James Cameron and Scope ratio

[#Darren]

Open Matte often exposes mics etc. Plus I prefer the intended framing.

[#Darren]

This v

Originally Posted by melodious thunk

16:9 is considered the best compromise to display material of all common aspect ratios. if you had a 21:9 screen, you'd have to see 16:9 stuff pillarboxed (or cropped, or stretched). and if you like old films, 4:3 will look ridiculous on that screen.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by melodious thunk
16:9 is considered the best compromise to display material of all common aspect ratios. if you had a 21:9 screen, you'd have to see 16:9 stuff pillarboxed (or cropped, or stretched). and if you like old films, 4:3 will look ridiculous on that screen.

It would be good to see what those ratios would look like then on the 21.9's especially 1:85 as most 80's movies are that ratio and i have about 10.Probably not very good from what people have been saying.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

...but you have to admit it's a shame we can't view it properly without the black bars on a normal HDTV...

You keep saying things like this as if it's an obvious fact that everyone dislikes black bars. It's not a fact at all. I for one do not care one way or the other.

Think of something that really doesn't have an impact on your life. Say... the price of a Big Mac in Norway. The amount you care about the price of a Big Mac in Norway is how much I care whether there's black bars in movies or not.

As long as the image and sound quality is great I'm a happy camper.

[groove93]

I prefer "Scope" films as well, but when these "Scope" films are presented in 70mm, it's pure Bliss. The Black bars to me only enhance the viewing experience, but imagine if many of the "Epic" films that are out to day were all viewed in 70mm. This is one of the reasons why "Lawrence of Arabia" gets asked about all the time with regards to it having a Blu Ray release. "Baraka" is another example with its 8k transfer which is simply incredible. The level of Detail, for me atleast, is far better when viewed in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but one must also take into account the transfer as well.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Ok i will try but if we had 21:9 tv's we wouldn't have to lol

If you had a 21:9 TV, you would have black pillarbox bars on 98% of content. The fact is there is no way to avoid black bars with televisions unless you like your image stretched or squashed. There was a nice video made several years ago (among many others) that helps explain their importance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvl4guTZhXA.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Why do you prefer it though ,is it because the director can you show you more? Wouldn't you prefer movies to be shot in 1:78 so you get all of your screen in use at home?

Do you want to see 2/3rd's of the Mona Lisa? I view films as art and if we're not seeing the whole painting, it's a bastardization of an artist's vision.

[Hoosier205]

What the director chooses to shoot in matters, nothing else does.

[Mobe1969]

Cameron has always frames for multiple ratios. Have a look at the extras on the old T2 special edition release, where he actually shows some extra with the raw super 35 source and the framing used for various releases. I thought it was only a matter of time until he released a movie full frame in 16:9, and wonder why it was never done on DVD actually.

And I've mentioned this before, but in the 4:3 version of the abyss, you get a nice shot of Mary Elizabeth Matrantonio's knockers what aren't visible in 2.35:1

[eatbear]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

If you had a 21:9 TV, you would have black pillarbox bars on 98% of content. The fact is there is no way to avoid black bars with televisions unless you like your image stretched or squashed. There was a nice video made several years ago (among many others) that helps explain their importance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvl4guTZhXA.

When referring to strictly TV content, sure.

I have a CIH 112" projector screen in a 2.35:1 ratio, and you'd be surprised how many films are in Scope. A majority of my films are 2.35:1+, while others in the 1.85/1.78:1 ratio account for less than half of my Blu-rays.

I'm not a big fan of cropping or altering the OAR, but I certainly don't like the 1.78 release of the 2D version of Avatar -- a film which apparently ran in Scope during its 2D screenings.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

Yeah check the video out they look smaller in height though.They obviously would be i guess but still wouldn't say no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--qvbXAw78

They have them at my local hi fi store, so I don't need a youtube video.

[lobosrul]

Some of you guys are really confusing "scope" with super 35, and "scope" to mean the same thing as wider than 16:9 (or 1.85:1).

"Scoped" films refer to Cinemascope, a now defunct system, to refer to any 35mm film made with an anamorphic lens. That is using a film camera to squeeze a 2.4:1 image on a 4:3 film frame. Its then "unsqueezed" at the theater with a special lens on the projector. Anytime you see these films at 16:9 AR they have been cropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic

Super 35, which is now used for the majority of films with special effects work, its simply shot on 4:3 35mm silent film with no special lens. Normally for theatrical presentation anamorphic prints are made. However, theres no certainty that the director intended the film to be shown at 2.4:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

Sometimes, I agree Super 35mm films should still be shown as 2.4:1 on BD. As for Avatar, James Cameron has said he prefers it shown in 16:9. And unless I'm very much mistaken it was shot entirely digitally, which is not Super 35, and probably at a 16:9 AR. So whats the big deal that the BD will be 16:9?

Originally Posted by groove93

I prefer "Scope" films as well, but when these "Scope" films are presented in 70mm, it's pure Bliss. The Black bars to me only enhance the viewing experience, but imagine if many of the "Epic" films that are out to day were all viewed in 70mm. This is one of the reasons why "Lawrence of Arabia" gets asked about all the time with regards to it having a Blu Ray release. "Baraka" is another example with its 8k transfer which is simply incredible. The level of Detail, for me atleast, is far better when viewed in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but one must also take into account the transfer as well.

Neither Lawrence of Arabia or Baraka are "scope" films presented in 70mm. They were both shot on 70mm film with spherical lenses. And are both at a 2.21:1 AR.

[Stu123]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

Cameron has always frames for multiple ratios. Have a look at the extras on the old T2 special edition release, where he actually shows some extra with the raw super 35 source and the framing used for various releases. I thought it was only a matter of time until he released a movie full frame in 16:9, and wonder why it was never done on DVD actually.

And I've mentioned this before, but in the 4:3 version of the abyss, you get a nice shot of Mary Elizabeth Matrantonio's knockers what aren't visible in 2.35:1

This sounds a bit weird that you'd see more in 4:3 than you would in widescreen,surely not?

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Some of you guys are really confusing "scope" with super 35, and "scope" to mean the same thing as wider than 16:9 (or 1.85:1).

Indeed, some probably are confused, but your description is not quite accurate either.

In 35mm exhibition, prints & trailers are either "flat" or "scope." "Flat" is projected through a spherical lens w/ an aspect ratio typically matted to 1.85:1. "Scope" is projected through an anamorphic lens w/ an aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1.

Some of those "scope" prints may originate from anamorphic source formats (e.g. CinemaScope, Panavision, ArriScope, J-D-C Scope, et al.). Other "scope" prints may originate from spherical Super 35 source formats (via optical blow up or digital intermediate). Regardless, in exhibition, they are all "scope" prints.

So, "scope" has evolved to mean any film w/ anamorphic 35mm release prints or even just the 2.35:1 ratio itself.

AJ

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by iDarren

Open Matte often exposes mics etc. Plus I prefer the intended framing.

The funny thing is that with Blu-ray, soft-mattes can be easily done. Yeah, intended framing is best, but it would be pretty darn simple to code a software matte. The film on disc could be presented in open-matte at 16:9, and by default, software would overlay black bars over the appropriate part of the image. If someone wanted to see what's behind the black bars, they could go into setup and turn on open-matte mode.

I personally would probably only use such a feature on 1.85:1 films, but I think it'd be a fun feature to make available considering the format can deliver it. And considering some films are made available open-matte at 16:9 for HDTV broadcast, I think it would be nice to make it available on the Blu-ray release as well. Hell, I honestly wouldn't mind seeing 4:3 open matte presentations available as an option on the disc, assuming it didn't eat up too much disc space such that the main presentation is hindered.

it's an obvious fact that everyone dislikes black bars.

Isn't it? I mean, I don't like black bars. I like films. I deal with the bars because that's the only way to see the intended aspect ratio. I'd much rather see the image on a screen which is the correct aspect ratio itself, but this is simply not practical. I'd love to own a constant height projection setup in the future, but even that's not ideal for all cases. There is no catch-all screen that presents everything ideally. We have 16:9 as a compromise, and it's not a bad one, but it forces a large portion of our content to be viewed with parts of the screen being black. I would love to see 2.4:1 material on a 2.4:1 screen, 4:3 on a 4:3. It's just not realistic though.

I just don't get how anyone could like the black bars though. When I watch a movie, I watch the movie, not the black bars.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

This sounds a bit weird that you'd see more in 4:3 than you would in widescreen,surely not?

Super 35 is closer to a 4:3 ratio, though the Abyys was shot to be shown in it's OAR there was more captured then what is intended to be seen.

[Jeff Kleist]

The funny thing is that with Blu-ray, soft-mattes can be easily done. Yeah, intended framing is best, but it would be pretty darn simple to code a software matte. The film on disc could be presented in open-matte at 16:9, and by default, software would overlay black bars over the appropriate part of the image. If someone wanted to see what's behind the black bars, they could go into setup and turn on open-matte mode.

You're making an erroneous assumption that all they do is pull the middle. They do not. There is no ability to shift the video in the spec either. Even if it were, DVD carried a "pan and scan on the fly" feature way back when. The differing specs of players combined with the difficulty in coding all the events meant that doing a seperate encode was faster and cheaper, problems we know would continue or be worse with Blu

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You're making an erroneous assumption that all they do is pull the middle. They do not.

Well the 16:9 would be centered around the original aspect ratio. When a film is shot in full-frame and matted to 2.4:1, there's probably plenty of additional material to fill the 16:9 open-matte presentation. And again, many films are presented as open-matte for HDTV broadcast, so it's easily possible to present them in that way. All it would take is ensuring that the 2.4:1 frame is centered on the 16:9 open-matte presentation. And especially consider films which have been presented on home video in 4:3 open-mattes in the past. Do you not agree that it would be nice to see the more expansive presentation as an option considering that it's been available in the past? I'm a stickler for original intended aspect ratio myself, but I'd love to have it available if possible. For example, tons of people prefer the open-matte presentation of The Shining. The BD of it is in 1.85:1, so my argument for software mattes doesn't apply so much there, but wouldn't it be nice to have the 4:3 open matte version available as an option? This would require a completely different encode, but I think most would agree a 50 GB disc could handle it readily in most cases.

Even if it were, DVD carried a "pan and scan on the fly" feature way back when. The differing specs of players combined with the difficulty in coding all the events meant that doing a seperate encode was faster and cheaper, problems we know would continue or be worse with Blu

What you're talking about is a little different. Many studios have already made use of the technology that would be used, but none of have used it in the way I imagine it. They use it to create images to coverup pillarboxes (see: Disney's Pinocchio) or graphical decorations for special playback modes ("Slimer mode" in Columbia's Ghostbusters). Any player which can do on-screen menus (which is all of them as far as I know) should be able to do as I imagine. It'd just be a question of whether or not the open-matte frame could be properly centered so that the player could apply the matte correctly on the fly.

I also would say that it's far more economical on the discs too. It really annoys me to know that bits are wasted encoding that black space into the 1920x1080 frame. I'd really much rather that area of the frame have good information encoded in it, then have my player block out the portion that I don't need to see.

edit: and one final note: it could end any arguments over 1.85:1 films being presented in other aspect ratios. I don't mind them being open matte to 16:9, and even cropping would be invisible in most cases, but if they presented it in 16:9 open-matte and gave the viewer the option to have their player add on 1.85:1 digital mattes, that'd be great.

[KubrickFan]

Talk about adding the digital bars is great, but it's still 'finding a solution for a problem that doesn't exist'. I thought we had done these discussions about OAR to death, already.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well the 16:9 would be centered around the original aspect ratio. When a film is shot in full-frame and matted to 2.4:1, there's probably plenty of additional material to fill the 16:9 open-matte presentation.

Correct, but the point is that they move that 16:9 up and down to achieve the framing they desire. You can't just hard matte it

Do you not agree that it would be nice to see the more expansive presentation as an option considering that it's been available in the past?

No. I want to see what's intended, no more, no less

What you're talking about is a little different. Many studios have already made use of the technology that would be used, but none of have used it in the way I imagine it. They use it to create images to coverup pillarboxes (see: Disney's Pinocchio) or graphical decorations for special playback modes ("Slimer mode" in Columbia's Ghostbusters). Any player which can do on-screen menus (which is all of them as far as I know) should be able to do as I imagine. It'd just be a question of whether or not the open-matte frame could be properly centered so that the player could apply the matte correctly on the fly.

These are all static mattes, essentially overlays just like a popup. Moving the footage around on the fly is not even in the same county