Movies in 1.66 to 1 ratio (1 Viewer)

[Todd K]

Hello all,

I am just wondering, what happens when a movie shot in the 1.66:1 ratio are put onto a 16x9 television? Isn't that a 1.78:1 ratio? I personally have a Wega that can do the 16x9 squeeze, so I'm wondering what the picture would look like on this or a regular 16x9 television. Would there be black bars on the sides?

Todd

 

[John Berggren]

There would be bars on the sides as it is not as wide as a 16x9 set.

I am one who thinks all 1.66 films should be anamorphic. The added resolution for 16x9 viewers is beneficial, and the windowboxing is UNNOTICEABLE - at least on televisions 32" and smaller. I have not tested it on larger sets.

 

[Richard Kim]

A 1.66:1 film that is anamorphically enhanced is windowboxed, which will have thin black bars on the sides. However, the side bars are usually covered by overscan.

 

[John J Nelson]

It depends on whether the film is broadcast/transferred to DVD anamorphically.
If it is anamorphic - then you'll get narrow bars left and right of the picture. With overscan, you'll probably not notice them at all.
If it is not anamorphic - the non-anamorphic picture will have narrow bars top-and-bottom. If you view in 4:3 mode on your 16:9 TV, you will get a window-boxed image - that is, large bars left-and-right, and smaller black bars top-and-bottom. If you use the 16:9 zoom function, the picture will fill the screen, but you'll lose a little image top-and-bottom (you'll effectively be soft-matting the film to 1.78:1 )
Barry Lyndon is an example of one film transferred to DVD at 1.66:1 non-anamorphic. Whatever you do, don't 16:9 zoom it - Stanley Kubrick was obsessive about cinemas not matting it to 1.85:1, and he'd turn in his grave if you cropped his masterpiece
-- John

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Which is one of the reasons (aside from the obvious benefits of more resolution) tht 1.66:1 titles should be 16x9 anamorphic.

That way 16x9 displays won't *have* to crop the image to 1.78:1. Watching an silly little image windowboxed (down to the 4x3 area) *and* letterboxed in the middle of a 16x9 screen is not, IMO, a realistic way to watch anything.

-dave

 

[PhilipG]

See my sig for a representation of 1.66:1 on a w/s display (all dimensions are accurate). This is with *no overscan*. The windowboxing in anamorphic mode really is negligable compared to the massive borders you have to put up with if you want to see a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 picture in its OAR.

 

[Rain]

It is worth noting that a few 1.66:1 films put out by Criterion (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeiosie, Coup de Torchon, etc.) have been formatted to fit your 16x9 TV.

Unacceptable!

 

[rutger_s]

MGM Home Entertainment cropped Dr. No from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 for anamorphic widescreen presentation. They also present Robocop at the U.S. AR of 1.85:1 for anamorphic widescreen versus Paul Verhoeven's preferred AR of 1.66:1.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The first three Bond films were all cropped to 1.78:1 for their anamorphic DVDs.

I worked out the math one time, and the trade-offs against windowboxing to conventional 4:3 TV owners don't really start to become significant until you get ratios smaller than 1.60:1. At that point, 4:3 set owners lose over 10% of their horizontal resolution and an additional 8% of their vertical resolution versus non-anamorphic letterboxing.

By contrast, for 1.66:1, 4:3 set owners only lose 6.6% of their horizontal resolution and an additional 5% of their vertical resolution versus non-anamorphic letterboxing.

Regards,

 

[Richard Kim]

The Criterion version of Robocop is the director's cut with deleted footage, and is presented 1.66:1. However, it was shown theatrically in 1.85:1.

 

[Patrick McCart]

A good bit of the non-anamorphic 1.66:1 transfers on DVD are simply laserdisc transfers (MGM especially). Disney, Anchor Bay, and Universal, though, use the 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen formatting often.

I think the reason why WB's remastered transfers of Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon were presented without anamorphic enhancment is because the ratio fluctuates under the 1.66:1 frame to 1.55:1 (Can someone confirm this with a DVD-ROM to show 100% of the image?)

A few 1.66:1 films on DVD revealing the entire frame are around. For example, MPI's now OOP DVD of "Help!" is 1.33:1, but simply has the 1.66:1 mattes missing.

We should be seeing the first 1.66:1 anamorphic transfer from WB by the end of the year since they're releasing Giant. I doubt they're having the LDI treatment given to it without it being anamorphic (like North By Northwest.)

 

[Rain]

We should be seeing the first 1.66:1 anamorphic transfer from WB by the end of the year since they're releasing Giant.

1. Where did you hear that they would be releasing Giant by the end of this year?

2. I have the Warner DVD of Giant that was available only in Canada for a while. It is reformatted to 1.78:1.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Of the most recently remastered Kubrick DVDs, A Clockwork Orange was a spot-on 1.66:1, Lolita was 1.63:1, and Barry Lyndon was 1.58:1 by my cursor measurements. The only one where the aspect ratio varied was Dr. Strangelove. Personally, I think A Clockwork Orange should have been anamorphic. For some reason, the Lolita DVD was not presented in a variable ratio like Dr. Strangelove even though the Kubrick-approved Criterion laserdisc of Lolita was. Given how they chose to present it, however, I think they should have gone anamorphic with that one as well.

Regards,

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

My TV (a 28" WS JVC set) has a 14:9 zoom mode in addition to the 16:9 zoom mode used for regular non-anamorphic films and the max mode used to unsqueeze anamorphic films. Very handy
I believe other JVCs as well as Philips (and maybe others) also have this. So, anamorphic or not, 1,66:1 films can be diplayed just fine on my set...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

We should be seeing the first 1.66:1 anamorphic transfer from WB by the end of the year since they're releasing Giant. I doubt they're having the LDI treatment given to it without it being anamorphic (like North By Northwest.)

Patrick,

the sad truth is that Warner (and MGM) have stated explicitly that they will *not* enhance any 1.66:1 titles anamorphically--period. Their lack of support thus far isn't a result of rehashed LD tranfers...quite a few DVDs were made from new masters (yellow submarine) and were hard-coded 4x3.

We really need to change their minds on this. Apparently, they think the "windowboxing" thing is just too much of a compromise for 4x3 viewers. Funny, considering that most of Disney's 1.66:1 16x9 windowboxed titles (Tarzan) get nothing but glowing reviews and nary a complaint from *any* viewer...be they 4x3 or 16x9 equipped.

-dave

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mikael,

that's cool. I keep writing 16x9 display manufactuers telling them that we need a special zoom just for 4x3 encoded 1.66:1 sources. Most of them seem to think this is a waste of time. Glad to hear at least *some* manufacturer out there "gets it".

 

[PhilipG]

The 14x9 zoom is 1.56:1. It's still not ideal. There are slight black bars above and below, as well as thicker bars on the sides.
But that's not really the point, which is that at 1.66:1 you get significantly more overall resolution if the picture is windowboxed anamorphic.

 

[Scott Shanks]

I also had a question on this, if someone would be so kind as to answer. I have a Toshiba 50" 4x3 that does not squeeze 480i/p sources. When I watch a 1.66 anamorphically coded disc (ie The Emperor's New Groove or Rear Window), the image appears closer to 1.85. If I watch a 1.66 non-anamorphic disc (ie 12 Angry Men) the AR appears more correct. The bars at the top and bottom are a good deal thinner. Can anyone explain that?

Thanks!

Scott

 

[Patrick McCart]

Overscan causes aspect ratios to look different.

Some Like It Hot looked a LOT like 1.55:1 until I saw it on my DVD-ROM...it's close to 1.78:1.

EVERY film should be windowboxed somewhat to avoid the picture getting cropped by TV's. I thought the claim that The Gold Rush and The Great Dictator were windowboxed was false...until I saw the image on my DVD-ROM. There it is, windowboxed (you can see near 100% of the frame, too.)

 

[TheoGB]

Scott, your TV is making the height of the image lock at 1.78:1, however the anamorphic output should then place black bars to either side. Essentially you are getting a smaller but more detailed image. Your call.
I have one movie that claims 1.66:1 and that's The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It fills my Sony 24" widescreen TV. Hmmm...