16:9 FullFrame or 2.39:1 letterbox formatting for SCOPE films on Blu-ray Discs?

[dobyblue]

Original Aspect Ratio.

By the way those shots from the end of The Matrix are sick.

[Deciazulado]

As dobyblue said, OAR = Original Aspect Ratio

Super-35 camera image

Many people confuse "OAR" with the ratio of the shooting camera, specially because it says "original" so they think that means the full area the camera "originally" exposed on the negative, no matter what was intended and composed for in the viewfinder by the cameraman/director of photography/cinematographer and the director of the film, and projected correctly on the movie theater screen by the projectionist.

The word "original" comes from the days that home video realized that movies weren't all in 4:3 shape "originally" in the ancient years when they were projected when they were "born" . So someone coined the term "Original Aspect Ratio' when what he meant "This movie is shown the way it was (originally) created and projected, and is not reformatted to fit your 4:3 screen"

I'd prefer myself something more along the lines of IR or IAR, or even OIR or OIAR! (Intended Ratio, Intended Aspect Ratio, Original Intended Ratio, Original Intended Aspect Ratio ) But those don't have the cool ring of OAR

Then the confusion begins for all those Widescreen movies (All theatrical movies made after the mid '50s) shot in a "Standard ratio" sound and silent camera or VistaVision cameras, which have, respectively, 1.375, 1.333, and 1.500 aspect ratios, or aperture "holes".

Most 1.85 movies are shot with 1.375 Academy sound cameras and very few have a 1.85 "hard matte" aperture plate inserted behind the lens to create a widescreen image directly exposed on the negative. The full 1.375 area is exposed, but the image is composed to be centered in a widescreen "invisible" area within the frame by looking though a viewfinder marked or masked properly for that purpose.

A 1.85 movie image is the central 0.446" x 0.825' (11.33mm x 21mm) area of the Academy sound ratio's "original" 0.600" x 0.825' (15.25mm x 21mm) Projector Aperture which itself is inside the Academy sound Camera Aperture's 16mm x 22mm "hole".

So if you saw a contact print made from the negative of Doctor Strangelove, or Muriel's Wedding, or Disney's Robin Hood, or Batman, you'll bound to see an image of 16mm x 22mm for most shots on it if you looked at it directly with your eyes, but you should just project, or scan, the 11.33mm x 21mm out of its center (or 12mm x 21mm for 1.75, or 12.66mm x 21mm for 1.66) depending on the format the film in question was intended to be seen.

VistaVision movies were shot with a 35mm camera running the film horizontally so the negative area is 24mm x 36mm (Just like your 35mm still photo camera) that gives you a Camera Aperture ratio of 1.50, but those films were shot intended for 1.85 projection (Well, White Christmas, the first one, was supposed for 1.66) so its the same story as above. Just with a bigger, better negative!

Nowadays many films are being made in the "Super-35" process, which isn't really new (Was SuperScope and Superscope235 before), which is the same thing as the 1.85 shot in Academy 1.375 sound cameras, but instead , with the Silent 1.33 cameras, which had a bigger "hole" of about 18mm x 24mm for their projected image. (Camera Aperture of approx. 18.75mm x 25mm). With these, "bigger negative" than sound, cameras, you can shoot 1.85 as 13mm x 24mm giving you a better original negative quality than 11.33 x 21mm (the 13 x 24 is reduced to 11.33 x 21 when the print is made) or 2.40 (or nowadays 2.39) by using the 10mm x 24mm central area (or 10mm x 23.9mm), or slightly off-centered vertically up (called 20/80 shooting) (so you don't end with lots of empty space above heads when you do the subsequent "open matte" "Full Frame" video transfer). 10mm x 24mm is not as good quality as 17.5mm x 21mm anamorphic Scope photography, but as mentioned before, gives other practical advantages, so it's become popular. As with the previous examples,, when shooting in Super-35 you expose the whole approx. 18.75 x 25mm* 1.33 area of the negative and only the central 13mm x 24mm (1.85) or 10mm x 23.9mm (2.39) part is intended, composed for, and projected.

*It's actually more like 24.9mm and thats what a 4k or a 2k scan, scans across: The full 24.9mm Camera Aperture width.

Now when "FullFrame" videos are made, they use all or most all of this extra area not intended nor seen in the "original theatrical presentation" , and this is called a fullframe "open matte' transfer. (Because the hard matte widescreening the central image is "opened up").
For 4:3 videos, they'd use all of it, for 16:9 videos they'll partially crop vertically to a 16:9 width.


Now second question

Originally Posted by CareyD1080p

By the way, love your "Matrix Reloaded" demo frames.

How do you do that?

Happens that I have a FullFrame 1080p of that image, and I just applied all those numbers, as if I was a Digital Projectionist, to the image, and made three versions: Anamorphic print OAR version (The wide one ), extracting the center; then I made a 16:9 FullFrame "pan scan" version of it by cropping the sides, then I made a 16:9 "Full Frame' version by just showing the 16:9 file open matted (but making it the same height as the others) (as is proper in movie viewing) (Constant Height! Constant Vigilance!) It's rather easy. Which makes me wonder why so many transfers screw the framing. Maybe the tech don't know filmtech... (Back To The Future, Excalibur, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Kiss Me Kate.. )

[CareyD1080p]

DECIAZULADO...

Oh, I forgot to mention....

"Spider-Man 2" is in 1.78 on UMB (the PSP format), and it's NOT because the screen is so small, that they want to provide an image that FILLS the 5" diagonal 16x9 screen either. The 1.78 UMB disc version of "SM2" has SAME latteral info as the 2.40 WS DVD, but MORE vertical info. Now, there's LOTS of movies presented in 2.40 on the UMB format. So, WHY with "Spidey 2", is it in 1.78 on UMB, but 2.40 on widescreen DVD?

Go figure, huh?

[Psiweaver]

You can always get cinewide with autoscope on your runco projector to fix this problem.

[thunderhawk]

Deciazulado, how long did you do over it to get all that knowledge...

Nice reads mate, very informative.

[WilliamC]

Originally Posted by Rugbynerd

I know what original aspect ratio is, thank you. The issue is what I think looks best. Maybe if the PS3 did 24fps, then OAR would be a little more relevant (hm, looks like you don't know what you're talking about), or maybe if I had a gigantic 1080p tv then OAR would be ideal, but on a 37" 1080p flatscreen, 16:9 is the way to go for sure, regardless of OAR. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to cut off the outside 5% of the image? And what do you really miss by doing this? Nothing, but you gain a better image and full utilization of 1080p (do you even know what that is fuad?) What's more, how hard is it to make it so you can choose one option or the other on the same disc? Not hard. (And obviously on older movies you should not stretch them out... I'm only talking about movies that are 2.35:1 ratio-- would you rather have your HDTV display them in full 1080p 16:9 but lose the outside edges, or an effectively 720p OAR but retain the outside edges?

Weren't you on AVS preaching the same BS?

[Dave Mack]

yes he was. same post even more or less. cut and pasting all around the 'net!

[dialog_gvf]

I presume the question is whether I want a 2.35/2.39:1 aspect ratio presented, or a pan & scan/matte open to full frame.

I'll take OAR all the way.

We are going to have problems this generation. While the enthusiasts want accurate representation of the underlying film (OAR and transparency) it seems many people are complaining a lot if they don't get full frame and filtered to look the HD video.

Incidently, myself and several other enthusiasts brought up anamoprhic and constant height encodings several years ago (elsewhere) and were resoundly booed by those that wanted the new formats to be tuned to their personal setup. Now that constant height setups are appearing, as I predicted, people NOW want the spec adjusted.

Gary

[Garconis]

So wait...Ice Age: The Meltdown, was actually originally shown in theaters at an aspect ratio of 16:9?

[Shadowself]

Is there ANYONE out there that would want Ben Hur cropped from its ultrawide format to 16:9? Can you imagine trying to view the great chariot race scene with a pan & scan? I don't even want to thing about such a travesty!

To badly paraphrase Patrick Henry...

Give me OAR or give me nothing.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Is there ANYONE out there that would want Ben Hur cropped from its ultrawide format to 16:9? Can you imagine trying to view the great chariot race scene with a pan & scan? I don't even want to thing about such a travesty!

To badly paraphrase Patrick Henry...

Give me OAR or give me nothing.

Seconded

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by WilliamC

Weren't you on AVS preaching the same BS?

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

yes he was. same post even more or less. cut and pasting all around the 'net!

Hey guys, give the guy a break, he posted later this, not everybody starts knowing everything about home theater, for example it took me 200 years to learn in Tibetan film temples

That's what forums are for. Tibetan crash courses

Originally Posted by Garconis

So wait...Ice Age: The Meltdown, was actually originally shown in theaters at an aspect ratio of 16:9?

1.85

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Incidently, myself and several other enthusiasts brought up anamoprhic and constant height encodings several years ago (elsewhere) and were resoundly booed by those that wanted the new formats to be tuned to their personal setup. Now that constant height setups are appearing, as I predicted, people NOW want the spec adjusted.

Too bad, Scope movies would have ended being the equivalent of about 930p in quality (930 x 2230 square pixels) and being displayed as 1080 x 2560 or better on some types of displays. But hopefully, due to the variable image quality of compression depending on bit-rate, if a Scope movie is allocated higher bitrates than an 1.85 movies the difference in pixelcount can be somewhat minimized and compensated for. After all, everything in the end is subject to signal vs noise ratio.



OAR is always best. Tells the story the way it was designed, and therefore, tells it better.

[IamAnoobieCheez]

I am a 16:9 worshipper.

[hyperdine]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

not everybody starts knowing everything about home theater, for example it took me 200 years to learn in Tibetan film temples

Oh, so that's where you've been lately I was wondering where you were.

[Deciazulado]

I was mission training with my Bond Girl and watching movies at night like Arthur et les Minimoys, Night at the Museum, Man cheng jin dai huang jin jia, Children of Men, My Litte Pony, and El laberinto del fauno in a huge screen at 1.5 PH (that's o.6x screen width-Scope/o.8x screen width-1.85 for you screenwidth measurers). Have to keep those eyes razor sharp. Like a Hawk.

[theknub]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

... My Litte Pony...

riiiiigggghhhhhtttt

[salohcin]

Yeh, I was pretty disappointed to see cheap ass wide screen. I figured that the new HDTV were built for the new Blu-ray/HD-DVD, I figured wrong. Why were the new tv's not built to proper specs, some kind of uniformity is needed. Some formatting is ridiculous, you get to the extra space in your perferal, but it is usually of no importance to the movie, meanwhile half the actors head is cut off. This has to be the stupidest. weirdest problem ever. Notice how Blu-ray preview disks at retailers fill the whole screen, they are simply scamers with cheap wide screen. If I wanted a smaller tv I would have bout one!

[shido]

Originally Posted by salohcin

Yeh, I was pretty disappointed to see cheap ass wide screen. I figured that the new HDTV were built for the new Blu-ray/HD-DVD, I figured wrong. Why were the new tv's not built to proper specs, some kind of uniformity is needed. Some formatting is ridiculous, you get to the extra space in your perferal, but it is usually of no importance to the movie, meanwhile half the actors head is cut off. This has to be the stupidest. weirdest problem ever. Notice how Blu-ray preview disks at retailers fill the whole screen, they are simply scamers with cheap wide screen. If I wanted a smaller tv I would have bout one!

My god man read up first before posting this kind of BS. You obviously don't understand a thing behind OAR.

[Jonalan34]

I prefer Widescreen over Fullscreen (4:3).

[WilliamC]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Hey guys, give the guy a break, he posted later this, not everybody starts knowing everything about home theater, for example it took me 200 years to learn in Tibetan film temples

I was seriously asking him that. There was a guy on avs preaching the same thing and he was preaching not only at avs but other forums. Not being knowledgable is one thing, we all weren't experts or understand as much as we do now. To go posting the same thing on multiple forums means you are a troll and just talk BS.