my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 1.66 Aspect Ratio Question

Author Topic: 1.66 Aspect Ratio Question Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 06-15-2016 08:50 AM                     In a discussion on another forum, the question came up regarding the 1.66 flat aspect ratio. Is it still used in Europe? If not, when was it phased out?  |  IP: Logged Rob J. Buskop Expert Film Handler Posts: 111 From: Rotterdam, the Netherlands Registered: Aug 2005 posted 06-15-2016 09:55 AM                     The very pleasing 1.66 format is still used by discriminating collectors, properly equipped repertoiry theatres, film museums and archives. It's a great ratio for VistaVision (the original recommended format)and many other pictures with rack lines that allow 1.66. Since automation came in most anything was shown in the rather poor in quality 1.85 ratio. Unless hard masked for 1.85 I like to use 1.66 with greater sharpness and better light unless mikes or other paraphenaliae show up in the picture.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Wood Expert Film Handler Posts: 206 From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom Registered: Jan 2008 posted 06-15-2016 10:55 AM                     1.75 still 'crops' up here occasionally too. I agree with Rob, that 1.66 usually gives a more pleasing image than 1.85 , which could seem to struggle a bit on all but the smallest screens. I think 1.66 was the European standard widescreen ratio ?  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 06-15-2016 12:08 PM                        I think what Mitchell is asking is whether or not 1.66 is still used as an intended aspect ratio for projection in any new productions. My best guess at an answer is no, except very rarely and as a conscious artistic choice as distinct from using a current technical standard. It was used in France well into the late 1990s, when there appeared to be a shift to 1.85: it was around that time that I started to show prints of French movies, made in French labs, that were hard matted to 1.85. It might not have been the last, but one of the last prints I remember showing that had a 1.66 hard matte was Secret défense. I can only remember playing one newly produced film since I re-entered the theater business in 2014 that was clearly intended for projection in 1.66, which was a documentary about motorbikes, shot on Super 16, called The Greasy Hands Preachers. The DCP's aspect ratio tag was F-166, and the container was indeed matted accordingly.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 06-15-2016 12:29 PM                     Thanks Leo. What prompted this question was a discussion about the intended correct aspect ratio for The Man With The Golden Gun. In the USA, that would have been 1.85, but the actual prints are full frame with sections that are hard matted to 1.66. As this is a British production, I was wondering if it was intended to be shown 1.66 in Europe. The general consensus is that it was intended to be shown 1.85 everywhere.  |  IP: Logged James Biggins Film Handler Posts: 31 From: Leicester U.K. Registered: Oct 2014 posted 06-15-2016 01:03 PM                     The UK/New Zealand produced Western "Slow West" starring Michael Fassbender and released in 2015 was shot digitally in the 1.66:1 ratio.  |  IP: Logged Mike Babb Master Film Handler Posts: 250 From: Norwich UK Registered: Jul 2002 posted 06-15-2016 01:30 PM                        I forget the title, but something we ran at Sundance this year was 1.66. And we also ran Slow West the year before in 1.66.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 06-15-2016 02:31 PM                     Most British productions shifted towards the 1.75-1 format as early as the late '50s. The divide seems to have been based upon what theater chain in the UK would pick it up. Films with American money in the forefront almost exclusively became 1.85 or 1.75. The general rule of thumb (although not always correct) is that whatever the hard matte is is the next AR down from the intended AR. So, 1.5 is used for 1.66, 1.66 is used for 1.75, 1.75 for 1.85, etc.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 06-15-2016 03:26 PM                        For historical productions yes (if they had any hard matte at all: many did not, had full height frames, and if there was any doubt about the intended ratio for projection, your two options for establishing it would be to see if the opening titles gave you any clue, and/or establish what ratio will show a boom mic on the screen however you frame it, and use the next wider one), but the few new productions being released on 35mm now are almost all printed from an IN that is a filmout from a digital intermediate, and therefore have the matte of the intended production ratio.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-15-2016 03:51 PM                        We just showed the DCP of Francofonia, which was matted to 1:66 within the 1:85 box.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 06-15-2016 05:41 PM                        quote: Jack Theakston Most British productions shifted towards the 1.75-1 format as early as the late '50s Rank adopting VistaVision might have had something to do with that.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 06-15-2016 07:26 PM                     We had something within the last few weeks which was 1.66. I'm not sure now what it was, The Witch, possibly? It's not common now, but new films do occasionally turn up. We're seeing quite a lot of 1.78 now, mainly documentary material shot on cheap HD cameras. Son of Saul was 1.38, hadn't seen a new film in that ratio for a while.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 06-15-2016 07:45 PM                        I projected two 35mm Son of Saul screenings at which the director did a Q & A afterwards, and was hoping that someone in the audience would have asked him about his decision to use 1.37. It was weird and very distinctive to see a movie that had the vivid colors and crisp definition of 2383, but in the old screen shape. It might have been a straightforward authenticity gesture (that was the aspect ratio of movies in the time this one was set), but I'd have been interested to know if the reasoning went any deeper. It certainly added something to the claustrophobic atmosphere of the scenes inside the concentration camp, and the tension of the chase at the end.  |  IP: Logged Simon Wyss Film Handler Posts: 80 From: Basel, BS, Switzerland Registered: Apr 2011 posted 06-16-2016 03:24 AM                     The 1.666 or 5:3 aspect ratio was mainly in use in central Europe, more than in France, the UK or Italy. I know a number of German and Czechoslovakian productions in 1.66. I think the reasoning of the time was that the ratio is close to the golden section (1.618), it was actually heard among projectionists that one should try to mask that out of 1.66 prints. Most projectionists wouldn’t know about the golden section, so I might have been one of very few. 5 to 3 exactly is a dynamic format, yet less than 4 to 3.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.