The monitor is regular and widescreen. Screen Aspect Ratio: A Complete Guide

And of course, physical size.

The length and width of the display allow you to determine its diagonal and aspect ratio. These two indicators are basic and allow you to understand how the smartphone will fit in your hand and how convenient it will be to use. The length of the diagonal can be used to judge the size of the screen, but what does the aspect ratio indicate?

What is display aspect ratio?

Display aspect ratio is the proportional ratio of screen width to height, which determines geometric shape Images. Depending on these proportions, the screen may be more square or elongated in height.

Not long ago, when the ultimate dream was a phone with a 4-inch diagonal, the most common ratio was 4:3. This was enough for gaming, surfing or watching movies at the appropriate frame ratio. Gradually, with the development of technology, preference began to be given to the 16:9 widescreen screen.

What screens are used on smartphones?

Smartphone manufacturers have kept up with the trend, so the display has increased significantly in length. Now the vast majority of gadgets use this aspect ratio. Some manufacturers make the display a little shorter, and the aspect ratio is 5:3 or 16:10, but this has virtually no effect on the image format.

Thus, they managed to maintain the popular diagonal and make new smartphone more ergonomic, and when surfing or watching news feed began to appear more information on the screen. The only minor inconvenience was watching movies, since the leading position is still occupied by the 16:9 ratio. When viewing at 18:9 aspect ratio, small black stripes remain on the sides. This issue is successfully resolved by scaling the image.

New aspect ratios are gaining popularity, so hopefully we'll be getting a ton of new 18:9 content soon.

It’s no wonder that buyers are now confused about formats: 4:3 is standard, 16:9 is the future, so which is better for home video theater? If I buy a projector with a native 4:3 aspect ratio, will it display in 16:9? If you are planning to get a home theater and don't know which format to prefer: 4:3 or 16:9, read this article.

By the way, if this is your first time hearing about the 4:3 and 16:9 formats, then keep in mind that we are talking about the ratio of width and height rectangular image, in other words, about the aspect relationship. Regular TV has an aspect ratio of 4:3. This means that for every four units of width there are 3 units of height. New standard for HDTV - 16:9, i.e. For 16 units of width there are 9 units of height. Thus, a 16:9 HDTV image is a rectangle that is horizontally wider than a regular TV image.

The problem is that the video image has a lot various formats. Materials prepared for regular TV are in 4:3 format and are often labeled as 1.33 (because 4 divided by 3 is 1.33). Programs prepared for HDTV are in 16:9 (1.78) format. Movies, music videos and other DVD recordings are released in the most different formats: 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.00, 2.35, 2.4, 2.5, etc. Because the universal format There is no such thing as a rectangular video image, which often causes confusion. So what, ideally, format should the projector be and what format should the screen for it be?

Here's a simple answer: given the available projector and screen formats, there are three options for home theater. A projector with a native 4:3 format and a screen of the same 4:3 format. A projector with a native 16:9 aspect ratio and a 16:9 screen. Or a projector with a native 4:3 format and a 16:9 screen. (Theoretically, there is another possibility: a 16:9 projector and a 4:3 screen, but for reasons that will become obvious to you after reading this article, you have to be completely out of your head to prefer this option.)

Each option has its own advantages, but also its own limitations that must be tolerated. There is no ideal option - there is a better one for you. And you'll know which one it is when you check out the following comparison analysis.

Option 1: Native 16:9 projector and 16:9 screen.

If you watch HDTV and widescreen DVD player, your choice is obvious. A 16:9 projector and a 16:9 screen are undoubtedly the best combination for producing widescreen images. The 16:9 image and the 16:9 screen fit together perfectly and everything is great. The main advantage is that you achieve the highest possible resolution for a widescreen video source.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that when it comes to DVD movies, format issues arise. Many films have an aspect ratio larger than 16:9. For example, Dances with Wolves, The Tomb, U-571, American Beauty, star Wars/ The Phantom Menace (to name just a few) – 2.35:1. So when you watch these movies on a 16:9 screen, you get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, each about 12% wide of the picture's height. The banding isn't as wide as it would be on a 4:3 screen, but it's still noticeable. A Stewart Grayhawk screen will make them darker, and a Firehawk screen will make them even darker, making the presence of these black bars on the screen less noticeable to the eye.

However, another option to consider is additional electric curtains (black motorized panels) for watching movies of this format (these can be ordered with the screen from the supplier). You will make sure that general impression the image you are viewing will improve greatly. Nothing brings a video image to life more than a solid black frame. It amazes me how many people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on devices that give them the best possible experience. possible image, and refuse to invest a relatively small amount in decent framing.

What to do with 4:3 video on 16:9 equipment

The main limitations of a 16:9 projector with a 16:9 screen relate to the display of 4:3 video materials. And there are MANY of them in the world. Ordinary TV, of course, has a 4:3 format. But also most of the film classics (Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Fantasia, etc.). Most musical films are also in 4:3 format. Most IMAX specials are also 4:3. That is why many are also concerned about the image quality of 4:3 video materials.

With a 16:9 projector/screen, it is best to display 4:3 footage in the center of the 16:9 screen, leaving stripes at the edges of the screen. If the 4:3 video source is a DVD player or HDTV, the bars will be black, which is tolerable. If the signal comes from a TV, the bars will be gray. But this is terrible. Nothing ruins a video image more than that gray frame.

You can fight this different ways, but none of them can be considered good. Firstly, you can use additional vertical electric curtains along the edges of the image. This will work, of course, but this method is too expensive.

Secondly, you can use the projector’s “stretch” function and stretch a 4:3 picture horizontally to a 16:9 format. This makes people immediately fat, and cars with oval wheels scrape their bottoms along the road. What a spectacle. The romantic mood created by the film Casablanca (4:3 format) will be spoiled by the sight of Bogart and Bergman - they look like they spent the war years gorging themselves on French cheeses and pates. For anyone who is serious about the art of cinema and wants to see a video or movie the way the creator created it, this kind of mockery of the image (a feature that all 16:9 video projectors are equipped with) is unacceptable.

Thirdly, you can use “zoom”, which enlarges the image while cutting off its top and bottom part, and shows the "middle" in Full Screen 16:9 format. On close-ups you will see faces without foreheads and chins. In any case, it is constantly felt that the “living” proportions of the image are violated. So we have yet another ridiculous “feature” that should not be used.

Finally, if 4:3 footage is really important to you and you don't intend to put it through that kind of processing, just forget about the 16:9 projector and get a 4:3 projector.
On the other hand, if you don't often watch 4:3 footage or aren't too concerned about achieving optimal picture quality, just accept the edge banding as the lesser evil.

Option 2. A projector with a native 4:3 format and a 4:3 screen.

At first glance, the choice of projector and screen, each in 4:3 format, seems a little old-fashioned. After all, 16:9 is the future, isn't it? Why choose yesterday? And then, so as not to encounter the problems that we just discussed. If you watch primarily 4:3 material, or want to show a classic film the best way, a projector and a 4:3 screen may be optimal for you.
With this option, the image takes up the entire screen. When a 16:9 video signal is input into the projector, the image takes up 75% of the 4:3 screen, leaving black bars at the top and bottom.

This solution has a number of advantages. First, everything is simple - no fuss. Second, you can use electric curtains and adjust the visible dimensions of the screen to an image with any aspect ratio for any video material. Horizontal and vertical curtains will allow you to install a solid black frame around anything - not just around a 4:3 or 16:9 image, which is important since many DVDs have an aspect ratio greater than 16:9. This way, no matter what you're watching, you can open and close the curtains to match the actual dimensions of the image.

By the way, there is also an anamorphic lens for this option. If you want to use 100% of the resolution of a 4:3 sensor to project a 16:9 anamorphic image, you can use a Panamorph lens. This is another optional lens that mounts in front of the projector (where's your stepladder?). The difference between Panamorph and ISCO is that Panamorph compresses the image vertically rather than stretching it horizontally. Thus, a 4:3 anamorphic image (tall, skinny people), projected across the entire width of a 4:3 screen, will be compressed vertically by the Panamorph lens to a 16:9 format, while the width of the image will remain unchanged, which is what was required.

The above considerations for the ISCO lens can also be applied to the Panamorph lens, although it is not as expensive. Note that to minimize geometric distortion, the lens must be installed so that the image is projected as close to the top edge of the screen as possible. This circumstance must be taken into account when choosing electric curtains.

As with the ISCO lens, I personally would not use the Panamorph lens, since for me the effort and money are not worth the effect achieved. However, there are videophiles who don’t really worship them, so it was important to draw your attention to this option.

Why buy a 4:3 screen for a 4:3 projector?

It all depends on what and how you like to watch. It's about psychological and emotional aspects, as well as your own aesthetic preferences - do you think "a 4:3 picture should be smaller than 16:9?" Do you enjoy watching 4:3 TV and then widening the picture to enjoy a widescreen movie? A lot of people will understandably say, “Well, yes, of course, that's what home video theater is for, isn't it?”

Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I prefer a larger 4:3 screen, and here's why. Without a doubt, I love watching widescreen movies in all their widescreen glory. So I have a 4:3 screen in my house that's wide enough (in my case, it's 8 feet) that I can also watch 16:9 movies. I have electric curtains to go with it, which are usually set to 16:9, so it looks like a widescreen video theater. If I'm putting on an ultra-widescreen film, I'll close the curtains a little and have a solid black frame around the image. You can adapt to any video format.

Now let's say I change footage and want to watch a grand IMAX DVD movie 4:3 format called "Blue Planet". Frankly, having to compress a 4:3 IMAX film to fit it in the middle of a 16:9 screen is quite annoying to me. It's even worse to watch an IMAX film in full 16:9 format, leaving a third of the image behind the top and bottom edges of the screen. But I am freed from these problems. I have a large 4:3 screen hidden behind the curtains. I press a button, open the curtains, and get a majestic 4:3 IMAX image in all its glory.

It's the same with music videos - almost all of them are in 4:3 format, and for my taste, the bigger the better. Great music – big video. Looking at the 4:3 screen with a diagonal of 120 inches (just over 3 meters), I feel like I was in the front row at the Eagles Hell Freezes Over concert. And when that same image is squeezed into the middle of a 16:9 screen, the Eagles look like they're on TV.

And football looks great on big screen 4:3. And classic films like Fantasia, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, and indeed all 4:3 films look very spectacular on the big screen.

Now back to those two options, what size is my 4:3 image? On a 4:3 screen it takes up 8 x 6 = 48 sq ft (2.4m x 1.8m? 4.3 sqm). On a 16:9 screen it would take up 6 x 4.5 = 27 sq ft (1.8m x 1.35m? 2.4 sqm). Almost twice as much! That's the difference between attending an Eagles concert and watching it on TV.
And meanwhile - and this key moment– my 16:9 image size remains the same: 8 x 4.5 = 36 sq.ft (2.4 m x 1.35 m? 3.2 sq.m). You can only resize a 4:3 image. Want to make the most of your wall surface? A 4:3 screen will give you a larger area for the image, because... he has larger size vertically.

I will never give up the pleasure of watching IMAX films, or Fantasia, or music videos, or football in the largest possible format for me. Especially for the seemingly unimportant (to me) consideration that 4:3 footage needs to be “smaller” in size than widescreen film. The bottom line is this: I personally don't think a 4:3 image should be smaller than a 16:9 image - I love big pictures, and let each be as big as I can achieve.

Now. It may seem to you that these arguments of mine are nonsense. If so, remember, we're talking about entertainment for YOU here. Think about what and how you want to watch. Arrange everything the way you like. There is no “right” solution at all. Eat correct solution for you.

Option 3. A projector with a native 4:3 format and a 16:9 screen.

There are currently hundreds of 4:3 projectors on the market and only a few 16:9 ones. Thus, among 4:3 projectors there is a wide variety in terms of price and image quality. Since most 4:3 projectors produce both 4:3 and 16:9 formats, many people buy them for home theater use.

Most 4:3 projectors are designed for presentation purposes, but some are designed for both presentation and home theater use. Several home theater manufacturers such as Runco, Vidikron, DWIN, Marantz, Sim2/Seleco and Sharp have developed 4:3 projector models designed exclusively for home theater applications.

Since the 16:9 format is all the rage due to HDTV, many people choose a 4:3 projector in combination with a 16:9 screen. A completely legal way. But there are trade-offs that you should be aware of. Let's first look at how to in this case the image will look like a 16:9 aspect ratio.

When a 4:3 projector projects a 16:9 signal, it uses 75% of its matrix (whether LCD panel, DLP chip or LCOS chip). Those. a device with a native 4:3 XGA resolution (1024 x 768 pixels) uses only 575 lines of the available 768 to create an image. The active 1024 x 575 pixel matrix produces an image with an aspect ratio of 16:9, and the remaining 193 lines are idle.

This results in black bars along the top and bottom edges of the screen due to unused panel or chip lines. Therefore, if you have a 4:3 projector and a 16:9 screen, you can install the projector in such a way that the black bars go beyond the edges of the screen. Voila, the projected image matches the screen.

Easy enough. And if everything you're going to watch is in 16:9 format, then you're done. The trouble is that in the world there is great amount video material in 4:3 format. How are you going to fit a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 screen?

You have several options. You can purchase a motorized zoom projector with a suitable magnification ratio. This device will allow you, using the zoom function, to achieve the right size Images.

For example, the Sanyo XP21N has a motorized 1.3x zoom, which means you can resize an image by 30% while going through the entire zoom range. Therefore, by setting the zoom to its widest angle to project a 16:9 image and narrowing the angle to its minimum, you can reduce the image size by 30%. Because a 4:3 image is 33% narrower than a 16:9 image, almost the entire 4:3 image will fit in the middle of the screen, with only a thin edge of the image interspersed at the top and bottom of the screen. To fix this, you need to precisely position the projector at a distance from the screen that will properly project both formats onto the screen. You'll get through this somehow.

Every 4:3 projector equipped with a motorized zoom of at least 1.3x can be configured to display these two image formats in the same way. In fact, the same result can be achieved with a manual zoom projector by placing the projector on a table, or, if the projector is suspended from the ceiling, by climbing on a stepladder each time you need to change the aspect ratio of the image. If the projector's zoom is less than 1.3x, you won't be able to squeeze a 4:3 image into the same vertical size as a 16:9 image.

The good thing is that using the projector in this way allows you to make 100% use of the 4:3 matrix (all 768 XGA lines). However, keep in mind that this doubles the brightness of the image on your screen for 4:3 video footage. Why? 16:9 image area is 33% larger than 4:3. Therefore, the amount of light per unit area at the same image height increases by 1/3 when moving from a 16:9 to 4:3 image. What's more, you're using the entire projector's light output, rather than 75% like 16:9 (the remaining 25% is blocked by black bars). As a result, approximately 2 times more light comes from your projector per unit area. This may or may not matter to you, but you need to know about it.

The second way to project a 4:3 image onto a 16:9 screen is to use the electronic formatting feature found on many projectors and/or your input sources. You can leave the lens set for a 16:9 image and simply select the option that places compressed image 4:3 to the center of the screen with black bars around the edges. In this case, the illumination per unit area remains unchanged. However, now only half of the pixels that would be used if you used zoom are used to produce a 4:3 image. Essentially, in this case, you are using the projector's capabilities (resolution and brightness) only half half.

Electronic reformatting from sources has reverse side, quite significant: often you get gray stripes around the edges. The gray stripes are bad decision technical problem: they come as part of a signal that protects against burnout cathode ray tubes on TVs designed to display 16:9 images. Gray bars are not needed for digital projectors, because... A digital projector does not have these problems.

I argue that this method is not suitable because the simplest way nullify the impact of the video image - surround it with gray stripes. No museum in the world will design an exhibition of Ansel Adams photographs by framing them gray. And for quite reasonable reasons - precisely from a neutral gray trying to get rid of it by increasing the contrast. The same is true with video.

Want to do ONE thing that will dramatically improve the aesthetic impact of your video theater? Then forget about the projector, screen, signal sources. Instead, make sure that the video image always has a SOLID BLACK FRAME. Until you achieve this, your picture will always look pale compared to what it could be.

How can this be achieved? Electric curtains for the screen will help. Electric curtains can be ordered along with the screen (Stewart, Da-lite, etc., all sell them). They are black panels that open and close at your command, moving horizontally from the top and bottom edges, vertically from the left and right edges, or all three, depending on actual size the image you are looking at. In context, if you have a 4:3 image projected onto the middle of a 16:9 screen, curtains will eliminate the gray stripes on the sides by surrounding the “active” image with a black frame.

For a 16:9 screen, the ideal option is two pairs of curtains. You will need side curtains to frame the 4:3 image in the center of the screen. When projecting 16:9 video content in full screen, all curtains are removed. You will need to cover the top and bottom of the screen when watching movies whose aspect ratio is larger than 16:9. Of course, four curtains are the most expensive option. But you need them IF you have a 16:9 screen and you want to surround any of the images you're viewing with black panels. Accordingly, a 4:3 screen requires one pair of curtains (top/bottom) to achieve the same result. For many, this will be a compelling argument in favor of a 4:3 screen. This is what we will discuss below.

Conclusion.

A lot of effort goes into trying to persuade consumers to embrace the 16:9 format. The only catch is that the environment isn't formatted in 16:9. There are many formats, and 4:3 is still dominant. And you, one way or another, will have to deal with all formats. Each of the three main options has certain advantages and obvious disadvantages. There is no "best" among them - each of them is better only for certain types of images.

My goal was to destroy the myth that the combination of a projector and a screen of the same 16:9 format must be the best, because the format itself is new. For me this is definitely not the case. Whether this choice is best for you is up to you to decide.

When setting up your home video theater, think carefully about how much 4:3 video you'll be watching and how you want it to be. How important is it for you to horizontal size"widescreen" image was larger than the horizontal size of the 4:3 image? If it is important, then this option is for you. Yours the main objective – maximum resolution HDTV? Then a 16:9 projector plus a 16:9 screen is a great way to achieve the desired result.

On the other hand, if you realize that there are a lot of 4:3 videos, TV and movies that you want to see in a large format, the 16:9 projector/screen option imposes a number of restrictions that you will not want to put up with. A 4:3 projector in combination with a 4:3 screen and electric curtains can provide you with excellent results if used correctly.

You are the director of your own home theater. Think of all the types of videos/movies you'll want to watch - regular TV, HDTV, music videos, modern widescreen movies, classic 4:3 movies, etc. Imagine how they will look on the wall. Once you think about each format, you will understand how to present each of them. Trust your instincts and preferences, be open-minded about all options, and you will find the optimal solution.

Evan Powell - http://www.projectorcentral.com (translation - http://www.bmk.spb.ru)

Frame boundaries can become very different shapes. Screen aspect ratios range from 1.33 in The Child to 2.67 in Ben Hur. By aspect ratio we mean the ratio of the length of the frame to its height. There is Academy Standard 1.37, HDTV standard 1.78, Vistavision 1.85 and others. I'll tell you all about them so you can choose the aspect ratio that suits your story. And at the end of the article you will find a download link FREE templates all possible aspect ratios. You can freely use them in your projects and also share them with other filmmakers.

I decided to write this article after seeing a wonderful educational video from FilmmakerIQ.

They did an amazing job of communicating the aspect ratio of the screen and its historical context. After watching this video, I remembered the archive of wide-format templates that I downloaded earlier. They aren't available anywhere else online, so I'm happy to give them new life and post them online again. Now any current or future filmmaker will be able to access all forms of footage that have been used over the years.

1.33 - THOMAS EDISON STANDARD (1909)

1.37 ACADEMY ASPECT RATIO (1937)

4.00 - POLYVISION (1927)

2.77 - CINERAMA (1952)

1.75 - METROSCOPE (1955) Metro Goldwyn Mayer

2.55 - CINEMASCOPE (1953) 20th Century Fox

2.35 - REGALSCOPE (1956) 20th Century Fox

2.35 - PANAVISION (1966) Panavision

2.39 — SHOWSCOPE (CINEMASCOPE)

2.00 - PANASCOPE (1961)

2.00 - SUPERSCOPE (1954) RKO

2.35 - SUPERSCOPE 235 (1956) RKO

2.35 - WARNERSCOPE (1958) Warner Bros.

1.85 - VISTAVISION (1954) Paramount

White Christmas (1954)

2.20 - DIMENSION 150 (1966)

2.55 - CINEMASCOPE 55 (1956)

The King and I (1956)

2.76 - MGM CAMERA 65 (1959) Metro Goldwyn Mayer

2.20 - SUPER PANAVISION 70 (1959) Panavision

Big Fisherman (1959)

2.75 - ULTRA PANAVISION 70 (1962) Panavision

Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)

2.35 - TEKNIRAMA (1956)

2.20 - SUPER TEKNIRAMA (1959)

2.35 - NIKKATSU SCOPE (1959)

The Stray Guitarist (1959)

1.43 - IMAX (1970)

Tiger Child (1970)

2.39 - FOR CINEMA AND BLUE-RAY DISCS (current standard)

Broadcast TV, cable TV and video cameras have their own aspect ratio.

1.78 - HDTV (1983) developed by Kearns Powers for SMPTE

and finally a return to Panaskope and Superscope from David Fincher...

2.00 — CAMERA RED (2013) frame cropped from 1.78

To try out over 70 aspect ratio presets, you can use this to download the template archive. There are two versions of PNG files in 1920x1080 and 1280x720. And also 2 PSD files that contain all these templates. This archive once resided at ehartfordstudios.com, but is no longer among us today. This is an amazing set of tools that allows the filmmaker to use the screen aspect ratio of almost any movie ever made. Thank you, ehartfordstudios.com, wherever you are...

Your Nedomansky, vashivisuals.com

A monitor is the main way of communication between a person and a computer. Therefore, the quality of the monitor directly affects the quality of this communication. In this article we will talk about how to choose a monitor and try to analyze the main characteristics of modern monitors.

In order not to make a mistake when choosing a monitor, you need to understand the basic characteristics that are characteristic of modern monitors.

The most obvious monitor parameter. Naturally the larger the diagonal, the better. But, within reasonable limits. And these limits are individual for everyone. Therefore, you can safely choose the monitor diagonal to your own taste, without being guided by any smart advice.

The only note that has to do with the diagonal is that the diagonal must be chosen, making allowances for the aspect ratio. The closer the monitor format is to a square, the more comfortable it is to work with small diagonals.

For example, a 19" monitor with a 4:3 aspect ratio is quite comfortable, but a 19" monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio will seem too narrow and you will lack height. This problem is especially severe when viewing web pages that have a vertical layout and do not expand to fill the entire screen.

Monitor aspect ratio

This monitor parameter is often ignored when . Majority ordinary users PCs don't understand the benefits of each aspect ratio.

Nowadays you can find monitors with the following aspect ratios:

16:9 is the most common aspect ratio. Most modern monitors use 16:9. We can say that this is already a standard.
16:10 is the second most popular monitor aspect ratio. These monitors are slightly closer to square than 16:9 monitors.
4:3 and 5:4 are formats that are rapidly losing popularity. Now almost all monitors with this aspect ratio are cheap office monitors with a TN+film matrix. Choosing a monitor with this aspect ratio will allow you to save on the purchase, while due to the aspect ratio you will get a completely comfortable solution.
21:9 is an aspect ratio that is quickly gaining popularity. main feature of this format this is that its width is significantly greater than its height. With a large diagonal similar solution allows you to replace two monitors at once.

You can compare the diagonal and aspect ratio of two selected monitors at displaywars.com. For example: .

Monitor resolution

Another very important parameter when choosing a monitor. The higher the resolution, the clearer the picture on the screen. This is especially noticeable when browsing the web and reading text on the screen.

You need to focus on resolution after choosing the diagonal and aspect ratio. Compare with the same diagonal and aspect ratio and choose the monitor with the highest resolution.

The most common monitors are with the following resolutions:

Aspect ratio 16:9 - 1920x1080, 1600x900 and 1366x768;
Aspect ratio 16:10 – 1920×1200, 1680×1050
Aspect ratio 4:3 - 1280 x 1024;

Monitor matrix type

Along with diagonal and resolution, the type of matrix is one of the main characteristics of any screen. Unfortunately, when choosing a monitor, many users do not pay attention to this.

Most common ratios

1,33:1 (4:3)

2,55:1

Aspect ratios of early anamorphic formats, including Cinemascope and Cinemascope-55. This screen aspect ratio existed until 1954, when a standard optical one was added to the four-channel magnetic phonogram, which occupied part of the film space allocated to the image. Currently not in use.

2,6:1

To bring the frame shape closer to the natural field of view of a person (and, therefore, enhance the perception of the film), the Cinerama film company invented and commercialized a panoramic system of three-film filming and film projection on special, highly curved huge screens up to 30 m wide with a width-to-height ratio frame 2.6:1. The Cinerama system provided a high-quality method for recording and playing back seven-channel surround sound from a separate 35mm synchronized magnetic phonogram. With this system, the sound followed the image on the screen through playback by different speakers located around the audience.

The first film shot using the Cinerama system - documentary-video (eng. travelogue) “This is Cinerama” (eng. "This Is Cinerama") was first shown to the public in 1952 in a specially built and equipped cinema. The success of the film was so great that it did not leave the screens for two years. Despite the complexity and cumbersomeness of the Cinerama system, 7 more films were created, including three feature films: “How the West was Conquered” (eng. "How the West Was Won") and "The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm" (eng. "The Wonderful World Of Brothers Grimm" ) (both in) and "Lord of the Winds: The Journey of Christian Radick" (eng. "Windjammer: The Voyage of Christian Radich" - filming using the “Cinemiracle” system (English) "Cinemiracle", , rental in halls and through the Cinerama system). The Soviet Kinopanorama system was developed on the basis and taking into account the errors of Cinerama. Its main differences are the improved design of the panoramic film camera and the use of a nine-channel stereophonic soundtrack.

2,75:1

In 1959, Panavision acquired the film production department of MGM studios. In the same year, the Super Panavision 70 system appeared, which was practically a copy of Todd-AO, but used much more compact cameras.

Other aspect ratios

There are movie attractions with a different screen aspect ratio (for example, a circular panorama with a 360° view). All this is designed to immerse the viewer in the atmosphere of the film and enhance the viewing experience.

Notes

Literature

B. N. Konoplev Chapter II. Classification of films // Fundamentals of film production. - 2nd ed. - M.: Art, 1975. - P. 32. - 448 p.

I. B. Gordiychuk, V. G. Pell Section I. Cinematography systems // Cinematographer’s Handbook / N. N. Zherdetskaya. - M.,: “Art”, 1979. - P. 7-67. - 440 s.

Links

Cinema formats

Film formats

8 mm 16 mm 35 mm 70 mm