Slightly different aspect ratios. WHAT THE HECK? (1 Viewer)

[PeterK]

Lots of dvds are in 2.35:1 but i've noticed that sometimes movies are advertized as 2.39:1 or 2.4:1 What gives? I bought minority report. and it is in 2.39:1 i believe, and it actually is wider/shorter than a standard 2.35 This doesn't really affect me at the moment, but people with constant height setups must be spinning, cause these movies, don't actually fill the screen. I was just wondering why some are like that. are they intentially that .04 wider for a particular reason?

thanks

 

[Leo Kerr]

Standard Cinemascope, as originally released, had an aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

This was, perhaps unofficially, changed to 2.39 or 2.4:1, to reduce the visibility of any film splices. At 2.35:1, there is literally a hair-line seperating the top of one frame from the bottom of the next. No matter how good the tape-splice, there will be a gap or overlap. Making an ever-so-slightly larger frame-line means that the actual uglyness of the splice is more likely to be hidden.

Leo Kerr

 

[John S]

Hmm, aside from what was posted above.

This is the directors choice, the people that made the movie.


Check out Ben Hur sometime... It is really wide, but they use that wide aspect ratio all through the movie. I can't even imagine how bad a pan and scan of it would be.

 

[Leo Kerr]

As I recall, Ben Hur was shot in an anamorphic 70mm format (with a native AR of 2.2:1. I can't remember the squeeze - the common ones are 1.5:1 and 2:1 squeezes. 1.5:1 compression gives you a potential 3.3:1 AR, which is really wide..)

Leo