Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by Bristol Pete, Mar 25, 2003.
or there abouts.
1.85:1 = 16x9 widescreen (no black bars if WSTV)
2.35:1 = a little narrower that 16x9 (black bars are barely visable)
1.33:1 = Full screen
so whats 1:77.1 then ????
yes as is 2.35:1.
there are many aspect ratios and anything above 4:3 (the ratio of square tellys) could really be considered widescreen.
widescreen tvs are 16:9 or 1.78:1, this is very close to the 1.85:1 ratio and the inherent overscan present in the design of all tvs (displays an image larger than screen to prevent constantly flickering borders) makes a 1.85:1 fir a 1.78:1 screen perfectly.
if you display anything wider than 1.85:1 material on a widescreen set you will get black bars top and bottom to make up the difference.
1.78:1 is the official US digital TV aspect ratio, I guess that's the same thing, roughly.
This site tells you all you need to know... with some nice pics to demonstrate matters too
Aspect ratios/Anamorphic explained
If I recall correctly from my days at Uni, when I was a projectionist in the SU film club, there are 3 common widescreen ratios for 35mm film. US-widescreen is 1.85:1, Scope is 2.33:1 and the relatively rare UK-widescreen is 1.66:1. Widescreen TVs are 16:9, which work out to be 1.78:1. My understanding is that 16:9 was chosen as somewhere in the middle of the two extremes - being 2.33:1 and 1.33:1 (4:3.) FWIW, I seem to remember showing a film in 16mm scope once, which was even wider than 2.33:1 - probably 2.5:1 or so. Of course, all this could be hogwash due to the haziness as a result of excessive alcohol consumption!
bridge on the river kwai was shot in 2.55:1 and i believe Ben Hur was 2.70:1
standard 'scope' is 2.35:1
Anyone else got "Picknick at Hanging Rock" - Criton Eddition, R1?
I don't know what they've done but it's not any reglure ratio that I know of. Try it as 4:3, you get the bars top and bottom. There fore it's a zoom job. No if you zoom to 16:9 still not right. Try 16:9 anamorphic, no that's not it.
Try all the ratio options on Pioneeer 503HDE, and find one that fits. It's like a 16:9 with a bit of strech top and bottom. I've never seen this ratio anywhere before. Anyone know if this is something used in The States?
according to Criterion its 1.66:1 non-anamorphic
That's what they say! But it's come out very odd. I don't know if they got an orignal print, but couldn't find the right anamorphic
lens for their telecine, or just didn't know how to set their ARC output from Digi master when encodeing to DVD. But it's not 1.66:1 non-anamorphic.
sorry mate your last post might as well have been in Swahili for all i understood!
Might be worth emailing Criterion and asking them what happened.
I got carried away. But the odd thing is, there is a setting on the Pioneer plasma that corrected it. It's the first time that I've had to use the other ratios settings.
I'll try Criterion and see what they say.
I've got a few DVDs in this ratio (1.66:1 non an.).
Basically there is no setting on a WS TV other than 4:3 that will show it correctly.
Why has no-one mentioned 14:9 zoom?
This is what I use for 1.66:1 non-anamorphic transfers - it gets rid of the black bars top and bottom and leaves the black bars on the side.
As the size of the bars are very small it's not worth removing them, at the sake of losing some resolution. I never use the 14:9 option, even on analog broadcasts.
I don't know if any exist, but I have yet to come across a 1.66:1 anamorphic DVD.
Most films shot 1.66 are composed for 1.85 and shot safe out to 1.66. Sometime the director wants it to go out as 1.66 especially in europe its rare to go narrower than 1.85 in the states these days. A recent example is the Truman Show shot safe to 1.66 and the region1 version is mastered in this format but on exhibition in theatres it was mostly 1.85. I'd assume hard masked.
Excalibur is an example of a film shot in 1.66 that wasn't rigourously composed for 1.85. The dvd versions are all 1.85 and look very claustrophobic: actors losing the tops of their heads. It could have done with a bit of pan and scan on the 1.85 transfer.
Judging by the DVDs (recent Hollywood film releases) that I have bought recently I would say 2.35:1 definatley dominates.
It's difficult to tell from your (lack of) punctuation whether you're saying that this is not so in the states.
I'm referring to the use of 1.66 and its possible/probable exhibition as 1.85. Narrower refers to the aspect ratio on projection rather than the view. If I was suggesting that 1.85 prodominates I would have said "wider".
1.66 is narrower than 1.85 which is narrower than 2.35. 1.85 and 2.35 are not necessarily wider referring to the angle of view than 1.66 (depends on the original shooting format).
I WOULD actually suggest 2.35 is a little less common than 1.85 whether it be super35 or scope.
I guess it depends on what films you watch but I would say
that I have a 'broad' range' of Hollywood films on DVD, 70% of which are in the 2.35:1/2.40:1 format.
The region 1 of Gohatto (Taboo) is 1.66/1 anamorphic.
I get the impression that most people have so much overscan that 1.85/1.78/1.66 all appear the same on a w/s TV.
Having worked on "Hollywood" films for the last 10 years I would stick by my initial assessment that 1.85 is slightly more prevalent than 2.35.
I remember someone (may have been on this forum) doing a breakdown of everything on IMDB by aspect ratio; 1.85/1 was easily the largest proportion. That's not just 'Hollywood' films though.
I can only go off what I have seen on DVD and the cinema (all Hollywood films...whaot else?) and the majority are in 2.35.
Even some of the dross that I borrow from colleagues at work nearly always seem to be in 2.35
This is really interesting. The black bars on the screen have annoyed me in the past but since realising that you get the benefit of seeing the film how it should have been seen is more important.
I have had a look at the website that was mentioned earlier in this topic and it's opened my eyes.
What really annoyed me is when we first got a widescreen TV and some DVDs had massive black bars top and bottom. I will be checking the aspect ratio from now on before i buy!
Thats why I buy each DVD on merit, its no longer just a case of picking it up from the shelf.
Of course, sound is a consideration also.
I have to agree though, I love watching aspect ratio 2:35.1 with the bars. Far more cinema like, however, still too wide for widescreen....
At the end of the day isnt a 16:9 tv set a bit of a compromise.
What exactly is Hollywood cinema? Most Blockbusters, I am thinking Armageddon and things like that seem to be 2.35. Can we have some titles to give us a clue? I dunno, seems a silly thing to argue about, tho.
If the director of the film intended the film to be Academy, wide screen, or even Super Panavision, that's fine by me. I don't mind the bars top/bottom or sides. Whether your watching on 4:3 14" or 16:9 60" at least you get to see the "whole" film.
But another thought. If you don't like the black bars, I find it really good to watch the screen as close as possible.
Say about 6" from said screen. This way you don't get to see the bars at all. This is OK unless you're watching with a few friends or family, because it can get a little crowed.
You've also got to be a little carefull because you can get statick from CTRs and some plasms can get a bit hot.
At 6 inches from the screen, I find the pixel structure on my plasma a little obtrusive.
At 6" from the screen I'm actualy boss-eyed. No need to worry about pixels, can't even focus on them! I must be getting old.
After only a three pints of Dogbolter homebrew I can see pixies too.
Separate names with a comma.