2.40 to 1 vs 2.35 to 1

[Christoffer Glans]

Hmm, maybe I'll go 2.39 instead of 2.35 whenever I do something with a DCI delivery. For everything else I've done 2.35 ,has been perfect. Even if we don't like it, whenever someone watch a widescreen movie or clip on a phone the 2.39 will result in a smaller image so the 2.35 is better for the diversity of screens outside of theatre.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

David, yes, no argument here. Of course they mask ) I do not see where we differ, in other words: 100% agreement here; As usual! I enjoy reading your contributions and trust them deeply. Thank you very much, BTW.

Your comment referes to the short quotes from pages 28. I can't add there anything that is not there. It's not even a complete page long.

The complete write up and history is very detailed and is starting with page 62 (hence why I mentioned it first), and it is a lot of data. If I had to compress it to a few words: "it's 2.39:1 -- today" (reflecting the initial question here).

My best wishes

In theory, but in practice most theaters' screen masking and projection throw is set-up for 1.85 and 2.39 movies, so other ratios have to work within those parameters. The basic idea with the DCI specs is that 1.85 uses the max possible height (1080 for 2K) and 2.39 uses the max possible width (2048 for 2K), hence the "container" being 2048 x 1080.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives
Quote:
Even though it specifies what kind of information is required, the DCI Specification does not include specific information about how data within a distribution package is to be formatted. Formatting of this information is defined by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) digital cinema standards.

So the DCI specifications for 1.85 and 2.39 come from SMPTE (which you linked to as well).

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Not really arguing either, I found the documents you put links to interesting, so thanks for that. From them, I gather that SMPTE is setting the digital cinema standards based on the original DCI agreement.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Thank you, David. )

I have done the 2.35:1 "mistake" myself, but Technicolor was nice enough to not make me wrong. ) They just gave me what worked.

You split this in Theory and Practical. Which is an excellent point. Accumulated, I have spend a half year of my life at film festivals in Europe and in the U.S., in the past 25+ years. I can't even start to make a list what can go wrong. Masking is certainly one of the minor problems with Anamorphic material, compared to: I had a direct print out of one movie, and to play it save, I had extra one print out in "Flat" as anamorphic-ratio. Well, you might know the feeling when a "flat" anamorphic is screened again through an anamorphic lens, while the theater is packed.: 4,70:1 looks funny, but it isn't ;o)

Again, thanks for all the work you do here, highly appreciated.

Not really arguing either, I found the documents you put links to interesting, so thanks for that. From them, I gather that SMPTE is setting the digital cinema standards based on the original DCI agreement.

P.S.: I guess the SMPTE, to my understanding of the text in "Digital Video and HD", 2nd edition, Charles Poynton, Page 295, sets, e.g., the primaries for DCI P3. So -- yes, it seems they have their "fingers in that game, besides the Studios that worked on the definitions.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I guess the SMPTE, to my understanding of the text in "Digital Video and HD", 2nd edition, Charles Poynton, Page 295, sets, e.g., the primaries for DCI P3. So -- yes, it seems they have their "fingers in that game, besides the Studios that worked on the definitions.

David Stump's book Digital Cinematography: Fundamentals, Tools, Techniques, and Workflows also has some discussions on acquired aspect ratios, projected aspect ratios, and the complications with different resolutions. Where it really hits the fan is when you shoot multiple different aspect ratios on different cameras, and it all has to come out framed for one common format.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

David Stump's book Digital Cinematography: Fundamentals, Tools, Techniques, and Workflows also has some discussions on acquired aspect ratios, projected aspect ratios, and the complications with different resolutions. Where it really hits the fan is when you shoot multiple different aspect ratios on different cameras, and it all has to come out framed for one common format.

Right! I got the book the day it came out, and I have read it cover to cover: Great book.

 

[Elsie N]

I was just working on a project in Premiere and realized I can type in pretty much any number for height and width (should be useful when working on 8k?).

This suggests to me that once affordable laser projectors are the norm, we won't be constrained by conventions and can utilize whatever part of any screen to better tell our story. For instance, an intimate narrative could be projected in a square format.

I may be thinking incorrectly, but it seems such a screening would look better to those in the balcony, and may be better suited for the close up folks as well.

 

[Sir Miami]

The correct numbers for the the 3 aspect ratio's are:

4K (4096 pixel width)
@ 2.35:1 is 1742,97 pixels in height. i would use 1742 pixels.
@ 2.39:1 is 1713,80 pixels in height. i would use 1712 pixels.
@ 2.40:1 is 1706,66 pixels in height. <-- more even than the other two. I would definitely choose this (2.40:1), for digital media.


2K (2048 pixel width)
@ 2.35:1 = 871,48 pixels in height. i would use 872 pixels.
@ 2.39:1 = 856,90 pixels in height. <-- more even than the other two.
@ 2.40:1 = 853,33 pixels in height. i would use 854 pixels.


HD (1920 pixel width)
@ 2.35:1 = 817,02 pixels in height. i would use 816 pixels.
@ 2.39:1 = 803,34 pixels in height. i would use 802 pixels.
@ 2.40:1 = 800,00 pixels in height. <-- even number = good. I would definitely choose this (2.40:1), for digital media.

NOTE: It is not good/possible to use uneven numbers in pixel height.
Since everything is digital now, then 817pixels for 2.35:1 is just wrong.
You could round it up or down to an even number, but, then it technically won't be 2.35:1 anymore.
Think about it.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The correct numbers for the the 3 aspect ratio's are...

I think as I said much earlier in this thread, you can find detailed charts on many different aspects through Rick Allen's free Aspect Ratio Cheat Sheet, which is very informative and useful:

unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf

All the math is already done for you there. Because of the odd numbers with 2.35 / 2.40, I lobby very hard for my clients to go with 2.40 for home video release. For theatrical, 2.39 is pretty well-established. The trick is what pixel you pick for top vs. bottom. I have seen masters rejected for not meeting written specs, particularly for aspect ratios. Ideally, you get the specs first and then finish the project for those specs.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So it's safe to say 2.39 should always be used for cinema releases. For anything else, it doesn't matter/choice of the creatives.

 

[Marc Wielage]

So it's safe to say 2.39 should always be used for cinema releases. For anything else, it doesn't matter/choice of the creatives.

I would generally rather they stick with industry-standard aspect ratios. But there are those people who do things differently, like various TV shows that have been released in 2.00:1 (House of Cards) and even 1.90:1 (Stranger Things, according to Mike Most). To me, it makes more sense to stick with 1.78 for TV.

When you think about it, a lot of the other aspect ratios make the image smaller to TV audiences, and I think this is a problem when you're trying to give the audience a lot of detail and nuance about a particular scene. The walls, props, faces, and so on are all smaller in 2.40 when presented on a 1.78 monitor, so to me, that puts more "distance" in between the image and the audience. A 1.78 close-up is that much closer and bigger on a 1.78 display. Bear in mind that things get even smaller on alternate viewing devices like iPhones, iPads, computer screens, and so on.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I would generally rather they stick with industry-standard aspect ratios. But there are those people who do things differently, like various TV shows that have been released in 2.00:1 (House of Cards) and even 1.90:1 (Stranger Things, according to Mike Most). To me, it makes more sense to stick with 1.78 for TV.

When you think about it, a lot of the other aspect ratios make the image smaller to TV audiences, and I think this is a problem when you're trying to give the audience a lot of detail and nuance about a particular scene. The walls, props, faces, and so on are all smaller in 2.40 when presented on a 1.78 monitor, so to me, that puts more "distance" in between the image and the audience. A 1.78 close-up is that much closer and bigger on a 1.78 display. Bear in mind that things get even smaller on alternate viewing devices like iPhones, iPads, computer screens, and so on.

That's what I meant; 2.39 is the 4K DCP standard. But of course, as you say, going too off course from the industry standards when doing things for screens that doesn't have to have a certain standard isn't especially good either.

I really like the 2:1 aspect ratio (House of Cards). The thing is that composition in wider formats tends to be more interesting i.m.o, so in order to not loose too much of the screen available by going full blown widescreen, 2:1 gives you a "sense" of widescreen while still filling up most of the screen. So compositions feel a bit more interesting in that format and keeps the image perfect for most screens. For serial work I think it's the best format, especially since some use anamorphic lenses which they zoom in to 16:9. For a series like Fear the Walking Dead I don't think it works very good cause of it's 16:9 format. If they had gone a little wider with 2:1 the anamorphic feel to the image would have been much better.

 

[Marc Wielage]

For serial work I think it's the best format, especially since some use anamorphic lenses which they zoom in to 16:9. For a series like Fear the Walking Dead I don't think it works very good cause of it's 16:9 format. If they had gone a little wider with 2:1 the anamorphic feel to the image would have been much better.

I don't think the anamorphic feel has anything to do with the aspect ratio. The "breathing" of the lenses on focus pulls, the slight vignetting on the corners, the shallow depth of field, and the unmistakable bokeh and lens flares of anamorphic are pretty significant.

I think like a lot of things, there are much bigger factors involved than aspect ratio for the show. Content, story, character, plus the technical issues of lighting, exposure, editing, and color are far more important. Don't forget that a TV show like this might have 6 or 7 or more distributors around the world, and I would bet they're much happier getting a conventional 16x9 show than any unusual aspect ratio, particularly for a weekly series. I do a lot of work for an LA indie distributor, and the CEO winces every time we get a widescreen project in. From a purely indie dollars-and-cents point of view, he much prefers a 16x9 full-frame project, and I see his point.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I don't think the anamorphic feel has anything to do with the aspect ratio. The "breathing" of the lenses on focus pulls, the slight vignetting on the corners, the shallow depth of field, and the unmistakable bokeh and lens flares of anamorphic are pretty significant.

I think like a lot of things, there are much bigger factors involved than aspect ratio for the show. Content, story, character, plus the technical issues of lighting, exposure, editing, and color are far more important. Don't forget that a TV show like this might have 6 or 7 or more distributors around the world, and I would bet they're much happier getting a conventional 16x9 show than any unusual aspect ratio, particularly for a weekly series. I do a lot of work for an LA indie distributor, and the CEO winces every time we get a widescreen project in. From a purely indie dollars-and-cents point of view, he much prefers a 16x9 full-frame project, and I see his point.

I'm not sure why bringing content, story and character into a specific discussion about aspect ratio matters, of course they are more important, but this is about aspect ratios specifically, which is one of the tools for creating movies and series. Anamorphic lenses specifically gives a characteristic feeling to them the closer to the edges you get. You don't get the nice looking wide angle look if you crop in to 16:9 it just looks like a bad looking lens with weird distortion. I don't think Fear the Walking dead look better with 16:9 ANA, it would have been better to widen the image to make use of the anamorphic characteristics. The thing about 2:1 is that it's not wide screen, but it sure gives a more cinematic quality to serial content. It's also different for compositions, giving much more cinematic options where 16:9 would have just filled the screen with a face.

If you are talking about weekly episodic television with a much more episode specific story and 20+ episodes per season, then that might not be the content I'm referring to. I'm talking about series like House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Daredevil, Walking Dead, and so on. Series with a strong visual core, much closer to cinematic work than traditional episodic television.

We are also going into a world that view series more on content providers like Netflix rather than traditional television broadcasts. Actually I think it's the production companies who self-correct aspect ratios more in fear of doing something new. If a production company decided on 2:1 as the aspect ratio, I don't think that would be a problem.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm not sure why bringing content, story and character into a specific discussion about aspect ratio matters, of course they are more important, but this is about aspect ratios specifically, which is one of the tools for creating movies and series.

I think aspect ratios are low on the list of what matters in terms of giving a project impact with an audience. I think there are a lot of things that are more important. Consider also that in almost all commercial film theaters, a 1.85 film pretty much gives you full area top, bottom, and sides. 2.39 essentially becomes letterboxed -- smaller vertically -- so you don't get the same image height. Effectively, it's a smaller picture.

I think this problem is worse on television because the world conforms to a 1.78 aspect ratio TV screen. Anything you do that isn't 1.78 is going to be matted in some way, whether it's 2.40 or 2.20 or 2.00 or 1.90 or any other number. I think there are projects that need a horizontal aspect ratio that works with broad vistas and wide shots, but that's not always effective on television, home video, or indie projects. I just went to an indie film festival in Burbank this weekend and saw a half-dozen short films in a row, and an acquaintance of mine remarked that the scope films seemed smaller and "pushed him away" in terms of visuals. I thought that was an interesting observation. For me, the aspect ratio disappears and I try to immerse myself in the story, but on some level I do think about composition, balance, lighting, color, and so on. But I think those technical factors are more important than anything.

We are also going into a world that view series more on content providers like Netflix rather than traditional television broadcasts. Actually I think it's the production companies who self-correct aspect ratios more in fear of doing something new. If a production company decided on 2:1 as the aspect ratio, I don't think that would be a problem.

I think it's fair to say that Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu have all given producers long leashes in terms of content and production. But what makes those shows effective is not the aspect ratio (or even the "K"): it's the content. In almost all cases, they're doing shows that simply could not be done on any other kind of television or current distribution. I'm reminded of how the producers/creators of Stranger Things -- which is a wildly successful Netflix show -- were rejected by 15 other channels, networks, and services.

Again, I think your vision is clouded by the need or the desire to shoot widescreen, when the reality is that it's not always a good thing. I'm reminded of how Spielberg made the decision to shoot his Jurassic Park films in 1.85, for the simple reason that he got more picture height​. Without that, the dinosaurs simply didn't look as tall or impressive. But normally, Spielberg generally goes for anamorphic scope.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I dislike the modern trend of building theater screens that aren't 2.40 in shape -- the whole point of widescreen was to expand the image horizontally not shrink it vertically.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think aspect ratios are low on the list of what matters in terms of giving a project impact with an audience. I think there are a lot of things that are more important. Consider also that in almost all commercial film theaters, a 1.85 film pretty much gives you full area top, bottom, and sides. 2.39 essentially becomes letterboxed -- smaller vertically -- so you don't get the same image height. Effectively, it's a smaller picture.

I think this problem is worse on television because the world conforms to a 1.78 aspect ratio TV screen. Anything you do that isn't 1.78 is going to be matted in some way, whether it's 2.40 or 2.20 or 2.00 or 1.90 or any other number. I think there are projects that need a horizontal aspect ratio that works with broad vistas and wide shots, but that's not always effective on television, home video, or indie projects. I just went to an indie film festival in Burbank this weekend and saw a half-dozen short films in a row, and an acquaintance of mine remarked that the scope films seemed smaller and "pushed him away" in terms of visuals. I thought that was an interesting observation. For me, the aspect ratio disappears and I try to immerse myself in the story, but on some level I do think about composition, balance, lighting, color, and so on. But I think those technical factors are more important than anything.


I think it's fair to say that Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu have all given producers long leashes in terms of content and production. But what makes those shows effective is not the aspect ratio (or even the "K"): it's the content. In almost all cases, they're doing shows that simply could not be done on any other kind of television or current distribution. I'm reminded of how the producers/creators of Stranger Things -- which is a wildly successful Netflix show -- were rejected by 15 other channels, networks, and services.

Again, I think your vision is clouded by the need or the desire to shoot widescreen, when the reality is that it's not always a good thing. I'm reminded of how Spielberg made the decision to shoot his Jurassic Park films in 1.85, for the simple reason that he got more picture height​. Without that, the dinosaurs simply didn't look as tall or impressive. But normally, Spielberg generally goes for anamorphic scope.

I really don't know why you are talking about the priority of other aspects of filmmaking when this specific discussion is about aspect ratios. I'm not saying it's more important than a good story, but it IS an important storytelling tool. My vision isn't clouded by a need to shoot widescreen, I shoot what I think is best for the story. As I was saying there are a number of series which are heavily focusing on the visuals, therefor I believe that 2:1 is a good mid-way to widescreen for series because it changes the imagery into more cinematic compositions while still isn't too small for smaller screens.

So I'm not sure what you are arguing against here. The aspect ratio should fit the story, but forcing content creators to shoot 16:9 is limiting the compositional abilities of the DP and director. But you are wrong in how aspect ratios have an impact on the audience. That's just underestimating a powerful tool in filmmaking. 2:35 also have far more different compositional imagery so you can't just dismiss it because "there will be letterboxing".

I dislike the modern trend of building theater screens that aren't 2.40 in shape -- the whole point of widescreen was to expand the image horizontally not shrink it vertically.

True, maybe there will be some kind of renaissance in the future

 

[Marc Wielage]

I dislike the modern trend of building theater screens that aren't 2.40 in shape -- the whole point of widescreen was to expand the image horizontally not shrink it vertically.

Yeah, it's hard to argue with that. The trend is to go with common width rather than common screen height, and I think that started with the multiplexes about 15-20 years ago.

I'm reminded of moments in movies like This is Cinerama or American Graffiti 2 or Brainstorm where they deliberately changed the aspect ratio on certain scenes just as a dramatic effect. The impact of seeing a 2.40 (or wider) picture suddenly pop up was really intense. Not a lot of films used different aspect ratios as an effect, but I think it worked for those films.