GH4 Why crop into 2.39 and 1.85?

C

CustomerGH4

Well-known member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Why do most big budget productions use the cropped resolutions? I know that these aspect ratios used to be standards, but we are in a digital age, why not just use 19:10 like it was in Skyfall and Guardians of the Galaxy? (Imax scenes).

I don´t understand it at all, why lose pixels?
Or is it that the product IS in native resolution, but depending on the cinema they change it either to flat or scope?
 
"A film made for CinemaScope 2.41:1, the standard in the industry, is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures."

Why not use all the image? So that people would just shoot lazy and leave stuff in the frame and later just crop it out??
 
Because of composition. A lot of filmmakers like the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, regardless of pixel count. It works well for some films, and not for others. Artistic choice, not technical limitation.
 
Generally, we SEE in a much wider scope than taller - hold your arms out and check peripheral vision. Movies want to present life as we see it. Mostly.
 
Last edited:
The frame is an important consideration in and of itself irrespective of the aspect ratio. As Nolan has demonstrated it is even possible to change aspect ratio within a movie to dramatic effect. To not consider the frame would be the equivalent of stapling a canvas to the wall and saying 'done'. The frame is part of the finishing and it is the border between worlds, a concept that has been with us since the stone age at least.

Non-square frames have also been considered, television was almost decided to be a circle at one point with the cathode ray tube. Most likely the reason the frame ended up rectangular is as much to maximise the usage of expensive film as anything else. Standard aspect ratios are also an accident of history more than design - for first technical considerations and later marketing decisions - and are ultimately fairly arbitrary. As with all things cinematography, things tend to come about first for technical/financial reasons and then exploited and given meaning by later artistic choices. That which works becomes convention but is by no means limits the artist to these conventions.

Most of the technical reasons are now historical. In film projectors widescreen was sometimes achieved by masking the 4:3 captured image at the point of projection. This has lead to some famous instances of crew and boom mics appearing in the VHS 4:3 copies of the same film, Back to the Future is commonly cited as an example. Now it's all about codecs most traditional limitations imposed by the technology on the frame are no more, although there are new considerations. Digital files don't need to include the black bars on widescreen content. Removing the black bars from the file reduces file sizes and the bandwidth required to display the 'useless' information. If you are including burned in subtitles you might want to retain the black bars to keep the text off the image. So technology does still have an impact but not so much as in the days when you might need a special projector to physically playback a movie.

And pixels aren't everything. There are many respected voices still saying that 1080 is good enough for cinema projection. To appreciate 4K you have to be sitting closer to the screen than has been traditionally recommended or most if not all people just cannot perceive the difference.
 
Last edited:
A lot of the big budget productions shoot anamorphic, which squeezes the widescreen image onto the 4:3 sensor, which is then unsqueezed when projected so they are not 'throwing away pixels'. Actually when shot on film, anamorphic films use more of the negative than Super 35mm, although the inherent softness of anamorphic lenses tends to negate any sharpness benefit.
 
Marketing and tradition. The wider ratios were developed in the '50s to compete with the new television technology. Theaters and filmakers felt they needed to up the game to bring people to the theater. Many gimmicks were used including 3D, widescreen, and stereo (there were several formats). So they switched from 4:3 to the other wide formats. These tend to be more immersive (especially Cinerama) to the viewer in the theater experience. Sure, an IMAX movie is even more immersive, but in the confines of a normal theater, these widescreen formats bring something to the viewing table. The tradition of this presentation format continues. I suspect most filmakers have come to know and love widescreen and continue to feel that it makes a better presentation.
 
Hmm, I see, so its all about preference.

But still the ratio of 2.40 is not wider, because it never tops the original width of the native aspect ratio. It just seems wider, since the height is lower?

rlZQFhy.png


I saw Interstellar in Digital 4K in cinema, (Sony projector 4096x2160) and said to others I have a camera that makes that same aspect ratio, but it now turns out it was probably displayed in 2.40.1 which is actually 4096 × 1716?
 
here's a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Also, keep in mind most theaters set their projectors on a crop as well, so if you bring your movie to show it on a movie theater, and your film is 16x9 framed, it will be cropped and not much the theater can do about it besides making it a 720 instead of 1080 playback.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
Hmm, I see, so its all about preference.

But still the ratio of 2.40 is not wider, because it never tops the original width of the native aspect ratio. It just seems wider, since the height is low....
Click to expand...

That's right. But consider that back in the '50s, the 4:3 image took up the full height of the theater. Widescreen at the time took the same height, but then made it wider. The room of a theater had empty space on the sides during a presentation. When a widescreen was presented, the drapes opened wider and presented a wider screen. So it actually was wider. So it was actually 4:3 that had the 'black border' along the sides; the reverse of the cropping of a sensor. It is more immersive in the theater. HD TV is a compromise of sorts between the two. 4:3 on a TV has the sides cropped while a widescreen has the top and bottom cropped.

In those days, the previews and first feature (two feature or a cartoon/ feature where shown then) were shown in 4:3. Then, the drapes would open wider and the big feature was shown. This was impressive as the screen got bigger. It made an impression and the greater immersive experience was obvious as a direct comparison was presented.
 
Last edited:
CustomerGH4 said:
But still the ratio of 2.40 is not wider, because it never tops the original width of the native aspect ratio.

It just seems wider, since the height is lower? I saw Interstellar in Digital 4K in cinema, (Sony projector 4096x2160) and said to others I have a camera that makes that same aspect ratio, but it now turns out it was probably displayed in 2.40.1 which is actually 4096 × 1716?
Click to expand...
As Batutta suggested, many wide-screen presentations are anamorphic.

So, there is no crop into the top and bottom of the frame, and thereis no loss of resolution -- the frame (and pixels/grain) is merely stretched horizontally.

Of course, this scenario requires both shooting and projecting with anamorphic lenses.
 
I was a projectionist for 8 years in the 1990s, and I am also a filmmaker who knows a little bit about widescreen processes. Keep in mind that the standards for aspect ratios stem from a technology (film) that dominated for over 100 years, and that it is only in the last 4 or 5 years that digital projection has been the norm.

During my time as a projectionist, there were ony 2 "real" aspect ratios. 1.85:1 (Flat) and 2.35:1 (Scope). Since i worked at an art house that also showed classic movies, we also had the ability to show old Academy Aperture 1.37:1 films. Each one of these required not only a different lens on the projector, but also a different aperture plate which was placed behind the lense but in front of the film gate.

These were the only aspect ratios you could show because otherwise the image would shoot off the edges of the screen.

As others have mentioned, 2.40:1 widescreen films were projected using an anamorphic lens. The image on the actual film was a horizontally squeezed image on a 1.37:1 ratio frame of film. The lens unsqueezed the image and stretched it to fill the wide screen.

To answer the OP's query about whether 2.40:1 films are actually wider or not -- films shot using anamorphic lenses actually ARE wider. They do not crop the top and bottom of the image. The anamorphic lens takes an actual horizontally wider field of view and squeezes it onto a full 4-perf frame of film. This means it uses MORE of the film negative than both 1.85:1 films and cropped Super-35 widescreen films. The benefit of anamorphic is threefold:
1. Actual wider field of view.
2. Superior resolution because it's using more film negative to create the image
3. Cool oval bokeh and lens flares inherent in anamorphic lenses.

In the late 1980s, Super-35 arrived which used spherical lenses (which were normally used to shoot 1.85:1 Flat films) and cropped the top and bottom of the image to make a widescreen image. However, the release prints of these films were squeezed anamorphic, so you still used the anamprphic lens and aperture plate on the projector.

These 2 aspect ratios have dominated the cinemas since the 1960s. Considering that film prints are still struck from digitally captured movies, and that some movies are still shot on film (gasp!), it makes sense that these aspect ratios will still be around for a while.
 
Last edited:
I see, so now that the cinemas are digital, I guess the DCP package that is sent to cinemas contains the info how it will be displayed, in Flat or Scope.
So 2K which most of the films are sent to cinemas are displayed as: 1998 × 1080 (Flat 1.85:1) or 2048 x 858 (Scope 2.39:1)

Is that correct to assume?
 
CustomerGH4 said:
I see, so now that the cinemas are digital, I guess the DCP package that is sent to cinemas contains the info how it will be displayed, in Flat or Scope.
So 2K which most of the films are sent to cinemas are displayed as: 1998 × 1080 (Flat 1.85:1) or 2048 x 858 (Scope 2.39:1)

Is that correct to assume?
Click to expand...

All films are probably sent in either a 2048×1080 or 4096×2160 file. If its cinemascope ratio there will be an inbuilt letterbox and if its 16:9 or 1.85:1 there will be an inbuilt pillar box.

So to me it would make sense to just have your film 4096*2160 in order to take advantage of all the cinema screen real estate. Then have a minor letterbox for TV.
 
Despite all other points of this conversation, I want to thank people for correctly using 2.39 (or 2.40) instead of the commonly misused 2.35.

Progress!
 
Not all movies that use 2.39 are shot anamorphic. In fact many bid budget FX movies are shot with spherical lenses and cropped. Ender's Game, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers 2 just to name a few. These are some rather successful movies with technical crews with a lot more experience than most of us here combined and yet they chose not to shoot anamorphic. They didn't even shoot with a 4k camera and yet still cropped. They may have been projected anamorphic but they were mastered and worked on all of their VFX at a cropped form of 2k or 2.5k. Ironically most movies are mastered at 2k or 2.5k and upsacaled to 4k when they need a 4k distribution.

Nothing wrong with anamorphic. Just wanted to point out that not everything widescreen is shot anamorphic. Cropping is a very real thing in Hollywood and should not be ruled out as a valid method of producing an amazing film capable of making over $200,000,000.00.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
I don´t understand it at all, why lose pixels?
Click to expand...

It's a good question to ask, but I would argue the better 'solution' isn't to start making 16:9 movies, it's to rewrite the current specification to match the standards that have been in place for decades. To wit:

DCI should be 4800 x 2000 for scope and 3696 x 2000 for flat. This would give the correct 2.4 and 1.85 aspect ratios without losing any vertical resolution, only adding horizontal resolution for 'widescreen' movies. (Remember when the side curtains used to open up wide for those movies?)

And of course, new cameras, projectors and TV's to match. This would be properly called a 2K format. (Why is it we all use the vertical resolution when talking about SD and HD formats, but for some reason we use the horizontal for 4K?)

Ideally, things would progress to a true 4K format, at least for cinema. 9600 x 4000 (2.4) and 7392 x 4000. (1.85)
 
Egg Born Son said:
As Nolan has demonstrated it is even possible to change aspect ratio within a movie to dramatic effect.
Click to expand...

Possible, but definitely not desirable. I refuse to buy the Batman movies on Blu-ray because of the changing aspect. Thankfully, the DVDs are presented with the proper, unchanging aspect as seen in theaters.

If anything, a movie should only 'open up' horizontally, but never vertically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top