2.40:1 Aspect Ratio?

[Freddie]

I noticed that many films reported by imdb.com to be 2.35:1 are released on Blu-ray as 2.40:1.

Also my Scandinavian Blu-ray release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull says 2.40:1 on the back, but the American release says 2.35:1.

Why are they changing the aspect ratio from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1? Are they cutting or squeezing the picture?

[benricci]

Both numbers are often used interchangably, they are so close. It's really nothing to concern yourself over.

[UFAlien]

2.35:1 was the old Cinemascope ratio. It hasn't been used in ages, but 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 are very common, and sometimes people get lazy and just label one of those 2.35:1.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

2.35:1 was the old Cinemascope ratio. It hasn't been used in ages, but 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 are very common, and sometimes people get lazy and just label one of those 2.35:1.

Yep. It's a case of common convention and rounding.

Similarly many films will be released with specs indicating a "1.85:1" aspect ratio but will actually be open matted to 1.78:1 (because that fills the screen). The terms are often used interchangeably, even though they are technically different.

[RiseDarthVader]

I always though 2.40:1 means it is shot in Anamorphic but that itsn't always the case. Still the ratios are so close you will not notice a difference unlike going from 1.78:1 to 1.85:1

[Deciazulado]

CinemaScope's Anamorphic Projection ratio was 2.55:1 originally with magnetic soundtracks.

Around 1957 they switched to optical tracks and the width was reduced to 2.35:1 to accommodate the optical track.

20th Century Fox used a special splicer but when studios used a normal splicer, you could see splice lines on a 2.35:1 aperture so in the 70's SMPTE changed the standard to 2.4:1 (actually 2.39), reducing the height of the image.
(You don't see splices on theaters every time the scene changes, do you? Then the movie is using the 2.39:1 height).

With the advent of digital sound prints in the mid 90's and the DTS control track, the Scope overall projector aperture was reduced ever so slightly again to make sure the control track wouldn't show up on the screen, which also made the 35mm anamorphic format width be exactly the same (20.955 mm/0.825") as all other 35mm projection formats since the implementation of the Academy ratio in 1931.


SMPTE standards allow for a 5% crop in theaters so 2.39:1 minus 5% width gives a 2.27:1 aspect ratio.

Similarly, 2.35:1 cropped vertically 5% could end as 2.47:1


In a related/unrelated note for example the 2.89:1 version of HTWWW is showing extra camera aperture image on the sides (but not the height) from the 2.59:1 camera aperture, that was not projected, while cropping the allowed, maybe about 5-6%, vertically from the 2.59:1 projector aperture, so 2.59:1 - 6% = 2.75:1 or so, plus extra image width from camera aperture = 2.89:1

The smiley version shows more or less the intended projected width, with the slightly cropped height.

[RiseDarthVader]

It depends on who does the splices. For example at the cinema I work at the projectionists are lazy except for the 2 supervisors and I can tell 99% of the time where the splice was made. However at IMAX Sydney they put alot more time and care into the splicing and it is 100% seamless I have never noticed a splice there even though they have a much bigger screen that our biggest one.

[syncguy]

I thought splicing is a job for the studios. Didn't know that the local cinemas do the splicing.

[RiseDarthVader]

The prints are shipped seperatly in reels and ten the projection team splices it together into 1 platter.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

It depends on who does the splices. For example at the cinema I work at the projectionists are lazy except for the 2 supervisors and I can tell 99% of the time where the splice was made. However at IMAX Sydney they put alot more time and care into the splicing and it is 100% seamless I have never noticed a splice there even though they have a much bigger screen that our biggest one.

I was talking about the splicing done in camera negative cutting, assembling the scenes of a movie when editing it, not the 4 tape splices at reel changeovers made by projectionists taping together the 5 reels of a 100 minute movie . The camera negative ones are cement splices that glue the frames together by scraping part of the film on the next frame and "mounting" the previous frame on top of it so the overlapped parts fuse and hold together. It's this overlapped area where the join lines show. These splice lines become permanent part of the image.

Academy 1.37, 1.66, 1.75, and 1.85 have image heights of 15.2 mm, 12.6 mm, 12 mm, and 11.3 mm respectively, well within a 35mm's full frame height of nearly 19 mm.

But with anamorphic 2.35 prints, the image height was 17.9 mm (0.705") and the splice lines tended to show on screen. (They look like momentary lines that flash on the vertical edges of the screen every time a scene changes). So the anamorphic image height was reduced to 17.5 mm (0.690") so the splice lines were outside the image, and the format became 2.39:1


The tape splices joining the film reels at the theater for uninterrupted projection cover two frames at a time and can be dirrty and full of bubbles





what?

[Oddiophile]

http://gizmodo.com/5305369/philips-cinema-219-tv-will-cost-7400

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Oddiophile

http://gizmodo.com/5305369/philips-cinema-219-tv-will-cost-7400

2.4:1 (or ~21x9) looks beautiful for the home theater (IMO).

[kevinbr100]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

CinemaScope's Anamorphic Projection ratio was 2.55:1 originally with magnetic soundtracks.

Around 1957 they switched to optical tracks and the width was reduced to 2.35:1 to accommodate the optical track.

20th Century Fox used a special splicer but when studios used a normal splicer, you could see splice lines on a 2.35:1 aperture so in the 70's SMPTE changed the standard to 2.4:1 (actually 2.39), reducing the height of the image.
(You don't see splices on theaters every time the scene changes, do you? Then the movie is using the 2.39:1 height).

With the advent of digital sound prints in the mid 90's and the DTS control track, the Scope overall projector aperture was reduced ever so slightly again to make sure the control track wouldn't show up on the screen, which also made the 35mm anamorphic format width be exactly the same (20.955 mm/0.825") as all other 35mm projection formats since the implementation of the Academy ratio in 1931.


SMPTE standards allow for a 5% crop in theaters so 2.39:1 minus 5% width gives a 2.27:1 aspect ratio.

Similarly, 2.35:1 cropped vertically 5% could end as 2.47:1


In a related/unrelated note for example the 2.89:1 version of HTWWW is showing extra camera aperture image on the sides (but not the height) from the 2.59:1 camera aperture, that was not projected, while cropping the allowed, maybe about 5-6%, vertically from the 2.59:1 projector aperture, so 2.59:1 - 6% = 2.75:1 or so, plus extra image width from camera aperture = 2.89:1

The smiley version shows more or less the intended projected width, with the slightly cropped height.

thats a great post! i learned something

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by syncguy

2.4:1 (or ~21x9) looks beautiful for the home theater (IMO).

Yes it does, and I get a 1" smaller 2.40:1 picture on my 58" set than this Phillips, and paid less than 1/3 of the price.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Yes it does, and I get a 1" smaller 2.40:1 picture on my 58" set than this Phillips, and paid less than 1/3 of the price.

That's good. I expect for 21x9 sets to catch up with 16x9 in few years time.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by syncguy

That's good. I expect for 21x9 sets to catch up with 16x9 in few years time.

I don't. I expect these will die a quick death once people realize how bad anything other than 2.35:1 looks on them. They will never become mainstream, which means they will either have to be priced 2X that of standard sets or they will simply be discontinued. If Pioneer can't remain competitive with Kuros, then 21x9 sets definitely won't.

My opinion, of couse.

[scanachick]

It will be a niche product but won't die I think. It's a good niche product for people that have one simple setup in their homes for TV viewing and another more premium setup for cinema viewing. Scan

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

I don't. I expect these will die a quick death once people realize how bad anything other than 2.35:1 looks on them. They will never become mainstream, which means they will either have to be priced 2X that of standard sets or they will simply be discontinued. If Pioneer can't remain competitive with Kuros, then 21x9 sets definitely won't.

My opinion, of couse.

In few years, 99% content watched on a regular basis would be 1.78:1 (~16x9) and 2.39:1 (~21x9). There won't be much 4x3 watched on a regular basis.

16x9 content on a super-wide 21x9 display is not bad as 2.35 content on a 16x9 display. This is because 21x9 can maintain the centre of the image at same size regardless of the aspect ratio. 16x9 cannot maintain the same size at the centre when 2.35:1 is displayed and it gives a feeling that the 2.35:1 picture is far away from you in comparison to a 1.78:1 picture.

[My_Two_Cents]

Subscribing to thread so I can go in a year or two.

[Jeff Kleist]

No one in the industry thinks that 21:9 sets will ever climb out of a small enthusiast/rich niche