More Fun with Aspect Ratios

[Martin McCaffery]

No protocol notes this time.
Back-to-back features for us.
Living F-1:48
EO - F1:43 (IMDB says 1:50, the DCP says 1:43)

Both of those pretty close to old TV standard. Why?

Haven't watched EO yet (only enough to set the masking from 1:49 to 1:43), but Living was a gorgeously shot film, that really used the aspect ratio. But why these weird, off brand AR's? Have they been dying to shoot in just that ratio, and now digital makes it possible? Is it like brown M&M's, just a test to see if anyone is paying attention to the little details?
Still waiting for the return of Robert Downey, Sr's triangle AR.

[Steve Guttag]

F-143 is pretty much IMAX

[Martin McCaffery]

Neither of these films will ever play IMAX (unless someone has a really weird sense of humor). And pretty sure they weren't shot in IMAX.

[Peter Mork]

Aspect ratios are a choice. "Off-brand" just means you have to accomodate your screen and masking if you have that ability. If not, you just run it as if it were 1.85; the filmmaker and distrib understand that and are okay with it . Nothing to worry about.

Women Talking has an aspect ratio of... 2.85? 3-to-1? I don't know, and there's nothing on the data sheet that mentions it, it's just "scope", so unless you have masking that can fit it (unlikely), you just run it scope and don't sweat it.

No fuss! If it bothers you, talk to the filmmakers. They aren't required to hew to any standard.

[Frank Cox]

It seems like common sense to me that if you're making a movie to play in movie theatres you would make it to fit a standard movie theatre screen. Since all theatres can play flat and all theatres can play scope, your choice should be one of those.

Any other choice makes your picture smaller than it could be when it's in the theatre and that seems like exactly the opposite of what you should be going for.

[Jim Cassedy]

Back-to-back features for us.
Living F-1:48
EO - F1:43 (IMDB says 1:50, the DCP says 1:43)

Oh, geez, Martin- It looks like you've scored a double feature of dubious aspect ratios!
Good ol' IMDB- I looked up a 35mm print I was running a few weeks ago, to get the
running time, and they had mid-identified both the aspect ratio AND the sound format.
- - at least the running time listed was 'in the ballpark'

I had run a press/preview screening of "E-O" late last month and it ran in an auditorium
where I had completely adjustable (horizontal & vertical) so I was able to mask correctly.
But now it's booked into a smaller auditorium where the masking only has FLAT & SCOPE
settings. (No, it can't be re-programmed. It's a really cheap system & has Flat & Scope and that's all)
So it will run in FLAT. I watched a few minutes of it today, mainly to get a sound level, but didn't
see enough of it to form any editorial opinion of it.

Still waiting for the return of Robert Downey, Sr's triangle AR.

I'm not sure Rbt Downey Sr was the first to try it! lol
ThisIslandEarth2.jpg
[ "This Island Earth" ©️(MCMLV) ]

[Martin McCaffery]

Woman Talking coming up in two weeks. We'll see. Maybe Sarah just wants everyone to have the at home letterbox experience.

[Peter Mork]

>It seems like common sense to me that if you're making a movie to play in movie theatres you would make it to fit a standard movie theatre screen. Since all theatres can play flat and all theatres can play scope, your choice should be one of those.

Well, I don't agree. Shape of screen does not have to match the dictates of theater installments, and different aspects have existed since, oh I don't know, cave painting days maybe. (And you can be sure someone back then complained about how that charcoal drawing of stickmen hunting bison should have filled up the entire rock face.)

Lots of people shoot phone videos, and the day when a theatrical release comes out in tall-narrow format may not be far off. Better get your masking ready!

[Frank Cox]

So you think a smaller picture is better than a larger one?

[Steve Guttag]

It is true that there have been different aspect ratios. It is also true that as one deviates from the "popular" ones, the odds of them being presented "properly" diminishes. DCI compliance established that if theatres supported both the Flat and Scope containers with final ARs of 1.85 and 2.39, respectively, that they had met the requirements. It is reasonable to expect that theatres support those two and only those two ratios. That was the deal. Technically, all of the F-xxx formats (e.g. F-143) does since the theatre can select their "Flat" preset and the movie will be presented in its ratio...sortof. If there isn't any projector tilt, that sort of works if you like the un-masked look. However, if you do have any sort of projector tilt, there will be keystone. The normal Flat 1.85 picture will too but at least the edges of the screen (or the image if unmasked on a proper "Scope" screen) will be presented, more or less, squared off. Not so with the F-143...that will be a trapezoidal picture (keystoned). It's not the theatre's fault.

Back in the film days, alternate aspect ratios meant, often, new lenses and aperture plates for each screen that would support that ratio...that would be a costly and time-consuming venture. In the digital world, no such expense exists...however, if you do not use 1.85 or 2.39, you should not expect that the theatre is going to take the time/expense to make custom macros for your 1-off aspect ratio.

There are quite a few "standard" non 1.85 and 2.39 ratios. Your odds of getting some degree of support are GREATLY enhanced by choosing one of them. F-133 (which is sufficient to support F-137), F-166, F-178, F-200, and F-220 all have numerous examples and a rather long history. They are not the only ones but they are significantly more prevalent than the other ones people have thrown about. You still are not going to get most, let alone a significant majority of cinemas to support those...they just are not common enough to fool with. They make life harder, cost the cinema more to support and don't bring in any extra revenue to justify that the movie HAD to be in those ratios.

Even those that like to be accommodating and have properly masked screens...just how many masking stops do you think a typical masking machine has? The vast majority have 2...some have 10 and very few have more than that. it is very unreasonable to expect commercial cinemas to cater to 1-off aspect ratios. I'd say, in the case of the 1.4x movies, they'd have a very hard argument proving that the ratio changed the audience's enjoyment of the movie versus if they released in F-133.

So you think a smaller picture is better than a larger one?

That's a silly statement. it is not a question of smaller versus larger. It is a question of composure. How one composes a 1.33 picture versus a 1.85 picture versus a 2.39 picture are entirely different. An example was the the original Jurassic Park...Spielberg commented that one of the reasons he wanted a narrower ratio (e.g. 1.85) for Jurassic Park was to allow the dinosaurs to appear bigger in the frame. If he used Scope, you could have a T-Rex in the middle of the frame with a bunch of nothingness on the sides, which would have made the T-Rex look small (would want to keep her within the height of the frame). By reducing the ratio, the dinosaur fills the frame better. A similar argument can be had on 1.33...it puts your subject matter much further front in the frame and de-emphasizes the background. It makes closeups much more close up.

I wouldn't want to remove the tool of aspect ratio from a director/dp from telling their story. However, they also need to acknowledge that if they choose to deviate from the more established ratios (With 1.85 and 2.39 topping the list), the odds of their "vision" being presented properly goes down significantly with 1-offs getting a near 100% of being presented improperly in commercial cinemas. And that is on the filmmaker. Theatres are under no obligation to show your wacky 1-off idea (or exceedingly rare) of a ratio.

[Frank Cox]

In short, these goofball ratios will lead to watching a smaller picture in the theatre. Which is what I said above.

Taken to an extreme you could end up with something like that teaser for some Schwarzenegger movie years back where they had a tiny little window in the middle of the screen where you could see some fighting going on, then you saw Schwarzenegger's face momentarily saying "Not yet." and closing the window.

[Martin McCaffery]

I don't think anything could be worse than the 35mm re-release of GWTW with the 1:37 within scope.

If the filmmaker wants a smaller picture, as long as he/she uses it properly, no problem for me (Living used it properly), but they should be aware that in most cases it is going to be show with dead space. I've seen a few films that acknowledged that dead space and used it, but I don't see that catching on.

Oh yeah, if distributors are going to release films in an odd ratio, put all of their opening and closing credits in the same AR. Doesn't anyone in the film production/distribution biz care what happens on screen?

[Steve Guttag]

Again, Frank, you are harping on "smaller" rather than composure. When a filmmaker composes their frame for a narrower ratio, they are not merely whacking the side of the image off, they are composing that frame with that more-square ratio in mind. Likewise, back when films were shot on 35mm and composed for 1.85...if one were to use their 1.37 lenses/aperture...you could tell immediately that it was composed for 1.85 as it looked like the camera was too far away from the actors.

Also, not all cinemas have the same size smallest or largest picture. We have many cinemas that have maskings for both vertical as well as horizontal (some are 4-way independent, some are sides only, some are top only some are sides and top and some are sides and top/bottom (constant centerline).

Here is a site we did in 2021 that used sides+Top/Bottom masking. F-133 is the tallest picture, Scope is the widest. Square footage, they are reasonably balanced. They are NOT set up for F-143 but they are set up for F-200 and F-220 (though not depicted below as that would make the drawing more busy and they are less prevalent):

Screen Shot 2023-02-11 at 7.58.24 PM.png

It isn't that the other ratios will always yield a smaller picture and that isn't their goal...they want to compose their picture for a desired effect of how their subject fills the frame.

[Scotty Wright]

Aspect ratios are a choice. "Off-brand" just means you have to accomodate your screen and masking if you have that ability. If not, you just run it as if it were 1.85; the filmmaker and distrib understand that and are okay with it . Nothing to worry about.

Women Talking has an aspect ratio of... 2.85? 3-to-1? I don't know, and there's nothing on the data sheet that mentions it, it's just "scope", so unless you have masking that can fit it (unlikely), you just run it scope and don't sweat it.

No fuss! If it bothers you, talk to the filmmakers. They aren't required to hew to any standard.

Women Talking is 2.76

[Frank Cox]

Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough.

Every theatre is set up to play Flat and Scope and the image will (or at least should) occupy the full screen in both directions for one of those formats.

Very few theatres will have screen files for F-143 and all of these other oddities, so the image from these movies will be something in the middle of the screen with empty space on sides and the bottom of the picture.

The empty space could be covered with masking, but the point remains that you're presenting a smaller image to the audience than what you could or should be presenting. In addition, this means that any other content you may be showing (ads, trailers, pre-shows of whatever kind) will either be shown "wrong" or will require an adjustment in the projector between the initial content and the feature.

I suspect that the number of theatres who (a) have screen files in odd ratios, (b) has someone who understands what they are and knows how to use them, and (c) sets up theiry playlists to use them when an odd-sized movie shows up and actually make the necessary adjustments between the initial content and the feature (whew!) is probably in the low single digits. Everyone else just ends up with an image in the middle of their screen that's smaller than it should be.

Filmmakers must be ok with that since it would be easy to avoid the whole issue by making their movies in a standard ratio.