Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shrek 2 Aspect Ratio

This is topic Shrek 2 Aspect Ratio in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006197

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-20-2004, 11:03 PM:

Is this really 1.85:1? Over in the FITA, Brad points me at the reel ID db. It looks like 1.66:1 there to me.

I measure 85pixels x 52 pixels, which is 1.63:1. Then, measuring the ratio of 1 perf's pitch to the width, I get 136pixels/18pixels (7.{5}), and it should be 7.37 (35/25.4/.187), that's a 1.025 distortion. Applying that to 1.63:1 yields 1.67:1 (pretty close to 1.66:1).

So, is it really 1.85:1?

--jhawk

p.s.: The question of which A/R to show it in is, of course, different, but it's hard for me to imagine animated features have elements that the animators would rather we crop out...

(Joe's edit was to move this from Yak, I guess; oh, and to expand the topic title from "A/R" to "Aspect Ratio"

[ 05-21-2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-20-2004, 11:24 PM:

Perhaps done that way for compatibility with European locations that will screen Shrek 2 in 1.66?

For the animators, the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 isn't that much. They could protect for 1.85 and allow for fall off out to 1.66.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-20-2004, 11:28 PM:

Practically all exhibitors are equipped for 1:1.85, fewer and fewer for 1:1.66 although that format is still used regularly. I think this might be more with the later family friendly full screen TV version in mind.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-21-2004, 01:02 AM:

Or an IMAX release maybe?

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-21-2004, 02:26 AM:

There was a 3 minute test of the original Shrek converted to 3D IMAX. I saw it at a couple of industry events including VFX2002 in London.It looked amazing. [Cool]

There were rumours around last autumn that Shrek 2 was going to be a "standard" IMAX DMR release but nothing concrete has emerged.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-21-2004, 12:42 PM:

Michael Schaffer wrote:

quote: Michael Schaffer

Practically all exhibitors are equipped for 1:1.85, fewer and fewer for 1:1.66 although that format is still used regularly.

That's right, but with animated features, some theatres preferred to show them 1.66 because the prints looked so unsharp (e.g. TOY STORY, ICE AGE), I saw FINDING NEMO on 1.66 and was very glad they didn't make it even more blurry by going to 1.85.

But I doubt this was only a problem of rendering/recording resolution, maybe the usual sloppy mass printing ("I don't want it good, I want 1200 print for this market, and I want them Tuesday!")was responsible for this.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-21-2004, 02:56 PM:

Michael mentioned 1.66 for the eventual "family friendly full screen" video release. Which reminds me that I forgot that 1.66 will also cover both SD and future HD 1.78 DVD releases... [Embarrassed]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-22-2004, 10:10 AM:

I remember running BEAUTY AND THE BEAST which was hard-matted at 1.85, contrary to the SMPTE Recommended Practice, I might add. It became painfully apparent that this feature was animated full frame and with the TV/Cable video market as the prime audience. Thing is, the animators didn't keep that 1.85 safe; there were shots where heads and chins were chopped off and composition looked claustrophobic through out. Had this print been hard matted at 1.66, I would gladly have projected it that way.

I later was able to get both a letterboxed Laserdisc version and a full frame VHS version and ran them side by side. Sure enough, the full-frame looked perfect -- framed so that heads were composed properly whereas the letterbox version was simply the masked full-frame image without any attempt to recenter. And indeed, there was no way you could recenter the closeup shots because they filled the 1.37 frame perfectly.

Funny how at one time it was the theatrical version that was the primary focus of the cinematographer -- whatever happened in the video realm was, well, whatever. We seem to have slowly moved in the other direction, where what used to be called the ancillary market, video, that's what the film is created for. At times, the theatrical release seems to be nothing more than an overblown advertisement for the real meat-and-potatoes....the video market.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 05-22-2004, 10:59 AM:

Well, ever since the advent of Super 35, chopping-off-heads has been an accepted compositional technique.

As for Shrek 2, since an entire 3D environment is programmed, the extra height is just a matter of computational time. As the top and bottom have a heavier mix of 2D elements than the center of the frame, the additional computational time is minimal.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-22-2004, 05:45 PM:

Have you people never watched true anamorphic movies before? Chopping off heads is proper composition provided the idea is to get in that close on the subject. The EYELINE should be 1/4 to 1/3 down from the top of the screen. If the eyeline is followed, everything else falls into place 99.9% of the time (things such as landscapes are where this doesn't apply). It's basic cinematography.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 05-22-2004, 10:27 PM:

Sure, I've seen lots of anamorphic films before. But the extreme closeup was extremely rare prior to the advent of Super 35, and done when it suited the dramatic purposes of the picture. Now, it's done as a matter of habit.

Perhaps this is more a Clint Eastwood-style objection to the prevalence of the ECU in modern films (he uses his own medicine: Mystic River is photographed with a lot more breathing room than most of today's 2.39 films). A movie composed of ECU after ECU (without good reason) is still poorly composed even if they follow the compositional rules for each ECU.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-23-2004, 12:01 AM:

So you don't like the style then. That's fine, but for you to say the composition is poor, that's a bad choice of terminology.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-23-2004, 12:34 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
the theatrical release seems to be nothing more than an overblown advertisement for the real meat-and-potatoes....the video market.

I wish people would quit saying this. If it wasn't for the theatrical release, there wouldn't BE a meat-and-potatoes video market.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-23-2004, 11:18 AM:

I thought NEMO was hard-matted for 1.85? At least, that's what I remember. I thought it was a bit out of frame at one scene, (the fishes seemed higher than they should be) and when I went to frame down, the black bar appeared at the top instantly. So I framed back up, and the bottom one started to ceep up. So I'm assuming it's exactly 1.85. (Yes, the masking was set correctly, and it's side-masking)

For the DVD of Nemo, I heard they pulled a "Super35" type pan-n-scan. They chopped off only a little bit off the sides, and opened up the top and bottom of the frame to fill the 1.33 ratio. (I think it was shot at 1.78 on the computers)

=TMP=

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2004, 12:13 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
So you don't like the style then. That's fine, but for you to say the composition is poor, that's a bad choice of terminology.

When a character's face moves out of the frame and that character is the focus of the action, yet the frame cuts across his eyes, or he is decapitated by the frame edge, then that's no longer style, but something any student in Composition 1.1 knows is just bad compostion. Yes, you can give benefit of the doubt to a lot of crap and call it style (BLAIR WITCHCRAFT, CHELSEA WALLS come to mind), but most people who live and breath film and film imagery can distinguish between style and just bad composition. And then there's bad style as well.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I wish people would quit saying this. If it wasn't for the theatrical release, there wouldn't BE a meat-and-potatoes video market.

And I wish the studios would stop cutting the legs out of releases so that that whole ancilliary market, now the "second run" theatres, had the same chance they had at playing product as they did when there was a reasonable window between theatrical and video release dates. Someplace along the line it was decided that as soon as enough hoopla was generated in the opening weeks of the theatrical release, the title is already being readied for its launch into the video world. That doesn't say much for the regard studios moguls have for theatrical exhibition. Even first-run exhibitors have had a one-note lament for the past few decades: "PLEASE don't go to video so fast." Yet the window keeps getting smaller and smaller. And VIDEO grosses keep getting bigger and bigger. The traditional protection that a well-paced released schedule to different markets has evaporated and the result has pretty much changed the entire exhibition landscape. If "I'll just wait for it to come to cable or DVD" meant a good 6 to 10 months as it used to, allot more people would choose to see it at the theatre instead. Today when people discuss a film around the water cooler, a good percentage of them are not talking about their theatre experience but of their pay-per-view or even their video rental experience.

Granted, there is no substantive video market for box office flops (most times). But the industry continues to reduce theatrical exhibition to just another one of the steps in its marketing system, not the primary goal to achieve maximum return at the box office. Once the theatrical release has fulfilled it's goal -- to make everyone aware of a title -- then the focus quickly shifts elseware.... like the sales of those little shiney DVD things.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-24-2004, 06:28 AM:

Thomas asks, "I thought NEMO was hard-matted for 1.85?"

No, like all Disney animations, Pixar/Disney animations are composed for 1.78:1 (err, or is it 1.75:1? I always forget).

Ironically, with all these posts, I thought there would be arguing that I was wrong and miscalculated and that Shrek 2 really was 1.85:1. Wow! [Cool]

--jhawk

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 05-24-2004, 06:56 AM:

When I talked to the head of PDI/Filmworks rendering department last year while Sherk II was in production he mentioned that it was being scanned at 1920 HDTV standard at 1.78 ratio. I saw the film last week in a house with 1.85 plate and it looked a little tight in a few scenes but nothing major.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-24-2004, 11:30 AM:

I just ran MIDNIGHT COWBOY -- brand new print (thank you, MGM Classics, who have quietly been striking new prints of their library over the past few years now). Unfortunately, one of our 3.75in lenses for 1.85 was dropped and cracked. I had to run at 1.66. Not a big deal one might think. Unless one is the cineamatographer or producer! Adam Hollender as well as the producer were there and Adam sure did notice that it wasn't 1.85. Which I was actually very impressed with -- it's not a very big difference. Of course the print was full frame and everything was safe way out past 1.66 so set gack or mics were not ever an issue. Luckily Mr. Hollender was fine with it and the fact that it was a spanking new mint print made him just beam with delight. He and the producer spoke for nearly an hour afterward about their X-rated-yet-Best-Picture-Oscar-Winner picture.