Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

movies are made to fit a movie theater screen, so the top and bottom are cropped to fit such a screen. I have done some tests and several movies in the same shot were just as wide as eachother. The only difference was the top and bottom were not cropped on the 1.85.

For the 3rd time, I'm going to say you need to educate yourself. You're confused because you don't understand what you're talking about. A 1:85 image on a widescreen tv is just as wide as a 2:35 image on a widescreen tv, that is correct. But in actuality, a 1:85 image and 2:35 image are only the same HEIGHT. A 2:35 image is indeed WIDER. If you kept a 2:35 image the same height on your tv as a 1:85 image, it would require cropping off the left and right.

You are making the incorrect assumption that every movie is shot in 1:85 and then cropped top and bottom to fit in a theater screen and that's wrong. A theater screen can be adjusted from 1:85 to 2:35, and the theaters that don't have that capability have projectors that can make the adjustment internally. Most movies that are shot in 2:35 do not have anymore image on top or below.

When you see a movie in the theater - the aspect ratio you're watching it in is what the director intends for you to see. If the top and bottom were cropped JUST for the theater, then the tops of the actors heads would always be cut off. But they're not, because the director framed the shots specifically the way he or she wanted to them to look.

2012, along with many more movies, was shot (partially) in Super35 which actually captures an almost square picture. But directors compose those shots with extra room above and below KNOWING and with the INTENTION of MATTING or CROPPING the top and bottom.

You agreed with my black and white analogy and then went right on dismissing it. If the filmmaker shoot their movie with the specific intention to be in black and white, then leave it in black and white. If they shoot it specifically to be seen in 2:35, leave it in 2:35!!

All you have to do is read the first post in this thread to be on your way to understanding the different aspect ratios and how your tv cannot possibly accommodate all of them without having black bars on the top and bottom, and sometimes on the left and right.

Or are you one of those people who think you know what you're talking about and just don't want to learn?

[morebetterness]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It was altered because the director didn't want you to see that extra information.

If a director wants you to see it, he will change the aspect ratio for the film release: The World's Fastest Indian is a good example.

So that is possible to take the ratio of a 2.40:1 theater release and release it on a Blu Ray as a 1.85:1?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

So that is possible to take the ratio of a 2.40:1 theater release and release it on a Blu Ray as a 1.85:1?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/1333857-post1.html

[42041]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

So that is possible to take the ratio of a 2.40:1 theater release and release it on a Blu Ray as a 1.85:1?

It's possible if the movie was shot on super35, it's also a terrible idea. Do you understand that composition is the very art of photography?

[morebetterness]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

For the 3rd time, I'm going to say you need to educate yourself. You're confused because you don't understand what you're talking about. A 1:85 image on a widescreen tv is just as wide as a 2:35 image on a widescreen tv, that is correct. But in actuality, a 1:85 image and 2:35 image are only the same HEIGHT. A 2:35 image is indeed WIDER. If you kept a 2:35 image the same height on your tv as a 1:85 image, it would require cropping off the left and right.

You are making the incorrect assumption that every movie is shot in 1:85 and then cropped top and bottom to fit in a theater screen and that's wrong. A theater screen can be adjusted from 1:85 to 2:35, and the theaters that don't have that capability have projectors that can make the adjustment internally. Most movies that are shot in 2:35 do not have anymore image on top or below.

When you see a movie in the theater - the aspect ratio you're watching it in is what the director intends for you to see. If the top and bottom were cropped JUST for the theater, then the tops of the actors heads would always be cut off. But they're not, because the director framed the shots specifically the way he or she wanted to them to look.

2012, along with many more movies, was shot (partially) in Super35 which actually captures an almost square picture. But directors compose those shots with extra room above and below KNOWING and with the INTENTION of MATTING or CROPPING the top and bottom.

You agreed with my black and white analogy and then went right on dismissing it. If the filmmaker shoot their movie with the specific intention to be in black and white, then leave it in black and white. If they shoot it specifically to be seen in 2:35, leave it in 2:35!!

All you have to do is read the first post in this thread to be on your way to understanding the different aspect ratios and how your tv cannot possibly accommodate all of them without having black bars on the top and bottom, and sometimes on the left and right.

Or are you one of those people who think you know what you're talking about and just don't want to learn?

No, I definetly want to learn. That is why I think this is great because I am hearing what people know about this.

I am sure you know this better, I have just been researching it more and more trying to understand it. I wasn't trying to dismiss your black and white analogy, and I guess it came across that way but I was just curious as to why if the image is captured on SOME movies on the top and bottom, and even released say on DVD with the screen full even when it says "widescreen" , then released to a Blu Ray with the ratio of 2.40. Why not just keep all the image since it was released two times with different parts being lost. Combine them and you have a Widescreen tv that has the full image. Plus widescreen tv's are pretty standard now and that is what people watch these movies on.

I know the directors want to keep them the way they intended. That is all fine and good, I just think the way home theater is headed, film makers should move towards capturing their picture in a frame of widescreen tv's, having all that they want in their movie all that you see on your entire tv. Especially if theater screens can accomadate that ratio. What is being lost?

I am no film maker by any means so yeah, I don't know all the technical things as far as what they captured, what will be cropped, etc.

[42041]

Here's an illustration of why open matte isn't a great idea:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5788/glad7zbd.png
The intended composition. The armies are effectively the entire subject of the frame, they appear to extend off-screen suggesting that the army is larger than what you see.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8749/glad7bev.png
The unintended composition. The dynamics of the composition are now altered by a large foreground area with nothing in it but shrubs, diminishing the actual subject in the frame. They didn't bother putting extras where no one would see them.

[morebetterness]

Edward Scissorhands. Ok look at that image, you have the old style tv with the widescreen movie displayed as it should be. Black bars top and bottom.

Now on the 16:9 tv, Minimal minimal black bars, which some tv's calibrate to completely remove what little black bars are showing. Bam, your entire tv is being utilized with a widscreen movie that looks great!

So you had mentioned that 2.40 and 1.85 are the same hieght? Like the image is the same height but the 2.40 is wider which means it has to be shrunken to get the entire image on a 16:9 without cutting off the sides?

I just really like the look of movies that are 1.85:1

Personal Opinion

[42041]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

I just really like the look of movies that are 1.85:1

Personal Opinion

Personally, I bought my TV to watch films, but I suppose buying films to watch your TV is also a valid use of a home theater

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

2012, along with many more movies, was shot (partially) in Super35 which actually captures an almost square picture. But directors compose those shots with extra room above and below KNOWING and with the INTENTION of MATTING or CROPPING the top and bottom.

2012 was shot digitally with the Panavison Genesis which has a native 1.78 ratio.

Not all digital films are 1.78, Star Wars: Episodes II & III were rendered (basically hard-matted) to 2.40: the cable versions initially shown at 1.78 were noticeably cropped.

Emmerich's productions with the exception of Stargate (which was shot true Panavision anamorphic 'scope) have been shot Super35 (ID4, Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, etc) up until 2012 but often the visual effects have been hard-matted to 2.35. So certain shots will have additional top & bottom info when shown 1.33 or 1.78 but very cropped whenever a special effect is on screen...and with his films and special effects what would be the point in cropping them?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

2012 was shot digitally with the Panavison Genesis which has a native 1.78 ratio.

Not all digital films are 1.78, Star Wars: Episodes II & III were rendered (basically hard-matted) to 2.40: the cable versions initially shown at 1.78 were noticeably cropped.

Emmerich's productions with the exception of Stargate (which was shot true Panavision anamorphic 'scope) have been shot Super35 (ID4, Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, etc) up until 2012 but often the visual effects have been hard-matted to 2.35. So certain shots will have additional top & bottom info when shown 1.33 or 1.78 but very cropped whenever a special effect is on screen...and with his films and special effects what would be the point in cropping them?

IMDB lists 2012 as being partially shot on Super35. But in either case, it's splitting hairs since the point was to explain to morebetterness why he was seeing more image top and bottom on the 2012 special features - because, whether partially shot on Super35 or with digital cameras in 1:78, the mattes were removed. Giving him the impression that all movies are cropped at the top and bottom and thus making him frustrated that 2:35 movies are not opened up for home viewing.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

Edward Scissorhands. Ok look at that image, you have the old style tv with the widescreen movie displayed as it should be. Black bars top and bottom.

Now on the 16:9 tv, Minimal minimal black bars, which some tv's calibrate to completely remove what little black bars are showing. Bam, your entire tv is being utilized with a widscreen movie that looks great!

So you had mentioned that 2.40 and 1.85 are the same hieght? Like the image is the same height but the 2.40 is wider which means it has to be shrunken to get the entire image on a 16:9 without cutting off the sides?

I just really like the look of movies that are 1.85:1

Personal Opinion

1.37 and 1.85 and 2.39 films are supposed to be shown at the same height with the image getting wider 1.37 -> 1.85 -> 2.39 with the last one reaching our peripheral vision (One reason they are called "Scope' movies).

|
v

|
v

It's the limitation of the home display that changes this on the home. Those with Projectors can recreate this at home with a constant image height set up. (Or you can sit a couple of feet closer, when watching Scope movies on your 16:9 TV).
You like ~1.85 movies on TV because the image is taller on a 16:9 TV. Taller in movie language means closer. On a theater even sitting on the last row, the theater screen is perceptually as tall or taller than your 16:9 fullscreen image, for both Scope and 1.85 movies.



Scope wide 35mm movies are made in two ways.
Shot with anamorphic lens this is what the 4:3 camera sees:

anamorphic.jpg

This is how it's projected:



Shot in Super-35 this is what the camera sees:

S35.jpg

This is how it's projected:

projection.jpg


Just like the 4:3 shaped Super-35 camera example above ^^, Standard Widescreen (1.66-1.85) movies are also made in 4:3 cameras
like non-widescreen 4:3 Academy movies like this one, were made:



But instead are composed in the camera viewfinder for Widescreen Projection, just like like in S-35:


This is what a camera using the full aperture sees:

full aperture.jpg

This it's how it's projected:

wide from full apt.jpg

This is what a camera using a hard matte sees:



This it's how it's projected:



(Note that both scenes above are from the same movie, which used different cameras in different days for different scenes, but when projected in widescreen these camera differences are eliminated)

[morebetterness]

That Phone Booth shot really does make a difference. yeah I guess we are losing all that street at the bottom but the image does look better when it has been cropped the way it is suppose to look. Nice post!

[morebetterness]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

IMDB lists 2012 as being partially shot on Super35. But in either case, it's splitting hairs since the point was to explain to morebetterness why he was seeing more image top and bottom on the 2012 special features - because, whether partially shot on Super35 or with digital cameras in 1:78, the mattes were removed. Giving him the impression that all movies are cropped at the top and bottom and thus making him frustrated that 2:35 movies are not opened up for home viewing.

I feel you are a good person to ask about the ratios and as you know, I don't know all the technical details in camera formats other than movies being 2.40 which are too wide for 16:9 tv's and 1.85 fitting nicely. I just don't get how they are both apparently the same height. If that was true wouldn't the 2.40 aspect ratio fill the top and bottom of the tv like the 1.85? Or is the entire film set back further to get the edges in the tv making the the film smaller?

Also, the 2012 question, it sounds like there were two different cameras used for that movie?

So that special feature scene had the mattes removed but the final movie had the mattes. What is the reason they remove it for special features? If they didn't want that info on top or bottom to be seen by viewers why wouldn't they keep it matted everywhere?

I mean just by looking at the tv and the two shots being the same width, I can't understand why they matte the final movie, unless there may be boom mics in some shots throughout the movie that they do not want in the picture.

I took pictures of both scenes, same exact scene, trying to figure it out, and one was matted which looked like the 2.40 ratio and the special feature with the mattes removed, and one wasn't any wider. WHy is that? I thought the letterbox look (2.40) is wider.

thanks!

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

I just don't get how they are both apparently the same height.

If I understand what you're saying, the best way to understand might be to forget your home screen for a moment --- we'll come back to in a little later.

In a good theater, one that has "constant height" projection, the two images would have the same height physically in feet on the screen itself, and in millimeters on your retinas. In that same theater 2.40, although the same height as 1.85, would be much wider on both the screen and in your eyeballs -- the projectionist would have to pull the side masks and any curtains back (on the sides), and the picture would include image details to each side that would be cut off if they projected that particular movie in 1.85 -- which they would never do. The few theaters that don't have sufficiently wide screens (or proceniums) might project 1.85 and 2.40 at the same width (with black masks top and bottom for 2.40), but that is not what the filmmakers expect, and it is a violation of the trust between filmmaker and theater, IMO. My friends and I would stay away from the one theater in the S.F. Bay Area that did that, if they were showing a 2.35 or 2.40 film.

Constant height was the mode in almost every theater I knew when wide screen was introduced, and still is, in most. Audiences woud sometimes applaud when, after seeing a film in 1.37 (or 1.66, or 1.85) the side masks would glide out of the way to prepare the screen for CinemaScope. Wide screen was impressive partly because it was BIG screen, with a much bigger image area than normal -- unlike on flat screen TVs of today. Just to complicate things further, 70 mm -- a different animal -- in many theaters would have an image both a little (25% ??) higher and and also wider than 35 mm widescreen. In theaters equipped for both 35mm & 70 mm it was the habit to start the image with the masks at about the size 35 mm CinemaScope and dramatically expand the image to full 70 mm size.

Now, let's talk about your 1.78:1 TV:

Briefly, the hardware manufacturers screwed us all by coming out with 1.78 hard screens, when they should have standardized on 2.40 as the shape of the TV screen itself. The only way to get constant height in the home without cutting out details on each side is to have a front projection home theater -- not a flatscreen TV -- with a fabric screen that is 2.40* in shape, and either use the zoom lens to enlarge 2.40 movies to fill the screen from top to bottom -- with the image extending much farther to the sides than with 1.85 but with the entire image there, unlike on a flatscreen, or, with properly encoded disks, use an anamorphic lens that costs a lot. The filmmakers and distributers, in most cases, are rightly sticking to their guns, and insisting on the original AR, even though the minaturization of this correct shape results in lower impact for some films. But, never fear, now that you have spent your good money on a flat screen, the industry will be happy to take your money all over again by selling you a screen of the correct shape -- at least one model exists, with more to follow. The image will have greater impact because it will have a greater area and greater width, height for height, than current hard screens, and yes, it will be "morebetter."

*Or, like at least two members of this form, construct a fabric screen that is 2.76:1, especially for Ben-Hur and a handfull of other films that were made in that aspect ratio.

[42041]

Originally Posted by morebetterness

I feel you are a good person to ask about the ratios and as you know, I don't know all the technical details in camera formats other than movies being 2.40 which are too wide for 16:9 tv's and 1.85 fitting nicely. I just don't get how they are both apparently the same height. If that was true wouldn't the 2.40 aspect ratio fill the top and bottom of the tv like the 1.85? Or is the entire film set back further to get the edges in the tv making the the film smaller?

They are the same height when *projected*, NOT necessarily when filmed. The technical details are very simple so you might as well learn them.

Until recently, most films were filmed with a 4:3 aspect ratio on the film. There are two ways of making that widescreen:

A 2.4:1 aspect ratio can be obtained by horizontally squeezing the image into the squarish ratio during filming, and unsqueezing it during projection (with anamorphic lenses). With these films, you're seeing all that was shot, there's no cropping.

Another way to do it is to use a regular spherical lens and just discard the rest of the frame. Films shot this way resulted in compromised image quality until a few years ago, but some filmmakers preferred this way exactly because they could open up the frame and fit it on TVs, rather than crop the image.

They matte the movie because they're not shooting for that aspect ratio. The camera isn't aimed haphazardly at things, shots are carefully composed. And they're not composed for open-matte, they just "protect" that area by keeping microphones and such out of it.

[morebetterness]

Originally Posted by garyrc

If I understand what you're saying, the best way to understand might be to forget your home screen for a moment --- we'll come back to in a little later.

In a good theater, one that has "constant height" projection, the two images would have the same height physically in feet on the screen itself, and in millimeters on your retinas. In that same theater 2.40, although the same height as 1.85, would be much wider on both the screen and in your eyeballs -- the projectionist would have to pull the side masks and any curtains back (on the sides), and the picture would include image details to each side that would be cut off if they projected that particular movie in 1.85 -- which they would never do. The few theaters that don't have sufficiently wide screens (or proceniums) might project 1.85 and 2.40 at the same width (with black masks top and bottom for 2.40), but that is not what the filmmakers expect, and it is a violation of the trust between filmmaker and theater, IMO. My friends and I would stay away from the one theater in the S.F. Bay Area that did that, if they were showing a 2.35 or 2.40 film.

Constant height was the mode in almost every theater I knew when wide screen was introduced, and still is, in most. Audiences woud sometimes applaud when, after seeing a film in 1.37 (or 1.66, or 1.85) the side masks would glide out of the way to prepare the screen for CinemaScope. Wide screen was impressive partly because it was BIG screen, with a much bigger image area than normal -- unlike on flat screen TVs of today. Just to complicate things further, 70 mm -- a different animal -- in many theaters would have an image both a little (25% ??) higher and and also wider than 35 mm widescreen. In theaters equipped for both 35mm & 70 mm it was the habit to start the image with the masks at about the size 35 mm CinemaScope and dramatically expand the image to full 70 mm size.

Now, let's talk about your 1.78:1 TV:

Briefly, the hardware manufacturers screwed us all by coming out with 1.78 hard screens, when they should have standardized on 2.40 as the shape of the TV screen itself. The only way to get constant height in the home without cutting out details on each side is to have a front projection home theater -- not a flatscreen TV -- with a fabric screen that is 2.40* in shape, and either use the zoom lens to enlarge 2.40 movies to fill the screen from top to bottom -- with the image extending much farther to the sides than with 1.85 but with the entire image there, unlike on a flatscreen, or, with properly encoded disks, use an anamorphic lens that costs a lot. The filmmakers and distributers, in most cases, are rightly sticking to their guns, and insisting on the original AR, even though the minaturization of this correct shape results in lower impact for some films. But, never fear, now that you have spent your good money on a flat screen, the industry will be happy to take your money all over again by selling you a screen of the correct shape -- at least one model exists, with more to follow. The image will have greater impact because it will have a greater area and greater width, height for height, than current hard screens, and yes, it will be "morebetter."

*Or, like at least two members of this form, construct a fabric screen that is 2.76:1, especially for Ben-Hur and a handfull of other films that were made in that aspect ratio.

Thanks! That is making alot more sense. Very detailed information on ratios!

[red-blu]

So I have a question about mixed aspect ratios on constant image height systems. (I apologize if it has been discussed, but I have tried finding the answer on this site and others and I have given up).

On movies like The Dark Knight and the second Transformers (the 'big screen' edition) has both the scoped widescreen and the 16x9 ratio for the imax scenes. My question is if I move to a constant height set up with the image scaled, would the imax scenes in 16x9 just be automatically cropped?

[Rogerstennis]

black bar haters，if u can't stand the bar，then U can buy 3 TVs，4:3，16:9,21:9

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Rogerstennis

black bar haters，if u can't stand the bar，then U can buy 3 TVs，4:3，16:9,21:9

Well, these aren't really "solutions" to black bars since none of those TV's accommodates all aspect ratios which would result in either bars at the top and bottom or on the left and right depending on the aspect ratio of the movie you're watching.

[Rogerstennis]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Well, these aren't really "solutions" to black bars since none of those TV's accommodates all aspect ratios which would result in either bars at the top and bottom or on the left and right depending on the aspect ratio of the movie you're watching.

Then they can ask the TV manufacturers to make more aspect ratios TVs for them,haha
I never thought the black bar was a problem,even when i watched movies with the 4:3 CRT
sometimes the black bar is just for the subtitles when i watched foreign movies,and the pictures will be pure without subtitles，it feels good.

OAR forever！