Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BRICKARD

Why is it that many/most Blu-Ray DVDs are letterboxed, but when the movie is shown on network/cable TV, it fills up the screen beautifully in HD and (seemingly) without sacrificing any of the lateral picture?

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Because for broadcast (in most cases) they zoom in on the image to fill the screen top and bottom, but the left and right are cropped out.

This is what they've been doing for decades now. Read the very first post in this thread.

Keep in mind with Super35 it's possible to show additional picture information without cropping the sides.

THAT said, the information was never intended by the director to be part of the picture's composition. Compare the Super35 The World's Fastest Indian, it was opened up for the BD but shown at the theatrical 2.35 on HDNet. The composition of the picture is much better in 2.35, particularly since he likes showing the motorcycle racing from the side so it fills the 2.35 frame completely. The opened up version only adds empty space.

So what's better? Black bars or useless information?

NITPICK ALERT! They aren't "Blu-ray DVDs". A lot of people say it, even some publications, but the format's name is Blu-ray Disc or BD for short. The disc structure itself actually has more in common with CD! Of course we know it's completely incompatible with DVD players, just as DVD is with CD players.

[Knight-Errant]

I read on the Nightmare on Elm Street thread that Warner would likely open the mattes slightly to get 1.77:1 rather than the 1.85:1 original.

Is that how this works, or is the picture zoomed a little? Interested in this topic.

I heard something similar about the Batman Anthology from Warner, I think.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Keep in mind with Super35 it's possible to show additional picture information without cropping the sides.

That's what I meant by "in most cases". When it comes to newbies and aspect ratio, I don't think too much info should be thrown at them too fast.

[garyrc]

[QUOTE=Midnightsailor;1333857]
Well, because it allows you to see the full picture of a movie the way it was theatrically shown. Also, it preserves the intended vision of the director
QUOTE]

Dear Midnightsailor,

I disagree slightly with part of your opening statement, even though your post as a whole is wonderful, and a great intro to the subject. The problem is, even when the shape is correct, size matters. A large perceived size is necessary for proper impact, immersion, involvement, and the like. Perceived size is one of Berlyne's major cortical arousal changing variables. Correctly designed movie theaters (and there were many, at least in my neck of the woods, from the earliest days of widescreen) use Constant Height, and therefore widescreen movies have images of greater area than narrow screen, as well as being wider. IMO, a movie with a perfectly correct OAR, still would not preserve "the intended vision of the director," or at least many directors, and would not be "the way it was theatrically shown" in a good theater if it looks like a narrow slot displayed within a larger, squarer rectangle. As one progresses from the old standard screen through the various widescreen ARs, the picture should get bigger and bigger, rather than smaller and smaller. That, and the shape, and the increased feeling of depth and immersion is what filled the theaters in the early days of widescreen, and that is what I believe those directors of the classics of the '50s, '60s and '70s expected. So, IMO, both Full Screen and Letterbox are wrong, each in their own way. At the moment, in the home, there are no solutions, other than using the OARs and moving the seats closer for widescreen films, or installing a huge front projection screen.

[CrazyFool]

Originally Posted by garyrc

At the moment, in the home, there are no solutions, other than using the OARs and moving the seats closer for widescreen films, or installing a huge front projection screen.

One 'solution' for total immersion at home is to gravitate toward movies that were originally filmed in 1:78 (or at least 1:85) like 'The Warriors', 'Cloverfield', 'Batman: Gotham Knight' and 1:78 made for TV stuff like some HBO movies & shows that are are at times surprisingly well done.

[CyberGhostface]

I just got my PS3 yesterday. I tried watching District 9. Apparently the official aspect ratio is slightly wider than a normal widescreen's, so there are supposed to be the black bars on top of the image. For some reason, the image seems to be "zoomed" in, filling the screen and thus cropping out some of the image.

With my TV, there are no black bars and whereas in the screenshot on this website the subtitle text has some space under it, on my TV it's at the very bottom and the edges are cut off. It's not the end of the world but I would like to watch the film in its proper aspect ratio.

Is there any way to fix this? For what it's worth, I have a PS3 with a controller (no remote).

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by hAPPY

Of all the AR that I really hate is the one that changes during the movie. It's really not fair if you have a fix frame 2.35:1 screen. Mr Nolan was an idiot for not making it as an option, now Mr. Bay is entertaining that idea on Transformers 2, SMFH.

If you use a true CIH set up, which uses the V-stretch on the projector, and an Anamorphic lens, you shoudn't see any shift in aspect ratios for those movies. In fact the cinematography in the Imax shots doesn't appear in overscan because the shots were more or less, intended for 2.35:1 despite they were shot in IMAX cameras. the 1.78 aspect ratio for IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight are already in overscan. The best way to watch it in a home theater is in 2.35:1 as any "scope" movie. I might try this out with The World's fastest indian, now I might rent it on netflix now.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by CrazyFool

We are just playing around here. This is nothing more than frivolous entertainment talk. (A complete waste of time.) If you want to get personal you should think about barking up another tree. You have no idea what you're talking about or who you are talking to. I would check yourself before you wreck yourself.

and who are you? you seem to be just a little full of yourself. and also easly affended. you can't be a director or anybody that makes movies. i think everybody here understands you all to well.

i also think you been given all the info you need to understand why directors shot a film in 1.85.1 or 2.35.also there are many people here that know what there talking about and if you knew who they were you feel quite dumb.

if you want to view your movies as you explained knock yourself out !but what your saying isn't going to happen.but you do appear to be a know all. and know it all's never listen to anybody but themselves.it also causes big problems in life,with family,friends and in the end you know noting.

i come here because i don't know it all.if all this bothers you this much,maybe a different hobby would be the best thing for you. but when someone states as you did''you have no idea what your talking about or whom your talking to'' your barking up the wrong tree and i know what you are!

[jsscooby]

very neat.

[seigneur_rayden]

Never saw this thread. Very well put information. Good job. This should help a lot of people who don't get OAR.

[CrazyFool]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

and who are you? you seem to be just a little full of yourself. and also easly affended. you can't be a director or anybody that makes movies. i think everybody here understands you all to well.

Rant, rant, rant. And it's 'too' not 'to' dingus. Paranormal Activity was filmed in 1:85:1 and was the most profitable movie (return on investment) of all time.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by CrazyFool

Rant, rant, rant. And it's 'too' not 'to' dingus. Paranormal Activity was filmed in 1:85:1 and was the most profitable movie (return on investment) of all time.

And your sad attempt at an argument means what, exactly? That the reason PA was the most profitable movie was because it was filmed in 1.85:1? Fail. The AR was chosen because it was essentially a handi-cam filmed movie with all indoor shots. There was NO reason to film it in a wider aspect ratio, as it would have added nothing more to the film.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by seigneur_rayden

This should help a lot of people who don't get OAR.

And cause those who refuse to surrender to rational thought to raise pitch-forks.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

And cause those who refuse to surrender to rational thought to raise pitch-forks.

Helped you out there, beta.

[CrazyFool]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

And your sad attempt at an argument means what, exactly? That the reason PA was the most profitable movie was because it was filmed in 1.85:1? Fail. The AR was chosen because it was essentially a handi-cam filmed movie with all indoor shots. There was NO reason to film it in a wider aspect ratio, as it would have added nothing more to the film.

Rant, rant, rant. Hurtlocker was also filmed in 1:85:1 so you have no point.

We will see more and more 1:85 and 1:78 as smart directors finally 'get it' that the home user with a 16x9 screen is the most important part of their business, due to the fact that the home theatre enthusiast will not only drive to the theatre to watch a good movie, but will eagerly buy the extremely overpriced Blu-ray if it will completely fill his 16x9 screen.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by CrazyFool

Rant, rant, rant. Hurtlocker was also filmed in 1:85:1 so you have no point.

We will see more and more 1:85 and 1:78 as smart directors finally 'get it' that the home user with a 16x9 screen is the most important part of their business, due to the fact that the home theatre enthusiast will not only drive to the theatre to watch a good movie, but will eagerly buy the extremely overpriced Blu-ray if it will completely fill his 16x9 screen.

Seems to me you're pretty much off the mark by a mile.

These days I'm surprised when a film isn't 2.40.

DVD also had the same issue where there was WS and P&S releases. Not anymore. I can count on 1 hand the amount of film releases these days on DVD are released in "full screen".

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by CrazyFool

Rant, rant, rant. Hurtlocker was also filmed in 1:85:1 so you have no point.

We will see more and more 1:85 and 1:78 as smart directors finally 'get it' that the home user with a 16x9 screen is the most important part of their business, due to the fact that the home theatre enthusiast will not only drive to the theatre to watch a good movie, but will eagerly buy the extremely overpriced Blu-ray if it will completely fill his 16x9 screen.

What's the color of the sky in this little dream-world that you live in? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the AR chosen by a director has everything to do with how the story will be told? I'd like you to cite one example, just one, where the AR of a non-straight-to-video motion picture was chosen because of HDTV's 16x9 format? You can't, because it is not something that is considered.

I'm done arguing with the uninformed, particularly those with no ammunition to support their assinine opinions (should have expected this when I saw BOSE in your equipment list). You go on watching your movies based on whether they fill-up your precious screen. The rest of us will continue to enjoy the quality of the films themselves.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by CrazyFool

One 'solution' for total immersion at home is to gravitate toward movies that were originally filmed in 1:78 (or at least 1:85) like 'The Warriors', 'Cloverfield', 'Batman: Gotham Knight' and 1:78 made for TV stuff like some HBO movies & shows that are are at times surprisingly well done.

So you are telling us you would skip movies like Lawrence Of Arabia or Ben-Hur because they don't fill your screen?

As far as I can understand you are a full screen fan and not a movie fan? If that is what you wish go for it.

[Pondosinatra]

The majority of money comes from sales to the home rental, VOID, PPV market.....all widescreen TV's sold since they came out are in 1.85 AR......so here's a thought, make 1.85 the standard friggin aspect ratio!!!

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Seems to me you're pretty much off the mark by a mile.

These days I'm surprised when a film isn't 2.40.

DVD also had the same issue where there was WS and P&S releases. Not anymore. I can count on 1 hand the amount of film releases these days on DVD are released in "full screen".

I can't wait until the directors with their precious 'vision' start coming out with movies in say 4.6 format. Enjoy squinting to try and see the movie on your TV - but hey, it's their 'vision'.