2.35 movies vs. 2.40 movies- is there an actual difference, even if it is small? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 20 Old 09-15-2011, 12:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
iansilv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am wondering if these two AR labels are just tossed around and mean the same thing in reality- or if movies that are marked as being these aspect ratios are in fact different. Example- Batman Begins is 2.35 and Casino Royale is 2.40.

Anyone with a CIH setup have some input on how much difference these two ARs have on their screen and how they deal with that difference?
Thanks
iansilv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 Old 09-15-2011, 04:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

I am wondering if these two AR labels are just tossed around and mean the same thing in reality- or if movies that are marked as being these aspect ratios are in fact different. Example- Batman Begins is 2.35 and Casino Royale is 2.40.

Anyone with a CIH setup have some input on how much difference these two ARs have on their screen and how they deal with that difference?
Thanks

They are different as the 2.40 movies have a small sliver. But were talking about a quarter inch on an 11ft wide screen. Which is about 1-2 zoom clicks.
coolrda is online now  
post #3 of 20 Old 09-15-2011, 04:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Yes they are different and yes they are tossed around to mean the same thing. You really can't trust the number on the box to be right to that degree of precision.

I personally don't worry about it, I think it amounts to about a half inch over a 100" screen.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #4 of 20 Old 09-17-2011, 09:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
I remember reading somewhere in this section where 2.35 and 2.4 are thrown around as the same. Not sure though which one is "slightly bigger"

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #5 of 20 Old 09-17-2011, 09:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

I remember reading somewhere in this section where 2.35 and 2.4 are thrown around as the same. Not sure though which one is "slightly bigger"

Depends on what you mean by "slightly bigger". 2.4 on a 16:9 native PJ has bigger black bars top/bottom than 2.35, however that means that the 2.4 image is smaller than the 2.35 image on a native 16:9 PJ. Now, a 2.4:1 AR screen would be wider than a 2.35:1 AR screen, therefor one could say 2.4 is bigger than 2.35, just depends on how you are watching it.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #6 of 20 Old 09-17-2011, 09:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by 230-SEAN View Post

Depends on what you mean by "slightly bigger". 2.4 on a 16:9 native PJ has bigger black bars top/bottom than 2.35, however that means that the 2.4 image is smaller than the 2.35 image on a native 16:9 PJ. Now, a 2.4:1 AR screen would be wider than a 2.35:1 AR screen, therefor one could say 2.4 is bigger than 2.35, just depends on how you are watching it.

-Sean

You have just made the most confusing thing to me easy to understand Thanks!

-Kevin

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #7 of 20 Old 09-17-2011, 10:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

You have just made the most confusing thing to me easy to understand Thanks!

-Kevin

No problem, glad I could help!

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #8 of 20 Old 09-18-2011, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

They are different as the 2.40 movies have a small sliver. But were talking about a quarter inch on an 11ft wide screen. Which is about 1-2 zoom clicks.

The difference is less than 2%, so I would not lose any sleep over it.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #9 of 20 Old 09-18-2011, 07:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ABCTV99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

I am wondering if these two AR labels are just tossed around and mean the same thing in reality- or if movies that are marked as being these aspect ratios are in fact different. Example- Batman Begins is 2.35 and Casino Royale is 2.40.

Anyone with a CIH setup have some input on how much difference these two ARs have on their screen and how they deal with that difference?
Thanks

2.35 doesn't really exist in modern filmmaking. It's a misnomer held over from the intermediate days of anamorphic photography when the aperture size was 2.35 and there were issues with the frame splices being visible on projection. People still casually refer to it as Cinemascope or 2.35, when in really modern films are neither (Cinemascope is somewhat of an outdated term, the original 'scope was spec'd at 2.66:1 but ended up with the soundtrack being more 2.55:1, but is still casually used to describe modern 2.39 films). The SMPTE standard for both anamorprhic (Batman Begins) and flat Super 35 (Casino Royale) or digital crops (The Social Network) is today 2.39:1 or 2048x854 resolution at 2K.

An anamorphic film should be presented as 2.39 unless the top and bottom are slightly cropped off for some reason. It gets trickier with flat films because they can technically be cropped to anything (though the release prints are still blown-up and anamorphised for theatrical projection, thereby making them 2.39). Since almost all Hollywood movies these days go through a DI process it's almost inexcusable for there to be discrepancies in aspect ratios for home video deliverables considering they are often struck from the 2K or 4K digital master and projection isn't an issue. There will be aspect ratio discrepancies with older films though.
ABCTV99 is offline  
post #10 of 20 Old 09-23-2011, 10:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 394
It's a total crap-shoot as to whether 'scope films are transferred at 2.35:1 or 2.39:1. It depends entirely on how the telecine used for the film-to-video transfer is calibrated. The numbers on the packaging are rarely reliable.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #11 of 20 Old 09-23-2011, 02:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Erik Garci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 4,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It might not even be 2.35 or 2.39. It could be 2.33, 2.38, 2.41 or any other number in that ballpark.
Erik Garci is offline  
post #12 of 20 Old 09-23-2011, 04:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KBMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 2,875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I just ordered a custom carada 115" diag. 2.40 screen. When I talked to Rex at Carada, he did the math and it was only a 1/8th inch size difference. I don't really care about zooming into the black velvet border too much, and like the look of 2.40:1 screens, regardless of the little difference. YMMV

Terrence
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?...."No, have you?" -ALIENS

KBMAN is offline  
post #13 of 20 Old 09-23-2011, 07:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ABCTV99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

It's a total crap-shoot as to whether 'scope films are transferred at 2.35:1 or 2.39:1. It depends entirely on how the telecine used for the film-to-video transfer is calibrated. The numbers on the packaging are rarely reliable.

Though nowadays this SHOULD not be the case on newer films as the DI process should standardize this. Since people today work mostly in terms of resolution (2048x854 for example) it would be heinously irresponsible and lazy for an error like this to get by a Post-Production supervisor or Di Producer. The markings on the case, however are another story altogether.

Since most 'scope films these days are 3-perf Super 35 crops or digital crops, this is such a common process that it shouldn't be effed-up with any great frequency. Key word: shouldn't. This kinda mistake a post house or dub house might make (assuming the vernacular 2.35 to be correct) but a DI house (who actually handles the footage and dailies) should not.
ABCTV99 is offline  
post #14 of 20 Old 09-26-2011, 12:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

Though nowadays this SHOULD not be the case on newer films as the DI process should standardize this. Since people today work mostly in terms of resolution (2048x854 for example) it would be heinously irresponsible and lazy for an error like this to get by a Post-Production supervisor or Di Producer. The markings on the case, however are another story altogether.

Since most 'scope films these days are 3-perf Super 35 crops or digital crops, this is such a common process that it shouldn't be effed-up with any great frequency. Key word: shouldn't. This kinda mistake a post house or dub house might make (assuming the vernacular 2.35 to be correct) but a DI house (who actually handles the footage and dailies) should not.

You'd think that would be the case. However, I just watched X-Men: First Class, which certainly had a DI, and the Blu-ray is 2.35:1, not 2.40:1.

There's been some speculation that some studios merely crop 2k DIs to Blu-ray's 1920x1080 rather than scale them, in order to maintain 1:1 pixel mapping for the majority of the picture. (Fox's Alien Blu-ray, for example, has very obvious cropping on all four sides of the screen in comparison to earlier DVD transfers.) If that's the case, the person doing the cropping would be the one to decide whether the image is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #15 of 20 Old 09-26-2011, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

(Fox's Alien Blu-ray, for example, has very obvious cropping on all four sides of the screen in comparison to earlier DVD transfers.) If that's the case, the person doing the cropping would be the one to decide whether the image is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1.

Just to clarify. A 2K transfer is 2048 x 1080? So a 2.35:1 film letter boxed in this format is 2048 x 871. Are you suggesting that they have shifted the mats in to 817 and then cropped the sides to preserve the AR?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #16 of 20 Old 09-26-2011, 05:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,022
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 353
BTW, on the subject of those teeny black bars from slightly wider than 2:35:1 ARs, I find it beneficial to get rid of even those tiny black bars. However, this is not something I'd ever advocate as "important" for other people as I can completely understand someone not being bothered by such small black bars.
R Harkness is online now  
post #17 of 20 Old 09-27-2011, 09:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Just to clarify. A 2K transfer is 2048 x 1080? So a 2.35:1 film letter boxed in this format is 2048 x 871. Are you suggesting that they have shifted the mats in to 817 and then cropped the sides to preserve the AR?

According to Wikipedia, the 2k scanning resolution for 35mm film is 2048x1556. But otherwise, yes, that's the theory. The studio crops 64 pixels off each the left and right sides to get to 1920, and then applies further matting to the image top and bottom to maintain the original aspect ratio. The picture has the same aspect ratio, but loses image from all four sides.

I don't know that this has been proven anywhere, but comparisons of the Alien Blu-ray and DVD appear to back it up.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #18 of 20 Old 09-27-2011, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ABCTV99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

According to Wikipedia, the 2k scanning resolution for 35mm film is 2048x1556. But otherwise, yes, that's the theory. The studio crops 64 pixels off each the left and right sides to get to 1920, and then applies further matting to the image top and bottom to maintain the original aspect ratio. The picture has the same aspect ratio, but loses image from all four sides.

I don't know that this has been proven anywhere, but comparisons of the Alien Blu-ray and DVD appear to back it up.

2048x1556 is full aperture 2k resolution. For a 2.39 crop it would be 2048x854 resolution at 2K. In the case of anamorphic photography since the entire negative is used the resolution will be the full 2048x1556 just stretched out to 2.39. In theory anamorphic should have a decided advantage in terms of picture quality, but on a home video the differences would be almost completely negated by downscaling everything to HD resolution. In fact in many cases on Blu-Ray, ironically, anamorphic photography, for a variety of reasons, can appear less-sharp than its Super 35 (and certainly Digital) counterparts, despite the resolution advantage up front.

Just compare Inception or Training Day (anamorphic) to No Country For Old Men or Kingdom of Heaven (Super 35). Or maybe a better comparison might be two digital films Killers or The Girlfriend Experience (anamorphic) and Knowing (RED at 2k). (I would mention The Social Network but it was acquired at 4k - not sure what the DI was done at.)
ABCTV99 is offline  
post #19 of 20 Old 09-27-2011, 12:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

2048x1556 is full aperture 2k resolution. For a 2.39 crop it would be 2048x854 resolution at 2K. In the case of anamorphic photography since the entire negative is used the resolution will be the full 2048x1556 just stretched out to 2.39. In theory anamorphic should have a decided advantage in terms of picture quality, but on a home video the differences would be almost completely negated by downscaling everything to HD resolution. In fact in many cases on Blu-Ray, ironically, anamorphic photography, for a variety of reasons, can appear less-sharp than its Super 35 (and certainly Digital) counterparts, despite the resolution advantage up front.

Just compare Inception or Training Day (anamorphic) to No Country For Old Men or Kingdom of Heaven (Super 35). Or maybe a better comparison might be two digital films Killers or The Girlfriend Experience (anamorphic) and Knowing (RED at 2k). (I would mention The Social Network but it was acquired at 4k - not sure what the DI was done at.)

King of getting off the subject here. In any case, there's still no standard as to whether 'scope movies wind up on video at 2.35:1 or 2.40:1, regardless of whether they were shot on film, used a DI, or were photographed digitally. It's a total crap-shoot what you'll get.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #20 of 20 Old 09-29-2011, 08:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I prefer to zoomed a little so 2.40 has no bars. Rezoomed for with TransformersDOTM and the presentation made a difference. It bothered me with this movie though it hasn't in the past. I have about an inch and a half off both sides which is not offensive at all.
coolrda is online now  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off