List of dvd aspect ratios? (1 Viewer)

[MielR]

The Turner Classic Movies site has a nice function where you search their database for a film, then you click 'aspect ratio' on the left, and it shows you the AR that the film was shot in.
http://tcmdb.com/title/title.jsp?stid=90492

 

[Bill Burns]

Chris --

While my last post probably said as much about CinemaScope as is possible without further information, trying to pull everything back to your original question, there might be a few points worth consolidating and considering (a bit more directly than in my overlong posts above, some offered already by others):

1. The negative aperture of a film will give you the ratio in which it is shot.

2. The projection aperture of a film will give you the aspect ratio in which it is meant to be exhibited.

3. A home video transfer (VHS, laserdisc, DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) may further modify the presentation ratio for any number of reasons.

Speaking to DVD ratios, as I mentioned somewhere above, the listed ratio on the box may only be approximate (1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1, 2.32:1 instead of 2.39:1, 2.51:1 instead of 2.55:1), and then there's the question of whether the presentation ratio is the best ratio at all (over on the Classic SciFi Ultimate Collection thread, Jack and others have explained the significance of theatrical matting, and the level of disagreement may speak to the difficulty in deciding how much of the negative aperture we really want to see). For all I know, this may speak to the CinemaScope matter, as well. Were the filmmakers blocking for a 2.66:1 exhibition, or were they anticipating a dominant public presentation on composite prints at 2.55:1? Without any known 2.66:1 DVD transfers from 35mm CinemaScope, and given information presented above, I have to think there's an argument for the latter, even if premiere engagements (or modern revivals) may have supported the former, per comments from Robert Harris and Jack Theakston.

It can be frustrating and confusing. We want to advocate what filmmakers themselves advocated, and we want to enjoy the films on DVD and HD disc formats in the same fashion. That's why getting at the nitty gritty details can be so important, and, with so many resources for the information saying slightly different things, so difficult, as that aforementioned Classic SciFi Ultimate Collection thread illustrates:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=240288

An accurate listing for the intended exhibition ratio of a film will give you an idea what to expect from the DVD, and thus the ability to determine a ballpark for the DVD ratios with which your home theater setup will ultimately contend. But getting down to the exact measurements, to what a film should be and what it, in fact, is ... that's a horse of another color.

Speaking of horses ... and speaking of CinemaScope ... I'm working up the courage to pop in my disc of the new Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition, which I bought the week it came out and opened before reading any reviews ... and see if what everyone around here is saying is true. Goodness gracious ... Glenn Erickson (DVD Savant) thought it looked swell!

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=21333

But not so here (this speaks to the issue of aspect ratios only taking you so far):

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=234970

Tying all the recent widescreen threads together, eh? Well, best of luck in coming up with a workable DVD aspect ratio list that answers your needs ... without (we can all hope?) any more of my extraneous rambling -- let us know if any of these peripheral concerns have been at all helpful (if not, I'll shut up about 'em, 2.66:1 and 2.55:1 confusion be hanged ).

 

[Jack Theakston]

To answer your question: the initial prints were mag interlock 2.66. This, of course, caused a great deal of difficulty with exhibitors, who didn't like the extra cost of adding speakers (and having to rewire the house for stereo). A little later, prints were mag prints with 4-track stripes to solve sync problems, with a recentered image at 2.55. 1954 prints (second or third pass) were mag-optical with reduced picture.

There's also the flat version, but to my knowledge, this wasn't released, obviously.

Theaters that opened the pictures were the huge palaces, and it was extremely costly because of all the speakers needed to fill the space. The Roxy had something like 24 set up throughout the auditorium.

What should the DVD be? 2.66, of course. That's what format they shot and composed the film at.

 

[Mark-P]

The first DVD release of "The Great Escape" was a letterbox transfer with a ratio of around 2.66:1. The transfer was a Laserdisc port and it's possible that the movie was photographed full aperature and somehow that is what MGM home video utilized for the transfer. Here are some screen caps from dvdbeaver.

MGM Letterbox DVD:



Warner Special edition anamorphic DVD:

 

[Ray Chuang]

I think right now we know of these aspect ratios commonly used:

1.33 to 1: the original "Academy ratio" for 35 mm film.

1.66 to 1: the original European widescreen standard, used frequently on animated films (Disney used this aspect ratio quite a lot).

1.78 to 1: the standard for widescreen HDTV.

1.85 to 1: the "hard matted" standard used by most motion picture film cameras with standard lenses.

2.35 to 1: the current standard used by motion picture film cameras with anamorphic lenses.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Isn't 2.00:1 also used for Spherical blow ups?

 

[Bill Burns]

Thanks, Jack. I'm still befuddled (bear with me): were there double system releases for every CinemaScope picture shot at full aperture (I misspoke in an earlier post: 1.33:1 is full aperture, of course, not Academy: I'll fix that with an edit after I post this), right up into 1957 and the full reduction to 2.35:1 (which according to TWM may have begun as early as '55 for some releases), or only for the first pictures of '53? You say the '54 prints were mag-optical (every time I tackle this history, I seem to process it differently -- I could have sworn I read something about mag-optical reducing us to 2.35:1 in '57, which is, I believe, the year 2.55:1 was abandoned ... but I don't find that now* ... mag-optical is said to have gotten us down to 2.35:1, but in '55, or '54 as you say, and not across the board, with magnetic only prints still at 2.55:1, per what TWM says here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/wingcs3.htm, regarding 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in '54, magnetic and at 2.55:1, and, specific to mag-optic reductions in ratio, here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/wingcs5.htm; did the studios cease issuing magnetic only pictures in '57, or was there an industry-wide aperture change that kept any further magnetic only pictures from still carrying a 2.55:1 ratio?). But the reasons for the changes are academic, and I don't want to bore everyone trying to work them all out. The key issue is what's correct for each film in exhibition. Were there no further double system presentations at that point (and thus no expectation for 2.66:1 presentations), or was double system supported through '57?

Robert mentions The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) as a full aperture 2.66:1 shoot. Using the lesson of modern feature photography, with a negative aperture that differs from a projection aperture, I'm loathe to assume that because something was shot at 2.66:1, it was intended for exhibition at 2.66:1. Conversely, if double system presentations were supported through '57 and the final reduction to 2.35:1, I don't see why there doesn't appear to be a single DVD transfer at 2.66:1, and yet many (some brand new, just released in recent months) at 2.55:1. I'm inclined, still, to think that 2.55:1 is correct. My thanks to Mark above, who recalls that M-G-M's first DVD of The Great Escape (which I actually owned for several years before giving it to a relative -- I'd forgotten it was full aperture) was, in fact, 2.66:1 ... but when M-G-M created their new special edition, they reduced it down to about 2.35:1, didn't they (that seems supported in Mark's post)? Is this the only DVD transfer of CinemaScope at full aperture (and was it ever presented theatrically in this fashion? It's a picture from '63, which would be six years after Kwai and long after the standard release ratio dropped to 2.35:1, yes?). Were filmmakers (not unlike some open matte photography today) shooting to support alternate (double system) presentations, even as late as '63, or were they shooting for composite print presentations and allowing that extra information behind the soundtrack much as extra information today is allowed behind the top and bottom mattes for flat photography (information no one is ever intended to see, the compositions optimized for theatrical matting). If the reason a full aperture was still exposed after the adoption of composite prints (magnetic, mag-optical, and the mono systems that used, if I understand correctly**, larger sprocket holes, thus failing to gain back printed image area?) was for premiere palace presentations alone, with most theatres receiving those composite prints for exhibition, how long did this continue before double system was phased out?

Are all films at 2.55:1 in composite prints optimized for premieres at 2.66:1? Or is it only those made before composite prints were finalized (this wouldn't leave room for anything shot after The Robe, much less the later pictures, like The Bridge on the River Kwai, unless a deliberate decision was made to buck the new standard and create a special premiere event picture, one that couldn't play in that fashion in most theatres, even most movie palaces, if those palaces had some time earlier converted to the reduced 2.55:1 composite prints then favored in the industry)?

Then there's this, which I linked earlier:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Wide...ascope_oar.htm

* Ah, update: I've found it again, it's there in the same CinemaScope OAR page at The Widescreen Museum.

Very confusing!

** Let's by no means take that for granted.

----

Well, a simple three questions may suffice:

1. Were all 2.55:1 pictures shot to support double system presentation at 2.66:1?

2. Were any 2.35:1 pictures actually shot at full aperture and only printed to the reduced aperture for this same purpose* (would any of them be better presented at 2.66:1)? I don't mean later 2.39:1 pictures or any whose negative aperture was less than 2.66:1 (1.33:1 with anamorphic photography).

3. Was The Robe itself shot exclusively for double system at 2.66:1 and compromised to 2.55:1 on composite prints during its release (is TWM correct in saying that composite sound prints became a reality for CinemaScope before its first feature was released, but, I presume, after it was photographed? Is the rationale for a 2.55:1 DVD transfer then that most theatres played the picture at 2.55:1, with only a few premiere houses, perhaps, at double system? Or have I misread/misinterprited the data?). Or, more broadly, is it possible The Robe and anything concurrently in production is incorrect at 2.55:1, but other pictures, made after composite magnetic printing was mastered, are correct at either 2.55:1 (those composite prints whose sound and sprocket hole combinations didn't reduce us all the way down to 2.35:1) or 2.66:1 (double system presentations -- sound and picture on separate film).

That should cover it (my apologies to Chris, who hasn't had a chance yet to say if this periperhal ratio/aperture business is unduly monopolizing his thread -- I do promise to shut up about it if he'd like to get back to DVD aspect ratios alone ... depending on the interest of Jack, Robert, and others in continuing to examine this, I may shut up about it one way or another!).

* Update: if this wasn't clear ("for this same purpose"), as it now seems unclear to me in that wording, I meant for the same purpose that early 2.66:1 productions (productions supporting double system presentations, whether that's just The Robe or whether it includes any other pictures) were printed to 2.55:1 (to accomodate new sound-on-film developments, if I correctly understand the TWM material cited earlier and supported in various comments by others here).

 

[Robert Harris]

1. No

2. Yes. As an example Kwai was printed with the left side (track area) cut off.

3. No

 

[Chris PC]

Wow. I have some reading to do. Yowza Yowza!

 

[john a hunter]

It is clear that Fox realised that for Scope to take off, the sound had to be on the film itself and not on a seperate but interlocked system. I expect that the opening presentations in the US were all interlocked until prints with the 4 mag tracks on them were available.This would be for a month or so given that when "the Robe "opened in London in November, it was a mag print not interlocked although the Odeon Leicester Square could have shown it in that form.
"Kismet "was MGM's first mag opt print released December 1954.

 

[Bill Burns]

Many thanks. A quick follow-up to 2 and 3:

2. Kwai was released theatrically at 2.35:1? I think the current DVD from Columbia is 2.55:1 -- what ratio is best as an aperture for presentation on this picture?

3. No? The Robe is correct at both 2.55:1 (composite prints) and 2.66:1 (double system)? One isn't preferable to the other, either in fidelity to the expectations of the filmmakers nor to the historical release of the film? Let's see ... maybe additional clarification in my question would be wise ....

Well, if double system was available to "the major markets" beginning in 1953, in what year did it cease being used for new productions? And should those films released in double system to any market be considered best, then, at their (presumably premiere, in both senses of that word) 2.66:1? Is that what Jack argued earlier? It's what I would be inclined to think. If so, does this apply to any other pictures, or just to The Robe?

Or, simply: how many CinemaScope pictures were presented via double system in any major release market? Should we seek to have all of these released at 2.66:1 on DVD and the HD formats, that ratio representing their double system printing aperture?

The more I whittle down these questions, the more, I hope, we get to the heart of the matter for those who love these pictures.

 

[Bill Burns]

I see it's been a couple of weeks now since last we chewed this bit of fat -- are there any further thoughts on this matter? I'd enjoy and appreciate any additional input (with Chris' permission), as I don't think we really got to the bottom of the matter.

As Jack Theakston and I have suggested in earlier posts, and as Robert Harris' experiences with a recent presentation of the film would seem to support, have we established that The Robe is best (perhaps not exclusively accurate, what with composite releases back in the day as well, but at least best) at 2.66:1? And if so (Jack's statements on this in his earlier post are, of course, clear -- my thanks, Jack), what of other CinemaScope productions from '53? And subsequent years? Do we know when double system presentations (whether premieres or general first run) were abandoned? It seems they weren't abandoned when magnetic composite prints were perfected (which I believe was prior to the release of The Robe, if I've read TWM correctly), as the IMDb says that Carousel premiered as double system in 1955, but that may be an exception to our concerns, as it was a CinemaScope 55 production, and what holds true for it may, but also may not, bear in any useful way upon contemporary CinemaScope 35mm productions of the time.*

Is The Robe best at 2.66:1? It must be. Isn't that the logical conclusion, if we all have our facts in order? And if this is so, if double system survived developments in magnetic composite printing, are there other CinemaScope productions also best at 2.66:1? If it's to be "yes" to the above, can we establish when double system (full aperture?) 2.66:1 presentations ceased for new productions, and thus when a reduced 2.55:1, and later further reduced 2.34:1 (per aperture measurements at TWM), become the only acceptable presentation ratio?

We needn't come up with a list of all CinemaScope pictures with attendant ratios of presentation (good grief! Am I never satisfied? ), but a general timeline concerning the use of double system in the CinemaScope era, and thus the likelihood that a picture would have been shot full aperture and premiered in double system, would be very helpful in establishing an ideal for future CinemaScope presentations on DVD, and particularly as we move into what has the potential to stand for many years as definitive CinemaScope on home video: the debut of such movies on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. If we're only talking about a few pictures at 2.66:1 (see the asterisk below -- perhaps Kwai in '57? If so, approximately how many pictures between The Robe and Kwai? Any after Kwai?), then specifying the titles would be great, but if we're talking about a great many, then at least knowing that there are a great many best at 2.66:1 would make for more informed advocacy as we review these films on disc and make our suggestions to the studios.

We all want our HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs to represent these movies at their best, and for folks like me, who remain happy consumers in the DVD market, well, presenting these pictures in ideal DVD releases isn't a small concern, either. I'm thrilled with many of the CinemaScope DVDs studios have thusfar issued -- they're beautiful presentations of ... a bit of emphasis here ... beautiful movies. I love that wide frame. But if any of them, whether just one or many, could be better served with a still wider frame, particularly knowing that many will be revisited for HD presentation in the years to come, and many more have yet to debut on DVD, that must be an important matter to establish ... and one which will inform future answers to Chris' initial question concerning just what ratios are available on home video.

If there's nothing further to be had on the matter, my final thanks once more to all who've chimed in with data and opinion.

* Robert Harris' comments in post 15, and his answer to one of my earlier questions, question #2 in post 27, are intriguing, and may support late double system: were you saying that Kwai is also best at 2.66:1 (you said in an earlier post that it was shot at 2.66:1 -- is this its intended presentation, as well? Is it best as a double system projection?)? Or have I misunderstood? I remain confused about your answer to #3, as this final follow-up, final without further posts by others, undoubtedly attests.

-----

(Anyone who'd like to point out that I recently said, on another thread, that I never follow-up my own posts may do so, and I will express proper humiliation ....)