The Book of Henry (2017)

[nathanzachary]

2:1 aspect ratio is strange. Essentially in the middle of the 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 ratios. I personally prefer 1.78:1, but would even take 2.35:1 instead of this ratio.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by nathanzachary

2:1 aspect ratio is strange. Essentially in the middle of the 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 ratios. I personally prefer 1.78:1, but would even take 2.35:1 instead of this ratio.

I've seen it a few times lately for digitally shot productions. First time I remember it is Fincher's House of Cards pilot, then The Girl with All the Gifts and Jurassic World:

http://www.panavision.com/devising-n...jurassic-world

I guess Trevorrow really liked the look of it and kept it here.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I've seen it a few times lately for digitally shot productions. First time I remember it is Fincher's House of Cards pilot, then The Girl with All the Gifts and Jurassic World:

http://www.panavision.com/devising-n...jurassic-world

I guess Trevorrow really liked the look of it and kept it here.

If you didn't know, 'Jurassic World' and 'The Book of Henry' are both shot on film, not digital. Most of the other 2.00:1 movies are shot on film. If you knew, then ignore my post.
Certain new digitally shot movies like The Girl with All the Gifts, 20th Century Women and Woody Allen's Wonder Wheel also use this ratio.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If you didn't know, 'Jurassic World' and 'The Book of Henry' are both shot on film, not digital. Most of the other 2.00:1 movies are shot on film. If you knew, then ignore my post.
Certain new digitally shot movies like The Girl with All the Gifts, 20th Century Women and Woody Allen's Wonder Wheel also use this ratio.

Ah, my wording was confusing, true. Yep, JW was shot mostly on film, though the linked article says that portions (aerial, it says) were shot on the RED Dragon at 6K.

I'd forgotten about 20th Century Women also being 2:1, seems to be a popular new compromise between the old "scope" and "flat" ratios.

A huge number of new TV shows seem to be using it, including the stunningly gorgeous "The Handmaid's Tale."

http://vashivisuals.com/the-hot-new-...-aspect-ratio/

Was "House of Cards" the first mainstream production to use 2:1 recently? It was certainly the first time I'd ever seen it, outside of Storaro's eccentric use of it for years.

[Chaotic]

So Jacob T. plays Georgie in this?

[nathanzachary]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

So Jacob T. plays Georgie in this?

No, he plays Henry's little brother, Peter.
And if it's a reference to A Clockwork Orange, I don't know that he's really attempting to overthrow Henry.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Was "House of Cards" the first mainstream production to use 2:1 recently? It was certainly the first time I'd ever seen it, outside of Storaro's eccentric use of it for years.

No. Before Storaro, 2.00:1 was called 'Superscope' and it was introduced with 'Vera Cruz' (1954) and subsequently on 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1956). Vittorio Storaro, began using the 2.00:1 ratio for the theatrical release from 2015 with 'Muhammad: The Messenger of God.' In both 'Apocalypse Now' and 'Little Buddha' he shot 35mm anamorphic for a 2.35:1 ratio. But on home video versions, he cropped the sides and exposed a bit more image on the top and bottom for a 2.00:1 ratio. As good ad 'Little Buddha' looks in 2.00:1 on Blu-ray, it's still revisionist. It is bad that the original cinemascope version wasn't released on Blu-ray.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No. Before Storaro, 2.00:1 was called 'Superscope' and it was introduced with 'Vera Cruz' (1954) and subsequently on 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1956). Vittorio Storaro, began using the 2.00:1 ratio for the theatrical release from 2015 with 'Muhammad: The Messenger of God.' In both 'Apocalypse Now' and 'Little Buddha' he shot 35mm anamorphic for a 2.35:1 ratio. But on home video versions, he cropped the sides and exposed a bit more image on the top and bottom for a 2.00:1 ratio. As good ad 'Little Buddha' looks in 2.00:1 on Blu-ray, it's still revisionist. It is bad that the original cinemascope version wasn't released on Blu-ray.

Ah, what I meant was that aside from Storaro, and a few early 1950s widescreen films, like those you mention, I hadn't seen anything contemporary use 2:1 until Fincher shot the House of Cards opening episodes. Now it's becoming quite standard. So I was more wondering if Fincher's decision there really started a new trend, as it seems.

[Riddhi2011]

2.00:1 is an odd ratio and it certainly makes little sense projection-wise, when most screens are cinemascope 2.39:1. The 2.00:1 is matted within a 1.85:1 DCP container and then most theatres don't even adjust the size, leaving black bars on all four sides; making the image feel really small. Either new DCP containers for 2.00:1 and 2.20:1 be created, or it's better to use 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. Digital projectionists today don't really care about the quality of the experience for the audience anymore. Most of them don't know much about aspect ratios at all.