Why aren't TV's built in 2.35:1 instead of 16:9?


Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Basically some friends of mine do not mind watching a 2.35:1 on a 16:9 TV, where as other people complain about it, and will actually try to return the TV if a 2.35:1 does not take up the whole frame.

But I feel that the stores that sell TVs would have a lot less headaches in that case, and people wouldn't be bothered by the 'black bars', if TVs were just made in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio?

Since most movies are shot around 2.35:1 or 2.39:1, does it not make sense to manufacture TVs in that aspect ratio since most movies are shot in that, or at least enough to warrant it?

Assuming "most movies are shot around 2.35:1 or 2.39:1" is true, that still would only be true of recent films. I'm pretty sure the majority of existing films are something else (16:9), which might be more significant. So most films will have to be shot in these other aspect ratios for quite awhile before the choice makes economical sense for manufacturers.

There's a lot of existing manufacturing infrastructure and other things in place, so that it doesn't actually make much sense to change until the reason is highly compelling. Changes are hard and disrupt economies of scale.

Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah that's true. It seems that way with older movies too. Like a lot of movies from the 60s and 70s are 2.35:1, then when the 80s and 90s came along, it was half and half about where half were shot in 1.85:1 and the other half, 2.35:1.

Then when the 2000s came, more movies started being 2.35:1 it seems.