Jump to content

time for a new aspect ratio?


Keith Mottram

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Standard SMPTE 195 recognizes 2.39:1 ("scope") and 1.85:1, 1.66:1, and 1.37:1 as the currently used aspect ratios. Most theatres are equipped to show 35mm 2.39:1 and 1.85:1. A filmmaker has the option of "letterboxing" or "pillar boxing" within those established aspect ratios. Other than 1.85:1 perhaps evolving to 1.79:1 (a relatively minor change which would let it exactly match 16:9 video release), a new additional aspect ratio is very unlikely for theatrical release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

2x1 will not become a projection standard. It's not different enough between 1.85 and 2.39 to be worthwhile. If anything, future digital projection will probably be centered around 16x9 (1.78 : 1) as a starting point although current DLP-Cinema has something like 1.25 : 1 DMD chips and uses a 1.5X anamorphic projector lens to show 1.78 / 1.85 and a 1.9X anamorphic lens to show 2.39.

 

Storaro shoots 2x1 for his Univisium format and for release prints, he has a 2x1 image printed onto a scope print with black borders on the left and right sides.

 

SuperScope in the 1950's was originally a 2x1 format (again, printed onto scope prints with black borders on the sides) but it was not different enough from the easier to shoot 1.85 format and so was dropped.

 

VistaVision was not 2x1. It is 1.50 : 1 at Full Aperture and most VistaVision movies were framed for cropping and reduction to standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 prints. I think "Ten Commandments" might have later been re-released on a 70mm print matted on the sides to 2x1 though, but I'm not sure about that. But it was probably framed for 1.85. Where did you get 1.96 : 1 as a VistaVision aspect ratio??? Remember that VistaVision was not a release print format so it had to be released in one of the common projection formats of its day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

By creating new aspect ratios it will only cost the industry a huge amount of money and generally confuse things. I'd like to see a 4:3 and a 16:9 standard. And that's all people shoot in. And it's made a choice between which one you want.

 

Soon we?ll probably get ultra-widescreen TV?s or something... and some channels will shoot for that aspect ratio, whereas some channels will shoot for other conventional ratios. So unless you have every different sized TV going, you are forced to come across a channel where the picture is squeezed and deformed.

 

I couldn?t stand yet another ratio. And there?s no point of another one either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acoarding to the new DCI decisions, the cinema projectors will have 2Kx1K pixels or 4Kx2K pixels for larger screens, but the films will still have today's standard ratios achieved by letterboxing or "vertical letterboxing" (I don't know how is it called)

But you could squeese whatever you want in these 4Kx2K or 2Kx1K so basicly

you can chose your own aspect ratio just as you can on video.

Edited by Filip Plesha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Daniel, TV aspect ratios should not dictate, if they did all movies would still be 4:3.

I think it should. Almost everyone has a TV in their household; cinema is a one off treat. I couldn?t care less if I went to a cinema and it was a 4:3 16:9 or whatever. I go to the cinema because it's exciting. TV on the other hand is people?s main source of viewing pleasure and I believe it should be the dictator of ratios. Because of different ratios widescreen TV had to come out and when I see them all I will see is a deformed squeezed picture. They will have box ratio version of DVD?s, widescreen, and then no doubt some other version of DVD?s.

 

16:9 was a big enough change. Personally I like 16:9. But I don't have a widescreen TV, and if I did I could watch 16:9 films no problem but when I turn over to normal TV channels it would be distorted. So with both 4:3 and 16:9 formats I have NO choice but to watch films that are either squeezed or have huge black lines at the top and bottom.

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I couldn?t care less if I went to a cinema and it was a 4:3 16:9 or whatever.

 

Then why are you hanging out on a cinematography website? If you have no sensitivity to the shape of the frame, that is. To me, that's like not caring whether to paint a wall blue or green or red. Or whether to use a telephoto lens or a wide-angle lens.

 

2.39 : 1 widescreen projection on a large screen is an amazing experience. Haven't you noticed that most of your favorite movies of all time that you've mentioned are 2.39?

 

4x3 hasn't been a first-run theater projection format since the mid 1950's so this is a case of you wanting them to make movies for theaters that are better suited for a 4x3 TV set??? And nothing wider than the widest TV set? Why not shoot everything in close-up too since that plays better on TV? Why not close all the theaters and just release the films on DVD then?

 

Besides, 4x3 TV sets are on the decline.

 

I now (finally) have a 16x9 TV set and 4x3 material isn't distorted -- it's just got black side borders. And the black borders top & bottom for 2.39 movies are not that large.

 

--

 

Anyway, "La Dolce Vita" was shot in 2.35 : 1 35mm anamorphic ("Totalscope"), not VistaVision.

 

Storaro's idea for 2x1 is not to create a THIRD projection aspect ratio, but merge 1.66, 1.78, 1.85 and 2.39 into one common widescreen format for theaters and TV. But it's never going to happen. So as a third aspect ratio, it's fine -- 2x1 has a very classical feeling -- but I don't think it's different enough from 1.85 to be worth the trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

The solution to this is what's already happening on computers - treat the display as simply an area into which you can draw any image you like. If it's high enough resolution and physically large enough it isn't a problem. Operating systems that use windows and icons kind of approached these issues long ago by taking the display and breaking it up into whatever areas the user found helpful. I imagine that's how future TV systems will work.

 

And yes, all that really means is that you legitimise letterboxing.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Then why are you hanging out on a cinematography website? If you have no sensitivity to the shape of the frame, that is. To me, that's like not caring whether to paint a wall blue or green or red. Or whether to use a telephoto lens or a wide-angle lens.

I meant it about cinema. I don't care what they have, but on TV which is what I watch in general I do care. What I'm saying is cinema should conform to TV standards, since as TV is the main visual source. Cinema is a one off special. Why should we spend MILLIONS designing new TV's just to conform to some directors love of 2.39? Or why should TV viewers have to put up with black lines running accross the bottom and top or a squeezed picture?

 

I now (finally) have a 16x9 TV set and 4x3 material isn't distorted -- it's just got black side borders. And the black borders top & bottom for 2.39 movies are not that large.

Maybe your not as sensetive about it but I hate black borers running up sides. It just doesn't look right. And most 16:9 tv's by default will try to stretch the video to 16:9, therefore causing distortion.

 

Why not shoot everything in close-up too since that plays better on TV? Why not close all the theaters and just release the films on DVD then?

Why not design a TV for every single ratio there is out there just so cinemas can fit more people in one showing?

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Daniel, TV aspect ratios should not dictate, if they did all movies would still be 4:3.

In a way, TV aspect ratios do dictate, and get dictated, back and forth.

 

Silent movies started out at 1.33:1, adjusted slightly to 1.37:1 when sound was added. The original National Television System Committee picked 1.33 to be compatible with existing film practice.

 

When TV became a competitive force in the 1950's, film went to wider screens in order to be different. When the ATSC came along to replace NTSC, they wanted to sort of follow along in the direction of wideness. They could have been a bit more compatible by going with 1.85, which is quite close to 1.78. But there was some constraint in the old analog HDTV technology that made a ratio of small integers more convenient for them. I never found out why that was, but 16:9 was what they wanted, not 37:20.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited by John Sprung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Remember that VistaVision was not a release print format so it had to be released in one of the common projection formats of its day.

There were a few Vista Vision releases, and a few theaters equipped with the 8 perf projectors. But the vast majority of theaters showed standard 4 perf reduction prints. Sort of like 70mm, but with even less market share. We still have one Vista projector up and working in that upstairs room in the Fields building. It's the last one still running carbon arc, nobody wants to pay for going xenon. It'll probably happen when it becomes impossible to find carbons. One problem is that 2k xenon lamps won't cover that big aperture, so it would have to have the same lamp house as a double-A Norelco. Now it's mostly used for checking BG plates. But they do have an old reel 1A of White Christmas kicking around in the booth. Sound on Vista was double system.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[What I'm saying is cinema should conform to TV standards, since as TV is the main visual source.QUOTE]

 

TV is the main visual source of what? News, Gameshows and Reality TV?

 

Should Cinema really be forced to use a 4:3 frame (or any other ratio) simply because 'Jeopardy' or 'Big Brother' does?

 

If the shape of the frame truly makes no difference to you, then perhaps a Cinematography forum is the wrong place for you to spend your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think VistaVision projection was only attempted briefly for a few screenings of "White Christmas" and "Strategic Air Command" -- most VistaVision projectors were built for showing dailies, etc.

 

We have widescreen in the theaters BECAUSE of television; it was invented in the 1950's to create an experience that people couldn't get for free at home, to get them back into the theaters. Same with the explosion of sound formats in the 1950's.

 

Anyway, all I can say Daniel is "tough luck" because THANK GOD there isn't any trend to make movies more 4x3 TV friendly; ever since the laserdisc and DVD format allowed filmmakers the option of a properly letterboxed version for home video, we've seen an INCREASE in the number of 2.39 movies made. I'd say that over 50% of the major studio releases now are in scope prints. And there's no sign of a return to mostly 1.85 being used for big-budget movies as you saw in the early 1980's with the introduction of home video.

 

The theatrical experience has to be preserved and even enhanced at all costs, which means widescreen movies on big screens -- or else even MORE people will just rent the DVD and watch it at home like you do.

 

I shudder even at the thought of Lucas making the original "Star Wars" in standard 1.85... a whole generation of future filmmakers would have never gotten the same thrill of seeing that Star Destroyer fly overhead on the big screen of theaters like Grumann's Chinese. Or imagine the Stargate trip in "2001" in standard 1.85 projection. Or the battles in "Lawrence of Arabia"...

 

The last thing movies need to do is think SMALLER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
[What I'm saying is cinema should conform to TV standards, since as TV is the main visual source.QUOTE]

 

TV is the main visual source of what? News, Gameshows and Reality TV?

 

Should Cinema really be forced to use a 4:3 frame (or any other ratio) simply because 'Jeopardy' or 'Big Brother' does?

It jeapordises all TV shows, AND films shown on TV.

 

If the shape of the frame truly makes no difference to you, then perhaps a Cinematography forum is the wrong place for you to spend your time.

If you had paid attention to what I had said you would have seen that I DO care about what size the frames are. But I am in favour of TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn?t care less if I went to a cinema and it was a 4:3 16:9 or whatever.

Daniel, I dis agree with you. Some of my favorite movies where projected in 2.39:1..... LOTR, Harry Potter, ect.

 

I have a 60" LCD TVat my house in 16x9 ratio, so generaly the reason I said before on here that I liked films shot on Super 35 is that they can make a 16x9 print for DVD and a 2.39:1 print for theaters and in a way, the DVD has more picture area.

 

Films shot in 2.39:1 I generally choose the 2.39:1 ratio DVD and just deal with it, rather than letting them cut half my picture off to get a 16x9 ratio.

 

TV should NOT set the standard for cinema. TV and cinema are different mediums altogether, and should not be confused.

 

Even though I have a 60" screen TV and Voom HD Satalite, I still prefer the HUGE screen at my cinema.

 

(However, Scope's at my cinema (Kerasotes 12) are not so good, because instead of having a scope sized screen (2.39:1) and just clossing in the sides to get 1.85:1, the screen is 1.85:1 shapped and then they just cut off the bottom and top of the screen to get a scope ratio, which makes watching 1.85:1 movies more enjoyable then 2.39:1, since the sceen is bigger.

 

You would think a 3 year old Kerasotes theater w/ Stadum seating and all the extras would have the screen scope instead of flate. The other Keratoes 11 cinema in my town has a 2.39:1 shapped screen, but the problem is that the Kerastoes 12 gets all the good movies, and the other theater gets the smaller films.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
I think VistaVision projection was only attempted briefly for a few screenings of "White Christmas" and "Strategic Air Command" -- most VistaVision projectors were built for showing dailies, etc. 

 

We have widescreen in the theaters BECAUSE of television; it was invented in the 1950's to create an experience that people couldn't get for free at home, to get them back into the theaters.  Same with the explosion of sound formats in the 1950's.

 

Anyway, all I can say Daniel is "tough luck" because THANK GOD there isn't any trend to make movies more 4x3 TV friendly; ever since the laserdisc and DVD format allowed filmmakers the option of a properly letterboxed version for home video, we've seen an INCREASE in the number of 2.39 movies made.  I'd say that over 50% of the major studio releases now are in scope prints.  And there's no sign of a return to mostly 1.85 being used for big-budget movies as you saw in the early 1980's with the introduction of home video.

 

The theatrical experience has to be preserved and even enhanced at all costs, which means widescreen movies on big screens -- or else even MORE people will just rent the DVD and watch it at home like you do. 

 

I shudder even at the thought of Lucas making the original "Star Wars" in standard 1.85...  a whole generation of future filmmakers would have never gotten the same thrill of seeing that Star Destroyer fly overhead on the big screen of theaters like Grumann's Chinese.  Or imagine the Stargate trip in "2001" in standard 1.85 projection.  Or the battles in "Lawrence of Arabia"...

 

The last thing movies need to do is think SMALLER.

I see your point. Personally I'd like to see everything go 16:9. But I don't go to the cinema just to watch a 2.39 image. I go to the cinema because it has a HUGE screen and an amazing sound setup, it's just a lot more exciting, and not to mention fun to go out and watch a film.

 

And at the moment a lot of TV programs are 4:3. TV's copying cinemas aspect ratios only jeapordises whats shown on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
I have a 60" LCD TVat my house in 16x9 ratio, so generaly the reason I said before on here that I liked films shot on Super 35 is that they can make a 16x9 print for DVD and a 2.39:1 print for theaters and in a way, the DVD has more picture area.

You can get both 16:9 and 2.39 prints without super-35. Super-35 just gives you the advantage of 4:3 AND anything smaller.

 

TV should NOT set the standard for cinema. TV and cinema are different mediums altogether, and should not be confused.

Well if they are completely different then how is it that cinema is setting the standard for TV? And since as TV is just a "tad" more popular than cinema I think that's kind of absurd.

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TV's copying cinemas aspect ratios only jeapordises whats shown on TV.

 

How exactly does a Cinema 2.39:1 aspect ratio jeopardise TV production?

 

In a few years all TV production will be 16x9. This format will accommodate 1.85:1 with no difficulty. That will mean that only Films originated in the 2.39:1 ratio will have black bars top and bottom of your TV. Is this minor annoyance a sufficiently good reason to remove the artistic scope of the 2.39 frame from the filmmakers toolkit?

 

Stuart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
How exactly does a Cinema 2.39:1 aspect ratio jeopardise TV production?

 

In a few years all TV production will be 16x9. This format will accommodate 1.85:1 with no difficulty. That will mean that only Films originated in the 2.39:1 ratio will have black bars top and bottom of your TV. Is this minor annoyance a sufficiently good reason to remove the artistic scope of the 2.39 frame from the filmmakers toolkit?

 

Stuart

Cinema has already jeapordised TV by making it 16:9. Which, although I think looks nice when playing widescreen footage, has completely screwed up 4:3 showings.

 

But I'm a little afraid that if cinema continuos to use more and more different ratios, TV will only copy and before you know it we will have about 5 different sized TV's. "Hmmm.. I think I'll watch Blade today, I must swap TV's around though.."

 

If TV's standard DID become 16:9, then I could quite happily put up with 2.39. But until that day, we will have to put up with big black lines, and/or strectched video.

 

If shooting 2.39 is what makes cinema so great, then so be it. But stop making TV's that conform with it!

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2:1 Has always been the most comfortable aspect ratio for me.

 

I recall pulling and marking the groundglass on my CP16 back in '91 with Letraset rub-on lines for a short film I was to shoot. I did it by eye with no particular aspect ratio in mind, and years later when I looked at the video of that project, it's exactly 2:1.

 

I wonder if 2:1 (or any other aspect ratio) has some sort of physiological relationship with human eyes and the way we see things?

 

I was kind of hoping that Storaro's Univisium might win out in the widescreen wars a while back, but David's right. I had built a site for Univisium with Vittorio's son Fabrizio in the late 90's, but we both gave up on it a few years later. I wish I'd held onto the domain name though :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I couldn?t care less if I went to a cinema and it was a 4:3 16:9 or whatever.

What I want to see in the theater -- or on TV for that matter -- is exactly the same composition that the operator saw on the ground glass. If it's a current release scope epic, then I want to see 2.39. If it's an Academy aperture classic, then I want to see 1.37.

 

I, too, don't care what the aspect ratio is, so long as it's the one that the DP and operator composed for.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...