View Full Version : It's not 1.33:1, it's 1.37:1..........
While the aspect ration of 1.33:1 was common during early days of film making the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defined the "Academy" ratio in 1932 as being 1.37:1 for both shooting and projecting. This standard remained the preferred ratio until "Widescreen" (ie anything wider that the "Academy" ratio) really took off in the 1950s.
If a film shot in 1.37:1 is presented in 1.33:1 then we are missing nearly 3% of the original width of the film!
My question is how many films were made in 1.37:1? If it was the Academy standard then surely nearly all the Hollywood movies from the 30s and 40s were shot in 1.37:1. Why, then, are they presented in 1.33:1 on DVD and on TV?
I've noticed that many films from the 30s and 40s show evidence of being cropped on the edges (easy to spot during the tiles and the credits). Although I understand that up to 10% of the width (and height) of the picture is lost on the TV due to overscan are we also missing another 3% due to the film having been cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.33:1?! Or am I missing something....
If Casablanca was originally shot and projected in 1.37:1 I'd like to know about it and would like to be able to see it in its original form!!
:)
Steve Hoffman
08-04-2004, 04:59 PM
Tough sheet, bud. You'll take mis-framed DVD's and like 'em!
If a film shot in 1.37:1 is presented in 1.33:1 then we are missing nearly 11% of the original width of the film!
Maybe my math is rusty, but if you're watching a 1.37:1 movie on a 1.33:1 TV, you are getting 97% of the picture. Way more is gobbled up by overscan.
Tough sheet, bud. You'll take mis-framed DVD's and like 'em!
Yeah, until sales start to dwindle at which point we can expect "New transfer - using original 'Academy' aspect ratio of 1.37:1" releases of all those calssics! Of course, they'll screw something else up like only include a 5.1 remix of the soundtrack or something :rolleyes:.
Mister Kite
08-04-2004, 05:12 PM
I believe to see the entire image on a standard NTSC 4:3 television display, the picture would have to be window-boxed (i.e. black bars on top, bottom and both sides.) Sometimes older films are window-boxed for the opening and closing credits. You are correct, though. In the end, there is some image loss with a 1.33:1 transfer.
Gary
Steve Hoffman
08-04-2004, 05:14 PM
Let's not even mention the films that were filmed using the Fox Movietone aspect ratio. Like most sound films from 1928-33. The only time AND I MEAN O N L Y time this was ever done right was on the laser disc of Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS where there are actual black bars on both SIDES of the screen. Finally, a way to see that movie without chopping off the heads of everyone.
Maybe my math is rusty, but if you're watching a 1.37:1 movie on a 1.33:1 TV, you are getting 97% of the picture.Whoops! I've edited my original post to incorporate your correction :shh: ......
Way more is gobbled up by overscan.Just to clarify, if you have already cropped the image to 1.33:1 then any image lost in the overscan region is extra loss on top of the 3% already lost from the cropping. Now, assuming an overscan of about 10% (this is generous) I wouldn't say that the 3% lost from the crop was insignificant in comparison.
Personally, I would rather have the whole 1.37:1 image presented using a "window-box" format to avoid overscan affecting the image :agree:.
Jeff H.
08-04-2004, 05:39 PM
Still, the loss of picture area that small(1.37:1 to 1.33:1) isn't nearly as bad as movies shot in anamorphic widescreen, and recomposed in 1.33:1. That really annoys me!!! :realmad: I happened to see "Speed" on TV yesterday, which was originally shot in 2.35:1 and seeing it in pan & scan totally ruins the pacing and flow of that movie. I could only watch it for a couple of minutes before turning it off.
Just to clarify, if you have already cropped the image to 1.33:1 then any image lost in the overscan region is extra loss on top of the 3% already lost from the cropping. Now, assuming an overscan of about 10% (this is generous) I wouldn't say that the 3% lost from the crop was insignificant in comparison.
Yes, you get the 3% in addition to your overscan so it could turn out to be a fair bit. However, every consumer TV on the market is gonna have at least 3% overscan to start with so it's a losing battle.
I have always envisioned a product (the DVDO iScan HD may have this potential) that can take an image, be it 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 2.35:1 etc. and can add black bars around all sides of the picture to just account for your set's overscan. Sure, you'd technically be burning in your tubes, but you'd likely never see where they're burned in.
poweragemk
08-04-2004, 08:41 PM
Still, the loss of picture area that small(1:37.1 to 1:33.1) isn't nearly as bad as movies shot in anamorphic widescreen, and recomposed in 1:33.1. That really annoys me!!! :realmad: I happened to see "Speed" on TV yesterday, which was originally shot in 2:35.1 and seeing it in pan & scan totally ruins the pacing and flow of that movie. I could only watch it for a couple of minutes before turning it off.
Get ready for 'Scope movies cropped to HDTV aspect ratios, coming soon to a big four network near you....:rolleyes:
Steve Hoffman
08-04-2004, 08:44 PM
God, no.
God, no.
Steve, I see movies all the time on HBO-HD that are cropped from 2.39:1 down to 1.78:1.
"Daredevil" was on just the other night. It was even more frustrating because the opening credits were presented in OAR, then the image switched over to 1.78:1 :rolleyes:
Steve Hoffman
08-04-2004, 09:12 PM
I hate when they do **** like that.
That's what DVDs are for...
poweragemk
08-04-2004, 09:30 PM
I hate when they do **** like that.
Think of it this way - if Mr. and Mrs. Joe S. Pack are mad when they see black bars on their 1978 Zenith TV, how much MORE mad are they going to be if they see them on their newfangled 2008 PanaSony HDTV, that the gub'ment (having eliminated analog broadcasts) just forced them to spend five hundred bucks on?
I don't know how they're going to deal with sub-1.78 content, though. Squish it, maybe?
-=Rudy=-
08-04-2004, 09:38 PM
Yes, you get the 3% in addition to your overscan so it could turn out to be a fair bit. However, every consumer TV on the market is gonna have at least 3% overscan to start with so it's a losing battle.
The cheaper the set, the higher the overscan too. That was one reason my folks picked out an expensive (for 1985) set--it had a beefy power supply that was tight enough to keep the picture at the same size, regardless of the amount of dark or light information on the screen or, worse, the transitions from dark to light that would make typical TV sets shrink inward. Ever since that was pointed out to me, it bothers me to see cheaper sets where a scene transition makes the image shrink inward. Overscan is there so the Joe Sixpack consumer doesn't complain something's wrong with their TV when they see a black border shrinking in and out of their picture.
I don't know how they're going to deal with sub-1.78 content, though. Squish it, maybe?
I have some 1.66:1 anamorphic DVD titles and they add small bars on the left and right of the picture. My set is ISF'd calibrated to 4% overscan so I just can barely make them out. Most folks would not see the difference between a 1.78:1 DVD and one presented at 1.66:1.
The cheaper the set, the higher the overscan too. That was one reason my folks picked out an expensive (for 1985) set--it had a beefy power supply that was tight enough to keep the picture at the same size, regardless of the amount of dark or light information on the screen or, worse, the transitions from dark to light that would make typical TV sets shrink inward. Ever since that was pointed out to me, it bothers me to see cheaper sets where a scene transition makes the image shrink inward. Overscan is there so the Joe Sixpack consumer doesn't complain something's wrong with their TV when they see a black border shrinking in and out of their picture.
Yes, this is true. Also, the other main reason for overscan is that CRT tubes and CRT-RPTVs have a hard time focusing and holding convergence and the extremes of the picture. If they design overscan into the set, the poor focus/convergence is "pushed" outside of the boundaries of the viewing area. You won't get a consumer CRT-based TV to look good in the corners at 1-3% overscan, even the high-dollar ones.
Jeff H.
08-05-2004, 01:54 AM
Get ready for 'Scope movies cropped to HDTV aspect ratios, coming soon to a big four network near you....:rolleyes:
Why can't they just leave well enough alone??? :confused:
Danny
08-05-2004, 03:29 AM
Get ready for 'Scope movies cropped to HDTV aspect ratios, coming soon to a big four network near you....:rolleyes:
I don't have an HD set, but I work at a facility where we do a fair amount of HD work. I've never had anyone ask me to format, crop or change the aspect of a 2.35 element in HD. I'm not doubting that it happens, it's just that I haven't personally seen it.
My advice would be to complain to the network any time they air a 2.35 formatted to fill a 1.78. If more people take issue with this practice, they will listen. Heck, they probably already have the proper element on tape. It's fairly early in the HDTV era so now's the time.
Mister Kite
08-05-2004, 05:26 AM
Steve, I see movies all the time on HBO-HD that are cropped from 2.39:1 down to 1.78:1.
"Daredevil" was on just the other night. It was even more frustrating because the opening credits were presented in OAR, then the image switched over to 1.78:1 :rolleyes:
On the non-HD HBO channels, they have been doing this for years, except they drop everything down to 1.33:1. The reason? Viewer complaints! HBO customers do not like seeing those 'horrid' :rolleyes: black bars when they watch a theatrical release. Yet, made-for-HBO films and original HBO programming (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, et al) is shown letterboxed. Go figure...
Gary
JonUrban
08-05-2004, 05:38 AM
I seem to remember some Looney Tune's with opening credits that had bars on the top and sides. Once the toon starts, it's "zoomed". Is this and example of the 1.37:1?
Danny
08-05-2004, 06:50 AM
On the non-HD HBO channels, they have been doing this for years, except they drop everything down to 1.33:1. The reason? Viewer complaints! HBO customers do not like seeing those 'horrid' :rolleyes: black bars when they watch a theatrical release. Yet, made-for-HBO films and original HBO programming (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, et al) is shown letterboxed. Go figure...
Gary
Yeah, it's too late for SD, but hopefully with more people buying HD sets they (as consumers) will become familiar with the various aspect ratios. And demand that networks air them in the aspect ratio that the film was shot/created in.
Ken_McAlinden
08-05-2004, 07:49 AM
Trust me, the difference between 1.37:1 and 1.33:1 is within the margin of error for just about any theatrical presentation you will ever see, let alone home video. And yes, showing a 4:3 or a "scope" film in 16:9 simply because it fills your hi-def screen is just as dumb of an idea as showing any widescreen-composed film in 4:3 because it fills your standard-def screen.
Regards,
Ed Bishop
08-05-2004, 07:53 AM
Tough sheet, bud. You'll take mis-framed DVD's and like 'em!
Not necessarily, Tonmeister! All the viewer needs is a DVD player with a reverse zoom function, as my JVC DVD-Audio player has! The larger your screen the better, obviously, but with reverse you can see the entire frame of any DVD as it was mastered, and I've found that all full-frame(and wide-screen)films and TV shows do have extra picture you can see with the zoom format that's hidden in full-frame or on the sides of LB images. Most players may not have zoom, so you have to be sure a model does before purchasing.
Nifty!
:ed:
Ken_McAlinden
08-05-2004, 07:54 AM
I seem to remember some Looney Tune's with opening credits that had bars on the top and sides. Once the toon starts, it's "zoomed". Is this and example of the 1.37:1?1.37:1 would only require very thin vertical bars on the top and bottom (about 1.5% of the screen height each). For a 480 line signal, this would be about seven scan lines on both the top and bottom.
The credits are windowboxed to prevent cropping of the titles due to variability in television monitor overscan.
Regards,
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.