A Few Words About A few words about...™ Aspect Ratios (1 Viewer)

[Stan]

When you watch films on TV, they might be edited for time and scenes might be missing and you might not notice, but do you find that acceptable?

One my major pet peeves. When the film starts out with the "Edited for time, content, formatted to fit your screen, etc." Instantly press the "delete" button. I'm paying to receive these shows, how dare they cut and modify them. TCM and IFC (even with commercials) are decent, but some of the others are terrible.

HBO is doing a pretty good job of showing some films in OAR, some of the other pay channels, not at all.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Whether the audience notices or not is not the issue. Audiences usually just accept what they're given. I was in a theater the other day in which the left channel was missing. I've seen 2D presentations when they leave the 3D filter on the Sony 4K projectors and the image is ridiculously dim. Back around the time that "Hugo" was released, I was in two different theaters in which the left and center channels were reversed. But I'm always told that I'm the only one who complained.

My experience, sadly, is that complaining at the time when the issue occurs does nothing to get the issue fixed, but does cause me to miss a portion of the movie, which just leaves me more upset than if I hadn't bothered.

I think the major chains decided a long time ago that it was cheaper for them to keep less people on staff, and specifically fewer people worrying about presentation standards, than it was to give a refund or free pass to the person who complains.

Regarding 3D specifically, several times a year, I'll go to a film that's advertised as being in 3D, where the theater charged the higher 3D ticket price, and handed out 3D glasses, only to play the 2D DCP instead. Only one, way back in 2012, did the theater actually go "Oops" and restart in 3D. Every other time, they've apologized and offered a free pass, but consistently refuse to stop the movie and play it in 3D. I've never been followed by other people to complain, which leads me to believe that they either didn't notice or didn't care. I wonder how many people who say that the 3D didn't look impressive or very 3D-y to them or just looked the same as 2D but dimmer actually have been watching 2D movies while wearing glasses.

Certainly no one at a multiplex seems to care about films matted incorrectly or not at all, projectors missing their marks, etc.

I really have become convinced that they made a business decision that it was cheaper to offer me (and others who complain) a readmit pass (which costs them nothing) than it would be to hire a guy to spot check presentations every day. That guy, you have to pay $20 an hour or more, each and every hour you're open. Me, I can be made to go away with a free pass.

 

[Stan]

Weird post just above. Don't know what I did, but it got attached to somebody else's comment.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The only time I'm aware of exhibitors running all films at 2:1 in the 1950's were at some drive-ins. There's no documented account of that happening in conventional movie theaters.

 

[Stan]

Now there is an option in the Sony 4K projectors to expand the 1716 height in the projector to 2160 and then using a 1.25x anamorphic lens, resulting in a 2.37:1 AR and a larger widescreen image as compared to the 1.85 image, but almost no one does this because that lens costs a fortune and it take about an hour to switch lenses on the projector.

It takes an hour to switch a lens? Maybe I worked in a simpler time, we had flat and scope lenses. Took maybe three minutes to swap them out. The scope lenses were enormous, but you put them in, lined things up, changed aperture plates and adjusted the focus. Then of course opened the curtains on the screen for widescreen.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

But Stan, haven't you heard, digital is better!

 

[avroman]

After a lifetime working in Theatres and Projection Rooms, I have just completely given up patronizing Multiplexes.
I just can't cope with the aggravation and annoyance of the sloppy presentation, and remembering how all the good presentation values of my job have been tossed out the window.

 

[Robert Harris]

Large format being something like IMAX where the composition is intended to be engulfing?

70mm, VVLA

 

[Robert Harris]

Whether the audience notices or not is not the issue. Audiences usually just accept what they're given. I was in a theater the other day in which the left channel was missing. I've seen 2D presentations when they leave the 3D filter on the Sony 4K projectors and the image is ridiculously dim. Back around the time that "Hugo" was released, I was in two different theaters in which the left and center channels were reversed. But I'm always told that I'm the only one who complained. Back in the film days and before everyone used platters, I even remember a reel being projected in the wrong order, although it took me a while to realize it and I didn't sense that anyone else did.

The issue, is that projecting at the wrong aspect ratio (or any other major projection error) does not represent the original intent which is a violation of the art. I'm not talking about projection errors resulting from parallax distortion from the booth, although that's far less of an issue today since few theaters have balconies today. And I'm not talking about cropping of the frame due to the distance of the booth from the screen and the width of the image not exactly matching an even lens focal length. I'm referring to what you stated: projecting films at the wrong AR or the theaters that back in the film days, projected everything at 2:1, as others have stated.

And in the case of a 1.66 film projected at 1.85? That would sometimes result in heads being cut off or since many of those were foreign films, subtitles being cut off.

There are many novels in which you might not notice if a chapter was missing. But would you accept reading the book that way? When you watch films on TV, they might be edited for time and scenes might be missing and you might not notice, but do you find that acceptable?

Proper presentation means everything. Before 2005, I worked for a company that evaluated the quality of prints and presentation in theaters. If a film was playing in a multiplex, we'd have to watch it on every screen. What I found as I moved from screen-to-screen was that each audience reacted completely differently to the film, seemingly dependent upon the quality of presentation and the ambiance and/or size and seating capacity of the theater. This may be one of the reasons why people have such diverse reactions to a film. People may not realize it, but they react to the quality of presentation. And it seems to me that because of improper presentation, if we're seeing a heavily cropped image, something is going to feel "off", even if it's on a subconscious level.

Luckily, on Blu, most films today are presented properly in their original ARs. And in the theatre, with few exceptions, films today are 1.85 or 2.4 and presented if not properly (since most digitally projected films are projected common width instead of common height) at least at the proper AR. Where I do agree with RAH is that a few pixels in either direction doesn't make much difference.

Common width is the enemy.

A CinemaScope epic should be larger, not smaller than Lassie Come Home.

And a 70mm production should be both wider, as well as higher than standard issue flat.

I’ve been helping a local 501(c)3 theater to get things right. Twinning removed. 4k. Properly masked from 1.19 to 2.76. Upper masking rises to accommodate 2.21.

Screen is about 37 feet, which will only be used for 2.76, but students will be able to see the classics, if not “as they were meant to be seen,” at least in the neighborhood of proper.

For newer productions, Dolby Atmos, and 3D, with proper illumination.

All in a modern digital environment.

 

[KeithDA]

Common width is the enemy.

Yes , back in the day when the masking moved after the trailers and the adverts it was an 'ooh' moment if the screen opened up wider, but always a disappointment if the masking only moved up from the bottom to make it a smaller, but widescreen shape...

 

[RolandL]

From the Widescreen Museum

 

[John Sparks]

I realize this conversation is primarily about theatrical and disc presentation, but one of my pet peeves is cable channel and pay-per-view practices. They routinely lop off the sides of 2.35:1 films to make them "fit the screen". It really takes me out of the viewing when I see actors crowded to the sides of the screen, or even missing entirely.

A few years back I ordered an HD film to watch from my cable company and they showed the 2.35:1 movie as 1.85:1. I called them on it the next day and this is what the supervisor advised, "Since it's a crap shoot on the size of the picture you're going to see, just buy the SD version...you'll always know what you're getting, a 4x3 picture." Oh, and they gave me back my money and I haven't ordered another movie from them since then.

 

[Alan Tully]

Yes , back in the day when the masking moved after the trailers and the adverts it was an 'ooh' moment if the screen opened up wider, but always a disappointment if the masking only moved up from the bottom to make it a smaller, but widescreen shape...

I only ever remember the screen opening wider (it was great to see those curtains carrying on opening up), I used to think I was getting a bargain, 'scope for the same price as normal. It's still my favourite sceen shape.

 

[Douglas R]

Most theaters today are common width. .

“Most” Surely not? Certainly here in the U.K. it’s only very occasionally that I’ve see a 2.35:1 film shown within a 1.85:1 width. Nearly always the masks expand at the sides.

 

[Worth]

“Most” Surely not? Certainly here in the U.K. it’s only very occasionally that I’ve see a 2.35:1 film shown within a 1.85:1 width. Nearly always the masks expand at the sides.

It's certainly most in Canada. They tore down all of the old cinemas about 15-20 years ago and replaced them with new multiplexes. In some respects, the new theatres a better, but the vast majority of screens are constant width. I'd imagine it's the same in most of the States.

 

[bobclampett]

I know changing the aspect ratio from 1.85 to 1.78 can seem insignificant but it can wreck a scene. Case in point the Jerry Lewis film The Nutty Professor. When Warner Brothers released the Blu ray the aspect ratio changed from the original 1.85 to 1.78 which revealed Mr Lewis stand in during the title sequence before the laboratory explodes. The real Jerry Lewis is discovered in the next shot in the rubble of his chemistry class. If the film was masked properly you would not see the stand ins face at the top of the frame. The original Paramount Anamorphic DVD was masked correctly at 1.85 to 1. The stand ins face was not revealed. It's not just the aspect ratio as Mr Harris has pointed out but the safety around the rectangle in the camera view finder that took into account projector gates and screen masking.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Opening the frame to fill contemporary displays is not a good idea.

Precise framing - as composed for during principal photography - is important.

 

[haineshisway]

At my neighborhood theater, which had a reasonable-sized screen, the masking widened for scope and the top masking would always come down a bit. It was, in fact, that way in most theaters I went to back then and I remember it vividly because I was always fascinated by it and watched for it specifically.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The only time I'm aware of exhibitors running all films at 2:1 in the 1950's were at some drive-ins. There's no documented account of that happening in conventional movie theaters.

I don't have any paperwork to prove it, but the movie theater in Roslyn, NY used to do this on their main screen. I worked there when I was 14 and noticed right away - the projectionist was impressed. And that's why I never actually watched a movie there when I was an employee, wasn't worth it to see a film presented improperly, even if it was free.

They've long been under new ownership and that screen was divided into two, and I believe they now show films at the proper aspect ratio (albeit on tiny screens).

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I have no doubt it happened in the post-multiplex era but in the 1950's? I doubt it.