This is topic Lost in Translation Aspect ratio.. in forum The Afterlife 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=12;t=000256
Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 02-11-2004, 09:52 PM:
 
I just bought the lost in translation dvd in widescreen. Upon looking up the feature info here I see that it was filmed in flat 1.85. How do you get a widescreen dvd out of a flat film? Is there bars on the side? Would it be just fine to get the fullscreen version? (I haven't opened the dvd.)

If this is a newbie question I apologize I rarely purchase dvd's (last one was amelie) and I am in the dark about this.

Thanks
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-11-2004, 10:42 PM:
 
An anamorphic widescreen DVD is native 16:9 (1.78). So LOST IN TRANSLATION will have very tiny bars on the bottom and top if shown in widescreen formaton a widescreen TV. If you have a standard width TV and the mode of the DVD player is correctly set for standard TV's, the image will show correctly at 1.85. The image in both cases will go all the way to the edge of your TV.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-11-2004, 10:47 PM:
 
I see Lost in Translation is available on DVD in either "Full Screen" or "Widescreen" versions.

For "Widescreen" the original intended 1.85 image could be letterboxed to fit within the 1.33 area resulting in black bars at the top and bottom of the 1.33 frame. The original intended 1.85 image could also be anamorphically squeezed into the 1.33 frame, thus reducing the amount of letterboxing needed (the black bars would still there but not as big). Anamorphic transfer also gives slightly better vertical resolution since more scan lines are used for the image area. When viewed on a 16:9 (1.78) display you might not see the black bars due to overscan. Usually such discs have some sort of "enhanced for wide screen TVs" label on the package. Currently there is no industry standard for labels on DVDs, so sometimes it's hard to tell how the transfer was done.

The same options are available for 2.35 productions transferred to video--letterbox with lots of black bar showing or anamorphic transfer with not quite so much black bar showing. These transfers are also called "Widescreen". It looks like most studios do not differentiate between 1.85 and 2.35 for the labeling on these DVDs--in many cases they are both called "Widescreen".

Sometimes the image is shrunk to slightly inside the 1.33 frame giving a black border on all four sides. This "windowboxing" sacrifices a little resolution in an attempt to ensure the entire image is visible on displays with significant overscan.

BTW "Full Screen" could mean the 1.85 original intended image has been cropped at the sides to give a 1.33 image. Or if the original was shot and protected for open matte, the entire image could be transferred for the video.
 
Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 02-12-2004, 02:47 AM:
 
Whoaaaaaaaa ok thanks for the info a little over my head but that's ok always good to read up. I'm gonna assume that I'm ok with this widescreen version then. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 02-12-2004, 06:36 PM:
 
Of course, many anamorphic DVDs of flat films are not letterboxed to 1.85, but opened up to 16:9.

Kind of surprisingly that this wasn't mentioned, given that Paul and Paul mentioned all of the following:

Anamorphic is really poor terminology, not just because of the confusion with widescreen achieved by matting. In fact, not just 16:9, but also 4:3 films on DVD are anamorphically stretched on display (but in the other axis, and more mildly -- by 12% rather than 33%). "Enhanced for widescreen TVs" is much better wording, and removes both the confusion and the technical inaccuracy.
The Widescreen Museum has a good page on anamorphic vs. standard encoding at:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm
and Marty, being his usual thorough self, is one of the few people to actually point out that DVD players interpret the pixels as narrow or wide, never square.
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 02-16-2004, 11:42 PM:
 
I think we've overanswered the question (or perhaps I just missunderstood it)

Flat films (1.85:1)(apx. 16:9) and Scope films (2.35:1) are both wider than your average television "full screen" (1.33:1)(4:3).

-

-

-

I always laugh to myself when the masking opens out to scope at my theatre, and I hear someone say "Oh, good, they got the widescreen version"
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-17-2004, 04:43 AM:
 
"widescreen" is a term i wish would just go away. theatrically, widescreen aka 1:1.85 is generally not as wide (horizontally) as scope, and probably a majority of screens support just those 2 ratios. on most tv's, "widescreen" signifies a letterboxed image which is just as wide horizontally as "fullframe", but narrower vertically. i think the term can sometimes include any flat ratio with more cropping than academy, in other words, less image area on the film, not more as one might think from the "wide-". and probably some people, at least when it comes to video, use it to describe the scope ratio as well. it's a dumb catchall euphemism that when all is said and done means nothing. no, worse than that, it means the opposite of something!

carl
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-17-2004, 08:06 AM:
 
I thought that the proper terminology was:

1.37 - Academy
1.66 - European Widescreen
1.85 - American Widescreen
2.39 - Anamorphic Widescreen aka CinemaScope aka Scope aka Panavision aka Arriscope, etc.

For home use, I'd agree that the term "widescreen" when used by itself is meaningless. If I were labelling DVDs, I'd have two listings: original theatrical aspect ratio and video aspect ratio. The video listing should contain both the aspect ratio (e.g. 1.85:1) and the means used to effect it (e.g. letterbox, anamorphic with letterbox, pan-and-scan, etc.).
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-19-2004, 01:00 AM:
 
I think studios should also label Full Frame DVDs as either pan and scan or unmatted or a combination. This way, I would not have to be so anal about renting only widescreen dvds. After many comparisons on Hidef and non HIdef HBO movies, I came to the conclusion that some unmatted full frame movies actually have better composition than the widescreen version.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-19-2004, 10:09 PM:
 
The current aspect ratios specified by standard SMPTE 195 are 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1.

1.33:1 and 2.35:1 are NOT current aspect ratios recognized by SMPTE standards for theatrical projection.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

quote:
SMPTE Standard 195 "Motion-Picture Prints--Projectable Image Area" specifies the film area intended for projection. The dimensions specified are as follows:

Aspect Ratio · Lens · Width (In.) · Height (In.) · Width (mm) · Height (mm)

2.39:1 · Scope 2X · 0.825 · 0.690 · 20.96 · 17.53

1.85:1 · Flat · 0.825 · 0.446 · 20.96 · 11.33

1.66:1 · Flat · 0.825 · 0.497 · 20.96 · 12.62

1.37:1 · Flat · 0.825 · 0.602 · 20.96 · 15.29


 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-26-2004, 07:54 AM:
 
And now to throw more confusion into the soup, it seems like they are throwing the word "anamorphic" around as well. The 2-disc release of SCAREFACE is marked "Anamorphic Wide Screen - 2:35:1." To me this means that the full frame is squeezed, and can be decompressed by the player's or the display unit's 16:9 setting. Yet playing this disc results in the usual, non-anamorphic letterboxed scope image. What's that all about? Do these video people themselves know what the film terms mean? Maybe they should step away from the Avid Suite and stick their heads in a real theatre once in awhile.

Frank
 
Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 02-26-2004, 08:44 AM:
 
I doubt "Lost in Translation" was filmed in 1.85. I saw it last week and the projection was in 1.66 so it was filmed in either 1.66 or 1.37. The microphone even shows up at the very top of the image several time during the film. A pity the projectionist didn't choose 1.85 since I know this theater has all the required lenses and plates for all ratios [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2004, 10:23 AM:
 
Non-anamorphic ("flat") films today are most often shot with a full frame camera aperture, with an image area on the negative of 0.981 x 0.735 inches ("Style C" camera aperture), but the image composed for the projectable image area (0.825 x 0.446 inches for 1.85:1) using the reticles in the camera viewfinder. A "Style A" camera aperture may also be used (0.864 x 0.630 inches, per SMPTE 59).

The composite print picture aperture width in a contact printer is 0.88 inches (SMPTE 111), but the framelines of the camera negative are printed through unchanged. "Hard Mattes" are sometimes introduced at the MP ---> DN stage of printing, but the framelines on the print often are the framelines exposed on the original camera negative (unless an optical printer or digital intermediate was used for duplication).

The image area that ends up on the screen is specified by SMPTE 195, and determined by the projector aperture, screen masking, and framing. The image area on the print is always larger than the projectable image area specified by SMPTE 195 for the current 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, and 1.37:1 aspect ratios specified in the standard.
 
Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 02-26-2004, 03:17 PM:
 
Just WHO is supposed to be the arbiter of what appears on the screen? Is the photographed image an inviolable Work of Art of which any alteration is a defacement, or is it a work-in-progress that can be adapted to the facility exhibiting it?
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2004, 03:48 PM:
 
I try to answer that in my article:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

quote:
Caring About Composition
Movie Audiences Deserve To See the Entire Film
I participated in a meeting with some of the world's most noted cinematographers. The topic was the future of filmmaking and what can be done to enhance the moviegoing experience. Three items topped their list of complaints about the way their films are presented in theatres. They all revolved around the importance of presenting their films in the aspect ratio that directors and cinematographers chose to frame their stories. Cinematographers believe that today's visually literate audiences know how to 'read' visual clues that are implicit in the choice of aspect ratio, which affects the story-telling. By altering aspect ratios, exhibitors are unwittingly changing the emotional impact of films...

 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-27-2004, 04:26 AM:
 
quote:
The current aspect ratios specified by standard SMPTE 195 are 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1.
does the smpte propose that films be shown in one of those ratios even if that was not the original intent? what about silents and early-sound 1.2:1? new prints are still struck in these ratios. if those aren't considered "current", perhaps neither should 1.37. it's pretty rare that i see new films in academy ratio (unless you count the ones that are matted to fit inside 1.85).

i'd like to see someone shoot a 0.6:1 film. that's right, taller than it is wide. just turn the scope lens sideways.

carl
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2004, 05:34 AM:
 
Of course, if the original aspect ratio is known, it should be shown that way. The idea is to show the film with the image area intended by the director and cinematographer.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-27-2004, 06:25 AM:
 
quote:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml
In which is writ:
quote:
. In most cases, the intended aspect ratio is written on the print leaders or otherwise specified in writing.
Unfortunately, it's wrong 99.8% of the time with 1.37 prints. They almost invariably have "1.33" written on the leaders, & I don't think it's by a previous projectionist. I think I may have seen 3 correctly labeled 1.37, & I think it *was* done by a previous projectionist. Find them people who do that writing & straighten them out!

Also, I have seen 1.66 prints with 1.85 written on the leaders.

quote:
it's pretty rare that i see new films in academy ratio (unless you count the ones that are matted to fit inside 1.85).
Lots & lots & lots of 1.37 prints are out there & being run at art/rep houses. Studios even oftn strike new prints of the most popular titles. The ones printed to fit inside 1.85 or scope are ABORTIONS from some either attempts at a wide modern re-release, or a need to get a soundtrack on a fairly popular silent so it can be played in houses that might not have live accompaniment.

I have an excruciating memory of running Gone With the Wind in a proscenium house from that wretched print that was made printed anamorphic. The house had vertical & side masking to get maximum picture size out of all formats. 1.37 (GWTW original a/r) goes from the floor to the top with the masking brought in at the sides, scope goes from one side of the prosc all the way to the other with masking brought in from the top. Show up to run GWTW, find it's that abominable printed into scope thing from hell. With no time to get another prime with a different focal length for the anamorphic, it had to be projected with the house scope lens. Top masking brought way in for scope as required, the print was pillarboxed with black bars printed FAR in at the sides...a freaking POSTAGE STAMP for a high draw & image show.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-28-2004, 01:35 AM:
 
certainly there are many 1.37 prints out there and it was not my intent to slight them. it's just not a "mainstream" ratio for new releases, unfortunately. though there are plenty of them, mainly foreign, and most people wouldn't know they exist (again, i don't mean to slight). has there been a "major" film made in 1.37 in the u.s. since 1982 (one from the heart, recently re-released)?

carl
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-28-2004, 05:05 AM:
 
quote:
Also, I have seen 1.66 prints with 1.85 written on the leaders.
Even the studios get this wrong sometimes. When Miramax imported CINEMA PARADISO, the little ID stickers that they put on all the leaders claimed it to be 1:85, yet anyone with two eyes could clearly see that it was intended to be screened at 1.66, as are most European productions. For my first show I obeyed the reelbands as this wasn't someone handwriting what he thought it was supposed to be; this was a lab sticker. d Running it at 1.85, yes the titleing will be placed so as not to be sliced by the edge of the bottom mask, but that's not at all the same as the picture being shot at 1.66. In that first show at 1.85, when I set the subtitles so they were are just sitting above the bottom mask, there are some shots that are badly cropped by the top of the mask. One long shot of a character standing on a hill in the distance, at 1.85 he was decapitated; his head is returned at 1.66.

When it released it in 1980, the Official Technical data as given in International Film Journal (and presumably given to them by Miramax) claimed it was a 1.85:1 title. Now these many years later, the DVD rightly made the correction and has it at 1.66:1. I ran the rest of the engagement at 1.66 and it was fine.

Is this nit-picking? When a character gets decapitated, that's a pretty big nit.

Frank
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-28-2004, 11:14 AM:
 
quote:
has there been a "major" film made in 1.37 in the u.s. since 1982 (one from the heart, recently re-released)?
WAS this really made with 1.37 in mind? I saw it projected that way at the Chinese Theatre on its initial release, but it looked to me that it had been framed during shooting to fit at 1.85. LOTS of headroom in every shot. It actually looked awkward at 1.37.
 
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-28-2004, 04:26 PM:
 
The 70mm print(s?) of One From the Heart were hard matted to 1.37:1.

in70mm.com 1982 blow-ups
quote:
One From The Heart
Spherical (1.37:1)
Nov 12 (Canada)
6-Track Dolby Stereo
Zoetrope/Columbia
OAR blow-up. US 35mm release: Feb 11. This may have had some limited U.S. exposure in 70mm. Canadian engagement advertised in “70mm Academy Frame Dolby.”

 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-28-2004, 07:47 PM:
 
I KNOW the requirements from Coppola was to project in Academy. Thats why the Chinese projected it that way (from a 35mm print). However, I question if it was planned that way in the shooting stages, since it looked to me like a flat widescreen film that was "opened up." It just looked wrong to me.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-29-2004, 02:47 AM:
 
it looked right to me, in general. not that i remember on a shot-by-shot basis, but some of the "numbers" did seem to fill the screen nicely.

carl
 
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 03-04-2004, 02:54 AM:
 
Back to the original topic. As far as DVDs are concerned (in the US, at least) "Anamorphic", "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs", "16x9 Widescreen" are different ways of saying the same thing. The movie on the DVD has been encoded in a way to maximize the resolution available on a widescreen TV. It is of no consequence to anyone who is not viewing the DVD on a widescreen TV. Any format wider than 1.78:1 can be encoded as "Anamorphic Widescreen"

"Widescreen" is just a standard way of saying that the aspect ratio is wider than a standard TV (not necessarily full scope).
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-16-2016, 12:08 PM:
 

It has been 4335 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Rebecca Meyers (Member # 7971) on 01-16-2016, 12:08 PM:
 
Hello,

I am trying to access the article referenced in this thread (Caring About Composition) but the link from the time is now broken. Does anyone have a copy of this? I'd email John Pytlak but am unable to access his address.

Thank you.
 
Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 01-16-2016, 08:37 PM:
 
Rebecca .. Sadly, John Pytlak passed away in, I believe, Aug. 2007.
 
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 01-18-2016, 08:55 PM:
 
I was intrigued by Rebecca's interest in that article by "our" late film guru, John Pytlak. Indeed, that link now just goes to the general Kodak web location, nothing having to do with John Pytlak's article. But John always was spot on in his writings, full of insights and technical references. Plus, the subject of his referenced article, composition of filmed images, and the correct presentation of same, would be something that would be important and relevant reading for decades into the future -- if it could be tracked down. The article was written after the end of the EKC publication "Film Notes For the Reel People" (which was at the end of 2000), so it would not be in the archived copies of that. Those issues can be seen archived here on F-T. So, what next? How to find it?

So I thought ... if I could find someone with an "in" at Kodak, maybe we could find out where some of John's later writings might be found. I contacted Robert Shanebrook, the author of the highly interesting book "Making Kodak Film" (web page ). He's an ex-EKC employee, still lives in Rochester and I thought he might have some connections there. He even worked with John Pytlak off and on, and maybe he could help.

Apparently not. He bounced my request for info to a West Coast Kodak representative, Beverly Pasterczyk, who is still considered an actual EKC current employee. I've met her a few times over the years, so I knew her background and enthusiasm was in the "film" area, for sure, esp. large format. She contacted me to report that, sadly, there is no known official company archive of some of the later writings by John Pytlak, unless possibly his family had them. For some years, there has been another Kodak publication, "In Camera", aimed primarily at cinematographers. I asked if maybe it had gotten into the archives under that name, but it turns out the online "archives" of that only go back to ... 2014!

What shocked me even more was that, in the context of the conversation, it came out that EKC can't even afford an office for Ms. Pasterczyk -- she works out of her home! She says that there are vast amounts of papers in storage units, but that there isn't much of an inventory, so accessing anything is next to impossible. She has papers which were in her office, not to mention papers from some other former EKC employees who have retired or left the company, and it's all "in storage" and just totally inaccessible.

That stuff would be a vast repository of film technical & historical material that may someday make it to the Motion Picture Academy, but also may not. I suggested to her that she needed an intern of some sort who could start taking those papers and digitizing them, so that they'd be 1) preserved and 2) accessible & readable. She said that there was no budget for that. Not surprising, I guess, considering that EKC is actually making her work out of her home. She says that EKC is a "totally different" company now; that's the understatement of the year.

A pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe if someone who reads this has contact information for the Pytlak family, possibly there could be a glimmer of light in that direction, but I fear that, as the years grind by, much valuable information will be lost.
 
Posted by Marcus Johnson (Member # 8704) on 01-18-2016, 10:36 PM:
 
The Wayback Machine is your friend:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021002124437/http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001P.shtml#p
 
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 01-19-2016, 09:45 PM:
 
Bravo, Marcus! Great sleuthing!

Although the article isn't quite as detailed as I might have liked, it's definitely yet another aid for any future archivist or other person who may be faced with being responsible for a transfer to DCP of some older movie(s). An awareness of these issues is critical to making the digitized versions accurately replicate the image(s) of the original movie.

Thanks for doing the additional searching. (I note that some of the links also still work, in particular the one about "scope and flat apertures", which is good and has a really good item in the "read more" link at the bottom. This would be "extra credit reading" for those who want to learn more about film aspect ratios and image formats!)
 
Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 01-24-2016, 09:39 PM:
 
You might find these articles on the 1953 transition to widescreen cinematography of interest:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-stereophonic-sound
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2