Film aspect ratios

[Dave2002]

We went to see the Darkest Hour at the weekend - pretty good film. Previously we had been to see Murder on the Orient Express in the same venue. I had the feeling that the Darkest Hour was not in a widescreen aspect ratio, though it pretty much filled the whole cinema screen.
This was, however, just an impresssion. Murder on the Orient Express was filmed in Panavision, while I suspect that the Darkest Hour wasn't filmed in anything quite so exotic.

If my suspicions are correct (which is not certain), then actually it ought to have been possible to have greater resolution in the Darkest Hour than the other film, as more vertical space is available. However, it may be that seeing films through a 2.4 (or thereabouts) aspect ratio window gives a greater impression of width than other aspect ratios - e.g. HD TV standard 16:9.

Are the projector lenses used in digital cinemas now spherical, or do they still use an anamorphic lens combination, so that the digital image itself is also stretched out? I had thought that the stretching was in the horizontal plane, but in fact for a lot of film it seems that the stretching at the projector was vertical. However, the use of anamorphic lenses and processing has been known to cause odd effects in the past - sometimes known as "mumps".

[LMcD]

I don't know much - well anything really - about the technical side of things, but I know a cracking good film when I see one! I've always regarded Robert Hardy's 1981 depiction of Churchill as definitive, but I think Gary Oldman is his equal. I don't know what the cinematic equivalent of a 'coup de theâtre' is, but there were some wonderful examples, e.g. after the Calais Commander had read his orders.

[pastoralguy]

An interesting question, Dave. Certainly, in the days of 35mm, plates and lenses were changed to accommodate the aspect ratio. (Mind you, it wasn't always implemented in certain multiplexes! I remember seeing a Michael Douglas movie with the soundtrack clearly projected on the screen and a CinemaScope film shown without the anamorphic lens! I spoke to the 'usher' who immediately asked what an anamorphic lens was. After being enlightened, he contacted the projection room and there was a click and two seconds of blank screen before the correct lens was employed).

Anyway, I imagine that the ratio should be coded into the films data so mistakes like the above don't occur. I'll see what I can find out from my Projectionist friends.

[Dave2002]

pastoralguy

I may actually not be fully up to date - though it might also depend on the cinema venue. I'm not sure whether modern cinemas use projection methods at all - or at least some may not. There are fancy screen technologies which work with millions of small mirrors which move but I'm not sure if these are used in current UK cinemas, or whether images are still projected on to a screen from some form of "projector". The kinds of projectors which are used for lectures and business use nowadays often use liquid crystal devices, or arrays of piezo electric crystals which move minute mirrors, but whether they are used for large cinemas I don't know.

[pastoralguy]

Hi Dave. Certainly, in the U.K., it's digital projection with these new behemoths replacing the 35mm machines. (Some of which were installed in the 1950's and were still providing sterling service before being replaced!) I was recently in the projection room of Edinburgh's 'Filmhouse' cinema 1 which still has two 35mm machines to run 'repertoire' movies as well as 70mm shows. ('Laurence of Arabia' on a new print being one such occasion). Alas, I have little interest in digital cinemas so I'm not terribly interested in how they work but Mrs. PG and I have a couple of trips to the cinema planned soon so I'll see what I can find out.

Often, archives who loan old movies insist that their prints are run on the old style 2 projector method which involves changing from one machine to the other after 20 minutes. Most 'first run', I.e. Multiplex cinemas used a platter system which simply involved joining all the reels together. However, this usually entails a couple of frames being lost when The print is disassembled. Since these archive films may be one of the last prints in existence, archives are very protective of their material.

Sorry, my anorak is swamping me!

[Dave2002]

Re anoraks:

In Seattle there's actually this - https://cinerama.com/ which I think requires three (3) film projectors to be synchronised. It was still working last year, though I didn't check it out. I believe I only saw one Cinerama film many years ago, but the venue has now been turned into a supermarket I think - http://goo.gl/TPiYDT

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There are so many widescreen film ratios, and TV HD 16:9 isn't normally one of them. Very close is the moderate widescreen 1.85:1, which is ever so slightly wider than the widescreen television, though there's an even narrower "widescreen" ratio of 1.66:1, used in some Disney films.

The most common widescreen ratio is the Panavision 2.35:1, but there have been others:

2001 - A Space Odyssey, was a slightly smaller 2.2:1, as were The Sound of Music and Lawrence of Arabia.

The Bridge on the River Kwai was extremely wide - 2.55:1, but - wait for it, Ben Hur (not the pathetic recent remake) was made in a whopping 2.76:1, which is brilliant in the cinema, but less good on a TV screen.

I experimented with making widescreen cine films in the 1980s, so I have two anamorphic lenses including a genuine CinemaScope lens (which is actually rather tiny) plus a cheaper one of the more normal size. It's amazing how popular you become when film buffs want to borrow one of these, when they've ordered the wrong print by mistake.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Then, of course, there are attempts to make widescreen prints from standard Academy format (1.33:1) originals. I saw Fantasia shown in this way, but all they did there was to stretch the picture, making the people the centaurs, the mountains, Mickey Mouse, etc., looking extremely obese, but returning to Academy format for the pictures of Stokowski and the orchestra. A diabolical mistake which wasn't repeated for later releases.

Gone with the Wind was shown in a moderate (1.85:1) widescreen format by carefully cropping the film. It didn't appeal to purists/film HIPPsters (like me - yes, really), but it was well done if you like such a thing.

More recently, Star Trek episodes have been given similar treatment.

[Jasmine Bassett]

For several years now the mainstream UK cinema has been digital with only a few arthouse and special venues retaining their 35mm (and 70mm) projectors. The vast majority of the installed digital projectors use the Texas Instruments DLP techology (wobbling mirrors). ( http://www.ti.com/dlp-technology/mar...al-cinema.html )

There are other projection methods and the one which has gained some interest recently uses multiple lasers to generate the image (for example https://www.barco.com/en/Products/Pr...ema-projectors ).

As far as aspect ratios are concerned the two most widely used for new movies are so called "flat" 1:1.85 and "scope" 1:2.35. Some digital projectors used to have the option of swapping lenses between the two formats but usually that is now done simply by using more or fewer pixels on the chip. When the cinema is constructed the choice has to be made between whether the native size of the screen fits the flat or the scope format. In the case of the former, scope films will occupy the full width but will have a black band top and bottom of the screen and in the case of the later falt films will occupy the full height of the screen but will have black to each side. For cost reasons hardly any cinemas are now built with moveable masking.

[Jasmine Bassett]

For several years now the mainstream UK cinema has been digital with only a few arthouse and special venues retaining their 35mm (and 70mm) projectors. The vast majority of the installed digital projectors use the Texas Instruments DLP techology (wobbling mirrors). ( http://www.ti.com/dlp-technology/mar...al-cinema.html )

There are other projection methods and the one which has gained some interest recently uses multiple lasers to generate the image (for example https://www.barco.com/en/Products/Pr...ema-projectors ).

As far as aspect ratios are concerned the two most widely used for new movies are so called "flat" 1:1.85 and "scope" 1:2.35. Some digital projectors used to have the option of swapping lenses between the two formats but usually that is now done simply by using more or fewer pixels on the chip. When the cinema is constructed the choice has to be made between whether the native size of the screen fits the flat or the scope format. In the case of the former, scope films will occupy the full width but will have a black band top and bottom of the screen and in the case of the later falt films will occupy the full height of the screen but will have black to each side. For cost reasons hardly any cinemas are now built with moveable masking.

[Dave2002]

... the two most widely used for new movies are so called "flat" 1:1.85 and "scope" 1:2.35.

Of the two films I mentioned in msg 1, Darkest Hour and Murder on the Orient Express - do you know what aspect ratios were used for those? Is this the kind of information which is readily available. I looked in obvious places like IMDB, and that information doesn't appear to be provided. Would it not be possible for film databases to keep this detail and make the information available?

[Stunsworth]

Of the two films I mentioned in msg 1, Darkest Hour and Murder on the Orient Express - do you know what aspect ratios were used for those? Is this the kind of information which is readily available. I looked in obvious places like IMDB, and that information doesn't appear to be provided. Would it not be possible for film databases to keep this detail and make the information available?

If you click on ‘full technical specs’ on IMDB you’ll usually see the aspect ratio. Darkest Hour for example...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/technical

[Dave2002]

Here is Murder on the Orient Express - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3402236/...ef_=tt_ql_dt_6

2.2 or 2.39 ratio.

Given that it was projected onto the same screen, and roughly the same width, the implication is that it wouldn't have gone so "high" up the screen in the cinema venue.

The widescreen aspect ratio does give a different feel.

[Dave2002]

I found this about iMax - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX though this normally seems to give a max aspect ratio of 2.39.

I assume that nowadays hardly any "films" are made using real film stock - and instead are made using digital high resolution cameras. However, I'm not sure that this is the case for all films which are being made - for example Branagh's "Murder on the OE". Surely it's now uneconomic to do anything with analogue film, and distribution to cinemas is presumably done by secure digital downloads for projection using digital equipment. If any movies are made to film they are then presumably digitised - though that would seem to be pointless if digital cameras can now give as good or better results - though that was perhaps not the case until recently. I also guess that there has been a period during which both film and digitial video recordings have been used in the editing stages, as digital editing is now easier than cutting film and glueing it back together.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I found this about iMax - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX though this normally seems to give a max aspect ratio of 2.39.

I assume that nowadays hardly any "films" are made using real film stock - and instead are made using digital high resolution cameras. However, I'm not sure that this is the case for all films which are being made - for example Branagh's "Murder on the OE". Surely it's now uneconomic to do anything with analogue film, and distribution to cinemas is presumably done by secure digital downloads for projection using digital equipment. If any movies are made to film they are then presumably digitised - though that would seem to be pointless if digital cameras can now give as good or better results - though that was perhaps not the case until recently. I also guess that there has been a period during which both film and digitial video recordings have been used in the editing stages, as digital editing is now easier than cutting film and glueing it back together.

Both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were filmed on Kodak film according to the credits. Start Wars 9 will carry on in a similar way:

http://collider.com/star-wars-9-65mm-film/