why 2.35:1

[Tuesday]

Hello,

As I recently purchased a "widescreen"(16:9) tv because our old one died i have become very intersted in video aspect ratios.

One thing confuses me...surly the point in having a "widescreen" tv is that you can watch "widescreen" video/dvd/tv with out having to put up with damned space wasting black bars.

I've hated them ever since i had an amiga and 90% of games had 1/4 screen un-used as they where NTSC rather than PAL and I don't see why they still exist.

To my knowledge no-one manifactures tv's that are 2.35:1 so why *hell* would and sane director film a movie at the AR?

It just annoys me that i got "widescreen" to get rid of the black bars and now dvd's are "st00per widescreen" so i have to put up with them all over again.

Does this annoy anyone else? Can anyone suggest a reason for "st00per widescreen"'s existence?

[foxyshadis]

HDTV is standardized on 16:9 (which almost no films use), so TVs end up with that ratio. 2.35 (actually 2.39) came about with the introduction of anamorphic, to get more picture on the film, because usually horizontal area is more important to a director's vision than vertical. ie, you can fit more talking heads and buildings into the shot.

Whatever, it seems a little overkill to me.

[mpucoder]

To my knowledge no-one manifactures tv's that are 2.35:1 so why *hell* would and sane director film a movie at the AR?
Because movies are made for theaters, not for TV? Now if it were a "made for TV" movie using anything but 16:9 or 4:3 would make little sense.

[manono]

Our friends over at videohelp.com just went through one of these useless threads:

http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=293513&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Lady And The Tramp was just released on DVD in its OAR of 2.55:1 for the first time. The William Wyler/Charlton Heston Ben Hur is 2.76:1. The wider the better.

[MrTroy]

At videohelp they provided the answer to this question:
Just a marketing thing to try and keep people going to the cinemas
There's no technical reason to film 2.35:1 (well, except for the fact that nowadays it's a Hollywood standard). The reason to make a movie 2.35:1 is to force people into the theatres for the maximum experience.

[Soulhunter]

Why 2.35:1? Well, cinematic movies are meant to fill out ya full visual-angle! The human vision has a AR of ~1.75:1 (close to 16:9), but some directors follow the concept of filling some of ya peripheral-vision as well, thats why they use wider ARs...


Bye

[foxyshadis]

That would make sense if theaters actually widened the screen for wider movies, but they don't. They just lower the top of the screen, so in any given seat you just get less video.

[CWR03]

Many theatres have one or more "premium" screens which are much larger than the rest - I try to catch the better movies while they're still on the good screens to get the most out of them.

I personally have no problem with the black bars. I understand they're in place for a reason, and I'd rather see a film the way it was originally intended than to have it cut down for "pan and scan," where you'll see one actor talking to no one in particular because a third of the picture has been cropped away.

[SeeMoreDigital]

All these "film" aspect ratio's (like 2.35:1) have been around for years, long before the shape of todays wide-screen (1.77:1) TV's was conceived.

As movie camera technology continues to advance, even when our beloved "film" capturing medium gets replaced by pure "digital" capturing mediums, I very much doubt everything will become 1.77:1 (16:9).

By-the-way... if any of you guys have got mega-pixel stills cameras. Have you worked out the aspect ratio's of your snaps?

[deets]

i stopped worrying about such things about 10 years ago. I actually get more peeved when i know a film is 2.35:1 but the TV people crop it to fill the screen...

thankfully sky now pretty much keeps the OAR on its movie channels :)

[theReal]

I think when 2.35:1 is cropped to 16:9 there's not too much information lost, usually. As said before, the human field of vision is not 2.35:1 so no DOP would actually place important information right at the edge of a 2.35:1 picture. They will more or less use a virtual inner 16:9 area and use the rest as a "frame" that surrounds the action . It's getting seriously damaging for a movie when it is cropped to 4:3 though...

[SeeMoreDigital]

I think when 2.35:1 is cropped to 16:9 there's not too much information lost, usually.Well in my opinion there's a whole lot lost!

Here's what a typical 2.35:1 source looks like, complete with black mattes: -

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/9987/1024x57623515ji.jpg


Here's what the intermediate image looks like: -

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/2053/intermediate5kf.jpg


And here's what it would look like after cropping and re-sizing to 1.77:1 (16:9): -

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2183/1024x5765yn.jpg





Too much missing information for my tastes :scared:

[mpucoder]

Most films are not cropped to 16:9, but matted - nothing is lost.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Most films are not cropped to 16:9, but matted - nothing is lost.Can you provide some examples?

[manono]

It's incorrect anyway, as I understand it. When HBO Pans and Scans a 2.35:1 film to fit their preferred 1.78:1 output format, you can bet that real video is being lost. When the home encoding hobbiest just blindly crops away some of the sides of a 2.35:1 movie so he doesn't have to see any black bars at all on his nice new 16:9 TV set, he's losing intended video. Nothing to do with matting.

[MrTroy]

Most films are not cropped to 16:9, but matted - nothing is lost.
I'm not sure about the most films part, but indeed some movies show more of the image in the 1.78:1 version.

For example, The Matrix.
HDTV (1.78:1) version (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=matrixlobby300x1684nm.jpg)
DVD (2.35:1) version (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=matrixlobby300x168vandvd9ro.jpg)

As you can see:
- the DVD version has more information in width
- the HDTV version has more information in height

Presumably, transfers are like this: Ratios (http://img366.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ratios6si.gif)

In this case, however, the intended ratio was probably 2.35:1. Look at the bottom of the HDTV screenshot, it contains a 'hole' in the ground that I think shouldn't be in screen.

[Mug Funky]

2.35:1 is not bad... means there's a comression gain with those big black mattes :)

Can you provide some examples?

...more than can be counted. it's the preferred method as far as i know. though it does mean you lose 140 lines of vertical resolution compared to a 16:9 film (if you're in PAL). of course you'll lose a lot of that to overscan anyway. i've never transferred one of these films myself (would love the chance to do so though), but i've no reason to believe stuff is being cropped off on the DVD like that "ratios" gif MrTroy posted. maybe a couple of titles out there, but certainly not the norm.

TV is another matter though. i've been seeing a bit of "14:9" on 4:3. that is 16:9 with the sides cropped and smaller black mattes than would occur with a full 16:9 transfer. thankfully i've only seen it on "Midsomer Murders", which isn't exactly something that would suffer a lot from cropping. it's made for TV and no doubt shot with 4:3 compatibility in mind.

[SeeMoreDigital]

As far as aware a 2.35:1 source image can not be displayed on a 1.77:1 (16:9) TV screen "and completely fill that screen" without some form of image loss or the image looking distorted.

Content such as Midsomer Murders, is specifically created to be displayed on a 16:9 (1.77:1) TV via a digital TV platform. However, if you live in the UK and switch over to the analogue TV platform, you will see it displayed at 14:9 (ie: 1.55:1).

It's common practice to see 1.77:1 sources displayed at 14:9 via analogue over here in the UK....

I'm watching BBC Two right now on my 16:9 TV and via digital I'm seeing an edge to edge 16:9 image but via analogue I'm seeing 14:9 images (with top and bottom mattes) forced to suit 4:3 TV's...


Cheers

[MrTroy]

It's common practice to see 1.77:1 sources displayed at 14:9 via analogue over here in the UK....

The problem with Midsomer Murders is, that's is not just 14:9 on analogue tv, it's 14:9 on the official DVD. :rolleyes:

Really weird decision, as it was shot in 1.78:1.

[SeeMoreDigital]

The problem with Midsomer Murders is, that's is not just 14:9 on analogue tv, it's 14:9 on the official DVD. :rolleyes:

Really weird decision, as it was shot in 1.78:1.I think you must be referring to the early episodes, which, if memory serves, were shot on super 16 film which offers an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 (nearer 15:9)...

I will have to check with a friend ;)

[MrTroy]

I think you must be referring to the early episodes, which, if memory serves, were shot on super 16 film which offers an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 (nearer 15:9)...

I will have to check with a friend ;)
Hmm, on my usual DVD review site I read (translated from Dutch):
The episodes were recorded on 16 mm film and originally have, according to IMDB, a 1.78:1 widescreen ratio. On these DVD's the image has a ratio of 1.55:1.

Is IMDB wrong?

[Audionut]

Constant height 2.35 projection with an anomophic lens.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f286/CAVX/Screen%20Shots/Star%20Wars%20235%20Shots/JangoFett.jpg

What benefit does constant height provide over a normal 16x9 setup?

Because you are using the projectors full panel to display the 2.35 image, there is a 33% increase in resolution. The light output is also about 20% more than the same size picture without an anamorphic lens.

This results in a smoother more film like image that has alot more depth and punch to it.

Some other benefits of constant height also include more immersion for 2.35 films due to the extra width and no more annoying black bars. And also easier masking options.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=561280
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/intro.shtml#2
http://www.panamorph.com/ConfigurationGuide.htm
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=554901


Sweet!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hmm, on my usual DVD review site I read (translated from Dutch):
The episodes were recorded on 16 mm film and originally have, according to IMDB, a 1.78:1 widescreen ratio. On these DVD's the image has a ratio of 1.55:1.

Is IMDB wrong?I dunno... your info might well be correct... I'll have to check with a friend who was part of the film crew during the making of some of those early episodes!

By the way, which season/episodes are you referring too?

[MrTroy]

First season. :)

It sometimes amazes me that many users of this forum work in the movie industry or have friends who are part of it. And here I am, just some hobbyist who is interested in video coding. ;)

[Flux]

The human vision has a AR of ~1.75:1 (close to 16:9)
Where did you get this information?

[MrTroy]

Where did you get this information?
I'd like to know that too. On the Internet I can't find 2 sites that say the same about this.

I think I read the human field of view is approx. 190 by 110 degrees (~ 1.73:1).

[SeeMoreDigital]

Some of you guys might find the following interesting: -

http://www.mill.co.uk/widescreen/c6.1_16_9film_negs.html

There's loads of other interesting stuff on "The Mills" widescreen web site (http://www.mill.co.uk/widescreen/) too


Cheers

[Soulhunter]

I think I read the human field of view is approx. 190 by 110 degrees...The total FOV of a human is close to 190x110° yes, but this includes peripheral-vision! The horizontal FOV a human is able to focus is more ~90° not 190°, otherwise we could read our books this way... (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3695/dddannt0xe.png) ^^


Bye

[MrTroy]

The total FOV of a human is close to 190x110° yes, but this includes peripheral-vision! The horizontal FOV a human is able to focus is more ~90° not 190°, otherwise we could read our books this way... (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3695/dddannt0xe.png) ^^

LOL :D

But do you have a source for this?

[SeeMoreDigital]

But do you have a source for this?I remember reading magazine articles about this subject many years ago, back in the day when manufacturers were discussing the viability of "wide-screen" TV production in general...

I also remember reading further magazine articles "justifying" the 1.77:1 shape to nervous buyers, when wide-screen TV's first started to appear in stores!

I would have thought there will be some information about this subject somewhere on the net.... but where to look eh ;)

[Soulhunter]

But do you have a source for this?
Education! But you can find such info (http://www.usaarl.army.mil/hmdbook/images/fig5-13.jpg) in the net as well... ^^


Bye

[Doobie]

HDTV has a good aspect ratio. 2.35:1 is just too wide. I agree, HDTV conforms more to the human aspect ratio (especially regarding non-peripheral vision). Besides, despite all the concern about information being lost by clipping the ends of 2.25:1, it's nothing of much value. Movie makers usually keep the important stuff in the center of the screen. And, for those times when there might be exceptions, a professional transfer would include some panning.

I suspect the 2.25:1 movie aspect comes from two sources: 1) To dramatically differentiate movies from 4:3 TVs. 2) To make better use of the circumstances in the theater (e.g. much wider than tall rooms).

As theaters become less significant, more movies will probably be shot in 16:9 aspect ratio. And, the people who stick to 2.25:1 will be mindful that their movies will be clipped to 16:9 eventually (they'll continue to keep important stuff out of the ends).