Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
From what I can find, it seems the 2.39:1 is a SMPTE standard, which of course is for camera/projection aperture, not optical recording aspect. Perhaps that is the issue. None-the-less, we don't discuss Panavision spherical S35 with an anamorphic extraction as being 1.85:1... we still call it 2.39. So people shooting HD, such as those on this site, who are extracting 'anamorphic'** images from that 16:9 should refer to the presentation ratio correctly, which by US standards would be 2.39.
Everyone is free to use their own aspect ratio... for example I could make a movie and use 2.55 like one of the 1950's epic widescreen formats... I could make a movie that is 2.20:1 or 2.6:1 or even 3:1. But if you are trying to make your film like today's widescreen formats and are doing things by standardized aspects... (which helps professionals pass things along workflows and for theaters to playback)... 2.39 is the accurate ratio and term. It's not much different from 2.35:1... in fact, when extracting from an HD 16:9 image, it's a handfull of pixels! (not a technical term, mind you,
)
So I guess I don't give a hoot if Arri used to shoot 2.30, 2.35, 2.39, or a billion to 1. Point is, SMPTE passed a motion to change 2.35:1 to 2.39:1.... 40 years ago... Richard Nixon was President. So to have young people today still saying 2.35:1 is something I just never understand, although I did it until I read my first AC manual and found out otherwise when I was in college. In fact, I originally responded to this thread four years ago, and used the terminology 2.35:1! So it's not like I am decending down with my sword of knowledge to collect heads, but infact, I used to do the same, and I am trying to irradicate the misconception.
2.39:1 seems to be the standard of what the final aspect ratio is for presentation... not what you captured it on. This makes sense considering many films are shot spherical (1.85:1) with Anamorphic extraction, or for indie world on a RedOne or HD camera using the crop method (2:1, 16:9) to get down to a 2.39:1. Even cameras like the Arri D-21 using Mscope (2.40 finish) shoots over the 2:40 aspect at 2.66 and then samples down/crops to 2.40. That's their way of getting a good 2.40 image. So it's not what you start with but what you end with. Standards say you end with 2.39:1 for 'scope or 'anamorphic' widescreen. We call it 2.39:1 or 2.40 for short.
** the term 'anamorphic' is also a borderline misused term. Anamorphic is a process of which an image is squeezed and unsqueezed for a greater presentation. According to Wikipedia, it's from the greek word for 'formed again'. So anything can technically be anamorphic... such as the DVX100 squeeze mode to fit 16:9 on 4:3 imager. The fact is anamorphic became a big term in the 1950's era because of all the different anamorphic processes making the really large and exciting aspect ratios... and it has since been used to describe what we consider the standard in wide screen presentation... which was at one point 2.35 but is now 2.39... otherwise referred to as 2.40.
Everyone is free to use their own aspect ratio... for example I could make a movie and use 2.55 like one of the 1950's epic widescreen formats... I could make a movie that is 2.20:1 or 2.6:1 or even 3:1. But if you are trying to make your film like today's widescreen formats and are doing things by standardized aspects... (which helps professionals pass things along workflows and for theaters to playback)... 2.39 is the accurate ratio and term. It's not much different from 2.35:1... in fact, when extracting from an HD 16:9 image, it's a handfull of pixels! (not a technical term, mind you,
)So I guess I don't give a hoot if Arri used to shoot 2.30, 2.35, 2.39, or a billion to 1. Point is, SMPTE passed a motion to change 2.35:1 to 2.39:1.... 40 years ago... Richard Nixon was President. So to have young people today still saying 2.35:1 is something I just never understand, although I did it until I read my first AC manual and found out otherwise when I was in college. In fact, I originally responded to this thread four years ago, and used the terminology 2.35:1! So it's not like I am decending down with my sword of knowledge to collect heads, but infact, I used to do the same, and I am trying to irradicate the misconception.
2.39:1 seems to be the standard of what the final aspect ratio is for presentation... not what you captured it on. This makes sense considering many films are shot spherical (1.85:1) with Anamorphic extraction, or for indie world on a RedOne or HD camera using the crop method (2:1, 16:9) to get down to a 2.39:1. Even cameras like the Arri D-21 using Mscope (2.40 finish) shoots over the 2:40 aspect at 2.66 and then samples down/crops to 2.40. That's their way of getting a good 2.40 image. So it's not what you start with but what you end with. Standards say you end with 2.39:1 for 'scope or 'anamorphic' widescreen. We call it 2.39:1 or 2.40 for short.
** the term 'anamorphic' is also a borderline misused term. Anamorphic is a process of which an image is squeezed and unsqueezed for a greater presentation. According to Wikipedia, it's from the greek word for 'formed again'. So anything can technically be anamorphic... such as the DVX100 squeeze mode to fit 16:9 on 4:3 imager. The fact is anamorphic became a big term in the 1950's era because of all the different anamorphic processes making the really large and exciting aspect ratios... and it has since been used to describe what we consider the standard in wide screen presentation... which was at one point 2.35 but is now 2.39... otherwise referred to as 2.40.
Last edited:
