1.78:1. Will this ever be the standard for movies? (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

So Adam, am I to understand that the way GL is shooting the next two SW films, is sorta like Super 35 in a way right? He's composing his intended 2.40:1 AR within the 1.78:1 film frame correct? Wouldn't this produce more apparant grain though, similar to the grain produced by Super 35 because he's throwing away resolution?

Exactly. In regards to grain... no. While he is throwing away resolution, the source image is digital, so there will be no grain in the source picture to blow up (ala Super 35). The only grain will be that of the film it's being printed on for theatrical distribution. The picture should look great, since the film can be printed directly from the computers en masse. Wheither they will do this or print out one master copy and use traditional film reproduction methods remains to be seen, however.

 

[Troy LaMont]

Clarification,
First of all I never, never complained about 'MY' viewing movies shot wider than 1.78:1 on my setup. I don't complain about any black bars on any aspect ratio, be it 16:9 or 4:3.
I'm a warrior in the arena for widescreen, OAR adoption by the J6Ps. I've even stopped strange people in video stores and electronics retailers trying to explain the differences between pan & scam and widescreen and what they might be missing.

Quote:

I really, really think you're confused. 1.66, 1.77, 1.85, 2.35 and 2.40 are all WIDESCREEN, 16:9 formats.
Anyway, for the last time and for the record, I WASN'T complaining about 'black bars'. I was offering a suggestion for a standard 16:9, widescreen format that 'could' benefit everyone, including J6P.
Troy

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Adam, thanks for the clearification. It makes sense too, since Lucas is not dealing with film, his new digital method doesn't suffer the same problems that traditonal Super 35 introduces. So the only grain we see will be what's on the film stock used to make the prints for theaters. I for one hope he chooses to output the film right from the computer onto the film stock, it seems that the image will be spectacular!
I can't wait to see what this dvd is going to look like!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Troy, I DO think it will get boring! Think about it, every movie looks the same, wouldn't you get tired of that after awhile? I know I would.
If I may borrow a Mike Knappism, if I have supermarket bought frozen fishsticks for dinner every night, every now and then I want some lobster, know what I mean?

 

[Scott H]

This is probably a good place to remind people that there is no 1.78:1 projection in the US. That is, SMPTE 195 specifies the following 35mm projection at US theaters: 1.37; 1.66; 1.85; and 2.39:1.

Now, to the original topic, sort of... If I were about to shoot a film for which we had decided on a 1.85:1 AR, I would in fact compose for 1.78:1 using a 1.78:1 ground glass in the camera and corresponding framing leader. The difference is minor and general projection is less precise than home video will be. And, if shooting 35mm, I would shoot this 1.78 project via Super35.

 

[Simon Massey]

"Quote"

Can't wait for the complaints to come into the HD TV manufacturers. "You mean I bought a widescreen TV and I am still getting black bars. Can't you make a TV that doesn't do that?"

I hear that complaint all the time now - it was even a complaint featured on a consumer program we have here called Watchdog. This guy wanted to complain about the fact that he had bought a widescreen TV, and that some of the films were still showing black bars. What was more annoying is that Watchdog essentially made out that he had a genuine grievance, and brought on the retailer who sold him the product to question him, and didn't give him the opportunity to explain himself. Funnily, this was presented by Anne Robinson (pre-Weakest Link)

 

[Scott H]

Why in the world are people complaining about the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. That's the best aspect ratio, it's more cinematic to me.

There is no more validity to calling 2.35:1 the best AR than to calling 1.33:1 the best AR. Exceptional cinematography is not dependent on frame width, no AR is inherently better than another.
Now, you may find 2.35:1 more cinematic, for whatever reasons

 

[Troy LaMont]

John,

Quote:

Exquisitely put!
Troy

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Why can't people have a polite conversation here in the forum anymore?
Troy, don't put words in my mouth alright, I meant exactly what I said. Come on man, your a grown human being, you knew what I meant.
Thier is no hidden meaning in my post that requires deciphering, it means what it says. For the last time, I don't want every movie to be 1.78:1, I like diversity. How hard is this to understand!?
COMPOSITION ASIDE, 1.78:1 is 1.78:1, it's the same aspect ratio!

 

[MickeS]

John, I agree with Troy here, what you said just doesn't make much sense. Just because the aspect ratio is the same doesn't mean that "every movie looks the same" (exact quote). I doubt many people (if anyone) would get tired of it.

And someone asked if I think that all movies should be forced to have the same aspect ratio (1.78:1), of course not! I'm just saying that it would be a pretty much bullet-proof solution to the problem with P&S on non-theatrical distribution of movies.

Of course, movie studios probably don't WANT to make movies fully "compatible" with TV-screens, for the same reasons they decided to move away from the 4:3 aspect ratio before.

/Mike

 

[John Berggren]

I personally have a preference for 2.35:1. Although I'm happy when most directors choose 1.85, there is a special place in my heart for films that "go wide". I don't know why that is.

 

[Sean Conklin]

I agree with John Williamson!! Cinema would be boring if all AR's were 1.78 no matter the content or composition.

Anyway, for the last time and for the record, I WASN'T complaining about 'black bars'. I was offering a suggestion for a standard 16:9, widescreen format that 'could' benefit everyone, including J6P.

This is CINEMA, why should we care to please J6P? Like someone else said the Europeans and other countries have embraced cinema and aspect ratio's no matter what size!This suggestion would certainly not benefit me!!:
The idea of reducing or ridding the world of 2.35 cinema is blasphemy of the art form.
It is the filmmakers option to shoot and produce at whatever aspect ratio they want/need! Let J6P deal with it!Eventually he will come around and embrace it! Widescope film is here to stay.
If anyone out there needs mattes or knows a J6P that needs 'em, I make 'em, and they are one of the best video upgrades you can do for your Home Theater! E-mail me if you need some! In other words mattes is my answer.
And I think we should quit worrying about what J6P wants and band together and get rid of P&S only releases, and get rid of the idea of making 1 aspect ratio the standard!!!

 

[Scott H]

Also, based on your experience and given this question in its strictly hypothetical context, do you think that filming in 1.78:1 would be a major issue for directors and the like?

Not at all. In fact, it's done everyday. Panavision and Arri and Aaton and Moviecam all have 1.78:1 ground glass available for their 35mm and 16mm cameras. Other than the fact that there is not currenty 1.78:1 theatrical projection, there is no issue.

Conversely, I have seen 1.78:1 HD video originated material projected on 35mm and 70mm in the screening room at Panavision Woodland Hills. There is a lot of 1.78:1 video originated prduction exhibited on film at 1.85:1, dating back to Prospero's Books (Series 7 was the last I saw theatrically).

Typically, filmmakers select ARs based on serving the story and their visions. Of course, they consider how it will be exhibited as well. They will continue to do this. Obviously many will consider new TV standards which may make them favor a ~1.85:1 AR, but no doubt others may now favor ~2.40:1 to differentiate their films as happened in the 1950's.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Micke, sure it makes sense. Think of it, a movie comes out, 1.78:1, another film opens, 1.78:1, another movie comes out, SURPRISE, 1.78:1 FOREVER!
Wouldn't you like to see a 2.35:1 movie once in awhile, or a 1.85:1 movie? Sure you would, that's my point.

 

[Sean Conklin]

My brother was a J6P in the film enthusiast field (the biggest, VHS all the way!). When I talked him into a DVD player, he did NOT like the black bars.
He came over to my house and watched his favorite movie in my HT room (Gone in 60 seconds), I had the lights low and the mattes covering the black bars on my 31" direct view monitor, he sat mesmerized throughout the entire film. When it was over he said "Now I see what you mean". He insisted I make mattes for him, and he now prefers 2.35:1 over any other aspect ratio. If all J6P's could experience something like this 80% or more would see the light!!!
Again why should we dumb down the film industry to help J6P fill his screen? If the "average consumer" cannot live with the small black bars on his 16:9 or any monitor for that matter, then he is not a film enthusiast and HE/SHE doesn't deserve the only format that caters to enthusiasts, and is capable of delivering film in the home at it's correct OAR, namely DVD!

 

[Micheal]

This is a terrible idea. It would be like telling all artist's to paint in Watercolour ONLY!! Don't dumb-down cinema just because some people don't "get it". Educate them but never conform...

I don't think that we are/can miss too much on movies in this aspect ratio.

You're joking right!? I guess your crystal ball is better than everyone else's.
Most Directors and Cinematographers will not be a simple as 1.78:1

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Yes, thank you Sean, Micheal, and Scott, I think.
Troy, this is all i'm trying to say here. Nothing more.
2.35:1 and 1.85:1 are not going anywhere. Sure they may use 1.78:1 HD lenses when they shoot films in the new digital format, but the end result compositions will still always be 2.35:1, 1.85:1, and any other AR the filmmaker chooses to compose for within the 1.78:1 frame. The film world will become a pretty dull place without the diversity of AR's.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I fail to see the need for standardization at all. Do we need to standardize the number of pages in a book, so they look nice and tidy in our bookshelves, or should we let the author be the judge of that? Do we need to make all paintings fit the same frame for consistency's sake, or should the painter make that decision? Why should we treat the aspect ratio of a movie any different, it is, after all, the director's (and DP's) decision, isn't it?

 

[Neil Joseph]

As I mentioned in another thread, 1.78:1 should not be a universal a.r. for movies. There are certain movies that demand a wider format but if any a.r. has to be the standard, then 2.35:1 should be it. Just because a widescreen TV is 1.78:1 does not mean that movies should be in that format to make life easier.

 

[Troy LaMont]

Michael,
1.78:1 is the chosen 'standard' aspect ratio for HD. Which is why all HD capable widescreen TVs have this ratio. If all TV programming will be required to be HD, then my statement does hold its weight in water. So going forward, all HD programming will be 1.78:1 except for movies released theatrically.
So to answer your question, Yes my crystal ball IS better than everyone else's (especially those that didn't do their HD homework).

Quote:

No one is being impolite or rude, just mature debate on a hot topic. I've not put any words into your mouth that you didn't put there yourself. Re-read what you post.
This has been nothing more than a great eye-opener for me if anything. I'm not going to do the math because my mind hurts about now, but I don't think there's too much of a 'perceived' or physical difference in 2.35:1 and 1.78:1.
Troy
Widescreen afficionado, devotee