Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[garyrc]

IMO wide screen (such as 2.39:1) has to be displayed over a greater screen area than lower screen ratios, or else some of the purpose of widescreen is defeated. Usually, part of the goal in using widescreen was to increase impact by increasing area, not to diminish it by providing a letterbox slot to look through.. The only way I'm aware of to achieve the larger area for wide ARs is to use a projector with a zoom lens, zoomed out so that the black bars top and bottom are offscreen (or, alternatively, with an expensive supplementary anamorphic lens for those that are anamorphically encoded...but i gather that there are no BDs that are anamorphic, so we're stuck with the zoom?). An important exception would be for movies that were intended to be displayed in 70 mm, which could be up to 25% higher, as well as being wider, most often in the AR of about 2.2:1. For most 70 mm movies (from 65 mm negatives) that are about 2.2 (I think Robert A. Harris said these end up more like 2.28 on BD), it would be neat to have a thin mask on the top of the home projection screen that withdraws to accommodate the added height of this format. If you really wanted to get fancy, very thin side masks would also withdraw a bit for BDs that are made from large negative movies, so the rank order of image sizes in home theater, from smallest area to largest would be Academy, 1.66, 1.85. 2.35, 2.39 ... then 2.2 with larger area due to an image size that is a little higher, or, both wider than any BD made from 35 mm, and necessarily also higher by up to approximately the 25% higher we used to see in some 70 mm equipped theaters, maintaining an AR of about the 2.28 that is the BD version of 2.2.. The exception to the exceptions would be any of the handful of 70 mm films that had an even greater AR. Ben-Hur would be an example. To really do that one up, you would build a screen that expanded to about 2.75:1, with the 1 being higher than 35 mm formats. Two forum members have done just that, one especially in honor of Ben-Hur's future release on BD.

[JayX]

This might be a good place to demonstrate to people how BD differs to DVD with respect to how widescreen is displayed.

With Blu-Ray, a film in 1080p will be a file with the dimensions of 1920x1080. However an NTSC 'Full Screen' DVD and an NTSC 'Widescreen' DVD will both have the same resolution of 720x480. But how is this? It comes down to the fact that the aspect ratio is controlled in this case by the aspect ratio of the pixels as opposed to the shape created by putting 720 square pixels in 480 rows.

This is what is called 'Pixel Aspect Ratio', and can be a little bit confusing at first. If you've ever tried to make video on your home computer and dragged in an image, you'll have noticed that the image distorts due to the PAR of the image being square (1.00) while the video project you're working in will most likely have a PAR that is slightly rectangular for 4x3 playback.

For DVD playback, there are 3 aspect ratios to consider: the Storage Aspect Ratio (SAR) which is 1.5 for an NTSC DVD (720/480 = 1.5, PAL is 720/576 = 1.25 as it uses a higher line count) then the Pixel Aspect Ratio discussed above (PAR) and then finally the Display Aspect Ratio (1.78:1 for a standard Widescreen Television). In essence, the PAR exists in order that the 3:2 image on the DVD looks 'correct' on the 4:3 display, despite the difference in aspect ratios.

This process is called 'Anamorphic Widescreen' as it is similar in concept to how an anamorphic lens works, which is why people say it 'stretches' the picture to playback in widescreen. This isn't strictly true, the player knows what DAR the TV monitor has and the 'anamorphic flag' on the DVD indicates which PAR is needed to decode the image.

Blu-Ray makes this process much easier as it allows square pixels to be used at full resolution, and thus the SAR and DAR are matched. Hurray for progress!

[Beta Man]

I've been put into Academy Ratio

[beware]

I am sorta new to bluray, it seems every bluray coming out now has the black bars, is that always the case? I only have one movie in my collection that fits my entire screen and thats the Superbad DVD. All the others I just let them display how they are meant to display....

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by beware

I am sorta new to bluray, it seems every bluray coming out now has the black bars, is that always the case? I only have one movie in my collection that fits my entire screen and thats the Superbad DVD. All the others I just let them display how they are meant to display....

If the movie was shot in a 2.35.1 aspect ratio then yes, it'll have black bars (the image is wider than your TV). You may want to read the very first post in this thread to get a better understanding of all the different types of aspect ratios movies have been shot on.

[Trogdor2010]

I have been perfectly fine with letterbox for many years. However, after I done my anamorphic lens project, I find it hard to watch scope films on most TVs. It really is not only fills the screen, but also benefits the compoistion and emotion of some of the shots.

Watch Doctor Zhivago for example, where moments are captured to carry the size of the Russian landscape, and also moments where the camera only shows about half the size, like when the main characters are shown in a window, giving it a feeling of clausterphobia. Watching it in Pan and Scan, every moment feels clausterphobic when much of it shouldn't be.

In modern terms, narrow aspect ratios give the movie the feeling of clausterphobia (Fish Tank) or size (War of the Worlds) which makes it more (intentionally) unbearable. Watching a scene in a city or a desert (Lawrence of Arabia) where the vastness of the desert engulfs your field of vision of nowhere. These are what makes the shape of the image very effective.

And yes, I perfer watching Avatar at 2.35:1 doesn't mean I'll watch a pan and scan'd movie.

[ngqp]

the first post did nothing but show me the difference between aspect ratios

it didn't explain to me though what each section specifically stands for.

1.78:1, no idea what each of those numbers stand for.

[kpkelley]

Width : Height

Your standard widescreen Television is 16x9 or 1.78:1.
Less than 1.78:1 means that there will be bars on the side of the image.i.e. 1.33:1 (SDTV)
More than 1.78:1 means that there will be bars above and below the image.i.e. 2.35:1 (Scope)

As for why a Director chose to use a specific format, you'd have to research their individual comments.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

I have been perfectly fine with letterbox for many years. However, after I done my anamorphic lens project, I find it hard to watch scope films on most TVs. It really is not only fills the screen, but also benefits the compoistion and emotion of some of the shots.

Watch Doctor Zhivago for example, where moments are captured to carry the size of the Russian landscape, and also moments where the camera only shows about half the size, like when the main characters are shown in a window, giving it a feeling of clausterphobia. Watching it in Pan and Scan, every moment feels clausterphobic when much of it shouldn't be.

In modern terms, narrow aspect ratios give the movie the feeling of clausterphobia (Fish Tank) or size (War of the Worlds) which makes it more (intentionally) unbearable. Watching a scene in a city or a desert (Lawrence of Arabia) where the vastness of the desert engulfs your field of vision of nowhere. These are what makes the shape of the image very effective.

And yes, I perfer watching Avatar at 2.35:1 doesn't mean I'll watch a pan and scan'd movie.

For me, a great example which illustrates the difference would be Firefly (1.78) versus Serenity (2.35). The aspect ratio used in the TV series offers more vertical space and thus provides, I think, a very different feel in regard to interior shots of the "Serenity" ship itself. Whereas the film Serenity creates a very different feel for the ship. Granted, much of this is due to different types of lighting, a completely different set, etc. But I tend to find that 2.35 puts the focus more on the actors--the faces--while 1.85 more broadly paints an environmental portrait most of the time.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Sponge-worthy

But I tend to find that 2.35 puts the focus more on the actors--the faces--while 1.85 more broadly paints an environmental portrait most of the time.

2.35 (2.39/2.40) is supposed to show scope. That's why it was called CinemaScope after all.

People who shoot 2.35 on Super35 usually miss that aspect. Compare how Christopher Nolan shoots in true Panavision to your run of the mill Super35 production, like...Serenity.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ngqp

the first post did nothing but show me the difference between aspect ratios

it didn't explain to me though what each section specifically stands for.

1.78:1, no idea what each of those numbers stand for.

• Old movies (pre 1953, e.g., Citizen Kane) and many others after '53 have an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Standard TVs before HD had an aspect ratio of 1.33:1, which cut a bit off.
• HD TV has a native aspect ratio of 1.78:1, thus you will almost always be condemmed to having bars somewhere. Some filmmakers fought against this aspect ratio, because, apparently, no movie ever made (at the time it was adopted) used that ratio. The TV hardware people payed no attention, saying it was a compromise (a compromise that fit nothing!).
• Many filmakers used a 1.85:1 ratio starting in the '50s. We used to call this "narrow screen" in contrast to the widescreen processes listed below, but it was wider that the so called "widescreen" HDTV we have now!
• CinemaScope had various aspect ratios at first, then later settled on 2.35:1. Panavision was also 2.35:1, but with better lenses ... untill it changed to 2.39:1 ("2.40:1") in the 1970s
• The most pleasing aspect ratio, IMO, is the one used by most 70 mm processes: 2.20:1. It provides a sense of both height and width, and provides pleanty of "air" in scenic shots. The frame calls less attention to itself than it does in other widescreen formats, especially when projected on a huge curved screen in glorious 70 mm, as used to be the case (Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey). An added plus, since 70 mm film is twice as wide as the standard 35 mm, is that the images are very sharp and the colors can be quite intense if the filmmakers want that. On HDTV, most 70mm images are full width, but a little higher than 35 mm CinemaScope or 35 mm Panavision, although 70 mm's 2.20:1 may end up more like 2.28 to 1 on Blu-ray. 70mm processes include Super Panavision 70, Todd-AO, and a few others, including the odd-balls listed below.
• There is a weird 70 mm aspect ratio that would have been O.K. if they projected on the extreme screens they had hoped for. These processes are Ultra (not Super) Panavision 70, and Camera 65, which was MGM's tradename for Ultra. They have an aspect ratio of about 2.76:1, which looks fine on an 85 foot screen, but has inadequate height on HDTV, IMO.

[garyrc]

Why does CrazyFool's recent post appear in my email (subscription) and not on the Thread itself? It was not a private message (I believe it was a reply to the quoted poster kpkelley (or similar moniker). I hope CrazyFool's post can be placed on the thread.

That having been said, I disagree slightly with CrazyFool. 1.78 is closer to the 1.7777777777777 etc. he cites than the 1.77 he mentions, given the rules of rounding. It may well be true that there are "tiny lines" onscreen with 1.78 on some flatscreen TVs, but I doubt that this is due a failure to use 1.77 instead 1.78 in making the movie ... and if someone really formatted in 1.77, wouldn't the "tiny lines" simply shift to the sides (from the top and bottom, or from an intact, but slightly smaller image overall) with a truly 1.78 TV, if there are any? I haven't whipped out a steel tape to measure my RCA native aspect ratio, but I just may.

On a slightly different subject, how many people here suspect that the industry decided to designate the aspect ratio as "16:9" so it would be hard to immediately compare this aspect ratio to existing theatrical aspect ratios without doing a little math? That way, they could sell a screen shape narrower than any then being used American aspect ratio as "wide screen."

[CrazyFool]

My reply does not appear on the board because I deleted it one minute after posting it, when I realized that I did not have time to fact check my reply. It had been some time since I had gone over that info and I was worried that I had things backwards. So I disavow any info in my reply that is incorrect. Maybe it is correct. I don't know. Kinda busy this week.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

On a slightly different subject, how many people here suspect that the industry decided to designate the aspect ratio as "16:9" so it would be hard to immediately compare this aspect ratio to existing theatrical aspect ratios without doing a little math? That way, they could sell a screen shape narrower than any then being used American aspect ratio as "wide screen."

No. The reason why 16:9 was used is because standard definition TV was always referred to as 4:3 (not 1.33:1).

Also, just as an FYI, SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) standards do not directly refer to aspect ratios for motion pictures. SMPTE standards define the negative and projected print horizontal and vertical dimensions and those dimensions result in certain aspect ratios. All of these standards are voluntary and have changed over time. And the SMPTE test film that is used in theatres to judge whether the entire frame is being projected properly is not even a standard, it's a "recommended practice."

About 10-15 years ago, the standard reduced the height of anamorphic 35mm films because lab splices were showing on the screen in theatres. That reduced height resulted in a change of the aspect ratio from 2.35 to 2.39. But camera manufacturers didn't necessarily go back and change gates and/or ground glass markings when that change was made. And movie theatres didn't necessarily create new projector gates. So it's all an approximation anyway.

It was SMPTE that decided that HDTV widescreen would be 16:9 and it had to do with the most common geometry between 1.33 and either 1.85 or 2.35 (I forget which). It was also based upon the fact that at the time the standard was determined, HDTVs were still cathode ray tube based and it was extremely difficult to manufacture a wider display. The Director's Guild wanted HDTV to be 2.0:1. It's too bad they didn't go with that.

But remember that the vast majority of theatrical releases are 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is only slightly different. Anamorphic Panavision (and equivalent formats) 2.39:1 is actually used in a small minority of releases.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

HDTVs were still cathode ray tube based and it was extremely difficult to manufacture a wider display. The Director's Guild wanted HDTV to be 2.0:1. It's too bad they didn't go with that.

But remember that the vast majority of theatrical releases are 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is only slightly different. Anamorphic Panavision (and equivalent formats) 2.39:1 is actually used in a small minority of releases.

The CRT thing seems like the best, most justifiable reason, IMO.

I would have loved 2.0:1, because it is so close to the approx 2.2:1 70mm shape I fell in love with eons ago.

For some reason, most of the new American films I happen to see in theaters seem to be 2.39:1, rather than 1.85:1. It is also the greatest disappointment to see either 2.39 or 2.35 on 1.78 with the bars, which is why we are saving up for a zoomable projector for Constant Height. These two ratios have been used so masterfully in films from Last Year at Marienbad, through American Beauty, to Star Trek (almost any of the theatrical Star Treks) that it seems a shame to be forced to diminish them and reduce their impact by displaying them with the bars on a flatscreen.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by garyrc

The CRT thing seems like the best, most justifiable reason, IMO.

I would have loved 2.0:1, because it is so close to the approx 2.2:1 70mm shape I fell in love with eons ago.

For some reason, most of the new American films I happen to see in theaters seem to be 2.39:1, rather than 1.85:1. It is also the greatest disappointment to see either 2.39 or 2.35 on 1.78 with the bars, which is why we are saving up for a zoomable projector for Constant Height. These two ratios have been used so masterfully in films from Last Year at Marienbad, through American Beauty, to Star Trek (almost any of the theatrical Star Treks) that it seems a shame to be forced to diminish them and reduce their impact by displaying them with the bars on a flatscreen.

The bars don't bother me: I don't feel a "reduction of impact". Then again, I sit at the recommended distance to my set.

To me, the wider the better. Human vision is naturally widescreen and 'scope comes pretty close to approximating it.
Even then, epics like Ben-Hur are pretty cool to watch, even with large black bars.

1.78 is pretty much smack-dab between 1.33 and 2.35 which was the deciding factor for it to be selected. We have a century (both film and television) of 1.33/1.37 material and the pillarbox bars on those with a 2:1 display would be a larger and therefore more annoying to the average consumer. The "stretchy vision" on TBS and some other channels is bad enough, can you imagine them trying to cover a 2:1 screen?

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Even then, epics like Ben-Hur are pretty cool to watch, even with large black bars.

If you like Ben-Hur even though it has black bars on your set, imagine what it was like in 70mm, first from the 11th row, then progressively closer for several subsequent viewings. It did seem to fill our field of vision (even though it didn't). The long shots were like being there, and the many close-ups were "the face as landscape" as one critic said. Our muscles were actually sore from hanging on to the arms of our chairs during the chariot race, the thunder and lightning during the crucifixion was overwhelming, and loud enough to create a wind in the theater. After each showing I saw a number of wet faces. In it's first run (1959 -1960), every time I saw it there was a silence after the last note of music, then people stood and applauded -- for a movie! Now, that's impact!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

For some reason, most of the new American films I happen to see in theaters seem to be 2.39:1, rather than 1.85:1.

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".

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

If you like Ben-Hur even though it has black bars on your set, imagine what it was like in 70mm, first from the 11th row, then progressively closer for several subsequent viewings.

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.

[PeterTHX]

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".

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!

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.

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).