What's with 'Scope these days?

K

kylevant

Well-known member
I've been contemplating shooting an upcoming short in "CinemaScope" (just crop, not using actual anamorphic lenses - which would be awesome). Now modern day scope is supposed to be 1:2.39 (AKA 1:2.40), but it seems as if everything is still being released in 2.35??

Doing the math on the many cropped videos on Vimeo also shows that almost everyone that crops goes 2.35 instead of 2.39. Just take a look at a recent Philip Bloom video (http://vimeo.com/42984066): Original file is 1920x816. 1920 / 816 = 2.35.

So why? Why is everyone going pre-70's with scope?
 
Real CinemaScope has not been used in a very long time. 2.39:1 is the current wide screen format used in most theaters. Early CinemaScope was 2.66:1 then 2.55:1. Because of issues with adding the soundtrack to the print, they went to 2.35:1 to make room on the film print, but splices in the film would flash at the top and bottom of the film in that format so the theaters would add a matte to mask the white flashes. That matte was 2.39:1 which has become the current standard.
 
People just call it the wrong thing all the freakin' time.

Even Panasonic screwed up with the AF100 being 2.35. Engineering fail!

The standards is 2.40 (2.39) and has been for over 30 years. Oh well.
 
I think a lot of folks feel uncomfortable in shooting HD and than cropping down to almost PAL vertically.

I love the look though.
 
It doesn't really matter for web viewing. Crop in whatever ratio you want.

I am more bugged by everyone cropping extra wide. Apparently, cropping to 2.35:1 or wider is an instant cine-look. Har har.
Makes you wonder why 1.85:1 movies exist at all...
/sarcasm
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
People just call it the wrong thing all the freakin' time.

Even Panasonic screwed up with the AF100 being 2.35. Engineering fail!

The standards is 2.40 (2.39) and has been for over 30 years. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Haha, Ryan, when I did a search some time ago I came across a thread were someone wanted to crop to 2.35 and you went out on them about how old 2.35 is. I'm equally agitated by the matter at the moment. I just can't understand why people are doing it... Even Wikipedia says that 2.35 is ancient, but yet it continues.

cpc said:
It doesn't really matter for web viewing. Crop in whatever ratio you want.
Click to expand...

But then why choose an old standard instead of a new one? Surely you'd want to go 2.39 for good practice???

I really don't feel that people think about this enough.

cpc said:
I am more bugged by everyone cropping extra wide. Apparently, cropping to 2.35:1 or wider is an instant cine-look. Har har.
Makes you wonder why 1.85:1 movies exist at all...
/sarcasm
Click to expand...

I hate it when people do that, and I love 1.85. But I always say that it depends on the project and it's one of those things that need to be carefully thought about, just like the overall lighting of the film. I was looking at shooting this short specifically in 2.39 (not just throwing a mask on-top of existing footage, like others do...) as I felt that it would have suited it (especially after taking a look at the location). Unfortunately I don't have wide enough lenses and there are going to be some real tight spots, so 16x9 it is. Would have really worked well though :violin:.
 
Last edited:
In this age of internet (read: digital) distribution I would love to see more creativeness with aspect ratios. If you think 2.35 works better then 2.40 for your project go for it. I've been experimenting with 2:1 a lot recently and think I'm going to try it on a project coming up because I think it's going to work very well for the subject matter. We have never had a time to be more adventurous with our images, lets take advantage of it!

Of course, I still very much support identifying aspects by their proper names, that's just good practice.
 
Well, if you shoot for web there is no reason to adhere to a cinema standard. As for practice, the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 is marginal.
So I don't find this a problem at all.

On the other hand, shooting Scope withough giving it a thought is between amusing and mildly annoying. But hey, people think shallow dof = cinema. People "grade" with Magic Bullet Looks. So this is only fitting. I've actually already written a bit on aspect ratio choice inspired by a "let's shoot scope, it is cinematic" remark.
 
William_Robinette said:
In this age of internet (read: digital) distribution I would love to see more creativeness with aspect ratios. If you think 2.35 works better then 2.40 for your project go for it. I've been experimenting with 2:1 a lot recently and think I'm going to try it on a project coming up because I think it's going to work very well for the subject matter. We have never had a time to be more adventurous with our images, lets take advantage of it!

Of course, I still very much support identifying aspects by their proper names, that's just good practice.
Click to expand...

2:1, interesting choice.

I agree, I would love to see more creativeness. In fact, looking at this Wikipedia article, I see there's actually a 2.1:1. It says "Planned futuristic aspect ratio for television and theatrical films." Anyone heard of that?

Did a bit of a mock up (720p) and I actually like that 2.1:1, and that 2:1 is also nice (at this level, it's some serious pixel peeping).

ratios.jpg

cpc said:
On the other hand, shooting Scope withough giving it a thought is between amusing and mildly annoying. But hey, people think shallow dof = cinema. People "grade" with Magic Bullet Looks. So this is only fitting. I've actually already written a bit on aspect ratio choice inspired by a "let's shoot scope, it is cinematic" remark.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Nice article.
 
Last edited:
I like 2.4:1 because it is mathematically elegant but I defy anyone to tell the difference between 2.35:1, 2.39:1 and 2.4:1 by eye. I don't see why there needs to be any standard aspect ratios anymore. There used to be economic reasons for standardisation, now tradition alone is the limitation. Digital permits anything to be encoded anyway and reinterpreted at the other end. My TV (and I'm sure your's too) can handle NTSC, PAL, .avi, .mpg, .mp4, bluray, dvd, dozens and dozens of formats. They are now just containers you can drop any source into.

Personally I like wide formats, 2.66 is probably my favourite. But that is primarily because I like the sort of movies that get made in widescreen format. I like vistas, I like action, I like the way some directors such as Jacques Tati make use the wider frame and having to physically move my head in the theatre to take it all in (I am a fidget-bum at the best of times). I tend to be bored by more intimate emotion driven movies about mothers with cancer (though mainly because they tend to use music to compensate for the failure of the actors/script/editing to do the job) which go for the more intimate ratios. Which is not to say good action movies haven't been made in 1.85 and many great films have been made in 4:3.

I can see why people would get annoyed with incorrect use of terminology or because the filmmaker hasn't made use of the frame they've chosen but I can't see how an aspect ratio by itself could be annoying. I wonder if there's a use for 1920x32? :Drogar-Dum(DBG):

EDIT: Dammit, I just realised there is - i take it all back, the most annoying format of all - the ticker!
 
Last edited:
Egg Born Son said:
I like 2.4:1 because it is mathematically elegant but I defy anyone to tell the difference between 2.35:1, 2.39:1 and 2.4:1 by eye.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You're talking about 14 pixels of difference. About 1% of the normal 16:9 frame's picture height. Ain't no big deal. Use 2.35, 2.39, 2.40, whatever you want. For technical accuracy, 2.39:1 is correct.
 
To be honest, I type in the crop 13 top and 13 bottom (in Premiere), whatever ratio that is, it looks good to me.
 
I ALMOST went 4:3 on The Kohlman Files (since it's a bit of a 70's TV homage), but terrified of the potential consequences. so I abandoned the idea.
 
I found a interesting fact that although DCI spec supports 1.85:1 and 2.39:1, most of the films use 2.35:1...
 
cpc said:
It doesn't really matter for web viewing. Crop in whatever ratio you want.

I am more bugged by everyone cropping extra wide. Apparently, cropping to 2.35:1 or wider is an instant cine-look. Har har.
Makes you wonder why 1.85:1 movies exist at all...
/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Then there's 1.66:1...

There have been very few clips offered here and on other sites, were for me the 2.39:1 (or whatever they did...) 'worked'... Often as not that wide screen aspect ratio, ECU shots, and actors who have some form of Saint Vitus Day dance, add up to worse than shaky cam (oh, and when that's added to the wide screen...)... forget it... I usually stop watching the clip...

So, in that regard, I don't mind the 16:9 aka 1.77:1... a little wider than the Golden Mean, but not so wide...
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I ALMOST went 4:3 on The Kohlman Files (since it's a bit of a 70's TV homage), but terrified of the potential consequences. so I abandoned the idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you could have shot it silent as well... and won an Academy Award... even then "The Artist" is listed as being 1.37:1. The wiki indicates that 1.37:1 was the 1932 Academy Ratio, and was based on the compromise requirement of sound track and visuals. Where as Real(tm) silent films where shot full frame 1.33:1.
 
David W. Jones said:
There are plenty of films that have been shot in 1.85:1
Click to expand...

During the 1980s it was very common, as it made visual effects work much easier. So it was used in many blockbusters of the time, like E.T., Back to the Future, Aliens, Robocop and even into the 90s with Jurassic Park. And this year we had the so far highest grossing film of the year, The Avengers which was in 1.85:1. It's just that 1.85:1 sort of "died out" as a format for blockbusters after Super 35 became big.
 
A distinction should be made for the target release platform.
Sometimes it makes sense to fill the frame and go 2.39:1 for theatrical releases even if this is not the optimal ratio for the material, because most cinemas are build with the largest screen size being in a similar ratio. This way, at least you get the largest possible presentation of your movie.

On the contrary for TV/web releases. There is nothing epic in the Scope ratio on a typical 16:9 display. And on a 5:4 display this ratio occupies such a small area of the screen that it is actually looking funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top