Is 1.85:1 or 2.35: 1 full scale?

Question

Level 1

15 points

Is 1.85:1 or 2.35: 1 full scale?

Hi all,

I got an interesting question regarding resolution vs aspect ratios. As we all know most Hollywood movies comes in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio which fill the entire canvar in the cinema. However when the film is released on DVD of Blu-ray or whatever (let's go for Blu-ray in this example as it's native aspect ratio is ordinary 16:9) the film does not cover the entire frame because it's letterbox.

On the other hand, when watching a film in odinary 16:9 in the cinema you will not fill the entire canvar but have pilarbars because the picture it not wide enough yet on the Blu-ray it will.

And here's the clever part: the opening sequence from the production company, Paramount, Dreamworks, Walt Diney etc. have cut the top and bottom of the image like the logo was originally made in orninary 16:9. (I've studied that). So if you watch a film in scope (2.35) in cinema, the top an bottom of that logo is gone; is the logo scaled up to fit the frame og the film or is the film (that was going to be released in scope) scaled up to fit the logo - like as if you would have had a 16:9 version of the film, it would still not cover the length of the ciname canvas yet still be in full scale?

Note: I do know they usually shoot in 4K witch is, what, 4:3 by default?

Thanks

iMac, Mac OS X (10.5.8)

Posted on Jan 1, 2012 12:38 PM

Reply

Answer 1

sigrdr Author

Level 1

15 points

Jan 2, 2012 1:55 PM in response to Doody

It's not exaclty what I meant, but it is a little hard to explain.

I know the curtains you mention, but that's not exactly by point. As you mention if the curtains is not slided into the correct aspect the film will look pillarboxed if it is in 1.85:1, but even if the cutains are at their proper position you will still not use the entire ares on the canvas because the 2.35:1 aspect in cinema is wider and therefore larger.

I know 1.85:1 is fairly close to HD which is 1.78:1. Now the thing is that when watching a film in the cinema the picture will be so sharp you can see people hairs whether or not the film is 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Therefore the picture must be in full "scale?" you understand what I mean? In cinema 1.85:1 is a smaller picture than 2.35 as I mentioned in the original post because in cinema the "full scale" picture is when the picture is filling the entire canvas. So 2.35:1 will be wider and therefore larger. Does larger in this case mean more resolution? If an Full HD 1080p film is in 16:9 the dimantions will be 1920x1080, but if the film is released in 2.35 you will cut the top and bottom and have a wider (smaller) picture on 1920x800 or so. It depends a little, but you get the point. Why couln't the picture for instance been 2538x1080?

Which brings us to the logo: if you see a 1.85:1 release film from for example Paramount you will see that that image is in 1.85:1 so that the top and bottom of it is cut out to make it fit for a 2.35 release whether or not you're looking at it on a TV screen (1.85:1) or at the cinema (2.35:1).

I took a screenshot from two trailers on YouTube to bring in as example to make it easier to understand:

Look close on these images: both are the same logo but different aspect ratios. Here is seems the logo was actually made in 1.85:1 so that it "looses" resolution if the film is in 2.35:1 because as you see in the picture above the lower part of the mountain and the upper part of the sky is gone.

So if you're watching a 1.85 film in cinema which obviously includes the logo with most information in it, you're not using the full length of the canvas. (Are the 2.35 releases in cinema maybe anamorphic? Like PAL/NTSC Fullscreen 4:3 and Widescreen 16:9 has the same amount of pixels just a different pixel aspect ratio?)

Sorry much explanationing here, I'm just a bit curious.

Thanks!

Reply

Answer 2

Doody

Level 2

279 points

Jan 1, 2012 8:39 PM in response to sigrdr

I'm not sure if there is a question here.

However, most films are 1:85, which is fairly close to the HD 16:9. You are correct in saying that when a film is 2:35, it requires a letterbox on your HD TV.

However, in the theater, the way this is handed is by the projectionist - they will slide the curtains into place to fit the aspect ratio. Sometimes, they get lazy and they leave the curtains wide open - which is why it looks pillarboxed. This is not a discrepancy between Blu-Ray and the theater - it's just that the projection is incorrect.

You can see them adjust the curtains at the end of the trailers if the film is in 2:35.

Reply

Answer 3

sigrdr Author

Level 1

15 points

Jan 14, 2012 7:47 AM in response to sigrdr

I understadn it it a little hard to understand what I'm wondering about here and I can understand that. Let me try again:

Movies are made to be shown in cinemas, right? And when they are playing they're crystal sharp on the canvas whether or not they are in 1:85 or 2.35 aspect ratio.

Let's say that I shoot something in HD 1080p, that's faily close to 1.85 and make a 2.35 cut on it it will be shown over the entire canvas in the theathe because the shape of the picture fits the shape of the canvas. But Lets say you were to show a clip from your raw dailies on that same version, you would have to scale that clip down 33% or so in order to make it fit in height within the 2.35 aspect, now having a pillarbox on each side, but if the film was meant to be in 1.85, the raw dailies clip would be the same size as it would have been on the 2.35, but in this version it would still be 100% of the scale (given that HD is the same aspect as 1.85).

I also know that when the filmmakers look at the monitor on the set they have a 4:3 TV with lines or tape on or whatever to see how the final image is going to be as they are to cut the top and bottom of the frame in order to get the aspect they want. Why coukn't it just have been one format and that's it?

Thanks.

Reply