what makes Directors choose 2:35:1 or 1:85:1?

[defense]

Hi, I have been doing my homework on aspect ratios and I was wondering when filming widescreen films what makes the directors decide whether they will make it widescreen 2:35:1, or 1:85:1? I personally think movies that are "wider" like the "scoped" or 2:35:1 aspect ratios are better.

Take two superhero movies for example. Spiderman and X-men. Spiderman was filmed as 1:85:1 which is closer to full screen then 2:35:1. When you look at X-MEN, I think it just looks better then Spiderman with the 2:35:1 aspect ratio which is wider.


I don't even have a widescreen TV, but on my 36' Sony, I think they look great. Anyway, if anyone wouldn't mind elaborating on what makes a director choose between one or the other when filming, I would definitely like to know. Thanks in advance

[cjw2]

As far as I know, it pretty much depends on the camera they use to create the film: Panavision is 2:35:1 and anything else (like digital) is 1:85:1. I'm not sure if this is the main reason but it is a consideration.

[Bob W]

I think they make it 2.35:1 when they want to piss off as many folks as possible that have standard TV's.

[defense]

that was a quick reply, thanks. I may be wrong and I have no clue, but I don't doubt what you say is true, however, I almost certainly doubt that is the reason why one aspect ratio is chosen over another. When you look at the two studios which produced the above mentioned movies, you are talking about $$$$ between them. It's not like they have one camera and not the other..you know? Anyway, it's still interesting to know it's the type of camera which yields the different aspect ratios.

@Bobw, lol....actually, I think if people understood the differences between the two aspect ratios (4:3 & 16:9) then they wouldn't care if they had a 13' TV and had nothing but 2:35:1 movies. For some reason people think that 4:3 movies are better, even on standard 4:3 TV's, but that couldn't be further from the truth. They aren't getting the movie the way it was intended to be seen, and has to be altered/formatted to fit the screen of those 4:3 tv's. As I mentioned above, I have a 36' Sony, and I love the 2:35:1 movies. I'm not trying to fill up my screen, I'm trying to get the most out of the movie. Anyway, hopefully some others that know about this can elaborate on why directors choose one over the other. Spiderman would of looked much better at 2:35:1 IMHO. 8)

[adam]

Its not so much the camera as it is the lens they use.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/video-format3.htm

Here is an interesting history of aspect ratios. Basically, Director's generally prefer a wider picture but still film with 4:3 tv's in mind as well. Hopefully that will change before too long as widescreen tv's become the norm. I think that often the director just uses the lens that they are more comfortable with and the one they have the most experience with.

I could see a wider aspect ratio being an asthetic choice if the movie had alot of open scenery, and I could see a narrower aspect ratio being chosen for those intellectual thrillers, you know the ones where all that happens is alot of talk. Anyone ever seen Thirteen Days? 85% of the movie takes place in the oval office, your not going to gain anything by using a wide aspect ratio there.

My tv is only 27" and I generally prefer the picture as wide as possible.

[defense]

hey adam, I guess you work the night shift huh? lol...that's when I see your posts. Anyway, i'm going to check out that link you input, I'm sure it will be very interesting and informative. What you are saying about the type of movie makes a lot of sense, as does how the director feels with the lens. I don't know why I haven't noticed it before, but now that i'm reading up and learning about aspect ratios, I'm starting to notice that SEVERAL commercials are WIDESCREEN...LOL...man, that's funny..at least to me it is. I just saw three commercials on ESPN that were all the 1:85:1 aspect ratio. It's just another thing to learn, but I think it is really interesting.

My tv is only 27" and I generally prefer the picture as wide as possible.

Yep, mine is just a little bigger then that at 36' and I prefer as wide a picture as possible too. Hopefully what you are saying regarding the directors shooting more and more film without the thought of 4:3 tv's will be true.

[energy80s]

I don't know why I haven't noticed it before, but now that i'm reading up and learning about aspect ratios, I'm starting to notice that SEVERAL commercials are WIDESCREEN...LOL...man, that's funny..at least to me it is.

Considering that most commercials have a much higher budget than the TV shows they interrupt, and are usually directed by movie directors, it's hardly surprising that they are more "movie" in appearance.

And a 36" TV, God that must be massive! What sort of houses do you people live in!!

[yg1968]

Here is a thread that explains the different aspect ratio. My understanding is that a 1.85 or 2.35 ratios will still show black bars on a 16:9 (1.77) TV.

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144353

[DvdHeader]

Yes it still does show black bars on a 16:9 T.V. unless the movie is anamorphic or enhanced for widescreen T.V.. I have a Sony 65" widescreen HDTV (that's awesome by the way ) and anamorphic 1.85:1 movies don't show any bars. The 1.85:1 non-anamorphic movies show about a 1" thick black bar at top and bottom.

The anamorphic 2.35:1 movies show the same 1" black bar as with the non-anamorphic 1.85:1. And the non-anamorphic 2.35:1 movies show about a 2" thick black bar. My T.V. is always set in 'wide zoom' mode.
Of course if I set my T.V. to 'full' widescreen mode there are no bars at all but that is not the way to watch widescreen movies at best.

P.S.: I took a look at the link that was mentioned above and it is very informative.

[Xoanon]

Super-35 is being used more and more by directors. It gives a 2.35:1 image (although rarely used for 1.85:1), but when it comes to making a 4:3 copy, extra picture information at the top and bottom of the film can be used which wasn't seen in the widescreen version, in order to minimize cropping on the sides. The TERMINATOR 2 DVD has a good example of this.

To see what I mean, look at the scene in T2 when the T-1000 impales Todd through the mouth. As we pan across to see him in the regular 4:3 version, look towards the bottom of the screen and you can see the actor is leaning on a green pad to avoid hurting his back on the worktop! In the widescreen version, the "black bars" matte this information over because you were never meant to see it.

Super-35 also has a greater depth of field than regular anamorphic 2.35:1. The depth of field for Super-35 is the same as the 1.85:1 ratio, and directors such as Roger Spottiswoode like Super-35 for this reason.

[adam]

Yeah Super 35 is terrible when converted to fullscreen. Tons of stuff shows up that wasn't meant to be there. Watch fullscreen LOTR's. In one scene you can see a car in the background and another a telephone pole. You also see alot of boom mics in these types of conversions.

[Xoanon]

Yeah Super 35 is terrible when converted to fullscreen. Tons of stuff shows up that wasn't meant to be there

I have mixed feelings about Super-35. I think the greater DOF is good but being able to make "good" 4:3 transfers from it is bad in that people who hate widescreen can use the "black bars are covering up picture" argument and actually be correct for once. I never think of 4:3 when shooting my stuff in widescreen. Also, in the 4:3 transfers, the main picture information is usually near the top 1/3rd of the screen, with huge gaps of frame at the bottom where the bars should be. The 4:3 version of THE PATRIOT (the Gibson pic) is awful.

Widescreen rules. End of discussion!

[DJRumpy]

I have a 57" Widescreen HDTV. Any movie that has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 will have very small letterboxing borders (it looks about like a 1.85:1 aspect ratio does on a 4:3 TV). They ar about 3 inches high on a TV of this size. For movies with aspect ratios of 1.85:1, they are a 16:9 TV's version of Fullscreen mode.

I for one am glad that these newer shows are comming out in widescreen. The Sci-Fi channel put's most of it's output in widescreen now. I capture a few of my favorite shows. These shows are actually 1.85:1. Crop off the borders, and they fit perfectly on a 16:9 TV.

I have an excellent link, show the various pan&scan methods, cropping, and chop jobs done to make a movie fit on a 4:3 TV.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

It's a good read if your interested in the history. It also shows you the side by side difference between widescreen and pan&scan versions.

[Xoanon]

That links interesting, saw it for the first time a few years ago.

Love your signature, BTW. Somewhat poignant in these times of despair...

[DJRumpy]

It's actually a mis-quote from the movie. I can't remember the exact text, but every time I re-watch it, I realize I quoted it wrong.

I should fix that one of these days...