Aspect Ratios becoming more diverse?

[Foggy]

I'd honestly rather see 1.85:1 screens than 2.35:1. York Vue still has them in the work and they just leave the black lines at top and bottom of the screen like you would if you saw the films at home, so they're easy enough to block out of view, having the sides black always sits a bit distracting with me but I've gotten use to it, especially since I've been getting more academy ratio films recently.

Best screens though have dynamic curtains to block the unused screen, always looks the best other than when they cut the sides off of Die Hard 5...but it was Die Hard 5, who gave a crap about that being projected properly.

[Geoff D]

I don't mind one screen or t' other, but for the love of Pete, program the right show for the right ratio screen!

[Martoto]

If you go to watch a film theatrically, you'd expect the picture to be as large as the cinema can project it.

The 2.35 screen provides for the vast majority of films to be exhibited that way. That is, using the full height of the screen at all times..

Television mentality has no more place in a cinema than the commercials and trailers in the middle of the feature do.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

When the Blu-ray of The Hourglass Sanatorium came out, there was a bit of controversy because the aspect ratio was 1.85:1 instead of the theatrical 2.35:1 - but what was odd was that it looked absolutely fine in 1.85:1, with no telltale signs of cropping at the sides.

It transpired that 1.85:1 was the OAR at the time of shooting (they were using a locally-developed format not dissimilar to Super 35), and that's how the film was intended to be screened - but most Polish cinemas at the time could only handle Academy or Scope. So they were forced to crop it down to Scope at the top and bottom, and somehow that became the "official" ratio. It was only when the film was restored a few years ago under the cinematographer's direct supervision that it could finally be screened as intended.

That's incredible. So that must have been the case for all non-anamorphic films exhibited in Poland in the 70s then?

[Coenskubrick]

Netflix seems to be willing to break with tradition. Master of None is in 2.39:1 and it's a half hour comedy series.

[dubious]

Why do I have to watch AR 2.39+ to 4'sh car commercials between my cropped to 16:9 scope movies on TV?

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Netflix seems to be willing to break with tradition. Master of None is in 2.39:1 and it's a half hour comedy series.

This isn't the first time for Netflix as House of Cards is in 2:1. Amazon also presents Transparent in 2:1.


Other shows that were in 2.39 include Star Wars: The Clone Wars (dating back to the pilot film), The Spoils of Babylon, and a few episodes of Cold Case.

[AaronJ]

It's interesting how HBO will seemingly randomly choose which films to show in OAR and which films to just distribute 16:9. For instance, Gone Girl, they always show 2:35. But other 2:35 movies they show 16:9. Same with Avatar (not that I've ever watched it through, just saying).

I'm not sure what their thinking is.

[Geoff D]

Avatar is 16:9 on the Blu-ray though. It's only ever been seen in 2.40 in 2D cinema screenings.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dubious

Why do I have to watch AR 2.39+ to 4'sh car commercials between my cropped to 16:9 scope movies on TV?

And they're not just widescreen, they're often shot with anamorphic lenses and everything. It's a topsy-turvy world we live in.

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And they're not just widescreen, they're often shot with anamorphic lenses and everything. It's a topsy-turvy world we live in.

Blame it on the people that are making these films. If they would choose a format that can't be opened, or cropped it can only be seen one way. Just like Hitchcook shot his film in a certain way so the they couldn't be edited and there wasn't extra footage.

Cameron choose to use Super 35 on both ALIENS & THE ABYSS. With the ABYSS is caused problems because there is more information in the 1:33.1, on top and bottom. But in theaters it was cropped for a 1.85:1 screen filling picture. That's why I dislike IMAX, it's basically a big 1.33:1 picture, and differently version of the film. Human vision doesn't naturally work in a up & down fashion. However, humans have peripheral vision, from side to side making widescreen 2.35:1, and especially Cinerama a more natural presentation.

[Geoff D]

Well, sure (though Aliens was straight 1.85). It's just crazy to me that an advert or a music video can be designed, shot and broadcast in widescreen with no thought to altering it for screen fillers because it's a stylistic device, whereas movies are still routinely mangled in such ways. (Though we're much better off in that regard on this side of the water, as 'scope movies are often shown in proper 2.40 widescreen now across the main channels.)

Thankfully anamorphic has made one heck of a comeback - I thought Super 35 was gonna kill it off completely - and not just on film, but the advent of 4:3 digital sensors finally allowed filmmakers to use proper 2x glass (like decades-old optics from Panavision) instead of having special 1.5x anamorphics for 16:9.

[ivanolo]

I don't care about aspect ratios at the movies, but when I'm at home, I prefer something that takes full advantage of my TV's screen real estate. I know, it's irrational...

[Ultra_Violence]

I prefer watching a film that has an aspect ration of 2.35.1 or higher. It just looks more cinematic for me.

[dvdmike]

1.78:1 can do one

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

It's interesting how HBO will seemingly randomly choose which films to show in OAR and which films to just distribute 16:9. For instance, Gone Girl, they always show 2:35. But other 2:35 movies they show 16:9. Same with Avatar (not that I've ever watched it through, just saying).

I'm not sure what their thinking is.

I've seen the same for the Lord of the Rings films on cable - brought down to 1.85:1

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Avatar is 16:9 on the Blu-ray though. It's only ever been seen in 2.40 in 2D cinema screenings.

Avatar has two versions. One is for fixed height screens (2.39) and the other for fixed width screens (1.85). In short, the cinemas got the version which filled their screens best.

The film does seem better composed for 2.39 though. No surprise as it seems to have been Cameron's preferred format for a while.

People interested in 2.0 should read up on Vittorio Storaro's "univisium" format. He seems to be slowly converting people. Star Trek VI has been released in 2.0, on DVD anyway.

[Geoff D]

There was a flat 1.85 cinema version of Avadah? Really? Thought it was just the stereo version. Anyhoo, when I had a 21:9 TV I watched the Blu-ray cropped to 2.35 and it worked brilliantly, in some shots you can even see how the frame is being moved upwards in the 16:9 version to keep people 'in shot' for the matted 2.35 extraction.

Storaro can peddle 2:1 all he likes, but fudging with his 2.35 movies to suit that credo is NOT cool.

[Buscemi]

Avatar was filmed in 1.78 (as Cameron doesn't like shooting anamorphic) but matted to 2.39 for most theatres. I saw the 2.39 version in the theatre and I felt the 3-D wasn't as effective due to the matting (it's kind of hard to explain to non-cinema tech people).

Meanwhile, I saw the open-matte version of Skyfall on IMAX a few years later and feel that film works much better in 1.9 rather than the 2.39 version presented in conventional theatres and on Blu-ray. I wish that Mendes and Deakins had made the IMAX version available as a special feature (kind of like the three versions of On the Waterfront on the Criterion Blu-ray) instead of refusing to acknowledge it.

I guess if Cameron prefers tall over wide, Mendes prefers wide over tall (Spectre was shot mainly with anamorphic lenses with the exception of some Super 35 shots).

[Geoff D]

Okay, so I'm not the fount of all knowledge about how Avatar was exhibited. Alls I know is, I saw it in 15/70 3D IMAX and it was stunning.

I didn't see Skyfall in IMAX but I can imagine that it looked swell on such a huge screen where your field of vision is filled up (same rationale why Brad Bird opened up Tomorrowland to 1.90 for IMAX) but I saw the opened up version on a mere 55" TV and all I could think of was 'dat headroom!', I found it very distracting. But I watched the Blu a few weeks ago and the proper widescreen matting was perfect for me. (Looked stunning too, I'd previously written the film off as being too 'digital', for want of a better word, but Deakins really did it smash with that Alexa acquisition, it's gawjus.)