Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 1.66 Aspect Ratio Question

This is topic 1.66 Aspect Ratio Question 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=012005

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-15-2016, 08:50 AM:

In a discussion on another forum, the question came up regarding the 1.66 flat aspect ratio. Is it still used in Europe? If not, when was it phased out?

Posted by Rob J. Buskop (Member # 3338) on 06-15-2016, 09:55 AM:

The very pleasing 1.66 format is still used by discriminating collectors, properly equipped repertoiry theatres, film museums and archives. It's a great ratio for VistaVision (the original recommended format)and many other pictures with rack lines that allow 1.66. Since automation came in most anything was shown in the rather poor in quality 1.85 ratio. Unless hard masked for 1.85 I like to use 1.66 with greater sharpness and better light unless mikes or other paraphenaliae show up in the picture.

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 06-15-2016, 10:55 AM:

1.75 still 'crops' up here occasionally too. I agree with Rob, that 1.66 usually gives a more pleasing image than 1.85 , which could seem to struggle a bit on all but the smallest screens.

I think 1.66 was the European standard widescreen ratio ?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-15-2016, 12:08 PM:

I think what Mitchell is asking is whether or not 1.66 is still used as an intended aspect ratio for projection in any new productions.

My best guess at an answer is no, except very rarely and as a conscious artistic choice as distinct from using a current technical standard. It was used in France well into the late 1990s, when there appeared to be a shift to 1.85: it was around that time that I started to show prints of French movies, made in French labs, that were hard matted to 1.85. It might not have been the last, but one of the last prints I remember showing that had a 1.66 hard matte was Secret défense.

I can only remember playing one newly produced film since I re-entered the theater business in 2014 that was clearly intended for projection in 1.66, which was a documentary about motorbikes, shot on Super 16, called The Greasy Hands Preachers. The DCP's aspect ratio tag was F-166, and the container was indeed matted accordingly.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-15-2016, 12:29 PM:

Thanks Leo.

What prompted this question was a discussion about the intended correct aspect ratio for The Man With The Golden Gun. In the USA, that would have been 1.85, but the actual prints are full frame with sections that are hard matted to 1.66. As this is a British production, I was wondering if it was intended to be shown 1.66 in Europe. The general consensus is that it was intended to be shown 1.85 everywhere.

Posted by James Biggins (Member # 8574) on 06-15-2016, 01:03 PM:

The UK/New Zealand produced Western "Slow West" starring Michael Fassbender and released in 2015 was shot digitally in the 1.66:1 ratio.

Posted by Mike Babb (Member # 1379) on 06-15-2016, 01:30 PM:

I forget the title, but something we ran at Sundance this year was 1.66. And we also ran Slow West the year before in 1.66.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 06-15-2016, 02:31 PM:

Most British productions shifted towards the 1.75-1 format as early as the late '50s. The divide seems to have been based upon what theater chain in the UK would pick it up. Films with American money in the forefront almost exclusively became 1.85 or 1.75.

The general rule of thumb (although not always correct) is that whatever the hard matte is is the next AR down from the intended AR. So, 1.5 is used for 1.66, 1.66 is used for 1.75, 1.75 for 1.85, etc.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-15-2016, 03:26 PM:

For historical productions yes (if they had any hard matte at all: many did not, had full height frames, and if there was any doubt about the intended ratio for projection, your two options for establishing it would be to see if the opening titles gave you any clue, and/or establish what ratio will show a boom mic on the screen however you frame it, and use the next wider one), but the few new productions being released on 35mm now are almost all printed from an IN that is a filmout from a digital intermediate, and therefore have the matte of the intended production ratio.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-15-2016, 03:51 PM:

We just showed the DCP of Francofonia, which was matted to 1:66 within the 1:85 box.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-15-2016, 05:41 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
Most British productions shifted towards the 1.75-1 format as early as the late '50s

Rank adopting VistaVision might have had something to do with that.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-15-2016, 07:26 PM:

We had something within the last few weeks which was 1.66. I'm not sure now what it was, The Witch, possibly? It's not common now, but new films do occasionally turn up. We're seeing quite a lot of 1.78 now, mainly documentary material shot on cheap HD cameras. Son of Saul was 1.38, hadn't seen a new film in that ratio for a while.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-15-2016, 07:45 PM:

I projected two 35mm Son of Saul screenings at which the director did a Q & A afterwards, and was hoping that someone in the audience would have asked him about his decision to use 1.37. It was weird and very distinctive to see a movie that had the vivid colors and crisp definition of 2383, but in the old screen shape. It might have been a straightforward authenticity gesture (that was the aspect ratio of movies in the time this one was set), but I'd have been interested to know if the reasoning went any deeper. It certainly added something to the claustrophobic atmosphere of the scenes inside the concentration camp, and the tension of the chase at the end.

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 06-16-2016, 03:24 AM:

The 1.666 or 5:3 aspect ratio was mainly in use in central Europe, more than in France, the UK or Italy. I know a number of German and Czechoslovakian productions in 1.66. I think the reasoning of the time was that the ratio is close to the golden section (1.618), it was actually heard among projectionists that one should try to mask that out of 1.66 prints. Most projectionists wouldn’t know about the golden section, so I might have been one of very few. 5 to 3 exactly is a dynamic format, yet less than 4 to 3.