The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

I've seen some movies ruined by this aspect ratio like Jurassic Park, that would have looked outstanding on 2.35/2.40:1, it would have been a more involving and interactive experience.

So you dislike Jurassic Park because of its aspect ratio?

[Sky_Captain]

I've seen some movies ruined by this aspect ratio like Jurassic Park...

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

I'd also like widescreen TV's to be 2:1. My favourite aspect ratios are 2.35:1 and 2.40:1, which are almost the same.
I'm not a fan of 1.85:1, I've seen some movies ruined by this aspect ratio like Jurassic Park, that would have looked outstanding on 2.35/2.40:1, it would have been a more involving and interactive experience.

How can something that narrow and wide be more involving and interactive? Scope is a very standoffish aspect ratio. Spielberg chose well IMO. Can you imagine photographers using 2.35:1? There’s a reason why 3:2 has been used for over a hundred years. Compositions look so much nicer. I don’t see the appeal of 2.35:1, or narrower at all.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

I'd also like widescreen TV's to be 2:1. My favourite aspect ratios are 2.35:1 and 2.40:1, which are almost the same.
I'm not a fan of 1.85:1, I've seen some movies ruined by this aspect ratio like Jurassic Park, that would have looked outstanding on 2.35/2.40:1, it would have been a more involving and interactive experience.

I thought Spielberg chose the ratio to show off the height of some of the dinosaurs? they would have been further away with a wider ratio.

[jabba359]

Originally Posted by chip75

I thought Spielberg chose the ratio to show off the height of some of the dinosaurs? they would have been further away with a wider ratio.

I recall reading something along these lines as well, with the taller aspect ratio chosen so they could show more dinosaur height.

[spider-neil]

So to cut a long story short, there is no version of The Shining with big black bars top and bottom?

[fuzzymctiger]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

So to cut a long story short, there is no version of The Shining with big black bars top and bottom?

No. There never has been.

The film screened theatrically at 1:85:1 (generally, or 1:66:1 if you're one of those kubrick ratio people), and would have reached top and bottom of cinema screens with space at the sides.

Initially on home video, it was 1:33:1, filling 4x3 screens but today would result in bars on the sides of the image of your tv.

Moving into 16x9 tvs, it's been 1:78:1, filling the full screen.

There has never been a version of The Shining in 2:35:1 or any other 2:X aspect ratio that would result in bars at the top or bottom of your screen when viewing on tv, unless you got one of the 1:78 or 1:85 versions and watched it on an old 4x3 display

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by fuzzymctiger

No. There never has been.

The film screened theatrically at 1:85:1 (generally, or 1:66:1 if you're one of those kubrick ratio people), and would have reached top and bottom of cinema screens with space at the sides.

Initially on home video, it was 1:33:1, filling 4x3 screens but today would result in bars on the sides of the image of your tv.

Moving into 16x9 tvs, it's been 1:78:1, filling the full screen.

There has never been a version of The Shining in 2:35:1 or any other 2:X aspect ratio that would result in bars at the top or bottom of your screen when viewing on tv, unless you got one of the 1:78 or 1:85 versions and watched it on an old 4x3 display

Thanks so much for this information

[crazybeats]

This is set to be nice and cheap for Black Friday.

[Nitroboy]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

So to cut a long story short, there is no version of The Shining with big black bars top and bottom?

https://imdb.com/title/tt0081505/technical

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

I thought Spielberg chose the ratio to show off the height of some of the dinosaurs? they would have been further away with a wider ratio.

And then Trevorrow went with 2:1 on Jurassic World which I LOVED as it's the perfect middle-ground between height and width IMO, and Bayona went with full-on 2.39 on Fallen Kingdom. Funny thing is, with the latter I never felt like I was losing any of the height or scope of the dinosaurs or the action scenes in general.

[TwoTecs]

1.85 is my favorite aspect ratio. My three favorite films: Taxi Driver, The Tree of Life and Goodfellas (1.78 for home video) were shot in that.

2.39 is fine composition wise. Helps you get a good sense of the environment of the characters and gives you more horizontal space for blocking.

Photography doesn't have one standard aspect ratio. They are cropped however the photographer sees fit. I personally try to use the cinematic aspect ratios (1.85, 1.66 and 2.35) for my photography.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by TwoTecs

1.85 is my favorite aspect ratio. My three favorite films: Taxi Driver, The Tree of Life and Goodfellas (1.78 for home video) were shot in that.

2.39 is fine composition wise. Helps you get a good sense of the environment of the characters and gives you more horizontal space for blocking.

Photography doesn't have one standard aspect ratio. They are cropped however the photographer sees fit. I personally try to use the cinematic aspect ratios (1.85, 1.66 and 2.35) for my photography.

I like 1.85 for 3D (more immersive) and I like 2.39 for 2D (more cinematic).

[koberulz]

I like actually watching the damn films.

Seriously. How is it possible to have a favourite aspect ratio independent of the picture contained within it? What is wrong with you people?

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Seriously. How is it possible to have a favourite aspect ratio independent of the picture contained within it? What is wrong with you people?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I like actually watching the damn films.

Seriously. How is it possible to have a favourite aspect ratio independent of the picture contained within it? What is wrong with you people?

Aye, as long as it's well framed then I don't care what ratio the content is, I watch what's going on-inbetween the borders rather than the borders themselves. But.....a 2:1 TV would still have been awesome in being a better compromise between modern 1.78 and 2.39 content. It was said upthread that 16:9 was reached as the best compromise between 1.33 and 2.39, as well as being near as dammit for 1.85, but that was back when 1.33 still dominated the viewing landscape so it's a pity that the default display ratio wasn't updated for the more dominant wide content. Even as an actual ratio for content creation 2:1 is being used quite a bit for TV and streaming these days. Heck, even just having a 17:9 display (as per pro video monitoring gear) would've been appreciated and it would've meant that pro 4K video masters didn't need to be scaled or cropped any more to fit 16:9.

[HeightOfFolly]

Any reason why 1.78 was chosen over 1.85? They're so close they should've just gone with the slightly wider aspect ratio and not bothered with 1.85 movies having tiny black bars or being zoomed in.

[Ricky G]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I like actually watching the damn films.

Seriously. How is it possible to have a favourite aspect ratio independent of the picture contained within it? What is wrong with you people?

It's okay to like what you like, the way a film is presented can have affect on someone's viewing experience. Its fun to talk about the movies you like whether it's the content/story and/or the technical aspects.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by HeightOfFolly

Any reason why 1.78 was chosen over 1.85? They're so close they should've just gone with the slightly wider aspect ratio and not bothered with 1.85 movies having tiny black bars or being zoomed in.

One of the considerations behind the 1.78:1 compromise was the preponderance of CRT monitors still being manufactured at the time. The wider the CRT, the more difficult it is to produce without lots of failure/breakage costs (and field uniformity issues, etc.). The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 was actually fairly significant in CRT manufacturing cost terms.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Ricky G

Its fun to talk about the movies you like whether it's the content/story and/or the technical aspects.

I think his point was not that there's no merit in considering technical aspects, but that these technical production choices should be subservient to the stories they're being used to tell, not the other way around.