Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You probably have a preference for "effects" films, which are the most likely films to be shot in anamorphic (or converted to anamorphic 2.39:1 prints). One day, I'll re-document the numbers, but I assure you that the vast majority of film releases are 1.85:1, although there are also now many released that were shot on HD Video at HDTV AR of 1.78:1.

And yes, constant height is the ideal. A scope image should always be larger than a spherical image. Movie theatres that go with constant width rather than constant height is "film done wrong".

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Judging by all the Blu-rays of new releases, it seems that the majority are shot Super35 and released at 2.40...even animated films like Megamind are 2.35/2.40 as well. These days I'm surprised now when something is 1.85!

I despise Super 35 (which actually can be used to create a flat 1.85 print or a 2.39:1 anamorphic print). I wish they didn't use it. Proponents of Super 35 claim it uses more negative space, but that's only if they used the entire image, which isn't used for either 1.85 or 2.39. It actually uses about 60% less negative space than anamorphic Panavision. Anamorphic Panavision uses a minimum negative area of .864" x .732". The finder markings for Super 35 are at .945 x .511 for 1.85 and .945 x .395 for scope prints. This creates grain the size of golfballs. Of course this will all go away as filmmakers move to digital origination.

I did a count of the current and upcoming films listed in Boxoffice. There are 133 films listed. 21 are listed as Scope (but of course that could mean either Super 35 or Anamorphic Panavision), 9 are specifically listed as Flat and 103 have no labels, but no indication usually means flat (or that they haven't decided yet.) The films specifically listed as flat are:
Somewhere
Jane Eyre
The Heart Specialist
From Prada to Nada
Incendies (Sony)
Little Fockers
The Adjustment Bureau
Hop
Blue Valentine

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Ben-Hur was filmed in Camera 65, which added a 1.25 anamorphic squeeze to the normal 70mm 2.2:1 aspect ratio, resulting in a 2.75:1 aspect ratio. Only a few films were made in this process and most of them were done for single-projector Cinerama, which was much less expensive to project than the original 3-35mm projector Cinerama.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yep! Another is the Marlon Brando remake of Mutiny on the Bounty (so far only on HD DVD, with the announcement of Grand Prix it's one of the few titles still exclusive to Toshiba's patent grab).

Here's a list of all the films made for projection at 2.75:1 AR (I think):
Ben Hur (MGM Camera 65)
Mutiny on the Bounty (Ultra Panavision 70)
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (Ultra Panavision 70)*
The Fall of the Roman Empire (Ultra Panavision 70)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (Ultra Panavision 70)*
The Hallelujah Trail (Ultra Panavision 70)*
Battle of the Bulge (Ultra Panavision 70)*
Khartoum (Ultra Panavision 70)*

* = for single projector 70mm Cinerama

I show Grand Prix as Super Panavision 70 (2.2:1), not Ultra Panavision 70, even though it was also intended for Cinerama (same as 2001; Krakatoa, East of Java; Ice Station Zebra and Song of Norway).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I despise Super 35 (which actually can be used to create a flat 1.85 print or a 2.39:1 anamorphic print). I wish they didn't use it.

So do I. To me it's lazy filmmaking. If super low budget films like the 1978 Halloween (Dir Carpenter, DP Dean Cundey) can do it there's no excuse for any modern filmmaker. The compositions of true Panavision films are usually a lot better too.


I show Grand Prix as Super Panavision 70 (2.2:1), not Ultra Panavision 70, even though it was also intended for Cinerama (same as 2001; Krakatoa, East of Java; Ice Station Zebra and Song of Norway).[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the confusion: I was referring only to the HD DVD exclusives, not Grand Prix's shooting format (which I know is 65MM 2.2)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Here's a list of all the films made for projection at 2.75:1 AR (I think):
Ben Hur (MGM Camera 65)
Mutiny on the Bounty (Ultra Panavision 70)
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (Ultra Panavision 70)*
The Fall of the Roman Empire (Ultra Panavision 70)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (Ultra Panavision 70)*
The Hallelujah Trail (Ultra Panavision 70)*
Battle of the Bulge (Ultra Panavision 70)*
Khartoum (Ultra Panavision 70)*

* = for single projector 70mm Cinerama

I believe Raintree County is one too (MGM Camera 65).

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I believe Raintree County is one too (MGM Camera 65).

There's actually a dispute on this one. Michael Coate always claimed that there's no proof any 70mm prints were ever made. In70mm.com (a European site) claims the opposite: that no 35mm prints were ever made (although that seems a bit incredulous to me.) But Variety did list this as a 70mm film and it was indeed shot in MGM Camera 65.

[Deciazulado]

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There's actually a dispute on this one. Michael Coate always claimed that there's no proof any 70mm prints were ever made. In70mm.com (a European site) claims the opposite: that no 35mm prints were ever made (although that seems a bit incredulous to me.) But Variety did list this as a 70mm film and it was indeed shot in MGM Camera 65.

RE: Raintree County.

I was an avid film buff at the time. Either no 70mm prints were made, or I couldn't find them ... in either the San Francisco Bay Area or in L.A. I absolutely saw a 35 mm print.

I always wondered if Elizabeth Taylor and Mike Todd (who were married to each other at the time) had little talks about this. Taylor was in Raintree, and Todd had marketed Todd-AO, the first modern 70mm process, with a more comfortable AR, IMO. Perhaps Raintree couldn't be shown in 70 mm because Todd's Around the World in 80 Days(1956) was still running (it ended up running well into its second year) in the only available 70mm theaters. They ended up equipping more theaters for Todd-AO so South Pacific could run in 70mm, while 80 Days ran on and on, still in 70mm

But, as you say, Raintree was shot on 65 mm film, the first film in Camera 65 (essentially an imprint for Ultra Panavision 70), and was very widely advertised as being in Camera 65, "Window to the World." My movie, photography and audiophile friends were sorely disappointed when it came out in 35mm, and looked and sounded no better than CinemaScope. A few years later Ben-Hur demonstrated that, in 70mm, Camera 65 had a "walk into it" or "reach out and touch it" quality (far superior to any BD I've ever seen, anywhere).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by garyrc

But, as you say, Raintree was shot on 65 mm film, the first film in Camera 65 (essentially an imprint for Ultra Panavision 70), and was very widely advertised as being in Camera 65, "Window to the World." My movie, photography and audiophile friends were sorely disappointed when it came out in 35mm, and looked and sounded no better than CinemaScope. A few years later Ben-Hur demonstrated that, in 70mm, Camera 65 had a "walk into it" or "reach out and touch it" quality (far superior to any BD I've ever seen, anywhere).

Am I the only one salivating at what Ben-Hur could/may look like on BD this year?

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Am I the only one salivating at what Ben-Hur could/may look like on BD this year?

No, you're not the only one! I hope they capture the incredible PQ and AQ of this film. I hope they care as much as we do.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

RE: Raintree County.

I was an avid film buff at the time. Either no 70mm prints were made, or I couldn't find them ... in either the San Francisco Bay Area or in L.A. I absolutely saw a 35 mm print.

I always wondered if Elizabeth Taylor and Mike Todd (who were married to each other at the time) had little talks about this. Taylor was in Raintree, and Todd had marketed Todd-AO, the first modern 70mm process, with a more comfortable AR, IMO. Perhaps Raintree couldn't be shown in 70 mm because Todd's Around the World in 80 Days(1956) was still running (it ended up running well into its second year) in the only available 70mm theaters. They ended up equipping more theaters for Todd-AO so South Pacific could run in 70mm, while 80 Days ran on and on, still in 70mm

But, as you say, Raintree was shot on 65 mm film, the first film in Camera 65 (essentially an imprint for Ultra Panavision 70), and was very widely advertised as being in Camera 65, "Window to the World." My movie, photography and audiophile friends were sorely disappointed when it came out in 35mm, and looked and sounded no better than CinemaScope. A few years later Ben-Hur demonstrated that, in 70mm, Camera 65 had a "walk into it" or "reach out and touch it" quality (far superior to any BD I've ever seen, anywhere).

Actually, I made a mistake. in70mm.com did not state that no 35mm prints were made. What they actually said was,

"the few theaters then equipped to show 70mm were tied up with Todd's "Around the World in 80 Days" and committed to follow it with "South Pacific". While it's understandable why MGM didn't go to the expense of setting up the Brown Theater in Louisville, KY, where the film premiered, for the process, why they didn't do so for the New York and/or Los Angeles theaters in which it was roadshown is a subject for further research. Thus this film has never been publicly shown in 70mm."

But they also say this:

However, cinematographer John Hora remembers seeing a 70mm print at MGM when he was a USC Cinema student in the early Sixties

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

But they also say this:

...Quote:
However, cinematographer John Hora remembers seeing a 70mm print at MGM when he was a USC Cinema student in the early Sixties

[I transferred the above quote (supplied by ZoetMB) to this post manually, because the program's quote function wouldn't let me do it normally]

It's quite plausible that the people at MGM made a 70mm print of Raintree for themselves, and did not release any. I saw a 70 mm print of Operation Crossbow on display (not projected, just on display on a couple of reels with the film hanging from them) at MGM in 1965, but never could find it in 70mm in a theater.

Here's an idea: they could make 70 mm prints now

Also, I'm not sure I accept the notion that 70 mm is too expensive to use today... film costs are rather reasonable compared to the salaries given to some actors (and sometimes directors). If an actor or director wanted to do a film in 70mm, they could make a contribution. While it is true that most 65mm cameras are cumbersome, Fricke seemed to do just fine shooting Baraka in 70mm Todd-AO around the world (no nuance intended).

[e-milosz]

(I am sorry for posting it here but I am also frustrated by the fact that this forum not only not allow new users to write new posts but also DOES NOT say why I can't do it, waste of time, congratulations admin)

I am sorry, I googled many information about aspec ratio but could not find sensible practical explenation.

Why TV and DVD/Blu-Ray disk viewers/customers are ignored for such a long time?

Is it so expensive to release different than cinema spect ratio for Blu-Ray customers?

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

(I am sorry for posting it here but I am also frustrated by the fact that this forum not only not allow new users to write new posts but also DOES NOT say why I can't do it, waste of time, congratulations admin)

I am sorry, I googled many information about aspec ratio but could not find sensible practical explenation.

Why TV and DVD/Blu-Ray disk viewers/customers are ignored for such a long time?

Is it so expensive to release different than cinema spect ratio for Blu-Ray customers?

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

First, read the very first post in this thread. And second, we don't want 2.35 images cropped on Blu-ray. We want to see the entire image the way it was intended to be seen.

[e-milosz]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

First, read the very first post in this thread. And second, we don't want 2.35 images cropped on Blu-ray. We want to see the entire image the way it was intended to be seen.

First, I've read first post and second i am not talking about cropping the already cropped format (from original 35mm film).

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

We want to see the entire image the way it was intended to be seen.

Yes, this is what I am trying to find out why directors want us to see less, to not make the most of the established TV 16:9 standard.
Also not sure if it is just about 'indended to be seen', it would be hard for director to say: I want it more like full frame 4:5 or 16:9 to make it more comfortable to everyone. It's practical but can director make such decision for a blockbuster?

The bottom line is that for example Harry Potter or many other movies 10 years ago were released also as 4:5. Which format then is the real intention?
Could 16:9 not be a great average?

Also, changing from 2.35 to 16:9 would never mean seeing less, the width is the same anyway, it's just about adding or allowing us to see more top and bottom from the cropped frame.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

First, I've read first post and second i am not talking about cropping the already cropped format (from original 35mm film).


Yes, this is what I am trying to find out why directors want us to see less, to not make the most of the established TV 16:9 standard.
Also not sure if it is just about 'indended to be seen', it would be hard for director to say: I want it more like full frame 4:5 or 16:9 to make it more comfortable to everyone. It's practical but can director make such decision for a blockbuster?

The bottom line is that for example Harry Potter or many other movies 10 years ago were released also as 4:5. Which format then is the real intention?
Could 16:9 not be a great average?

Also, changing from 2.35 to 16:9 would never mean seeing less, the width is the same anyway, it's just about adding or allowing us to see more top and bottom from the cropped frame.

Sorry, but I'm not going to try to explain it all to you when you have this entire thread that explains it. All I can tell you is that a lot of what you're saying is incorrect or based on your misunderstanding of the medium. Movies are shot at different aspect ratios - some wider than others. More importantly, they are made with the intention of seeing them in the theater. If a movie is shot, or intended to be seen in the theater, at 2.39, then it should be seen in 2.39 on Blu-ray.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

First, I've read first post and second i am not talking about cropping the already cropped format (from original 35mm film).


Yes, this is what I am trying to find out why directors want us to see less, to not make the most of the established TV 16:9 standard.
Also not sure if it is just about 'indended to be seen', it would be hard for director to say: I want it more like full frame 4:5 or 16:9 to make it more comfortable to everyone. It's practical but can director make such decision for a blockbuster?

The bottom line is that for example Harry Potter or many other movies 10 years ago were released also as 4:5. Which format then is the real intention?
Could 16:9 not be a great average?

Also, changing from 2.35 to 16:9 would never mean seeing less, the width is the same anyway, it's just about adding or allowing us to see more top and bottom from the cropped frame.

No. The reason why director's don't want to make use of the "established TV standard" is because films are still made primarily for theatrical distribution.

You can't see more of the top and bottom because the film was shot for 2.39:1 and if you see more, you might see microphone booms and other stuff you're not supposed to see. In addition, it depends on the shooting format - in some formats, there is nothing else as either the format dimensions didn't permit it or the film was shot with a hard matte. And seeing more than the director's intention is just as bad as seeing too little. When a film is shot, there are groundglass etchings in the viewfinder and on any monitors that show how the film will look and the director moves the camera or zooms to get the image as they want to appear within those dimensions, not those dimensions "plus some on the top and bottom".

There are standards in the industry that were established years ago, once widescreen came about in 1952. That's 1.85:1 for spherical films, 2.35 (eventually 2.39):1 for anamorphic films. There were some variants: some foreign and Disney films were presented at spherical 1.75:1 or 1.66:1, 70mm spherical was presented at 2.2:1; Anamorphic Cinemascope was originally intended to be 2.55:1, but was cut back to 2.35:1 so that both a magnetic and optical soundtrack could fit on the film and a few films were presented in 70mm anamorphic Ultra-Panavision, which was 2.75:1 (2.2:1 + a 1.25x anamorphic squeeze). 16:9 was chosen for HDTV, precisely because it was a compromise between 1.33 and 2.35, but the Director's Guild objected to it. They wanted a compromise of 2.0:1, which would have been better, but they lost the argument. The reason why that wasn't done was because at the time, HDTV was still CRT-based and it was very difficult to make a CRT wider than 16:9 and also because a wider screen would have meant larger black bars for standard definition TV content, which still predominated when the standards were ratified. At the time, HD production equipment was absurdly expensive and no one knew how fast TV would move to HD. (And for the record, there was no FCC requirement that TV stations broadcast in widescreen or in HD; there was only a requirement that they broadcast in digital.)

And there's no such thing as 4:5. I think you mean 4:3 TV. And those were only released for the idiots who can't understand the concept that when you fill a SDTV screen with a widescreen movie, you're missing 43% of the image just because you don't want to see black bars. The film never played in a movie theatre at 4:3 and is most certainly not the "real intention".

What you're asking for is to destroy these conventions and standards, simply because you don't like seeing black bars on your TV. Shut the lights off and the black bars will "disappear". No matter what aspect ratio you choose as the so-called "ideal", there's always going to be some movie that requires either black bars at the top or black bars at the side. The reality is that the vast majority of post-1952 films were shot at 1.85, which is so close to 16:9, it's not even worth talking about (a 1.85:1 film uses 96% of the area of a 16:9 TV). It's mostly the action/adventure films that were shot at 2.39:1. There are new HDTVs coming with a 2.33:1 aspect ratio, which will be great for anamorphic films, but then 1.85 films will play with bigger black bars on the left and right. So, there's always going to be some compromise.

So instead of obsessing about black bars, just sit back and enjoy the movie as the director and cinematographer intended. If you don't like it, buy a bigger TV.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

You also are not taking into account that not all the shots in a Super35 Harry Potter, particularly those with visual effects (like the Quiddich match or Harry's confrontation with Voldemort) are going to be severely cropped at 1.33 and still cropped at 1.78 (16x9). The director and everyone who made the film had 2.35 in mind, just because there is extra information doesn't mean it was intended for audiences to see. If he wanted you to see it in the theater he would have framed it differently to begin with.

Anything with anamorphic 35MM, like Transformers, Batman Begins, STAR TREK, films by Clint Eastwood, etc. will be cropped: period.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No. The reason why director's don't want to make use of the "established TV standard" is because films are still made primarily for theatrical distribution..

AND, maybe the filmmakers feel that 16:9 (1.78:1) is an inappropriate aspect ratio for a particular film, period, no matter whether it is seen in the home or in the theater. For certain films this inappropriateness would be true even if the film wasn't shot yet. I can't imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey (2.20:1 in 70 mm) in 16:9, or even its close theatrical cousin, 1.85:1. I could list dozens of other such films.

Good and informative post, ZoetMB.

e-milosz, If you have a "common height" system, then all films would be the same height (i.e., the maximum), and the widest format would have no black bars. The narrower formats would have black bars at the sides, the way these particular films would have in a good theater. Right now, "common height" is almost always achieved with a home projector and screen set up, but at least one manufacturer is attempting to market a wide aspect ratio flatscreen HDTV, usable with "Common Height" ... I think the AR is 2.39:1. That way, there would be no black bars top or bottom (with almost any film) and there would be the added advantage of the manufacturers taking your money twice.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by e-milosz

I am sorry, I googled many information about aspec ratio but could not find sensible practical explenation.

Why TV and DVD/Blu-Ray disk viewers/customers are ignored for such a long time?

Is it so expensive to release different than cinema spect ratio for Blu-Ray customers?

Many people will say that the frame would need to be cropped on sides but this is not true! In fact, quite OPPOSITE!

Some time ago I found screen shots from 1:33:1 (4:3) version of Harry potter and compared with the same scene/frame on 2.35:1. It was a scene when they are passing table with cakes although in 2.35:1 you can't even see the cakes! The sides are cropped but just slightly so 16:9 would give ideal superior looking result on 16:9 TV.

How come the movie could be formated to 4:3 and for some reason the same tape can't be converted to 16:9. The whole world is waiting for it.

Originally Posted by e-milosz

First, I've read first post and second i am not talking about cropping the already cropped format (from original 35mm film).


Yes, this is what I am trying to find out why directors want us to see less, to not make the most of the established TV 16:9 standard.
Also not sure if it is just about 'indended to be seen', it would be hard for director to say: I want it more like full frame 4:5 or 16:9 to make it more comfortable to everyone. It's practical but can director make such decision for a blockbuster?

The bottom line is that for example Harry Potter or many other movies 10 years ago were released also as 4:5. Which format then is the real intention?
Could 16:9 not be a great average?

Also, changing from 2.35 to 16:9 would never mean seeing less, the width is the same anyway, it's just about adding or allowing us to see more top and bottom from the cropped frame.

These films that you're thinking of, are shot with the Super 35 format which exposes images on the old Silent film full aperture 1.33 format (which happen to be the biggest available "hole" on a 35mm camera) :



but the shots are composed with the theatrical aspect ratio in mind (The director shoots the action framing within that red rectangle) :

2.39super35.gif

And this is what is projected in theaters.


The extra image above and below on the negative is just that: extra image, which is not meant to be seen by the moviegoer. One of the reasons for doing it this way is that fot TV broadcasts which are a different shape than Cinemas ratios, instead of having to cut part of the intended picture to fit it on the TV, they can show the extra empty image to fit it by filling the tv screen with something, which is the lesser of the two evils.


What do you think the director wants you to see on the theater and your tv?

This ambiguous loosely framed image exposed automatically on the camera with extra background,

S35.jpg

or this tightly framed , carefully composed dramatic image?


projection.jpg

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Caleb

sweet god no. ANY aspect ratio other than the directors approved version is a butchery and an insult to the art

[DNinja]

Originally Posted by wormraper

sweet god no. ANY aspect ratio other than the directors approved version is a butchery and an insult to the art

I agree! The director chose an aspect ration for a reason, so I see no need to change it to "fill the screen." Pan & Scan was horrible, and cropping films or opening mattes is not a solution. Televisions have a zoom function that should take care of the black bar "problem" for people that are bothered by it.