Non-Standard Aspect Ratios

[Steve Guttag]

Well, this seems like an interesting, and a repeat discussion.

First off, 1.33 (1.37 is close enough, 1.66, 1.78 (and we'll lump 1.75 in there), 1.85, 2.00, 2.20 and 2.39 (including 2.35) are hardly "oddball" formats. They've been around since the 1950s. So, seeing them turn up shouldn't be too big of a surprise to deal with. 2:1 was an is a bastard of a format that was always a compromise as it is neither wide nor tall and, really, so is 1.85. But that is the DP/Director's choice but what they are really saying is we want something that isn't right...just something that is in between what is right. Again, that is their call.

Sorry Rick, 2:1 isn't innovation...it's been around too long. Heck some drive-ins and even hardtops used 2:1 screens to avoid masking and just cropped the image...back in the film days. And that is part of its problem...it just screams "compromise."

Now, onto Frank's point...Theatres are built for Flat (1.85) and Scope (2.39) movies and anything else is a crapshoot (or words to that effect). Even before Digital Cinema, "Flat" and "Scope" were the surviving formats and accommodated by all cinemas with Flat being 1.85 for most countries. Masking systems (remember them) were often 2-stop and those ratios were the ones. To be adopted, DCinema embraced the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios so one could expect all cinemas that were part of the conversion between late-2009 (series 2 projectors) and 2013 to support those ratios and only those ratios.

DCI and other standards never meant to prohibit other ratios but if one is going to use them, they are doing so at their own peril as there is no guarantee that they will be presented optimally. The container system (Flat and Scope) are designed to ensure that they can be presented anywhere since all presentation formats must fall within those two containers.

S-220 was supposed to be deprecated as F-220 yields a higher resolution.

I give credit to Universal in reviving S-220 and offering the title in both F-220 and S-220 to allow theatres to use their largest screen ratio and not have a floating image. 1.85 screens will have a letterbox, as normal, for all wider-than-1.85 and Scope screens will have pillars on each side...which is far superior to having the entire image "float" in the middle of the screen.

We have been setting our cinemas up for 1.33, 1.66, 1.78, Flat, F-200, F-220, Scope for some time now (I'd say since 2013). And our Art/Revival houses always got S-220 too. We'll start putting S-220 back on the install list as I think it could be more of a trend and clearly it is not deprecated. No, we don't set up for S-276 as it is rare enough to only warrant setting up for those rare occurrences. Odds are, using their normal Scope preset will be sufficient to handle it and their masking system likely won't come in far enough, if top/bottom masking is there.

As for the causal belief that setting up for a new ratio is nothing more than a facetime job away. Really? How are you going to set light levels doing that if there is a lens zoom? There really should be push-back for adding to the ratio list as it, geometrically, increases the time of support since each ratio needs to be checked to verify good lens registration (and masking preset) plus keeping the light levels correct.

If you want to shoot for video, use whatever ratio you want. If you want to shoot for commercial exhibition, stick to the established ratios or live with poor presentations that you created.

The realities are, ALL titles should have a safe Flat or Scope format offered and with, at least, 5.1 audio. That was the promise when the whole DCI thing started. Merely letterboxing or pillarboxing do not ensure it will look good, however.

[Jon Dent]

I get why Oppenheimer is 2:20. Nolan clearly intends the movie's appearance to harken back to classic big screen 70mm (when not IMAX).

2.0 though, I just don't get. It's not appreciably wider than 1.85 and using it causes all these issues that are being described here. I'd be interested to hear Gerwig and her cinematographer talk about WHY they used that ratio, especially when most theaters won't display it without some kind of blank space on the screen, which is just a waste.

[Carsten Kurz]

Many of the creative crew involved with these decisions seem to have only the unmasked multiplex screen with stadium seating in mind, where you may have any aspect ratio floating around on a wall-to-wall-top-to-bottom screen. Using either Fxxx or Sxxx will simply give you a bit more or less open canvas around the image, and the internal aspect ratio doesn't matter any more, as there is no masking it has to fit into.
This is also the environment where scope will only give you a smaller image than flat. Clearly against the intention of that format. That was obviously what Spielberg had in mind when framing Jurassic Park in flat. On that type of screen, dinosaurs in scope would appear as pets after a preshow in flat.

Then there is the streaming folks. In my opinion, they do not like the native 1.78 of todays tv sets, because it looks cheap - news, shows, documentaries, etc.
They sure want those impressing black bars, as it symbolizes prime Hollywood content.

Just - don't make them so large as they steal away too much of their precious image. So, yeah, 2.0:1 is just right. 2 is also a much nicer number to memorize than 1.85 oder 2.39. Some black bars, and more of that precious image.

I'm glad our system incl. masking can accommodate any format with minimal effort.

[Carsten Kurz]

How do you deal with stuff like preshows and trailers that aren't in weird-aspect-ratio-of-the-week? Switch the projector's settings between that and the feature for every show?

What do you mean, Frank? You don't switch between flat and scope between preshow and a scope feature? Do you show everything in flat for flat features, and everything in scope for scope features? Do you show ads?

[Gordon McLeod]

Movie theatres are built to show flat and scope movies. Anything other than that is non-standard and will not take full advantage of the available resources in most movie theatres.

If you're making a movie to show in movie theatres around the world, choose either flat or scope and it will look right almost everywhere it is played.

Choose an oddball aspect ratio (anything other than flat or scope) and it will not.

Filmmakers should realize this and want their movies to look their best in all movie theatres, but apparently not.

That is farther from the truth All these oddball formats trace their roots back to many early even silent formats. The film maker uses the format as a creative tool just as a painter will choose the shape of their canvas to be the best for the subject.. We have all our theatres setup for Scope, F2.2 F2.00 F185 F166 and F137

[Frank Cox]

You don't switch between flat and scope between preshow and a scope feature?

There's no preshow so there's nothing to switch between.

Do you show everything in flat for flat features, and everything in scope for scope features?

Absolutely.

Do you show ads?

Never have.

"Turn off your cellphone" "1 or 2 trailers" "Our Feature Presention" "Movie"

That's it.

[Rick Cohen]

The film maker uses the format as a creative tool just as a painter will choose the shape of their canvas to be the best for the subject.. We have all our theatres setup for Scope, F2.2 F2.00 F185 F166 and F137

This is the most practical response so far. If you read my original post, I am neither endorsing or celebrating the fact that F-200, F-220, and S-220 are appearing in wide releases. The purpose of my post, if you read it correctly, was to highlight that the two biggest releases of the summer, arguably, are in non-standard aspect ratios, and are probably being exhibited in a less than ideal manner due to either a lack or awareness, or a lack of acceptance by some exhibitors. In 2022, Jurassic World was arguably the 3rd biggest movie of the summer, and the majority of screens showing it more than likely were not set up for the F-200 aspect ratio. Whether the exhibitor likes it or not, alternative aspect ratios do exist, and are being used more frequently with wide releases. My point is that most exhibitors usually have at least one service call per year, and it might be worthwhile to have their technician set up the appropriate macros and lens files for F-200, F-220, and S-220, since those have been used recently by filmmakers on both Barbie and Oppenheimer, and will likely continue to be used on some future wide releases. Ignoring or pretending these aspect ratios don't exist doesn't benefit the exhibition industry, or the cinematic experience.

[Frank Cox]

That is farther from the truth All these oddball formats trace their roots back to many early even silent formats. The film maker uses the format as a creative tool

As you say, silent movies used to be the standard but no mainstream filmmakers choose to make a silent movie for wide release today either.

Just because a format used to be in wide(r) use in the past doesn't make it a practical choice today.

Commercial movie theatres are set up to play flat and scope movies. Anything other than that can probably still be played but the presentation will be compromised in some way in most movie theatres.

[Gordon McLeod]

As you say, silent movies used to be the standard but no mainstream filmmakers choose to make a silent movie for wide release today either.

Just because a format used to be in wide(r) use in the past doesn't make it a practical choice today.

Commercial movie theatres are set up to play flat and scope movies. Anything other than that can probably still be played but the presentation will be compromised in some way in most movie theatres.

Commercial theatres should show films in the format the film maker chose not what the theatre chooses to do with it. Basicaly if you chose to playit do so as filmed or pass on booking it and frankly if enough theatres did that then the studios would stop using them

[Rick Cohen]

You don't switch between flat and scope between preshow and a scope feature? Do you show everything in flat for flat features, and everything in scope for scope features? Do you show ads?

Our preshow and ads are in flat, then we switch aspect ratio if necessary for the feature. If the feature is in 2.0:1, we'll run the previews in flat, and then insert the 2:0:1 macro just before the feature. It's not that difficult and I do not understand why anyone would think this is such a big deal. If your managers don't understand how different aspect ratios work, then teach them.

[Stefan Scholz]

2.0 to 1 is simply a common format of smartphone screens, and has best compatibility there. The old SuperScope format had similar ration, with a square image on the film. It used to be a common format back in 1957, and electric masking tabs were adjustable to it in the time. Few complained.
Today classic Scope with it's letterboxed use of the chip is, what is to be avoided. Least area used, highest magnification on common height screens. Worst image quality.
I fancy 1.85 or 1.90 full panel screens, and horizontal plus vertical maskings, so that every film can be shown in the best way with matt black around the image.
The full projection chipset ratio at 1.89 is pretty close to 2.0 to 1.

[Steve Guttag]

Okay, so Frank takes the position that theatres are set up for just Flat and Scope (though what he really means is that HIS theatre is set up for just Flat and Scope and therefore he doesn't want to fool with "oddball" formats (you really can't call them non-standard since there are indeed documents on their standard, including from the likes of SMPTE). As to how widely used they are will vary by country and film maker.

Gordon here seems to think it is perfectly okay to use any format the director/dp chooses...we've seen one feature proclaim 2.1:1 already. Did you set up for it? Did you do it in 100s of theatres in one week? I think not. While speaking to a person on the creative side of the industry, the subject came up and he was shocked that I told him no..."my" theatres would play it 2:1 and not set up for a format-of-the-week 2.1. If it was a premier type screening, sure...one does a lot of 1-off things. But it is impractical to bow to the whims of a particular director/dp. Now, if they want to pay every exhibitor to set up for their special movie, that is all well and good, but those sorts of releases are few and far between.

It is very rare when a single film can change the industry, though it does happen (for picture and sound formats). Rick's point about the, seemingly, increasing frequency of F-200 movies (F-220 are really for those of 65mm film origination) is worth considering.

However, be careful what you wish for. If 2:1 really takes off...you watch...exhibitors will put in 2:1 screens (they aren't masking, by and large, anyway) and do what some did in the film days...EVERYTHING will be shown 2:1. Crop city baby.

When directors and dps just on aspect ratios...they are not thinking of cinemas...when they view their masterpieces, they see them in pristine screening rooms that are properly masked to whatever ratio they choose with sound that costs more for one room than typical multiplexes.

There is a practical limit on supporting various aspect ratios. There should also be an acknowledgement that without movable masking, most of them will look very piss-poor and unfinished as MOST installations put in screens that favor one of the common ratios (1.85 or 2.39).

[Harold Hallikainen]

It SEEMS like metadata could indicate the number of active pixels in each direction, and theater automation could adjust the lens, masking, and light level based on that metadata. ANY aspect ratio would work (though some pictures may be masked down a lot).

[Carsten Kurz]

80ForBrady_FTR_F-190_DE-XX_DE_51_4K_PC_20230322_PXB_SMPTE_VF

[Frank Cox]

(though some pictures may be masked down a lot).

And there-in lies the problem.

As I said at the outset, theatres in general and theatre screens in particular are designed to show either flat or scope movies. I really don't understand why anyone would say "Lets be really creative and make the picture smaller!" and think that's a good idea.

Undermining my own point here, I do still remember a trailer for a Schwarzenegger movie where there was a little postage-stamp window in the middle of the otherwise blank screen and you could sort-of see some kind of a fight going on. Then Schwarzenegger's voice said, "Not yet" and the window closed like a door. That was creative and unique but you certainly wouldn't make an entire movie like that.