Non-Standard Aspect Ratios

[Rick Cohen]

Barbie and Oppenheimer have more in common than just their July 21 release date. Both use a non-standard aspect ratio, Barbie being in 2.0:1 or F-200 (also referred to as Univisium) and Oppenheimer being in 2.2:1 or S-220. Showing them in standard Flat (1:85:1) or Scope (2.39:1) aspect ratios results in a letterboxed presentation with unused screen area on both the top/bottom and on each side of the image.

I am very curious what percentage of auditoriums have created appropriate macros with associated lens files to project F-200 and S-220 content correctly. Framing charts are provided with these features, and it only takes maybe 30 minutes for a trained technician to create a new macro with the correct lens settings. Most of the independent theatre operators I've asked don't even realize that the 2.0:1 or 2.2:1 aspect ratios even exist. Or, they believe that showing F-200 and S-220 in standard Flat or Scope is "good enough," that "the customers don't notice anything is off," and "nobody is complaining."

As a professional cinema operator and show person, the goal should be to present all movies, especially high profile wide releases, in the best method possible within reason. Creating an additional lens file for the projection of a proper aspect ratio using the highest available screen area does not seem to me that unreasonable, especially if that is how the filmmaker intended their movie to be seen. No filmmaker wants their movie to be projected letterboxed in a non-optimal fashion. Using a flat or scope standard aspect ratio format lens file for an F-200 or S-220 feature diminishes the projected image by not using the maximum screen image area available, and results in an inferior presentation.

All of the most recent Christopher Nolan movies have been released with the 2.2:1 aspect ratio, including Oppenheimer, Tenet, and Dunkirk. Tomorrowland was also released in 2.2:1 back in 2015.

Recent movies released wide in 2.0:1 Univisium from 2018 to 2023 include Barbie, both Jurassic World movies, The Northman, Hereditary, A Simple Favor, Smile, Men In Black International, Green Book (which won for Best Picture at the Oscars), and Midsommer.

While standard Flat and Scope will likely remain the most popular release formats for the foreseeable future, having the top two movies currently in release using "oddball" aspect ratios should be a clear signal that a change has arrived. Theatre operators who prefer their presentations to appear on screen with the best possible image quality may want to learn more about these two "new" aspect ratios, and request to have their technician create appropriate lens files and marcos for them.

My prediction is that the F-200 and S-220 aspect ratios will only become more frequent and popular with filmmakers in the years to come.

[Frank Cox]

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.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

I am 100% with Frank on this one.

Just because digital can do an oddball format does NOT mean any filmmaker, no matter how "Big" they are, should try to force feed it to the thousands of cinemas that were purpose-built to present images in the two most common formats. If they do, they MUST accept that MANY locations will NOT be showing it in their pet format. (Unless they are willing to PAY for a technician to come build those custom macros.)

So what if, as a filmmaker, I choose to film my epic in Homovision(TM) which has a 1.69:1 aspect ratio. Should I expect every theatre to create a special macro for my film, which may or may not even make any money? And do I have the right to get pissed if they don't, or can't? Nope.

Rick said:

Framing charts are provided with these features, and it only takes maybe 30 minutes for a trained technician to create a new macro with the correct lens settings.

Ok, how many theatres have a trained technician on retainer, where that " only takes maybe 30 minutes... to create a new macro ... " won't actually COST them a minimum 2-4 HOUR service charge? I can tell you how many, NONE. Even a chain or independent is highly unlikely to have someone on staff who knows how to create a new macro. And don't forget, you WILL have to also program the server with new cues to call up the macro. That adds time and margins of error. And what about masking, in the rare cases of theatres that still have them? You need to create stops, if any are available. Finally, multiply that by however many screens you need to do, and it adds up FAST.

And for the sake of argument, let's say they are the rare exception who has someone with the know-how. They STILL have to be paid to do it, and most likely before or after hours. Further, how long before this custom aspect ratio nonsense fills up a projector's macro spaces?

And let's not forget the real elephant in the room:

Most of the independent theatre operators I've asked don't even realize that the 2.0:1 or 2.2:1 aspect ratios even exist.

News flash Skippy, neither do the majority of chains. Back in the film days they still managed to screw up A LOT with just Flat and Scope. Do you really think they are gonna even notice (thanks to the bloated DCI naming specs) the SPECIAL aspect ratio embedded deep in the garbage file names?

If as a filmmaker, you want to shoot your epic in a special format, go right ahead. Just be aware that the majority of locations will NOT be showing it in that format. That includes home video BTW.

So in conclusion Your Honor, I hope I slept with you to get the job, because if not, who the hell was that guy?!? (Bonus points to anyone who knows where that quote came from. )

[Rick Cohen]

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.

Someone once said "Movie theatres are built to show films in 35mm, not digital video projection." I wonder how that argument worked out?

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Someone once said "Movie theatres are built to show films in 35mm, not digital video projection." I wonder how that argument worked out?

Not a fair comparison at all. Digital was forced upon exhibitors without any arguments allowed.

[Rick Cohen]

Ok, how many theatres have a trained technician on retainer, where that " only takes maybe 30 minutes... to create a new macro ...

This does not require a special service call. It could very easily be done over a TeamViewer connection with a laptop and a cell phone using the FaceTime app in certain circumstances, or the technician could simply create a macro during their annual service call. It's not necessary to cut an aperture plate with a file using a special lens and a test loop. All they are doing is taking an existing screen file, zooming it out a few pixels, and then saving it under a new name, and creating a new macro. It's not brain surgery or rocket science, Skippy. One or two additional aspect ratios isn't going to bankrupt the industry. It's not like there are dozens of different aspect ratio being released every year. It's just two, and they both happen to be at the top of the boxoffice charts.

[Rick Cohen]

Just because digital can do an oddball format does NOT mean any filmmaker, no matter how "Big" they are, should try to force feed it to the thousands of cinemas that were [I][B]purpose-built to present images in the two most common formats.

It's called "innovation." The filmmaker has the right to tell their story in their preferred format. If you choose not to enhance your presentation by having a qualified technician create an additional lens fine, that is your call. Digital sound (DTS, SDDS, DDS) was an innovation. Reverse Scan Analog Red LED was an innovation. Cinemascope was an innovation. 1.85:1 aspect ratio was an innovation. 3D was an innovation. If the industry did not embrace innovation, we'd still be showing movies with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio lens on nitrate film, with reel-to-reel and carbon arc lamphouses. Then again, some projectionists might prefer it had stayed that way.

The only consistency in this world is that time inevitably equals change. Oppose it at your own peril. Those who adapt and embrace change, flourish. It's called "evolution."

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Edit: We're not discussing the virtues of innovations. And theatres have always decided which of those to add, and most importantly, with the exception of 3D, ALL of them were "global", i.e. widely used/adopted, NOT niche formats done by only a few filmmakers.

And how many service techs do that call over the phone for free? You are still taking up their time so I bet the number of techs willing to remotely set up a new macro for free is pretty small. And how do you verify that the image is centered, focused and framed correctly by remote? Even with "TeamViewer" you'll STILL have to have someone on-site aiming a camera or phone so the tech can actually SEE what's going on. (So now you are tying up TWO people.) You still have to do it for EACH SCREEN, right? And if you run a multiplex, you'd better go through that process on EVERY SCREEN so you can move the feature freely. (One of the few advantages to digital actually.) Now your time multiplies by a factor of (x) number of screens.

Yes we are not cutting plates anymore, but apples to oranges again. How is that relevant to this discussion? Time is time, oh and BTW you mentioned that this macro process is 30 minutes or so. I could do a new plate in under 15 minutes. You are right, it's not rocket science, Skippy.

What if their annual service call doesn't happen to align with the opening of one of those "special" features? Then what? You either show it in Flat or Scope, or you still pay out for a special call. And most of the time, a tech doing annuals on a multi has a specific time allotted/planned to just the annual service tasks, so unless you let him/her know in advance about wanting extra macros programmed, that can disrupt the tech's schedule. And cost more money.

By chance, were you ever a service tech? Having to manage well over 300 screens? I was for many years, and even in the film days without all the added nonsense that digital has added to a tech's workload, it was nearly impossible to get ALL of your screen's annual, much less quarterly, service calls done. When I started, I thought it was just me, maybe I had poor time management skills, but the three other techs in my region all confirmed it was a universal issue. Theatres hated scheduling tech time before or after hours. I quickly learned how to go in and do a lot of the quarterly stuff during intermissions, which were usually 30-45 minutes back then. So in theory, in the digital era one COULD create a new macro on intermission time, but now you are doing all that in full view of the public. Not the best idea, but sometimes you gotta do... I personally, (and I am sure any other tech who cares about his work or reputation feels the same way) would NEVER try to set up an image by remote. It will NEVER, EVER get properly focused or framed that way.

You can debate with me all you want, and I will agree to disagree with you, but as someone who has been a tech for decades, I stand by my original post and Frank's statements.

[Mike Blakesley]

This problem could be partially solved if there was a simple, step by step "how to" somewhere that tells you how to create a macro. We are now on digital projector number 2 and server #3, and none of those machines came with an "operating manual." There may be too many combinations of servers, automations and projectors to have specific instructions, but there's gotta be some common denominators somewhere.

Edit: In the above post I originally had "number 2" written with the pound sign (just like #3, but with a 2). That was auto-replaced by a "Film-Tech Cinema Systems" link.... why??

[Martin McCaffery]

Here in artfilmville, this has been the year of un-common aspect ratios. Lots of variations on 1:37, which usually comes in a 1:85 container. Each seems to be slightly different, so I have to adjust our side masking for each show. Living was in, I think, 1.41.1. The ultra skinny ratio of Woman Talking we could mask the top but not the the bottom (fixed bottom masking). And all of the 2.0 films.
If I were showing films for more than 4 days, I'd probably make a macro, but since keys become active the day before - sometimes day of- the show, I don't always have the time. And honestly, if the distributors don't give a damn, I'm having trouble working up any excitement for it.

[Carsten Kurz]

Why does this come up again and again? We have seen 2.0:1 and 2.2:1 for so many years now. Also, 2.76:1 we had a few times.
Just stick a piece of paper to your projector with a note for your service technician AND yourself to create these macros next time he visits. There was more than enough time for it.

[Frank Cox]

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?

[Martin Brooks]

I can understand using 2.2 AR if the film was shot in 65mm to be consistent with 70mm presentation, although towards the end of the 70mm film era, it was proposed by Rob Hummel in the American Cinematographers Manual that films blown up to 70mm from 35mm scope retain the full 35mm 2.35:1 AR and a number of films did so beginning with "Star Trek IV" and "The Untouchables".
2.0 is so close to both 1.85 and 2.35/2.39/2.4 that I personally think it's insane to use. In a theater with a 1.85 screen, it means reduced height. In a theater with a 2.4:1 screen, it means reduced width. What's the point? IMO, 2.0 would have made sense for HDTV and in fact, it's what the DGA argued should be the AR for HDTV, but 1.78, driven by SMPTE, won out. There was a period of time when some of the theater chains in the midwest decided to project all films at 2.0 - cropping the height of 1.85 films and cropping the width of 2.35 films. IMO, that was "film done wrong".

Theaters have a hard time today getting everything right. Complicating the situation with odd aspect ratios isn't going to help things. It's one thing if the filmmaker has a definite aesthetic reason for not using 1.85 or 2.4 (digital), and does so within the existing frame not requiring any special macros (doesn't Wes Anderson do this a lot?), but it's quite another to do it for no apparent good reason and just to be different.

[Leo Enticknap]

In some theaters it's not just as simple as creating lens position file, screen file, and macro. Some masking systems do not have enough presets. At least one major chain installs masking motor/control units that are actually garage door openers, and have only two positions (open and closed, or, in a movie theater, flat and scope).

The whole point of standardizing a couple of ratios is to enable theaters to be able to present them properly. OK, digital cinema makes it easy to create movies from anything between cellphone-style vertical videos, to as wide as 3:1 if you really want that. But they are not mandated in the DCI standard, and as a result, some theaters will not be able to mask them properly. The same applies to ratios that were a widespread industry standard once, but are not any more; 1.37 being the obvious example.

[James Gardiner]

From my understanding there are about 200000 screens in the TDL. If you utilise a non-standard F/S aspect, you will get undesirable results on many screens. The cost of implementing a new aspect onto 200000 screens would take 12 months and cost a fortune. Fine if you can deal with this yourself, but most cannot.

Implementing new and more aspect ratios is not trivial. for most locations it is more than a new macro/channel configuration. Again remember TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND SCREENS.

If you feel strongly about implementing a 3rd or 4th ratio as expected configurations in cinema, I encourage those to join SMPTE and make your arguments.

Otherwise, make sure you inform those creatives with a need to be innovative and utilise a non-standard aspect.. There comes a cost in the quality of the presentation.