Aspect Ratios becoming more diverse?

[Coenskubrick]

Originally you had academy ratio and that was it. Then in the 50's it went crazy, with all these new cinema options and wider ratios brought out to compete with TV. Then by the end of the 70's, it was pretty much settled (in America and the UK at least). You had a choice between 1.85:1 and 2.35/9:1 and it's been that way for 3 and a half decades more or less, and those are the only options for DCPs.

However, it's started off small and is now starting to pick up, but I think we may be entering a new age of freedom of ratio.

There have been a bunch of 4:3 films made since the year 2000, with seemingly more appearing since 2010. See these. http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/n...-academy-ratio

Andrea Arnold has made several films in this ratio. And now, this year, the Hateful 8 is the first film since way back to be shot in anamorphic 70mm giving a 2.76 ratio, and Slow West recently was made in 1.66 (a personal favourite of mine). The new trailer for The Witch also appears to be in 1.66.

Theoretically there should be no trouble with digital technology to shoot in any ratio, but studios and filmmakers have just been set on the standards for a long time. Could this be about to change? Or will this trend die down shortly?

I personally would welcome some variety in aspect ratio shooting as I feel there are some very interesting compositions to be gained from experimenting with frame.

[Moviefan2k4]

When I'm watching a film, the ratio isn't really my focus. I can think about it later, but at the time, I'm mostly wrapped up in the story.

[Coenskubrick]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

When I'm watching a film, the ratio isn't really my focus. I can think about it later, but at the time, I'm mostly wrapped up in the story.

No, but it can affect what you focus on and how you see the things in frame.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

No, but it can affect what you focus on and how you see the things in frame.

I guess I'm just not that analytical in my brain, especially on a first viewing. Now, if the projectionist misaligned the film so half of its playing on the auditorium wall, that's something I'd notice.

[dgoswald]

Even aspect ratios aren't safe from the madness of political correctness.

Oh... sorry, I saw the word 'diverse' and I immediately jumped to conclusions. Sorry.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Even aspect ratios aren't safe from the madness of political correctness.

Oh... sorry, I saw the word 'diverse' and I immediately jumped to conclusions. Sorry.

you were just channeling your inner Spirit Zero

[GC Riot]

I think we'll mostly continue to see 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 films, with the odd exception here and there. I can't see anyone going 1.33:1 any longer other than as a highly stylistic choice, like in The Grand Budapest Hotel, or for variable IMAX footage such as parts of Nolan's films. Those extremely wide films, such as Ben Hur (2.75:1) also will be more of an exception than a rule I would think.

[Coenskubrick]

It would be nice if 2.2 could make a comeback. Sometimes 2.35 feels too wide.

[warrian]

Jurassic World was 2.00:1, right? Not super common and that's been the hit of the year so far.

I love artists playing around with different ARs, but at the same time, I dread the compromises that we might see imposed by the studios in the home video arena as a result.

[Geoff D]

Tomorrowland was 2.20. The thing with these different ARs is that they don't fit the DCP specs of 2.39 and 1.85 so the projection ends up being betwixt and between. Any competent projectionist can zoom and mask to their heart's content, sure, but that doesn't really apply to the average computer-controlled multiplex.

I wonder whether QT will crop down Hateful 8 for the DCP or whether it'll go out with letterbox borders for the full 2.76 inside a 2.39 container?

[klauswhereareyou]

Grand Budapest had several aspect ratios all in one film!

[Ultra_Violence]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Grand Budapest had several aspect ratios all in one film!

That was a very good way to be able to differentiate between the different time periods in the film.

The 1930s = 1:37:1
The 1960s = 2:35:1
1985-present = 1:85:1

[MikeZ.]

Getting all 6 of Sam Mendes' films, I was happy to see they were all 2:35.

I like a nice wide visual.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Originally you had academy ratio and that was it. Then in the 50's it went crazy, with all these new cinema options and wider ratios brought out to compete with TV. Then by the end of the 70's, it was pretty much settled (in America and the UK at least). You had a choice between 1.85:1 and 2.35/9:1 and it's been that way for 3 and a half decades more or less, and those are the only options for DCPs.

However, it's started off small and is now starting to pick up, but I think we may be entering a new age of freedom of ratio.

There have been a bunch of 4:3 films made since the year 2000, with seemingly more appearing since 2010. See these. http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/n...-academy-ratio

Andrea Arnold has made several films in this ratio. And now, this year, the Hateful 8 is the first film since way back to be shot in anamorphic 70mm giving a 2.76 ratio, and Slow West recently was made in 1.66 (a personal favourite of mine). The new trailer for The Witch also appears to be in 1.66.

Theoretically there should be no trouble with digital technology to shoot in any ratio, but studios and filmmakers have just been set on the standards for a long time. Could this be about to change? Or will this trend die down shortly?

I personally would welcome some variety in aspect ratio shooting as I feel there are some very interesting compositions to be gained from experimenting with frame.

When film first went widescreen in the 1950s, 1.85:1 was standard for spherical in the U.S., but 1.66:1 was far more likely to be used in Europe because it used more of the frame. 1.75:1 was also used - Disney used it from time to time.

When first developed, Cinemascope was 2.55:1 when it only had mag tracks. But when theater owners insisted that it also contain an optical soundtrack, it was reduced to 2.35:1. 2.35:1 was carried forward to Panavision anamorphic, but that was later changed to 2.39:1 to make room for the DTS time code and because lab splices were getting projected, so the height was reduced a bit.

70mm spherical was 2.2:1. You missed that one.

While there may be a few outliers who are shooting in various aspect ratios, I actually think that as theatrical distribution declines, we're going to see filmmakers shooting in the HDTV AR of 16:9 (1.78:1). There's only a few pixels difference between 1.85 and 1.78 and when most 1.85 films are mastered for Blu-ray, they're opened up to 1.78 anyway.

"The Hateful Eight" is unique. In all of U.S. film history, there were only two other films shot in 65mm at 2.75:1 that weren't shot for single-projector 70mm Cinerama: "Ben-Hur" and "Mutiny on the Bounty". I really don't think anyone else is going to be shooting in 70mm Ultra-Pan.

There's really no reason to shoot 1.66 digitally. In film, 1.66 was larger than 1.85. But in digital, it takes fewer pixels. That's unfortunately also true for scope films (which are no longer scope anyway if they're shot digitally). In 35mm, an anamorphic film used more area of the frame and it was projected larger in most theaters (common height). But in digital presentation, almost all theaters are common width. So "scope" films have the same width as 1.85 films, but lesser height.

That's actually going to be a big problem for "The Hateful Eight". On a 30' wide screen, it's only going to be 10.9' tall. In regular 70mm, it would have been 13.6' tall.

[Buscemi]

I think The Hateful Eight will be letterboxed for its digital/35mm run. I can't see Tarantino allowing for a cropped version of his movie to be shown in theatres (especially since one of those 35mm prints will likely be shown at his theatre).

[klauswhereareyou]

I like 1:85 for dramas...gives them a more intimate feel. 2:35 works good when you have a director that knows how to place his/her visual elements. Scorsese is a director who I think is great working in both aspect ratios.

[Coenskubrick]

I forgot to mention it but yes, Tomorrowland and Jurassic world were two others that had me thinking we were about to see a change. I know the DCPs are currently a limitation but perhaps the specs will be changed in the future to allow for different ratios.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

70mm spherical was 2.2:1. You missed that one.

Oh, no, I'm fully aware.

There's really no reason to shoot 1.66 digitally. In film, 1.66 was larger than 1.85. But in digital, it takes fewer pixels.

There's no reason technically, but I'm talking about opening up freedom of artistic choice. I love how you can capture vastness decently well with 1.66, but also frame faces very nicely.

That's unfortunately also true for scope films (which are no longer scope anyway if they're shot digitally). In 35mm, an anamorphic film used more area of the frame and it was projected larger in most theaters (common height). But in digital presentation, almost all theaters are common width. So "scope" films have the same width as 1.85 films, but lesser height.

That's actually going to be a big problem for "The Hateful Eight". On a 30' wide screen, it's only going to be 10.9' tall. In regular 70mm, it would have been 13.6' tall.

Yes, it's a shame the Hateful 8 will have to be squashed down and lose a lot of height on many screens. They should make sure they only show it in the widest venues. Although I think the plan is actually to crop it to 2.35 for non 70mm presentations anyway, which is kind of crappy.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I like 1:85 for dramas...gives them a more intimate feel. 2:35 works good when you have a director that knows how to place his/her visual elements. Scorsese is a director who I think is great working in both aspect ratios.

Add Spielberg to the list Jaws 2:35:1 because of the vastness of the ocean 1:85:1 for Jurassic Park for the height of the dinosaurs.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

I think The Hateful Eight will be letterboxed for its digital/35mm run. I can't see Tarantino allowing for a cropped version of his movie to be shown in theatres (especially since one of those 35mm prints will likely be shown at his theatre).

Yes, it has been announced that DCP/35mm showings will be letterboxed in a 2.35 frame rather than cropped (the best way to do it IMO).

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2...on-70-dummies/

Anyway, obviously there are exceptions from certain films, but for the main ARs generally I prefer 1.85 for comedy, either way with drama and horror, and for action, sci-fi, or anything with a big scope, I like 2.35

[xbs2034]

According to AICN, the Star Wars spin-off Rogue One will also be in 2.76 ratio and sounds like it will use the same lenses as H8 for Alexa 65 (the digital equivalent to 70mm) cameras.
Though, unlike H8, this is going to IMAX release, which is too bad cause with most IMAX screens 1.9 or taller, that is going to mean a lot of unused space on those screens (on a typical wide screen at a multiplex not too bad though).

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/72883