Jump to content

Flat vs. scope


Recommended Posts

4:3 is good for the Brady Bunch

16:9 is good for Smallville

1:85 is good for the Lion King

2.35 is good for LOTR

 

Does anyone know why the first Spiderman was in 1:85 and the sequel was in 2:35. That was a surprise for me that the first would be 1:85, such a big movie. But it did make the second feel like Spiderman was now "Larger than Life."

 

I think every story/movie has it's best aspect ratio.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

All first run theaters can (and have to) show both flat and scope. About 50% of Hollywood studio releases are 2.35 scope prints, whether they were shot in anamorphic or in Super-35.

 

For example, here's a list of what I saw theatrically in November & December:

 

Capote (2.35)

Jarhead (2.35)

Walk the Line (2.35)

Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire (2.35)

Pride & Prejudice (2.35)

Syriana (2.35)

Chronicles of Narnia (2.35)

Mrs. Henderson Presents (1.85)

Memoirs of a Geisha (2.35)

King Kong (2.35)

Brokeback Mountain (1.85)

Munich (2.35)

The New World (2.35)

The Promise (aka Master of the Crimson Armor) (2.35)

 

In fact, the last six features I shot were 2.35, four in 35mm anamorphic and two in 24P HD framed for 2.35. So it's been about three years since I shot a feature in 1.85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scope Rules!!!

 

Mr. Mullen, in your last six features, what were the contributing factors resulting in the movie being shot widescreen at 2.35? Was it a full cast and it's easier to frame everyone? Was it scenery? Was it the movie feel you wanted to send to the viewer? I'm sure it was a case by case basis.

 

Should any of those have been shot in 1:85 and it would have been better for the movie? Was 2.35 the Directer's call? You're call or a collaboration?

 

Thanks, :)

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It was usually my suggestion, although the directors generally agreed right away (in one case, "The Astronaut Farmer", it was sort of a given that the movie would be 2.35 because that's what the director likes and what I like). In one case, it was for a group dinner table movie where I had eleven actors talking, so scope seemed more natural to covering all those people. In some of the others, it was because they were outdoor landscape movies. But in some of the others, it was because they were indie films that I didn't want to feel "small", since most indies are shot in 1.85. I wanted them to have a certain breadth and elegence usually missing in low-budget movies.

 

Especially with "Akeelah and the Bee". Since this was about a black girl living in South Central Los Angeles, I didn't want to fall back on the stereotype "gritty documentary style" (although there are hints of this) because the story was about her journey towards achievement, going to the National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C. So I wanted her life to seem more epic in nature, like it was a big accomplishment.

 

I did shoot one 24P HD film framed for 2.35 where I felt that the way it was cut, mainly in tight close-ups, there was less reason to have framed it for 2.35. That was the only movie where 1.85 probably would have been fine, although again, I think releasing it in scope prints will take the "curse" off of being a small indie movie shot in HD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elvworks: Why should 2.39:1 get all the favoritism? Look at it this way, theaters with wall to wall screens are already showing the maximum 2.39:1 area anyway, so its not like having a 1.85:1 SCREEN will affect the viewing experiance of 2.39:1 in anyway, however, it does add an effect of a bigger image in a 1.85:1 print, which I can see being "Favoritsm" to the 1.85 a bit, but still, thats one of the joys of 2.39:1, its not big n tall, so really 1.85 deserves the extra screen size.

 

Really though, I dont see your argument on the native 2.39:1 screens.. Why CUT off the sides of the 2.39:1 to get a 1.85:1 screen? Thats just makes films that are presented in 1.85:1 less enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Parks,

 

Let me see if I'm understanding you right. You're saying, instead of cutting off the sides of the screen to accommodate the 1.85 movies, especially in theatres that bring their screen to the walls, they should be at the wall already with the 1.85 aspect ratio and drop the masking down for 2.39 movies?

 

So in essence, 1.85 will be the big screen, even at big houses, and 2.39 will be the thinner screen. But since the screen is already going to the walls, what are you really losing. Good point and valid. And I do admit, it would be nice to see 1.85 movies larger in movie houses.

 

Actually, that's a really good idea. If I had a theatre, I would definitely consider setting it up that way. It's not like your losing anything with 2.39, you just add some screen at the top to house the 1.85 movies using all the real estate.

 

The 2.39 aspect ratio still rules though, but I could see your point.

 

Actually, maybe there should be three settings. 1.85 to the walls, 2.39 with the masking that comes down, then "Cheap 1.85" with the masking that comes down and the masking that cuts off the left and right for all those 1.85 crappy movies. haha Cause if you show a substandard 1.85 on that big screen, it may not be a pretty picture.

 

This is what it comes down to. I have seen scope movies that are crap and flat movies that are crap. So really, as long as the movie is good, that's all that matters. As far as aspect ratio, I prefer 2.39, but seriously, I would like to see the movie, whatever it is, shown in its intended aspect ratio.

 

All the best, :D

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

No, 2.39 was designed to be WIDER than 1.85, not shorter. They should share the same height on the screen if possible, with the 2.39 image have a greater feeling of "scope". The movie should "open up" to show a scope image, not shrink in height!

 

Besides, 1.85 is already achieved by cropping the print area, so you are enlarging it more to fill the same height screen as scope, so if you made the screen even TALLER to share the same width as scope instead, you are enlarging the smaller print area even more, increasing grain and making the image look softer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Landon,

 

I agree with you in part.

 

I believe the relative physical sizes of the screens between ratios is secondary to the actual shape of the boxes that the images are framed in. It is an artistic choice related to composition. Yes, originally scope was designed to wow viewers with its width. But I believe filmmakers' approach to the "scope" ratio has evolved and has rendered its original purpose secondary - not obsolete, but perhaps secondary. An anamorphic 2.39 western which features panoramic views of the desert is clearly approached in a different way than a super35 2.39 character-driven film taking place in a prison. The prison film might actually benefit from being projected shorter than 1.85. And perhaps the western would benefit from being projected wider than 1.85. What is of importance is that the film is shown in its original aspect ratio. Not that it be bigger or smaller.

 

A theater, though, that is designed so that the 1.85 image is taller than the 2.39 image could be viewed as having a design flaw as it relates to the original purpose of the scope experience.

 

Just one opinion.

 

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, why make a 2.39:1 screen and just crop to get 1.85:1? It makes no sence besides saving the theater money on screen material. if the screen is wall to wall, it dont matter if the screen in 2.39 unites tall or 1.85, your still getting the same effect in 2.39 anyway. Why should 2.39 get all the favoritism? Sure it's a nice format, but still 1.85 deserves just as much screen space as 2.39:1, and the only way to give 1.85:1 the same amount of screen space is to make it tallet than the 2.39:1 projection. This way, what you gain in 2.39 in width you gain in tallness in 1.85, which is the original intent in shooting the different ratios in the first place.

 

Am I alone in this argument? I mean sure, it's nice if you can have a bigger screen in 2.39:1, but it's not logical, at least on wall to walls screens, because no matter if the screen is 2.39 or 1.85 the 2.39 image is still the same... 1.85 is just "Taller"... I'm thankful both my local theaters have 1.85 screens, although one multiplex has 2.39 screens in the smaller cinemas... I will never forget seeing Lemony Snicket at showplace 12 on the Largest screen we have in 295 seat cinema with stadium seating, the image was from wall to wall and ceiling to floor... AMAZING.

 

This is one reason I favor 1.85, because even though 2.39 fills your wide vision, 1.85 (When Projected right) fills your ENTIRE vision... nothing quite like it unless you go to an IMAX theater.

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

  • Premium Member
if the screen is wall to wall, it dont matter if the screen in 2.39 unites tall or 1.85, your still getting the same effect in 2.39 anyway.

 

I guess my point is that theaters should be designed so that the screen is floor to ceiling and the variable is horizontal. Rather than wall to wall with the variable being vertical. Its just a certain way of looking at it. 16x9 televisions are better than 4:3 televisions because you can now watch 1.85 films without letterboxing, AND you can watch 1.37 film the same way you did before, just pillarboxed. They should have actually made the television standard 2.39 so that ALL formats could be seen with the variable being on the horizontal. The same should apply to movie theaters. The variable should be on the horizontal, not the vertical.

 

I agree with you that in a theater that has been designed otherwise, the 1.85 should be projected to its maximum regardless if the 2.39 must be cropped. In such a case there's no point in projecting 1.85 smaller just so that the 2.39 can look bigger.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

Thank you for your article, very imformative.

 

You're right, alot of theatres don't project an accurate 1.85 image. It actually looks very thin at times.

 

What I've noticed is the new theatres have their stuff pretty accurate, for the most part anyway. Their 1.85 movies look watchable and you don't feel like you're watching a big tv set.

 

But the older theatres, that don't bring their screen to the walls so they have a very narrow 1.85.

 

Normally, 1.85 movies, I would wait to see on tv, because screen size was so small. But maybe, just possibly, if theatres invest in the largest screens they can fit, maybe this whole masking thing wouldn't even be a big deal. The 1.85 would be wide and the 2.39 would be wide as heck. It would be great. And you won't feel jipped if you're watching a 1.85 movie.

 

Just for the record, I prefer the masking on the side, but like I said, it would be cool to see a huge 1.85 movie if it looked right.

 

Where I used to work at Loews Theatres in N.J., they used to show their trailers in 1.85, then when the feature was about to start, the projector would read a sensor on the film and automatically dim the lights, switch the lenses and open the masking for a 2.39 movie. It was pretty cool, you felt like you were in for a real movie.

 

It also used to have an eight screen set up, but they took a big room upstairs and cut it up to make three little theatres out of it. But in the center, they kept the same screen and it looked great because it completely reached all your periphial vision plus it was slightly concave, and when they showed a 1.85 movie and the masking was cropping the picture, it wasn't a big deal.

 

So I say, get the biggest screens you can fit in the room, break the walls down if you have to, and leave the masking on the side as opposed to the top and/or bottom. :D

 

SCOPE RULES!!!!

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Nice article, John.

 

In my opinion, its more a question of how theaters are designed rather than how films are projected.

 

Its true that scope was originally designed to be wider and bigger and more impressive to wow viewers. But now, I think, many filmmakers (including myself) see the 2.39 as a different shaped box rather than a bigger box. Its not about the size, its about the shape. About the story and composition. A super35mm character driven film taking place in a prison would not necessarily suffer from being cropped in a 1.85 built theater. Of course, a panoramic western would benefit from the extra width in a theater that is built around a 2.39 screen. But I don't think that the shape of the 2.39 frame is about size and impressing theater goers anymore. I believe that in independent filmmaking, the art of the 2.39 frame and how subjects are composed within it is more about the shape. The size and grain have become secondary - not irrelavent, but secondary in importance. Thats why I'm not to distressed about seeing a film in a cropped 1.85 theater. This is of course assuming that the projectionist knows what he or she is doing...

 

Just one opinion,

 

AJB

 

Again, read my article "Caring About Composition", cited earlier in this thread. Much better to have common image height between 2.39:1 "scope" and 1.85:1 "flat" than to project both formats to the same width.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well, I care...

 

Many directors still use scope to add, well, scope!

 

I care as well - to a reasonable point. As you probably know, there are films that shoot 2.39 not to add scope, but a sense of confinement. So my point was only that its not only about the size, but about the shape as well - particularly in the low-budget indie world, I'm suggesting that it is more about the shape. When we shoot music videos 2.35 letterboxed its because of the shape, not the size. When an ultra-low budget film director shoots his hd film 2.35, he's probably first looking at the shape, and then perhaps hoping about the size<g>. I'm currently editing my latest film shot 2.35 on 24p. I'm not really thinking about it being bigger than 1.85 in the theater - I was thinking about how the story would be better told within the shape of that frame. For this particular story, cropping within a 1.85 projection area in a theater would not negatively impact the story.

 

My feeling is that the focus should be put on pushing theater designers to designi theaters around the 2.39 screen rather than pushing theaters that have already been designed around a 1.85 screen to make that image smaller just so that the 2.39 would be bigger.

 

Of course, everyone has a different way of looking at it.... I don't believe there is a "right" answer on this.

 

AJB

 

 

 

That's right! I care about scope too, to add scope!

And it takes more than just filming in 2.39 to have scope, breadth and depth. It's an art. :D

Rick

 

Your statement presupposes the idea that shooting in 2.39 should always be done to enhance the scope of the image. There are films that have used 2.39 to create a sense of confinement, not scope.

 

I feel the art is not in how to make 2.39 have scope. The art is in how you use 2.39 to enhance the story you are telling - be that a western in the desert, or a film taking place in one, dark room.

 

 

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, as long as you admit some people use to scope for the sense of an expanded frame, then it makes sense to design theaters to accommodate those films since you have to pick one way or the other of building the theater, so why diminish some scope movies that would benefit from the wider screen, rather than give more height to 1.85 instead where it is not really needed? 1.85 already uses a smaller area of the print anyway and thus is being enlarged more even to match the height of a scope screen, so to make it even bigger starts to fall into the realm of diminishing returns.

 

Plus for those that are just using 2.35 for the shape, how does showing that on a wider screen hurt them? How does that diminish their artfulness?

 

So it seems everyone benefits from having 1.85 match the height of 2.35 on the screen, whereas some films would suffer if 2.35 had to share the same width as 1.85. I don't see any arguments for why 1.85 should be a taller image than scope.

 

More people shoot scope for the "big picture" experience than people shoot 1.85 for the famous "tall screen" experience.

 

I think if you did a survey of Hollywood directors and DP's working in scope, the majority would agree that 1.85 and 2.35 projection should share the same height on screen -- I've never run into someone who felt the opposite was true, but I hear a lot of complaints when scope isn't wider than 1.85 projection. So this notion that DP's and directors no longer think of scope as a wider frame but a shorter frame than 1.85, or don't think of it in relation to 1.85 projection at all, is not true. As for people shooting 2.35 for TV presentation only, then their opinions on theatrical screen projection aren't really applicable since they aren't shooting for theatrical projection anyway. These are not the people to be deciding how theaters should be built if they aren't shooting for the theaters. And I've never run into anyone who cared about scope projection who demanded that it be shorter than 1.85 projection. As for the people who don't care about scope projection, then obviously they are not the people to consult on how to build a theater for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well, as long as you admit some people use to scope for the sense of an expanded frame, then it makes sense to design theaters to accommodate those films since you have to pick one way or the other of building the theater,

 

Which is why I feel the focus must be on the theater builders, not those who have already built the theaters with the "flaw" of doing it around a 1.85 screen - expecting them to reduce the size of their 1.85 projection. There's no point in reducing the size of a 1.85 screen so that a 2.39 film that will be presented another time would be bigger. It makes no sense once the theater is built.

 

It does make sense however, to put pressure on companies BEFORE they build the theaters.

 

Plus for those that are just using 2.35 for the shape, how does showing that on a wider screen hurt them?

 

It doesn't hurt them either way. Although an argument can be made that an HD or super35mm DI feature cropped to 2.39 could suffer from the larger projection much like the argument you made about 1.85 grain on larger projection.

 

The primary issue I was responding to was related to whether a theater that has been built around a 1.85 screen should reduce that screen size so that the 2.39 image would be bigger.

 

Plus for those that are just using 2.35 for the shape, how does showing that on a wider screen hurt them? How does that diminish their artfulness?

 

It doesn't. I never said that. What I said was that many films do not suffer from being projected 2.39 within a 1.85 sized screen. It depends on the film.

 

I've never run into someone who felt the opposite was true, but I hear a lot of complaints when scope isn't wider than 1.85 projection. So this notion that DP's and directors no longer think of scope as a wider frame but a shorter frame than 1.85, or don't think of it in relation to 1.85 projection at all, is not true. ?

 

"not true"? That's a bold statement - but okay. The people that I meet and work with particularly in Europe and here in Canada, don't see 2.39 or 1.85 or 1.37 as a size thing - we see it as a shape thing. So, the notion that some think that way is in fact, true. The important thing to realize is that not everyone, not every director or dp looks at the frame the same way. Clearly you see it as a size thing. Of course, many do. Many on the other hand, see it as a shape thing.

 

As for people shooting 2.35 for TV presentation only, then their opinions on theatrical screen projection aren't really applicable since they aren't shooting for theatrical projection anyway. These are not the people to be deciding how theaters should be built if they aren't shooting for the theaters.

 

Actually, some of these people who shoot 2.35 for TV come from and started in the theatrical world or have been influenced by theatrical directors and dps they have worked with. Some of them go back and forth from shooting features to shooting television - influencing both mediums. Some would even say that 16:9 televisions came into play because of influence from the theatrical world<g>. My point in bringing their work up was not about whether you feel their opinions about this are valid - rather to illustrate the point that in many cases, shape, not size is the main factor today with any aspect ratio. And that's why expecting a theater that has already been built around a 1.85 screen to reduce that format's size so that the scope image is bigger doesn't make sense to me. Just an opinion and a way of looking at it.

 

 

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So it seems everyone benefits from having 1.85 match the height of 2.35 on the screen, whereas some films would suffer if 2.35 had to share the same width as 1.85. I don't see any arguments for why 1.85 should be a taller image than scope.

The problem is one of bottom line economics. As the vast majority of newer screens are part of a multiplex, theater owners are dealing with the rising value of real estate by putting up as many screens as they can fit into a fixed amount of space. So, unfortunately, the bean counters are now the driving force behind new theatrical design. "You know, we can make more money from two narrower theaters carved out of one wide one!" The extra wide space devoted to a true anamorphic screen is now seen as a liability. Even the largest rooms in the latest complexes seem to be trending toward vertical cropping of scope films. It looks like art is taking another hit in the service of greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the art is not in how to make 2.39 have scope. The art is in how you use 2.39 to enhance the story you are telling - be that a western in the desert, or a film taking place in one, dark room.

AJB

 

Well, I agree with what is the best ratio to tell the story. I like what Oliver Stapleton said in this article on which aspect ratio to use.

 

http://www.imdb.com/Indie/Ask/20010504.html

 

 

 

 

 

AJB

Your statement presupposes the idea that shooting in 2.39 should always be done to enhance the scope of the image. There are films that have used 2.39 to create a sense of confinement, not scope.

 

AJB

 

Okay, now this part about supposing in advance........if the whole movie is about someone being confined, and 2.39 is needed to tell the story, then hey, whatever. If it's just one or two scenes, I'm sure they can change the composition of their shots to show confinement in a 1.85 ratio. I mean, what is the whole movie about? Where you referring to a certain movie?

 

I understand people use the widescreen 2.39 ratio for other uses than scope. But I find it rarely looks good. That's just me. Look at TV commercials filmed in 2.35, most look stupid. I can say, I saw one that was actually done "right." Some medicine commerical about a guy getting on a bus or something.

 

Just for the record, I'm not a hater of 1.85. Actually, I really like seeing that aspect ratio in certain regards. Also, that ratio looks great when watching TV. Like comedy movies or certain tv shows.

 

But you can tell 2.39 is done right, when you can watch it on a little portable DVD player and you feel it, that certain something, the magic, it's SCOPE!

 

All the best,

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
But you can tell 2.39 is done right, when you can watch it on a little portable DVD player and you feel it, that certain something, the magic, it's SCOPE!

 

Yes! I agree completely! When 2.39 is done well artistically, the actual screen size becomes secondary. I have much more of a problem with theaters projecting films in the wrong ratios or "almost" the right ratio. Or racked incorrectly etc. etc. That to me, is a far more serious problem.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, my point is not that theaters should not build a scope screen, but why would theywant to? Ok, you have theater with a screen wall of 75' (just a best guess, I have no real clue)... Well, at best you can have a 73' wide screen. Sure, you can make a 73' wide scope screen, with side mask's... Or a 73' wide 1.85 screen with top mask's that will still give you the maximum allowed image area in the 2.39:1 format anyway, since theaters cannot magicly expand there walls when a 2.39:1 flick comes on.

 

Now I can see your point that 1.85 should share the same height as 2.39... I'm not saying thats the wrong way to do it, but what I am saying is that in the long run theaters that project 2.39:1 on a letterbox 1.85 screen are not really loosing anything in 2.39:1 area, while they do FAVOR the 1.85 area, because of it being taller.

 

HOWEVER, I do think that 1.85 should be taller than scope myself. 1.85 movies are really the only ones where you can see a floor ro ceiling, wall to wall movie. As scope would require you shrink the ceiling of the cinema down a good deal. There is NOTHING quite like seeing nothing but the image in front of you, no wallls, no area above the screen...

 

I guess it's just a personal thing, but I just like a bigger 1.85 image... 2.39 still rocks tough... I just think its more about the composition area than the size of the frame.

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

  • Premium Member
I guess it's just a personal thing, but I just like a bigger 1.85 image... 2.39 still rocks tough... I just think its more about the composition area than the size of the frame.

 

Landon,

 

The 2.39:1 amamorphic image is bigger than a 1.85:1 image on the print and negative. I don't understand what your saying!

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why Michael Bay shot Bad Boys (I) in the 1.85 aspect ratio? It's just rare for a movie like that, maybe he had his reasons.

 

I have the DVD and looks good and all, but just curious if anyone knew what the reasons were?

 

Rick :)

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

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...