The Book of Henry (2017)

[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.

[Britnasty]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

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.

This is what happened at my theatre when I went to see it and the employee and manager both just shrugged their shoulders at the complaint.

The exact same thing also happened when I went to see Dunkirk a second time on an Ultrascreen (I saw the 80MM opening weekend projected perfectly and wanted to see the film again but the 80MM was gone). It was on this huge ass screen but looked like I was at home watching my old 40" TV, HUGE black space and just the film point blank in the middle.