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).

[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.

[THXElite]

At the Imax I went to in the boston common 19 it was a 1:78:1 or 1:85:1 screen which is about a 16X9, Jordans furniture Imax screens are definitly much taller though.

[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.

[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.

[Dusso Janladde]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

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'?

Two reasons.

1. Depending on the content of the film, it would look better in one aspect ratio than another. Jurassic Park is 1.78:1 to better show the height of the dinosaurs, Jaws is 2.35:1 to better show the wide open expanse of the ocean. If either film was open matted to the other ratio, it would not look as good even if it filled more of your screen. The decision of what ratio to shoot in is made by the director and/or cinematographer based on their vision for the film.

2. The vast majority of existing films are 2.35:1, and older films make up a huge part of the Blu-ray market.

Let me give you an example... The movie theater near me uses constant image width screens, with the mattes wide open they're 1.78:1. The "preshow" is projected in this ratio. If the movie is in 2.35:1, the matte comes down when the previews start to make the screen 2.35:1. This means a 2.35:1 movie is smaller than the preshow you just saw, but I never see anyone complaining about the "black bars" at a movie theater. Is it because it's a physical curtain that blocks part of the screen? The end result is the same either way.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Dusso Janladde

2. The vast majority of existing films are 2.35:1, and older films make up a huge part of the Blu-ray market.

Theres absolutely no way thats true. For one, virtually all films made before 1954 are in 1.33:1 (if they're silent), or 1.37:1 (Academy) with an optical soundtrack. Even after the anamorphic was used beginning in the mid-50's, the majority of films created in the US and Britain were at 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 in continental Europe. Other parts of the world still made movies at the academy ratio into the 60's.

If you were to say most large budget hollywood films made in the last 20 years are at "scope" ratio, that I'd believe.

[b00st]

people are always going to say...whatever the director intended as the oar.

so...if all directors shot in 1.78....we'd be good and everyone would say...well thats what the director intended. not sure why they don't...they put the AR on the screen while filming so the director knows the frame and gets his shot as intended.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by b00st

#1people are always going to say...whatever the director intended as the oar.

so..#2.if all directors shot in 1.78....we'd be good and everyone would say...well thats what the director intended. not sure why they don't...they put the AR on the screen while filming so the director knows the frame and gets his shot as intended.

#1: Of course they (myself included) are going to say that because I want to see the movie the director shot, not the one the movie studio or a bunch of black bar haters want. I want to see the same movie I saw at the theater not a modified version of it period.

OT:The last sentence is why many of us would like the original Star Wars films without all the "special edition stuff" because we want to re-experience the films like we originally did.


#2: Obviously that is an option (1.78:1) to all directors and one that evidently doesn't give allot of directors what they want hence there is more than one format. Even Steven Spielberg who mainly uses 1.78:1/1.85:1 (Jurassic Park 1/2)goes 2.35:1/2.40:1 (JAWS,Minority Report)for some of his movies.

The following isn't directed at anyone in particular.

I am wondering if so many of you simply want to take up the whole screen of your TV why you don't just use the various picture modes on your TV to get rid of the black bars?
Yes it will crop the image some but that is what you are basically wanting anyway. Except you want the director to do it for you even though it would compromise how he wants his films shot to begin with.

That's kind of like going to a concert but wanting the band to only play the songs you like and to leave out any parts you don't. Doesn't really make much sense to me. It kind of seems like you aren't really fans to begin with.

[NL197]

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.

This immediately recalled the many endless debates over the years regarding the OAR of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", which is obviously television and not film but everything you said is at the core of the argument over its wide-versus-full presentations.

[lifevicarious]

Dont people understand the reason films went cinemascope to begin with? It's because they wanted to get people into the theaters as they only had 4:3 television sets at home. Same reason now, they make more money in the theaters then they do on DVD sales, tehy don't really care what you have at home to watch it on, if the main intent was for people to watch it on TV, why would they ever release in a theater? Because they make hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars in the theater.