Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Henners

hmm... oh yes.. good point..

I guess yeah 16:9 looks like the better one to choose then..

I've tried stretching a 4:3 once.. yuck...

Well, I don't know if I'd say it was "better." I don't have a problem with any of the aspect ratios on my tv anymore than I do when I'm at the theater (I never say, "Hey there's more wall space at the top and bottom of the screen!"). I'm usually watching the movie, not looking at the black bars.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Henners

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

Pointless as some director will come along and think his movie is so freakin special that it needs to be filmed in an even wider aspect ratio than that.

But hey, it's their 'vision'.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I don't have a problem with any of the aspect ratios on my tv anymore than I do when I'm at the theater (I never say, "Hey there's more wall space at the top and bottom of the screen!"). I'm usually watching the movie, not looking at the black bars.

But in a good theater (using my definition of "good") you have "Common Height," and the image gets bigger, not smaller, as you move from the old 1.37:1, through 1.85:1, to 2.40:1. So with the wider formats there is not more black space at the top and bottom of the screen ... all films would have the same black space at the top and bottom ... only the width would vary.

[Trogdor2010]

This is turning into a deathmatch of Joes and cinephiles. To put it bluntly, all these movies you have seen are made for a movie theater, not Blu Ray, not DVD, not VHS, not even Laserdisc. But however, whats worse is that there are more crappy performance in those movie theaters. I watched Broken Embraces (Los Abrazos Rotos) a few days ago at the nearest arthouse theater (50 miles, sucks), and while a great film, had terrible uniformity in the focal path, it's too obvious, I even asked the projectionist (Nicely) to help with the focus, while they fixed the focus for the middle range of the picture at the cost of out of focus subtitles (I imagine the subtitles were what were in focus, but worth the cost), also some bothersome audio hiccups (I'm betting they are using the SDDS codec). This and the high cost of tickets are what scaring anybody to going to a theater and reminding me why I don't go there. Why do you think I even have a CIH set up to watch movies on?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by garyrc

But in a good theater (using my definition of "good") you have "Common Height," and the image gets bigger, not smaller, as you move from the old 1.37:1, through 1.85:1, to 2.40:1. So with the wider formats there is not more black space at the top and bottom of the screen ... all films would have the same black space at the top and bottom ... only the width would vary.

Well, that's the way it's supposed to be but I have been in theaters (recently) where they open up the screen at the top and bottom, not the sides, to display movies in 1.85.

[morebetterness]

I cannot believe all I am seeing released on Blu ray is 2.40:1 aspect. "it's the way the director meant for it to be seen." I dont care, all tv's now are the 16:9 and movies should be made to fill those screens! They are only in the theater for two months, but when we buy the movie we have to have a movie that has the top and bottom of the picture chopped out. Examples, 2012 special feature has a scene from the movie filling the entire screen. Now in the movie, thats same scene has the black bars which cuts off part of the top and bottom!! Lame! Same with Pixar's Cars, and most all new blu rays!! Come on!

Now Couples Retreat looks amazing!! One main reason is it fills your entire display in High Definition, it just looks unbelievable. So if that is how good movies can look, why aren't they releasing them all that way!! No sides are being cut off in 1.85:1!! It is just as wide but it also has more picture!

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

when we buy the movie we have to have a movie that has the top and bottom of the picture chopped out. No sides are being cut off in 1.85:1!! It is just as wide but it also has more picture!

No offense, but start reading from the very first post because you don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion was not formed from actual knowledge. It's based on your personal preference. And the rest of us shouldn't be subjected to 2.35 images being cropped to fit a 16:9 screen because of a person's preference.

It's like saying filmmakers should stop making movies in black and white, or studios should start colorizing all black and white films, because all tv's are made to display color. Ridiculous. Maybe the majority of us would like to see the movies the way they were intended to be seen.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

I cannot believe all I am seeing released on Blu ray is 2.40:1 aspect. "it's the way the director meant for it to be seen." I dont care, all tv's now are the 16:9 and movies should be made to fill those screens! They are only in the theater for two months, but when we buy the movie we have to have a movie that has the top and bottom of the picture chopped out. Examples, 2012 special feature has a scene from the movie filling the entire screen. Now in the movie, thats same scene has the black bars which cuts off part of the top and bottom!! Lame! Same with Pixar's Cars, and most all new blu rays!! Come on!

Now Couples Retreat looks amazing!! One main reason is it fills your entire display in High Definition, it just looks unbelievable. So if that is how good movies can look, why aren't they releasing them all that way!! No sides are being cut off in 1.85:1!! It is just as wide but it also has more picture!

As Dot said, why don't you read the thread from the beginning and understand the issue before making uninformed comments like this. If you understood what's going on, then you would see that shots in the special features are the ones that are cropped.

Your TV is just a device to display various video images. Not all of these images are designed (nor should they be) to fit this display device that was a compromise on aspect ratios from the start. You truly want a display where aspect ratio doesn't matter? Get a good CIH projector setup.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

I cannot believe all I am seeing released on Blu ray is 2.40:1 aspect. "it's the way the director meant for it to be seen." I dont care, all tv's now are the 16:9 and movies should be made to fill those screens! They are only in the theater for two months, but when we buy the movie we have to have a movie that has the top and bottom of the picture chopped out. Examples, 2012 special feature has a scene from the movie filling the entire screen. Now in the movie, thats same scene has the black bars which cuts off part of the top and bottom!! Lame! Same with Pixar's Cars, and most all new blu rays!! Come on!

Now Couples Retreat looks amazing!! One main reason is it fills your entire display in High Definition, it just looks unbelievable. So if that is how good movies can look, why aren't they releasing them all that way!! No sides are being cut off in 1.85:1!! It is just as wide but it also has more picture!

The movies may only be in the theaters for a few months, but they are on FILM forever..... and as long as they were filled in a specific aspect ratio, they should always be shown in that aspect ratio....any manipulation degrades the picture, or crops it..... not the other way around!

Also, take a look at "Che"

Two Parts..... Two different Aspect ratios...... so, if you have this entitlement complex where all directors should film in the same aspect ratio, why would Soderbergh film one movie in two aspect ratios????

WELL! Because he completely changes the FEEL of the film.....

Part I :

Wide Cinemascope, with a "Verge of Victory" feel

Part II: Complete change of fate for the characters, and a claustrophobia sets in.... and is represented with a change in Aspect ratio


A quick search, and this is also found, which describes it better than I can.....

with its division into halves, with two tempos, two color schemes, two aspect ratios and two approaches to chronology.

But some would rather throw the director's intentions out the window so they can "fill their screen" very silly.....

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

No sides are being cut off in 1.85:1!! It is just as wide but it also has more picture!

• Yeah, the sides are cut off in 1.85 if the original was 2.20, 2.35, 2.39, or (rarely) 2.76. Also, even 1.85 is slightly cut off (unless there are black bars) because:
  
• Your screen is 1.78:1, not 1.85. 1.85 movies will have a small bit of the sides cut off if you fill your screen from top to bottom -- unless you distort the shape to make it fit 1.78, rather than have small black bars top and bottom. When HDTV was about to be introduced to the public, someone at Lucasfilm pointed out that 1.78 was not the shape of any known movie.

[Codyblaze]

Question for you OAR experts, what is the best way to handle old windowbox DVD's on a modern setup? I hate the incredibly reduced size when viewing these 'natively', but using the TV to zoom still seems causes some distortion and there's certainly some loss of clarity as well. I use a PS3 to my tv, does the PS3 give any better zooming options? Or would having a better player such as the Oppo? I hate to zoom, but I have quite a few non-anamorphic WS discs that are somewhat painful to watch in either option.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Codyblaze

Question for you OAR experts, what is the best way to handle old windowbox DVD's on a modern setup? I hate the incredibly reduced size when viewing these 'natively', but using the TV to zoom still seems causes some distortion and there's certainly some loss of clarity as well. I use a PS3 to my tv, does the PS3 give any better zooming options? Or would having a better player such as the Oppo? I hate to zoom, but I have quite a few non-anamorphic WS discs that are somewhat painful to watch in either option.

For me personally, I used to zoom in on DVD images that weren't enhanced for widescreen tv's, but then I finally just got frustrated with the PQ and got rid of the few that I had.

[lDlisturb3d]

i like 1.85 but it still is nice to see the wide screen every now in then

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by garyrc

• Yeah, the sides are cut off in 1.85 if the original was 2.20, 2.35, 2.39, or (rarely) 2.76. Also, even 1.85 is slightly cut off (unless there are black bars) because:
  
• Your screen is 1.78:1, not 1.85. 1.85 movies will have a small bit of the sides cut off if you fill your screen from top to bottom -- unless you distort the shape to make it fit 1.78, rather than have small black bars top and bottom. When HDTV was about to be introduced to the public, someone at Lucasfilm pointed out that 1.78 was not the shape of any known movie.

Nice i had no ideal

[DavePS3]

The different aspect ratios were the result of television being invented. The studios felt they were losing people in the theaters to televisions being sold into homes. Studios decided that like the main reason for 3D today, they needed something to pull people back into the theaters so Cinerama, Todd-AO, etc. were developed along with implementing much wider screens in those theaters. They used anamorphic lenses at different ratios - to be decided upon by each director, to horizontally squeeze in the picture and the opposite lens on the projectors up in the booths, to pull the image back out. Resolution was increased and it gave a much more panoramic view of things since that is how we all see naturally (unless you have tunnel vision).

Advancements in sound went along with it like Disney's 'Fantasound' for the original Fantasia (playing with phase shifting to get a stereo-like effect) but things paid off. Films like Ben-Hur had a much bigger impact with audiences but our current displays of course were developed to show HD programming which was settled at 1.78:1. Because there are about 14 different aspect ratios in film, people with projectors and money to burn, install masking devices and panamorph lenses which slide in and out of the front of the unit's lens to keep the integrity of the resolution while blowing up the tighter ratios. Those aspect ratios are simply what we all have to live with and we must also remember that film is an art form and as such, is subject to the director's personal vision of how he wants his art seen.

[morebetterness]

Originally Posted by garyrc

• Yeah, the sides are cut off in 1.85 if the original was 2.20, 2.35, 2.39, or (rarely) 2.76. Also, even 1.85 is slightly cut off (unless there are black bars) because:
  
• Your screen is 1.78:1, not 1.85. 1.85 movies will have a small bit of the sides cut off if you fill your screen from top to bottom -- unless you distort the shape to make it fit 1.78, rather than have small black bars top and bottom. When HDTV was about to be introduced to the public, someone at Lucasfilm pointed out that 1.78 was not the shape of any known movie.

I took a photo of 2012 on my tv of the limo escape scene on the special feature which was not cropped, which filled the entire screen. In that same scene in the movie I took another picture of the exact spot. When I compared the two exact scenes they had the same amount of image left to right. The width seemed to be unchanged. However, in the special feature shot which appeared to be your 1.85:1 format, it had added more image to the top and bottom. More pleasing to view and appearing to not lose any information, just made it look much better in my opinion. I understand the sides "should" be wider with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 That only makes sense, but what I can't figure out is why in this case it didn't? That is why I am curious why they chop the top and bottom of the movie when it is released to Blu ray when they know removing the black bars will fill the widescreen tv's better.

The scenes also didn't look distorted in any way. Nothing was altered. I don't know, I think when people pay alot for a tv, the whole screen ought to be utilized. And possibly the reason people don't care about the top and bottom being cropped out in the theater is because the screen is MUCH bigger than a home widescreen tv. It isn't as noticeable.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

The scenes also didn't look distorted in any way. Nothing was altered.

It was altered because the director didn't want you to see that extra information.

If a director wants you to see it, he will change the aspect ratio for the film release: The World's Fastest Indian is a good example.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

what I can't figure out

Seriously, read the very first post in this thread. Educate yourself.

[morebetterness]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

No offense, but start reading from the very first post because you don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion was not formed from actual knowledge. It's based on your personal preference. And the rest of us shouldn't be subjected to 2.35 images being cropped to fit a 16:9 screen because of a person's preference.

It's like saying filmmakers should stop making movies in black and white, or studios should start colorizing all black and white films, because all tv's are made to display color. Ridiculous. Maybe the majority of us would like to see the movies the way they were intended to be seen.

You make some valid points. I agree with you on the black and white to color idea. I don't expect them to change something like that, that is true. However, movies are made to fit a movie theater screen, so the top and bottom are cropped to fit such a screen. That's fine, that's how the director intended it. Because a movie screen is a heck of a lot bigger than someone's widescreen tv at home having the top and bottom cropped in theaters, not a big deal.

However; at home people have tv's that obviously are not a movie theater size or aspect ratio and because director's format them for theaters alone with nothing else in mind, by the time they arrive on Blu Ray, we are left with black bars, a smaller picture to see on your tv. Granted it is wide, but so is 1.85. I mean how wide does it need to be? really. I mean why stop at 2.40 then.

I have done some tests and several movies in the same shot were just as wide as eachother. The only difference was the top and bottom were not cropped on the 1.85.

[42041]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

That's fine, that's how the director intended it. Because a movie screen is a heck of a lot bigger than someone's widescreen tv at home having the top and bottom cropped in theaters, not a big deal.

Normal anamorphic prints are not *cropped* top and bottom during projection. They are stretched wider, hence the anamorphic lens. In a theater, a 1.85:1 film produces a smaller image (at least with film projection, I don't know how they do it with digital)... hence why many filmmakers favor scope.