2.40:1 vs. 1.85:1 In The Age Of Digital Cinema (1 Viewer)

[Brian Dobbs]

Two things to consider here...

1. Back in the age of film, some directors would use wide angle lenses to capture wide vistas to a squarish film negative, to then apply anamorphic stretching to project the wide image in the theater. 2.35/2.40 films were technically "larger" (wider) than other films.
   
   
2. Back in the 4:3 days, we had the option of "Fullscreen" or "Widescreen." Most of us avoided "Fullscreen" like the plague, as it offered a cropped, pan and scan version of the film.

But times have changed. We all have high-definition widescreen televisions, and they are generally 50" or larger. And now many of us have projectors. Filmmakers rarely shoot on film, opting for digital cameras instead. So at home, the 1.85:1 aspect ratio is larger.

My point...

I'd like to make the case for why filmmakers should only frame for 2.40 if they are capturing on film with wide angle lenses. Otherwise, they should just release movies in 1.85:1, or 1.78:1 for that matter.

Why?

How often do we see behind-the-scenes footage of the making of a film where the director is watching 16:9 preview monitors with crop lines to show where they will eventually crop the image?

2.40:1 movies nowadays are really just masked versions of the original capture.

It sounds weird to say this, but I say we take back the term "Fullscreen" and use it to define 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 movies.

Since the inception of digital cinema, home video has been where the majority of modern films have had their longest lifespan. The theater is but a brief home for movies. Mere weeks. So why are we cropping movies for the theater instead of home video? IMAX is even installing in the home now.

I'm sick of the black bars. Anyone else? Fullscreen is so much more immersive!

1.78:1 is the home standard, and I doubt that will change.

FWIW, I'm happy to report that the upcoming Justice League 2017 movie has an aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

p.s. Seems like this topic has been brought up before.

 

[Mark-P]

Get yourself a projector with constant-image-height, a 2.35:1 screen, and side curtains. No more black bars and the 2.35 movies will be widest and most immersive like they should be.

 

[Scott-S]

Since I watch most movies at home (instead of a theater), I vote for filling up my TV screen. I don't want "black bars" unless I am watching a 4:3 TV show.

 

[John Hermes]

Get yourself a projector with constant-image-height, a 2.35:1 screen, and side curtains. No more black bars and the 2.35 movies will be widest and most immersive like they should be.

Totally agree. I actually use two screens - a 2.35 on the wall and a 1.78 pull-down just in front of it. A 15-second projector adjustment toggles between the two ratios. It is ridiculous to me to have a 2.35 picture letterboxed inside the 1.78 (1.85) frame. With this setup, no wonder people prefer a 1.85 image! I come from a film background where I had five aperture plates and four different lenses including an anamorphic attachment for my projector. Scope films should be projected wider than 1.85 films.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm interested in seeing films in the format that their creators intended. I don't really have a strong preference as to which format they pick when they're making it. I think there are valid artistic reasons for choosing a wider frame or a narrower one, or even doing what some filmmakers do now with IMAX release, that is, having a narrower frame expand vertically for select sequences.

But I don't mind black bars any more than I mind pictures coming in picture frames. There are just too many different sized movies that I watch in my collection for one size to fit all. Right now, I use a more portable screen with my projector so I don't have any masking, but in my perfect idea of a home theater room, I would build in masking on all four sides so that I could adjust the screen for whatever size movie is being shown.

I don't want filmmakers to approach how they compose for cinema based on how people will watch those movies on home video. As long as there's still a movie industry and a theater industry, films should be based on those specs, not the home ones. If everyone is just tailoring what they're doing for the television screen, then we don't have real movies anymore, then we just have made-for-TV movies. I'd prefer not to get to that point.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So why are we cropping movies for the theater instead of home video?

Just because the area of the sensor is larger doesn't mean that they're cropping movies for theatrical distribution. The movies are being framed inside the frame lines. There are a lot of reasons that filmmakers prefer to shoot with spherical lenses and then extract 2.40:1 out of that frame, rather than just shooting anamorphic (which a lot of productions still do anyway). For special effects productions, the effects houses generally find spherical footage to be easier to work with, and having the little bit of extra room on the top and bottom of the frame to play around with can help give the filmmakers more options. The full area of the sensor was never intended to be the final version, and a home video 16x9 version of the film almost certainly won't be open matte, it'll be cropped from the final 2.40:1 version.

IMAX is even installing in the home now.

IMAX is doing high end installations for people with multi-million dollar budgets and rooms that already adhere to a set of specs that IMAX requires. I think it's very cool, but it's not something that the vast majority of consumers will ever have a chance to participate in.

Fullscreen is so much more immersive!

I don't really agree. Perhaps on a television that might be the case, but on a projection screen at home, everything is immersive! Even on my 50" plasma, as long as the room is dark, the black bars tend to disappear and it's really all about what the filmmaker is doing within the frame they've chosen.

 

[Hanson]

If the fullscreen added resolution to the existing picture I'd be more inclined to convert the picture to 1.78. But opening the matte doesn't add any resolution, just extraneous picture information that wasn't part of the composition. So I'm not really on board for this. It's like the argument to open the matte for 1.85 movies back in the 4:3 TV days. It filled up your screen, but it also exposed things that weren't meant to be seen.

In any case, I tune out the black bars anyway, so it doesn't bother me. I actually prefer the 2.35 image even if it's letterboxed because the composition feels more cinematic to me, especially with the advent of 1.78 HDTV.

 

[Malcolm R]

In any case, I tune out the black bars anyway, so it doesn't bother me.

This. I don't even notice the black bars when I'm watching a movie. If the film is so uninteresting that you're watching the bars rather than the movie, switch movies.

 

[Todd Erwin]

Many made for Netflix movies are in 2.40:1. While I can somewhat understand why movies are (once again) cropped to 1.78:1 for broadcast on stations like HBO, Showtime, TNT, USA, etc., what I am getting frustrated with is movies that are released OAR on disc, but then their Digital HD copy version can be OAR on some services but cropped to 1.78:1 on others. And all of the services are to blame here, as even VUDU (which has the better track record than the other services) STILL has many movies that are cropped despite public outcry, yet the same movie can be found OAR on, say, Flixster or FandangoNow (formerly M-Go). When you contact the service, the typical response is "I don't think you can change the aspect ratio in the app" and "That's what the studio sent us." I remember when The LEGO Movie came out on VUDU in 1.78:1, and after numerous complaints from customers, a corrected version in OAR 2.40:1 replaced the previously cropped version weeks later.

 

[WillG]

I can't believe some of the posts in reading here. Insisting that your 16:9 is filled? There are valid reasons for different aspect ratio. I still associate 2.35:1 with more "cinematic" and "epic" and 1.85:1 with more "personal" and "intimate" films. Maybe that's just me but for example a lot of Musicals are done in Widesceen because they generally tend to have lots of people in the frame and composing in 1.85:1 would result in extraneous headroom in the frame. A movie like Jurassic Park is more suited to 1:85:1 due to the height of the dinosaurs. Point is when it comes to
ARs, it's literally not a "one size fits all" proposition.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Todd, to your point about that - I used to work a job for a small home video label where one of my responsibilities was providing the digital files to the different streaming, downloading, and VOD services. First, I agree that it's absolutely frustrating when you rent or purchase a digital title and the aspect ratio's wrong. It's happened to me a couple of times and it's annoying. But I can promise you that it's not Vudu or iTunes or any of those services' faults. It's entirely the studio's responsibility to submit the proper file to the services. Afterall, these services aren't making their digital files by ripping commercially available disc - they're selling the product that the studio has provided them to sell. (I suppose the service in question could simply refuse to accept the file, but with how many digital files are submitted in a single sitting, I don't think it would be practical to expect Vudu to be comparing metadata from studio submitted hard drives against IMDB or physical disc releases for every title. When Quaker makes boxes of oats, it's Quaker's job to make sure that the boxes actually have oats in them, not the supermarket's.)

A lot of cable companies (whether it's for one-time viewing purchases like PPV, VOD or channels like HBO, TNT, etc) require a 16x9 (aka 1.78:1) deliverable. I suspect that that file is sometimes mistakenly sent to digital services rather than the one with the correct OAR. What I don't know, in the case of the major studios, is if this was from a belief that those outlets would prefer a cropped fullscreen version, or if it's simply human error.

For instances where it's been corrected, that probably means that the store has gotten enough complaints that they went back to the studio and told them that something didn't look right, and of course once someone at the studio took a look at the specs from the theatrical release or disc release and compared them to the digital file they had previously sent, they see the error and send the right thing.

 

[WillG]

Many made for Netflix movies are in 2.40:1. While I can somewhat understand why movies are (once again) cropped to 1.78:1 for broadcast on stations like HBO, Showtime, TNT, USA, etc.,

One thing that great about Showtime is that they they almost always show 2.35:1 uncropped.

 

[Todd Erwin]

Todd, to your point about that - I used to work a job for a small home video label where one of my responsibilities was providing the digital files to the different streaming, downloading, and VOD services. First, I agree that it's absolutely frustrating when you rent or purchase a digital title and the aspect ratio's wrong. It's happened to me a couple of times and it's annoying. But I can promise you that it's not Vudu or iTunes or any of those services' faults. It's entirely the studio's responsibility to submit the proper file to the services. Afterall, these services aren't making their digital files by ripping commercially available disc - they're selling the product that the studio has provided them to sell. (I suppose the service in question could simply refuse to accept the file, but with how many digital files are submitted in a single sitting, I don't think it would be practical to expect Vudu to be comparing metadata from studio submitted hard drives against IMDB or physical disc releases for every title. When Quaker makes boxes of oats, it's Quaker's job to make sure that the boxes actually have oats in them, not the supermarket's.)

A lot of cable companies (whether it's for one-time viewing purchases like PPV, VOD or channels like HBO, TNT, etc) require a 16x9 (aka 1.78:1) deliverable. I suspect that that file is sometimes mistakenly sent to digital services rather than the one with the correct OAR. What I don't know, in the case of the major studios, is if this was from a belief that those outlets would prefer a cropped fullscreen version, or if it's simply human error.

For instances where it's been corrected, that probably means that the store has gotten enough complaints that they went back to the studio and told them that something didn't look right, and of course once someone at the studio took a look at the specs from the theatrical release or disc release and compared them to the digital file they had previously sent, they see the error and send the right thing.

Is it possible, though, Josh, that the buyer at the service ordered the movie in fullframe rather than OAR? On more recent releases, I see this situation on Flixster and FandangoNOW more often than VUDU.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Is it possible, though, Josh, that the buyer at the service ordered the movie in fullframe rather than OAR? On more recent releases, I see this situation on Flixster and FandangoNOW more often than VUDU.

Hmmm... you know, I suppose that's entirely possible. I was doing this more at the beginning of digital distribution so I never worked with FandangoNOW and think I only had a brief experience with Flixster. I can say that iTunes in general was very rigid about what they wanted - it was sometimes difficult to provide them with what they wanted technically speaking, but all of those hoops were about making it a seamless and perfect experience for their customers, so I definitely understood why they were so rigid.

Also, back when I was doing this, every place had their own set of specs, so it was almost impossible to just have one file that would make everyone happy. You'd have to encode one for iTunes, a different one for Vudu, etc. If the content was letterboxed, some places would want a 16x9 file with black bars on the top and bottom as part of the encoding, and other places would just want the movie content without the black bars, so that the actual dimensions of the file were different. The teams that would come up with the legal deals and licensing arrangement would be different from the ones who actually handled the content, so we definitely had moments where there was confusion over what was required - a lawyer might say that we're required to deliver "X" and a tech guy might say "X" is technically impossible and what they really wanted was "Y", and that could go on forever. So it could be anything from those services actually requesting MAR titles to confusion over what is actually being asked for to the studios just giving the wrong thing.

 

[Wayne_j]

I'm voting for the option that wasn't given: whatever aspect ratio the filmmaker wanted it to be shown in.

 

[Jimbo64]

I'm voting for the option that wasn't given: whatever aspect ratio the filmmaker wanted it to be shown in.

Thank you!

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I'm voting for the option that wasn't given: whatever aspect ratio the filmmaker wanted it to be shown in.

Precisely, just like I don't choose a painting based on its AR, or a book by the number of pages, but by their content.

It's been a while since there was a thread like this, I remember when they were all over the place .

 

[John Sparks]

I used to rent a movie from TWC and got tired of seeing a 2.35:1 film fill my TV screen. Their remedy...buy the SD version, then you won't have to complain because you'll always be getting a 4x3 movie!

I went with the 16x9 screen for my HT because I have a lot more discs that are not 2.35:1. I just didn't want my other content to be smaller on a 2.35:1 screen.

 

[AshJW]

I'd like to make the case for why filmmakers should only frame for 2.40 if they are capturing on film with wide angle lenses. Otherwise, they should just release movies in 1.85:1, or 1.78:1 for that matter.

I don't see it that way.
Often images look just more epic in the 2,35/2,40:1 ratio than in the 1,85/1,78:1 ratio.
It depends on what the filmmakers intend to show to us spectators.

Therefor this is my option:

I'm voting for the option that wasn't given: whatever aspect ratio the filmmaker wanted it to be shown in.

I myself use a projector with a 1,85:1 screen, and yet I like the ratios in 2,35:1 to 2,76:1 more. It feels more film wise, if you know what I mean?
A quick look into my excel sheet (the statistics) says: It is pari, more or less.

 

[RobertR]

If the fullscreen added resolution to the existing picture I'd be more inclined to convert the picture to 1.78. But opening the matte doesn't add any resolution, just extraneous picture information that wasn't part of the composition. So I'm not really on board for this. It's like the argument to open the matte for 1.85 movies back in the 4:3 TV days. It filled up your screen, but it also exposed things that weren't meant to be seen.

In any case, I tune out the black bars anyway, so it doesn't bother me. I actually prefer the 2.35 image even if it's letterboxed because the composition feels more cinematic to me, especially with the advent of 1.78 HDTV.

I've never understood why some people obsess so much over "black bars". Why aren't they watching the movie instead of the screen?