View Full Version : 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio
Zoetermeer
11-14-2003, 01:36 AM
I didn't realize that movies are actually filmed in a different aspect ratio than widescreen TV's. After reading the FAQ, I have two questions:
1) Why on Earth are widescreen TV's not made with screen dimensions matching the widescreen DVD aspect ratio? Isn't the whole point of getting a widescreen TV (aside from widescreen HD broadcasts) being able to watch movies in their original, full-screen format?
2) If you watch the DVD in normal mode, i.e. with the small black bars on the top and bottom, won't this cause burn lines over time the same way watching regular TV in 4:3 would? IMO, this makes it even more ridiculous that widescreen TVs' dimensions do not match DVD display dimensions.
1) Why on Earth are widescreen TV's not made with screen dimensions matching the widescreen DVD aspect ratio? Isn't the whole point of getting a widescreen TV (aside from widescreen HD broadcasts) being able to watch movies in their original, full-screen format?
16:9 (1.78:1) is the widescreen TV aspect ratio, 1.85:1 is by far the most common aspect ratio for movies (DVD's), 2.20:1 and 2.35:1 are not as common AND 16:9 is the AR that HD is transmitted in. What would you do with the movies (a few) that are 2.60:1 if your TV was 2.35:1, you'd still have black bars :).
2) If you watch the DVD in normal mode, i.e. with the small black bars on the top and bottom, won't this cause burn lines over time the same way watching regular TV in 4:3 would? IMO, this makes it even more ridiculous that widescreen TVs' dimensions do not match DVD display dimensions.
The FAQ: http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6821 is the best answer.
There is also this FAQ: http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1052
57U has a post in here that addresses both your questions directly, but I can't find it :( HELP!
Personal experience, I had a Pioneer 4:3 RPTV that will be 14 years old this Christmas. My son has it now. I watched A LOT of widescreen laser discs and DVD's on that set. Never had a burnin problem because of it. I hope my Toshiba runs as well and that long :)
Lee
kevinw
11-14-2003, 08:25 AM
One thing is widescreen movies with black bars are still filling the screen completely. Just that the material is black. It is still a signal.
While 4:3 programming on a widescreen the material is only 4:3 and the lack of material, in this case black or gray bars, is the part that can really do damage.
Think about all the comercials that are artistically done in WS. The black bars are still a signal just black.
See the 4th post in the following thread. Which aspect ratio would you like your TV to be?
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5006
16:9 is the aspect ratio of all HD programming and the aspect ratio of the majority of widescreen movies. It is also close enough to 4:3, that when stretched, people don't look ridiculous and when unstretched, 4:3 images take up a fair amount of the screen. If your TV were 2.35:1, 4:3 images would not work well.
ApolloCreed21
11-14-2003, 12:25 PM
kevinw:
I didn't know that there was a difference between black content not filling the screen and black content in a DVD. I guess I assumed that in 4:3 content that the TV "produces" the signal and thus puts in the black bars.
Are you saying that basically I can watch a DVD in it's standard format and not at all be concerned about burn in ?
"Concern" is a relative term. CRT-based TVs should not have static images on them for more than about 15-20% of the time. They should also be properly calibrated so that contrast/brightness are turned down.
Since it's unlikely that you're going to be viewing DVDs of a certain format for more than 20% of the time, burn in is also unlikely.
If you measure the black bars on 2.35:1 DVDs you'll also find that they tend to vary, not always being the same thickness.
kevinw
11-14-2003, 12:32 PM
I would say not as concerned because you are still varying your usage. Watching 4:3 unstretched is much more dangerous. The biggest cause is having contrast set to high and static images. As long as the programming varies you should not fear damage.
Zoetermeer
11-14-2003, 12:39 PM
Looking through all of my DVD's, not one of my widescreen movies matches my TV's aspect ratio. Almost all of them say they are in 2.35:1.
Next time you're in a rental store, flip over some Widescreen DVDs at random. I think you'll find about 50% in 1.85:1 or 1.78, which fit 16:9 TVs perfectly. Your collection is unique if it's all/mostly 2.35:1 (although many "action" movies are shot in this format)
I just went to DVDEmpire's site and randomly clicked on about 20 DVDs. The majority were 1.85 or 1.78:1. There were also 2.35, some 1.33, one 2.40, etc.
http://www.dvdempire.com/
Paul Mohr
11-14-2003, 02:35 PM
When you watch anomorphic dvd's there is not a specific aspect ratio or a standard as you would say. It is what ever the director and cinematographer decided to shoot the movie in. I think most older dvd's that are marked "wide screen" are 16:9, but if the movie was not shot that way you are still losing some of the picture. It would have to be cropped to fit that format, just like it would have to be for a 4:3 screen, just not to the same extent. With an Enhanced wide screen dvd, or "anamorhpic" and a progressive dvd player it is displayed in what ever aspect ratio the film was shot it. Thus you are seeing exactly what the film makers wanted you to.
The 16:9 aspect ratio for wide screen tv's was chosen as a comprimise I would guess, and all high def programming will be in that format also. I have a 4:3 tv with a wide screen mode, not 16:9. If I set my tv to wide screen and my dvd player to play enhanced dvd's the tv will adjust to what ever aspect ratio the movie is being displayed in. Yes I have black bars on the top and bottom, but they are not being displayed. The tv just doesn't scan those areas, so I keep my full resolution no matter what aspect ratio it is. I don't know if other tv's do this or not, only that mine does. It was not a deciding factor in buying it, since it says nothing about it in the manual or advertising. I discovered it by accident. I think any tv with "compression" would do it.
Paul
namechamps
11-14-2003, 09:09 PM
Zoetermeer,
Since 1950 movies have been shot and released in a total of 87 different aspect ratios. There is no 1 widescreen.
Let's say your HDTV was 2.35:1
So your 2.35:1 DVDs would fit perfectly.
BUT then you would have sidebars when you watch 1.85, or 1.78 ratio DVDs
PLUS you would still have top&bottom bars when you watch DVDs with aspect ratio of 2.50, 2.65, and 2.85.
After careful study the ratio 16:9 was chosen for HDTV because it is the best compromise. It is not perfect but it is closer to movie size then 1.33 (4:3 normal TV).
There is only way you could ever display every single movie in correct format without stretching or scaling. You would need a full analog movie theater in your house, along with the motorized screen which can change to all 87 ratios, and those 50lb movie reels. Actually you would need two movie projectors since most movies are broken into multiple reels.
The ironic thing is most consumers hate the black bars because they can see them. Yet they never complained for 20 years that studios MURDERED good movies to fit them on VHS because the crime was invisible.
Check out this link & I think you will be amazed. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html
Hippie
11-14-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by 57U
. Your collection is unique if it's all/mostly 2.35:1 (although many "action" movies are shot in this format)
http://www.dvdempire.com/
Just out of curiosity, I looked through mine..
I would say the majority of mine are 2.35:1 also.......
Hippie
11-15-2003, 02:02 AM
Understanding that it is up to the producer what format the film is going to be shot in.
What are the benefits/disadvantages between these "widescreen formats" (1.85:1, 2.35:1, 1.78:1 etc...)
that the producer has to consider to make his decision.
Here's some interesting reading on the history of aspect ratios:
http://valueservices.org/reelimage/widescreen/widescreen1.htm
I'll take any aspect ratio 1.78:1 or better :) The 2.35:1's are great for the 'vistas' and lots of action all displayed at the same time. I guess the bottom line is that I want to see the movie how it was filmed, not cut up.
Lee
paulszpet
11-15-2003, 06:58 AM
I think the selection of 16:9 for HDTV was extremely foolish and shortsighted. Why not have made the selection of 1:85:1???
At least then, half of the movies made for hollywood would have been a perfect fit. The actual difference to the HDTVs would have been minimal. 16:9 seems to be some sort of bastard size that is really suitable to no one.
1.85:1 is so close to 16:9 it doesn't really matter. The amount you lose at the top and bottom of the screen is very small. Besides 16:8.65 looks weird :)
On a 65" screen (57x32) you'd lose 1.2" (.6 top/.6 bottom) Just a tad difference in overscan would make that up? Unless my math is screwed up, say I'm am off and its a full inch, would you miss that?
Hell, maybe they picked 16:9 because it a nice round number and 1.85:1 movies fit nicely.
Lee :D
namechamps
11-15-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by paulszpet
I think the selection of 16:9 for HDTV was extremely foolish and shortsighted. Why not have made the selection of 1:85:1???
At least then, half of the movies made for hollywood would have been a perfect fit. The actual difference to the HDTVs would have been minimal. 16:9 seems to be some sort of bastard size that is really suitable to no one.
The reason is because then on 1.78 movies (or any movie less than 1.85) you would have black side bars.
Answer honestly which is more annoying top&bottom black bars or side bars?
In the DTV group they found that 16:9 ratio was best compramise. It offered a wide view without being to wide. Most sitcoms or other primetime shows would look weird if shot at 1.85 or higher. It also was close enough to allow stretching 1.33 content without it looking to weird. So like any compramise it won't please everyone but it does do a good job.
:p You had better get use to it the last format stayed around for close to 70 years!
splinter
11-15-2003, 01:39 PM
Totally agree with that!
paulszpet
11-15-2003, 05:56 PM
namechamps
If 1:85:1 had been chosen for HDTV there would have been no 1:78:1, it doesn't exist anywhere else other than HDTV, therefore, you would never have had the sidebars you mentioned. High definition video cameras would have been photographing in 1:85:1 for television. Other than current HD television, 16:9 doesn't exist.
As to the statement that old sitcoms would have looked weird, I direct your attention to "Hogans Heros" it was photographed on 35MM film in 1:33:1 and it certainly doesn't look weird being after having been converted and shown in high definition. It could just as easily have been converted to 1:85:1.
Had 1:85:1 been selected as the HD standard, all video and just about half of the theatrical films would have fit perfectly onto the tv screen without cropping, squeezing or black bars. The only place black bars would have occurred is in 2:35:1.
As it now stands all theatrical films are either cropped or squeezed in one way or another or have black bars on top and bottom. You tell me which is the better compromise.
As to your comment about getting used to the new standard, I have been handling motion picture films as a collector in both 16 and 35MM and have dealt with all types of different aspect ratios since the late 1950's.
I still stand by my original statement 1:85:1 would have been the better choice for HDTV.
There are no black bars on 1.85:1 movies shown on a widescreen TV. If you see black bars, your overscan is set too low (below 3%).
Also, some Theatrical releases/DVDs are produced in 1.78:1 (Shrek for example)
For widescreen TVs they had to choose a ratio. Since 16:9 was "easy", close to 4:3 and also met the 1.85:1 movie ratio (without black bars), I see no problem with 16:9.
The decision has been made, live with it.
paulszpet
11-15-2003, 09:39 PM
It's amazing. I made simple statement about aspect ratios (my opinion of course) and get blasted 7 ways to Sunday.
57U your statement of the decision being made and live with it is pointless. Of course at this point in time there is no choice to by made by anyone, and everyone will live with it and like it.
Also, I would like to know how you fit a 1:85:1 film onto a 1:78:1 format without losing some of picture. No, there aren't any black bars but you are losing something if you run it full frame.
I am not trying to start a war here and my original statement was academic in any case. All aspect decisions have been made by the Gods and they are final.
No, there aren't any black bars but you are losing something if you run it full frame.
I calculated I was losing less than an inch top and bottom with a 1.85:1 image on my 65" set.
If you're getting blasted, its go to be the most gentle I've seen in a while :) Its just not that big a deal is all.
If you need a crusade, ask why its taking Dish Network so blasted long to get the 811 and 921 released, and SuperDish too.
Or why Comcast (and other cable companies) won't go full digital and dump those 69 analog channels. Then we can both be pissed together :)
But those are subjects for another thread or two.
Lee
Originally posted by paulszpet Also, I would like to know how you fit a 1:85:1 film onto a 1:78:1 format without losing some of picture. You actually lose more of the 1.78 format because you lose the overscan amount all the way around - say about 4%.
If you show a 1.85 format on a 16:9 TV, you lose the overscan on the sides, but effectively you'd be losing nothing of the movie top and bottom because the overscan would almost exactly cancel the "incorrect aspect".
Remember though that a lot of the aspect ratios printed on the DVDs are not exact. If you view a few 2.35:1 movies you'll soon notice that the size of the bars changes on these movies. So the aspect ratio numbers are only approximations.
paulszpet
11-16-2003, 06:50 AM
Thank you Lee for your research, it is interesting to know how much might be missing on the 1:85:1 conversion to 16:9 (about 1 inch on a 65 inch set). Your efforts are appreciated.
Also, quite right 57U. When widescreen movies are transferred to DVD the size of the black bar does indeed change. It has to be this way so that all of the width of the picture on some of those super wide films fit onto the TV screen correctly. So many different widescreen aspect ratios were used in the 50's and 60's that it boggles the mind. I'll bet that when those super wide anamorphic films were brought to most theatres they were shown in the standard scope 2:35:1 mode no matter how they were originally filmed. I wonder how many people in the audiance would have noticed that the actors in some of these presentations looked a bit on the thin side.
I have to give credit to the movie studios transferring the cinemascope films to DVD in that they try very hard to see that all the picture is included on your tv screen.
Hooper
11-16-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by LeeS
16:9 (1.78:1) is the widescreen TV aspect ratio, 1.85:1 is by far the most common aspect ratio for movies (DVD's), 2.20:1 and 2.35:1 are not as common AND 16:9 is the AR that HD is transmitted in. What would you do with the movies (a few) that are 2.60:1 if your TV was 2.35:1, you'd still have black bars :)Lee
Hmmm, that's interesting. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio is by far the rarest in my dvd collection. The only ones that I have with this ratio are Spiderman and the Pixar stuff (except for Bug's Life).
The 2.35:1 aspect is the most common among my personal collection (which of course means black bars at top and bottom).
Honestly, the black bars are not that bad and I would suggest just leaving them instead of trying to shrink them down because you tend to lose picture quality.
Hmmm, that's interesting. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio is by far the rarest in my dvd collection.
I surely wouldn't argue with any of you on that account. 57U did say most action movies are in 2.35:1 and that's most of my collection. I was going by info off the internet and what I've heard, not personal experience.
(Warning, ramble coming on)
When we started this discussion I went downstairs to compile a list of the AR's of the movies in my collection. It didn't take long to realize that 'most' of the widescreen movies just say that 'WIDESCREEN' and don't give the AR, so I gave up. I really didn't feel previewing several hundred DVD's :( and honestly I don't pay that much attention to the AR other than to be sure I'm in the correct screen mode. If I get a non anamorphic DVD I switch the DVD out of progressive to interlaced and from full to TW2 on the TV.
In the beginning I kept a database of my movies (LD and DVD). I kept track of AR, content, etc but gave up on that as I got behind on keeping it up. But they are all still in alphabetical order :)
Hey, I just enjoy watching them :)
Lee
Hippie
11-16-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by LeeS
But they are all still in alphabetical order :)
Hey, I just enjoy watching them :)
Lee
Hey.. at least they are in alphabetical order!
Even that is a project for me..:)
Hippie,
Somewhere in here in one of the threads we got off subject and got into a discussion of how 'we' keep track of DVD's.
I will start a new thread on that discussion. It gets too serious in here sometimes and we need to smile more. I've had many "hobbies" over the years, this has been the longest lasting for sure. When does it stop being a hobby? Don't know, maybe when you stop 'playing with it' or stop 'experimenting'?
I'll start the new thread and we can reply there. :)
Lee
I've been cataloging my DVD collection with DVD Profiler, see this link on that subject:
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7234
Interesting, the > 1.85:1 AR's are winning so far:). T3 is listed as 2.40:1 and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea at 2.55:1.
Lee
Cataloged 184 of my DVD's so far. Greater than 1.85:1 = 121, 1.85:1 or less = 63 (includes the 1.33:1's and 1.66:1's)
And that's ok by me!
Lee :)
g4love
11-21-2003, 11:46 AM
I came in late, but this is an interesting discussion so I hope the issue isn't dead.
I have two questions:
(1) Does it cost more money to shoot a film in a wider aspect ratio?
(2) Is it possible that our collections are 2.35:1 dominant because as men (mostly) we gravitate toward action and most action films are shot this way?
Consider the fact that most comedies, dramas, romantic comedies, other so-called "chick flicks" and children's films are 1.85:1 or less so the vast majority of the approximately 180 films released in 2002 were not 2.35:1 or more.
I don't know how many films were made that went straight to video, but I would speculate that most of them were not shot in 2.35:1 or more either.
Charlotte Gray is an example of what I mean. IMHO, the video on this DVD is demo quality, and it is 1.85:1, but how many of us have it in our collection?
It appears the industry chose a fair apect ratio standard based on all films made, but it just so happens most of the films we prefer have a wider aspect ratio!
I came in late, but this is an interesting discussion so I hope the issue isn't dead.
This discussion like several others will never die.
1) Does it cost more money to shoot a film in a wider aspect ratio?
Don't know
(2) Is it possible that our collections are 2.35:1 dominant because as men (mostly) we gravitate toward action and most action films are shot this way?
Most likely
I agree with your other observations :)
Lee
paulszpet
11-21-2003, 01:49 PM
"Does it cost more money to shoot a film in a wider aspect ratio"
No, it does not cost more to photograph in 2:35:1. An anamorphic lens is placed over the prime camera lens to condense the picture. When showing such a film an anamorphic lens is placed over the prime lens in the projector to widen the picture back out. If you show an anamorphic 2:35:1 film without using the anamorphic lens everything will be very tall and thin.
If you held an anamorphic lens in your hand and rotated it, you would notice that one way makes everything look tall and thin and when rotated again everything would look very wide. It is simply optical compression and expansion.
vstone
11-21-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by paulszpet
If 1:85:1 had been chosen for HDTV there would have been no 1:78:1, it doesn't exist anywhere else other than HDTV, therefore, you would never have had the sidebars you mentioned.
...
However, 1.75 has been used, including some films you may be familiar with: Blackboard Jungle, The Searchers, Taxi Driver, Many earlier Disney features (1955-1975 time frame).
We get excited over 1.85, but for many years 1.66 was the standard in Europe. 1.78 is a nice compromise for displaying both.
Apocalyse, Now was shot at 2.35, but I read when they released it on DVD several years ago, Coppola and the cinematographer went with 2.0.
Kubrick is said to have preferred 1.33 to other ratios and when his films were released on DVD, there was a minor furor over picking aspect ratios.
The decision was a techical jugment based on satisfying varying criteria. It's not the one I would have chosen, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
abruzzi
12-01-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by paulszpet
"Does it cost more money to shoot a film in a wider aspect ratio"
No, it does not cost more to photograph in 2:35:1. An anamorphic lens is placed over the prime camera lens to condense the picture. When showing such a film an anamorphic lens is placed over the prime lens in the projector to widen the picture back out.
This is true and false. Technically, the film cost is exactly the same. It can cost more for quality anamorphic lenses, and on small productions the expense (i.e. non-hollywood) they may opt against it. Also the wider aspect demands a very different sort of composition, and doesn't lent itself to low budget cinema verite type filming (I'm never seen hand held scope work-it would probably make the audience seasick.)
The choice of aspect ratio has a lot to do with effect. Big epics that want breathtaking visuals are usually done on 2:35. As a projectionist at a small art/independant theatre, I can say that about 90% of the films I run are 1.85. 5% are ~2.35 and 5% are everything else (1.33, 1.66, etc.) But I played films that with our scope lens (2.35) was still letter boxed. (Japon). Older european films are frequently shot in 1:33. I heard that Minority Report was Spielberg's first scope film. So there are quite a few variations.
Also, a lot of my 16:9 dvds of 1.85 films have small letterboxes, but some older ones like Das Boot crop the film to 16:9.
Geof
namechamps
12-01-2003, 06:50 PM
Another thing is that a lot of HDTV content would look weird at 2.35:1.
2.35 is generaly used for action or epic films.
Think of a show like "Friends". If the HDTV standard was 2.35:1 then all HDTV content would be need to be shot that way.
1.78 was chosen as a compromise. Most TV content can in future be shot in 1.78 with little change to direction, sets, equipment.
However 2.35 would mean a radical change in TV set structure. Also most of the width would be wasted in a sitcom. You would be able to see the whole room but who cares.
The highly debated 16:9 format was chosen because it would allow an easy change for broadcast content. It would also show some/most DVD with little or no distrotion. Also it would reduce the "black bars" on even extreme (2.35:1) aspect ratios. However there is no perfect aspect ratio.
I think we can all agree that 16:9 is much better than 4:3
