Aspect Ratios - The Director's Vision

[CrazyFool]

Originally Posted by garyrc

At the moment, in the home, there are no solutions, other than using the OARs and moving the seats closer for widescreen films, or installing a huge front projection screen.

One 'solution' for total immersion at home is to gravitate toward movies that were originally filmed in 1:78 (or at least 1:85) like 'The Warriors', 'Cloverfield', 'Batman: Gotham Knight' and 1:78 made for TV stuff like some HBO movies & shows that are are at times surprisingly well done.

[CyberGhostface]

I just got my PS3 yesterday. I tried watching District 9. Apparently the official aspect ratio is slightly wider than a normal widescreen's, so there are supposed to be the black bars on top of the image. For some reason, the image seems to be "zoomed" in, filling the screen and thus cropping out some of the image.

With my TV, there are no black bars and whereas in the screenshot on this website the subtitle text has some space under it, on my TV it's at the very bottom and the edges are cut off. It's not the end of the world but I would like to watch the film in its proper aspect ratio.

Is there any way to fix this? For what it's worth, I have a PS3 with a controller (no remote).

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by CrazyFool

One 'solution' for total immersion at home is to gravitate toward movies that were originally filmed in 1:78 (or at least 1:85) like 'The Warriors', 'Cloverfield', 'Batman: Gotham Knight' and 1:78 made for TV stuff like some HBO movies & shows that are are at times surprisingly well done.

So you are telling us you would skip movies like Lawrence Of Arabia or Ben-Hur because they don't fill your screen?

As far as I can understand you are a full screen fan and not a movie fan? If that is what you wish go for it.

[seigneur_rayden]

Never saw this thread. Very well put information. Good job. This should help a lot of people who don't get OAR.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by seigneur_rayden

This should help a lot of people who don't get OAR.

And cause those who refuse to surrender to rational thought to raise pitch-forks.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

And cause those who refuse to surrender to rational thought to raise pitch-forks.

Helped you out there, beta.

[Henners]

I understand how the idea is to preserve the orignal aspect ratios etc

I'm just confused though as I bought a new lcd for my pc widescreen 24"

Though, with the black bars top/bottom - I understand great to keep the wide picture - but what is the point of getting a widescreen tv if my old 3:4 tv can do the same thing with the black bars..

I just would have thought that a widescreen tv would allow the screen to be filled - without loosing any picture cropping.. or does I not make any sense..

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Henners

I understand how the idea is to preserve the orignal aspect ratios etc

I'm just confused though as I bought a new lcd for my pc widescreen 24"

Though, with the black bars top/bottom - I understand great to keep the wide picture - but what is the point of getting a widescreen tv if my old 3:4 tv can do the same thing with the black bars..

I just would have thought that a widescreen tv would allow the screen to be filled - without loosing any picture cropping.. or does I not make any sense..

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

Any way you slice it, you're going to have black bars - whether they're at the top and bottom or on the sides - including what you're suggesting.

If the tv is wider to make a 2:35 movie fill up the screen, then a 1:85 will have black bars on the sides. And a 4:3 image will have even wider bars on the sides.

[Henners]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Any way you slice it, you're going to have black bars - whether they're at the top and bottom or on the sides - including what you're suggesting.

If the tv is wider to make a 2:35 movie fill up the screen, then a 1:85 will have black bars on the sides. And a 4:3 image will have even wider bars on the sides.

hmm... oh yes.. good point..

I guess yeah 16:9 looks like the better one to choose then..

I've tried stretching a 4:3 once.. yuck...

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Henners

hmm... oh yes.. good point..

I guess yeah 16:9 looks like the better one to choose then..

I've tried stretching a 4:3 once.. yuck...

Well, I don't know if I'd say it was "better." I don't have a problem with any of the aspect ratios on my tv anymore than I do when I'm at the theater (I never say, "Hey there's more wall space at the top and bottom of the screen!"). I'm usually watching the movie, not looking at the black bars.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I don't have a problem with any of the aspect ratios on my tv anymore than I do when I'm at the theater (I never say, "Hey there's more wall space at the top and bottom of the screen!"). I'm usually watching the movie, not looking at the black bars.

But in a good theater (using my definition of "good") you have "Common Height," and the image gets bigger, not smaller, as you move from the old 1.37:1, through 1.85:1, to 2.40:1. So with the wider formats there is not more black space at the top and bottom of the screen ... all films would have the same black space at the top and bottom ... only the width would vary.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Henners

Or perhaps.. maybe we need to invent a new model of widescreen tv that is more wider so all the pixels are used in the full widescreen viewing?

Pointless as some director will come along and think his movie is so freakin special that it needs to be filmed in an even wider aspect ratio than that.

But hey, it's their 'vision'.

[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!

[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.

[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.