Support NeoGAF

[Kindekuma]

Letterboxing in movies are fantastic, you get some really fantastic composition and framing. 16:9 for games is fine, but I'd rather not watch a 16:9 movie.

 

[jstripes]

Do I want to see a movie the way it was filmed?

Yes.

 

[powersurge]

Original Aspect Ratio and Original Language (with subs of course) or bust for me.

 

[Sir Doom]

Doesn't bother me
Get a projector OP

 

[crimsondynamics]

Leave movies the way they are. Instead, TVs should have 21:9 aspect ratios. Everything looks better and more immersive; it more closely approximates our field of vision.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

TV manufacturers should make sets that transform from flat to scope aspect ratios to accommodate the varying ratios used for movies. Just like how movie theaters do. That's the only potential solution to this problem

If you get a projector setup you can do this actually, and without breaking the bank either.

Leave movies the way they are. Instead, TVs should have 21:9 aspect ratios. Everything looks better and more immersive; it more closely approximates our field of vision.

And then anything that is 16:9 or 1.85:1 will have big black bars on the side. Then anything that is 4:3 will have extreme black bars on the side.
16:9 is the happy medium between most aspect ratios really.

 

[vpance]

TV manufacturers should make sets that transform from flat to scope aspect ratios to accommodate the varying ratios used for movies. Just like how movie theaters do. That's the only potential solution to this problem

Nah. Lol

The real answer to this problem is to just buy a bigger TV until it stops bothering you.

 

[New002]

Gotta go OLED, OP. Those black bars melt away.

 

[AstroNut325]

I hate letterboxing. I really wish movies were shot with TV aspect ratios in mind. I feel 2.35:1 aspect ratio really limits the vertical screen area.

 

[XShagrath]

I would just rather have most movies be framed to use the whole screen

They are framed to use the whole screen. Your TV just doesn't happen to be the same ratio as the screen they were framed for.

 

[Lys Skygge]

Some of the responses in this thread

 

[PhoncipleBone]

I hate letterboxing. I really wish movies were shot with TV aspect ratios in mind. I feel 2.35:1 aspect ratio really limits the vertical screen area.

And 16:9 limits the horizontal screen area.

Different ratios work for different things. Some directors prefer one over another.

 

[#1 defender]

It was fun/frustrating working at Suncoast Video during the transition to DVD and trying to explain this concept to people. Most people had it in their heads that letterboxing was the version that was cutting off the picture.

I remember some DVDs like The Great Escape including leaflets that visualized the differences between OAR and Pan & Scan. I had to use that myself a few times to get through to people who hated black bars. XD

 

[Moonkid]

Honestly could not care less about letterboxing. Hell, some wallpapers I use end up being letterboxed on my monitor.

 

[orochi91]

I like it a lot; it looks quite nice.

But only if the image isn't cropped as a result.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

TV was 4:3 not long ago, would you have supported filming in 4:3?

Grand Budapest Hotel was in 4:3, the sense of height it added to the sweeping corridors of the hotel was actually pretty impressive.

People complaining about black bars and aspect ratios? What the fuck is wrong with you all?
Leave the films/tv shows in their originally intended ratios. They were made that way for a reason.
Want to alter someone else's art? Use the zoom button.

Seriously, how is this even a conversation in 2017?

It'll always happen. You think its bad in movies, I remember when The Order 1886 was announced as 16:9 and people freaked the fuck out because they know better about how to present someone's work than those people know.

 

[Easy_D]

Are you a flat earther too?

If the earth is curved why aren't our screens? Yeah can't answer that, can you.

 

[Osahi]

There is often an artistic reason for the aspect ratio a director chooses. I want to see it in the ratio he intended. Black bars have never bothered me.

Grand Budapest Hotel was in 4:3, the sense of height it added to the sweeping corridors of the hotel was actually pretty impressive.

Grand Buddapest Hotel changed aspect ratio's based on the year the story took place. It gradually got more widescreen, to reflect the trends of that time.

Another great example of artistic use of aspect ratio's is Xavier Dolan's Mommy. (Actually 1:1 )

love this scene. Pure cinema

 

[HotHamBoy]

Is it 1999?

 

[ReplacementPelican]

There is often an artistic reason for the aspect ratio a director chooses. I want to see it in the ratio he intended. Black bars have never bothered me.



Grand Buddapest Hotel changed aspect ratio's based on the year the story took place. It gradually got more widescreen, to reflect the trends of that time.

Another great example of artistic use of aspect ratio's is Xavier Dolan's Mommy. (Actually 1:1 )

love this scene. Pure cinema

The 'present day' in 16:9, the past in 4:3 and then what was the other one -

Spoiler

the skip where Zero and Gustave have money?

Regardless, I think most of it was 4:3, I really enjoyed the use of it.

 

[berzeli]

Oh god, this thread is almost making me go full on Jeffrey Wells and that wouldn't be great for anyone. (also my apologies for whomever is unfamiliar with the twat and googles him, yes he really is that awful)

Is letterboxing/pillarboxing ideal? Of course not, but the current widescreen standard for TVs (commonly referred to as 16:9, which is aprox 1.78:1) was chosen because it gives the same relative screen space for things shot in academy like ratios (~1.37:1 or ~4:3) and scope like ratios (~2.35:1 or ~21:9). Not because of its own merits as a format, basically no films were shot in that ratio (there were a few/bunch of mostly British films shot in ~1.77:1 though).
And forcing people to shoot in a certain aspect ratio is just really dumb. For real.

tbh, anyone who has an issue with this should just watch better films. A film should pull you in enough so that worrying about whether or not it is filling your entire screen doesn't even enter your mind.

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

If the earth is curved why aren't our screens? Yeah can't answer that, can you.

 

[Sulik2]

I'd prefer to see 16 x 9 be the standard for all content. It makes sense to film for what the majority of screens the movie will eventually be viewed on are at. However I can also understand filmmakers wanting the extra width at times for composition. That will likely die off as filmakers who grew up with 16 x 9 take over though. I just wish 16 x 10 had been the ratio that won.

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

Is letterboxing/pillarboxing ideal? Of course not, but the current widescreen standard for TVs (commonly referred to as 16:9, which is aprox 1.78:1) was chosen because it gives the same relative screen space for things shot in academy like ratios (~1.37:1 or ~4:3) and scope like ratios (~2.35:1 or ~21:9). Not because of its own merits as a format, basically no films were shot in that ratio (there were a few/bunch of mostly British films shot in ~1.77:1 though).
And forcing people to shoot in a certain aspect ratio is just really dumb. For real.

Avengers was shot in 16:9 / 1.78:1

 

[berzeli]

Avengers was shot in 16:9 / 1.78:1

No. It was shot in 1.85:1

I'd prefer to see 16 x 9 be the standard for all content. It makes sense to film for what the majority of screens the movie will eventually be viewed on are at. However I can also understand filmmakers wanting the extra width at times for composition. That will likely die off as filmakers who grew up with 16 x 9 take over though. I just wish 16 x 10 had been the ratio that won.

the current widescreen standard for TVs (commonly referred to as 16:9, which is aprox 1.78:1) was chosen because it gives the same relative screen space for things shot in academy like ratios (~1.37:1 or ~4:3) and scope like ratios (~2.35:1 or ~21:9). Not because of its own merits as a format

.

 

[#1 defender]

Avengers was shot in 16:9 / 1.78:1

Avatar too.

Edit: Oh, i was wrong about Avengers.

 

[mrklaw]

Is there any historical or technical reason for the ultra wide ratios? I know they were seen initially as a way to counter TV, but why choose 2.35/2.40:1 rather than 16:9 or similar?

 

[berzeli]

Avatar too.

Edit: Oh, i was wrong about Avengers.

Composed for multiple ratios.


And I was talking about how the widescreen standard for TVs was chosen. So posting films that were created after that standard was made as "evidence" or whatever makes no sense.

 

[peakish]

Using "letterbox" like a verb makes it seem like the black bars are the intended effect and not a bi-product of directors and DoP's wanting to frame the shots in a deliberate way. You're not supposed to like the black bars but the shots which give rise to them (on your setup).

I mostly do.

Also

You want every single movie shot in the same aspect ratio? You never want to see a shot that can be framed like this again???

God damn man

what movie is this from? It's gorgeous.

 

[thekenta]

Using "letterbox" like a verb makes it seem like the black bars are the intended effect and not a bi-product of directors and DoP's wanting to frame the shots in a deliberate way. You're not supposed to like the black bars but the shots which give rise to them (on your setup).

I mostly do.

Also

what movie is this from? It's gorgeous.

La Dolce Vita

 

[Jinroh]

Wasn’t avatar 16/9? Also IMAX scenes in transformers movies are as well. It’s so much better than having those black bars.

 

[peakish]

La Dolce Vita

Thanks, I really should catch up on Fellini.

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

Does anyone use 1.85 anymore though, or has that been phased out in favor or 1.78 in theaters?

 

[berzeli]

Is there any historical or technical reason for the ultra wide ratios? I know they were seen initially as a way to counter TV, but why choose 2.35/2.40:1 rather than 16:9 or similar?

Motherfuck.
So I guess I'm going to have to expand on this.

The first modern widescreen ratio (or at least the first to receive wide adaptation) was Fox's Cinemascope, which originally was 2.66:1 (~twice the width of academy), an anamorphic (a wide image is squeezed into a narrow film frame) process.
What followed was competing formats by different studios and lens/camera makers all trying to capture the film going public. (so you have everything from Todd AO (2.20:1) to things like Ultra Panavision 70/MGM 65 (2.76:1))

And that's just the "ultra wide" formats. There were also multiple widescreen ratios ranging from about 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 that were popular.

Yet again 16:9 is a modern standard created to best accommodate the old formats, i.e. why the would they compose their image for a standard which at that point didn't exist?

 

[#1 defender]

Composed for multiple ratios.


And I was talking about how the widescreen standard for TVs was chosen. So posting films that were created after that standard was made as "evidence" or whatever makes no sense.

Fair enough. Didn't mean to disprove what you said, just wanted to add another high profile film that went for that OAR.

 

[okdakor]

It makes sense to film for what the majority of screens the movie will eventually be viewed on are at

A lot of people are watching movies on their phones, what about making them in vertical format ?

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

And that's just the "ultra wide" formats. There were also multiple widescreen ratios ranging from about 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 that were popular.

Mr Berggren,

1.66 turned into the de facto standard for Europe and 1.85 the de facto standard for the US, right?

Is there any known reason for why it differed?

 

[Occam]

I like watching videos using the aspect ratio in which they were filmed (or rather, originally framed).

 

[NekoFever]

It was fun/frustrating working at Suncoast Video during the transition to DVD and trying to explain this concept to people. Most people had it in their heads that letterboxing was the version that was cutting off the picture.

This is always funny to me. Like, why would they make a version with a chunk of the picture covered up for no reason?

Is there any historical or technical reason for the ultra wide ratios? I know they were seen initially as a way to counter TV, but why choose 2.35/2.40:1 rather than 16:9 or similar?

The wider ratios are closer to the human field of vision. Looks more impressive on the big screen.

16:9 didn't exist when the widescreen cinema formats were coming out. It's a modern format designed to be somewhere between the 4:3 material that was in abundance when widescreen TVs were introduced and the wider cinematic ratios. It's also close enough to the common 1.85:1 cinematic ratio (basically no difference in the CRT days because of overscan).

 

[Lynd7]

I'd prefer to see 16 x 9 be the standard for all content. It makes sense to film for what the majority of screens the movie will eventually be viewed on are at. However I can also understand filmmakers wanting the extra width at times for composition. That will likely die off as filmakers who grew up with 16 x 9 take over though. I just wish 16 x 10 had been the ratio that won.

I highly doubt it, film-makers love wider frames. I don't think anyone learning about film would think 16:9 is better than other wide aspect ratios.

 

[Azure Dream]

Some filmmakers think ahead though.

Which leads to some interesting issues, like pan-and-scan framing revealing unintended content. The first set of The Matrix pan-and-scan releases (and it might be VHS-only) have a hand popping up to pass Mr. Anderson (Neo) something from the bottom of the screen. (It's not the one that shows up behind him in the first release, then disappears next cut.) Totally because they changed the scene framing.

For a brief time, there were monsters suggesting classic movies be digitally edited to fit pan-and-scan better. The example I saw was Lawrence of Arabia, taking two characters who stood far apart, and scooching them closer. You know, completely changing the scene.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on a more subtle level with movies trying to refit to 16:9 now and then.

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

No. It was shot in 1.85:1

All digital films are shot in 1.78? But I guess you mean it was framed and screened in 1.85?

Or does Alexa (and other digital cameras) have a built in option to shoot natively in 1.85/2.39 to better use the pixels?

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

Which leads to some interesting issues, like pan-and-scan framing revealing unintended content. The first set of The Matrix pan-and-scan releases (and it might be VHS-only) have a hand popping up to pass Mr. Anderson (Neo) something from the bottom of the screen. (It's not the one that shows up behind him in the first release, then disappears next cut.) Totally because they changed the scene framing.

For a brief time, there were monsters suggesting classic movies be digitally edited to fit pan-and-scan better. The example I saw was Lawrence of Arabia, taking two characters who stood far apart, and scooching them closer. You know, completely changing the scene.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on a more subtle level with movies trying to refit to 16:9 now and then.

If it's framed for it, it doesn't (shouldn't) reveal unintended content. Like Cameron did for T2.

The problem comes when someones just opens it up (open matte) without thinking or fucks with the frame. Like with your The Matrix example and other films where the mick boom is visable and such.

T2 was shot with consideration of both home video (1.33) and cinema (2.35).

With 16x9 being wide and not that different from 2.35 and with people being used to black bars, I doubt anyone nowadays feel like they have to consider different ARs.

Or are there any examples of modern films which have been shot with different AR:s in mind?

 

[berzeli]

1.66 turned into the de facto standard for Europe and 1.85 the de facto standard for the US, right?

Is there any known reason for why it differed?

It's actually bit of a misnomer to call anything widescreen related for a "standard", like I hinted at in the previous post is that there were a tonne of competing formats.
Sure, 1.66:1 was more popular in Europe than the States. But you have multiple American films shot in 1.66:1 and multiple films shot in Europe in 1.85:1.

A bit unclear, there was definitely an economic aspect to it. New screens for theatres weren't cheap and there had been a costly war not that long ago.
Then again it varied from theatre to theatre (and projectionist to projectionist), which is why that Kubrick letter about Barry Lyndon exists.

All digital films are shot in 1.78? But I guess you mean it was framed and screened in 1.85?

Or does Alexa (and other digital cameras) have a built in option to shoot natively in 1.85/2.39 to better use the pixels?

The Arri Alexa has a bunch of different settings, but if you shoot it open gate (i.e. using the full sensor) it's actually something like 1.55:1.

And The Avengers was a fucking disaster when it came to the cameras (which is why it looks so bad in comparison to most blockbusters despite having a great DoP).

As a cinematographer I absolutely despise it. To shoot native 3D is so complex. The machinery involved completely goes against any kind of fluidity to the camera. It takes so long to set up. We actually started shooting “The Avengers” on real 3D using Red cameras and AnimaTechnica rig. After one day of shooting the director said that we’re not doing it. Sam Jackson and Stellan Skarsgård said that we better get our act together or they are out. It really got that serious. Each lens change was 45 minutes, it was a disaster to align the cameras up. In the end we did it in post which is a much better way of doing it. You can dynamic shifting dimensionality during the shot, play with it quite a bit. But I really hope it goes away.

So lord knows what they shot it at.

 

[.J.]

Is it 1999?

Seriously. I'm having flashbacks to arguing with dumb family members early in the life of DVD. I can't believe I'm seeing this conversation again.

OP, imagine somebody arguing, "Why don't directors just film in the standard TV aspect ratio?" back in 2000.

 

[Temeculan3000]

Install a 2.35 screen and a projector with a motorized lens.

Done. No more black bars.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Lots of people don't. I worked installing DirecTV and tons of people of all ages want to zoom the screen in to get rid of the black bars.

 

[mrklaw]

This is always funny to me. Like, why would they make a version with a chunk of the picture covered up for no reason?



The wider ratios are closer to the human field of vision. Looks more impressive on the big screen.

16:9 didn't exist when the widescreen cinema formats were coming out. It's a modern format designed to be somewhere between the 4:3 material that was in abundance when widescreen TVs were introduced and the wider cinematic ratios. It's also close enough to the common 1.85:1 cinematic ratio (basically no difference in the CRT days because of overscan).

honestly this thread is the first time I've read that 16:9 was designed as a compromise between academy and wider movie ratios. I thought 16:9 was supposed to be a golden ratio and thats why it was chosen?

Cinemascope makes kinda sense - twice as wide as TV so I guess it was a marketing thing at the time. But why were others different - bit of an arms race with studios?

edit: and now I just read that the golden ratio is apparantly bollocks

 

[-shadow-]

I must admit that I really like it in some films when they open up the image a bit more if the framing allows so. Pirates, Skyfall, Titanic and couple other films allow a more open presentation and admittedly I prefer it in some of them. While I understand the wide screen, I genuinely think that for some films the framing is way too tight for its own good. Titanic especially looked way better with the extra image. Though Original Aspect Ratio is always the go to, but if it's possible, I genuinely wouldn't mind seeing a bit more image.

Spoiler

And cropping wide-screen to fit a TV can bugger off.

 

[Various Artists]

It's awful and I would never suggest this to people that appreciate cinematography but you could use the zoom feature on your tv OP. ::barf: