Which aspect ratio would you prefer "Beauty and the Beast" in?

[Jim Collins]

Disney's live-action blockbuster Beauty and the Beast arrives on Blu-Ray, DVD, Digital HD & Blu-ray 3D (in UK and European countries) on June 6.
The blu-ray's aspect ratio hasn't been announced yet, but I thought to ask which version is more preferable. The film was released in theatres in 2.39:1, but IMAX used the 1.78:1 version of the film, which shows up to 26% more image. In my opinion, the IMAX version is by far better, since it not only shows more image, but also allows viewers to truly "experience" the film.
Here are some examples of the IMAX image:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C2E5RdFmTbQ/maxresdefault.jpg

[StingingVelvet]

Usually in these cases the normal scope version looks more properly framed. It depends on the movie though, and in the end my preference would be for the one the director chose, assuming he had input.

[akaun6899]

I'd personally like to see it in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio I saw it in when I saw it in theaters, but with those pictures in mind, I'd like to see the IMAX ratio included as a bonus.

[StingingVelvet]

Those pics clearly show it was framed for 2.35:1, by the way. Look at where the windows and piano are positioned in the first shot.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Those pics clearly show it was framed for 2.35:1, by the way. Look at where the windows and piano are positioned in the first shot.

Yeah, this is another example where more is not necessarily better.

[xbs2034]

I say both, since why not have more options (if I had to choose only one, would have gone with 1.78 as I didn't see it in IMAX theatrically and never complain about getting more image). They could easily have been on different discs like the color and B&W cuts of Logan are, or even a retailer exclusive.

I could understand doing 1.78 for 3D only on a film like Guardians of the Galaxy, since its IMAX release was 3D only and some of the AR switches were designed around enhancing 3D effects, but with the entire film being expanded in Beauty and indeed looks like most IMAX showings were in 2D, that doesn't fly.

Though I will say the scope ratio doesn't bother me that much, since it seems like it was framed with scope in mind but protected for IMAX (though I like the added height on the fire shot more), instead of a film like Sully which was done the other way around.

[imsounoriginal]

I made a lot of bluster about Skyfall not being 1.90:1 on Blu-ray, but now I really don't care so much. As long as we're seeing what we need to/are meant to see, that's what matters most.

[The Mad Kiwi]

As someone who vehemently prefers scope ratios over flat, I have to come out and admit I feel Beauty and the Beast is an exception. I saw it in both ratios, and it felt like it was really composed for 1.78:1 and simply protected for 2.39:1. It didn't seem like there was extraneous vertical space when seeing it in IMAX, not even during closeups.



Obviously, the ideal would be to include both as it was presented both ways. I find it strange that even the foreign 3D releases are in scope (as far as we know) whereas Disney usually presents its 3D Marvel films in a flat ratio on BD.

[Buscemi]

I saw this on IMAX and the composition was really odd, to say the least. Some of it was open matte but in other places, shots were obviously cropped. I'm getting the feeling this was a part Panavision, part Super 35 film (unlike say, Skyfall, which was Super 35 all the way, or Sully, which was about 90% shot in 1.9).

I don't care either way (since I didn't like the film) but I'd prefer 2.39 in this case.

[erlinmeyer]

1.90 : 1 (IMAX version), 3D of course

[shinobipopcorn]

I don't have an opinion on this particular film, but I'd rather have the wasted space on a television filled with something instead of black bars if there's an expanded theatrical version like IMAX. Disney view's static art isn't quite the same, though. I find that distracting.

[BluBonnet]

I don't need to watch this movie again, so I don't really care!!

[Jim Collins]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I could understand doing 1.78 for 3D only on a film like Guardians of the Galaxy, since its IMAX release was 3D only and some of the AR switches were designed around enhancing 3D effects.

I added the "1.78 in 3D & 2.39 in 2D" option in the poll because I own a great number of blu-ray's which use 2.39 for the 2D version and 1.78 for the 3D, since 3D movies are far more enjoyable when they don't have black bars on top & bottom (e.g. Titanic, which also shows more image in the bd 3D, like batb).

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

I saw this on IMAX and the composition was really odd, to say the least. Some of it was open matte but in other places, shots were obviously cropped. I'm getting the feeling this was a part Panavision, part Super 35 film (unlike say, Skyfall, which was Super 35 all the way, or Sully, which was about 90% shot in 1.9).

I don't care either way (since I didn't like the film) but I'd prefer 2.39 in this case.

Both Skyfall and Beauty were shot digitally on Alexa cameras. According to the IMAX interview with the director, nothing was cropped for that format, and it was just revealing extra image space that was there. He definitely seems to think the expanded image fits IMAX as well as enjoys the experience of the film in that format, but from the video, the sense I get is the scope version is the one he mainly composed for.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=tWLOxH8jTTM

I know a lot of people love scope formatting, and it is nice but I happen to really like flat formatting as well (I probably lean towards preferring flat for films with the exception of epics personally). And then if there already is a version with the extra image there, might as well have that over black bars IMO.

[BozQ]

I believe the 1.89 ratio is specially for IMAX 3D?

So if it's 2D, I prefer it in 2.39
In 3D, in IMAX 1.89

1.78 would either result in too much or cropped. But it also depends on the director's input.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by The Mad Kiwi

As someone who vehemently prefers scope ratios over flat, I have to come out and admit I feel Beauty and the Beast is an exception. I saw it in both ratios, and it felt like it was really composed for 1.78:1 and simply protected for 2.39:1. It didn't seem like there was extraneous vertical space when seeing it in IMAX, not even during closeups.



Obviously, the ideal would be to include both as it was presented both ways. I find it strange that even the foreign 3D releases are in scope (as far as we know) whereas Disney usually presents its 3D Marvel films in a flat ratio on BD.

It is entirely possible to shoot two ratios, with one primary and one secondary.

James Cameron famously did this with his earlier films, composing 2.39 for cinemas, and 1.33 for home videos (VHS), way back then. Resulting in more image vertically at home. Titanic is definitely one of them. Avatar is another, but 1.78 instead of 1.33

[Jim Collins]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I believe the 1.89 ratio is specially for IMAX 3D?

No, IMAX released it in 1.89 in both 2D and 3D according to the imax trailer, so as to fit the (big) imax screen.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I believe the 1.89 ratio is specially for IMAX 3D?

So if it's 2D, I prefer it in 2.39
In 3D, in IMAX 1.89

1.78 would either result in too much or cropped. But it also depends on the director's input.

No, it was for IMAX 2D showings as well. I didn't see it in IMAX (in order to see it in 3D, as the vast majority of IMAX showings were in 2D- 2/3 of the IMAXes in my area just did 10pm or later IMAX 3D showings, and the last one was completely IMAX 2D), but I know someone who did and he talked about the expanded ratio with the IMAX 2D showing.

[Bates_Motel]

It was composed and framed for 2.39, so that one. But I have no desire to see it.

Originally Posted by BozQ

It is entirely possible to shoot two ratios, with one primary and one secondary.

No, it's not. Composition is a precise art. And the DP has to compose for the widest ratio (in this case, 2.39) so that all relevant information is in that frame. Everything else is just an "opening up" of the original composition. So yeah, you can release two ratios, but you can only compose for one, and the one that's specifically shot for will have the best composition. Most of the IMAX versions have stupid amount of dead space for headroom and footroom, because you can't compose for two ratios and have them both look the same, so it throws the composition way out of whack.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by The Mad Kiwi

As someone who vehemently prefers scope ratios over flat, I have to come out and admit I feel Beauty and the Beast is an exception. I saw it in both ratios, and it felt like it was really composed for 1.78:1 and simply protected for 2.39:1. It didn't seem like there was extraneous vertical space when seeing it in IMAX, not even during closeups.

Your gif shows it was obviously framed for 2.35 though. Look at the tree branches.