Open Matte/Alternate aspect ratio releases

[Thad Komorowski]

Yeah, it's terribly OCD to want a film presented as intended.

[Thad Komorowski]

And if you can't see the difference between 1.66 and 1.85, you've got to be either legally blind or spitefully stubborn.

[bigshot]

There is a graphic that clearly shows the degree of difference if you click through the link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspe...ratios_svg.svg

Note the tiny cluster of stripes in the bottom graphic. Many 1.85 American films were screened 1.66 in the UK.

[Robert Furmanek]

You can't go by data provided on Wikipedia. Please see the correct information on these two pages taken from documented, primary source materials.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wi...-documentation

[bigshot]

What is incorrect about the graphic I posted? My point is that the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 is relatively small. Smaller than the difference between 1.33 and 1.66, or 1.85 and the widescreen formats. Does the wikipedia graphic misrepresent the proportions of the screen in the various aspects?

Here is the part of the graphic I was referring to...



Blue is 1.66, yellow is 1.76 (the proportions of your video screen), green is 1.85

I can totally understand arguing that you want it the way history says it should be shown, but in practical terms, these aspects aren't really compositionally different enough to impact the framing to a degree that a viewer would notice things being cut out of the frame that should be there.

For comparison, here is the difference between 1.33 and 1.85. I can totally see that altering the aspect this much would negatively impact compositions...



I think it's important to understand what the numbers mean and to have a sense of proportion about it. I think sometimes people argue dogmatically about errors in aspect ratio without understanding exactly what the degree of error that they are arguing about looks like in reality.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bigshot

What is incorrect about the graphic I posted? My point is that the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 is relatively small. Smaller than the difference between 1.33 and 1.66, or 1.85 and the widescreen formats. Does the wikipedia graphic misrepresent the proportions of the screen in the various aspects?

Here is the part of the graphic I was referring to...



Blue is 1.66, yellow is 1.76 (the proportions of your video screen), green is 1.85

I can totally understand arguing that you want it the way history says it should be shown, but in practical terms, all of these aspects aren't really compositionally different enough to not impact the framing to a degree that a viewer would notice things being cut out of the frame that should be there. I think sometimes people argue dogmatically about errors in aspect ratio without understanding exactly what the degree of error that they are arguing about looks like in reality.

I have to agree here. Unless there is something incorrect about the graphic (doubtful), then it is an accurate representation of the differences between common aspect ratios. As you can see, there is very little difference between 1:66 and 1:85. Yes, there's a difference. I'm not saying there isn't. But the graphic appears to be a good way to see visually at a glance just how much of a difference you're really getting with the different aspect ratios.

I will say that if the film was released theatrically in 1:85, I would be unhappy if it was presented on blu-ray in 1:66.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by bigshot

What is incorrect about the graphic I posted? My point is that the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 is relatively small. Smaller than the difference between 1.33 and 1.66, or 1.85 and the widescreen formats. Does the wikipedia graphic misrepresent the proportions of the screen in the various aspects?

Here is the part of the graphic I was referring to...



Blue is 1.66, yellow is 1.76 (the proportions of your video screen), green is 1.85

I can totally understand arguing that you want it the way history says it should be shown, but in practical terms, all of these aspects aren't really compositionally different enough to not impact the framing to a degree that a viewer would notice things being cut out of the frame that should be there. I think sometimes people argue dogmatically about errors in aspect ratio without understanding exactly what the degree of error that they are arguing about looks like in reality.

I think exactly the same, especially since matted films were intended to acommodate to all three ratios depending on the market where they were exhibited. Posters go bananas when a 1.85:1 film is presented at 1.78 by Warner or Paramount while they had no problem watching it on TV at 1.33:1.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by bigshot

What is incorrect about the graphic I posted? My point is that the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 is relatively small. Smaller than the difference between 1.33 and 1.66, or 1.85 and the widescreen formats. Does the wikipedia graphic misrepresent the proportions of the screen in the various aspects?

I can totally understand arguing that you want it the way history says it should be shown, but in practical terms, all of these aspects aren't really compositionally different enough to not impact the framing to a degree that a viewer would notice things being cut out of the frame that should be there.

I think it's important to understand what the numbers mean and to have a sense of proportion about it. I think sometimes people argue dogmatically about errors in aspect ratio without understanding exactly what the degree of error that they are arguing about looks like in reality.

LOL this whole post is ridiculous.

Let me cut out 20% of your post and re-post it, because it's not about how it was meant to be read historically, just about the parts I think you should see.

[bigshot]

Here is an interesting example of why you can't go strictly with historical accuracy. Here is a scene from Arrow's new H G Lewis box set. Which of these is correct, 1.85 or 1.33?



If you go purely by history, you would pick 1.85. If you go by what you see with your eyes, it's pretty clear that it was composed for 1.33. Arrow is nice and gives you both, but I know which version of this film I'll choose, and it isn't historically accurate.

[Thad Komorowski]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL this whole post is ridiculous.

Let me cut out 20% of your post and re-post it, because it's not about how it was meant to be read historically, just about the parts I think you should see.

You'd need to cut well over 20% of that B.S. to whittle it down to the essentials: "I say it, so it's true."

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Here is an interesting example of why you can't go strictly with historical accuracy. Here is a scene from Arrow's new H G Lewis box set. Which of these is correct, 1.85 or 1.33?



If you go purely by history, you would pick 1.85. If you go by what you see with your eyes, it's pretty clear that it was composed for 1.33. Arrow is nice and gives you both, but I know which version of this film I'll choose, and it isn't historically accurate.

I'd go by history, because that's who everyone else saw it and how it was composed. Original intent always looks better to name, because the cinematographer framed it that way.

So it's not "pretty clear" and really, the 1.33 versions shouldn't even be included. We don't include 1.33 versions of every Super35 film just because the entire negative was exposed, and it would be stupid to do so.

So you CAN go with history, because, well, that's historically accurate.

[dickdarlington]

Just some clarification with Avatar.

The 2D version of the film was "hard matted" to 2.40:1 regardless of how you saw the film, either in 35mm or DCP. The only film-based print that was at the "open matte" ratio of 1.78:1 was the IMAX 3D as it was sent out both digitally and with 15/70 prints made.

Depending on the theater's capability, Cameron sent both the 2.40:1 and 1.78:1 aspect ratios out in 3D. If the theater had constant image width screens, they were to play the 1.78:1 variation in 3D. If the theater had constant image height screens, they were to play the 2.40:1 variation in 3D.

When Cameron sent Titanic out, only the IMAX 3D presentation was presented in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio (technically 1.90:1 with the 1.78:1 frame window boxed). Both 2D (in 35mm and DCP) and 3D (DCP) were in the original aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

[jh901]

Hm. I'm not an Avatar fan, but I have to admit that I'd like to screen the Scope 2D and/or 3D. The 2.40 was never released on blu-ray, right?

Anyhow, I'll just break out the hard truth as I've experienced it. We should all want theatrical aspect on home video. For sure. Most would either agree with that sentiment or otherwise appreciate the rationale. Now then, your 65" 1.78 panel is used for tons of blu-ray movies. Likely seeing about 50/50 Scope (2.34-2.40) versus 1.78/1.85. Those who sincerely enjoy home theater absolutely must come to terms with how tiny the image is. Even a 90" 1.78 panel will fail on those Scope flicks.

Point being, rather than going off the rails with open matte, etc, start thinking about front projection. It won't happen by accident. May take years to make the leap, but it will pay off!

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I can totally understand arguing that you want it the way history says it should be shown, but in practical terms, these aspects aren't really compositionally different enough to impact the framing to a degree that a viewer would notice things being cut out of the frame that should be there.

Even if that were true, since when is that the standard? Just because you don't think there's a significant difference in the composition doesn't make it so, it just means you're indifferent.

Originally Posted by bigshot

I think sometimes people argue dogmatically about errors in aspect ratio without understanding exactly what the degree of error that they are arguing about looks like in reality.

I think you should stop assuming that the people who don't agree with you simply don't understand your argument. We get it that you don't think there's enough difference to matter, we simply don't agree with you. Is this really that hard for you to grasp?

[mar3o]

It would be nice if we could have these aspect ratio discussions without the usual bitterness, but I know that's asking a lot on the internet. I'm not talking about anyone in particular here. Just the general tone of the thread. We all are movie fans, after all.

Anyways,

I think the issue with 1:66 vs 1:85 isn't the small difference on one side, but the added total between both sides. It doesn't seem like very much when you look at those graphic charts and see just a small difference on the left side or the right side, but add them both up and now you have a fairly large chunk of screen real-estate missing. So there is a pretty noticeable chunk gone if you crop 1:85 to 1:66, even if it doesn't seem like it just by looking at one edge.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Here is an interesting example of why you can't go strictly with historical accuracy. Here is a scene from Arrow's new H G Lewis box set. Which of these is correct, 1.85 or 1.33?

[Show spoiler]

If you go purely by history, you would pick 1.85. If you go by what you see with your eyes, it's pretty clear that it was composed for 1.33. Arrow is nice and gives you both, but I know which version of this film I'll choose, and it isn't historically accurate.

That would only be clear if we knew the intentions of the film makers. If they intentionally wanted a tight close-up in that shot, then it doesn't really matter if the other version looks better to you, now does it? Your preferences shouldn't be playing a part in this at all - it's not about what you want, it's about what the people who made the film intended.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by jh901

Now then, your 65" 1.78 panel is used for tons of blu-ray movies. Likely seeing about 50/50 Scope (2.34-2.40) versus 1.78/1.85.

Personally, I see far more scope films than 1.78/1.85. Not because I look specifically for scope films, but just because that's the aspect ratio a lot of the films I watch tend to be in. I don't know just what percentage of films out there are filmed in scope vs 1.78/1.85, or if that number has changed over the years, but in general, I notice most of the films I watch are in scope. That's just my own experience of course.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I think the issue with 1:66 vs 1:85 isn't the small difference on one side, but the added total between both sides. It doesn't seem like very much when you look at those graphic charts and see just a small difference on the left side or the right side, but add them both up and now you have a fairly large chunk of screen real-estate missing. So there is a pretty noticeable chunk gone if you crop 1:85 to 1:66, even if it doesn't seem like it just by looking at one edge.

Yeah, the added sides make for a significant difference. Also it depends on TV size and seating distance, the larger the image the more you will notice the difference. Once I got my 60" I started noticing more and more the difference between 1.78 and 1.85, let alone 1.66.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah, the added sides make for a significant difference. Also it depends on TV size and seating distance, the larger the image the more you will notice the difference. Once I got my 60" I started noticing more and more the difference between 1.78 and 1.85, let alone 1.66.

Indeed. The larger the screen size the more noticeable that "small" difference in aspect ratio will appear.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

I think you should stop assuming that the people who don't agree with you simply don't understand your argument. We get it that you don't think there's enough difference to matter, we simply don't agree with you. Is this really that hard for you to grasp?

Well, you misunderstand my argument. I'm just saying in relative terms, it's small. There are much bigger things that deserve rabid foaming at the mouth than a tiny sliver of frame at the edge of the screen. I think people should get upset in proportion to the error. Get really mad at the first blu-ray release of The World at War, which was cropped from 1.33 to 1.78. Get considerably less mad at Strategic Air Command, which was cropped from 1.85 to 1.66. If you get just as mad at little things as big ones, you won't have a very happy life because only God is perfect.