Is there a new aspect ratio?

elvworks · February 23, 2006

For an upcoming feature that will be a DVD release, I originally wanted to use the 2.35 aspect ratio but it seems impractical for a DVD release. On the other hand, I wanted people the have the widescreen scope feel especially with the beautiful scenery available. And 1.85 is too high for what I feel this movie needs.

My question is is there an aspect ratio used between 2.35 and 1.85??? The other day I saw a trailer for the Memoirs of Geisha and it seemed as if it were somewhere in the middle. It looked really great. The best of both worlds sort of. I figured with the emergence of 16x9 tv's, could there be a new aspect ratio on the horizon?

Best regards and thanks! :D

Rick

Edited February 23, 2006 by elvworks

Josh Hill · February 23, 2006

Vittorio Storaro (Apocalypse Now) created the "Univision" system which is 2:1 aspect ratio.

I don't understand why 2.35 is impractical for a DVD release, since it is done all the time. Why can't you just go with 2.35? On what format are you shooting?

elvworks · February 23, 2006

I didn't start shooting yet. I was going to go with 2.35 but thought since it was a DVD release, and most people's tv's are 1.33 or 1.78, maybe it wasn't the best use of their screens although I wanted the scope feel.

That's why I was asking if there was a ratio between 2.35 (but I would like to use more screen space) and 1.85 (which is a little too high).

Just for the record, I love 2.35, and 1.85 when viewing on tv. It's just this movie has a set of rules of its own.

Thanks, :D

Rick

elvworks · February 23, 2006

I was thinking of the 2.20 ratio. That's what I believe that trailer was show in, real close anyway. It was just a little bigger on screen than the 2.35 ratio.

This way the best of both worlds could be attained.

Rick

Leo Anthony Vale · February 23, 2006

Vittorio Storaro (Apocalypse Now) created the "Univision" system which is 2:1 aspect ratio.

I don't understand why 2.35 is impractical for a DVD release, since it is done all the time. Why can't you just go with 2.35? On what format are you shooting?

---In the mid50s SuperScope used a 2/1 AR.

So it's hardly a new aspect ratio.

Also some studios used 2/1 and 1.75/1 for their flat films.

Disney, MGM and alot of British films used 1.75/1

Universal was using both 2/1 and 1.85/1.

Off hand, 'This Island Earth' was 2/1. Though it looks okay at 1.33/1.

& some theatres today show every thing at 2/1.

& contact printed VistaVision was projected at 1.96/1.

4-perf reduction prints had the edges trimmed to 1.85/ 1.

Both ARs had the same frame height on the GG and 8-perf neg.

2.2/1 is 65/70mm.

---LV

Stuart Brereton · February 23, 2006

If it's for DVD release only, you can use whatever AR you like. You can letterbox your footage in post however you want it. The only problems will be with how you frame while shooting. If you're shooting film, then you can get the ground glass marked up to your chosen AR, otherwise, with video you can mark up the monitor.

elvworks · February 24, 2006

Yeah I was going to do it in post and frame for desired AR.

Good deal, thanks.

Rick

John Pytlak RIP · February 24, 2006

If it's for DVD release only, you can use whatever AR you like. You can letterbox your footage in post however you want it. The only problems will be with how you frame while shooting. If you're shooting film, then you can get the ground glass marked up to your chosen AR, otherwise, with video you can mark up the monitor.

Yes, for transfer, you can usually letterbox almost any wider ratio within the 16:9 or 4:3 television aspect ratios. 2.20:1 would be common, as it was the aspect ratio of most 70mm releases, and is retained on many of the "widescreen" DVD transfers of those films.

BTW, the current "scope" ratio is actually (0.825/0.690)X2 = 2.39:1

Standard SMPTE 195 recognizes 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 as current 35mm aspect ratios for theatrical exhibition.

SMPTE 96M-2004 for Television - 35- and 16-mm Motion-Picture Film - Scanned Image Area specifies the size and location of that portion of 35- and 16-mm motion-picture film to be captured by a scanning device for 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratio:

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards...3&stdtype=smpte

elvworks · February 25, 2006

Yes, for transfer, you can usually letterbox almost any wider ratio within the 16:9 or 4:3 television aspect ratios. 2.20:1 would be common, as it was the aspect ratio of most 70mm releases, and is retained on many of the "widescreen" DVD transfers of those films.

BTW, the current "scope" ratio is actually (0.825/0.690)X2 = 2.39:1

Standard SMPTE 195 recognizes 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 as current 35mm aspect ratios for theatrical exhibition.

SMPTE 96M-2004 for Television - 35- and 16-mm Motion-Picture Film - Scanned Image Area specifies the size and location of that portion of 35- and 16-mm motion-picture film to be captured by a scanning device for 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratio:

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards...3&stdtype=smpte

Hi John, thanks for the informative reply and for setting me straight on the exact AR's. Also, I bookmarked that site and will be scouring it soon.

I know with film, you really only have two ARs to use, flat or scope. But in filming for DVD but still trying to give the audience a somewhat cinematic feel, there are more options with the AR you use, thus you can make something creative and unique, as long as you framed for that specific AR.

It's a little bit of a tough call because on tv's 4:3 and 16:9, you want to use as much screen as possible, but at the same time, you want the widescreen feel. So that's why the 2:20 AR looks like an attractive solution. Any thoughts?

Regards,

Rick

Edited February 25, 2006 by elvworks

elvworks · February 26, 2006

Actually, I was just at the store today and was watching several 16/9 tv's playing 2.35 movies and it didn't look that bad. The black bars on the top and bottom were even less than a 1.85 movie on a 4:3.

So it looks like 2.35 is the way to go. I guess I was always watching 2.35 movies on my 4:3 tv and forgot about the world of 16:9 tv's evolving. So we're all good, thanks for your input.

Rick

Edited February 26, 2006 by elvworks