erc wrote:
您要不要確定之後再發言?

電影最早根本是什麼長寬比都有,誰在跟你16:9啊?!


erc wrote:
有些事情挖一下google就知道,有些事連google都不用挖,用膝蓋想知道在唬爛。
我不是說你在唬爛,而是說「告訴你這『知識』的人在唬爛,而你連膝蓋都沒有動」。幫幫忙,膝蓋很聰明的,偶爾要用一用。


你會Google是不是?很了不起喔, 那不知道你看得懂英文嗎? 如果看得得懂,看完了再來唬爛,不要只會用膝蓋卻不會用大腦,雖然你的膝蓋比你的大腦發達.

Understanding Aspect Ratios: The History Of Cinema Aspect Ratios

且摘要其中幾段來回應你的唬爛.

Whatever the true story may be, Edison's 4:3 aspect
ratio was officially adopted in 1917 by the Society Of
Motion Picture Engineers as their first engineering
standard, and the film industry used it almost exclusively
for the next 35 years.

Because of the early precedent set by the motion picture
industry with the 4:3 aspect ratio, the television industry
adopted the same when television broadcasting began in
the 1930s.

As you might imagine, the availability of a device that delivered
sound and pictures in the home immediately concerned
the Hollywood studios. After all, this medium had the
potential to erode their lifeblood; their vital paying
customer base. When color was introduced in late 1953,
the studios stopped wringing their hands and sprang into
action. The result was the rapid development of a
multitude of new widescreen projection ratios and several
multichannel sound formats

erc wrote:
個人真的覺得電視在本質上的確是沒涉及到美學的,它基本上就是一種傳播工具而已。...(恕刪)
我說的是電視節目,不是電視機。某些電視節目跟電影一樣,都是藝術作品。電視機當然只是工具,就像電影放映機也是工具一樣。我說電視節目也有美學,你卻扯到電視機,搞錯重點了。

erc wrote:
…但是電視規格的製訂,它的的確確和美學沒多大關係,和電子電機的相關係倒有99.99%,而且他們通常在乎專業對於穩定性、雜訊、示波器的相關性,遠高過對美學的考量。...(恕刪)
所以才說電視節目也有美學,但要對工業妥協。電影的美學,同樣也可能對工業妥協。只是電影的工業界,對美學的尊重,高於電視界罷了。但這跟電視節目有沒有美學,是不同的問題。
有些人連寬銀幕電影是怎麼拍的都搞不清楚,居然掰說電影工業搞寬螢幕是為了省底片錢,唬爛也要有點基本常識.看了下面這篇以後,麻煩告訴大家寬銀幕電影的底片錢是要怎麼省? 若看不懂英文,我也幫不了,Google翻譯將就用吧!

Aspect Ratio FAQ

Between the 1920s and the early 1950s, all films were photographed with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. This is why you won't see older films like The Wizard of Oz or Casablanca in widescreen. They were not filmed that way.

With the dawn of color television in the 1950s, many movie studios feared that no one would come to the theater anymore unless they gave audiences a new reason. So they developed several technological gimmicks including 3D movies, and more important, the concept of a widescreen film, one that is presented on a screen wider than 1.37:1.

However, the quest to present movies in widescreen faced several obstacles such as, how do you do it? The most obvious way to shoot a movie in widescreen would be to use a type of film stock that matched the shape of the screen. This proved to be impractical since it was not likely that theater owners (who were not terribly thrilled that their projectors would no longer be able to play certain movies) would want to shell out the cash to buy new projectors. The industry had established 35mm film as the standard and very few were willing to change that.

To create the widescreen effect with 35mm film, several methods were developed. Two remain very popular to this day.

The first is called a matte. Basically, a matte photographs a movie using a normal lens and standard 35mm film, but the filmmakers block off the top and bottom to make the image more rectangular, and thus, creating a widescreen effect. This method is especially popular for movies shot in 1.66:1 and 1.85:1.

The second method of creating a widescreen movie on 35mm film used especially for films with a 2.35:1 aspect ratios by use of a special lens, which stretches the image vertically to fill the entire frame. This is called an anamorphic lens, and the concept is very simple. Using a special lens that manipulates the light that goes into the camera the image is sqeezed horizontally. In the theater, a special lens is applied to the projector to reverse the effect so that we see the image in the theater the way it actually looked on the set.
CleanRoom wrote:
有些人連寬銀幕電影是...(恕刪)

不錯嘛,會翻資料嘛,建議再挖深一點,還有很多資料你沒翻到。

十幾個小時沒看英文了,你好強喔~
Dave5136 wrote:
我說電視節目也有美學,你卻扯到電視機,搞錯重點了。

其實我說的比較偏向是電視業界的生態(國內)。
也說了,是有某些電視從業人員對美學有相當的追求。請不要把這句話旁通過去。
但我個人認為那是「個人特質」,而不是行業屬性。

就我對電視圈的接觸,這些人還滿實際的(講白一點就很現實)。電視台要的是機器的維護及操作人員,和能把銀子帶進來的製作人,幾乎沒遇過「腦子裏有夢」(不是夢想成名賺大錢的那種)的電視台正職人員。但是有一些外包的獨立製作人還滿有理想。
或是您可以提供電視台一年養工程人員和養創作人員的比例。

有人說「美」是什麼,當然這會有見人見智的回答,提供一個參考,一個前輩說是「一種堅持」。
說真的,在電視領域,我還真看不到這個「堅持」,似乎什麼都是可以妥協的、所有東西都是有價、什麼東西都可以交換。

電視不過就是一種傳播工具,這概念可不是我發明的,是某個在傳播領域任教的朋友在聚會時說的。或是看一下大專院校,傳播科系和藝術學院,在影像上各自主攻哪個領域,大概也可知一二。這種不是非一即二的命題,吵它灰色地帶沒意思。

很多人搞不清楚電視和電影有什麼不同,就像搞不清楚設計和美工有什麼不同、搞不清楚聲樂和廣播有什麼不同。其實兩者追求的目標幾乎是天平的兩端,還差滿大的。

有個朋友說,「教育產業不過就是『學店』的現代版名詞。傳播,應該就是現代版的『三姑六婆、說三道四、搬弄是非』吧」。這個看法很有意思,差點想在他臉上按個讚。

erc wrote:
其實我說的比較偏向是電視業界的生態...(恕刪)
如果你說的是生態,那我沒有什麼意見。大致上同意。

但「電視在本質上的確是沒涉及到美學的」這句話是大有問題的。如果「電視」指的是硬體,那就是廢話,機器當然沒有什麼美學;如果「電視」指的「節目」,那就大錯特錯了,節目內容可以有各種選擇,「本質上」有容許有多種可能性,當然可以有美學成分,絕不是「本質上沒涉及美學」;如果「電視」指的是電視界生態,那也不對,或許「現時」的電視業界生態並不注重美學,但並非「本質」如此。

erc wrote:
…電視不過就是一種傳播工具...(恕刪)
電視是一種傳播工具,不代表它當然沒有美學。花瓶只是裝花的工具,但做成花瓶的藝術品可多了。
文章分享
評分
評分
複製連結
請輸入您要前往的頁數(1 ~ 7)

今日熱門文章 網友點擊推薦!