Aspect Ratios

Richard Allen Crook

Richard Allen Crook

Well-known member
I figured out how to export properly via my editor, but I have a couple of questions in regards to cinematic aspect ratios.

To export in 1080, I figured out that 2.35:1 would be 1920x817 pixels, and that 2.40:1 would be 1920x800. My question is:

1) What is more common, or the industry standard, 2.35:1 or 2.40:1? If I go and download trailers off Apple Trailers, the pixel aspects are one or the other. I figure I should make my own standard to export to, and I want to use the industry standard. If it comes down to either one, I would assume the 1920x817 would be best since it utilizes more pixels. Am I correct there?

2) What is the best way or HVX setting to utilize when shooting if I am doing so with the intent of using this ratio. I've heard of people uploading the aspect to a P2 card and then using gaffers tape to make the letterbox, but I'm hoping (praying) there's a better way. Also, are there any camera settings anyone can recommend to optimize for this aspect ratio?

Thanks a bunch for any information.

Rich
 
All anamorphic motion picture films, (since 1970), have been shot 2.39 (referred to as 2.40). For some reason, unknown to myself, DVD packages advertise 2.35.

It is unclear to me if they (DVD distributors) are slightly cropping in, to get 2.35 inherently shaving off some of the 2.40 side edges, or if it is just a common and blatant error on the packaging but we still see 2.40.

Either way mainstream film makers have been shooting 2.40 (2.39) which was set as the anamorphic standard 38 years ago. This is for people shooting with anamorphic lenses on filmstock. Many lowerbudget or indi-filmmakers will shoot 16:9 and add 2.35 masks because they think that is anamorphic. So it's also common to see a resurgence of 2.35 in indie films. Either way the difference is almost nothing at all.

I would do 2.39 to be technically correct. But it really does not matter much. The whole standard of 2.39 was created because of film stock/ sound track stuff. Nothing that has to do with home viewing or dvds.

Who knows.
 
Pretty much what Ryan said. Page 31 of the American Cinematographer's Manual (8th Ed.) says:

"Although still referred to by many as 2.35:1, the anamorphic aspect ratio was actually modified in the early 1970s to 2.40:1".

DVD publishers/studios are apparently wrong when they advertise 2.35:1, at least when it comes to movies made from the early 70s and up. But then again, with the average TV's overscan, you're getting maybe 2.20:1.
 
2.35:1 . . . 2.39:1 . . . 2.40:1 . . . no one's going to take a ruler to the screen.

I wouldn't get hung up on it; they're very, very close and it would take a heck of an eye to see a difference if they're not side-by-side.

Don't know about DVD labeling; some do label as 2.39 or 2.40, so maybe the 2.35:1 labels are correct.
 
David Jimerson said:
Don't know about DVD labeling; some do label as 2.39 or 2.40, so maybe the 2.35:1 labels are correct.
Click to expand...

What, the ASC Manual isn't good enough of a source for you? :) That book is the first and final word on cinematography.

Here's a passage from pages 164-165. It clearly sets the record straight:

"It must be unequivocally stated that the anamorphic format is defined as 2.40:1 and not 2.35:1, which has been popularized by well meaning but incorrect individuals and companies. This anamorphic ratio has been around for nearly 30 years, and it is remarkable that other format ratios like 2.35:1 keep popping up to describe widescreen anamorphic movies. To be absolutely clear, the 2.35:1 anamorphic format first appeared in the mid-1950s but died out by the early 1970s... By the early 1970s, these anamorphic formats and others were superceded by the widely adopted 2.40:1 format, which became and is presently the de facto standard."

We can't get any clearer than that can we?

Any DVD package stating that a modern movie is 2.35 is clearly wrong. It's not about getting "hung up" on these little details, it's about laying the 2.35:1 misconception to rest -- a misconception that has been propagated by professionals who work in the home video departments at Warner Bros, Paramount, Sony, Universal, etc.

Oh, and 2.39:1 is completely valid. It's actually the real number, but it's usually rounded up to 2.40:1.
 
Exactly right!

Although David has a point... nobody is going to notice.


With both of these points being said, just do the technically right aspect ratio of 2.39. With your help, perhaps we can kill 2.35 after 38 years.
 
Matt Hoss. said:
What, the ASC Manual isn't good enough of a source for you? :) That book is the first and final word on cinematography.

Here's a passage from pages 164-165. It clearly sets the record straight:

"It must be unequivocally stated that the anamorphic format is defined as 2.40:1 and not 2.35:1, which has been popularized by well meaning but incorrect individuals and companies. This anamorphic ratio has been around for nearly 30 years, and it is remarkable that other format ratios like 2.35:1 keep popping up to describe widescreen anamorphic movies. To be absolutely clear, the 2.35:1 anamorphic format first appeared in the mid-1950s but died out by the early 1970s... By the early 1970s, these anamorphic formats and others were superceded by the widely adopted 2.40:1 format, which became and is presently the de facto standard."

We can't get any clearer than that can we?

Any DVD package stating that a modern movie is 2.35 is clearly wrong. It's not about getting "hung up" on these little details, it's about laying the 2.35:1 misconception to rest -- a misconception that has been propagated by professionals who work in the home video departments at Warner Bros, Paramount, Sony, Universal, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with the ASC manual in terms of how films are shot. But how they end up on DVD is another matter entirely. They may, for whatever reason, actually be on DVD at 2.35:1.
 
Yeah, I guess that may be true, although it doesn't make any sense to me!

By the way, David, I loved the Sound for Film & TV DVD you guys made. Even though it wasn't in 2.40:1. :)
 
Matt Hoss. said:
Yeah, I guess that may be true, although it doesn't make any sense to me!
Click to expand...

Dunno. I have a couple of different versions of Highlander and Charade which are in widely varying ratios, so I don't know what they do or why. I know HBO HD used to show everything at 1.78:1, even Scope stuff, which I found annoying. Don't know if they still do.

By the way, David, I loved the Sound for Film & TV DVD you guys made. Even though it wasn't in 2.40:1. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks! Some of the sketches were at 2.35:1; I made the crop template from the aspect ratios of stills from Hollywood DVDs. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top