Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anyone Notice the 1.85:1 Trend?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Anyone Notice the 1.85:1 Trend? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Anyone Notice the 1.85:1 Trend?

Aron Toplitsky
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 113
From: Gardena, CA, USA
Registered: May 2012

posted 06-24-2017 06:06 PM

I noticed Justice League (according to IMDB and seeing the new trailer) as well as the new Transformers film, are both presented in 1.85. Are studios and filmmakers finally getting it, that our HDTVs are 16x9 and most theaters are now showing films on Common Width screens? Or is this just an artistic decision?

According to IMDB in the "aspect ratio" section it says this about the new Transformers....

1.85 : 1
1.90 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version: some scenes)
2.00 : 1 (IMAX version: some scenes)

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why three different ratios if the film was entirely shot on IMAX digital cameras? I believe they also rigged two cameras to shoot simultaneously for 3D.

| IP: Logged

Stephan Shelley
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 854
From: castro valley, CA, usa
Registered: Nov 2014

posted 06-24-2017 06:29 PM

You also have more pixels with 1.85 vs scope on 2k and 4k.

| IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 06-24-2017 07:06 PM

I firmly believe that common width is film (or digital) done wrong.

The fact that this is different from television sets is a feature.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-24-2017 07:20 PM

Transformers is not 1.85 - it flips between different aspect ratios throughout the movie.

You think that's an indicator they had 16:9 screens on their mind?

Really?

If I look at the list of KDMs and thus CPL names we played in the last 5 years, I see a very strong tendency towards scope. Every now and then some prominent movie shows up in flat when it was 'expected' to be a typical scope feature. That doesn't show a trend.

It's the occasional outlier.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 06-24-2017 07:55 PM

About a year or five ago I thought I witnessed a trend of major blockbusters starting to prefer flat as the preferred aspect ratio, but I never ran actual numbers, so it might have just been a gut feeling or some correlation without any real causation.

But I'd say if you look at the last 5 or so years, scope is still going strong and still seems to be the preferred aspect ratio for most a-list releases, especially action movies.

Somewhere during the last 5 or so years, somebody started this in-movie aspect-ratio switching stuff. Am I the only one who things this is just flat out retarded? Except for the oddball release where the aspect-ratio switching is part of the concept (think about The Grand Budapest Hotel), I think this aspect ratio switching is totally counter-intuitive. Besides breaking all the benefits of adjustable masking, for me, this constant switching breaks my focus, it's really killing to my sense of immersion.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 06-24-2017 10:30 PM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Somewhere during the last 5 or so years, somebody started this in-movie aspect-ratio switching stuff.

The first movie I remember doing this was The Horse Whisperer, and that was about 20 years ago. It changed from 1.85 to 'scope about an hour in to a three-hour movie. The prints were anamorphic with the first two or three reels pillarboxed, though. I have a dim recollection that the change happened on a reel change, but may be wrong about that. I remember having to be there to change the masking at the right moment, though. At the time I was working in a place that ran most features from a platter, but had absolutely no automation of any description.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-24-2017 11:42 PM

Horse Whisperer reel 1 was pillarboxed to 1.85
Reel 2 and onward were full scope.

There was no scene change at the reel change. It was just a camera change mid-scene. About as retarded as all of this IMAX nonsense going on with multiple aspect ratios.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-25-2017 06:50 AM

A lot of that bs is actually only happening nowadays because IMAX is trying to sell 'their' aspect ratio.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-25-2017 09:07 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Somewhere during the last 5 or so years, somebody started this in-movie aspect-ratio switching stuff.

Superman (1978) and The Road Warrior (1979) both opened with 1.33:1 prologues which transitioned to scope.

Galaxy Quest (1999) introduces the "Galaxy Quest" TV show in 1.33:1, then transitions to 1.85:1 for the "Real World," then transitions to scope when the characters realize that they are in outer space.

In Brother Bear (2003), when Kenai becomes a bear, the film transitions from 1.85:1 to scope.

Enchanted (2007) switches from 1.85:1 to scope when the film transitions from animation to live action.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 06-25-2017 09:56 AM

Yeah, I was somehow waiting for the Mad Max 2 (1981 if I remember correctly) intro/prologue to appear or the one of Superman. [Smile]

Those 5 years were not an absolute number by any means, it's more like an indicator of what I think is a period in where we've seen an uptake of this aspect-ratio switcheroo, to a point where I think, it's becoming ridiculous.

I remember watching movies like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises in both 70mm and 2K digital IMAX and I found this aspect-ratio switching pretty disturbing, especially in 70mm IMAX presentations where you went from a narrow-banded image to a full-screen monster image every now and then. Every time the image switched back to "narrow vision", it felt like you're now watching the unimportant discount scenes.

There are other more recent examples, like The Wolf of Wall Street, which opened on a "flat" fake commercial, while the entire rest was in scope.

There's also the first Alice in Wonderland or Tron: Legacy, that switched from non-stereosopic images for the "real" world to stereoscopic 3D for the "alternate world" scenes.

I think Leo is right on "The Horse Whisperer" (1998) though, it is probably the first movie to do a "prolonged aspect ratio switch", so not just for a few seconds of narrative or for exposition purposes like a fake commercial, infomercial or information video.

quote: Leo Enticknap
I remember having to be there to change the masking at the right moment, though. At the time I was working in a place that ran most features from a platter, but had absolutely no automation of any description.

I guess you're probably the only one who ever bothered adapting it "in flight". It also often comes at a price, since most movable masking systems aren't entirely silent. So, you could argue that "remasking" an already running movie only adds to the distraction.

quote: Carsten Kurz
A lot of that bs is actually only happening nowadays because IMAX is trying to sell 'their' aspect ratio.

Ah, it's *their* aspect ratio. [Smile]

*Their* aspect ratio is also a pretty ambiguous concept when it comes to IMAX.

Is it 1.43, like their classic 70mm builds?

Or is it 1.85, like which is closest to most of their current installs?

Or is it 2.35, like what most DMR-secret-sauced movies still end up in, due to the lack of any "special IMAX content"?

Or is it all of the above? Because that's what you basically can expect when going to watch an IMAX special feature. If you're "lucky", you'll get them all in one single show.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-25-2017 12:42 PM

I think the best example of this "in-movie aspect-ratio switching stuff" (and I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned it) is Doug Trumbull's "Brainstorm" (1983).

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-25-2017 02:10 PM

Life of Pi also has some. Not nearly as stupid as in Transformers 5, though.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-25-2017 03:19 PM

More American Graffiti -- 3 stories -- 3 aspect ratios

| IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 06-25-2017 03:26 PM

quote:
Ah, it's *their* aspect ratio. [Smile]

*Their* aspect ratio is also a pretty ambiguous concept when it comes to IMAX.

Is it 1.43, like their classic 70mm builds?

Or is it 1.85, like which is closest to most of their current installs?

Or is it 2.35, like what most DMR-secret-sauced movies still end up in, due to the lack of any "special IMAX content"?

Or is it all of the above? Because that's what you basically can expect when going to watch an IMAX special feature. If you're "lucky", you'll get them all in one single show.

I think what IMAX is pushing these days is a 1.9:1 AR, which is just the full-container image of a DLP chip. They had a whole marketing campaign for Sully and also for Beauty and the Beast which showed you the picture you were missing out on if you saw those movies at 2.35 in a non-IMAX theater. Which of course is silly, if the filmmakers wanted you to see a taller image they could have framed for 1.85 and released a flat DCP.

The only justifiable variable AR I can think of (apart from things like Grand Budapest Hotel) is Christopher Nolan, because he wanted to use 15/70mm IMAX film for both image acquisition and projection, but for practical reasons can't film the *whole* movie with IMAX cameras. So the native IMAX 70mm footage is 1.43, and everything else is 2.35.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-25-2017 03:29 PM

quote: Aron Toplitsky
I noticed Justice League (according to IMDB and seeing the new trailer) as well as the new Transformers film, are both presented in 1.85. Are studios and filmmakers finally getting it, that our HDTVs are 16x9 and most theaters are now showing films on Common Width screens? Or is this just an artistic decision?

This hardly establishes any sort of trend. From what I can tell, the 'scope aspect ratio is still by far the most popular for movie releases. The dominance of 'scope doesn't look like it's going to wane any time soon. I have my own theories why the 'scope ratio is more popular. One is that it's a money thing; there are fewer pixels to render with 'scope. In digital 'scope is the lowest resolution format. The optical effects of anamorphic lenses are very popular and make any feature production look more like a movie rather than just a TV show (although a growing number of TV shows are using anamorphic lenses on their cameras).

Justice League could be yet another experiment to give favor to premium priced screens (like IMAX, Dolby Cinema, etc.) Nearly all of those premium screens are common width and in some kind of flat 1.9:1 or 1.85:1 ratio.

Looking at the first trailer for Justice League, the movie looks like it was specifically composed for the 1.85:1 ratio. I doubt Warner Bros. will try to do what Sony did with the James Bond Skyfall release. The movie was shot in flat format with IMAX Digital screens in mind, but a 2.39:1 extraction was made for standard priced theaters.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.