Incorrect Original Aspect Ratios for certain movies that featured shifting AR's

[RAILERSWIM]

The following films have incorrect Original Apsect Ratios. I have tried countless times to submit the correct information but the admin who approves this information always disregards it.

• Transformers : Age of Extinction (Select footage filmed with Digital IMAX 3D cameras)
• Gaurdians of the Galaxy (Select footage formated in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio for IMAX theatres)
• Hunger Games: Catching Fire (The scenes within the arena were filmed with IMAX cameras)
• The Amazing Spider-Man (Certain shots were formated in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio for IMAX theatres)
• Skyfall (The entire movie was formated to an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 for IMAX theatres)
• Star Trek : Into Darkness (Select footaged filmed with IMAX cameras)

Am I missing any titles that have incorrect original AR's? If so comment below. Please bump this post and lets raise hell so the Admins pay attention to this.

[erlinmeyer]

Originally Posted by RAILERSWIM

The following films have incorrect Original Apsect Ratios. I have tried countless times to submit the correct information but the admin who approves this information always disregards it.

• Transformers : Age of Extinction (Select footage filmed with Digital IMAX 3D cameras)
• Gaurdians of the Galaxy (Select footage formated in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio for IMAX theatres)
• Hunger Games: Catching Fire (The scenes within the arena were filmed with IMAX cameras)
• The Amazing Spider-Man (Certain shots were formated in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio for IMAX theatres)
• Skyfall (The entire movie was formated to an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 for IMAX theatres)
• Star Trek : Into Darkness (Select footaged filmed with IMAX cameras)

Am I missing any titles that have incorrect original AR's? If so comment below. Please bump this post and lets raise hell so the Admins pay attention to this.

Transformers: Age of Extinction is shown as:
Technical aspects
3D (native, 165 minutes)
IMAX, 94 minutes

Guardians of the Galaxy is shown as:
Technical aspects
3D (converted)
IMAX

The Amazing Spider-Man is shown as:
Technical aspects
3D (native, 136 minutes)
IMAX, 20 minutes

Hunger Games: Catching Fire is shown as:
Technical aspects
IMAX, 49 minutes

Skyfall is shown as:
Technical aspects
IMAX

Star Trek Into Darkness is shown as:
Technical aspects
3D (converted)
IMAX, 30 minutes

...so, they may have covered your IMAX concerns right on this site.

As for listings for Blu-rays and/or DVDs, I believe Aspect is listed for the predominant version in that item as the majority of the movie was originally presented, but if you need more specific info the you need to submit the change for the parent which would logically have to apply to all versions.

[Deciazulado]

All these movies with sections for IMAX have been composed and exhibited for the ratio stated (otherwise they wouldn't work in their general release: You'd end up with a severly cropped presentation). This is how it's done for every movie done this way: In Film, you compose for the smaller ratio and protect for the open one. You don't compose for the open matte and say, hell, we'll just chop it off and crop it on the other 10,000 screens so millions see it wrong. The IMAX version is a Large Format Open Matte presentation of these. A note about this alternate ratio presenntations can be added in the comments fields.

composinginopenmatteexposures.jpg

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

All these movies with sections for IMAX have been composed and exhibited for the ratio stated (otherwise they wouldn't work in their general release: You'd end up with a severly cropped presentation). This is how it's done for every movie done this way: In Film, you compose for the smaller ratio and protect for the open one. You don't compose for the open matte and say, hell, we'll just chop it off and crop it on the other 10,000 screens so millions see it wrong. The IMAX version is a Large Format Open Matte presentation of these. A note about this alternate ratio presenntations can be added in the comments fields.

Well, the director, DP, and editor of Catching Fire said that they made full use of the 1.44:1 frame and just let the editor pick what he felt was best for the 2.40:1 crop. That explains why the movie has vertical pans up and down the image in some sequences.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Well, the director, DP, and editor of Catching Fire said that they made full use of the 1.44:1 frame and just let the editor pick what he felt was best for the 2.40:1 crop. That explains why the movie has vertical pans up and down the image in some sequences.

That sounds a bit awkward, visually.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

That sounds a bit awkward, visually.

I think Geoff D first called attention to this in the Catching Fire thread. In the scene where Peeta is electrocuted, Katniss initially thinks that Finnick might be trying to kill him. She draws an arrow to shoot Finnick.

In the IMAX version, the camera does not tilt up as she moves. In the 2.40:1 version, the cropped frame pans up as she moves because otherwise her head and arms are out of frame.

[jscoggins]

Here's a video showing that upward pan. Compare that to the IMAX version on the BD, which does not look like the camera is getting yanked.

Catching Fire upward tilt - YouTube

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by RAILERSWIM

The following films have incorrect Original Apsect Ratios. I have tried countless times to submit the correct information but the admin who approves this information always disregards it.
[LIST]
[*]Skyfall (The entire movie was formated to an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 for IMAX theatres)

Skyfall's OAR is 2.40:1. The mattes were opened up to 1.90:1 for IMAX, but this is not the AR used to compose shots. There is a lot of dead space on the top and bottom of the frame in IMAX.

As mentioned before, there is a difference between protecting and composing. TDK, TDK:R, Ghost Protocol, etc compose for 2.40:1 but protect for 1.44:1 for the IMAX scenes. If they did not, you might see boom mics, or other equipment when watching it in IMAX.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Here's a video showing that upward pan. Compare that to the IMAX version on the BD, which does not look like the camera is getting yanked.

Catching Fire upward tilt - YouTube

That one isn't too bad but its a bit awkward. I was watching bits and pieces of a old plan and scan copy of Scream the other day I bought years ago on DVD on the cheap, and its full of those unnatural post production pans. The cropping is bad enough but it really is unwatchable with the panning. I dunno how even the most simple of foke back in the day would prefer shit like that compared to the OAR.

Dem big old scary black bars....

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

That one isn't too bad but its a bit awkward. I was watching bits and pieces of a old plan and scan copy of Scream the other day I bought years ago on DVD on the cheap, and its full of those unnatural post production pans. The cropping is bad enough but it really is unwatchable with the panning. I dunno how even the most simple of foke back in the day would prefer shit like that compared to the OAR.

Dem big old scary black bars....

Yeah, since the tilt matches her movement, it's sort of "disguised".

Horizontal panning was sooo bad with scope movies.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Horizontal panning was sooo bad with scope movies.

Ugh!

I knew what pan & scan was as a kid, but the first time I became really conscious of it was when renting that Michael Keaton comedy Multiplicity back when it was pretty new. The P&S on that tape is so terrible it makes the movie almost unwatchable, constantly lurching back and forth across the screen.

I became a widescreen snob the next day.

(Who the hell makes a comedy in scope anyway?!)

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

(Who the hell makes a comedy in scope anyway?!)

There are filmmakers who love scope no matter what. Problem is, they don't know how to use the rectangle properly. This is true even for big action movies.

[jgagzy]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

Ugh!

I knew what pan & scan was as a kid, but the first time I became really conscious of it was when renting that Michael Keaton comedy Multiplicity back when it was pretty new. The P&S on that tape is so terrible it makes the movie almost unwatchable, constantly lurching back and forth across the screen.

I became a widescreen snob the next day.

(Who the hell makes a comedy in scope anyway?!)

If you watch the Pan and Scan version of almost any Columbia or TriStar film done in scope in the mid to late '90s, they're full of those awkward "pans" and "tilts" that always looks unnatural and jagged. The Cable Guy, Wild Things, My Best Friend's Wedding, Money Train, 8mm, and yes, Multiplicity are the worst victims of this.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by jgagzy

If you watch the Pan and Scan version of almost any Columbia or TriStar film done in scope in the mid to late '90s, they're full of those awkward "pans" and "tilts" that always looks unnatural and jagged. The Cable Guy, Wild Things, My Best Friend's Wedding, Money Train, 8mm, and yes, Multiplicity are the worst victims of this.

It's a good thing that Laserdisc paved the way for widescreen and we've run with it (for the most part) ever since with DVD and BD.

and that's despite lots of *****ing and whining along the way from the ignorant ones..

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

It's a good thing that Laserdisc paved the way for widescreen and we've run with it (for the most part) ever since with DVD and BD.

and that's despite lots of *****ing and whining along the way from the ignorant ones..

They still ask about black bars, especially 1.33 movies and TV shows.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

They still ask about black bars, especially 1.33 movies and TV shows.

True, those are the sort of people that would rather 1.33: 1 older movies and TV shows be stretched and/or zoomed in to fill their screens which says a lot about them, but overall I think more and more people understand and appreciate OAR then ever before.

I think it was at its worst in the 4:3 CRT days when widescreen was repetitively new to most people, they just couldn't see past the letterboxing. It was almost just as bad there for a lot of years with 16:9 displays as well, especially for the reasons you outlined, but of recent years it has improved quite a bit.