Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Lost in Translation Aspect ratio.. (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Lost in Translation Aspect ratio..
Aldo Baez
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: USA
Registered: Mar 2001


 - posted 02-11-2004 09:52 PM      Profile for Aldo Baez     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just bought the lost in translation dvd in widescreen. Upon looking up the feature info here I see that it was filmed in flat 1.85. How do you get a widescreen dvd out of a flat film? Is there bars on the side? Would it be just fine to get the fullscreen version? (I haven't opened the dvd.)

If this is a newbie question I apologize I rarely purchase dvd's (last one was amelie) and I am in the dark about this.

Thanks

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1381
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 02-11-2004 10:42 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An anamorphic widescreen DVD is native 16:9 (1.78). So LOST IN TRANSLATION will have very tiny bars on the bottom and top if shown in widescreen formaton a widescreen TV. If you have a standard width TV and the mode of the DVD player is correctly set for standard TV's, the image will show correctly at 1.85. The image in both cases will go all the way to the edge of your TV.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3835
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 02-11-2004 10:47 PM      Profile for Paul Mayer   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Mayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I see Lost in Translation is available on DVD in either "Full Screen" or "Widescreen" versions.

For "Widescreen" the original intended 1.85 image could be letterboxed to fit within the 1.33 area resulting in black bars at the top and bottom of the 1.33 frame. The original intended 1.85 image could also be anamorphically squeezed into the 1.33 frame, thus reducing the amount of letterboxing needed (the black bars would still there but not as big). Anamorphic transfer also gives slightly better vertical resolution since more scan lines are used for the image area. When viewed on a 16:9 (1.78) display you might not see the black bars due to overscan. Usually such discs have some sort of "enhanced for wide screen TVs" label on the package. Currently there is no industry standard for labels on DVDs, so sometimes it's hard to tell how the transfer was done.

The same options are available for 2.35 productions transferred to video--letterbox with lots of black bar showing or anamorphic transfer with not quite so much black bar showing. These transfers are also called "Widescreen". It looks like most studios do not differentiate between 1.85 and 2.35 for the labeling on these DVDs--in many cases they are both called "Widescreen".

Sometimes the image is shrunk to slightly inside the 1.33 frame giving a black border on all four sides. This "windowboxing" sacrifices a little resolution in an attempt to ensure the entire image is visible on displays with significant overscan.

BTW "Full Screen" could mean the 1.85 original intended image has been cropped at the sides to give a 1.33 image. Or if the original was shot and protected for open matte, the entire image could be transferred for the video.

 |  IP: Logged

Aldo Baez
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: USA
Registered: Mar 2001


 - posted 02-12-2004 02:47 AM      Profile for Aldo Baez     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Whoaaaaaaaa ok thanks for the info a little over my head but that's ok always good to read up. I'm gonna assume that I'm ok with this widescreen version then. [thumbsup]

 |  IP: Logged

Tao Yue
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 209
From: Princeton, NJ
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 02-12-2004 06:36 PM      Profile for Tao Yue   Author's Homepage   Email Tao Yue   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Of course, many anamorphic DVDs of flat films are not letterboxed to 1.85, but opened up to 16:9.

Kind of surprisingly that this wasn't mentioned, given that Paul and Paul mentioned all of the following:

  • Letterboxed standard (widescreen film in 4:3)
  • Windowboxed standard (very special non-widescreen film in 4:3)
  • No-boxing-at-all standard (non-widescreen, pan-and-scan, or open-matte in 4:3)
  • Letterboxed anamorphic (wider than 16:9 in 16:9)
  • Windowboxed anamorphic (non-widescreen in 16:9)
Anamorphic is really poor terminology, not just because of the confusion with widescreen achieved by matting. In fact, not just 16:9, but also 4:3 films on DVD are anamorphically stretched on display (but in the other axis, and more mildly -- by 12% rather than 33%). "Enhanced for widescreen TVs" is much better wording, and removes both the confusion and the technical inaccuracy.
The Widescreen Museum has a good page on anamorphic vs. standard encoding at:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm
and Marty, being his usual thorough self, is one of the few people to actually point out that DVD players interpret the pixels as narrow or wide, never square.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 02-16-2004 11:42 PM      Profile for Mike Olpin   Email Mike Olpin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think we've overanswered the question (or perhaps I just missunderstood it)

Flat films (1.85:1)(apx. 16:9) and Scope films (2.35:1) are both wider than your average television "full screen" (1.33:1)(4:3).

 -

 -

 -

I always laugh to myself when the masking opens out to scope at my theatre, and I hear someone say "Oh, good, they got the widescreen version"

 |  IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1389
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 02-17-2004 04:43 AM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"widescreen" is a term i wish would just go away. theatrically, widescreen aka 1:1.85 is generally not as wide (horizontally) as scope, and probably a majority of screens support just those 2 ratios. on most tv's, "widescreen" signifies a letterboxed image which is just as wide horizontally as "fullframe", but narrower vertically. i think the term can sometimes include any flat ratio with more cropping than academy, in other words, less image area on the film, not more as one might think from the "wide-". and probably some people, at least when it comes to video, use it to describe the scope ratio as well. it's a dumb catchall euphemism that when all is said and done means nothing. no, worse than that, it means the opposite of something!

carl

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7966
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-17-2004 08:06 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I thought that the proper terminology was:

1.37 - Academy
1.66 - European Widescreen
1.85 - American Widescreen
2.39 - Anamorphic Widescreen aka CinemaScope aka Scope aka Panavision aka Arriscope, etc.

For home use, I'd agree that the term "widescreen" when used by itself is meaningless. If I were labelling DVDs, I'd have two listings: original theatrical aspect ratio and video aspect ratio. The video listing should contain both the aspect ratio (e.g. 1.85:1) and the means used to effect it (e.g. letterbox, anamorphic with letterbox, pan-and-scan, etc.).

 |  IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 837
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 02-19-2004 01:00 AM      Profile for Pravin Ratnam   Email Pravin Ratnam   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think studios should also label Full Frame DVDs as either pan and scan or unmatted or a combination. This way, I would not have to be so anal about renting only widescreen dvds. After many comparisons on Hidef and non HIdef HBO movies, I came to the conclusion that some unmatted full frame movies actually have better composition than the widescreen version.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-19-2004 10:09 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The current aspect ratios specified by standard SMPTE 195 are 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1.

1.33:1 and 2.35:1 are NOT current aspect ratios recognized by SMPTE standards for theatrical projection.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

quote:
SMPTE Standard 195 "Motion-Picture Prints--Projectable Image Area" specifies the film area intended for projection. The dimensions specified are as follows:

Aspect Ratio · Lens · Width (In.) · Height (In.) · Width (mm) · Height (mm)

2.39:1 · Scope 2X · 0.825 · 0.690 · 20.96 · 17.53

1.85:1 · Flat · 0.825 · 0.446 · 20.96 · 11.33

1.66:1 · Flat · 0.825 · 0.497 · 20.96 · 12.62

1.37:1 · Flat · 0.825 · 0.602 · 20.96 · 15.29



 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5196
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 02-26-2004 07:54 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And now to throw more confusion into the soup, it seems like they are throwing the word "anamorphic" around as well. The 2-disc release of SCAREFACE is marked "Anamorphic Wide Screen - 2:35:1." To me this means that the full frame is squeezed, and can be decompressed by the player's or the display unit's 16:9 setting. Yet playing this disc results in the usual, non-anamorphic letterboxed scope image. What's that all about? Do these video people themselves know what the film terms mean? Maybe they should step away from the Avid Suite and stick their heads in a real theatre once in awhile.

Frank

 |  IP: Logged

Lionel Fouillen
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 230
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2002


 - posted 02-26-2004 08:44 AM      Profile for Lionel Fouillen   Email Lionel Fouillen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I doubt "Lost in Translation" was filmed in 1.85. I saw it last week and the projection was in 1.66 so it was filmed in either 1.66 or 1.37. The microphone even shows up at the very top of the image several time during the film. A pity the projectionist didn't choose 1.85 since I know this theater has all the required lenses and plates for all ratios [Roll Eyes]

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-26-2004 10:23 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Non-anamorphic ("flat") films today are most often shot with a full frame camera aperture, with an image area on the negative of 0.981 x 0.735 inches ("Style C" camera aperture), but the image composed for the projectable image area (0.825 x 0.446 inches for 1.85:1) using the reticles in the camera viewfinder. A "Style A" camera aperture may also be used (0.864 x 0.630 inches, per SMPTE 59).

The composite print picture aperture width in a contact printer is 0.88 inches (SMPTE 111), but the framelines of the camera negative are printed through unchanged. "Hard Mattes" are sometimes introduced at the MP ---> DN stage of printing, but the framelines on the print often are the framelines exposed on the original camera negative (unless an optical printer or digital intermediate was used for duplication).

The image area that ends up on the screen is specified by SMPTE 195, and determined by the projector aperture, screen masking, and framing. The image area on the print is always larger than the projectable image area specified by SMPTE 195 for the current 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, and 1.37:1 aspect ratios specified in the standard.

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Keillor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 166
From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted 02-26-2004 03:17 PM      Profile for Ron Keillor   Email Ron Keillor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just WHO is supposed to be the arbiter of what appears on the screen? Is the photographed image an inviolable Work of Art of which any alteration is a defacement, or is it a work-in-progress that can be adapted to the facility exhibiting it?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-26-2004 03:48 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I try to answer that in my article:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

quote:
Caring About Composition
Movie Audiences Deserve To See the Entire Film
I participated in a meeting with some of the world's most noted cinematographers. The topic was the future of filmmaking and what can be done to enhance the moviegoing experience. Three items topped their list of complaints about the way their films are presented in theatres. They all revolved around the importance of presenting their films in the aspect ratio that directors and cinematographers chose to frame their stories. Cinematographers believe that today's visually literate audiences know how to 'read' visual clues that are implicit in the choice of aspect ratio, which affects the story-telling. By altering aspect ratios, exhibitors are unwittingly changing the emotional impact of films...


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.