@Dakkiller1 No they didn't. It was just the other way around. The entire widescreen competition was to lure people back to movie theaters with visual and audio spectaculars of the quality they could not get for free from television. There was no expectation in the 1950s that there would be widescreen televisions, and when these films eventually went to television, 2/3 of the picture information was cropped on the sides due to the aspect ratio of televsions then. The technology has caught up.
@RayPointer I hope they don't start making 2.35:1 like TV's because then the 1.85:1 films would not fill up the screen. Hope not all new films are 100% 2.35:1 In my opion, 1.85:1 is enough wide for everyone and satisifies most of the crowd. Now that sorta explans why the home release of Avatar is in its original 16 by 9 aspect ratio that fills up the whole screen
@Dakkiller1 They've reached the saturation point. So there is no point is yet another format change. The economy will not support it either. It was enough that the digital transition took over. This is made worse by people viewing films on cel phones, etc. Don't be surprised if there is a vast increase in near-sightedness from this. Already the dangers of brain damage are already being discussed regarding the constant connection to cel phones that some people have.
They knew or predicted that there was gonna be widescreen TV's that are 16:9 so they picked the perfect aspect ratio.
Dakkiller1 1 year ago
@Dakkiller1 No they didn't. It was just the other way around. The entire widescreen competition was to lure people back to movie theaters with visual and audio spectaculars of the quality they could not get for free from television. There was no expectation in the 1950s that there would be widescreen televisions, and when these films eventually went to television, 2/3 of the picture information was cropped on the sides due to the aspect ratio of televsions then. The technology has caught up.
RayPointer 7 months ago
@RayPointer I hope they don't start making 2.35:1 like TV's because then the 1.85:1 films would not fill up the screen. Hope not all new films are 100% 2.35:1 In my opion, 1.85:1 is enough wide for everyone and satisifies most of the crowd. Now that sorta explans why the home release of Avatar is in its original 16 by 9 aspect ratio that fills up the whole screen
Dakkiller1 7 months ago
@Dakkiller1 They've reached the saturation point. So there is no point is yet another format change. The economy will not support it either. It was enough that the digital transition took over. This is made worse by people viewing films on cel phones, etc. Don't be surprised if there is a vast increase in near-sightedness from this. Already the dangers of brain damage are already being discussed regarding the constant connection to cel phones that some people have.
RayPointer 7 months ago
The V of Niceness, LOL.
MattTheSaiyan 1 year ago
Paramount should have used this logo at the start of the movie Shutter Island instead of the current one, don't you think so?
Jac2Mac 2 years ago
Like IMAX in the 50's
SilverEspeon26 2 years ago 6
@SilverEspeon26 There was the IMAX already in 1950?
Thekinggamelon 1 year ago
@Thekinggamelon No, IMAX is 65mm film shot horizontally through the camera instead of vertically, thus massively increasing the picture size.
VistaVision works in a very similar way, except it's 35mm film that's shot horizontally to increase picture size, instead of 65mm like IMAX.
master777999 7 months ago
boy if paramount greenlits one of my paticular movie ideas ill make the logo look like this [imagine seeing that in 3d or in imax 3d
sfranco115 2 years ago
It WAS In the Year 1954.
rachelle414 2 years ago