AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Are newer movies being increasingly made closer to 16:9 or is 2.35 still king?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are newer movies being increasingly made closer to 16:9 or is 2.35 still king?

post #1 of 36
1/26/12 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
The title says it all. As I ponder going with a 2.35:1 screen I'm thinking that I should be thinking long-term. Are newer movies increasingly being made in a 16:9 (or 1.85:1) format or are the majority of newer movies still closer to 2.35:1?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 36
1/26/12 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by srauly View Post

Are newer movies increasingly being made in a 16:9 (or 1.85:1) format or are the majority of newer movies still closer to 2.35:1?

Do you actually go to the cinema? Most block busters are Scope and even comedies that traditionally would have been 1.85:1 now seem to have their share on Scope. I think this is done purely because HDTV is not and it still used to be a draw card to get people away from their TVs - the reason it was introduced in the first place.

With the introduction of RED 5K cameras, image capture may no longer need an anamorphic lens unless they are chasing the desired optical effect like was done for the 2008 STAR TREK.

But this does not mean that the AR is at an end of life because based on 4K vertical rez of 2160, 16:9 can be natively captured at 3840, 1.85:1 will be 3996 and Scope (at 2.37) will be able to use the full 5120 width of the image chip of a 5K RED camera. So no, I don't Scope is dead at all.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 36
1/27/12 at 3:54am
I still believe scope is here to stay.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 36
1/27/12 at 4:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

With the introduction of RED 5K cameras, image capture may no longer need an anamorphic lens unless they are chasing the desired optical effect like was done for the 2008 STAR TREK.

They havnt needed an anamorphic lens for over 25 years.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 36
1/27/12 at 10:03am
The ratio of 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 film productions has been approximately 50/50 for decades. There are no signs of that changing in either direction anytime soon. Directors choose which aspect ratio they want based on the needs of the material.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 36
1/27/12 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Most block busters are Scope and even comedies that traditionally would have been 1.85:1 now seem to have their share on Scope.

I've sure noticed a trend for more comedies to be scope and with better than expected PQ. I like it.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 36
1/27/12 at 2:10pm
long live the king.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 36
1/27/12 at 4:30pm
Some stories are best conveyed in 2.35:1, others in 1.78:1/16:9 and yet others in a combo of both and still others in iMax format.

Doubt one AR will dominate over any others. There's a place for all of em'.....if all movies were made in 2.35:1 and all displays were the same, what would happen to A-Lens and slide makers....
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 36
1/27/12 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 View Post

long live the king.

Hey your back. Long time man.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 36
1/27/12 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

if all movies were made in 2.35:1 and all displays were the same, what would happen to A-Lens and slide makers....

Unless the world gets bombarded with native Scope projectors in the next few years, both lens makers and slide makers will still be in demand.

Given the results of the one that is out there (re-badged no less), I state native Scope projectors = epic fail.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 36
1/30/12 at 9:20am
purely anecdotal, but it seems to me that most action oriented films are scope and most drama oriented films are 16:9. but the trend appears to be moving towards scope overall, example: comedies now in scope. this is based on my experience with bluray rentals (which I assume are in the original format.. may not be the case every time).
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 36
1/31/12 at 7:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by imserious View Post

purely anecdotal, but it seems to me that most action oriented films are scope and most drama oriented films are 16:9. but the trend appears to be moving towards scope overall, example: comedies now in scope. this is based on my experience with bluray rentals (which I assume are in the original format.. may not be the case every time).

With the exception of the low-budget Indie or made-for-television feature, movies are not made in 16:9 (1.77). They are made at 1.85 or 2.39. (the 1.77 on Blu-ray is due to the cropping of the image to get from 1.85 to 1.77).

Action movies these days seem to be 2.39 a lot, but this hasn't always been a rule. It's just that today's directors and producers are, in some ways, less bound by the traditional rules of movie making (people like Spielberg are very picky about aspect ratio where there are lot of people out there who shoot 2.39 basically because it looks cool regardless of the intent of the format). The movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has a lot of fun with this.

Because of the advent of Super 35 people have been able to crop down to 2.39 for years now (since the mid-80s as someone pointed out), though there are many directors out there who prefer to shoot anamorphic regardless (JJ Abrams, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, Quentin Tarantino) because of the unique look of anamorphic photography and it's resolution advantage. Some of the newer cameras out there like the Alexa can support anamorphic lenses for digital capture so I would expect to see more digitally shot anamorphic pictures in the future (the only one I can think of right now is Killers starring Ashton Kutcher which was shot on an Arri D-21, but I'm sure there are more).
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 36
2/1/12 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

With the exception of the low-budget Indie or made-for-television feature, movies are not made in 16:9 (1.77). They are made at 1.85 or 2.39. (the 1.77 on Blu-ray is due to the cropping of the image to get from 1.85 to 1.77).

Action movies these days seem to be 2.39 a lot, but this hasn't always been a rule. It's just that today's directors and producers are, in some ways, less bound by the traditional rules of movie making (people like Spielberg are very picky about aspect ratio where there are lot of people out there who shoot 2.39 basically because it looks cool regardless of the intent of the format). The movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has a lot of fun with this.

Because of the advent of Super 35 people have been able to crop down to 2.39 for years now (since the mid-80s as someone pointed out), though there are many directors out there who prefer to shoot anamorphic regardless (JJ Abrams, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, Quentin Tarantino) because of the unique look of anamorphic photography and it's resolution advantage. Some of the newer cameras out there like the Alexa can support anamorphic lenses for digital capture so I would expect to see more digitally shot anamorphic pictures in the future (the only one I can think of right now is Killers starring Ashton Kutcher which was shot on an Arri D-21, but I'm sure there are more).

Anamorphic is really the rage these days. I even see TV commercials shot anamorphic, sometimes not masked for scope. The giveaway is the bg bokeh.

The rental houses have more anamorphics than ever, and of all kinds. Some are outright designed for heavy flaring. 2x lenses abound, as well as the advent of 1.3x lenses for digital 1.78 camera sensors.

Whether this trend will continue in the digital world is tough to gauge, and may depend on sensor designs. I don't know what the native AR is for the Red Epic sensor. The new Sony F35 is an 8K 1.9AR sensor. It is said to accomodate spherical 2.39, 1.3x lenses, and 2x lenses (with sides cropped).

The Alexa Studio is designed for 2x lenses. Skyfall, the new Bond movie, is shot with this camera, but I haven't heard if it is shooting anamorphic. If this is a frame capture from the Alexa Studio, it would appear that it is not anamophic. http://moviemet.com/news/007-website...mes-bond-image

I would think that the cinema release AR of 2.39 will continue.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 36
2/1/12 at 3:48pm
Quote:


Whether this trend will continue in the digital world is tough to gauge, and may depend on sensor designs. I don't know what the native AR is for the Red Epic sensor. The new Sony F35 is an 8K 1.9AR sensor. It is said to accomodate spherical 2.39, 1.3x lenses, and 2x lenses (with sides cropped).

The Alexa Studio is designed for 2x lenses. Skyfall, the new Bond movie, is shot with this camera, but I haven't heard if it is shooting anamorphic. If this is a frame capture from the Alexa Studio, it would appear that it is not anamorphic. http://moviemet.com/news/007-website...mes-bond-image

Yea I've seen a bunch of commercials and music videos shot anamorphic too. Actually in Scott Pilgrim, it jumps back and forth between spherical for the regular scenes and anamorphic (for the bokeh effects).

Roger Deakins I think is using the updated Alexa for Skyfall but he's shooting spherical as he is not a fan of anamorphic photography (I don't know that he's done a major feature in anamorphic though he said he flirted with the idea for a Coen Bros. movie that never worked out). Deakins is a fantastic cinematographer so I trust his instincts but the last few Bond movies have been Super 35 spherical cropped to 2.39 (though both Roberto Schafer's and Phil Meheux photography on Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are beautiful) there is that great tradition of Bond films being anamorphic (same with sci-fi movies).
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 36
2/1/12 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

Yea I've seen a bunch of commercials and music videos shot anamorphic too. Actually in Scott Pilgrim, it jumps back and forth between spherical for the regular scenes and anamorphic (for the bokeh effects).

Roger Deakins I think is using the updated Alexa for Skyfall but he's shooting spherical as he is not a fan of anamorphic photography (I don't know that he's done a major feature in anamorphic though he said he flirted with the idea for a Coen Bros. movie that never worked out). Deakins is a fantastic cinematographer so I trust his instincts but the last few Bond movies have been Super 35 spherical cropped to 2.39 (though both Roberto Schafer's and Phil Meheux photography on Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are beautiful) there is that great tradition of Bond films being anamorphic (same with sci-fi movies).

Ah, I missed that Deakins is the DP for Skyfall. He is a big Alexa and spherical 2.35 fan...and one of my favorite DPs, although I never worked with him. His wife is a script supervisor...and I did work with her once.

Personally, I would loved to have seen them be able to use the F65 so that they can deliver 4K or better. If the Red Epic has highlights under control, then it would have been a good choice, too. I don't think any variant of the Alexa is beyond 2K yet, but I could be wrong. It just sees light in a very pleasing way...and Deakins, among many others, likes it a lot.

The Alexa Studio is a hybrid in that it has an optical viewing system just like a film camera. That would be extremely attractive to Deakins because he, like many old school DPs, likes to study his lighting through the camera. He also insists on operating camera himself, so that is a good camera design for him.

Like you say, Casino Royale broke the Bond anamorphic tradition, but I liked it so much I haven't minded.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 36
2/2/12 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Like you say, Casino Royale broke the Bond anamorphic tradition, but I liked it so much I haven't minded.

The first three Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger) were shot flat for 1.66:1 projection, and a couple more later in the '70s (Live and Let Die, Man with the Golden Gun) were 1.85:1. So that scope tradition had already been sullied.

For some reason, I had it in my head that Licence to Kill was also Super 35, but IMDb says anamorphic.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 36
2/2/12 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The first three Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger) were shot flat for 1.66:1 projection, and a couple more later in the '70s (Live and Let Die, Man with the Golden Gun) were 1.85:1. So that scope tradition had already been sullied.

For some reason, I had it in my head that Licence to Kill was also Super 35, but IMDb says anamorphic.

I just didn't want to type anymore, and the string of anamorphic shoots for contemporary Bonds is so long as to establish tradition, even if new only through an era. The first three classics get a pass. The others I won't be watching to check.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 36
2/2/12 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

I just didn't want to type anymore, and the string of anamorphic shoots for contemporary Bonds is so long as to establish tradition, even if new only through an era. The first three classics get a pass. The others I won't be watching to check.

Yea it's like science fiction movies and anamorphic tradition (though there are some notable exceptions like Avatar and The Abyss and the newest three Star Wars movies). All of the Star Treks, save for The Undiscovered Country are anamorphic.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 36
2/2/12 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

and the newest three Star Wars movies

SW4 5 and 6 were shot anamorphic (I think). SW 1 was Super 35(?), 2 and 3 HD video.

In the end of the day, it should be based on how it is presented in the cinema which will be one of two - 35mm flat or CinemaScope. Even today's D-Cinema still use the terms "Flat" or "Scope" to differentiate between 1.85:1 and 2.39:1.

If we looked at film captured in Scope or using an anamorphic lens, the list becomes quite short with films like T2 and THE ABYSS no longer on that list. Both were captured using Super 35 and matted down, yet both were presented in CinemaScope in cinemas and are letter boxed to preserve that AR for home video (LD, DVD BD).
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 36
2/2/12 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

All of the Star Treks, save for The Undiscovered Country are anamorphic.

And I had the very good fortune and great pleasure of doing one of them. All C-series and the E-series 180 lenses were used.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 36
2/3/12 at 8:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

And I had the very good fortune and great pleasure of doing one of them.

Can we ask which one?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 36
2/3/12 at 1:24pm
Sure. First Contact.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 36
2/3/12 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Sure. First Contact.

Yea Matt Leonetti is a visual master.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 36
2/3/12 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCTV99 View Post

Yea Matt Leonetti is a visual master.

And a really nice guy to work with/for. We're always learning as we work, and watching Matt and his gaffer at the time was really interesting. At the time, all the "practical" lights (displays, panels, buttons, etc) on the Enterprise interiors where a bit dim. It forced us to always be at a 3.2 stop...which is kinda pushing the edge of the envelope for the C-series anamorphics; they really like a 4 stop to get fully into their best performance. But there was no choice so we just had to live with very challenging shallow depth of field. Keeping an eye on focus was really challenging. I don't know how Mike Weldon did so on Steadicam shots so well...but he was/is one of the rather small group of elite 1st ACs of that era that were the guys that were the anamorphic shoot experts.

Several of those guys had dedicated complete lens packages that stayed with them permanently from show to show. This was due to the fact that idiocycracies varied from serial number to serial number, especially among the C-series, and each of these few 1st ACs prepped and hand picked the lenses they wanted for "their" package. It served to perpetuate their employment, as well.

Demand for anamorphic is so high now that there are more and "better" lenses...and more guys with experience with them.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 36
2/4/12 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Sure. First Contact.

Very good work - by far my favorite of the STTNG movies!
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 36
2/5/12 at 4:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

SW4 5 and 6 were shot anamorphic (I think). SW 1 was Super 35(?), 2 and 3 HD video.

Star wars Ep I was anamorphic to better match the orginal trilogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

And I had the very good fortune and great pleasure of doing one of them. All C-series and the E-series 180 lenses were used.

The only one I saw twice in theater.

To bad the BD never gave it the justice it deserved.

Cam man, whats your impression of the BD PQ of ST FC?
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 36
2/5/12 at 4:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The ratio of 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 film productions has been approximately 50/50 for decades. There are no signs of that changing in either direction anytime soon. Directors choose which aspect ratio they want based on the needs of the material.

I think this is right. Obviously, there's no stated rule.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 36
2/5/12 at 5:43am
Then we have movies like Avatar that was presented in both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 depending on the theater screen.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 36
2/5/12 at 8:43am
2.35:1 movies are far from disappearing.

I was rather surprised how many there where looking at US Top Grossing Movies of 2011.

I checked #1 to #60, and even with re-releases like Lion King and some 2.35 movies released late in 2011 which are doing ok in the theatres still but not yet passed #60, we have 39 movies out of 60 that is 2.35.
Strong Top 10 with all movies in 2.35.

Her is the breakdown;

1-10 > 10 > 2.35
11-20 > 8 > 2.35
21-30 > 4 > 2.35
31-40 > 7 > 2.35
41-50 > 4 > 2.35
51-60 > 6 > 2.35
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 36
2/5/12 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Cam man, whats your impression of the BD PQ of ST FC?

Frankly, it's been quite a long time since I watched any of it on BD. I don't find watching movies a solitary pleasure; I like to share the experience and entertain with movies. Unfortunately, none of my friends are particularly ST fans, so I haven't watched in a long time. I'll put it up soon and take a look on the big screen and get back to you.

Thanks to you and HogPilot for the kind words. Doing a ST movie was a pretty unique career experience. I left FC a couple of weeks early to go to another feature that was going to be a four month shoot. That decision was made fairly quickly, so I called my wife to tell her to get herself to Paramount pronto to visit the set because that's one you just don't want to miss. Patrick Stewart was particularly gracious in spending time with her on that day.

Our son, who was six at the time, and I went to the cast and crew screening of FC at the Paramount lot in the fall. Darned impressive theater!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Are newer movies being increasingly made closer to 16:9 or is 2.35 still king?