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

[Stan]

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

Sad story but true. I haven't been to a theatre since 2000 when I saw "Gladiator" while in Chicago on business. It's just so much more comfortable to have decent equipment, invite a few friends over and watch films at home. Serve nice snacks, not $10 buckets of popcorn and $5 sodas.

Have never seen a digital film in a commercial, chain theatre. Maybe I'll break down and give it a try one of these days.

 

[RichMurphy]

I'm not sure of its exact screen ratio, but the Glebe Theatre in Arlington, Virginia (later the Dominion) showed every CinemaScope film with the sides lopped off. It only stood out during credit sequences and the rare subtitled sequence.

I only remember that from my youth because the other theatres in my neighborhood were all about the same vintage as the Glebe, yet they handled the wider screens of CinemaScope with no problem.

And yes, I was a precocious movie geek as a child, since I lived on the same block as the Buckingham Theatre (now a post office) and went at least once a week.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Moderator's Note:

I just deleted a post about movie theater popcorn in Brazil.

It was, to be honest...one of the most off-topic posts I've ever seen on the forum.

Aspect ratios...discuss.

 

[kevin_y]

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

Hi Robert, when you made those wonderful restorations of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Vertigo," I bet you cared deeply about AR. The viewers may care less about AR, but the people responsible for creating prints, scans, discs for the movies have to. If the person who scans the negative thinks, meh, exact AR is not needed, and if the digital cleanup guy thinks, meh, let me crop a little here because who cares, and if the Blu-ray encoding technicians think, gee, why is one side cropped more than the other side, so let me crop the other side to balance it, because who cares! And on and on, and by the time the viewers see the final result, it will possibly be an unrecognizable mess. My point is SOMEBODY in this chain of operation has to care about AR, and it might as well be everybody caring about it in order to make everybody's job easier.

 

[Worth]

Hi Robert, when you made those wonderful restorations of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Vertigo," I bet you cared deeply about AR. The viewers may care less about AR, but the people responsible for creating prints, scans, discs for the movies have to. If the person who scans the negative thinks, meh, exact AR is not needed, and if the digital cleanup guy thinks, meh, let me crop a little here because who cares, and if the Blu-ray encoding technicians think, gee, why is one side cropped more than the other side, so let me crop the other side to balance it, because who cares! And on and on, and by the time the viewers see the final result, it will possibly be an unrecognizable mess. My point is SOMEBODY in this chain of operation has to care about AR, and it might as well be everybody caring about it in order to make everybody's job easier.

I think the point is that it's less about the exact shape being spot on and more about the correct picture information appearing within that window. You can have an image that's exactly 1.85 or 2.35 and still be terribly misframed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hi Robert, when you made those wonderful restorations of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Vertigo," I bet you cared deeply about AR. The viewers may care less about AR, but the people responsible for creating prints, scans, discs for the movies have to. If the person who scans the negative thinks, meh, exact AR is not needed, and if the digital cleanup guy thinks, meh, let me crop a little here because who cares, and if the Blu-ray encoding technicians think, gee, why is one side cropped more than the other side, so let me crop the other side to balance it, because who cares! And on and on, and by the time the viewers see the final result, it will possibly be an unrecognizable mess. My point is SOMEBODY in this chain of operation has to care about AR, and it might as well be everybody caring about it in order to make everybody's job easier.

My points were exclusively aimed at the exigencies of theatrical exhibition, and its problems, especially in older heavily angled venues,

For film restoration, and mastering, whether for analogue or digital projection, everyone desires to give those projecting the tools with which to do the best job possible.

When it comes to home theater, viewing at the closest aspect ratio to that intended, is always proper. However, especially when it comes to opening a frame ever so slightly at the top and bottom, I have no problem with 1.78 vs 1.85, as in the digital realm, if mastering, and selection of real estate is proper, the viewer is seeing Far more than they would theatrically, where imagery is protected for various reasons, and cropped, literally as necessary to create an image that, to the viewer, appears to be the correct shaped rectangle...

When it’s anything but.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

When we restore a 3-D film, getting the AR correct is essential.

In our case, we're working with films that were in production during the mid-1953 transitional period and there are many variables. The most important aspect is to conduct thorough research in primary source documents (not online) and document the studios internal policy at the time of production. Most studios adopted an official house ratio which everyone would adhere to during principal photography.

Personal preference does not enter the equation.

 

[kevin_y]

My points were exclusively aimed at the exigencies of theatrical exhibition, and its problems, especially in older heavily angled venues,

For film restoration, and mastering, whether for analogue or digital projection, everyone desires to give those projecting the tools with which to do the best job possible.

When it comes to home theater, viewing at the closest aspect ratio to that intended, is always proper. However, especially when it comes to opening a frame ever so slightly at the top and bottom, I have no problem with 1.78 vs 1.85, as in the digital realm, if mastering, and selection of real estate is proper, the viewer is seeing Far more than they would theatrically, where imagery is protected for various reasons, and cropped, literally as necessary to create an image that, to the viewer, appears to be the correct shaped rectangle...

When it’s anything but.

I get what you are saying. You seem to be saying that while AR is important, the framing doesn't have to be pixel-perfectly exact. Even in home video releases, we see this often. For instance, a Criterion disc may have a sliver more or less picture on the side (or sides) of each frame than a Eureka disc that was made from the exact same print. We see that a lot in DVDBeaver's screencap comparisons. Some video release may retain the "round corner" of a frame, while another release of the same source print may not. So I'm guessing your view on cropping is that "it happens," but you don't necessarily condone careless cropping. Or that you condone cropping when there is extenuating circumstances.

 

[Ushabye]

The big aspect ratio problem now is TV channels showing 'scope films zoomed in to 16:9, I don't know about America, but it happens a lot in the UK.

The ITV channels are particularly guilty of this. Especially with the Bond movies. It's infuriating.

 

[Carabimero]

Last night I watched Forrest Gump. It was letter boxed, so I felt like I was at least seeing the full top and bottom of the frame. Today I am watching The Silence of the Lambs (Criterion Collection BD) and it coincidentally fits my 16x9 TV like it was shot for it.

Why can't I shake the feeling that the image was either reshaped for my TV or cropped?

 

[JSLasher]

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

 

[JSLasher]

Did I actually read this missive correctly, or have I enjoyed one too many Martinis?

 

[Robert Harris]

When we restore a 3-D film, getting the AR correct is essential.

In our case, we're working with films that were in production during the mid-1953 transitional period and there are many variables. The most important aspect is to conduct thorough research in primary source documents (not online) and document the studios internal policy at the time of production. Most studios adopted an official house ratio which everyone would adhere to during principal photography.

Personal preference does not enter the equation.

Are the majority of 3D films not shot 1.37?

That’s the image to be restored.

Crop as designed.

 

[DaveF]

Moderator's Note:

I just deleted a post about ...
Aspect ratios...discuss.

And I just deleted a post discussing the merits of how pirated films are ... I don’t know ... better having no black bars...?

In any case, don’t do that.

 

[Wayne_j]

Last night I watched Forrest Gump. It was letter boxed, so I felt like I was at least seeing the full top and bottom of the frame. Today I am watching The Silence of the Lambs (Criterion Collection BD) and it coincidentally fits my 16x9 TV like it was shot for it.

Why can't I shake the feeling that the image was either reshaped for my TV or cropped?

Silence of the Lamb was 1.85:1. That is very close to the shape of your tv.

 

[haineshisway]

Silence of the Lamb was 1.85:1. That is very close to the shape of your tv.

Yes, what is the poster to whom you're responding thinking - that it's cropped from scope? Incorrectly matted? I'm baffled.

 

[Carabimero]

Yes, what is the poster to whom you're responding thinking - that it's cropped from scope? Incorrectly matted? I'm baffled.

When I play the DVD of the same movie on the same player on the same TV, it is letter boxed, yet the Criterion BD is not. Both can't be correct; that is what I am thinking. So yes, I am baffled, too.

 

[Robert Crawford]

When I play the DVD of the same movie on the same player on the same TV, it is letter boxed, yet the Criterion BD is not. Both can't be correct; that is what I am thinking. So yes, I am baffled, too.

Are you talking about the non-anamorphic 1.85 ratio Criterion DVD?

 

[DP 70]

When I went to see The Sound of Music at the Cineworld Haymarket in London it was on a common width screen.

 

[JoshZ]

When I play the DVD of the same movie on the same player on the same TV, it is letter boxed, yet the Criterion BD is not. Both can't be correct; that is what I am thinking. So yes, I am baffled, too.

The Criterion Blu-ray has an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 with small letterbox bars. Screencaps on the DVDBeaver review page confirm this:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-ray_reviews_80/the_silence_of_the_lambs_blu-ray.htm

The older Criterion DVD was non-anamorphic letterbox, which means that it is probably appearing on your TV screen stretched sideways with oversized letterbox bars. When you look at the picture, does everything look stretched?