1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

A Few Words About A few words about...™ Aspect Ratios

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Feb 16, 2018.

  1. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    11,628
    Likes Received:
    12,103
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    I recently received a message querying the concept of aspect ratios, and why I seldom make note of them.

    While I've covered this in the past, here (once again) is the simple answer.

    In the most general sense, aspect ratios don't matter.

    And by that, I mean that with specificity, while a film originally released in 2.55 or 2.1 or 1.66 should certainly follow the intent of the filmmakers, that it doesn't matter precisely how closely.

    Aspect ratios are basic shapes. Nothing more.

    Does it matter, aside from possibly exposing something in the frame (an actor's marks, a microphone) it makes no difference if a home video release fills out a projector display or flat panel at 1.78 or arrives in 1.85.

    And that is because in original theatrical presentations, aspect ratios were a guide, and that was all.

    Image a huge old theater, a beam of light projecting an image on a screen forty feet below the booth and one hundred fifty feet away.

    It mattered not precisely what the aspect ratio was, as long as an image, in basically the desire shape hit the screen, as the aperture plate cut for the projectors, would never have been the exact aspect ratio anyway. In the case of those beautiful old movie houses, they would have been cut into the shape of an inverted trapezoid, in order to attain a rectangle on screen.

    Anywhere from five to twenty percent of the image might be lost in creating that shape.

    When it comes to home video, we're usually seeing far more of the frame than was ever seen theatrically, and the shape that's carved out of the available real estate can be far different than seen in theaters.

    Perfection was the last thing on a projectionists' mind. For no matter how hard he or she might try, they were still dealing with that same old trapezoid.

    What this means is that attaining a 1.85 aspect ratio can mean cropping the top and bottom of a frame, or just as likely exposing a bit more of the sides to create a slightly wider image.

    And the viewer is seeing the same shape, or aspect ratio, with different information.

    While I'm not suggesting that aspect ratios don't matter, for in the general sense, they do. I'm simply stating that within rational parameters, a few lines of information don't matter.

    RAH
     
  2. Todd Erwin

    Todd Erwin Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4,268
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Hawthorne, NV
    Real Name:
    Todd Erwin
    What used to drive me crazy were the theaters that would use a fixed 2:1 screen, then matte the image to fill the screen. This meant that films shot flat were overly cropped top and bottom while scope movies were cropped left and right. This was standard practice at Edwards Cinemas that were built in the 1980s and 1990s, with the (possible) exception of the largest auditorium in the complex. This was more or less corrected as many of those theaters were closed as part of the chain's bankruptcy and eventual conversion to digital of those that survived.
     
    Josh Steinberg likes this.
  3. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Wow. File this under Things I Learned Today. Your expertise and insight is always welcome and educational, Mr. Harris, thank you for your willingness to share your knowledge with us!
     
  4. Billy Batson

    Billy Batson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,927
    Likes Received:
    1,579
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    London
    Real Name:
    Alan
    Yes, how many 1:66, 1:75, 1;77 films were in fact projected at 1:85 (or thereabouts), a great many I'd think, & did anyone notice? No.
     
    Brent Reid likes this.
  5. RichMurphy

    RichMurphy Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Real Name:
    Rich
    Many theatres of that era had those horrible 2:1 screens with one-size-fits-all projection. They were barely acceptable for "flat" contemporary films, but disastrous for 'scope or pre-1953 films. A Roth theatre in Tysons Corner Mall, Virginia had a showing of SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, and I was thrilled to be able to see it in a theatre. Imagine my surprise to see Gene Kelly's thighs moving in and out and weird tapping noises coming from the speaker. Rumor has it he was dancing at the time.
     
  6. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    I'm always impressed when I go to a theater that's been refurnished (upgraded digital projection screen, stadium seating, etc.) and it has movable mattes and uses them to optimal effect for the main feature. Sometimes I've noticed theaters here take the path of least resistance and if a screen is say 1.85 and they project a 2.35 screen, they don't move the mattes, and just think we won't notice the extra screen surface reflecting light ever so slightly. It's not a make or break, but just a nice touch when they move the mattes to truly give a black border around the picture. Makes it feel more immersive to my eyes.
     
    Josh Steinberg likes this.
  7. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    11,628
    Likes Received:
    12,103
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    First time I saw Kane in 35.

    Film started.

    1.85.

    Went to booth. They only had scope and 1.85 optics and mattes.

    I suggested he run it scope without anamorphic.
     
  8. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    390
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    It's one thing when a 1.37:1 film is shown at 1.78:1 or a 1.85:1 film shown at 1.33:1, but nitpicking is kind of obnoxious. It's great when a transfer or master uses 100% accurate STMPE framing and aspect ratio, but I roll my eyes every time a reviewer laments a 1.85:1 film being 1.78:1.

    At the nicer theaters in Atlanta, I've had good success. The Fox Theatre ran Citizen Kane in 35mm at proper 1.37:1, complete with mattes taken in. Midtown Art Cinema ran Safety Last! in 1.33:1 and Mr. Hulot's Holiday at 1.37:1 from 35mm.

    I went to a small theater in North Georgia that ran Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz from 35mm, but cropped to 1.85:1. Thankfully, the tickets were free (grand opening). Also saw The Avengers in DLP and it was cropped to 2.40:1 instead of shown at 1.85:1.
     
    Stephen_J_H and Brent Reid like this.
  9. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    2,206
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    You’re absolutely right about AR being an approximation when it comes to film content, kind of like bleeds in the printing industry. But with digital movie cameras AR should, for all intents and purposes be exact.
     
  10. notmicro

    notmicro Agent

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    10
    Real Name:
    Mark M
    Speaking of which - in 1955 when Disney made the major decision to switch Lady and the Tramp to a CinemaScope release, did they also switch to using an anamorphic lens in the multi-plane camera? Or did they trim the standard full-frame version down to a wide-screen ratio? My understanding is that there were release-prints in both formats, which leads to a bit of confusion.
     
  11. battlebeast

    battlebeast Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Real Name:
    Warren
    You learn something new every day. Good information!
     
  12. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,139
    Likes Received:
    4,267
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Send this to ol' Gary Tooze - he calls a 1.85 film transferred at 1.78 "bastardized" as if he had any idea of what he was actually going on about.
     
  13. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    11,628
    Likes Received:
    12,103
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Different SE negatives
     
    Stephen_J_H likes this.
  14. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    5,726
    Likes Received:
    10,417
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Bob
    Brent Reid and ClassicFlix like this.
  15. atcolomb

    atcolomb Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103
    Likes Received:
    868
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Chicago Area
    Real Name:
    Angelo
    Saw Citizen Kane for the first time in a theater about 15 years ago and the same happened to me and told the manager. The sad thing about it was there were around five in the theater watching it.
     
  16. Lord Dalek

    Lord Dalek Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,955
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Joel Henderson
    I've said it before. Everything between 1.33:1 and 2.20 is a turkeyshoot. They were bascially controlled by the projectionist's whim.
     
    Stephen_J_H likes this.
  17. Tony Bensley

    Tony Bensley Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,452
    Likes Received:
    3,181
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    London, ON; Canada
    Real Name:
    Anthony
    I found a somewhat similar experience in viewing The Three Stooges short, GOOF ON THE ROOF, which was filmed in 1952 (But not released until late 1953, after the Widescreen format had been adopted by most studios!), on their Sony DVD set. Unfortunately, Sony decided to release this as it was shown in Theaters at the (presumably, and approximately) 1.85:1 aspect ratio, rather than the 1.37:1 frame, which was the original intent when it was shot. For me, that the former was clearly the wrong AR was painfully obvious, especially during one scene involving a bucket.

    CHEERS! :)
     
    Brent Reid likes this.
  18. Douglas R

    Douglas R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    712
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    Real Name:
    Doug
    I saw many films in the mid to late 1950s at my local suburban cinema in London. They would often show re-issues from the 1930s onwards as a support to the main feature. I remember CAMILLE (1936) being shown for example as well as one or two Marx Brothers films. These pre-1953 films would always be shown on the wide screen and they gave the projectionist a full-time job in ensuring that the picture was frequently adjusted top and bottom, to ensure no essential information was lost - Main Titles were especially problematic of course. It never dawned on me at that young age to wonder why the picture scrolled up and down like that on older films!
     
    theonemacduff and Brent Reid like this.
  19. Craig Beam

    Craig Beam Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    890
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Gresham, OR
    Real Name:
    CraB
    Thank you, Robert. As usual, your expertise classes up the joint. ;)
     
  20. PaulaJ

    PaulaJ Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2000
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    610
    >Many theatres of that era had those horrible 2:1 screens with one-size-fits-all projection.

    They're doing a modern version of that today. At the Regal 24 in Chamblee, GA, the smaller theaters stay masked at 1:85 even if they're projecting a 2:35:1 film, so you get bars at the top and bottom. At the Midtown Art Cinema (art cinema!) in Atlanta they have a brand new policy of no longer masking to fit the films. Their big room stays fixed at 2:35:1 (so when I saw The Shape of Water in that auditorium, it had huge bars on the side) and all the other theaters are masked at 1:85 -- or should I say, something approximating that. Even the 1:85 movies in those rooms have slim bars on the sides.

    Anyone else experiencing this in their local theaters?
     

Share This Page