BBC Aspect Ratio 20:9

Garrett

Moderator
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
56,459
Reaction score
18,754
Points
11,396
Location
The best thief you'll never see.
The BBC for some reason seem to be moving to this aspect ratio a number of new programs are in this format, The Cry, Black Earth Rising and Dr Who to name a few.
This is not a directors choice as Dr Who is in this format and there different directors of the show each episode.
I have to say I do and always have preferred films to be shown in their correct aspect ratio going out of my way back in the days of VHS to track down widescreen versions of films rather than full screen. I won't even upgrade one of my favorite films Equilibrium to Blu Ray from DVD as they cut it down to 16:9 from letter box.
But I do like it when my screen filled and I always find it that more immersive when letterbox films switch to 16:9 IMAX. And even that is wider than normal aspect ratio.

Discuss. :)
 
I don't mind it, in my opinion there is not too much difference between this and 16:9. However, I suppose it gives a slightly more cinematic feel to it.
 
The format is Univisium:

Univisium

The Aspect Ratio of 2.00 : 1 is Everywhere | VashiVisuals

Univisium - Wikipedia

DISCOVERY Filming in “Cinematic” 2:1 Aspect Ratio | TrekCore Blog

The idea is to have a unified standard for film, cinema, tablets, phones, laptops and TV. Note it hasn't really caught on for theatrical films.

Aspect ratio (image) - Wikipedia

2:1 (18:9)[edit]
Since 1998, cinematographer Vittorio Storaro has advocated for a format named "Univisium" that uses an 2:1 format.[7] It is designed to be a compromise between the cinema 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the HD-TV broadcast 16:9 ratio. Univisium has gained little traction in the theatrical film market, but has recently been used by Netflix and Amazon Video for productions such as House of Cards and Transparent, respectively. This aspect ratio is standard on the acquisition formats mandated by these content platforms and is not necessarily a creative choice.[8] Moreover, some mobile devices, such as the LG G6, LG V30, Huawei Mate 10 Pro, Google Pixel 2 XLand OnePlus 5T, are embracing the 2:1 format (advertised as 18:9), as well as the Samsung Galaxy S8, Samsung Galaxy Note 8, Samsung Galaxy S9 and Samsung Galaxy Note 9 with an slightly similar 18.5:9 format.[9][10] The Apple iPhone X also has a similar screen ratio of 19.5:9 (2.16:1).
 
Very interesting, I can see this format catching on more and more in the future.
 
I don't mind it, in my opinion there is not too much difference between this and 16:9. However, I suppose it gives a slightly more cinematic feel to it.
So is it a con, the reason for the wider views is mainly used for panoramic views taken out in the open. I'm not saying some directors will use it for other types of films but when its pre chosen it not making how the director intended.
As I say the normal eye sight is less than the 16 in 16:9 so making even wider than than 16 is giving you a feel rather than something natural.
 
... used by Netflix and Amazon Video ... This aspect ratio is standard on the acquisition formats mandated by these content platforms

So I guess that if the BBC want to sell/license Dr Who to Netflix then they have to produce it in 2:1 format?

Am looking forward to wave of Netflix-Ready 2:1 4K HDR TVs being announced next year. All those people who foolishly bought 16:9 4K HDR TVs are going feel like proper mugs :devil:
 
So I guess that if the BBC want to sell/license Dr Who to Netflix then they have to produce it in 2:1 format?
BBC America showed this Dr Who in 16:9.

Netflix is also showing Monty Python and Only Fools and Horses. Both were 4:3.

It seems odd if it's so important that they aren't consistent.

Also when you do a new standard as you want to unify everything if not everyone is interested all you've done is create even more diversity.
Am looking forward to wave of Netflix-Ready 2:1 4K HDR TVs being announced next year. All those people who foolishly bought 16:9 4K HDR TVs are going feel like proper mugs :devil:
Exactly what I wondered. If this is the new "standard" and you are a TV manufacturer then here's another chance to sell people a TV again.

Phillips and the TV they did. A wide 21:9.

Buy the Philips Cinema 21:9 LCD TV 56PFL9954H/12 LCD TV
 
BBC America showed this Dr Who in 16:9.

I haven't seen the BBC America showing of Dr Who, but might they have done something as daft/simple/crude as either cropping or stretching(!) it to 16:9 from a 2:1 original?

You'd need to do a side-by-side comparison to be able to identify how they've treated it or whether it is indeed a true 16:9 from which a 2:1 was cropped or narrowed(!?) for BBC One showing.

Or perhaps it's a classic case of fat-fingers and/or someone unfamiliar with a "new" production suite?

Reminds me of the early days of 16:9 TVs when a lot of content was still 4:3 and some of the smart-stretching of the video could produce some interesting results. I think the likes of snooker and football were particularly prone to looking a bit strange; although some might ask how one could tell ;)
 
I haven't seen the BBC America showing of Dr Who, but might they have done something as daft/simple/crude as either cropping or stretching(!) it to 16:9 from a 2:1 original?

You'd need to do a side-by-side comparison to be able to identify how they've treated it or whether it is indeed a true 16:9 from which a 2:1 was cropped or narrowed(!?) for BBC One showing.

Or perhaps it's a classic case of fat-fingers and/or someone unfamiliar with a "new" production suite?

Reminds me of the early days of 16:9 TVs when a lot of content was still 4:3 and some of the smart-stretching of the video could produce some interesting results. I think the likes of snooker and football were particularly prone to looking a bit strange; although some might ask how one could tell ;)
Some here, though this wasn't where I read that originally.

Univisium

But I'm not sure if it was in 16:9 and then the top and bottom was cropped for us or it was in 2:1 and then BBC America cropped the sides to get it to 16:9 or what.

Aah think this was it.

The Woman Who Fell to Earth (TV story)

Oddly, though, it was initially broadcast in an altered visual form in some markets. Although it was the first episode of the programme filmed in a 2:1 aspect ratio, its global premiere on networks like BBC America and Space was actually in the previous standard of 16:9. This had the effect of truncating some of the frame.
 
Reminds me of the early days of 16:9 TVs when a lot of content was still 4:3 and some of the smart-stretching of the video could produce some interesting results. I think the likes of snooker and football were particularly prone to looking a bit strange; although some might ask how one could tell ;)

Interesting is certainly one way of putting it. :laugh: A bit of zoom plus some stretch on the sides so everyone got fatter as they went off screen. Snooker would have been really interesting.

The issue of this aspect ratio came up in the Dr Who thread. As I said there I'm not bothered by by the black borders but they are so slight that they seem entirely pointless. They hardly make any difference. I'm in the process of tidying up my hard drive and I've been looking at Collateral from last year which I'd forgotten about. That has a more extreme aspect and so is more noticeable. This may well have been an artistic decision made with or by the director for the one off drama. That won't be the case with Dr Who as there will be several different directors. For whatever reason this has been a decision by the producer and/or the production team. I can't exactly see the average Eastenders fan being annoyed by them not using this aspect ratio.

Bri
 
I'd like to think that looking "cinematic" is a little more than having a black border.

Digitally add some film grain, hire actual film directors, have a Hollywood level of investment, have 5.1 audio.

This reminds me of something that was said of Uwe Boll I think, "he uses Dutch angles but doesn't know why."
 
In cinemas when something is in widescreen the sides open up so you get more of the picture, you may say in this case the top and bottom close in so you get less.
 
I'm glad you created a separate Thread for this, Garrett, as it was all getting completely out of hand over on the "Doctor Who" Thread!:boring:

I have a 65" TV and I didn't notice any of this "controversy" until it was brought to my attention. Personally, I don't see what the issue is: it makes panoramic shots look huge but also seems to have little impact on close ups, so it's the best of both worlds.

Maybe those black borders make a bigger difference on smaller screen sizes? I agree with you that 16:9 looked terrible on 4:3 TV's and it did take me a while to get used to 4:3 on 16:9 TV's without zooming (the black borders at the sides are ENORMOUS), but we always adapt and get immersed eventually.
 
I'd like to think that looking "cinematic" is a little more than having a black border.

Digitally add some film grain, hire actual film directors, have a Hollywood level of investment, have 5.1 audio.

This reminds me of something that was said of Uwe Boll I think, "he uses Dutch angles but doesn't know why."

You've made a few interesting points there. I absolutely agree about the 5.1 sound. Any big BBC drama should have it automatically but usually doesn't. I mentioned Collateral yesterday. They went for a more extreme ratio but the sound was only stereo. A 5.1 mix would have given it a lot more atmosphere. They missed a trick there. At least the first episode of Dr Who going out in stereo this year seems to have been an error. I still find it strange that a lot of their afternoon drama has 5.1 sound when most of their primetime output doesn't.

I'm less keen on the artificial film grain. I know it was a long time ago but I remember one series of The Vicar Of Dibley looking terrible and I think that was down to added grain. Likewise I think that's what ITV did when they returned to Shine On Harvey Moon. That last series with Nicky Henson looked like it had been shot on VHS. I dreaded it whem doing it to Dr Who when it returned in 2005 but it worked much better on that. The grain techniques may have improved and maybe it just works better in HD but I'm still apprehensive.

Using actual film directors and having Hollywood levels of investment. We only get big BBC budgets on co productions like the last series of Torchwood. In that case I don't think the substantial increase in budget helped that much. The previous series was much better. The US Dr Who tv movie did look excellent but was a mess story wise. Apparently there were too many different sources putting money and had a say in it. Recent Dr Who has used actual film directors most notably Rachel Talalay. She does seem to have stuck to tv for quite a while but she did direct Tank Girl and one of The Nightmare On Elm Street films. There was also Ben Wheatley. I can't say I was impressed with any of their episodes other than Rachel's last two. Having said that I didn't like much of the Capaldi era.

Apologies for turning this into a Dr Who thread.

:laugh:
Bri
 
I'm glad you created a separate Thread for this, Garrett, as it was all getting completely out of hand over on the "Doctor Who" Thread!:boring:

I have a 65" TV and I didn't notice any of this "controversy" until it was brought to my attention. Personally, I don't see what the issue is: it makes panoramic shots look huge but also seems to have little impact on close ups, so it's the best of both worlds.

Maybe those black borders make a bigger difference on smaller screen sizes? I agree with you that 16:9 looked terrible on 4:3 TV's and it did take me a while to get used to 4:3 on 16:9 TV's without zooming (the black borders at the sides are ENORMOUS), but we always adapt and get immersed eventually.

I think I was the one who brought up the widescreen issue on the Dr Who thread. It was a valid issue but I had no idea it would dominate the thread like it did. I watch on a 55" screen. l very much liked the look of the first episode of Who but I found the second one very poor. Whatever they did distracted me quite a bit and I didn't like it at all. I very much doubt if my reactions had anything to do with this aspect ratio. I know the production team wanted a more cinematic feel and changed the way the show is shot. I posted a link to an item on it but I can't find it at the moment. I think there was more to it than the ratio.

I think it was @krish who mentioned that The Cry is in the same ratio. I haven't seen that yet so I have no idea how that looks. Are there many other BBC shows shot this way? I can't think of any offhand but I've been stockpiling most of my BBC stuff on my hard drive for quite a while as I concentrate on getting my huge unwatched disc pile down.

Bri
 
I noticed something on one of the othe main channels the other night in 20:9 which Channels I don't normally watch as the tend to stick the better stuff on non HD channels.
I also not for some reason the Horror Channel zooms out Star Trek to fill the screen yet (seem to recall) they did the Next gen in 4:3.
 
I noticed something on one of the othe main channels the other night in 20:9 which Channels I don't normally watch as the tend to stick the better stuff on non HD channels.
I also not for some reason the Horror Channel zooms out Star Trek to fill the screen yet (seem to recall) they did the Next gen in 4:3.

I think Enterprise was the first 16/9 Trek. I recall reading that at one point they experimented shooting Voyager in a way so that it could be shown in either 4/3 or in 16/9.

Bri
 
I think Enterprise was the first 16/9 Trek. I recall reading that at one point they experimented shooting Voyager in a way so that it could be shown in either 4/3 or in 16/9.

Bri
I would agree with you. I just found Stargate SG1 was filmed in 16:9 but shown in 4:3 for the early seasons and still is.
 
Which reminds me of Firefly where Fox wanted it in 4:3 so Joss Whedon deliberatly pushed the actors to the sides so it couldn't be.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom