What is too wide? Aspect ratios

[Roberto Lequeux]

I just checked the DVR for a recent recording of Capricorn One (1977) and immediately I was taken in by the frame.

I suppose there may be some anamorphic magic drawing me in as well, and of course the work itself, but I am definitely into wide aspects. I think I might have the 2.2:1 recorded, especially taking into account overscan. But I haven't seen much 2.35:1 lately, so I am not 100% sure.

Imdb Technical Specifications Page (link)

Color info: Color
Sound mix: 4-Track Stereo (35 mm magnetic prints) / 70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints) / Mono (35 mm optical prints)
Camera: Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Laboratory: Consolidated Film Industries (CFI), Hollywood (CA), USA (opticals and processing) (as CFI)
Film length: 3380 m (Sweden)
Negative format: 35 mm
Process: Panavision (anamorphic)
Printed format: 35 mm / 70 mm (blow-up)
Aspect ratio: 2.20 : 1 (70 mm prints) / 2.35 : 1


For the big screen this isn't as much of a concern, but the question is, what is "too wide" when you consider that not everyone has large TVs, let alone HDTVs?

 

[Charles Angus]

For me, I think wider than 3:1 is probably too wide.

That said, I think the 4:3 ratio is hideous, 1.66:1 too tall, 1.85:1 acceptable, and 2.35:1 preferable. Not considering content, just the 'feel' of the aspect ratio.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

About half of all Hollywood studio releases are 2.39 : 1, if not more, so I wouldn't worry about that being "too wide".

The 70mm print format is 2.20 : 1, so 35mm anamorphic movies were generally trimmed at bit on the sides to reduce 2.39 down to 2.20 when blown-up to 70mm.

There were some wider formats... Cinerama was 2.66 : 1, Ultra Panavision-70 / MGM Camera-65 (same thing) was around 2.75 : 1 (2.20 65mm neg with a 1.25X anamorphic squeeze) -- now those were WIDE. Polyvision (used for some sequences in Abel Gance's "Napoleon") was the widest... three 1.33 : 1 silent frames side-by-side adds up to a 3.99 : 1 image. Unless you want to count CircleVision movies...