一直以來，電腦中寫實主義的問題不是環繞在影像與聲音的指涉性(indexicality)，就是著重於可以產生「真實」效果的文類傳統，規格及與其相關的「真實」感或「非真實」感的議題卻始終沒能獲得廣泛的討論。在數位化的熱潮以及一系列推陳出新的再現技術中--如高畫質電視、錄影機、手機攝影及虛擬實境等--規格重新成為電影偏至性(specificity)的主要標識之一(伴隨集體的觀影經驗)。時至今日，電影再次確立它能讓觀眾「身歷其境」(larger than life)、提供一種完全放大的演出、包圍並吸納觀眾的特質。本文將探討銀幕尺寸與其相對應的規格，以及鏡頭規格在人類身體與現代性空間的關係轉換中扮演的角色。 本文討論的影片除了取自早期電影，也納入1950年代弧形寬銀幕(cinemascope)蔚為風潮時及其後拍攝的影片，以兩種觀點檢視規格此一議題。首先，我透過鏡頭尺寸的爭議--特寫、中景及遠景的分類，來探討電影規格的問題。對尚．米堤(Jean Miltry)而言，規格透過特寫、中景及遠景(徹底、完全武斷的區分)，成為判斷電影穿透與安排空間的主要準則。如此一來，規格變成電影的內部特色，成為身體與空間關係安排的調節依據，身體在某種意義上被引導而進入電影的空間內。其次，規格也因為銀幕尺寸、縱橫比調整、以及子母畫面和弧形寬銀幕等試驗而歷經變革。電影能讓人「身歷其境」這個想法所產生的效應總是同時帶有誘惑性與危險性。現代性中奇觀(spectacle)與宏偉性(monumentality)在社會、政治與文化的演變發展，以及兩者與真實此一感念形塑的關係也因此岌岌可危。

While the question of realism in the cinema has traditionally hinged on either the indexicality of the photographic image and sound or generic conventions which produce an effect of the “real,” the issue of scale and its relation to a sense of either the real or the unreal has remained largely unexamined. Amidst the euphoria of the digital and a whole host of new technologies of representation—high definition television, video, cell phone photography, virtual reality—scale has re-emerged as one of the primary markers of cinematic specificity (along with the collective theatrical experience). The cinema today reasserts its property of being “larger than life,” of providing a performance of sheer magnification, of surrounding and absorbing its spectator. In this paper, I am interested in investigating the way in which screen size and its corresponding scale as well as the scale of the shot have figured in the negotiation of the human body's relation to space in modernity. Using a variety of films from the earliest cinema to the cinemascope rage of the 1950s and beyond, I look at scale from two points of view. First, I investigate the question of cinematic scale through the problematic of shot size—the classifications of close-up, medium shot, long shot. For Jean Mitry, scale becomes the primary measure of the cinema’s ability to penetrate and organize space, through close-ups, medium shots, and long shots (which are, ultimately, entirely arbitrary as distinctions). Scale becomes distinctive of the cinematic project internally, as the regulator of the organization of space in relation to a body that is invited, in some sense, to inhabit the diegesis. Second, scale is also instanciated by screen size, by attempts to regularize aspect ratio, by experiments with split screen and cinemascope, etc. The notion of a “larger than life” cinema has always operated as both lure and threat. The social, political, and cultural ramifications of the spectacle and monumentality in modernity and their relation to the conceptualization of the real are at stake here.