Podcast HTF Podcast Episode 6: Aspect Ratios (1 Viewer)

[Peter Apruzzese]

I didn't make it, why would I explain it? If he wants to crop or uncrop his movie that's his choice.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Your question is not honest.

You want to force all filmmakers to fill a specified screen.

Period.

All the time.

Every time.

We disagree.

I'm sorry if you're confused, but the discussion is a bit more nuanced than how you're framing it.

Given the current reality of film shelf life in a 16x9 dominant world, do filmmakers even understand they put their film at a technical disadvantage by shooting in 2.40:1?

Do filmmakers know that 2.40:1 really means 'shorter' and not 'wider'?

Do they understand that the foundations upon which the wider format was established are no longer present?

And given that films are shot in 16x9, with 16x9 cameras, and just cropped later to 2.40:1, but then opened back up for IMAX presentations, isn't the cropping just arbitrary anyway?

The IMAX experience is based entirely on this principle, almost as if to say the 2.40:1 experience is not the best way to experience the film.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

I didn't make it, why would I explain it? If he wants to crop or uncrop his movie that's his choice.

So which version of the film has the best composition? 2:40:1 or IMAX?

The filmmakers say the IMAX version is the best, yet we're stuck with 2.40:1 at home.

What this says is 2.40:1 isn't the OAR. It's an arbitrary crop.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

So which version of the film has the best composition? 2:40:1 or IMAX?

The filmmakers say the IMAX version is the best, yet we're stuck with 2.40:1 at home.

What this says is 2.40:1 isn't the OAR. It's an arbitrary crop.

Isn't that one of those movies where the home version preserves the IMAX experience of variable aspect ratios? In that case, I would guess the cropping is anything *but* arbitrary. Films have been reframed in post-production since the beginning of time.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

Isn't that one of those movies where the home version preserves the IMAX experience of variable aspect ratios? In that case, I would guess the cropping is anything *but* arbitrary.

Unfortunately no, so I would argue that it's still entirely arbitrary. 2.40:1 only for home release.

How many other IMAX films do the same?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

You could argue that the opening up of the frame for IMAX is also arbitrary.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

You could argue that the opening up of the frame for IMAX is also arbitrary.

I see what you're saying, but the filmmakers themselves say they are framing for IMAX. They are then cropping to 2.40:1 for reasons unknown to me. The cynical explanation is that they are doing this simply to serve IMAX, so that it offers them a way to sell premium tickets.

Cropping used to be a way to present a wider (and thus bigger) image...in theaters. That is no longer the case for anything 1.85:1 and above...when presented at home, which is where most movies are viewed now and for the foreseeable future.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The cynical explanation is that they are doing this simply to serve IMAX, so that it offers them a way to sell premium tickets.

That's the most likely explanation.

 

[JohnRice]

OK, you want nuance? Here's the nuance for me.

Watching Interstellar.

"Wait a minute."

"Did the aspect change?"

"It did."

"Huh"

...continues to watch the movie.


Watching The Lighthouse.

"It's 1.19:1?"

"Huh, interesting."

...continues to watch the movie.

Anyway, this argument has long passed into the hopelessly pedestrian. I should know better by now than to engage.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

OK, you want nuance? Here's the nuance for me.

Watching Interstellar.

"Wait a minute."

"Did the aspect change?"

"It did."

"Huh"

...continues to watch the movie.

Aspect ratio changes are awesome, and welcome, especially considering films like Interstellar, because that's how it was presented theatrically, where the IMAX sequences were BIGGER (in this case taller). The intent of the filmmaker was honored in the theater...and at home.

But still, this is an exception to my observation on 2.40:1 in general.

 

[Sam Posten]

The problem with having a discussion about it is twofold.

One the reality of the situation is not going to change. 16x9 is the grand compromise. The great thing about compromises is everyone goes away unhappy and people on the internet will debate it for hours. One downside is old 4:3 TV and some movies get bars on sides and too/bottom respectively. One downside is everything is now uniform and if you go to a different AR you have to have a good reason.

In the meantime the vast majority of content will stick to the new standard. All sports, all video games, the vast majority of broadcast and streaming content and most movies will be at or close to 16x9. That there are a few streams and movies designed to be watched in wider aspect ratios isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, and 16x9 handles them as well as can be expected and if you are on display that emits it’s own pixels, say OLED, it loses no brightness at all and on FALD and LED back lighting very little. Only Projectors have a very slight disadvantage. The rest of the world isn’t going to all of a sudden move to ultra wide to support these the vision of a few movies

Two, honestly like all such discussions it’s tiring going through all this again and again.. You aren’t even invested in UWS yourself for Jiminy’s sake! It’s hard to tell if you are just trolling or serious because There aren’t any strong arguments in favor of your position.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

One the reality of the situation is not going to change. 16x9 is the grand compromise.

Yes, I totally get that 16x9 was the compromise. While it may have made sense at the time, it was a standard set before the streaming age. Before phones, tablets, etc.

Now that most people are watching films at home, and the shelf life of any given movie in the theater is 2-3 weeks vs. forever on Netflix, 2.40:1 is slowly being redefined.

In the theater, there's no problem. It is presented correctly. The curtains open, revealing more screen, offering a bigger picture, more peripheral information.

At home, it is no longer wider. It is shorter.

Any straight-to-Netflix filmmaker (and soon any filmmaker) choosing to make a film in 2.40:1 because they think it's 'wider' is kidding themselves, simply because for the vast majority of people, the film will be presented on a 16x9 screen.

In the meantime the vast majority of content will stick to the new standard. All sports, all video games, the vast majority of broadcast and streaming content and most movies will be at or close to 16x9.

You're right, and thank goodness...except for film in my experience. My purchasing habits have shown me that 2.40:1 is used for the majority of films. Ballpark 70/30. Perhaps your collection is different.

it loses no brightness at all and on FALD and LED back lighting very little.

Let me clarify...

Historically speaking, and from a true cinematic theatrical perspective, relative to 1.78:1, 2.40:1 is ‘wider’, thus BIGGER. Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit on our screens at home.

Because we have to fit the entire OAR image on the display, the image must shrink, thus sacrificing...

• resolution (scaled down image)
• overall light output (black areas with no image)
• intended peripheral sensory experience that a theatrical presentation offers

2.40:1 films have to make a sacrifice to display at home, if they are to be easily distributed in the 16x9 format.

I find this tragic, but it's a compromise, like you said.

I love 2.40:1, just not at home.

My critique is with the filmmakers themselves because I am not convinced they understand this. They claim to be framing for a 'wider' ratio, which is true for the theater only.

It is not true for the home.

The shift from theater to home presentations presents 'shorter' image, relative to 1.78:1.

Two, honestly like all such discussions it’s tiring going through all this again and again.. You aren’t even invested in UWS yourself for Jiminy’s sake! It’s hard to tell if you are just trolling or serious because There aren’t any strong arguments in favor of your position.

The reason why I keep bringing this up is because I believe we should challenge the filmmakers to answer these questions. I don't get upset over an incorrect color correction, but I can understand the people that do. Where else but the HTF would a discussion like this be held?

My critique on this subject is evolving, and I know I wasn't able to quite articulate myself well enough on this particular show, so I'm revising and extending as more thoughts come to mind.

How wonderful would it be if 21:9 displays started becoming more popular (seems like they are for PCs) and larger, so that there might be an option to view an "enhanced for 21:9 widescreen" version of movies available on an 85" screen?

Hell, I'd sign up for streaming just for that! @Sam Posten chisel that in stone. I will make you that promise, and I rarely promise anything!

Let's 'rotate' the discussion, so to speak...

Isn't it interesting that TikTok videos are composed in the 9x16 format? It is because most users are viewing videos on their phones, and 16x9 videos look smaller. Yes, you can rotate your phone to watch it properly, but people are so used to the 9x16 format that so much content is being produced in that format.

Can you imagine the audacity of any TikTok filmmaker saying this was a "taller" aspect ratio?

 

[Sam Posten]

If wishes were horses beggars would ride. Again all the above is nonsense bro I’m sorry. There is no challenging film makers on this. They have great reasons for making the choices they have and put way more thought into it that you or I ever could. Films are made for -both- theatrical and home viewing. The film makers choose how their film will look based on the content not the coin flip of where people will watch it.

And there is zero chance of anamorphic style UWS because the industry set the worldwide aspect ratio for one primary display standard and what you are asking for would both undermine that and has no real support. Nobody is asking for this.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don’t have a lot of time today so my answer is short out of necessity, not dismissiveness.

Filmmakers and showrunners choose aspect ratios based on composition, not total pixel usage or overall screen size, in the overwhelming majority of cases today. If it were simply about obtaining the largest image possible or using the most screen real estate possible, television shows wouldn’t shoot wider than 16x9. But a plethora do. Some in 1.85:1, some in 2.00:1, some in 2.40:1.

I don’t think filmmakers or the industry on the production side is particularly hung up on pixels or resolution. Theatrical DCPs afford more real estate to 1.85:1 than 2.40:1 - a 2.40:1 DCP uses less pixels than a 1.85:1 film. New theater builds generally make 1.85:1 the largest size, and then use top and bottom masking for 2.40:1 films. This isn’t a mystery to filmmakers or studios. They’re not unaware. They choose 2.40:1 because they like the composition of those images.

In a previous discussion of this topic, I used frames from an official U2 concert video to demonstrate why proportion was more important than size alone. U2’s 2018 tour involved a stage/lighting/video display that was incredibly wide, more so than usual. Shooting in 16x9 would have used more display pixels but yielded a less impressive image, because U2’s giant stage would seem proportionally tiny with the top and bottom of the frame filled with the arena floor and ceiling rafters. Shooting in 2.40:1 allows their stage setup to remain the focal point of the shot - it draws the eye to what the band and stage are doing, not what the venue itself looks like.

The problem with this conversation is that nothing changes each time we have it. The vast majority of filmmakers aren’t concerned with maximizing resolution. They’re concerned with the composition of their images. They like the look of a 2.40:1 frame and therefore use that aspect ratio.

Let me ask a rhetorical question: when you buy a CD, do you expect each one to have 80 minutes of music? A CD can hold 80 minutes so do you feel cheated if a band has only recorded 45 minutes of music on it? By the logic you apply to aspect ratios, all CDs should run 80 minutes. If someone said, “It doesn’t make sense for musicians not to use the full amount of time they could use, and it cheats the consumer out of music that’s rightfully theirs,” it would be obvious that was a silly expectation, right?

I feel like the problem here is that you don’t accept 2.40:1 as a valid artistic choice but merely a technical one, and therefore any artistic explanation that’s offered is rejected because it’s not a technical exploration of the merits of pixels or light output.

 

[Worth]

...In the theater, there's no problem. It is presented correctly. The curtains open, revealing more screen, offering a bigger picture, more peripheral information.

At home, it is no longer wider. It is shorter...

For the most part, that's no longer true. It depends on the theatre of course, but around these parts, the vast majority of screens are fixed at 1.85 and scope films are projected with black bars at the top and bottom - they no longer have curtains or even masking.

 

[Worth]

Your question is not honest.

You want to force all filmmakers to fill a specified screen.

Period.

All the time.

Every time.

We disagree.

True, but on the other hand, for the first 60 years or so of cinema, no one much complained that the screen only came in one shape.

 

[Mark-P]

Brian, did you ever consider the theory that perhaps the popularity of 2.39:1 is that content-makers may be future-proofing their content for when that ratio becomes the standard shape for monitors and TVs? Did you know that in the 1990s some TV shows were shot in widescreen and originally broadcast with the sides cropped to 4x3 because they knew in the future people would be viewing them wider? Friends, Seinfeld, and E.R. are three such examples.

 

[DaveF]

Where’s the “shocked” emoji when I need it! I totally missed that Brian was the author of the aspect-ratio video!

 

[DaveF]

I just don't understand why we can't have a substantive discussion on this and why this has to resort to cheap shots?

I’m still waiting for you to start one. Currently all you’re saying is “use all the pixels.” This is the classic tech enthusiast who cares about specs and gear and not about the art. Aspect ratio is part of the artistic expression.

I‘m enjoying the creativity happening right now with aspect ratios. I like that shows don’t all look the same. And on my 120” screen, it’s all fine if this show is 1.85:1 and that one is 2.00:1.

If we were in a world of 1.85 screens and all shows and movies were coming out 2.35, that would be a problem. And likely the tech standard would shift to 2.35 screens to optimize for the majority of content. The great majority of the content is 1.85, and a minority is different. And that minority is the Peak Quality stuff, obviously made by artists / creators to stand out, to explore, to be different, and not confined by the lowest-common denominator constraints.

And that’s good. To say all content must be the same size solely to use all your pixels is bad.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

This is the classic tech enthusiast who cares about specs and gear and not about the art.

Ive used this analogy before:

Some people buy stereos to play their music. Other people buy music to play their stereos.

Neither approach is wrong, per se. We all enjoy what we enjoy. Brian is clearly in the latter group, and the only thing with that is, content makers are never going to max out 100% of the spec 100% of the time.

To continue with the audio analogy, modern receivers have “all speaker” settings so you can use all 5.1 or 7.1 speakers at all times. That’s not how soundtracks are mixed, but you can set your gear to play it back that way if that’s what you prefer. But they’re not gonna change the way they mix soundtracks. In much the same way, disc players and streaming devices have zoom settings so you can maximize pixel usage if that’s a priority for you. But they’re not gonna change the way they shoot and edit content either.