2.35:1 movies reframed at 1.33:1/1.78:1 on DVD (1 Viewer)

[Simon Howson]

I agree - even auditorium design of commercial cinemas is based around optimising cinemas for the two 'standard' aspect ratios. This just supports my point that exhibition has been dumbed down to remove the labour intensive nature from the process - platter projectors were just the final step in an on going process of making exhibition as easy as possible. I contend that this has been to the detriment of giving film makers choices to pursue unique aesthetic approaches.

I've read that when CinemaScope was first introduced each theatre had two projectionists, one to monitor the picture and one to monitor the stereophonic sound. Sure this was probably some nice deal the unions worked out, but it does demonstrate a greater reliance on labour to ensure a very high standard of presentation. These days you're lucky if a 10 screen megaplex has 2 operators. I know that my local megaplex relies on 1 operator at a time to work 8 screens.

Sadly I feel that 2.4:1 is now often exmployed because it provides the 'biggest' image in small cinemas. This fits the desire of film makers to adopt an aesthetic that has as much visual impact as possible. Tactics like very rapid editing, extensive camera movement, and a constant reliance on very close framings fit with the need for as big an image as possible. The fact the 2.4:1 A.R. is 'wider' is now a secondary consideration. It is increasingly popular because it ensures that as much area of the (relatively small) screen is used.

My local suburban Megaplex has 2 big cinemas, the other 6 are very small - smaller than the city art house. This seems to be a pretty standard megaplex approach, the really popular films screen on the big cinemas, and get shifted to the smaller screens after attendance declines, by that time a new big popular film has been released and is on the big cinema.

 

[Patrick McCart]

But it still doesn't explain why whatever a film's ratio is in theaters overrides the filmmakers' preference.

Just look at the cases for Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Shane. They shot the films for Academy Ratio, but it was only the studio level that decided that they were to be shown in widescreen.

OAR is important, but we have to allow exceptions when appropriate. I mean, "Jet Pilot" was shot in 1951, but released in SuperScope in 1957. Do we keep it at 2:1 just because some executive decided it should be cropped, despite every frame of the film being composed for Academy?

And if we don't honor the alterations of filmmakers, it's just as bad as pan & scan. If an Oscar-winning cinemtographer says a certain Vietnam film works better in NTSC using the 2:1 ratio, that's important.

 

[Gary Palmer]

You believe this yet I wager you’d make critical exception for Stanley Kubrick.

It's well known Kubrick protected his films for 1.37 and was a perfectionist in all things. And yet, it's equally well known that his films played theatrically - for the most part - in AR's wider than his intended aesthetic. I know he's well-regarded by many people on these forums (and, I have to admit, I'm not a fan of his work), but for the sake of consistency, I have to say, I believe he was misguided, given the realities of movie exhibition, particularly in the US (theatrical standards may differ overseas, which allows international directors to work within different AR's, as Simon has suggested). Does anyone know if Kubrick had a specific objection to 1.66/1.85?

Of course the 1.85:1 and 2.4:1 exhibition standards have simply been determined by a range of historical factors. The refinement down to only two aspect ratios has simplified exhibition so that megaplexes don't have to employ a proper projectionist. In other words, the allowance for only two aspect ratios comes back to base economics, and is one factor behind the decline in contemporary Hollywood film aesthetics.

When CinemaScope was first introduced in 1953, the reason it had such an impact was precisely because people were used to seeing movies in the very narrow 1.37 AR. The 2.55 screen (later modified to 2.35 and then to 2.39 in projection) must have been pretty spectacular at the time! But the introduction of new filmmaking practices which created a new, dominant AR (1.85) took some of the shine off the wider movies. However, I'd contend there's still enough of a visual difference between 1.85 and 2.35 to make an impact on audiences (even today), if the director and DP uses it correctly. To be honest, I don't believe 1.66 is distinct enough from 1.37 to make much of a difference, or that 1.75 is distinct enough from 1.85, and I'm not sure why such gauges were ever introduced in the first place.

I believe the only three 35mm AR's which matter are 1.37, 1.85 and 2.35, and I'd like to see a situation in all countries where filmmakers were allowed to choose between the three. However, I'd be interested in reading a defence of 1.66 and 1.75, given the objections I've outlined above.

Simon, I'm not sure why you believe the 'narrow' choice of current AR's has stifled the visual aesthetic. 1.85 and 2.35 seem perfectly suited to the task of creative expression (though, as I say, I'd also like to see the reintroduction of 1.37, which is as different from 1.85 as 2.35 is from 1.85, if you see what I mean), whereas most other ratios aren't truly distinct enough from those primary AR's to make enough of a visual difference. And while economic factors may have played a part in the widespread adoption of these screen shapes, I don't think it's necessarily a 'bad' thing to streamline the exhibition process. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning sloppy practices and poorly maintained theaters, but the 'simplistic' approach also benefits those theaters which are committed to quality presentations, and I'd like to think those are in the majority.

Gary,
let me say that I love your posting style and you have a real talent for jumping in with just the right information when it's needed (that old James Cameron Abyss argument is older than mummy shit and you knew it), so I will leave this thread in your very capable hands and trust that you will defend OAR to the last, just as I would. There aren't many of us do-or-die purists left, it's always nice to come accross one.

(BLUSH!!) Many thanks for the vote of confidence - much appreciated!

I guess we disagree on causation. I think the fact contemporary American directors are limited two aspect ratios has devalued both, but particularly 2.4:1. If film makers still had a full range of options from 1.37:1 to 2.4:1 then contemporary widescreen aesthetics would actually be interesting.

I'm too cynical to believe things would change too much, even if the full range of AR's were re-employed by American filmmakers. I believe the reason why composition counts for so little these days is because filmmakers are more aware of the film's 'playability' on TV, and it doesn't help that most directors view the action on-set on teeny-tiny videotap monitors, where everything is in closeup because that's the only way they can actually see what's going on within the shot they're trying to compose. Give them 1.37, 1.66 and 1.75 to play with, and they'll do exactly the same, the only difference being the narrower gauge.

Because of the stupid mentality that says 1.85:1 and 2.4:1 are the only two valid theatrical aspect ratios

Well, like I said, I'd like to see 1.37 being used as a valid AR again, but I don't honestly believe there's a need for either 1.66, 1.75 or 2:1, because they simply aren't distinct enough from 1.37, 1.85 or 2.35. I'm not saying we should dismiss all those films shot in 1.66 etc. (good lord, no!!), but I do question the validity of those ratios.

OAR is important, but we have to allow exceptions when appropriate. I mean, "Jet Pilot" was shot in 1951, but released in SuperScope in 1957. Do we keep it at 2:1 just because some executive decided it should be cropped, despite every frame of the film being composed for Academy?

Could I ask where you heard JET PILOT was released in Superscope? I only ask because I haven't heard that one before about this particular title, though I know both INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS were cropped to Superscope dimensions despite being composed for 1.37. That aside, I understand the point you're making, and in those cases, I would recommend both versions of such films to be released on DVD (in truth, this was done to only a tiny handful of Superscope movies - the vast majority were composed with 2:1 in mind from the outset).

And if we don't honor the alterations of filmmakers, it's just as bad as pan & scan. If an Oscar-winning cinemtographer says a certain Vietnam film works better in NTSC using the 2:1 ratio, that's important.

Oscar-winning or not, I think Storaro is just plain wrong on this. A 2.35 DVD presentation of APOCALYPSE NOW would look fantastic on the current (and future) generation of widescreen TV's. 2:1 is simply too much of a compromise of the original 2.35 image, especially since - as far as I know - he didn't compose specifically for 2:1 in 1979 and used the entire width of the film. That being the case, I imagine the whole film underwent some degree of pan-scanning to render a 2:1 ratio. Regardless of Storaro's credentials, that represents a second-hand version of the movie he photographed all those years ago.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Simon,
I cannot concern myself with what a director or DP MIGHT have really wanted to compose for, if I did that with every movie I would drive myself insane and never feel comfortable with any DVD I buy that was shot in Super 35.

Listen, we have to settle on some AR, and it might as well be the theatrical one unless told otherwise by the director or DP. If it's proven that a film was indeed composed for another ratio other than it's theatrical one, then that's the AR I will hold out for. If we do't get the true ratio on DVD, that film will not make it into my collection.

As I said in the other thread, without anyone actually telling us what they really wanted, how are we supposed to know?

Gary,
no sweat, you've got this thread handled nicely. Thank God your here, otherwise I would have had to skip work today and type my ass off!

 

[Simon Howson]

I agree that mathematically 2.4:1 is about 29% wider than 1.85:1. But I really don't see much differentiation between the two in contemporary Hollywood practice. There are some, Million Dollar Baby was wonderful, and reflects Clint Eastwood's preference for an older style of American film making, somewhere in the late 1960's. The other one is Gus Van Sant's film Gerry which is just full of salt lakes and long takes - not surprising that both of those films were shot anamorphic.

I think 2.4:1 is often used now because the image is bigger, and it is harder to screw up an anamorphic projection. In the Minelli biography he complained to MGM that The Band Wagon was being shown cropped, and they told him to film all his following films in CinemaScope, because it would ensure the film was projected as he intended!

Reintroducing 1.37:1 and/or 1.66:1 as a standard could alter this lack of differentiation, or it would at least open a new space for some film makers to innovate with those narrower aspect ratios. If it doesn't change the way 2.4:1 films are made, then it may help at the narrower end - I'm sure there are a lot of American film makers who now work strictly in 1.85:1 who would love to use 1.66:1 or 1.37:1.

BTW. I'm pretty sure 1.66:1 was simply introduced as the widescreen format that exhibitionists used when the film wasn't strictly composed to be matted. Even films that were composed for Academy could be projected (and promoted) as widescreen even though this was not the original intent (e.g. The Band Wagon example). This relates to the fact that films of the 1950's contained so many medium shots that provided the opportunity to slightly mask the frame in projection without running the risk of cropping heads. So really these intermediate formats of 1.66:1 and 1.75:1 are really invented in projection. The real ratio in mind during photography is most likely Academy.

Godard talks about during the 1960's composing all his black and white films for Academy, yet I recently saw a 16mm print of Vivre Sa Vie and it was slightly matted to 1.66:1, where as the DVD I have is 1.37:1.

1.75:1 was a piece of product differentiation, I think it was used a lot by Columbia and called (during the 50's) Columbiascope.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Apologies, Patrick, I wasn't ignoring you, I just didn't have alot of time today.

In regards to your statement about Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Shane, I take it that in fact they were meant for exhibition in 1.33:1? Fine, in that case, give me the 1.33:1. How are they presented on DVD btw just out of curiosity?

I'm not a widescreen zealot who demands wide all the time, I desire whatever was really intended. If a film was released to theaters at 2.40:1 I will continue to assume that that was what was intended until i'm told otherwise and given proof.

Also, if I come to find out that any films in my dvd collection are in fact not in the ratio intended, but rather some compromised ratio made because of the studio heads or techinical limitations in the projection booth as Simon has stated, those films are out of my collection so fast it'll make Mario Andretti sick to his stomach!

In truth, fella's, I think I would rather not know the truth. If someone mentions a film I have being intended for a different ratio other than what I have, than fine, i'll get rid of that film, but i'm certaintly not going to go digging and find out that a large percentage of my collection is comprised of bogus ratios that weren't really intended.

That's a nightmare scenario that open's up a whole pandoras box of shit that I just would rather not deal with.

It's funny, the best way I can describe this whole thing is that i'm Neo and Simon is Morpheus, he's offering me either the red pill or the blue pill, the truth, or the illusion of the Matrix.

I should have stayed in the Matrix.

 

[GerardoHP]

Add another Univisium mess to the list:

TANGO (1998) directed by Carlos Saura and DP'd by Storaro with the format credited as Univision, shot using spherical Technovision lenses. This film was exhibited at 2:1 in Los Angeles at least. Some theaters ran flat prints of it, others anamorphic prints with black bars on the side. On DVD, the image is zooomed in to 1.78:1, cropping off the sides of the picture in such a way that it literally cuts off the dancers' feet in many of its exquisite dance sequences. Like a said, a mess. And for what? For the life of me, I can't imagine that this is happening for any other reason than to satisfy what must be Mr. Storaro's monumental ego.

 

[Simon Howson]

I look at this completely differently. Aesthetic choices should be the responsibility of film makers, not the money men. There is absolutely no reason why the film couldn't be released everywhere on anamorphic prints with black bars on the sides, and released on DVD as a 2.00:1 transfer.

When a film maker shoots a film in anamorpic 2.4:1 and it is released 4:3 we all complain. I think we should also complain when a film is shot in 2.00:1 and released in anything other than 2.00:1.

 

[Kai Penttila]

To return to Don Siegel’s Invasion of the body snatchers.

Watching the film, I can’t say that the Superscope looks wrong to me; in fact, the commentator Maurice Yacowar on the Criterion LD commends the film on the elegance of its compositions. I know of the claims on various net sites that it was intended for the Academy ratio but haven’t found any substantiation.

I just read two interviews with Siegel on the film, and he says nothing about an allegedly incorrect theatrical AR.

 

[Simon Howson]

I agree, this is a very confusing one. I have seen it on DVD 2:1 and it looked fine. However given the way films were composed back then many Academy films could have a widescreen section extracted and it would just make it look like the way a lot of Super 35 films look today - a widescreen slice taken out of a 4:3 image with priority given to actor's faces.

Since this was done using an optical printer you would think that the widescreen area would be constant, i.e the centre of the silent aperture frame. In that case one would expect that the ground glass on the view finder provided a safe action area for the 2:1 area during photography so that the director could see what area was going to end up on the anamorphic print.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Given my antipathy toward Kubrick's post-SPARTACUS output, I'm indebted to Simon for his explanation of the director's compositional style. But if we're going to complain (as I often do!) about directors who use Super 35 by composing for one image and protecting for another, I'm afraid Kubrick can't escape criticism for doing the same thing with his narrow gauge movies. I understand the reasons you've given for this, Simon, but Kubrick was in the business of making movies, not glorified video productions, and if his primary AR was going to be denied the vast majority of theatergoers, he really ought to have modified his position to accommodate current exhibition standards, especially since he must have known that TV's were becoming wider (particularly true around the time of EYES WIDE SHUT). Ah well, we could argue about this from now till Christmas, and I doubt we'd resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction! ;-)

I agree that mathematically 2.4:1 is about 29% wider than 1.85:1. But I really don't see much differentiation between the two in contemporary Hollywood practice.

'Practice' being the crucial word in that particular sentence!! There is a wealth of difference between a well-composed 1.85 and a 2.35 movie which is specifically composed to accentuate the 2.35 frame, employing the same 'height' as a 1.85 image but spreading the action in a lateral direction. I watched DONNIE DARKO on DVD last night, and it's clear that debut director Richard Kelly used the frame in what widescreen historian John Belton has described as 'high scope' format, in defiance of TV and home video. Unfortunately, most 'scope' movies today - whether anamorphic or Super 35 - amount to little more than cropped from 1.78, which makes all the difference in the world...

Listen, we have to settle on some AR, and it might as well be the theatrical one unless told otherwise by the director or DP.

Ah, but as I indicated earlier, not all directors and DP's can be trusted. Just think of Vittorio Storaro and his insistence on reframing his movies - even those composed specifically for 2.35 - to 2:1 on home video. I believe he's very wrong to do that and should be prevented from doing so, just like Roger Donaldson should have been prevented from turning THE RECRUIT into something that's neither one thing or another. I wouldn't consider these practices to occupy a 'grey area' - they're just plain wrong-headed. It's enough to make you tear your hair out, isn't it? )

TANGO (1998) directed by Carlos Saura and DP'd by Storaro with the format credited as Univision, shot using spherical Technovision lenses. This film was exhibited at 2:1 in Los Angeles at least. Some theaters ran flat prints of it, others anamorphic prints with black bars on the side. On DVD, the image is zooomed in to 1.78:1... And for what? For the life of me, I can't imagine that this is happening for any other reason than to satisfy what must be Mr. Storaro's monumental ego.

It depends on who insisted on reframing the DVD. From all accounts, I don't think Storaro would have ordered such an alteration. But you're right, it does sound like an absolute nigtmare! Storaro is misguided to pursue such an AR, but if studios are going to indulge his whims, they should pillarbox the image within a 2.35 frame for theatrical exhibition and frame the DVD at 2:1, as intended. Otherwise, we end up with wholly compromised items like this particular DVD. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

 

[MarcusUdeh]

Gary, have you thought it possible that your position is misguided?

Gordon McMurphy, said
I hate this quote. I can only assume you fall in this exact category.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Gary, have you thought it possible that your position is misguided? Gordon McMurphy, said: "There's nothing 'special' or 'interesting' about 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 35mm matting in my opinion." I hate this quote. I can only assume you fall in this exact category.

Not at all. I've argued that 1.66 doesn't distinguish itself sufficiently from 1.37 to create much of a visual difference, but I've also argued that 1.85 is part of what I'd call the three primary AR's for 35mm film (1.37, 1.85 and 2.35), so my viewpoint is actually at odds with the quote you've provided. I have nothing against 1.66, 1.75 or 2:1 per se, but they don't truly distinguish themselves from the primary ratios in a significant way.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Your damn straight!

Now I REALLY don't know what to believe. Gary, what your saying, essentially, is that I should only trust the theatrical AR? That's easy enough, and I am aware of directors who retool their AR's like Roger Donaldson did to create a compostional disaster like The Recruit, but what of the directors who are actually sincere in their statement that their film was compromised for theatrical exhibition?

How do I know that I can take their word for it? And again, even if it is proven that they are telling the truth and did indeed have another AR in mind, chances are slim to none that we will get their TRUE version on DVD, we'll more than likely get the theatrical AR which is incorrect.

Man, I really HATE Super 35! If directors want to make big budgeted made-for-tv movies, let them do that and stop complicating my life with multiple AR's!

Yes, i'm beginning to get irritated now, either they compose for the cinema, or they don't make the film for theaters!

This is precisley why I choose not to involve myself in the technical aspects of film photography, it's making a mess of everything. Can someone PLEASE give me a solid number on the percentage of films shot in Super 35 that ARE composed for the theatrical exhibition ONLY!?

I need to know what kind of a mess i'm dealing with here because this is ridiculous!

 

[Ira Siegel]

John Williamson writes,

15%.

That's a nice solid number. I don't know if its correct, however, and I have no source whatever for it. When guidance is not available from the filmakers, you could, of course, for any particular movie, try to by or rent multiple ARs and then purchase or keep the one which provides for you a more pleasing (or more dramatic or funnier) composition.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,
nice to talk to you again, you may remember we had a pretty fruitful debate back in December about OAR.

As for 15%, if it's that low than that is truly disturbing, but I doubt that it is. Also, it's not possible for me to simply go out and choose whichever version is the more pleasing when only one version is available on dvd, two if you count the foolscreen releases, which is not an option for me.

As you stated, without any input from the filmmaker's forthcoming, it's impossible to know exactly which films are suspect.

I guess that sooner or later I just have to face that this act goes on and there is nothing I can do except keep buying my dvd's as I always have. It just sucks that the attention's of directors and DP's are being drawn away from what should always come first...the theater.

This is what I will take from this thread, not all Super 35 films are presented on dvd the way they were originally envisioned (God it hurts to say that), and I will continue to consider a film's OAR to be the theatrical one until i'm told otherwise by credible sources, and even then I can't completely trust it.

I have a headache. It's pretty God dammned hard to say NO OAR = NO SALE when we don't even know what the hell the OAR is!!

At least tell me that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is correctly presented on dvd!

One more thing, why isn't anyone else here freaked by this!? Doesn't it bother you that perhaps a good chunk of your collection, which you thought was in there OAR's, are in fact not, but are instead the product of a director and/or DP with alterior motives, studio politics or maybe both!?!?

It scares the living shit out of me!

 

[MarcusUdeh]

John if OAR is that big a deal to you than you should learn everything there is to know about ‘cinematography and composition’ short of going to school.

 

[WillG]

Well I wouldn't get too frustrated yet, as I do believe that there are quite a few films shot Super35 that were intended for 2.35:1. Just looking at my collection a couple of examples

"Dogma": In the commentary it is mentioned that many fans pointed out mistakes due to the open matte version to which Kevin Smith responds "Hey, It's a widescreen film!"

"Kill Bill" Vol 1 and 2" I have heard that QT really does not care for Super 35 and that even though he shot the Kill Bill in Super 35 he has gone on record disavowing anything outside of the 2.35:1 frame: (if you watch the final fight between the Bride and O Ren Ishi from Vol 1, there is no way you can deny that there was any AR in mind besides 2.35:1)

"Shaun of the Dead"" Pretty sure that was Super 35 (but could be wrong) The director in his commentary states that you are going to miss some vital information in a scene if watching 1.33:1. As a matter of fact I thing his actual choice of words were "You're Fucked!"

"Deep Impact": A few specific mentions of 2.35:1 in the commentary.

I'm sure there are more I can't think of offhand. So some directors do indeed shoot Super35 2.35:1 and mean it

 

[Patrick McCart]

The rules are simple:

Original Theatrical Ratio is good as gold unless...

- The filmmakers have said otherwise (Austin Powers)
- The ratio was altered after principal photography (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Shane, Exorcist prequel), thus the ratio to use is the one it was filmed for.
- The exact ratio is excessive. For example, 1.85:1 films really ought to be transfered at 1.78:1 if just to open up the mattes a little on the top and bottom. Some films given EXACT aspect ratios tend to look a little tight (UHF, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Goldfinger, Beauty and the Beast '91).

Pretty much 99% of movies are just fine if they're in true OAR. But we need to allow the exceptions.

Just as an example, opening the mattes on Austin Powers or Star Trek 6 (per Jay Roach's/Nicholas Meyer's advice) is just as important as keeping the full 2.35:1 Panavsion aspect ratio (and framing) on Star Wars.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

No thanks, Marcus. While I am extremely supportive of OAR and what is viewed in my HT, I really have very little intrest in learning everything about the process. I will learn what is said here in the forum, Simon's posts for example have been extremely intriguing and I did learn from him, but as far as full blown studying of the craft goes, it's not for me.

Not to say that I am completely ignorant on the subject, I know enough to speak intelligently about it, and have in fact, in the past. However this whole Super 35 mess is, I must admit, all new to me. I've known about S35 for years, but I had no idea that it was being used in such manipulative ways. I always thought that a films theatrical ratio was it's OAR, now I see that isn't so in some cases and it's really thrown me for a loop.

OAR is what I want, and I won't accept anything else, that's all i've ever needed to know and it has never failed me.