Podcast HTF Podcast Episode 6: Aspect Ratios (1 Viewer)

[Worth]

It Comes at Night has moments at 2.76 and some at 3:1.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

 

[Sam Posten]

Boo sir, booooo

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Brian is aware that the HTF mission statement proclaims we’re in support of OAR, right?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Get a 2.40 screen - problem solved.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Brian is aware that the HTF mission statement proclaims we’re in support of OAR, right?

As am I sir, but this isn't about OAR.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Get a 2.40 screen - problem solved.

Haven't ruled it out. The cost of entry is, literally and figuratively, higher. An expensive band-aid solution, but perhaps the only option. I'll keep it in mind for my next HT build.

 

[DaveF]

And all dialog and music and sound effects should be played in all 11 speakers and both subwoofers at all times. I paid for these speakers, I want them used dammit!

 

[JohnRice]

What can you expect from a video created by a guy who thinks the name of that piece of music is...

...and I quote...

"Main Title (2001: Space Odyssey)"


How did RAH describe Sam? I forget.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Nice to see we still have random morons on YouTube who seek to vindicate Vittorio Storaro.

Oh wait YOU made that?

 

[Brian Dobbs]

What can you expect from a video created by a guy who thinks the name of that piece of music is...

...and I quote...

"Main Title (2001: Space Odyssey)"


How did RAH describe Sam? I forget.

@JohnRice FYI YouTube automatically generates this information.
---------------------

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Nice to see we still have random morons on YouTube who seek to vindicate Vittorio Storaro.

Oh wait YOU made that?

Yep.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Brian is aware that the HTF mission statement proclaims we’re in support of OAR, right?

@Josh Steinberg think of it this way. Back in the DVD-only era, didn't we all prefer the "anamorphically enhanced" or "formatted for 16x9 screens" instead of the 'baked-in' letterboxing?

This is about how 2.40, when encoded into 16x9, means...

• lower light output
• lower resolution
• presented smaller

If you are someone who references 2.40:1 as a 'wider' aspect ratio, it's important to consider that this is relative.

For example, on a 16x9 screen, 1.78:1 is wider than 1.33:1.

The same cannot be said when comparing 2.40:1 to 1.78:1. They are both the same width. One could argue that when presented on a 16x9 screen, 2.40:1 is a 'shorter' aspect ratio.

I don't understand why this community wouldn't be in favor of honoring the intent of the filmmakers, which was to present their films in such a way that would expand into our visual periphery.

Take for example, This is Cinerama, released in 1952. It took three projectors to properly display because the image was incredibly wide. It doesn't quite present the same in 16x9.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Fast forward to present day. Now we have VR.

When presented in 16x9, or any 'two-dimensional' aspect ratio, the effect is lost entirely.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

I just don't understand why we can't have a substantive discussion on this and why this has to resort to cheap shots?

I'm not anti 2.40:1. What I'm saying is that it is getting short shrifted...when presented on 16x9 displays.

Historically speaking, 2.40:1 films (and up) were meant as a 'wider' experience. When presented in the theater, this literally meant bigger, expanding into the periphery.

When presented on a 16x9 screen, 2.40:1 films do not expand into the periphery, thus the entire visceral experience is lost. (see cinerama and VR examples above)

And so the question I have for filmmakers is, given the shelf life of their films will be mostly (and sometimes all) at home on a 16x9 screen, why do they choose a shorter 2.40:1 aspect ratio? The film will not properly display.

If all we had were movie theaters, this would be a non-existant discussion. But now the screen is primarily at home, on cell phones even. 2.40:1...when presented on 16x9 is getting a raw deal.

While I accept the only 'reasonable' option is to get a 2.40:1 screen and zoom the image, at the end of the day that's just a hack.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I don't understand why this community wouldn't be in favor of honoring the intent of the filmmakers, which was to present their films in such a way that would expand into our visual periphery.

I would have no problem if they made 2.40:1 screens standard. But we're a tiny community and most "normal" people would object to pillarboxing on 80% of their TV programs.

I've used black masking for 20 years on my projection systems. Since I don't switch from one movie to another without adjusting it, no one would ever notice the scope screen being smaller (if I was using a fixed 16x9 screen). Currently I use a variation on my old theatrical setup and my screen is variable area. Tallest is for 1.37, height reduces but gets a little wider for 16x9, and gets a wider still for 'scope with additional reduction in height. With masking in place, no unused screen is ever seen. This is how many theaters in the 50s handled a conversion to CinemaScope.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

I would have no problem if they made 2.40:1 screens standard. But we're a tiny community and most "normal" people would object to pillarboxing on 80% of their TV programs.

Yes, I understand this is the reality of the situation, but why do you think a filmmaker would prefer 2.40:1 now if the movie was going to live entirely on Netflix? The resolution, light output and overall experience will suffer.

Movies are hardly shot in anamorphic these days so they're just cropping it anyway.

I don't get how this community will treat Christopher Nolan's large format IMAX presentations like Moses coming down from Mount Sinai, and say the only way to properly see the film is in a theater that has film projectors, and then at the same time accept any filmmaker's decision to release 2.40:1 on a 16x9-only format.

This discussion isn't just about the aspect ratio, but the presentation of said aspect ratio.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I think the filmmakers should choose whatever ratio they want, regardless of where the film ends up showing. The composition within the frame is what's important, not unused screen real estate. Did people object to The Lighthouse being in black & white and Movietone ratio? (I hated the movie, so I don't know what people thought about it technically). How about the new Justice League?

 

[JohnRice]

Your question is not honest.

You want to force all filmmakers to fill a specified screen.

Period.

All the time.

Every time.

We disagree.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

I think the filmmakers should choose whatever ratio they want, regardless of where the film ends up showing. The composition within the frame is what's important, not unused screen real estate.

How do you explain this then? It seems like this film (and I would imagine many others) is being arbitrarily cropped.