James Cameron and Scope ratio

[Stu123]

If Cameron can release his movie full screen for the home why don't other film makers follow suit.Even if you can fit more into the image using scope ratio no one can deny that they want to use all the screen size they've paid for at home.The scope ratio is perfect for cinema but it's not perfect for home viewing on a normal widescreen tv.Then again im not saying that i want to miss out on anything that has been in the shot.Surely something can be sorted out so we're not getting a third of the screen we've paid for.I would of thought though a 1:78 ratio that he's releasing would be missing some of the shot compared to the scope ratio that it was shown as in some theatres but if it isn't then why can't all home releases be released this way.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

If Cameron can release his movie full screen for the home why don't other film makers follow suit.Even if you can fit more into the image using scope ratio no one can deny that they want to use all the screen size they've paid for at home.The scope ratio is perfect for cinema but it's not perfect for home viewing on a normal widescreen tv.Then again im not saying that i want to miss out on anything that has been in the shot.Surely something can be sorted out so we're not getting a third of the screen we've paid for.I would of thought though a 1:78 ratio that he's releasing would be missing some of the shot compared to the scope ratio but if it isn't then why can't all home releases be released this way.Would they all have to be filmed in IMAX?

I actually prefer 2.35:1 and having the black bars. Also avatars oar is 1.78:1 so Cameron is not opening the image up. Avatar is also not shot in the imax ratio or with imax cameras.

Framing is an art and should be preserved.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I actually prefer 2.35:1 and having the black bars. Also avatars oar is 1.78:1 so Cameron is not opening the image up. Avatar is also not shot in the imax ratio or with imax cameras.

Framing is an art and should be preserved.

Why do you prefer it though ,is it because the director can you show you more? Wouldn't you prefer movies to be shot in 1:78 so you get all of your screen in use at home?

[Bucky]

i definitely prefer the films to be in their original aspect ratio. it isnt that big of a deal for me if they open up a 1.85 film to 1.78 if that is what the director wants.

[Melodious Thunk]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I actually prefer 2.35:1 and having the black bars. Also avatars oar is 1.78:1 so Cameron is not opening the image up. Avatar is also not shot in the imax ratio or with imax cameras.

Framing is an art and should be preserved.

Absolutely agree. Resolution was an issue with letterboxed SD material (hence pan/scan), but HD allows for a suitably sharp presentation even of Scope images. You wouldn't cut a professional photograph down to size if it didn't fit the frame you wanted to put it in.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by Melodious Thunk

Absolutely agree. Resolution was an issue with letterboxed SD material (hence pan/scan), but HD allows for a suitably sharp presentation even of Scope images. You wouldn't cut a professional photograph down to size if it didn't fit the frame you wanted to put it in.

Im not talking about alteration or any cutting off the image i'm talking about before they start filiming.If it's shot in scope ratio then it has to be black bars but whats wrong with 1:78 if it's going to give people the full screen of there tv's?

Oh my god check out the philips 56" 21:9 cinema tv £3500 you get full screen with scope ratio ,that is the answer.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Why do you prefer it though ,is it because the director can you show you more? Wouldn't you prefer movies to be shot in 1:78 so you get all of your screen in use at home?

I'm not sure what causes it, but I find the wider ratio is more cinematic and draws me into a film moreso (more immersive) then 1.78:1 and 1.85:1. I am OAR all the way, but my prefernce is deffinatly with the wider ratios.

There's also more that one can do in terms of composition with a 2.40:1 image in my opinion then you can with a 1.78:1.


I wonder what your opinion would be if you went front projection and had a bigger screen (which is very affordable and you can get a very good 100"image for less then $700).

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I'm not sure what causes it, but I find the wider ratio is more cinematic and draws me into a film moreso (more immersive) then 1.78:1 and 1.85:1. I am OAR all the way, but my prefernce is deffinatly with the wider ratios.

There's also more that one can do in terms of composition with a 2.40:1 image in my opinion then you can with a 1.78:1.


I wonder what your opinion would be if you went front projection and had a bigger screen (which is very affordable and you can get a very good 100"image for less then $700).

I've got a 46" yes if i had a huge screen it probably wouldn't bother me.Or of course the one ive just mentioned the philips 56" 21:9 (full screen with 2:39 ratio) that's just become my dream tv.I know what you're saying and why you prefer scope ratio as you can see so much more but you have to admit it's a shame we can't view it properly without the black bars on a normal HDTV but of course it wouldn't be possible.

[Melodious Thunk]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Oh my god check out the philips 56" 21:9 cinema tv £3500 you get full screen with scope ratio ,that is the answer.

16:9 is considered the best compromise to display material of all common aspect ratios. If you had a 21:9 screen, you'd have to see 16:9 stuff pillarboxed (or cropped, or stretched). And if you like old films, 4:3 will look ridiculous on that screen.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by Melodious Thunk

16:9 is considered the best compromise to display material of all common aspect ratios. If you had a 21:9 screen, you'd have to see 16:9 stuff pillarboxed (or cropped, or stretched). And if you like old films, 4:3 will look ridiculous on that screen.

Oh i think i'd managed lol i do have some movies in 1:85 i wonder how they would look.It's obviously aimed at the most recent movies.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

I've got a 46" yes if i had a huge screen it probably wouldn't bother me.Or of course the one ive just mentioned the philips 56" 21:9 (full screen with 2:39 ratio) that's just become my dream tv.I know what you're saying and why you prefer scope ratio as you can see so much more but you have to admit it's a shame we can't view it properly without the black bars on a normal HDTV but of course it wouldn't be possible.

I saw a 21:9 tv today (again), they are trully beutifull to behold.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I saw a 21:9 tv today (again), they are trully beutifull to behold.

Yeah check the video out they look smaller in height though.They obviously would be i guess but still wouldn't say no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--qvbXAw78

[seigneur_rayden]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Why do you prefer it though ,is it because the director can you show you more? Wouldn't you prefer movies to be shot in 1:78 so you get all of your screen in use at home?

Then, you definitely never seen a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 movie projected on a scope screen at home.
I use to feel the same way like you 2 years ago until I moved to the world of CINESCOPE. I wish all the movies were scope. There is such a huge difference when I watch a 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 movie as opposed to the Scope movies.
The change is so dramatic especially if I watched a Full screen movie right after a Scope movie.

I was actually mad when I went to the theater to find out that Avatar was 1.78:1 and Sherlock Holmes 1.85:1.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

If Cameron can release his movie full screen for the home why don't other film makers follow suit.Even if you can fit more into the image using scope ratio no one can deny that they want to use all the screen size they've paid for at home.The scope ratio is perfect for cinema but it's not perfect for home viewing on a normal widescreen tv.Then again im not saying that i want to miss out on anything that has been in the shot.Surely something can be sorted out so we're not getting a third of the screen we've paid for.I would of thought though a 1:78 ratio that he's releasing would be missing some of the shot compared to the scope ratio that it was shown as in some theatres but if it isn't then why can't all home releases be released this way.

Most James Cameron films were shot on SUPER 35. And If you know about Super 35, it is very videosafe in terms of pan/scan. When opened up you can usually see more on top bottom of screen and you still see the image from left to right usually with very little difference if any.

I know TITANIC was shot SUPER 35 and I think T2 not sure about the other ones.

So SUPER 35 is a Scope Format but not like Panavision etc.

Many SUPER 35 films have been released as 1.85:1 in the past such as Ferris Bueller's Day Off. ( I believe in laserdisc) There are other examples but my mind has stalled.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

I've got a 46" yes if i had a huge screen it probably wouldn't bother me.Or of course the one ive just mentioned the philips 56" 21:9 (full screen with 2:39 ratio) that's just become my dream tv.I know what you're saying and why you prefer scope ratio as you can see so much more but you have to admit it's a shame we can't view it properly without the black bars on a normal HDTV but of course it wouldn't be possible.

Properly is a opinion not fact. I will take OAR over cropped images anyday. You probably have a stretch feature on your TV. Use it. It will crop the image for you. Also You should do well enough to educate youself on OAR. There are many threads in these forums about it. Search button is your friend.

[BaronVH]

One of the biggest victories with Blu-ray by film lovers is that we get the movies in the ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIOS. Films are shot in a certain ratio due to artistic considerations of the filmmakers. Thinking about Lawrence of Arabia in 1.78:1 makes me physically sick. If you are asking all directors to use an OAR because that is the size of TVs, that is just crazy. Learn to love the black bars.

[italy12]

I'm all for keeping the intention of the director alive! Why mess with their work. They obviously do what t hey think is best for their production...Sam Raimi, good example, shot Spider-Man 1 in 1.85:1, but opened up part 2 to a 2.35:1 ratio because of Doc Oc's arms...thought the wider aspect ratio would better showcase the scenes where he appeared or fought Spidey.

I actually prefer wider aspect ratios...Ben-Hur was shot in an even wider ratio than 2.40, and How the West Was Won was even wider! (not counting the SmileBox version!)

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

Properly is a opinion not fact. I will take OAR over cropped images anyday. You probably have a stretch feature on your TV. Use it. It will crop the image for you. Also You should do well enough to educate youself on OAR. There are many threads in these forums about it. Search button is your friend.

When i said properly i meant watch it full screen like on the 21:9 tv's with no cropping or zooming.You're rude and have a bad attitude.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by italy12

I'm all for keeping the intention of the director alive! Why mess with their work. They obviously do what t hey think is best for their production...Sam Raimi, good example, shot Spider-Man 1 in 1.85:1, but opened up part 2 to a 2.35:1 ratio because of Doc Oc's arms...thought the wider aspect ratio would better showcase the scenes where he appeared or fought Spidey.

I actually prefer wider aspect ratios...Ben-Hur was shot in an even wider ratio than 2.40, and How the West Was Won was even wider! (not counting the SmileBox version!)

Yeah i noticed that on wiki it says ben hur was 2.76:1 and Abel Gance's Napoléon (1927) was 4.00:1

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

One of the biggest victories with Blu-ray by film lovers is that we get the movies in the ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIOS. Films are shot in a certain ratio due to artistic considerations of the filmmakers. Thinking about Lawrence of Arabia in 1.78:1 makes me physically sick. If you are asking all directors to use an OAR because that is the size of TVs, that is just crazy. Learn to love the black bars.

Ok i will try but if we had 21:9 tv's we wouldn't have to lol