Jump to content

Anybody else loves aspect ratios?


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Which particular aspects of aspect ratios do you like?

 

Plagiarism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

Personally I like 1920:1

 

Untitled-1.png

 

That's the format of the next Nolan film.

 

2 minutes ago, AC1 said:

 

Plagiarism!

 

That's plagiarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are pretty fun when they change from something like 2.35:1 and open up to the IMAX 16:9.  Mind you, I'm watching on a projector, but it is a (not so) subtle way of telegraphing that shit is about to get real.

 

Anyone here ever watch a 3D film with "Frame Breaks" where the content literally breaks free of the aspect ratio?  Now that's really cool.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

© 2021 Manakin Skywalker Incorporated, LLC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My preferred aspect ratio is 479:380, with six rectangular pixels removed from tasteful locations around the perimeter and another near the middle. This should alternate between landscape and portrait orientations every 13 frames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TSMefford said:

I also love all aspect ratios.

 

This turns out to be a great day for JWFan!

 

 Now let's wait for someone to step forward and say: "Yes, I admit it, I love desaturated colors! Sue me!" 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 6:52 AM, Tallguy said:

I always just assumed that everyone wanted to live in Cinemascope. But then I heard the commentary for Buckaroo Banzai where the director said that wide screen was pushed on him. He thought it had lots of limitations, especially for his film.

 

Ultra Panavision (with its frankly obscene 2.76:1 aspect ratio) was pushed on William Wyler for Ben Hur. I don't think Sir David Lean ever shot in the 2.55:1 original Cinemascope (which had ghastly anamorphic distortions) after The Bridge on the River Kwai. John Ford couldn't stand shooting on three-strip Cinerama (also ~2.55:1 but requiring a huge blimped camera and very stilted blocking to make it work) for How The West Was Won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, TSMefford said:

I also love all aspect ratios.

 

Me too! I love aspect ratios, all of them, as long as they completely fill up my screen without any of those ghastly black bars.  I especially like the one where everyone is stretched like one of @crumbs funny avatars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Ugh. You're one of those people are you? Lol. Just get a TV for every aspect ratio and you're good to go.

 

11094-philipscinema219img1-1.jpg

 

Philips still makes their 21:9 TVs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Ugh. You're one of those people are you? Lol. Just get a TV for every aspect ratio and you're good to go.

 
Don’t be silly. They should just make the movies without the black bars. Problem solved!

 

I mean, where do they get the black bars, and what do they do when they’re done with them?  I think I saw the black bars Snyder used on Justice League up for sale on eBay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
4 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Yeah it's interesting. As an editor, I would love to not have to deal with the fractional frame rates. Lol. It's a pretty antiquated standard these days to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 5 weeks later...

Disney+ does it right! They are beefing up 13 Marvel films with iMax enhanced.

 

For them, ‘iMax enhanced’ seems to be about maximizing the experience for the home viewer.

 

This I can go onboard with!

 

3596469D-CE53-4853-A9C9-133684705763.png

 

D5505A58-F68E-41EC-85C8-3A1BB4FEFB9D.png

 

70551698-9D4F-4D4E-96D8-518849B71A79.png

 

Much better than the Justice League Snyder Cut in my opinion.

 

52B733D7-ADE3-4CB4-920A-24B2B5C003EA.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah just saw that. So glad they finally do this right.

I mean I'll finally be able to see IW in its complete form so that's great. Hope Warner will follow them on that pass....

[Edit] just realized that if Disney can do this right, our hope for a proper Star Wars and Indy Collections can increase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 16:9 ratio feels wrong and cropped for The Snyder Cut. You can see that elements in the composition are being cut off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point is, the best option seems to be “go half’s way”, as they’ve done with ‘iMax enhanced’: enlarge the picture enough so that you fills 16:9, but not do much that you end up with 4:3.

 

For me at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4:3 is actually okay for me outside theaters as well as 16:9 but not like the regular 2.35 which is the best option in theaters but not on home release.

The image should capture all what the director wants while filling the frame the most possible

 

Happy to see that Shang-Chi is fully in 1:85 or 1:90 (I don't really notice the difference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Point is, the best option seems to be “go half’s way”, as they’ve done with ‘iMax enhanced’: enlarge the picture enough so that you fills 16:9, but not do much that you end up with 4:3.

 

For me at least.

 

The best is to watch in the ratio intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, May the Force be with You said:

The image should capture all what the director wants while filling the frame the most possible

 

The image should capture all the director wants and not what the director doesn't want. If a film isn't designed for multiple aspect ratios, that's rarely possible, at least if enough thought has gone into the framing to begin with. And as a rule of thumb, I'd rather have directors and DPs focus on interesting and fitting compositions than making it a priority to keep them flexible enough for reformatting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you could have the two versions available: a director's cut with its true vision but another fit to give the audience the best possible experience when at home. I especially thinking to the Hateful Eight and its glorious framing for theater but when you only got a 17 inches screen it's desperately frustrating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, May the Force be with You said:

but another fit to give the audience the best possible experience when at home.

 

Isn't that how we got pan and scan? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mstrox said:

Most directors don’t consider the aspect ratio when filming.  They are not like you and me.

I think that they do, Mike.

There is a YouTube channel video that explains why JURASSIC PARK looks more effective in 1.85, than it would, in 2.35.

 

Personally, I don't care what aspect ratio is used, just as long as it is displayed accurately, either on a cinema screen, or on a television. As long as it is what the director intended, I'm happy. I don't mind watching 1.37 films, if that is what was used. The aspect ratio is no barrier to a director's visual imagination.

It can, however, backfire.

For instance: BRAINSTORM on DVD is just weird. All the 35mm stuff is displayed in 1.85, while the 70mm stuff is in 2.20, which, ironically, has the effect of making the 70mm footage seem smaller. You can't win.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

For instance: BRAINSTORM on DVD is just weird. All the 35mm stuff is displayed in 1.85, while the 70mm stuff is in 2.20, which, ironically, has the effect of making the 70mm footage seem smaller. You can't win.

 

In the theater would they both have been the same height? And then wider for the 70mm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

The best is to watch in the ratio intended.

 

Exactly. And don't trust them when they say it was intended for both 4:3 and 16:9!

 

8 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I think that they do, Mike.

There is a YouTube channel video that explains why JURASSIC PARK looks more effective in 1.85, than it would, in 2.35.

 

Personally, I don't care what aspect ratio is used, just as long as it is displayed accurately, either on a cinema screen, or on a television. As long as it is what the director intended, I'm happy. I don't mind watching 1.37 films, if that is what was used. The aspect ratio is no barrier to a director's visual imagination.

It can, however, backfire.

For instance: BRAINSTORM on DVD is just weird. All the 35mm stuff is displayed in 1.85, while the 70mm stuff is in 2.20, which, ironically, has the effect of making the 70mm footage seem smaller. You can't win.

 

 

I was surprised JP didn't have black bars. I somehow expected it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the discussion about artistic intent and the director’s vision is interesting. The Marvel movies (and their equivalents) are 300 million dollars cinematic versions of Happy Meals… We’re not really talking about The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman here.

 

In the case of blockbusters, how much is really artistic intent, and how much is studio interference, test viewings, rush release dates and sales goals… ?

 

And then, whatever is on the cinematic screen is burned on to a disc with HDR filters appliedand a newly encoded soundtrack for DTS, so who even knows what the “intent” really was any more - and is it lost already?
 

If nothing essential is actually cut out - for example the Disney+ version of The Simpsons which cut 4:3 to 16:9, or the pan & scan format which cut widescreen to 4:3 - then I don’t mind it all that much.

 

And I’m not holding this as an absolute rule, I guess I am judging case by case. I do realize that we lose image in the case of Snyder Cut, but for some reason it just irks me. At the same time, I’m glad it’s out there for whoever wants to consume and enjoy it in 4:3. To each it’s own - it’s just not for me.
 

I’m just glad that ‘iMax Enhanced’ seems to strike a balance between “original release” and “maximize home media entertainment set ups (ie 16:9). In my view, a business decision intended to make the home viewing experience better for most consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, rough cut said:

In the case of blockbusters, how much is really artistic intent, and how much is studio interference, test viewings, rush release dates and sales goals… ?

 

You have a point there. I've never checked this myself, but I've read Ridley Scott slightly cropped Alien for the HD discs. That means we're missing the outer areas of the original frame but we're a little bit closer to the subject or action. I don't know why he would do that but I guess it's to enhance the home viewing experience. 

 

Still, there is plenty of artistic intent in blockbusters too which should be very apparent if you watch Villeneuve's Dune. We're seeing exactly what the makers wanted us to see. BTW, HDR (High Dynamic Range) is a camera feature, not a filter or something they add during post-production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 

In the theater would they both have been the same height? And then wider for the 70mm?

Correct. I saw BRAINSTORM at the cinema, and all the 1.85 stuff had a big black block, either side. It was well odd.

 

 

23 minutes ago, AC1 said:

...we're missing the outer areas of the original frame but we're a little bit closer to the subject or action.

 

I don't really want to get closer to the alien, thank you very much :lol:.

70mm, on the biggest screen in the UK (at that time), is plenty close enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 16/11/2021 at 10:24 PM, Naïve Old Fart said:

I think that they do, Mike.

 

I think he was joking! (Wasn't he...?)

 

On 16/11/2021 at 10:24 PM, Naïve Old Fart said:

...which, ironically, has the effect of making the 70mm footage seem smaller.

 

That's a big disadvantage with the DVD version of Abel Gance's Napoleon. When the triptych section comes at the end, the screen is supposed to triple in size, but, in order for the wide image to fit on the same display, it is shrunken so much that one needs to get out one's magnifying glass to follow the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.