Blu-Ray aspect ratio question: 2.35, 2.39, 2.40? (1 Viewer)

[Phil Carter]

Hey folks,
I'm slowly building up my Blu-Ray collection after making the jump to HD and am falling in love with movies all over again. Can't believe how gorgeous everything looks...just unbelievable.
My question, though, has to do with aspect ratios. I, like everyone else here, am a diehard OAR fanatic. So I'm wondering why I keep seeing very slightly different aspect ratios for my Blu-Rays than their theatrical (or DVD) releases.
Two examples (although this is the case with practically EVERY Scope film I own):
1. Cars. IMDB and my DVD copy of the film show it as aspect ratio 2.35. The Blu-Ray release, on the other hand, has it listed at 2.39.
2. The Transporter (also: Gattaca, Swordfish, Speed Racer, others). IMDB and my DVD copy list it at aspect ratio 2.35. The Blu-Ray shows it as 2.40.
Now, I know that in the grand scheme of things this is only a SLIGHT difference. But what's with the changes? Have they actually been projecting these films in theaters at 2.35 when they were actually FILMED at 2.40 or 2.39? Cropping the sides very slightly to get the ratio right? Or are the Blu-Ray releases trimmed very slightly on top and bottom to make the picture narrower vertically than it was originally?
The first scenario seems to make more sense to me. I know that with "Cars", for example, I can actually see more picture on the sides of the image on my Blu-Ray than was present on the DVD (I still have my old DVD player hooked up for comparison purposes). But I can't figure out why studios would project them in theaters and release on DVD at 2.35 if they were filmed at 2.39 or 2.40 or whatever.
Somebody help me clarify. Little things like this eat away at me until I can figure out what the cause is. Even the almighty Google seems to have failed me in this case (all the Blu-Ray aspect ratio questions are related to various models of TV showing 4:3 images instead of 16:9 or full scan mode, due to incorrect player settings). The films are displaying properly, I just can't figure out why the Blu-Ray is slightly wider than the film was in theaters.

cheers,
Phil

 

[Brian Borst]

In the seventies, the 2.35:1 aspect ratio was projected a little narrower to hide the splice marks visible on the reels. So it became 2.39:1 (actually closer to 2.40:1). Most films are edited digitally nowadays, so there wouldn't be much sense to do it now. But I guess it has remained that way.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It's remained that way because that's how the aperture plates are filed. That, and reels still have to be spliced together before being put on the platters.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

When you see 2.35:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1 on packaging - it's pretty much the same. Different studios use different numbers depending on, I dunno, their mood and the weather that day, but for all intents and purposes it's the same thing in this case.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Resurrecting this thread.

Did some research on this myself for the purposes of figuring out what my own screen size will be for my theater-in-progress...

People use these ratios interchangeably, but technically they are not exactly the same. Even on Blu-ray.

Some examples from my Photoshop cropping.

Hunger Games: Catching Fire

How The West Was Won

Raiders Of The Lost Ark

Jaws

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

The Robe

 

[Brandon Conway]

No one considers 2.35 and 2.55 (or even the random 2.89 of HTWWW) as the same. But 2.35/2.39/2.40 are so close that the studios use them interchangeably on their packaging. Same often goes for 1.33/1.37 and 1.78/1.85.

 

[Worth]

How the West Was Won and Mad World are atypical examples, though. West was filmed in Cinerama and Mad World was shot in Ultra Panavision 70 - only a handful of films were made in each process.

The Robe was shot in true Cinemascope, which was only really in use from 1953 to the end of the 50s, and had an aspect ratio of 2.55:1

 

[Mark-P]

The Robe was shot in true Cinemascope, which was only really in use from 1953 to the end of the 50s, and had an aspect ratio of 2.55:1

Not even that long. 2.55:1 was only used from 1953 - 1956. And before you say it, I know there are a couple of titles in that ratio after 1956 but they most certainly weren't shown in theaters that way.

 

[Jari K]

"But 2.35/2.39/2.40 are so close that the studios use them interchangeably on their packaging. Same often goes for 1.33/1.37 and 1.78/1.85."Yes. The package (and the review, since many times it just takes the info from the back cover) can say "2.39:1", but it's actually 2.35:1. Or 2.40:1.Some good info here:http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/HD_Advisor/Will_You_Still_Need_Him_Will_You_Still_Feed_Him_When_HD_Advisors_Sixty-Four/4963