Blu-ray discs and aspect ratios: 1.66 and 1.78/1.85

[tylerrad]

Does a 1.66:1 Blu-ray disc exist?

Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket are available on Blu-ray only in 1.85:1 ratio (or 1.78, I'm not certain, but I've more to say on that in a moment). However, in the recent version of the Kubrick DVD box set, EWS and Full Metal Jacket are presented in 1.66:1 and I'll assume that whoever made the decision for 1.66 over 1.37 or 1.85 had good reason to do so. So, why are EWS and Full Metal Jacket available only in 1.85 on Blu-ray?

I can think only of one obvious and very annoying answer: Studios think that people expect every film watched on a widescreen TV to fill the frame. This same logic resulted in Pan-and-Scan VHS tapes and 'Full-screen' DVDs. Releasing a film in a cropped aspect ratio isn't exactly as heinous a crime as releasing a panned and scanned version, but it's still incorrect.

Kubrick films are an inherently bad example because he shot most of them open matte and nobody can agree on a definitive OAR, but what about 12 Angry Men or the countless foreign films that have been shot in 1.66 over the years? Nobody can argue that their OAR was anything but 1.66:1. Will they never be released on Blu-ray because of the 'confusing' pillarboxing?

Now, on to 1.85 and 1.78 presentation. When watching a film like Goodfellas on Blu-ray (officially 1.85:1 and presented in 1.85:1 according to blu-ray.com), the image will fill the screen on a widescreen television (1.78:1). What exactly aren't we seeing? Are the sides cropped slightly to fill the frame? Or are we seeing something extraneous, something that wasn't part of the original composition?

This holds true for 1.85:1 DVDs on widescreen televisions as well. It isn't quite as bad as going from 1.66 to 1.78, but it's still problematic.

What's happening here? Studios are doing a disservice to those who purchase their products by releasing them incorrectly. It's a mark of condescension actually, that the Blu-ray and DVD manufacturers assume the consumer wont notice or understand the difference between the correct and incorrect aspect ratios.


(I do realize that DVDs and Blu-ray discs by nature can only have video stored 16:9 and 4:3, anamorphic or not. Releasing a 1.66:1 Blu-ray disc would be more difficult because, theoretically, two versions would have to be released: one for 16:9 TVs with pillarboxing and one for 4:3 TVs with letterboxing. In a few years this will no longer be a problem. There will be no 4:3 HDTVs left.)

[OokieSpookie]

[UKTruBlu]

There are 4x3 hdtv's out there? - I am not being sarcastic, i just didn't know it was possible, all HD ratios are calculated for 16x9 aren't they?

[surfdude12]

fear not...the first few minutes of Enchanted are in 1.37:1

[bluerodent]

Originally Posted by UKTruBlu

There are 4x3 hdtv's out there? - I am not being sarcastic, i just didn't know it was possible, all HD ratios are calculated for 16x9 aren't they?

Yes, there are some 4X3 CRT HD TV's that Sony, Samsung and some others made in the past, but I dont think thet are still manufacturing them. The Sony's were some real heavy beasts!

[SoCalTiger]

Originally Posted by tylerrad

Now, on to 1.85 and 1.78 presentation. When watching a film like Goodfellas on Blu-ray (officially 1.85:1 and presented in 1.85:1 according to blu-ray.com), the image will fill the screen on a widescreen television (1.78:1).

This is a valid question which isn't answered in any detail in the Sticky thread. I'd like to know the answer too. Why should a 1.85:1 fill the screen on a 1.78:1 television?

Only options I can think of:
1) Overscan compensates for the marginal difference
2) Image is actually slightly cropped to 1.78:1
3) Mislabelling

It might be a combination of the three depending on what film you are talking about.

One thing I have noticed is that many 1.85:1 Blu-rays are labelled as "16:9 Widescreen" even though 16:9 is 1.78:1. For that matter I think even 2.35:1 films are sometimes labeled as "16:9". I can only assume this is to make it less confusing to the average consumer while making it more confusing to people who know better.

[UKTruBlu]

Originally Posted by bluerodent

Yes, there are some 4X3 CRT HD TV's that Sony, Samsung and some others made in the past, but I dont think thet are still manufacturing them. The Sony's were some real heavy beasts!

did you ever see the quality? were they any good?

[SoCalTiger]

Originally Posted by UKTruBlu

did you ever see the quality? were they any good?

The last-gen HD CRTs were excellent especially in regard to black level. But they were like 1000000 lbs.

[tylerrad]

I have a 4:3 HDTV from Sony and the quality is excellent, but yes, it's absolutely massive.

I knew there would be some snide post about the aspect ratio sticky; I actually typed "yes, I've read the sticky" in the thread title but removed it. The sticky is useless for anyone with even an elementary understanding of HDTVs, aspect ratios, and the way Blu-rays and DVDs are displayed and it doesn't answer any of my questions.

I appreciate the efforts of funsocaltiger to answer my question without pretension. I suppose I'll have to accept the fact that 1.85:1 films are made by some method or other to fit the 1.78:1 screen.

But I am still perplexed and unsettled by Warner Home Video's release of Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket. It's ridiculous to alter the OAR of a film simply so that it fits a television screen.

[arush5268d]

I see what you are saying....and I've wondered too about the situation you've mentioned

[QuasidodoJr]

Actually, when you watch a movie with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio on a 16x9 HDTV, if you look closely, you'll notice very small black bars across the top and bottom. They're just so slight most people don't notice them.

[blujacket]

It's your tv's overscan.

[neo_reloaded]

As you said, Kubrick's films have numerous oddities in regards to OAR, and I think the 1.85 ratio they have been released in is due to that being the aspect ratio they were shown in in American theaters. I think they were in 1.66 in UK cinemas. A Clockwork Orange, however, is actually in 1.66 on the US Blu-ray to the best of my knowledge.

Another 1.66 Blu-ray coming out is The Nightmare Before Christmas, on August 26th. I'll be very curious to see if it is truly 1.66.

As for the 1.78/1.85 issue, I believe overscan to be the primary problem here. I don't have Goodfellas so I can't check that particular title, but I know Children of Men on HD DVD was an actual 1.85 title. When I played that film over component or HDMI cables, it filled the entire screen. When I played it over VGA, where there is no overscan as each pixel is 1:1 mapped on the screen, there were the correct small black bars on top and bottom.

My Blu-ray player does not support VGA output, so I'm unable to test comparable Blu-rays at the moment. I will be getting a TV that has Just Scan for HDMI so I'll be able to test real 1:1 mapping - I'll try to remember to report those results. If I had to guess, I'd say there's a mix of true 1.85 titles and ones cropped to 1.78.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

. A Clockwork Orange, however, is actually in 1.66 on the US Blu-ray to the best of my knowledge.

Another 1.66 Blu-ray coming out is The Nightmare Before Christmas, on August 26th. I'll be very curious to see if it is truly 1.66.

Yes, "A Clockwork Orange" is presented as TRUE 1.66:1. Hopefully "Nightmare Before Christmas" is as well.

Many consumer displays overscan to such a degree I think many people won't even notice if it's transferred correctly at 1.66:1. I know some Disney titles have been released on DVD as 1.66:1, in pillarboxed anamorphic transfers. If Disney is willing to do that correctly on animated titles, I would assume that there isn't going to be too much reluctance on the part of other studios. But, who knows?

[Cinema Squid]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

Actually, when you watch a movie with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio on a 16x9 HDTV, if you look closely, you'll notice very small black bars across the top and bottom. They're just so slight most people don't notice them.

Exactly - a 1:85 picture should be about 1920x1040 in resolution giving a 20 pixel black bar on the top and a matching one one the bottom (assuming the frames are precisely centered which is often not the case). A typical 5% overscan setting will hide this unless your HDTV is set to 1:1 pixel mapping and even with no overscan these bars have a tendency to blend in with the bezel of your monitor.

However, there are some Blu-ray releases that are supposed to be 1:85 but are in actuality 1.78 on the disc (a slight zoom and crop done before the encode or perhaps just mistaken information). The Invasion and Disturbia are two examples that spring to mind.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by tylerrad

I appreciate the efforts of funsocaltiger to answer my question without pretension. I suppose I'll have to accept the fact that 1.85:1 films are made by some method or other to fit the 1.78:1 screen.

To give you some perspective on how Standard Widescreen (1.66 - 1.85) films are made and projected:

Most 1.66-1.85 films are shot with a camera that has a gate (camera aperture, hole, etc) that has the original Silent or Sound 1.33/1.37 dimensions so what's actually exposed on the negative is an about 4:3 shaped image as always since the begginings of Cinema. The cameraman uses 1.66 or 1.85 markings on the camera goundglass (what you see through the viewfinder) to compose the shot for 1.66 or 1.85 and it is in the PROJECTOR system at the theater that the image is masked down to 1.66 or 1.85 (same 4:3 full prints are used for both) with a metal plate shaped to 1.66 or 1.85 and the proper lens to make that 1.85 masked image fill a 1.85 shaped screen for example.

Furthermore a Camera Aperture is wider and taller by about 5% than the Projection format, even if it was 1.33 or 1.37

So even though the Projected image may be 0.446" x 0.825" in an US 1.85 theater, or 0.497" x 0.825" in an European 1.66 theater, and the print was actually hard matted for 1.66, the image on the print itself would be about 0.523" x 0.868" to prevent any mechanical or optical misalignments or errors from showing the edges of the camera aperture plate on the screen. If the print wasn't hard matted by the lab, the image on the print would actually be around 1.37 or so, approximately 0.630" x 0.868". Most "1.85" prints are like that. If you see a film made in 1.85 on a 1.66 screen, you'd see 11% more vertical image than intended. Or viceversa. That is, if the theater was projecting 100% of the 1.85 or 1.66 projection apertures. Most theaters have some error, ussually showing less. I once saw one that was cutting off 20%. SMPTE recommended practice allows 5% crop.

That 1.85 animated US movies also have a image that covers 1.66 is to prevent them from showing black letterbox bars when projected in 1.66 theaters.

Now for a BD, You can show the 1.85 with a little more height to fill 1.78 height, which is much less than viewing a 1.85 movie on a 1.66 theater. Or you could crop a little of the sides. 1.85 crop to 1.78 is 4%. Within practice.

Or you can letterbox the BD by using 42 black lines for a 1.85 image of 1038 x 1920.

Most TVs have a little built-in "overscan". Just having around 4%, and your 1.85 letterboxed movie will fill your 16:9 screen. In fact if they transfered the supposedly 0.446" x 0.825" 1.85 image showing instead 0.464" x 0.825" they'd fill the 1.78 screen. If your TV overscans around 4%, you'd see near the proper 1.85 0.446" height anyway, with just a smidge less width than a 100% accurate theater.

Now there's another quirk in the ointment. If you scan a Super 35 1.85 film at 2K the 1.85 image ends up being around 1080 x 2000. So just crop 4% of the sides mantaining 1:1 pixels mapping and you have a perfect 1.78 1080 x 1920 image.


When you saw STAR WARS's anamorphic 35mm 2.39 image blown up onto 70mm prints back then, they ended up showing an image 2.20 wide (If the 70mm theater was showing the 70mm print at 100%).

2.20 out of 2.39, is an 8% crop.

Anamorphic ratio today is 2.39. Yet people don't seem to bat an eye if they read 2.35 or 2.4:1

2.35, all things proper, is about correct for a BD from a 2.39 S-35 2K

Academy is 1.37 but for decades people didn't seem to "mind" TV being 1.33


Hope this has helped a little

Originally Posted by surfdude12

fear not...the first few minutes of Enchanted are in 1.37:1

No, they are in 1.85

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by tylerrad

Does a 1.66:1 Blu-ray disc exist?

Apologies if these titles have already been mentioned:

A Clockwork Orange
A Passage to India

(IIRC) A Room with a View

[kefrank]

My projector is set to zero overscan and nearly all of my 1.85 films on HD DVD and Blu-ray have the proper small black bars at the top and bottom, so I don't think this is a widespread problem by an means.

The only titles I have that are exactly 1.78:1 are Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket. A 1.78:1 presentation of these films is not problematic, because Kubrick framed for 1.85:1, but protected for up to 1.33:1, so the relatively small additional information at the top and bottom was considered allowable in the home presentation by the filmmaker.

[WriteSimply]

Deci comes to the rescue yet again! And hopefully this is the LAST thread we are getting about ARs.


fuad

[DeyoreW]

So far, all the films have been the proper ratio except the following in my collection (of 100 or so films)

The Worlds Fastest Indian - 1.78 (2.35 Theatrical)
Trading Places - 1.78 (1.85 Theatrical and printed on box!)


I have my sony st to full pixel so there is no zooming.
All other 1.85 films show small black bars at top and bottom.

As a note, Sony and Disney both are pretty good about giving ratio info on the box. 2.39, 2.40, 2.35 and 1.85 are typically correct on the box.
Warner gives info too although i haven't verified any of theirs with a measuring tape.