Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

2.35, 2.39 and 2.40 are the same thing as far as actual film is concerned. They're all Scope.

The actual aspect ratio, on the negative (if you're using anamorphic lenses) and on the release prints, is 2.35:1. It's just that, over time, they moved away from framing scope movies on home video at 2.35, because the seams between shots at cuts could be visible as white flashes. As a result, they started mildly cropping Scope on home video to 2.39 or 2.40.

But they're the same thing when shot, at least on actual film.

Obviously, on digital video, you can shoot at absolutely any aspect ratio you like.

It's a fractional difference, far smaller than going from 1.78 to 1.85 and is one of the most persnickety differences to even be discussing, but best of luck convincing dear Riddhi of that.

Though it's worth mentioning that 'scope on the actual fullap negative is 2.66 (as 2x 1.33 = 2.66), starting out life as 2.55 with the magnetic soundtrack on the prints before they had to make room for the optical soundtrack on the left, thus ending up with the 2.3whatever that we know and love.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

They are all "Scope," yes, but they aren't technically speaking, "the same thing." The proportions vary. 2.35:1 has more height than 2.39:1 or 2.40:1. On a 2.39:1 screen, 2.35:1 will have slight black bars at the sides. I have seen a 2.35:1 movie projected on a 2.39:1 cinema screen. There is a sliver of unused space at the sides during projection. This may not be prevalent, but it does happen.

Yes, I know about the white flashes at the very last frame of a shot. It's a cutting mark or something; like a thin tear or crease in a page. Yes, they did change the projection standard to 2.39:1 to hide those artifacts, but 2.35:1 is how Cameron framed the film for 35mm anamorphic release. It may have been projected 2.39:1, but all screens or projection systems aren't 100% accurate in aspect ratio terms (BFI IMAX is 1.31:1 even though IMAX standard is 1.43:1, etc.). The 70mm release prints were both printed and projected in roughly 2.12:1 aspect ratio, not even 2.20:1. The projected image showed less picture than what was printed because of the standard aperture plate masking.

My point was just that they're identical on an actual 35mm release print, and the difference is so minute there's no difference in how a director would have framed for any of the three in the film era.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

My point was just that they're identical on an actual 35mm release print, and the difference is so minute there's no difference in how a director would have framed for any of the three in the film era.

Blakninja claimed Titanic was intended to be 2.39:1, not 2.35:1. I just provided proof from Cameron himself to refute that claim.

If 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 are virtually the same, then there was no need for blakninja to claim that Titanic's intended aspect ratio was 2.39:1 and not 2.35:1. So, what's the harm if someone said it's 2.35:1?

[Geoff D]

What's the harm if someone said it was 2.39?

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Blakninja claimed Titanic was intended to be 2.39:1, not 2.35:1. I just provided proof from Cameron himself to refute that claim.

If 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 are virtually the same, then there was no need for blakninja to claim that Titanic's intended aspect ratio was 2.39:1 and not 2.35:1. So, what's the harm if someone said it's 2.35:1?

There's no harm in anyone saying they're either one. When people discuss Scope, they routinely use the numbers 2.35 and/or 2.39 interchangeably, because there's no real difference between them. Cameron may have said 2.35, but I doubt he'd care if someone else called the film 2.39 or even 2.40. They're all accepted aspect ratios for scope movies shot on film.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What's the harm if someone said it was 2.39?

Nothing. What was the harm if someone said it was 2.35:1? The issue is Blakninja claimed with certainty that Titanic was "NOT 2.35:1." It is he who first drew a difference between the two aspect ratios, not me. He made the post to correct the other person who had said it was 2.35:1. Cameron decided the framing for Titanic. If he himself claims it was 2.35:1 originally (as in 1997 35mm framing) and also uses 2.35:1 on video and in theatres, then it's 2.35:1. That is all.

Originally Posted by James Luckard

There's no harm in anyone saying they're either one. When people discuss Scope, they routinely use the numbers 2.35 and/or 2.39 interchangeably, because there's no real difference between them. Cameron may have said 2.35, but I doubt he'd care if someone else called the film 2.39 or even 2.40. They're all accepted aspect ratios for scope movies shot on film.

This is what Blakninja had said, and I quote verbatim - "Titanic intended ratio was 2.39:1 not 2.35:1."

He specifically said "not 2.35:1," which is opposite of what you and Geoffy are saying. I only quoted Cameron to show to Blakninja that he was incorrect to say Titanic was "not 2.35:1;" emphasis on his not.

[Geoff D]

So just tell him it doesn't actually matter then

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So just tell him it doesn't actually matter then

If I did that, he might have asked - "who are you to claim it doesn't matter?" or "how do you explain the difference in the numbers?" He may not have asked either, but one never knows. The fact that he specifically typed "not 2.35:1" shows he believes the two are different ratios. To avoid any conflict with him or unnecessary back and forth, I went straight to the source - Mr Cameron.

[Ben_UK]

I’d rather have it open matte. The days of 2.35:1 films actually being a wider screen when shown theatrically are seemingly over anyway as our cinemas just letterbox it.

The whole point of panavision or CinemaScope etc was that it was meant to be more dramatic and epic, you used to get the curtains at the sides move back just before the movie started and it revealed more screen, well that’s all gone now, at least in most UK cinemas.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So just tell him it doesn't actually matter then

It appears that once one argument over this transfer starts, another begins

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

It appears that once one argument over this transfer starts, another begins

This is the way

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I’d rather have it open matte. The days of 2.35:1 films actually being a wider screen when shown theatrically are seemingly over anyway as our cinemas just letterbox it.

The whole point of panavision or CinemaScope etc was that it was meant to be more dramatic and epic, you used to get the curtains at the sides move back just before the movie started and it revealed more screen, well that’s all gone now, at least in most UK cinemas.

Sadly, yes. I loved seeing the curtains retract, revealing the screen, plus the pre-show bell ringing, the sound of the wooden seats folding and unfolding, echoing across the walls of those giant single screen cinemas with arctic cold air conditioning. Those days are gone. Watching movies in modern multiplexes feels partly joyless nowadays. The screens are small, except the IMAX and PLF ones. Large Format digital screens are now rapidly gaining popularity over scope screens. I see more and more such screens in the DCI flat 1.89:1 ratio come up everywhere. That's the current trend.

[PonyoBellanote]

The one reason I enjoy going to the theater exactly, is because of the full scope grandeur on the big full screen. I'd be annoyed if my theater screens weren't like that anymore and showed letterboxing

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

The one reason I enjoy going to the theater exactly, is because of the full scope grandeur on the big full screen. I'd be annoyed if my theater screens weren't like that anymore and showed letterboxing

I don't go to the cinema often but when I do it's common to see a 'scope movie on a 1.85 screen with no masking or whatever.

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't go to the cinema often but when I do it's common to see a 'scope movie on a 1.85 screen with no masking or whatever.

Not on mine, thankfully. Scope movies cover the whole big screen. Though I'm figuring in some decades that will go, as projection will be done on LED screens that are, like said in this thread, 1.90 at most. :/

Mind you, I am not the "hate black bars" type, I do not mind and prefer letterboxing.. on smaller screens. But on big screens? No. The one difference I get in theater vs. My TV is the big full scope screen. And the surround. You take that off what do you get?

[blakninja]

Guys, it's no big deal, i am not claiming I am right or anything, but it seems Titanic was presented in 2.39:1 in 1997 and in 2023.

From IMDB



I assumed that was the intended ratio.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Guys, it's no big deal, i am not claiming I am right or anything, but it seems Titanic was presented in 2.39:1 in 1997 and in 2023.

IMDb got it wrong. Also on Napoleon (2023)

Aspect ratio
2.39 : 1

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1328784...ef_=tt_spec_sm

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't go to the cinema often but when I do it's common to see a 'scope movie on a 1.85 screen with no masking or whatever.

Yup, and it smacks of being so minimal effort. I have to assume PonyoBellanote lives in a metropolitan place like NYC or LA where production values for entertainment still exist.

Originally Posted by blakninja

Guys, it's no big deal, i am not claiming I am right or anything, but it seems Titanic was presented in 2.39:1 in 1997 and in 2023.

From IMDB



I assumed that was the intended ratio.

Yeah, if your argument is founded on IMDb stats, Riddhi2011 just crushed that debate.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

IMDb got it wrong. Also on Napoleon (2023)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1328784...ef_=tt_spec_sm

Bingo! IMDB has been known to make lots of mistakes in the past. Anybody can edit those tech specs, like Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Yeah, if your argument is founded on IMDb stats, Riddhi2011 just crushed that debate.

Thank you so much, man! Was not getting much support in the forums at all. In fact, some were very dismissive, or mocking. Was feeling a bit down as a result. Your comment makes me smile. I try to make logical arguments as much as possible. Sometimes, I too make mistakes. Hope people are not offended by me.

[blakninja]

Interesting how everyone is saying 2.39:1 here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=197437