Different aspect ratio for the same movie?? [Archive]

View Full Version : Different aspect ratio for the same movie??

Pringles

19th July 2010, 11:50

Guest

19th July 2010, 12:37

Maybe they just wanted it to be "theatrical", because DVDs are marketed as "full screen" or "theatrical widescreen". Seems silly though, I agree.

MokrySedeS

19th July 2010, 16:44

Watch Examples of Scaling (http://www.takeoneflix.com/wp-content/Digital-Video-Basics/INTRO_007/aspect-ratio.html) @ 7m20s.

netmask

19th July 2010, 23:50

Hi,

can anybody explain why we can sometime find different aspect ratios for the same movie?
For exemple, Gladiator is listed on imdb as a having a 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/technical

But when the movie aired on TV it had a 1.78 aspect ratio! How come??!!

I have 2 screenshots from the DVD and my HDRip of the same scene that shows what I'm talking about. We can clearly see that the movie was shot in 1.78 and not 2.35. We are losing about 1/5th of picture with the theatrical or DVD version so do you know why the movie technicians would have cropped it?

It is normal these days in the blockbuster movie industry to shoot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio for theatrical release but to frame scenes so as to be able to make a release for TV or home use in 16:9. Indeed all the essential action will be within a 4:3 frame..... It varies from country to country but generally the public don't like black bars on their 16:9 screens - so the decision is a marketing one. A sad marketing decision albeit but finally it's the $$$$ that count. In Europe and Australia most films are shown in their original aspect ratio on TV if the distributors supply that format .

For more details on the history science and philosophy of aspect ratio go to the Widescreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm#main%20index

netmask

20th July 2010, 07:55

Just a follow up on the 18 different versions of Avatar

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i68c9747cd968ca8d5b27fcb8619d8b88

To optimize the experience for different screens sizes, Cameron made the decision to complete the movie in three aspect ratios: Scope (2:39:1), flat (1:85:1) and Imax (1:43:1). "You are not going to see many directors releasing in different aspect ratios, as most pick their canvas and that is their format," Fox vp postproduction Steve Barnett says.

mrajan

20th July 2010, 12:22

Apart from the technical aspects, I pretty much like to watch 2.35:1 movie than any other kind. Then only I feel like watching a movie. I try not to purchase a full screen Movie unless otherwise it is a classic like Aradahana Progressive from Dragun. :D

May be its because of my setup, which I explained before. But I hardly remember watching a 1.33:1 Movie since January last year (some of our guests wanted to watch Deewar).

I know there are some people from AVSForum with only 2.35:1 screens; Unfortunately I am not one of them.

laserfan

20th July 2010, 14:28

generally the public don't like black bars on their 16:9 screens - so the decision is a marketing one. A sad marketing decisionNothing sad about it if you are one of those with a 16x9 display and want to fill it. For the director to pay attention to both HDTV and Theatrical ARs as they are making their compositions is commendable.

I have a 'scope screen so prefer the wider aspect ratio, but if I were watching on my HDTV it'd be nice to have the 16x9 option (too bad it's not on the bluray in fact). Particularly as my 16x9 is only 40"--lotsa stuff would be less "cramped".

2Bdecided

21st July 2010, 15:53

Watch Examples of Scaling (http://www.takeoneflix.com/wp-content/Digital-Video-Basics/INTRO_007/aspect-ratio.html) @ 7m20s.Wow - John Cleese wasn't naked! That's ruined it.

Of course, if the director shoots so that the Open Matte version is also acceptable (as some do), then it's harder to say which is the "correct" version. Some people get very cross about this, but as the viewer, I'd quite like to be given the choice.

e.g. Pan and Scan was an abomination, but watching a 2.35:1 movie on a 14" 4x3 TV isn't a pleasant experience when it's fully letterbox either! Now we don't need to worry about 4x3 so much, but when the original content is 4x3 or wider than 16x9, I'd quite like the choice on how to make it fill my TV set (or not!).

Cheers,
David.

mrajan

24th July 2010, 13:07

:helpful:A widescreen shot, similar to cinema screens, where the image is approximately twice as wide as it's high (actually, there's a range of different wide screen formats, but they're all around that sort of proportion).
Most cinema releases are in originally filmed with some form of widescreen aspect ratio. In other words, when you see the frame like this, you're generally seeing the entire picture.

Flux

24th July 2010, 14:43

The reason for this aspect ratio mess is too narrow display history which probably was technical limitation. Another reason might be space issues in typical living room. Very wide display "dominates" the look of the room more than some prefer.

Compensating the smaller surface area of 2.35:1 in 16:9 display can be done by buying bigger 16:9 display. However, at least Blu-ray has maximum of 1920x1080 resolution frame size, so 2.35:1 movie must be resized to fit on it. This means 1920x817 resolution. You can't bypass this reduction because video has been encoded for this resolution. Buying for example 21:9 display just upscales the image, if display has more resolution than 1920x817. Maybe some day we see anamorphic Blu-rays for 2.35:1 or wider movies which at least helps to increase vertical resolution for those with wider displays than 16:9. If anamorphic video is not supported in Blu-ray standard, it will cripple anamorphic movies for sure. People with plenty of players which can't play anamorphic movie in correct form does not do well for sales.

Wilbert

24th July 2010, 16:41

Maybe some day we see anamorphic Blu-rays for 2.35:1 or wider movies which at least helps to increase vertical resolution for those with wider displays than 16:9. If anamorphic video is not supported in Blu-ray standard, it will cripple anamorphic movies for sure.
Anamorphic video means a DAR of 16:9 (or a DAR different as 1:1 if you take the broader meaning). The Blu-ray standard includes the former. If you want more vertical resolution, the standard should include that (say 2560x1080p for display upon a 21:9 tv). Apologies, if this is what you meant.

2Bdecided

29th July 2010, 23:35

The reason for this aspect ratio mess is too narrow display history which probably was technical limitation.I don't think so. The academy ratio was chosen because it looked nice. That was fractionally wider than 4x3 with sound. At the beginning, a shorter (i.e. "wider") picture would have used less film!

Films got "wider" to "beat" TV, and because, if you want to make an existing cinema screen bigger, wider (move the walls) is easier than wider+taller (move the ceiling too!).

Or, more accurately and in far more detail...
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/intro.htm

Cheers,
David.