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

[Josh Steinberg]

The great cinematographer Vittorio Storaro took it upon himself to study aspect ratios and the human eye and came to the conclusion that 2.00:1 was the perfect aspect ratio. He decided to start shooting in that ratio and implored the artists and technicians in the film and television industries to follow him and fix all screens, televisions and shoots at what he insisted was the perfect ratio.

There was simply no one interested in following him. The idea was a nonstarter among exhibitionists and manufacturers. Filmmakers weren’t eager to shoot in a ratio that no theater could accommodate without changes that were never going to happen. Some filmmakers who had a working relationship with Storaro allowed him to shoot their new projects in that ratio, and crop some of their older films made with him into that ratio, and audiences and enthusiasts rejected it.

Storaro must’ve spent a decade or more of his career pursuing this solution in search of a problem and he couldn’t get anyone to buy into it. If one of the all time greatest cinematographers couldn’t find a single member of his profession to join him on that hill, that speaks volumes to the industry’s interest in a standardized aspect ratio.

 

[Sam Posten]

Can you imagine the audacity of any TikTok filmmaker saying this was a "taller" aspect ratio?

View attachment 98488

If you watch TikTok videos in the dark like you would a movie, yes, they would appear relatively taller than their 16x9 counterparts. Not physically taller of course but artistically taller, as UWS are framed wider tho your display device might be compensating for the physical differences.

 

[JohnRice]

Some people buy stereos to play their music. Other people buy music to play their stereos.

That was you who used that quote. I'd already used that it in my upcoming SB-16 review. Worded a little differently, but same meaning.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That was you who used that quote. I'd already used that it in my upcoming SB-16 review. Worded a little differently, but same meaning.

I don’t remember who first used it so I can’t take credit for originating it but it always seemed a useful phrase.

 

[JohnRice]

I don’t remember who first used it so I can’t take credit for originating it but it always seemed a useful phrase.

It really is a good way to keep perspective as well as understand the motivations of different people. My motivation has always been the ability to listen to music, and then adding movies.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

The problem with this conversation is that nothing changes each time we have it.

I apologize if I have failed to articulate my point initially, but as I refine this critique it seems apparent that most people are reducing this to filling my screen only for its own sake and nothing more.

In addition, some of my points are being misunderstood and misrepresented.

I mourn for 2.40:1, because I love the format...or at least I do when presented correctly *relative* to other aspect ratios. Again, *relative.*

There is historical context that I believe is being grossly overlooked - the presentation of widescreen films, and specifically 2.40:1.

Remember, widescreen ratios were invented to lure people back into the theater.

The wider the better. It made the film feel epic. It expanded into our side-peripheral view, almost as if it was an original sort of 'virtual reality.' It was something people hadn't ever experienced before.

Assuming the image height is the same...
1.85:1 is literally wider than 1.33:1
2.40:1 is literally wider than 1.85:1

For most of cinema's history, this was true.

But now I think we need to re-examine the use of "wider," especially considering how the film is presented.

New theater builds generally make 1.85:1 the largest size, and then use top and bottom masking for 2.40:1 films.

To be honest I wasn't aware of this, and it even further makes my point.

Doing it this way completely undermines the original intent of the 2.40:1 format. It therefore presents shorter, and not wider.

It no longer expands our side field of view, originally having offered filmgoers an enhanced side-peripheral experience. This was the foundation upon which the entire widescreen experience was originally established.



During the film age, and prior to the adoption of the 16x9 high definition format, theaters had both 1.85:1 and 2.40:1 screens. Some theaters just had 2.40:1 screens and masked the sides with curtains.

I will never forget the magic of seeing curtains open up right before the movie started, unmasking the wider portions of the 2.40:1 screen. Sadly, this experience is all but gone I'm afraid.

But given the adoption of digital technology, screens are 16x9 at home, and even now...in theaters, like you said.

Now, 2.40:1 is no longer wider than 1.85:1...when viewed on a 16x9 screen.

Filmmakers and showrunners choose aspect ratios based on composition

You're not wrong, and I understand what you are saying, but I'm not convinced by this argument alone.

I often hear filmmakers say that 2.40:1 is chosen for a "more cinematic" or "epic" look. I accept this, but to me it only makes sense when the film can be presented literally wider than the other aspect ratios, expanding *further* into our side-peripheral field of view relative to other aspect ratios.

Otherwise, the effect is lost, leaving me to wonder if they even realize how the entire paradigm has changed due to the adoption of digital technology and standardization of 16x9 screens.

2.40:1 takes advantage of the fact that our side-peripheral field of view is bigger than our vertical-peripheral view. For example, if you're sitting front row at a large-format proper IMAX (non-LIEmax) watching Interstellar, you have a better chance seeing what's happening to the sides without turning your head, vs. having to literally look up to see the top portions of the image.

Shooting in 16x9 would have used more display pixels but yielded a less impressive image

This is a good point, but plenty of impressive concerts have been filmed in 16x9 and 4x3. I take your overall point that sometimes, depending on your perspective, that there is unnecessary information at the top and bottom.

But given the historical precedent of filming not just on composition, but factoring in the presentation as well, this is proof that filmmakers at one point in time thought about which screen they were shooting for.

The open-matte approach being the perfect example of this, and I questioned this in this podcast episode. It offers a version of the film unique to TV. One could argue there were then two different OARs (both legitimate) for any film using this technique. The filmmakers were shooting for the screen in mind.

They like the look of a 2.40:1 frame and therefore use that aspect ratio.

Maybe they do, but I question whether or not most of them realize how a 2.40:1 presentation suffers on a 16x9 screen because of this choice.

Let me ask a rhetorical question: when you buy a CD, do you expect each one to have 80 minutes of music?

Given what I wrote in this post so far, do you still think this is an apt comparison?

” it would be obvious that was a silly expectation, right?

Yes, obviously.

I feel like the problem here is that you don’t accept 2.40:1 as a valid artistic choice but merely a technical one, and therefore any artistic explanation that’s offered is rejected because it’s not a technical exploration of the merits of pixels or light output.

Reduced light output and scaled down resolution are just technical explanations relating to my overall point, which is that the 2.40:1 presentation on a 16x9 screen is relatively smaller (when its original intent was to present a relatively bigger picture) and does not do the format justice.

Given the historical precedent of filmmakers factoring in the screen dimensions when choosing which format they would use, it seems silly to me for them to disregard that in the age of near-universal adoption of at-home streaming on 16x9 displays.

The only reason why 2.40:1 exists is because there used to be screens designed to display it properly, relative to the other aspect ratios.

IF today's newly produced films are to only be displayed on 16x9 screens, which seems to be the case more and more, then yes, I am questioning 2.40:1 as a valid artistic choice from this point forward. It's a legacy format, shoehorned into a new paradigm.

Perhaps a similar discussion can be had with frame rate. We are all used to 24 fps, but if we had to do it all over again from scratch, would we land on 24 or something higher? It's a legacy format, shoehorned into a new paradigm of 60 fps. Is it wrong to question the original artistic intent after a century of technological innovation and cultural evolution?

Brian, did you ever consider the theory that perhaps the popularity of 2.39:1 is that content-makers may be future-proofing their content for when that ratio becomes the standard shape for monitors and TVs? Did you know that in the 1990s some TV shows were shot in widescreen and originally broadcast with the sides cropped to 4x3 because they knew in the future people would be viewing them wider? Friends, Seinfeld, and E.R. are three such examples.

I do not believe this is correct. While those shows may have been captured on film, they were framed in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

High definition versions of Seinfeld, for example, have been cropped. That is heresy.

And there is zero chance of anamorphic style UWS because the industry set the worldwide aspect ratio for one primary display standard and what you are asking for would both undermine that and has no real support. Nobody is asking for this.

You know, I might have accepted this, but to my surprise the gaming industry seems to be innovating in this area, just like they have been with frame rate. I've never seen anything this large, but now I'm captivated. Imagine a display 2-3 times this size!



Having a screen with these proportions allows you to literally sit closer and see more in your side-periphery, giving you a more immersive experience vs. if the display was positioned further away.

The great majority of the content is 1.85, and a minority is different.

Yes, when factoring in games and television. In my mind the focus was narrowed to just films, of which the majority of the ones I watch seem to be in 2.40:1.

Also -- If you love so many aspect ratio options, would you then advocate that the Superbowl or the news experiment with different ratios? I would see no justifiable reason for this. Gaming, yes. See video above.

Currently all you’re saying is “use all the pixels.” This is the classic tech enthusiast who cares about specs and gear and not about the art.

I apologize if that's how it came across, but this is where I feel my comments have been misinterpreted.

I also apologize for not being more clear before.

The specs and gear must serve the artform properly. If you listen to me on the podcast or view any of my previous posts over the past twenty years, you will see that my focus hasn't really been on the tech, but only how that tech serves the art.

Besides, I've been to your theater, and you have way, waaaaay more tech.

Brian is clearly in the latter group

Most of you don't know me that well, so I can't fault you for coming to this conclusion.

If you go back to Episode #1, I framed this podcast in such a way that made it clear I wasn't really focused on tech specs and the latest gear. Most of my gear is years old. My main blu-ray player was manufactured in 2008. Much like my viewing habits, I upgrade my tech years behind most other people on here.

I'm a musician, and I've always valued sophisticated songwriting across many genres (I have been called a prog-snob before), both when writing and when listening as a fan. Music is very personal to me. I still buy CDs and DVD-Audio discs when available because I believe it presents the music in the best possible way.

If you watch TikTok videos in the dark like you would a movie, yes, they would appear relatively taller than their 16x9 counterparts.

I get what you're saying but that's not what I'm demonstrating here...sorry if this wasn't more clear.

I created this image to show artificial (vertical) black bars on either side of the image, displaying a 9x21 image on a 9x16 phone screen.

Who would ever do anything like this and claim it was "taller?"

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The specs and gear must serve the artform properly.

I would argue, and I would imagine that the vast majority of content producers working across different platforms and mediums would agree, that the tech that exists today does serve the art form.

It’s true, as you’ve noted, that 2.40:1 was originally created with the intention of it being wider than 1.37:1. But it’s also true that 2.40:1 hasn’t been universally larger in how its been displayed for decades. Single screen theaters started being cut up into twins in the 1970s. Multiplex builds from the 1980s onwards have gone with whatever aspect ratio yielded the largest that could be fit into the auditorium. The quick succession and evolution of home formats from premium cable to VHS, DVD and now streaming have long meant that films have a longer life at home than they do in theaters. None of this has changed that filmmakers still like using the 2.40:1 ratio.

When most television viewing was being done on screens 20” and smaller, in standard definition, with most people choosing very far seating distances, there were practical reasons for it being more ideal to use more screen real estate. A 2.40:1 film on a twenty inch 1.33:1 television set that you sit twenty feet away from looks a lot different than a 2.40:1 films on a fifty-five inch 1.78:1 screen that you sit ten feet away from. I think the bottom line for filmmakers and television show makers is that the current screens being used by consumers are large enough with enough resolution that they don’t feel they need to use every possible inch of it to convey their intent, so they now have the freedom to choose what ratio they wish to compose in knowing that it’ll be reasonably viewable on whatever device/format that it’s ultimately seen on.

I do get what you’re saying that 2.40:1 now looks smaller on most screens compared to its original theatrical debut as a format. But I don’t see that as being an issue.

Like I mentioned earlier, way before the advent of 16x9 TVs, the cinematographer Vittorio Storaro spent a great deal of time and effort trying to create a universal standard for 2.00:1 across the board for filmmakers, television producers, exhibitors and consumer electronics manufacturers, and there was just no interest from any of those parties. The people who make your TV don’t care about there being only one shape for the image. The people who make what you watch on your TV don’t care about there being only one shape for the image. I really don’t mean to sound dismissive or condescending but there just isn’t an appetite within the industry, either on the creative or on the technical side, much less the business side, to standardize aspect ratios so that all new productions are made in one ratio designed to maximize the technical ability of the displays currently in use. The exact opposite is happening: filmmakers and television producers are creating new visual languages that are dependent on the contrast between different aspect ratios.

To my example earlier of U2 choosing a 2.40:1 aspect ratio for their latest concert video, you correctly noted that many great concert videos have been made in 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 aspect ratios and I agree wholeheartedly. But that’s sort of beside the point. The band and the concert video producers made the choice to go with 2.40:1 for artistic/stylistic reasons. They liked the way it looked. They knew it was going to be seen on 16x9 televisions and still chose it.

I keep thinking about audio analogies in this discussion. Asking all content to be made to only one specification would be like asking all content to come with the same format soundtrack. Is Christopher Nolan’s decision to create his soundtracks in 5.1 audio any less valid than Zack Snyder’s decision to make his soundtracks in Atmos audio? Is the movie that uses primarily the front speakers a lesser film than the one with a more active surround mix? With respect, when we start getting deeper into this discussion, to my ear your points all start circling the same territory: “I have 5.1 speakers and I want to hear sound out of all of 5.1 of them all of the time.” I understand that you’re saying that’s not what you mean. But that really seems how it’s coming across.

 

[Mark-P]

I do not believe this is correct. While those shows may have been captured on film, they were framed in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

High definition versions of Seinfeld, for example, have been cropped. That is heresy.

I can’t speak specifically for Seinfeld which may have been captured at 4x3, but there is documentation that both Friends and E.R. were shot on 3-perf Super-35 which has a native aspect ratio of 1.77:1. They were framed in a way that could be cropped to 4X3 and still look pleasing when originally broadcast. The HD versions are unmatted to open up the widescreen image.

 

[Worth]

I can’t speak specifically for Seinfeld which may have been captured at 4x3, but there is documentation that both Friends and E.R. were shot on 3-perf Super-35 which has a native aspect ratio of 1.77:1. They were framed in a way that could be cropped to 4X3 and still look pleasing when originally broadcast. The HD versions are unmatted to open up the widescreen image.

I can't speak for those specific shows, but I know people who worked in television in the late-90s/early-2000s, and the standard practice was to compose for 4:3, but protect for 16:9, much like many feature films were composed for 1:85, but protected for 1.33.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It might be interesting to note that before the transition to HD and 16x9 monitors, NBC started broadcasting prime time prestige shows letterboxed to 1.78:1 within the 4x3 frame. I recall a feature article in American Cinematographer where the DP of West Wing was ecstatic about this because of the possibilities that framing offered for their show.

So even before 16x9 monitors were common, content producers were framing in that ratio for artistic reasons. Having an image that was slightly smaller on a 4x3 television was less important to them than having the image be at the proportions they wanted to shoot in.

 

[DaveF]

Yes, when factoring in games and television. In my mind the focus was narrowed to just films, of which the majority of the ones I watch seem to be in 2.40:1.

Ok, sure, you can be Emperor of Movies and enforce a 16x9 format restriction for all theatrical movies. Just so long as I am Kontent King and have domain over all "TV" be it streaming service or OTA. In my nation, we'll allow freedom of aspect ratio.

Also -- If you love so many aspect ratio options, would you then advocate that the Superbowl or the news experiment with different ratios? I would see no justifiable reason for this. Gaming, yes. See video above.

I don't watch sports, so no opinion.

I largely don't watch televised news anymore because it's basically just audio / radio / podcast news with uninformative B-roll video looping pointlessly behind the audio content. So, yes. News shows absolutely should experiment with video to use it effectively and impactfully! I might start watching news programs again if they were any better than news podcasts.

The specs and gear must serve the artform properly. If you listen to me on the podcast or view any of my previous posts over the past twenty years, you will see that my focus hasn't really been on the tech, but only how that tech serves the art.

Besides, I've been to your theater, and you have way, waaaaay more tech.

I know this. I've got your CD. Which is why your position has been inexplicable. It takes me back 20 years to people complaining that stupid DVDs were stupid 16:9 and they should be 4:3 to fill their CRTs.


If this really matters to you, you can have what you want. Setup a Constant Image Height (CIH) screen. This can be done cheaply with lens zoom and maybe simple, DIY masks. If your projector is calibrated or just not maxed to torch mode, you likely have brightness to spare to compensate when zoomed up for wider screen. And the loss of resolution is tolerable, according to the many enthusiasts that do this, especially if widescreen experience is more important than specs and techs.

 

[DaveF]

But it’s ok that you have a weird opinion. It’s good to have weird friends.

If you were still local, I’d have you down for some subwoofer and maybe even 4K projector demos later this year or early next.

 

[Sam Posten]

Otherwise, the effect is lost

In the dark, no it isn't.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Here's something you can't do at home on a 16x9 screen. Have no idea what aspect ratio this might be, but still, the point here is the value of the periphery.

"ScreenX, the 270-degree exhibition format, will expand specially selected sequences of the Bond pic onto the left and right side walls of the auditorium, surrounding audiences with extended imagery which naturally fills their peripheral vision."

‘No Time To Die’ Tickets Go On Sale: First Bond Film Shot In Imax 15/70MM; First Ever To Play 3D, ScreenX & D-Box Formats

After 18 months of delay due to the pandemic, tickets are finally available for MGM/United Artist Releasing/Eon's 007 movie No Time to Die.

deadline.com

 

[DaveF]

That’s something you can’t go at home. Not even with the fanciest ultra-widescreen CIH setup. There’s no 270ª display format or media format for that.

It’s a movie you’ll never have at home. You can never have the true director’s cut with 270º visual information. If the visuals in the outer regions are crucial to the story, it will never be told fully in a home release.

I see this as a way for theaters to remain relevant, by creating experiences — like 4DX -- that are basically impossible to recreate in a home.

But it cuts both ways by creating an experience that the HTF enthusiast can never buy on physical media, have in their library, and watch at home.

 

[DaveF]

Also keep in mind that human vision is smaller than 270ª, around 200ª. Viewers will have to swivel around to watch the show off the side, missing what’s happening on the other side.

Maybe it will be used to create chase scenes that whip around from one extreme to the other, and you have to move your head around to catch it all.

Maybe there will be important action happening at both extremes simultaneously and the only way to catch it all is with multiple viewings. (If you’ve ever seen Blue Man Group in concert, you know how amazing and frustrating that experience can be.)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The thing with ScreenX, in my view at least, is that it’s not really part of the movie. It was originally created as a sort of cheap IMAX knockoff, expanding the screen horizontally rather than vertically, but there’s a key difference: IMAX formatted footage is shot by the filmmakers as part of the filmmaking process.

ScreenX is more akin to 4DX, where a third party company takes a completed film and, on their own, adds flourishes to it that were not created by the filmmakers or planned as part of the film. With 4DX, it’s programming motion simulators, wind and water effects to synch up with the onscreen action. With ScreenX, it’s animated or photographing what can almost be described as background footage to extend into your peripheral vision. So if the shot in the actual movie had a character skiing from the left to the right of the frame, that would still only happen in the part of the screen showing the movie - ScreenX doesn’t have the actor and wasn’t on set to film a wider version of the shot. But what they will do is add mountains to the left and right on the peripheral so maybe that feels more immersive than being in just a darkened theater with black walls.

These experiences can be a lot of fun but it’s more like a theme park embellishment than an actual part of the film.

 

[DaveF]

These experiences can be a lot of fun but it’s more like a theme park embellishment than an actual part of the film.

This was my experience with seeeing Solo in 4DX back in 2018: a fun experience, but gimmicky like seeing Shrek 4D at Universal Studios. And at times, the contrast-destroying strobe lights worked against the movie experience. It was not what I would want for a regular movie-going. But if the typical movie patron sees just two movies a year (per Tim League of Alamo Drafthouse) then this could be a big draw.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

All good points @DaveF @Josh Steinberg. I think my main takeaway is that I appreciate the effort into putting more visuals into the periphery. I'd probably have the same take away as you if I saw it in person (gimmick), but the principle resonates.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If you’re ever at Disney World, check out Mickey’s Philharmagic - it’s really the perfect use of both ScreenX peripheral and 4DX water/wind style technologies. It’s one of the most immersive moviegoing experiences I’ve had and I eagerly revisit it whenever I’m at the park.