How does one say "2.35:1" etc.?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Steve Felix, Sep 11, 2001.

  1. Steve Felix

    Steve Felix Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2001
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Two point three five to one? What's the standard on this? I'm giving a speech on aspect ratios tomorrow and it occured to me that I don't know how to actually say these things. Thanks!
    ------------------
    "We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!"
     
  2. Frank L

    Frank L Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it would go something like this:
    2.35:1 - two thirty-five to one
    1.85:1 - one eighty-five to one
    Etc... easier to understand.
    ------------------
    Frank
    [​IMG]
    DVD Collection | Website
    [Edited last by Frank L on September 11, 2001 at 02:02 PM]
     
  3. ben ricci

    ben ricci Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most filmmakers say either two-three-five or one-eight-five.
     
  4. Adam Tyner

    Adam Tyner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. Joe D

    Joe D Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 1999
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly what Frank L said.
    ------------------
    Joe Dahlen
    "Take hold of the flame, you've got nothing to lose, but everything to gain."
     
  6. Kimmo Jaskari

    Kimmo Jaskari Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2000
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hm, I'd add the point for clarity.
    As in, "two point thirtyfive to one"
    235:1 is an interesting ratio but not something I've seen that often.
    Well, at least when explaining what it was. To someone who already knew what I was talking about I might consider saying 235:1 and trust that they'd get it. Maybe it's just me... or the fact that English is not my primary language.
    "... and the width of the picture is two point thirtyfive times as wide as it is high... "
    ------------------
    /Kimmo
    [Edited last by Kimmo Jaskari on September 11, 2001 at 05:19 PM]
     
  7. Jason Hughes

    Jason Hughes Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1998
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Jason Hughes
    Calling Jason Whyte......... [​IMG]
     
  8. gregstaten

    gregstaten Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 1997
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've always heard (and used) the phrase "two three five" and "one eight five". However, I've also heard (within the post production industry) the terms "spherical" (for 1.85:1) and both "Panavision" and "anamorphic (for 2.35:1).
    -greg
     
  9. Tom_Price

    Tom_Price Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2001
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You could also just refer to the different aspect ratios as "scope" for 2.35:1 or "flat" for 1.85:1
    Those are the terms used most often. Many of the DVD cases also use these terms when stating the aspect ratio on the back of the case.
     
  10. Jason Whyte

    Jason Whyte Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  11. David Tolsky

    David Tolsky Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 1999
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The way we've always said it when choosing a ground glass for the Panaflex eyepiece, is "Two-Three-Five to One" or "One Eight-Five to One". Never heard it any other way in the 15 years I've been in the biz.
     
  12. Bill Harada

    Bill Harada Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who is your audience? The amount of detail you provide is usually dictated by who you're speaking to. Two-thirtyfive-to-one may be perfectly acceptable to an audience of film students, but would probably not be understood correctly by a school PTA audience (well, at least not by the majority of them).
    Bill
     
  13. Mark Palermo

    Mark Palermo Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know how most filmmakers choose to say it (nor do I see why they're an authority), but "two point three five to one" is mathematically correct.
    Mark
     
  14. Steve Felix

    Steve Felix Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2001
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks guys, the speech went really well. It was for a speech class so they would have bought anything I said, but I ended up saying "one eight five to one" and so on, explaining that it meant the screen was "one point eight five times wider than it is tall."
    Most agreed that black bars were fine and it didn't take very long to get used to them. Only 2 of about 25 said they disliked letterboxing. And this is in Orrville, Ohio. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    "We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!"
     
  15. Keith Mickunas

    Keith Mickunas Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 1998
    Messages:
    2,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I realize I'm a little late to the party, but here's my $0.02 anyways. I've studied a good bit of mathematics, and am used to hearing these numbers pronounced with the word "point" in them, like pi is "three point one four one five nine..." So I always say "two point three five to one" to someone who I don't believe to be familiar with movie aspect ratios. To people who know I'll leave out the "point" or because they'll know where it goes. To people who understand mathematics I'll say "four three aspect ratio" cause I know they'll interpret that as 4:3.
    In short I'll leave out "point" for those that know about film/tv ratios, and leave out "to" to those that will intuitively understand where it goes. But I'd never leave out the "point" and "to" in a longer one (i.e "two three five one") because that's confusing, and I never pronounce numbers like 2.35 as "two thirty-five" or "two point thirty-five" because that sounds wrong to my ears.
     
  16. David Tolsky

    David Tolsky Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 1999
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mr. Palermo, "mathematically correct" or not, Aspect Ratio IS a filmmaking term. A chosen aspect ratio is etched in the groundglass of a motion picture camera eyepiece for framing by a camera operator long before the final product is projected or broadcast. All I'm telling you is that we leave out the "point" when discussing it for work (although I can see why a non-filmmaker would use the "point") Authoritative or not, the OAR's we talk about from theatrical presentation came from PRODUCTION.
    [Edited last by David Tolsky on September 14, 2001 at 02:42 AM]
    [Edited last by David Tolsky on September 14, 2001 at 02:43 AM]
     
  17. SteveMc

    SteveMc Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I prefer
    not-so-squashed
    squashed
    and ubersquashed
    and full frame or 4:3 material:
    just-side-squashed
    ok not really [​IMG]
    ------------------
    Crash
    "I don't even own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack."
    Help us get the Friday the 13th films-UNCUT. Click Here or here
     
  18. Garry Cowell

    Garry Cowell Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personally I use...
    "Widescreen" for 1.85:1
    "Daddy Widescreen" for 2.35:1
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, most posts here are incorrect in my professional experience, at least in regards how it is spoken amongst filmmakers and in most camera houses, etc. Filmmakers would never say "spherical" or "anamorphic" without inclusion of a number ratio, as it means nothing. Neither is indicative of an aspect ratio. Additionally, calling something "widescreen" means little to nothing as well, and I personally consider it a generic consumer term. Nor can you attribute "flat" to 1.85:1 as there is anamorphic 1.85:1 in 8/16mm and spherical 2.40:1 Super35.
    While it certainly may be said in other ways as well, the following is how I state AR's on an almost daily basis in working practice and always have. It is, to the best of my recollection, pretty much how I am addressed as well...
    Standard 35mm 1.85:1
    35mm spherical one eight five to one
    Standard 35mm 2.35:1
    35mm anamorphic two three five to one
    Standard 16mm 1.85:1
    16mm spherical one eight five to one
    Super 16mm 1.78:1
    Super16 spherical one seven eight to one
    Super 35mm 1.33:1
    Super35 spherical one three three to one
    Super 35mm 2.40:1 for anamorphic extraction
    Super35 spherical two four to one
    etc.
    Sometimes I omit the "to one", in conversation. If I were teaching I would likely include the decimal point, as it's ommission is just slang, jargon, whatever... However, I would never say "one eighty-five".
    ------------------
    My DVD Library
    Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
    [Edited last by Scott H on September 14, 2001 at 07:30 PM]
     

Share This Page