James Cameron and Scope ratio

[Dusso Janladde]

Seeing less or more than the director intended is not a good thing, open matte can ruin the composition of shots. For example, say there was a character in 2.35:1 movie who was naked, but you couldn't see below his waist... then the movie's mattes are opened to 1,78:1 for HDTV broadcast, and you can see he actually has shorts on, which you weren't supposed to see.

Original aspect ratio is the only way to go, and black bars aren't a bad thing at all. The question is how to best show movies at their original aspect ratio. I'm not even talking HDTVs here, I'm talking projection screens, which are available in just about any aspect ratio.

I think we can all agree that any image should be as large as possible while maintaining the original aspect ratio. This means that it should be either as tall or as wide as your available screen space. This means that your screen should be both as tall and as wide as the available wall space, completely disregarding aspect ratio. Everything will completely fill either the full width or full height of your screen, and will be as large as possible.

For example, if your available screen space was 10 feet wide and more than 7 feet high, you'd actually be best off with a 140 inch 1.33:1 screen. You can't go wider, so go taller. At the other extreme, with an available screen space that's only 5 feet high but at least 11 feet wide, you'd be best off with a 136 inch 2.35:1 screen.

[THXElite]

In my opinion, 16X9 screens are the best because they are not too tall where the screen is narrowed, 2.35.1 /2.40.1 screens are too wide and are not fully compatible with televisions or projectors for home use. I work for a movie theater and the only way we adjust our presentations for movies is by expanding/retracting the curtains on the sides of the screen, which is just unnecessary, even fixed IMAX screens are 16X9. For my home theater I use the Epson power lite home cinema 1080 on a 100" pull down 16X9 screen. 16X9 is simple and keeps your perception of the screen in full. See home theater pictures (some are in 3D that can be seen through red/cyan glasses).

[MrFattBill]

Originally Posted by Dusso Janladde

For example, if your available screen space was 10 feet wide and more than 7 feet high, you'd actually be best off with a 140 inch 1.33:1 screen. You can't go wider, so go taller. At the other extreme, with an available screen space that's only 5 feet high but at least 11 feet wide, you'd be best off with a 136 inch 2.35:1 screen.

I agree with going as big as any one direction will allow That is why I selected the screen I did for my space, I have the widest screen I can fit while still leaving room for the speakers, without putting the screen higher, which wasn't an option.

Bill

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Dusso Janladde

Seeing less or more than the director intended is not a good thing, open matte can ruin the composition of shots. For example, say there was a character in 2.35:1 movie who was naked, but you couldn't see below his waist... then the movie's mattes are opened to 1,78:1 for HDTV broadcast, and you can see he actually has shorts on, which you weren't supposed to see.

I can see where this could be an issue in some circumstances, but what about cases where doing this doesn't reveal anything that specifically needed to be hidden?


I'm of two minds on this overall issue. On the one hand, in general, I am a fan of OAR, and preserving the movie as it was meant to be seen. I was a widescreen fan for this reason long before I ever had a Widescreen/HD Television. And I didn't mind watching movies in widescreen on older 4:3 ratio TVs.

And even now, I don't really have a problem with movies filmed in 'scope' (or in other words wider framing beyond the ratio of today's TVs), and I am fine watching them with black bars on my current HDTV, however, it would be nice if more filmmakers would film things with the intent to properly fit today's TV screens.


I guess I don't really see what the big advantage is these days of using scope over 16:9. If a shot can be composed for filming in a wider 'scope' ratio, why not just compose the shot in essentially the same way, only with a little extra room at the top and bottom to allow it to work in 16:9 (and making sure that there is nothing in that space that we are 'not supposed to see'?



I could see the case for it years ago more so than today. Theatrical runs used to be much longer and (especially in the case before home video viewing was even an option) more popular movies would get theatrical reissues at times.

Even for a time after the onset of home video, theatrical runs were much longer and a much bigger part of movies than they are today. One or a verty small few summer blockbusters would come out, and they would be what the 'buzz' was all about all summer. Heck, back when it came out, Back tot he Future was #1 for somewhere around 3 months straight except for 1 week where some other movie slightly beat it out for the #1 spot.

And considering that older TVs and mainstream formats like VHS (which was still the dominating format as recently as about a decade ago, even with DVD catching up on it's heels at the time) really never offered a truly ideal option for watching any movie in any ratio (the resolution was poor, even compared to standard 480i TV signals, if viewed in pan and scan things were cut off, and if viewed in widescreen with everything preserved, the resolution sucked even more), it made sense not to really 'cater' the formatting of a movie for the purpose of home viewing.


But things have changed... A LOT. These days, a new movie comes out, and it has to do really well in it's first weekend or it's a flop. Even though it will still be in theaters for good while after that first weekend, within just a couple of weeks or so of it's theatrical release, it's more or less "yesterday's news" with the attention being put on whatever movies are coming out during the following week or two. This is especially true during the summer blockbuster season.

Yes, the event of sitting in a theater and seeing the movie that way is still nice, but it's not the end-all, be-all anymore.

With today's HDTVs, Blu-Ray, and even DVD (which while no where near as good as Blu-Ray, still beats the pants off of VHS), more and more it's becoming about the at-home experience, and making that experience as theater-like as possible. Movies are coming out for sale much faster after their theatrical run than they did years ago. Many movies you'd have to wait to be able to even rent them, and even then you'd have to wait even longer for them to be available for general sale to the public. I remember buying DVDs in the early days of the format, and thinking it was so cool to buy movies on DVD that weren't available for sale on VHS (with DVD, and if I recall correctly laser disc, when many movies would only be available for rent on VHS, you could buy them on DVD or LD). Sure, some bigger blockbusters would often come out for sale at the same time as rental, but many movies didn't do that.

Now is gravitated to the opposite extreme.... movies coming out for sale right away with a delay put on rental availability through many rental outlets.

I was recently watching on of the 'Evening With Kevin Smith' DVDs (I think it was the 3rd one), and he said something regarding his own movies that I think actually applies to many movies, even some of the bigger blockbusters today. He said (and I'm going from memory here, so don't shoot me if this isn't word for word the exact quote), "The theatrical release is essentially a commercial for you DVD" (and this logic can be carried over the BD as well).


As important as theatrical releases still are and how much money is often generated during that time, keep in mind that in addition to recouping the budget of the movie, they have to recoupe the cost of promoting it, all while (to some extent or another) splitting the money coming in with the theaters/distrubutors. While the studios usually keep the bigger chunks of the money during the earlier weekends when the most sales occur, they still aren't getting 100% of that money. These days home video really accounts for a bigger chunk of the pie than it used to. Heck, some movies that only had so-so box office in-takes have gotten sequels based on home video sales (and while not movie related, some TV shows have been resurrected from cancelation based on home video sales).




The point that I am getting to is simply this: These days, the theatrical run, while important, is ultimately a very, very short part of a movie's long-term life. More and more home viewing is becoming a bigger part of the puzzle, and technology has advanced to the point where when new movies are being made, the long term manner in which the film will be viewed really should be taken into consideration. As such, filming a movie in the ratio that fits the screen make the most sense, the way I see it. It was one thing not to do this back during the 4:3 TV screen days since it was such a limited space to work with (in addition to the array of reasons already listed above), but now we do have widescreen TVs, with plenty of screen "real estate" to work with.

It just doesn't make sense to me, when we have TVs that (to the best that they reasonably can) are meant to replicate the theatrical viewing experience as much as possible, for the filmmakers not to meet that "half way" and try to make movies that fit the screen properly. Why "doom" a film to still be watched in a manner that doesn't fill up the screen and results in black bars?

While the bars don't really bother me as they do other people, at this point in the game, I don't really see the point in not trying to avoid them. It just seems like a step backwards in many ways.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by THXElite

In my opinion, 16X9 screens are the best because they are not too tall where the screen is narrowed, 2.35.1 /2.40.1 screens are too wide and are not fully compatible with televisions or projectors for home use. I work for a movie theater and the only way we adjust our presentations for movies is by expanding/retracting the curtains on the sides of the screen, which is just unnecessary, even fixed IMAX screens are 16X9. For my home theater I use the Epson power lite home cinema 1080 on a 100" pull down 16X9 screen. 16X9 is simple and keeps your perception of the screen in full. See home theater pictures (some are in 3D that can be seen through red/cyan glasses).

Standard IMAX screens are 97ft x 76ft, or about 1.3:1. Faux Imax screens, as seen at AMC, are 28x58, or nearly 2:1.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I can see where this could be an issue in some circumstances, but what about cases where doing this doesn't reveal anything that specifically needed to be hidden?


I'm of two minds on this overall issue. On the one hand, in general, I am a fan of OAR, and preserving the movie as it was meant to be seen. I was a widescreen fan for this reason long before I ever had a Widescreen/HD Television. And I didn't mind watching movies in widescreen on older 4:3 ratio TVs.

And even now, I don't really have a problem with movies filmed in 'scope' (or in other words wider framing beyond the ratio of today's TVs), and I am fine watching them with black bars on my current HDTV, however, it would be nice if more filmmakers would film things with the intent to properly fit today's TV screens.


I guess I don't really see what the big advantage is these days of using scope over 16:9. If a shot can be composed for filming in a wider 'scope' ratio, why not just compose the shot in essentially the same way, only with a little extra room at the top and bottom to allow it to work in 16:9 (and making sure that there is nothing in that space that we are 'not supposed to see'?



I could see the case for it years ago more so than today. Theatrical runs used to be much longer and (especially in the case before home video viewing was even an option) more popular movies would get theatrical reissues at times.

Even for a time after the onset of home video, theatrical runs were much longer and a much bigger part of movies than they are today. One or a verty small few summer blockbusters would come out, and they would be what the 'buzz' was all about all summer. Heck, back when it came out, Back tot he Future was #1 for somewhere around 3 months straight except for 1 week where some other movie slightly beat it out for the #1 spot.

And considering that older TVs and mainstream formats like VHS (which was still the dominating format as recently as about a decade ago, even with DVD catching up on it's heels at the time) really never offered a truly ideal option for watching any movie in any ratio (the resolution was poor, even compared to standard 480i TV signals, if viewed in pan and scan things were cut off, and if viewed in widescreen with everything preserved, the resolution sucked even more), it made sense not to really 'cater' the formatting of a movie for the purpose of home viewing.


But things have changed... A LOT. These days, a new movie comes out, and it has to do really well in it's first weekend or it's a flop. Even though it will still be in theaters for good while after that first weekend, within just a couple of weeks or so of it's theatrical release, it's more or less "yesterday's news" with the attention being put on whatever movies are coming out during the following week or two. This is especially true during the summer blockbuster season.

Yes, the event of sitting in a theater and seeing the movie that way is still nice, but it's not the end-all, be-all anymore.

With today's HDTVs, Blu-Ray, and even DVD (which while no where near as good as Blu-Ray, still beats the pants off of VHS), more and more it's becoming about the at-home experience, and making that experience as theater-like as possible. Movies are coming out for sale much faster after their theatrical run than they did years ago. Many movies you'd have to wait to be able to even rent them, and even then you'd have to wait even longer for them to be available for general sale to the public. I remember buying DVDs in the early days of the format, and thinking it was so cool to buy movies on DVD that weren't available for sale on VHS (with DVD, and if I recall correctly laser disc, when many movies would only be available for rent on VHS, you could buy them on DVD or LD). Sure, some bigger blockbusters would often come out for sale at the same time as rental, but many movies didn't do that.

Now is gravitated to the opposite extreme.... movies coming out for sale right away with a delay put on rental availability through many rental outlets.

I was recently watching on of the 'Evening With Kevin Smith' DVDs (I think it was the 3rd one), and he said something regarding his own movies that I think actually applies to many movies, even some of the bigger blockbusters today. He said (and I'm going from memory here, so don't shoot me if this isn't word for word the exact quote), "The theatrical release is essentially a commercial for you DVD" (and this logic can be carried over the BD as well).


As important as theatrical releases still are and how much money is often generated during that time, keep in mind that in addition to recouping the budget of the movie, they have to recoupe the cost of promoting it, all while (to some extent or another) splitting the money coming in with the theaters/distrubutors. While the studios usually keep the bigger chunks of the money during the earlier weekends when the most sales occur, they still aren't getting 100% of that money. These days home video really accounts for a bigger chunk of the pie than it used to. Heck, some movies that only had so-so box office in-takes have gotten sequels based on home video sales (and while not movie related, some TV shows have been resurrected from cancelation based on home video sales).




The point that I am getting to is simply this: These days, the theatrical run, while important, is ultimately a very, very short part of a movie's long-term life. More and more home viewing is becoming a bigger part of the puzzle, and technology has advanced to the point where when new movies are being made, the long term manner in which the film will be viewed really should be taken into consideration. As such, filming a movie in the ratio that fits the screen make the most sense, the way I see it. It was one thing not to do this back during the 4:3 TV screen days since it was such a limited space to work with (in addition to the array of reasons already listed above), but now we do have widescreen TVs, with plenty of screen "real estate" to work with.

It just doesn't make sense to me, when we have TVs that (to the best that they reasonably can) are meant to replicate the theatrical viewing experience as much as possible, for the filmmakers not to meet that "half way" and try to make movies that fit the screen properly. Why "doom" a film to still be watched in a manner that doesn't fill up the screen and results in black bars?

While the bars don't really bother me as they do other people, at this point in the game, I don't really see the point in not trying to avoid them. It just seems like a step backwards in many ways.

Well, releasing them in theaters still bring in the big bucks. That's why filmmakers are still shooting on film, or digital cameras that can capture 4K resolution.
The fact is, while the majority of 2.35:1 movies are shot in Super 35 and could easily be opened up, I'd refuse to watch them that way. The director and cinematographer compose for a certain aspect ratio for an aesthetic reason, not what works best on a television screen.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Well, releasing them in theaters still bring in the big bucks. That's why filmmakers are still shooting on film, or digital cameras that can capture 4K resolution.
The fact is, while the majority of 2.35:1 movies are shot in Super 35 and could easily be opened up, I'd refuse to watch them that way. The director and cinematographer compose for a certain aspect ratio for an aesthetic reason, not what works best on a television screen.

And I can understand that esspecially for films that weren't planned to be opened up (too much risk of exposing something not meant to be seen). What I'm saying is that going forward, it would be nice if they planned them that way, or just flat out made them 16:9 to begin with.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

And I can understand that esspecially for films that weren't planned to be opened up (too much risk of exposing something not meant to be seen). What I'm saying is that going forward, it would be nice if they planned them that way, or just flat out made them 16:9 to begin with.

Most films are shot in 1.85 which is very close to 16:9 (1.78). Films released in Scope are meant to be seen that way, regardless of the aspect ratio of the screen that they're played on. Why should filmmakers not use that expanse just because the TV industry "compromised" on the AR for HDTV? And there are 21:9 TVs coming soon anyway, although I don't expect them to be successful in the mass market.

You can't "open up" a scope film to 1.78 because the negative area of a scope film is greater than that of 1.85 or 1.78 film. Anamorphic films use a projected area of .825 x .690 (in projection, the width is expanded at 2:1). 1.85 films use .825 x .448. 16:9 films that are projected on film would use .825 x .464 to be consistent with current standards.

The new Sony 4K digital projector uses a source format of 3996 x 2160 for 1.85 and 4096 x 1716 for 2.39, so once again, you can't open up the 2.39 to fit 1.78.

Films are made primarily for theatrical distribution. That's still where the majority of revenue is. If that ever changes, because people stop going to the movies, you're going to see budgets crash through the floor, sort of the way TV has changed due to cable: fewer filmed dramas and more cheaply made trash reality shows.

[THX 973]

It just doesn't make sense to me, when we have TVs that (to the best that they reasonably can) are meant to replicate the theatrical viewing experience as much as possible, for the filmmakers not to meet that "half way" and try to make movies that fit the screen properly. Why "doom" a film to still be watched in a manner that doesn't fill up the screen and results in black bars?

2.39:1 allows for more flexibility in the composing and framing of images. The wide frame conveys a greater sense of space and broad scope than can be achieved with a narrower ratio. Wes Anderson and P.T. Anderson, in particular, are adept at using the wide frame to tell their stories with a strong visual aesthetic.

Despite the fact that theatrical windows have shortened and films live on in home media, these artists should not be asked to compromise their unique visual styles in order to conform to a ratio that will fill a television screen because the images they've produced don't use all the "real estate" of a 16:9 screen.

I prefer the 2.39:1 ratio and would hate for the standard of modern cinematography to switch to 16:9, because I would miss out on imagery like this:

[ZoetMB]

Great post above with all those scope examples. Thanks for posting those.

[victorvondoom88]

2.39:1 allows for more flexibility in the composing and framing of images. The wide frame conveys a greater sense of space and broad scope than can be achieved with a narrower ratio. Wes Anderson and P.T. Anderson, in particular, are adept at using the wide frame to tell their stories with a strong visual aesthetic.

Despite the fact that theatrical windows have shortened and films live on in home media, these artists should not be asked to compromise their unique visual styles in order to conform to a ratio that will fill a television screen because the images they've produced don't use all the "real estate" of a 16:9 screen.

I prefer the 2.39:1 ratio and would hate for the standard of modern cinematography to switch to 16:9, because I would miss out on imagery like this:

AMEN! Brother! I love scope. But ultimately it's OAR for me regardless. I want to see it the way it was meant to be seen period.
The late Sydney Pollack discussing Wide-screen vs. Pan & Scan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw

Now he is obviously talking about DVD 16:9/2.35:1 vs. 4:3 but I think it is relevant to this topic. Since some of you are basically asking for a butchered up version of the film. You think you are getting more but the reality is you are cheating yourself.

If any of you think they should eliminate 2.35:1/2.40:1 just because you have black bars get over it! Or get a real screen like this:
[IMG][/IMG]

2.35:1 and I love it. Epic screen for epic films!
As for someone saying 21:9 TV's might not catch on, I think they might here is my take.

After living with "horizontal black bars" across the top and bottom for over a decade with scope films & recently living with "vertical black bars"(not actual bars but rather the absence of light/info) on the sides.
I find the vertical "bars" to be much less intrusive. Your screen is filled from top to bottom all the time. You don't really feel the need to look as far left or right.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by THX 973

2.39:1 allows for more flexibility in the composing and framing of images. The wide frame conveys a greater sense of space and broad scope than can be achieved with a narrower ratio.

Your screenshots show the tops of people's heads being cut off, as well as other shots where the top of a person's head is right near the top of the frame and just a tiny bit of sky. Another shot cuts off the top left part of a radio telescope which looks like its supposed to be an important part of the scene.

Cutting off the tops of people's head like that or other things that we would normally see in our field of view creates less of a sense of space - less than we'd normally see in real life.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Your screenshots show the tops of people's heads being cut off, as well as other shots where the top of a person's head is right near the top of the frame and just a tiny bit of sky. Another shot cuts off the top left part of a radio telescope which looks like its supposed to be an important part of the scene.

Cutting off the tops of people's head like that or other things that we would normally see in our field of view creates less of a sense of space - less than we'd normally see in real life.

Of course it's less than we'd see in real life. Narrative films are not documentaries (although even documentaries have visual perspectives). The director and cinematographer purposely choose to draw your attention to things by consciously changing the perspective of the frame, including cropping or by using negative space. That's called "the art of cinematography" which has also been referred to as "painting with light".

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Your screenshots show the tops of people's heads being cut off, as well as other shots where the top of a person's head is right near the top of the frame and just a tiny bit of sky. Another shot cuts off the top left part of a radio telescope which looks like its supposed to be an important part of the scene.

That's called an extreme close-up. Cutting off the tops of heads is intentional and would happen regardless of the aspect ratio.

[J6P]

Excellent examples above, THX 973, those really do tell the story.

The push for filmmakers to work in 16x9 today, just because our televisions are shaped that way, is incredibly short-sighted in my view. It's just as shortsighted as mandating all films be shot in 1.33:1 would have been in the 70's, 80's and 90's, just because that's what we watched them on at home back then.

You have to step back and look at the bigger picture (heh), and realize that the movies we enjoy today will still be enjoyed for decades and probably centuries to come, when our 16x9 screens will look as quaint as a 1950's tv looks to us today.

Although expensive, many people already enjoy Constant Image Height displays at home, and that's surely the way things will go in the future, as costs come down.

There's no need to restrict a director's vision to fit our televisions. Just let the industry evolve and eventually we'll all be enjoying a wider image when we watch 'scope, instead of a shorter one, as we do today. To lose that vast canvas just because this is the way our screens look today would be a real shame.

The presentation we are able to achieve at home today is amazing compared to when I was growing up. The sound I hear at home is certainly better than 90% of theaters I attend.

So there's no need to abandon wide screen moviemaking now, of all times. The home market just has one more little step to catch up to theatrical presentation in a major way -- CIH for everyone -- and we're almost there.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

That's called an extreme close-up. Cutting off the tops of heads is intentional and would happen regardless of the aspect ratio.

Those screenshots were presented as examples that the "wide frame conveys a greater sense of space and broad scope than can be achieved with a narrower ratio".

Obviously a narrower ratio (eg. 1.78:1) would have more height and show more of the tops of peoples head's, which is more natural and more how we normally see things. Yes, they could still choose to cut off the tops of peoples heads at the eyebrow in 1.78:1 like they have in one of those shots, but for a close-up of two people like in that shot, you can much more easily show the full height of both people's heads without chopping it off at the eyebrows or moving further way in a 1.78:1 ratio than a ratio with lower height to width ratio like 2.35/2.39:1.

This is what James Cameron said about Avatar:
http://collider.com/james-cameron-in...vatar-2/20279/

The highest and best format for this movie is the 16×9, which plays beautifully. We finished the picture in 16×9 and then we vertically extracted the cinemascope when we were mastering the film for theatrical release.

In the theatrical release of the movie, it played in 3-D in non-IMAX digital theaters in both formats. We did that by selecting whichever theater was going to look best in which format. But, for the home, we wanted to go with the full picture. I really think it helps, with the sense of vertigo underneath the flying creatures, to have that little bit of extra frame down there, when they’re looking down over cliffs. It enhances the sense of height.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Those screenshots were presented as examples that the "wide frame conveys a greater sense of space and broad scope than can be achieved with a narrower ratio".

Obviously a narrower ratio (eg. 1.78:1) would have more height and show more of the tops of peoples head's, which is more natural and more how we normally see things. Yes, they could still choose to cut off the tops of peoples heads at the eyebrow in 1.78:1 like they have in one of those shots

And if that's the intention of the shot, that's what the director and cinematographer will do...regardless of aspect ratio...as I said. My point being that the scope ratio has nothing to do with the heads being cropped into. However, in a narrower ratio, an extreme close-up like that wouldn't be possible as the face, or the back of the head, or both would then be compromised.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

However, in a narrower ratio, an extreme close-up like that wouldn't be possible as the face, or the back of the head, or both would then be compromised.

1.78:1 version:


Neither of those two frames are good, they both would look better with the camera framed further away.

And if that's the intention of the shot, that's what the director and cinematographer will do...regardless of aspect ratio...as I said.

I still think it's a bad choice because it's showing you less than you'd see in real life. When you've got massive cinemas or big high resolution HDTVs it's silly to cut people's heads off like that so you only see up to their eyebrows.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

I still think it's a bad choice because it's showing you less than you'd see in real life. When you've got massive cinemas or big high resolution HDTVs it's silly to cut people's heads off like that so you only see up to their eyebrows.

You don't want cinematography - you want a security camera. If it were up to you, all cinematographers would be required to shoot only with a 50mm lens and only medium shots.

Go visit a museum and read a book about art and one about fine cinematography and then come back. And please tell us what your qualifications are so we can evaluate whether we think you know more than great cinematographers like Conrad Hall, Michael Chapman, Vittorio Storaro, Gordon Willis, Sven Nyquist, Néstor Almendros, Karl Freund, Freddie Young, Gregg Toland, John Alcott, Roger Deakins, Janusz Kaminski, Vilmos Zsigmond, James Wong Howe, Haskell Wexler and Robert Surtees, just to name some of the obvious greats.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Neither of those two frames are good, they both would look better with the camera framed further away.


I still think it's a bad choice because it's showing you less than you'd see in real life. When you've got massive cinemas or big high resolution HDTVs it's silly to cut people's heads off like that so you only see up to their eyebrows.

Well, that's certainly your opinion, and if you were a cinematographer or director you could certainly make those decisions. But again, you'd be compromising the shot. There's a reason that shot is composed that way and that close. Pulling back as you're suggesting just for the sake of seeing the tops of their heads changes the visual impact of the scene dramatically. The closer the camera gets suggests more isolation and intense drama. Just from that screenshot alone I can tell that scene is about two men having a very urgent, very private conversation and what they're saying cannot be overheard by others (the man in the background) in the scene. Pulling back as you suggest would visually make it less urgent and more of a casual conversation.

So Hitchcock was silly when he shot Psycho? After Marion Crane is murdered and he goes so close up that only her eye (and eyebrow) are in the frame?

You think this shot is silly and wouldn't be dramatically different if the camera pulled back?



You might want to watch Avatar again and see how many shots there are where Cameron put the camera so close the characters heads were cut off...especially the final shot of the movie.