James Cameron and Scope ratio

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

So Hitchcock was silly when he shot Psycho? After Marion Crane is murdered and he goes so close up that only her eye (and eyebrow) are in the frame?

You think this shot is silly and wouldn't be dramatically different if the camera pulled back?

Well I don't think we need a character's eyes filling almost the whole huge cinema screen or a character's eyes filling a big high definition TV to be able to see whatever expression they're supposed to be doing. Not for people with normal vision. In real life people don't usually need a person's eye's magnified to the size of a cinema screen or big TV to be able to see them properly.

On a much smaller, lower res TV/display, big close ups might be needed to see whatever expression. On a big high resolution HDTV or cinema screen they aren't. Obviously viewing distance is part of it too.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Well I don't think we need a character's eyes filling almost the whole huge cinema screen or a character's eyes filling a big high definition TV to buy able to see whatever expression they're supposed to be doing. Not for people with normal vision. In real life people don't usually need a person's eye's magnified to the size of a cinema screen or big TV to be able to see them properly.

Well, then you really don't understand film composition. And you disagree with every filmmaker that has ever made movies.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Well I don't think we need a character's eyes filling almost the whole huge cinema screen or a character's eyes filling a big high definition TV to be able to see whatever expression they're supposed to be doing. Not for people with normal vision. In real life people don't usually need a person's eye's magnified to the size of a cinema screen or big TV to be able to see them properly.

On a much smaller, lower res TV/display, big close ups might be needed to see whatever expression. On a big high resolution HDTV or cinema screen they aren't. Obviously viewing distance is part of it too.

We aren't talking about real life now are we? We are talking about an artistic medium like professional photography. Size and resolution of the display is irrelevant.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Well I don't think we need a character's eyes filling almost the whole huge cinema screen or a character's eyes filling a big high definition TV to be able to see whatever expression they're supposed to be doing. Not for people with normal vision. In real life people don't usually need a person's eye's magnified to the size of a cinema screen or big TV to be able to see them properly.

On a much smaller, lower res TV/display, big close ups might be needed to see whatever expression. On a big high resolution HDTV or cinema screen they aren't. Obviously viewing distance is part of it too.

If a big close-up is used sparingly, it can be very effective. The zooming in on Charles Bronson's eyes during the finale of Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West is a fantastic shot.
It's not about real life, because most movies aren't about real life. In real life you don't have music playing under emotional circumstances, or the boring stuff edited out.

[Bluyoda]

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).

No way!!!!

2.35:1/2.40:1 are just epic! Imagine Star Wars in 1.78:1!

Filmmaker's should use whichever format best tells their story!
No limitations.

[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.

[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.

[lifevicarious]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Well I don't think we need a character's eyes filling almost the whole huge cinema screen or a character's eyes filling a big high definition TV to be able to see whatever expression they're supposed to be doing. Not for people with normal vision. In real life people don't usually need a person's eye's magnified to the size of a cinema screen or big TV to be able to see them properly.

On a much smaller, lower res TV/display, big close ups might be needed to see whatever expression. On a big high resolution HDTV or cinema screen they aren't. Obviously viewing distance is part of it too.

And that's why you will never be a film director.

[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.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by lifevicarious

And that's why you will never be a film director.

And that's why you are wrong. Also why don't you stick to the topic instead of trying to insult people.

Though if they want to go with that kind of shot, as a rare type of shot in the film I suppose it's okay, what I think is worse is the type of shot in 2.35-2.39 like I quoted on a previous page, where people are talking to each other normally but they're cutting the top of the actor(s) head a bit above the eyebrow. This looks like it's supposed to be a more normal (ie. used more regularly, showing 2 people talking) shot in the film, not for a rare effect, which will probably last longer while they are talking and un-necessarily chops the top of people's heads off and is un-necessary given today's big displays.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

And that's why you are wrong. Also why don't you stick to the topic instead of trying to insult people.

Though if they want to go with that kind of shot, as a rare type of shot in the film I suppose it's okay, what I think is worse is the type of shot in 2.35-2.39 like I quoted on a previous page, where people are talking to each other normally but they're cutting the top of the actor(s) head a bit above the eyebrow. This looks like it's supposed to be a more normal (ie. used more regularly, showing 2 people talking) shot in the film, not for a rare effect, which will probably last longer while they are talking and un-necessarily chops the top of people's heads off and is un-necessary given today's big displays.

Again, you're under the assumption that everything should be visible all the time. The extreme close-up in the shot you mentioned is supposed to be that close.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by lifevicarious

And that's why you will never be a film director.

Originally Posted by 4K2K

And that's why you are wrong. Also why don't you stick to the topic instead of trying to insult people.

Based on the evidence you've given us of your stubborn ignorance of art, film history and cinematography, he was simply stating a fact.

But having said that, if you indeed DID become a film director and I elected to view your work (doubtful, since based on your discussion, your cinematography would look like a bad home movie), I would want to see it in whatever aspect ratio you chose for it, regardless of whether it was 1.33, 1.37, 1.66, 1.75, 16:9, 1.85, 2.2, 2.35, 2.37, 2.55, 2.75 or whatever and regardless of my own personal preference of aspect ratio and that's the whole point.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

like I quoted on a previous page, where people are talking to each other normally but they're cutting the top of the actor(s) head a bit above the eyebrow.

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Again, you're under the assumption that everything should be visible all the time. The extreme close-up in the shot you mentioned is supposed to be that close.

Additionally, as I already pointed out 4K2K, those two men are not having a "normal" conversation.

I'm not sure how you're able to watch any movie and not be annoyed since every single movie you've ever watched contains an extreme close-up.