Aspect Ratio Documentation (4 Viewers)

[Vic Pardo]

You're assuming that the people running studios these days have any idea what you're talking about. I'll bet that most of them can't tell the difference between "scope" and "flat." Or 2K and 4K. Or whatever...

It's not like when Jack Warner, Harry Cohn, Darryl Zanuck and Louis B. Mayer were running the studios and sat in their screening rooms at the end of the day and watched every single film their studios made and gave orders on what to fix. Back in the 1960s and '70s, the studios were taken over by businessmen from other industries who didn't know a Goddamn thing about movies. Today, the heads of production are often people who come out of television.

I work at a TV station and I see problems with aspect ratios all the time as we transition from standard def to high def. Do you think the boss can tell the difference? No, he can't. Nor can many of the program suppliers. On PBS, any time a documentary uses standard Academy ratio archival footage, that footage is now either stretched out anamorphically or cropped at top and bottom. It's so frustrating that I hardly watch new TV shows anymore, just old shows on tape or disc.

I meant to edit my post but hit "quote" instead and now I can't delete it. I just wanted to add this:


Not that the old studio heads were never wrong. Back in 1953, after HOUSE OF WAX was such a big hit, Jack Warner ordered everyone to make their films in 3-D, assuming that it would be the norm within a year. We saw how well that worked out. In the late '60s Warner sold his studio to a guy that owned parking garages.

 

[Alan Tully]

Over here in the U.K., StudioCanal are shortly bringing two films from 1954 to Blu-ray for the first time: The Belles of St Trinian's and Hobson's Choice. I believe discussion regarding the latter has already taken place here, with no consensus on which aspect ratio may be correct. How about the former? Is there any documentation, Bob? Looks like the film has been 1.33:1 on all previous DVD releases, but so have its first two sequels, which were released in 1957 and 1960 respectively! StudioCanal can not be trusted.

The three b/w St Trinian's films were on the telly a few months ago in the UK, ITV2 think. I don't get that station in HD, but they must have been the new transfers as they looked so good. The first two were in 4x3, & the third, The Pure Hell Of St Trinians (my favorite, I saw it at the cinema in 1960) was in 1:66. The second one, Blue murder At St Trinian's looked so wrong in 4x3, so much headroom, I zoomed it to 16:9 & it looked about right.

 

[EddieLarkin]

It's funny how these widescreen films end up open matte 4x3 even on TV, when usually broadcasters will use every trick in the book to get their presentations to fill the 16x9 space! If only they knew that their desire to present these films in what they think is the OAR actually results in the exact opposite

 

[Alan Tully]

It's funny how these widescreen films end up open matte 4x3 even on TV, when usually broadcasters will use every trick in the book to get their presentations to fill the 16x9 space! If only they knew that their desire to present these films in what they think is the OAR actually results in the exact opposite

Yeah, I was working at a company about 15 years ago where they were re-mastering the TV series Minder for DVD. It was shot 4x3 on standard 16mm, but they anamorphically stretched it to 16:9 cutting off the top & bottom (more bottom than top), & at the same time were releasing features in 4x3 that should have been 1:85! But that was back in the dark ages, you'd think they would get it right by now.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You're assuming that the people running studios these days have any idea what you're talking about. I'll bet that most of them can't tell the difference between "scope" and "flat." Or 2K and 4K. Or whatever...

Nah, not assuming they know... just saying that if I was in their shoes, I'd actually try caring about my product. I think the current state of things is plenty of proof that they either don't understand the technical broad strokes of their business (nevermind the nuances) or just don't care to.

History repeats itself.. Jack Warner declared all future Warner films would be in 3D... and then around 2010, the current WB president also insisted that all future Warner tentpoles would be 3D. Silly idea. A better idea would be to say, "We promise that each feature will be presented in a format appropriate for the material and in consultation with the filmmakers" but that's not nearly as sexy sounding.

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

The most interesting tid-bit of information I find in that brochure is that the resolution for 2K DCP is 1998 X 1080! I assume then that 4K DCP would be 3996 X 2160?

2K native would be 2048x1080, 1998x1080 is flat and cropped aka 1.85:1, the former being 1.90:1.

Native 4K cinema is 4096x2160 lines, it can be 3996x2160 if flat and cropped, it can also be 4096x1716 if Cinemascope.

P.S. No i'm not an expert, i knew about the native formats but Googled the flat and cropped part of the info above.

Not quite this way. It's a wee bit more compicated, but designed so for a reason - to make all things "fit". ARs that do not are "matched to fit" with either the max. allowed height (1080 @2K, 2160 @4K) as fixed parameter and the horizontal width as variable (filled with black on each side) or the other way around*.

Note that the following is for DIGITAL PROJECTION in cinemas/theaters only. (see native scanning / Frame ARs below that)

The DCI certified projectors DCI certified formats are currently designed for only two, what is known as containers: "flat" and "scope" - and are required to be capable of projecting natively the following resolutions:

[*]Containers max resolution 2K = 2048 x 1080 - Containers "scope" (Panavision) ratio (2.39.1) 2K = 2048 x 858
[*]Containers max resolution 4K = 4096 x 2160 - Containers "scope" (Panavision) ratio (2.39.1) 4K = 4096 x 1716
[*]example 1.85:1 flat academy ratio in 2K container = 1998 x 1080*,
[*]example 1.85:1 flat academy ratio in 4K container = 3996 x 2160*
[/list]
now, these parameters have NOTHING to do with the actual NATIVE DIMENSIONS of the 2K or 4K resolutions, respectively, when 35mm elements are scanned, for instance. Those would be FULL GATE / FRAME on the OCN/PN/IP/IN level @2K 2048x1556; FULL GATE / FRAME on the OCN/PN/IP/IN level @4K 4096x3112 maximum.

 

[ahollis]

Ok I know there is a lot I speculation on how the OAR a film is run today in Theatres. I can not speak got most of the major theatre circuits but the one I work for tries andvsucceeds in giving the guests the film in 1:85.1 or 2:35.1. No mater what the size of the auditorium is. The masking might be side to side in the larger ones and from the top in the smaller theatres. We try hard to present a title as intended though It might really be 1:80.1 or 2:31.1 but it is close.

 

[John Hodson]

So despite the hardest of hard evidence, the Criterion of A Hard Day's Night will be 1.66:1...

 

[EddieLarkin]

So, what's been happening in the world of aspect ratios today?

Well, Criterion have announced their Blu-ray of A Hard Day's Night, toting a new Richard Lester approved 4K transfer. And just to demonstrate that yes, all these British film directors (Polanski et al) are willing to open up their previously 1.75:1 films to 1.66:1, as discussed here many months ago, sure enough Lester has gone with 1.66:1. Despite the fact this is the one film with the hardest of evidence available to us for a 1.75:1 ratio.

Ah well.

Moving on, All That Heaven Allows has been announced for an upgrade. The DVD was 16x9, and that ratio remains for the Blu-ray listing, at least for now. Bob, I believe we've seen trade clippings for Magnificent Obsession and Written on the Wind, specifying 2.00:1. All That Heaven Allows comes in between those titles, so am I correct in assuming 2.00:1 for that as well?

 

[Brandon Conway]

So despite the hardest of hard evidence, the Criterion of A Hard Day's Night will be 1.66:1...

Director-approved 1.66

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The myth continues...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Moving on, All That Heaven Allows has been announced for an upgrade. The DVD was 16x9, and that ratio remains for the Blu-ray listing, at least for now. Bob, I believe we've seen trade clippings for Magnificent Obsession and Written on the Wind, specifying 2.00:1. All That Heaven Allows comes in between those titles, so am I correct in assuming 2.00:1 for that as well?

It was shot in early 1955 when UI was bouncing around between 1.85 and 2:1.
According to Boxoffice, this should be 1.85. I don't know what Variety specified.

 

[Brandon Conway]

EDIT: It seems they got it all resolved.

 

[FoxyMulder]

It was shot in early 1955 when UI was bouncing around between 1.85 and 2:1.
According to Boxoffice, this should be 1.85. I don't know what Variety specified.

All that.JPG

Did these magazines ever get their aspect ratio information wrong. ?

 

[EddieLarkin]

It was shot in early 1955 when UI was bouncing around between 1.85 and 2:1.
According to Boxoffice, this should be 1.85. I don't know what Variety specified.

All that.JPG

You see that's what I get for assuming. All is well then. Just out of interest, do you know what There's Always Tomorrow was specified as? It too came before Written on the Wind, and was 1.85:1 on the Masters of Cinema DVD.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Did these magazines ever get their aspect ratio information wrong. ?

Once in a while, you'll find conflicting recommendations.

Don't forget, this data was meant for projectionists and exhibitors so great pains were taken to be accurate.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You see that's what I get for assuming. All is well then. Just out of interest, do you know what There's Always Tomorrow was specified as? It too came before Written on the Wind, and was 1.85:1 on the Masters of Cinema DVD.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Much appreciated!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My pleasure, Nick. Any time.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Picnic At Hanging Rock is coming out on the Criterion collection soon, it's 1.77:1, IMDB lists it as 1.66:1, any info on this one. ?