4:3 and it was great! And cinematic. Our kids loved it, too. The big screen helped there, of course. If it comes around to a theater near you, definitely go!

And more recently, there's David Lowery's 2017 film, A Ghost Story, which is also 4:3. The film is quiet and pretty good. But in this case, the aspect ratio felt kind of contrived. Still, there's a strong commitment to the aesthetic and the story and craft are strong enough to make the film worth watching.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I knew there were other reasons to agree with you Charles - not just about camera gear. :laugh:

I have a friend who is a singer/songwriter and her sound is somewhat 80's retro inspired. Recently she got to attend a small rooftop show by Duran Duran and hang out with Simon LeBon for a bit afterwards. It was like a dream come true for her and I was of course happy for her...and glad I wasn't her date at that event because I wouldn't have been able to fake any sort of enthusiasm...?!

Meanwhile I went to see Dave Wakeling lead his current incarnation of the English Beat at a small venue, and that was MUCH more my speed when it comes to 80's nostalgia.

 

[Batutta]

And more recently, there's David Lowery's 2017 film, A Ghost Story, which is also 4:3. The film is quiet and pretty good. But in this case, the aspect ratio felt kind of contrived.

A good use of a constricted aspect ratio was in the series HOMECOMING. I think it was even more than 4:3, closer to 1:1. When I started the show I wondered why they used that ratio for certain scenes, then realized why as the mystery unfolded, SPOILER, because Julia Roberts character had been physically blinded from the truth and is experiencing a constricted view of her reality.

 

[DLD]

I think 4:3 is useful for the "feeling" of being constricted but one could just frame any aspect ratio to attain this.

Personally, as I had mentioned in a similar discussion, I like 1.66. Godfather looked great in 1.85. And Leone was Leone in 2.35 in Once Upon a Time in the West. Leone/Delli Colli wanted a certain look while Coppola/Willis concentrated on the story telling, with the visuals needing to fit the rest. And so it did.