Talk:Aspect ratio (image)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Acronym

The search term OAR should not lead here. It should lead to a disambiguation page, as it could pertain to a paddle or "Of a Revolution" as well as this.

[edit] upload

I uploaded a new version of the 4_3 and 16_9 example files. The old ones were too small and fuzzy.

Thewikipedian 4 Jul 2005

[edit] 2.35 vs. 2.39

Modern anamorphic films are 2.39 - see Anamorphic widescreen, under the section entitled "2.35, 2.39, or 2.4?" before making any further addenda w/r/t this issue. Thanks. --Girolamo Savonarola 12:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spherical vs. anamorphic widescreen

I deleted the seperate spherical 2.35 and anamorphic 2.35 (and it really would have to be done for both 2.35 and 2.39) sections from the historically used list, since the origination method ultimately has nothing to do with the way they are projected - whether anamorphic, Super 35, or Techniscope, all prints intended to be shown in a full widescreen projection wind up as an anamorphic print. I think that discussion of origination methods would be better suited to separate articles. --Girolamo Savonarola 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to separate out origination and projection formats. I wonder, should we make an effort to consolidate the content here on wikipedia with the content on the Movie Making Manual wikibook? In particular, there is a growing section on Cameras and Formats. Thanks, Dan aka jack 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Might this line be more clearly stated? --Jeremy Butler 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It was filmed in Super 35 (1.33:1 aspect ratio) and, in addition to being presented in cinemas and television in the original aspect ratio of 2.35:1, it was also broadcast without the matte its original aspect ratio release had.
Two things - one, Super 35 is usually (though not always) 3-perf, which is not 1.33. In fact, it's usually not even necessary to state Super 35's aspect ratio - it is not the intended final image. Most 1.85 films, for example, are actually shot in 1.37 and then cropped to 1.85 in the projector aperture mask. Therefore, you need to research the tech specs behind Gladiator through a recognized industry source (IMDb may be wrong, it's not uncommon) - usually interviews with the director of photography or editor, or sometimes even projectionist chatter (film-tech.com) are good sources as to what actually was used. If it was 4-perf Super 35, then the TV version of Gladiator would have been taken from the full frame. If it was 3-perf Super 35, then they obviously cropped the sides.
Two, as has been stated before, no current widescreen films are 2.35. I know, i know, the box may indeed say 2.35 on it, but in reality the aspect ratio is 2.39. It's one of those nitpicky things that most people in the industry didn't really find out about. Basically, the theatrical projection standard was slightly altered to crop the top and bottom just a tiny bit more so as to hide flashing from splices. It's a very common mistake for someone to still call anything anamorphic 2.35 - even those who know the difference oftentimes use 2.35 colloquially just so that they don't have to go through the lengthy explanation I just did. But trust me, even if the DVD cover artists don't know - Gladiator, along with all other anamorphically projected films in the past 35 years, is a 2.39 film. --Girolamo Savonarola 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep. But this sentence is still confusingly worded, I think. I was hoping the original author (not me) would clarify it a bit for readers not well-versed in film technology. --Jeremy Butler 20:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Basically it comes down to this - most films are shot with a frame that includes a lot of image shot that isn't ultimately seen on the screen in the theater. For some of these films, when they show a 4:3 version for TV, instead of cropping the sides, the filmmakers have issued a copy which actually contains more of the frame which was originally unused in the theatrical version. Now, it is generally considered that the theatrical version is the intended aspect ratio, but that sometimes the filmmakers would rather add more to the top and/or bottom of the frame than take away from the sides. Still, it's a tricky deal since you can't really compose a frame for two aspect ratios, much less doing so for all the shots in any given film. So you do get "more" of the picture, but it's generally not the composition as it was fully intended. Does that clarify things or just make it more confusing? --Girolamo Savonarola 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty... I've made an attempt to clarify the wording in the original. See what you think. --Jeremy Butler 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3:2 Aspect Ratio

Was desiring to learn more about aspect ratios and made Wikipedia, as usual, my first research choice. But I noticed the aspect ratio on which I was looking at the page (3:2) was not listed under commonly used. This is the aspect ratio for my (and, as far as i know, all) Apple Powerbook G4s. My resolution is 1280x854, but I could bump it down to 1152x768 (an extended version of the extremely common 4:3 display resolution of 1024x768). I've added this ratio, but as I do not own many computers, I do not know which manufacturers use this ratio besides Apple.

Atchius 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view (NPOV)

This article must maintain a neutral point of view. It is not the place to make arguments for or against widescreen. Several recent edits need to be modified to make the article adhere to NPOV. --Jeremy Butler 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I deleted my 'Comparing aspect ratio' section, because the newer picture is not as biased, because it shows each picture as the same size (I think). Last Avenue 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The new picture is biased, because it's a simple geometrical fact that the rectangle the closest to a 1:1 aspect ratio will have the largest area inside it. This belies the fact that, for instance, a 2.39ratio anamorphic 35mm film print actually uses more frame area than 1.37...but then on the other hand 1.37 (again on a film print) will use more of the frame than 1.66 or 1.85. The basic problem is that there's no really good way to resolve the issue - what should you bias it on? Film frame area? Comparative size on a theatrical screen? Comparative size on a TV? I'm kinda uncertain as to how to resolve this: as a filmmaker, my personal preference is towards a constant-height comparison, as that's how they would compare in a theater. But I also understand that most people think about it more as a video issue, and certainly in that regard, watching a 2.39 film with letterboxing forces a loss in screen real estate for the benefit of seeing the entire frame. (This also brings up the whole philosophical issue of how to ideally deal with a 4:3 frame with a widescreen TV...) Anyway, shall we have a think? Girolamo Savonarola 04:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm... maybe include several pictures, including the current one, under heading 'comparing aspect ratios'? One would be the current one (constant-diagonal), one would be constant-height, one would be constant-width, and the last be constant-size? Then, the constant-size or -height would be the 'main' picture at the top of the page. Last Avenue 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Comparing aspect ratios' image section

[edit] Equal-area (equal-resolution) picture

I've come up with an equal-area image spec, as follows:

Image size: 640x359

4:3 (red) | 478x359 | 171602 pixels 16:9 (orange) | 552x311

  • 1.85 (turquoise) | 563x604

2.39 (blue) | 640x268 | 171520 pixels

  • 1.85 might be redundant.

At this rate, I think this resolution is OK for now. Last Avenue 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper sizes and desktop resolution

I think that we should ditch most of the material here relating to paper sizes. First of all, it's already covered in paper size much better than we do, and we do link to that article already. Second, the aspect ratios image for that (the gray rectangles one) is badly placed and has little bearing on the subject discussed here. AND is written improperly - the 4:3 box is actually 3:4, and I can see that very well could be confusing and counter productive for this article. (The image was created for a separate article on the .de Wikipedia, IIRC, so that would explain a lot...)

I'm also a bit split on whether or not so much of the computer material should be here. What do y'all think? Girolamo Savonarola 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Columbia widescreen.jpg

Image:Columbia widescreen.jpg has some distortion on the right side -- a greenish vertical stripe. It should be fixed or replaced. --Jeremy Butler 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that image too, but for different reasons. The caption states that it's a NASA image, however I can tell it's (also?) a screenshot from Orbiter (www.orbitersim.com) which is not to my knowledge affiliated with NASA. Has NASA been publicizing the Orbiter simulator? Where is the image from?

[edit] "common widescreen" and 2.35/2.39

I reverted the last edit today b/c 1) it is both very POV and factually inaccurate to call 1.78 "common widescreen". Common video widescreen, yes, but among film not even close. 2) I think you're just making the 2.35/2.39 issue way more confusing, and furthermore the issue is discussed already on the page (and the anamorphic widescreen page). Encouraging people to continue to use the 2.35 misnomer only creates less clarity about which one is truly being discussed/used. For instance, hard matted Super 35/Techniscope films are still hard matted to 2.39, NOT 2.35. But because you call it 2.35, it only breeds confusion. Are the films being shot today 2.39? Yes. So let's call it 2.39 and talk about those films there. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, yes the edit was intended to convey the idea of "common video/TV widescreen", as opposed to "common film standard" (this article is about all aspect ratios, not just films). 16:9 as a term is mentioned more often than any of the other ratios on the list, which should be given its due somehow, such as bolding 16:9.
The treatment of 2.35:1 calls for caution. I understand the concern to emphasize what is technically accurate, but 2.39 is simply not a term that is used by the general public, so 2.35 calls for more disambiguation: 2.39:1->74,800 hits2.35:1->2.4m hits. Whether we object to the practice or not, it is 2.35:1, not 2.39:1, that appears on the cases of movie videos. 2.39 does not actually appear under imdb's list of DVD aspect ratios. This is the way it is, and having a clause like "2.35 : 35 mm anamorphic prior to 1970" is more confusing to readers who are looking up 2.35 for the first time after reading about a recent film. It is not fair to expect all readers of this section to have read the anamorphic widescreen article. For more clarity, the first statement after 2.35 should point out that "2.35" is a claimed aspect ratio of modern films, followed by statements which elaborate on the inaccuracy. Shawnc 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you pop on over to cinematography.com, where working camerapeople actually discuss technical issues (or cinematography.net for that matter), they very often bring it up as 2.39 or 2.4. As for the IMDb, it is an issue that I have brought up with them before, and I've been told by them that they are aware of the issue and that they can't deal with it at the moment due to database limitations but it is on their to-do list. (IMDb has a good amount of inaccuracies to begin with.) Google tests are not absolute standards. ("the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness.")
For example, most people refer to 1.37 as 1.33, but I'm sorry, it's wrong and I'm going to edit any articles I see which incorrectly use it. We have a whole section on the 2.35/2.39 issue on Anamorphic widescreen. If an encyclopedia is not going to discuss what is factually and objectively accurate, then what use is it? The general public is wrong, and the article explains this. There is no reason to perpetuate misnomers simply on the basis of their popularity. Girolamo Savonarola 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a mix up here over "correctness" and "readability": we're not saying "what is known as 2.35:1 is correct". The section is about common ratios, not "factual" ratios. The statement "2.35 is a commonly claimed aspect ratio" is not logically wrong, but is a fact about a situation. This and the statement "What is commonly known as 2.35 today is actually 2.39" are both factually true. Do you see what I mean? We must not assume that readers have read about the 2.35/2.39 issue on "anamorphic widescreen", and we're not just a site for camerapeople, but for everyone. The 2.35:1 label is too common for it to be treated as a footnote, and treating any esoteric usage as the only acceted terminology is not very NPOV. The following post on alt.video.dvd may illustrate the readers' thoughts:[1]
Poster1:
There are current three aspect ratios used for movies. 
The first is 4:3...
The second is 1.85:1...
The third is 2.35:1. This has pretty much become the "de facto" 
standard for very wide-screen theatrical movie projection...

Poster2:
Extremely minor correction #3: as of 1971, this was changed to 2.39:1, 
though the "2.35:1" label sticks for some reason. (The image's height 
was slightly reduced to hide bad splices.) 

Poster3:
Extremely minor, tiny, minuscule and otherwise not really a correction.
The 2.39:1 ratio is often referred to as 2.40:1. These are film makers, 
not mathematicians 

Poster4:
Considering the margins of error involved in theatrical projection it's 
moot anyway.

Also, AVSforum.com is not disreputable and is larger than cinematography.com by hits, and they follow the 2.35 designation anyway. 2.35 is therefore just a naming convention, and readers should be able to find what they are looking for first, and then be informed about the details. Part of being NPOV is representing different points of views, including the ones which are popular but wrong, and say so (assuming of course that they are wrong, which in this case we're not in disagreement). If erroneous ideas could not be elaborated on, however popular they are, many of the articles on this site would not exist, including many sections about religions and mythologies. It is arguably irresponsible for us to treat the 2.39 designation as if it was a standard terminology when the reality is not so.

I also received the following feedback: "They are both correct, sorta. The exact frame from a scope element is 2.34 and change, rounded to 2.35:1. The SMPTE projection aperture is 2.39 and change, rounded to 2.40:1 (this to cover the errant splice line). If you are talking about the film frame, it is correct to call it 2.35:1. If you are talking about the projected frame, or perhaps even the widescreen video transfer if it is done to SMPTE framing, then 2.39 or 2.40:1 is correct."

The following is what I think the 2.35 section needs: clearly pointing out that the number in practice refers to one of several things, along with a link to Anamorphic_widescreen#2.35.2C_2.39.2C_or_2.4.3F. Since the issue is complicated, we should simply say so and guide the reader to the full explanation. Shawnc 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super 16

I added this line :

It also can be blown up to 35 mm for theatrical release and therefore is also used for feature films.

Please cleanup if needed(english is not my native language)

... and hello to everybody, my first contribution... EDIT : It was,but posted in head instead of bottom sorry. Laurent.a

[edit] "Academy flat"

"Academy flat" is not an actual standard-practice term - to my knowledge, it started to circulate online on cinephile websites. However, Academy ratio is 1.37, and "flat" ratio is usually defined as 1.85, and each of these are terms commonly used. "Flat" actually originates from the 1950's, when Cinerama and competing formats oftentimes were projected on curved screens (including the original anamorphic format, Cinemascope, IIRC...). Since the Academy ratio died out almost overnight, "flat" quickly became associated with the 1.85 ratio, as it became the de facto ratio projected on a flat screen back then. The curved screens died out within about a decade, but the name stuck largely because the only other ratio regularly in usage by then was anamorphic. Hence most commercial cinemas today are only equipped to show "scope" (2.39) or "flat" (1.85). Academy has absolutely nothing to do with it, and with Super 35 and 3-perf there's a very good chance that many, if not most, of today's 1.85 films were never even originated in an Academy ratio frame intended to be soft-matted to begin with. I hope that clarifies the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, there is no "Academy flat" ratio. This is a misnomer derived from "Academy aperture" (which you correctly put at 1.37:1, although it is commonly used to represent 1.33:1 as well) being the normal camera aperture for 1.85:1 "flat" films. Three-perf is rare in theatrical films. Scope, however, is 2.40:1 (not 2.39) - has been since the SMPTE change in the early seventies (although people still refer to it as 2.35:1). Also, Super35 is not used for 1.85:1 theatrical films. Super35 is used for commercials, music videos or "scope" (2.40:1) theatrical pictures. The term "Flat" has been placed back in the article, but "Academy flat" is not a correct term. LACameraman 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the backup. Just a few points back, however - 3 perf, along with Super 35, is now becoming more and more common in the wake of DI. And also, Super 35 is not a format per se, and can be used for any ratio desired - scope being just one of them. It is perfectly possible (and common) to use it for 1.85, and again, this may be more desirable now if one is to proceed to a DI in any case. It is usually used in conjunction with 3-perf as well, since neither format is projectable and requires some form of intermediate conversion, so most projections take advantage of the one to use the other as well, thus gaining either cost savings in negative footage used and additional negative frame space. Furthermore, the SMPTE standard is 0.825 in by 0.690 in, which after unsqueezing is 2.39, not 2.40. However, many DPs round the 2.39 up to 2.4, which sometimes is also referred to as 2.40, although using the additional zero would in fact be mathematically inappropriate. To split hairs... Girolamo Savonarola 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Always nice when we can get a solid discussion flowing, always helps to refine these articles. What follows is, in no way, intended to be agressive - merely arguing the facts. I appreciate the discussion. Okay... In response to the above - it's not DPs that are rounding 2.39 to 2.40, I'm going by the official ASC specs, derived from SMPTE standards. 2.39:1 is not an official designiation, 2.40:1 is. I believe the actual anamorphic factor (usually referred to as 2x) is actually 2.007 or 2.008 - not 2.0. That small factor does change to a 2.4 when multiplied by the 1.1956 aspect ratio of .825 x .690 "cinemascope" frame.
Hmm. Never heard about the anamorphic power being off from 2x. I'm not saying it isn't so, but if there isn't a proper reference to that, I'd rather stay on the side of caution, as it doesn't usually appear in the technical literature. Fair? Girolamo Savonarola 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This article by John Pytlak at Kodak seems to clearly discuss 2.39 and 2x squeeze in relation to a proposed format which has yet to arise. He's a well-respected tech head there. Girolamo Savonarola 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. That's the first time I've seen John refer to 2.39. I consulted with John when compiling data for the 9th edition of the ASC Manual's aperture list. I was frustrated by the lack of consistent data then and I am again now. I propose to keep the ratio at 2.40:1 in the article, but make a reference to 2.39:1. Perhaps something along the lines of: "2.39:1, more commonly referred to as 2.40:1." Rob Hummel and I went over the aperture list, along with Stephen Burum, with a fine-tooth comb (cleaning up errors from other editions and SMPTE changes). 2.40:1 was the official ratio used in the manual. LACameraman 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, John's always got some surprises. ;) The "2.39, more commonly..." phrase is fine by me, if you want to edit it to that. As you probably know, the change from 2.35 to 2.39/2.40 was merely giving the projection aperture mask less height to help cover distracting in-frame splices. Nothing about the glass or camera gate has changed since the late 1950s. By the way, if you've worked a lot on things like apertures for "The Bible", you might want to give list of film formats a look. I spent months working on that, and I have to say that I'm not totally satisfied with some of the specs; got a lot of conflicting information from reputable sources. (Though I have to say I usually favored the ASC - and most of the conflicts didn't involve the Manual anyway.) Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to question your terms a bit. I would argue that 3-perf is not "common," although it is being used more than it was in the past 20 years with the prevelance of DIs. I would also highly question Super 35 as used for anything other than 2.40:1. It is possible, but certainly not "common." I am not personally aware of any Super 35 films that are intended for theatrical projection at 1.85:1. Doing so would require a DI or optical printer step and, speaking as a cinematographer, I see very little (if any) advantage in doing so. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I'm not privy to every movie - and it certainly is possible to do, but I would question caling it a "common" practice. Going through the last 18 months of American Cinematographer Magazines (Jan 05 - Jun 06), there is not one reference to a film shot Super 35 for 1.85:1. Plenty of Super 35 for 2.40:1 - at least one per issue, if not two or three (which I would therefore call "common"). There was one article on Super 35 for 1.78:1 (16:9) for television (Rome (Sep 05)), but not for theatrical release. Even 3-perf is not "common" yet, especially not for theatrical films. In the 18 months of AC issues there were three instances of 3-perf films (out of about 54 films, or so, covered), one of them for television (Into the West (June 05) 3-perf for 16:9), two for theatrical release (The Cave (aug 05) and Lucky Number Slevin (Apr 06) BOTH 3-perf Super 35 for 2.40:1 release). That is certainly not definitive proof, but certainly solid argument that neither Super 35 for 1.85 (or anything other than 2.40:1) or 3-perf, in general, can be called "common". You are absolutely right that adding the zero to 2.40:1 is mathematically incorrect, but it is a common standard to represent all aspect ratios with a value of 1 (x:1) as a two decimal number. 2:1 being the exception (which is not a commonly used ratio).
I would also argue that Super 35 is a "format" in that you need physical modification to the cameras (recentering lenses) and different physical gates. I suppose that depends on how were defining "format." LACameraman 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
3-perf not only makes sense if you're going to need to use intermediate conversion on Super 35, but it is absolutely the most obvious choice for shooting 16:9 TV, as it is the exact same aspect ratio (and has been used to this effect on shows such as "The West Wing" and "The Sopranos"). It also gets an awful lot of usage for 35 mm origination meant to stay in video (TV drama, commercials, and music videos). As far as Super 35 for 1.85 (sometimes called Super 1.85), here are some films which have used it: The Constant Gardener, Goodfellas, A Life Less Ordinary, Jason X, Lemony Snicket's a Series of Unfortunate Events, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Godfather Part III, Drop Dead Sexy (also 3-perf), The Two Jakes, Evolution, Shallow Hal, The Fisher King, The Bonfire of the Vanities, High School High, Communion, and Fried Green Tomatoes. That's just some of what I could find on IMDb, which also must be regarded as an incomplete source as many titles don't have full technical info yet. It is obvious that the main usage of S35 is to get an anamorphic print without many of the disadvantages of anamorphic origination; furthermore it is far easier to get a 1.85 print from a normal width 4-perf system in current usage. However, I think that the list of credits clearly shows that Super 1.85 has significant mainstream usage (which will likely only rise as DI becomes a standard finishing process). In fact, it's arguable that all future productions going to DI will always shoot either Super 35 or anamorphic, regardless of final aspect ratio. Furthermore, the entire discussion tends to overlook the vast field of non-feature work, which has a far higher tendency to use Super 35 and 3-perf due to the lack of need for a print. Every modern telecine machine supports both Super 35 and 3-perf, as do all preview theater film projectors, which even have special lenses for "Super 2.35" and "Super 1.85". Emmanuel Lubezki in particular is a great fan of Super 1.85, and also used it for The Assassination of Richard Nixon and The Cat in the Hat. This topic was in fact recently brought up on a cinematography.com thread (which also cites Malcolm X as a Super 1.85 film).
Excellent response. I completely overlooked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which is indeed covered in AC during the months I looked and is indeed a Super 1.85 film. I conceed that it is used much more often than I was aware of. You're also correct that I am not considering non-feature productions as there is little verifyiable tehcnical information on music videos, commercials and even television that is available. LACameraman 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Now as far as Super 35 as a format, it isn't one. It's a property of a frame which simply defines the width. It has no projection standard, just some more commonly used routes, but has been used to shoot what has been shown as 35 mm prints, 70 mm prints, and video standards. Each of these has different properties and uses the negative dimensions differently. It does indeed affect the lenses and the gate, but as it has no clearly defined standards with regards to the rest of the system of origination and projection, it generally is not a format per se, although often referred to as such. Semantics? Maybe. Girolamo Savonarola 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know "Academy Flat" isn't a correct term. A 10,700 hits on Google for the term didn't clear up things either. Thanks for correcting me. I fail to see, however, why you removed the term "Flat". The exact wording I used was "often referred to as ..." Apart from the term 'flat' being correct or not, it's an undeniable fact that the 1.85 ratio is often referred to as "Flat". You might not agree with that usage of the term, but this is an encyclopedia, people expect this kind of information to be in it. Therefore, even "often (not entirely correctly) referred to as Academy Flat" would be valid sentence. MrTroy 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, 10k hits including a lot of non-film ones. Search for "Academy flat" film gets less than 2000. Furthermore, as per our policy on Google test, Google checks popular usage, not correctness. It cannot alone be used as a criterion for inclusion. I agree that flat should be included, but just because many people use an incorrect term doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate a misnomer. And one which I've never heard amongst either camera people or projectionists. Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: Google checks popular usage, not correctness. Exactly. That was precisely my point: it's not a correct name for the ratio, but it IS one that's often used. And perpetuate a misnomer? If used like "often (incorrectly) referred to as Academy Flat", we aren't perpetuating it at all. In fact, we're saying it's an incorrect usage, while we are including it in the article (because this is an informational article after all: people will come looking here for an explanation of the term Academy Flat). MrTroy 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with this usage. I think that's a good idea. LACameraman 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, when I looked up the term, most of the articles using it were rife with misinformation about the subject of aspect ratios at large. Not even all of them could agree on what "academy flat" was - some called it 1.33 (which is actually full silent frame). So I would rather stick with the terminology which is used by those who actually work with it on a day-to-day basis, as the terminology has accepted meanings and has universal meaning across the subject. If you can find some citation outside of the internet, it might be more acceptable, I would imagine. (And if you do have some reference of the sort, I would be curious to see it.) Girolamo Savonarola 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As stated earlier there is no such thing as "Academy Flat." "Flat" however is an official designination for anything non-"scope" (non anamorphic), but mostly utilized in reference to a 1.85:1 film having been photographed with spherical lenses. LACameraman 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Theatrical Aspect Ratio"

I removed the following section from the "Original aspect ratio" section of the article:

However, the term original aspect ratio can be ambiguous. That is, a movie can have more than one OAR. A good example is Robert Rodriguez's Once Upon a Time in Mexico: the original aspect ratio for theatrical release was 2.39:1, while Rodriguez decided that the DVD aspect ratio had to be 1.78:1. As the latter is also a valid aspect ratio - because the director himself approved it - the movie actually has two OARs. It would be clearer, therefore, to use the term theatrical aspect ratio (see below) instead of original aspect ratio.
===Theatrical aspect ratio===
Theatrical Aspect Ratio is a home cinema term for the aspect ratio or dimensions in which a cinematic film was originally shown in movie theatres. Usually this is the same as the OAR (see above). However, when explicitly meaning the ratio as seen in cinemas, theatrical aspect ratio is a more accurate term than OAR.


First off, because the film Once Upon a Time in Mexico was in two different aspect ratios does not eliminate the OAR of the film. James Cameron often shot movies in Super 35 mm so that he could have a 2.40:1 (not 2.39:1) theatrical release, but a full frame 1.33:1 video release with no pan and scan The Abyss is one such example. Cameron has been quoted as saying, on video - he preferrs the 1.33:1 version. That does not eliminate the original aspect ratio (OAR) of the film. Directors and cinematographers VERY OFTEN have to "protect" for multiple aspect ratios - but it is only really possible to compose for one. If a film is getting a theatrical release, that one ratio is the theatrical ratio.

The top portion of the section I cut is a note for the Once Upon a Time in Mexico article, as trivia, that Rodriguez himself approved the new aspect ratio for the video release - it does not create a new category. As for the second passage, I'm not familiar with the common usage of "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" at all ("Original Aspect Ratio" is the common term to define the theatrical aspect ratio). If you can cite sources that this term is in use, then this second half of the section belongs back in the article. LACameraman 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"it is only really possible to compose for one. (aspect ratio)" I can tell you from personal experience that this is nonsense. Every shot is going to have it's own theoretical "best" aspect ratio. Close-ups, and anything involving vertical motion are best at 4:3 or even narrower. People sitting and talking are best around 16:9, crowd shots and landscapes are best at wider ratios. This is why comic books have different aspect ratios for practically every panel. (And rarely go wider then 16:9.) In a film, having multiple "intended" aspect ratios is a simple matter of planning for them during the shoot. You shoot pulled back, and reduce either vertically or horizontally on a shot by shot basis. And occasionally you run a second camera for an alternate take. All the Pixar films (since a bug's life?) are true multi aspect ratio, because they can expand, crop, or reposition any shot easily.Algr 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Algr - with respect to your experiences, as a professional cinematographer and as one who has held conversations with the top cinematographers of the world on this very topic - you would absolutely be in the minority on that subject. In fact - I would recommend you re-reading Vittorio Storaro's Univisium proposal, which we have been discussing at length, as his entire concept behind that proposal is to unify aspect ratio and never compromise the image. Letterboxing was invented to preserve the intregrity of the original composition. With extremely rare exceptions (that prove the rule rather than violate it) films have only one aspect ratio. There are not multiple aspect ratios within a single film - and composition is not based on a theoretical "best" aspect ratio, but based on THE chosen ratio for the film. Regardless of opinion, however, the argument remains - are there sources for the term "theatrical aspect ratio" as a separate definition from "original aspect ratio"? LACameraman 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
First off, because the film Once Upon a Time in Mexico was in two different aspect ratios does not eliminate the OAR of the film.
No it doesn't. The question is: which is the OAR? Rodriguez composed it for 1.78:1, and then matted it to 2.39:1 because he thought the audience was expecting this. However, when he got bad reviews (about the composition being too cramped vertically) he decided to remove the mattes for DVD release. (At least, that's the story how I've read it.) Now, it's obvious that the theatrical AR is 2.39:1. But what is the OAR? Many OAR-enthusiasts would say OAR is how it was shown in theater, while cinematographers would say 1.78:1 is the OAR (because it was composed that way). Like I said --> ambiguous.
("Original Aspect Ratio" is the common term to define the theatrical aspect ratio)
It's the common term indeed, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one. As this is a home cinema term (like the article already says) it will proof hard to find a reference for the term theatrical aspect ratio -> like OAR, it's used (and probably invented) by consumers, not by cinematographers. But does the fact that the term was invented by non-professionals mean it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia?
are there sources for the term "theatrical aspect ratio" as a separate definition from "original aspect ratio"
As I said it won't be likely to find a professional source for this, but of course I can show you that the terms are indeed used separately. Coincidentally, when I searched on Google the first result was a review about Rodriguez' movie again:
2.35:1 is the theatrical aspect ratio, yet 1.78:1 is the native aspect ratio, and apparently the preferred ratio by director Robert Rodriguez. So, what exactly is this film's OAR?
As you can see, home cinema enthusiasts DO see a difference between OAR and TAR. And as OAR and MAR are both described as 'home cinema terms', I think TAR deserves to be in the article too. It has never been said that TAR is an official cinematography term, so that wouldn't be a reason to remove it either. MrTroy 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Troy - I never ment to imply that the terms needed to be official cinematographic terms - they certainly aren't. They just need to be verifiable and in common use, per Wikipedia standards. Just because a specific term might be more applicable, if you're inventing it and it's not used by home theater magazines, critics, online reviewers - then it's not a real term. OAR is a term that is now ubiquitous in reviews and in technology publications discussing video releases of theatrical films. I don't know Rodriguez's story - but you certainly can't use him as a reliable example as Rodriguez is the exception to nearly every rule in filmmaking. If the term isn't in common usage, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Citing sources. LACameraman 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then answer this: What is the OAR for Fahrenheit 9/11? In the theaters it was (I think) 1.85:1, but most of the footage is cropped SD news video. (Which suffered IMHO. I think it would have been better if they had left the sides of the screen black, and kept the video 4:3.) Does OAR refer to how the footage was meant to be seen when it was shot? (4:3) ...or to what the director did? (16:9) ...or what the audience saw? (1.85:1) Algr 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And here's another one: Fantasia/2000. It was originally released in IMAX, (4:3) but then saw theatrical release in widescreen. The DVD is 16:9. So which one is "original"?Algr
I'm sorry - I missed this note. I'm NOT attempting, in any way shape or form, to define OAR or have any steadfast rule for how the term is applied. I'm merely questioning "Theatrical Aspect Ratio / TAR" as a valid, commonly used term - and thus far I see no evidence that it is in common usage as to deserve it's own section in this article. Personally, in my opinion, the answer to your question - all footage in 9/11 would have an OAR of 1.85:1 - regardless of where it came from originally, it was compiled in that film at that aspect ratio. Fantasia always had an OAR of 1.37:1. It was cropped and re-released 2.0:1 in the late 50's and the same situation happened in 2000. The Original aspect ratio of the film is 1.37:1. But each person may intrepret that differently - there is no steadfast rule. LACameraman 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
if you're inventing it and it's not used by home theater magazines, critics, online reviewers - then it's not a real term.
Inventing it? Of course not.
  • First of all: an Altavista inquiry for "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" NOT original gives 19,300 results. That pretty much proves by itself that I didn't -invent- the term an sich.
  • Secondly, here are some online reviewers using the term as a separate term from OAR:
DigitallyObsessed: 2.35:1 is the theatrical aspect ratio, yet 1.78:1 is the native aspect ratio (...) So, what exactly is this film's OAR?
DVDBeaver: RoboCop was shown theatrically in 1.85:1. 1.66:1 is (director) Paul Verhoeven's preferred Aspect ratio. So we have included "Original Aspect ratio" for both.
  • Another example of why OAR can be different from TAR: Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove was composed in multiple aspect ratios, 4:3 as well as 1.66:1. On most DVD's of the movie this concept has been applied: from scene to scene, ratios would switch between 1.66 and 1.33:1. The theatrical aspect ratio however, was just 1.66:1 the whole movie. One could say the OAR is 1.33/1.66, while the TAR is 1.66.
  • Finally, I fail to see why Rodriguez can't be used because he's the exception to nearly every rule. Exceptions are the only examples you can give for this discussion, because for non-exceptions the OAR would be equal to the TAR. MrTroy 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
MrTroy - I was almost persuaded, actually, until I looked at the two sites you referenced. One merely uses the three words together "theatrical aspect ratio" - not as a defined term, but as a simple description. I can say "overexposed raw negative" but that doesn't mean ORN is a common term. The second site (DVD Beaver) actually incorrectly uses "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" as a universal lable for "widescreen." 1.78:1 was NOT the theatrical aspect ratio of the Robocop Trilogy.
Very interesting about Dr. Strangelove that's not anything I've heard before. Unfortunately Gil Taylor is in poor health and I don't have a means to contact him. Do you have a resource for this? I'll look too. For nothing else than an interesting historical bit of information.
Further, without being petty or overly argumentative, I can do a Google search for three random words: Yellow Dog Bird and return 13,2000 hits - that means nothing. But, quite obviously we differ on "TAR" as a valid term and, as of yet, I am not persuaded. We should probably open it up to a vote by other Wiki editors and see if we can find a consensus. All the best, LACameraman 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the only 1.33 bit of Dr. Strangelove is the nuclear test footage used at the end. But the projectionist wouldn't have changed the lenses and aperture masking at that point - which means either that it was meant by Kubrick to be cropped to 1.66 or it was pillarboxed on the sides intentionally. Either way, source footage ratios ultimately yield to the intended projection ratio. That would be both the original and theatrical ratio. As far as the argument as a whole: the original aspect ratio vs. the theatrical one - the theatrical one is the first intended one, and thus is the original ratio. Unless you can find an example where the DVD is released before the theatrical print in a different ratio, I don't see how you can overcome that simple fact. Girolamo Savonarola 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, a Google search for "theatrical aspect ratio" TAR results in 25 hits, none of which uses TAR as an acronym. Whereas "original aspect ratio" OAR pulls 14,900, almost all of which use OAR as an acronym. Either way, Google tests only indicate popular usage, not correctness. Girolamo Savonarola 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
@Girolamo:
Don't attack me on the TAR acronym: as you can see, I didn't use that in the article. I only use it in this Discussion section because I don't want to type the whole term again and again. I realize it's not a valid acronym. And Google indeed only indicates popular usage, but that's what this is all about, right? It's not an official term anyway, just like MAR isn't (but that one is in the article). In fact, searching for "modified aspect ratio" MAR results in only 47 hits.

That's actually a solid point. Perhaps MAR should not be in the article, either. LACameraman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

@LACameraman:
DVDBeaver actually does not use TAR for 'widescreen'. The reviewers working for that site are in the business too long to mix up terms like that. The details for the R2 DVD read 1.85:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio and the explanation reads RoboCop was shown theatrically in 1.85:1. It's true that they incorrectly put 1.78:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio for the R1 DVD, but that's obviously just a mistake - given the fact that in the text below they say the TAR is 1.85:1.
For Dr. Strangelove I refer to DVDBeaver again, it explains about the multiple aspect ratios, theatrical release, and how the idea worked out on DVD.
I should note, by the way, that I appreciate the tone of this discussion. On other occasions this sort of discussion was ended with I'm-the-expert-so-listen-to-me statements. I'm happy we're able to discuss this in a civilized way. Have a nice day, --MrTroy 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And Google indeed only indicates popular usage, but that's what this is all about, right? Well, I wouldn't object to a very brief aside merely mentioning erroneously used terms. But as per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them. Girolamo Savonarola 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Neologisms are new, previously nonexisting, words. For example, the verb to Google {something} would be a neologism. A term like Theatrical Aspect Ratio can hardly be qualified as being a neologism.
Secondly, the only problems WP seems to have with neologisms is that A. they fall under own research, and B. they aren't verifiable. Clearly, point A is already disproved by the 19,300 hits for the term - even in my dreams a term invented by me wouldn't be on so many web sites. As far as point B is concerned, I'm working on that. It's not easy to find reliable sources because, as per Wikipedia policy, blogs and forums aren't valid references. I already gave to links to online reviewers using the term though, and not only that: they use the term with a different meaning than OAR. MrTroy 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unless you can find an example where the DVD is released before the theatrical print in a different ratio, I don't see how you can overcome that simple fact." The original Battlestar Galactica from 1978 was shown on TV in 4:3 before a shortened version was released in US theaters. Algr

That wasn't even intended for theatrical release originally - it was filmed to be a TV pilot, and they rushed it out the door for a quick cash-in on the Star Wars wave. See the WP article. Girolamo Savonarola 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And yet it was a much better film then such 'pure' cinema as The Black Hole or Battle Beyond the Stars. :) Algr
Heh, I'll have to trust you on that one. Haven't seen any of those three! :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final word?

Can we make a decision about this matter? I've given 2 sources that use the term theatrical aspect ratio, with Google you can find hundreds of forums the term is used on (doesn't prove that it's a valid term, but does prove the term is in wide use), and I've given examples in which the theatrical aspect ratio differs from the OAR (Once Upon a Time..., Dr. Strangelove). I think if MAR deserves a spot in the article, TAR does even more. MrTroy 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote Yes. It is less ambiguous then "original aspect ratio", and I've given three examples of movies where OAR and TAR are different. (a fourth: Exorcist: The Beginning - was shot in 2:1, TAR was 2.39:1 against the director's wishes.) Algr 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I propose a sub-section to "OAR" that does not utilize "TAR" as a term, but is, rather, entitle it "Theatrical aspect ratio" and brings up the examples you both have stated above. I'd also suggest, if "MAR" is not a valid term (I wasn't sure when I made the edits) that the section there be altered as well. Only "OAR" should remain. "MAR" should be a sub-section of "OAR" with a title of "Modified aspect ratio" reading pretty much as it does now with out using the capital letters or acronyms. Would that be a solid compromise? LACameraman 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know. TAR is a term that exists next to OAR, not as part of OAR. Wouldn't placing it in a sub-section to OAR suggest that it's not a separate term? MrTroy 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
lol... That's the whole point of the discussion. It's NOT a term. It's an observation. "In some cases the Original Aspect Ratio is debatable because the theatrical aspect ratio, which normally defines the OAR, differs from the "Original" aspect ratio as in these examples..." ... "When widescreen films are transferred to video the are often transferred in modified aspect ratios that differ from the OAR. The controversy of this practice came to the public perception first with laserdisc technology then through the proliferation of DVDs. Broadcasters and distributors who alter the OAR are now required to place a disclaimer at the front of the presentation stating that the "Movie has been reformatted to fit this screen"..." etc. Both variations of OAR can fit cleanly into one category without stating that either TAR or MAR are actual terms. Be bold - make the edit and let's see if it works. LACameraman 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two four oh?

What is the relevance of the "two four oh" bit? It appears to me just to be the phonetic representation of "2.40". It's certainly not a written term (Googling "two four oh" returns no results using the term in reference to the aspect ratio). And I think most English speaking people know how to pronounce 2.40... MrTroy 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

lol... I'm not set on having it there, I merely put it in as a way to describe aspect ratio for someone who didn't know the common way to say it - is it "two point forty"? is it "two and four tenths"? is it "two by four oh"? "two dot four oh" - just as a helpful notation as Rob Hummel did in the ASC manual. If you feel it is superfluous or out of context, I have no objection to its removal. LACameraman 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you think it's necessary to include the pronunciation, it's fine with me. But I suggest a rephrasing then (such as: pronounced: "two four oh". Because the way it is now, it suggests it's a valid written term. MrTroy 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I say delete it. We don't emphasize pronouncing 2.35 as "two three five", either. Girolamo Savonarola 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... How 4:3 and 16:9 is pronounced? I don´t know how the ":" is pronounced. "for"? "by"? "to"? "colon"? Sorry, but I´m not an English native, so I need this type of explanation. I think that LACameraman helped when said how "2.40" is pronounced because I think that this article is not meant to be viewed only by the people that has the field experience to write it. I would pronounce "2.40" as "two point forty". JeffersonRyan 10:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard it as "four to three" and "Sixteen by nine". I never noticed that I was saying these differently from each other until just now. Where on earth did this come from? (The danger of too much reading, perhaps?) But I know I've never heard anyone say "for" or "colon". Algr 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would think that you could use "to" or "by" interchangeably; both are accepted ways of verbally expressing a ratio. Girolamo Savonarola 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I would say that's incorrect, regardless of what is convention. "By" indicates multiplication, as in 2x4 (two-by-four), a 2" by 4" piece of wood (area of 8"). "To" is the only correct preposition here; "4 to 3", as in "there are four horizontal units to every group of three vertical units". "For" is also acceptable, grammatically speaking, but it's rarely, if ever, actually used. CGameProgrammer 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of 16:9

I removed the following recent addition:

"The choice of 16:9 HDTV was intended as a middle ground between TV's 4:3 aspect ratio, and 1.85:1. 2.40:1 was not often used in the 1980s and 1990s, but ironically has become more common today."

Unfortunately the information is incorrect. 16:9 was NOT an aesthetic compromise between 4:3 and widescreen - it was the limitation of tube technology that did not allow the safe creation of a wider picture tube than 1.78:1. It was a BRAND NEW aspect ratio that had NEVER been utilized prior - purely as a technological limitation. It is not an irony that it has become "more common" since the late 80s as it was INVENTED in the late 80s and forced upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard. Now we're stuck with it. LACameraman 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You misread that last part. It doesn't say 1.78:1 is ironic, it says 2.40 is. MrTroy 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh - You're absolutely correct, I did. I missed the period when reading - even when re-reading. Although this statement is very true (actually it's research that I'm in the middle of now) - it needs to be backed up. I can expand on this with my data later today. Sorry for the mistake. The first part of my removal, however, still stands as the information is incorrect. LACameraman 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Tubes?! WTF? We are talking about the mid to late 1990s, all the new cameras were using CCDs. Scanning 1.85:1 on a tube was no more difficult then letterboxing. 200 Motels was shot in widescreen with tube-video in 1971, so there was certainly no technological limitation in the 1990s! Algr 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Algr - you're off in your timeline. 16:9 was a created as a standard for HDTV TELEVISION sets. It didn't come about as an origination format until AFTER it was decided to manufacturer wide screen TV sets - which in the late 1980s - were all CRT tubes. The 16:9 format was decided on and locked in long before any manufacturer made a 16:9 camera. LACameraman 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say 16:9 WASN'T made for HDTV, I said that this was not a technical limitation. They didn't want 1.85:1 or wider because it would excessively crop or pillarbox 4:3 TV, and because it was just too wide for realistic TV viewing environments and would have made sets too small. Algr
Algr - you're off in your timeline. 16:9 was a created as a standard for HDTV TELEVISION sets.
As far as I know, Philips' 'invention' of the widescreen CRT in 1992 had little to do with HDTV. HDTV didn't come into the consumer market until years later. MrTroy 08:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's right, I forgot about that. They had all these 16:9 sets that only scanned 480i. I guess they were for DVDs, (Or letterboxed VHS?). So the DVD format, and those sets, introduced 16:9. Algr 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"...and forced (16:9) upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard." Whereas everyone agreed on Univisium?

Well, 16:9 is a hardware standard built into the video cameras, now. And more than one guy does use it. Girolamo Savonarola 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay... These discussions are getting a little silly - and the always start flying off the original subject. Univisium is a proposed standard that has been adopted by no one but Vittorio - and then only partially. HDTV is now a multi-standard format in wide use around the world. HDTV research started in the late 1970s primarily by the Japanese company NHK with their MUSE system - although it is said that Panasonic had an 1125-line HDTV monitor in 1974. Notice I said "monitor" not "camera"; HDTV was established first as a means of broadcasting images - not as an origination medium. They wanted a widescreen feel - and went to the extreme that technology CRT could safely allow - which was a new size at 16:9. They first demonstrated the MUSE system - an 1125 line CRT (1035 viewable - 1035i, not 480i) in 1981 with a 1.66:1 (5:3) aspect ratio. By 1987 the FCC was already making rulings on HDTV standards in the US. To my knowledge Steven Poster, ASC was one of the first (let's just say "one of the earliest" as I don't have any reference to the "first" and don't want to make unsubstantiated claims) cinematographers to work with HDTV cameras (NHK/Sony Camera through Panavision) in 1991. He writes about his experience in the August 1991 issue of American Cinematographer. As far as CRTs - they are extremely delicate devices. The electron guns in a CRT require a high vacuum and the envelope must have the intregrity to resist the force of several atmospheres of pressure. Not to mention major insulation necessary for high voltage reqired to push the electrons and the X-ray shielding necessary at the envelope... CRTs have limits to their size to maintain safety and stability - it's the reason why we don't have 50" or 70" CRT TVs - they cannot be safely manufactured to that size and have any stability. What was discovered when HDTV was pushed farther into the "widescreen" territory was that a 16:9 screen was the widest aspect ratio screen that could be safely manufactured. As farther argument against the added line in the article, the mathematic middle ground between 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 is 1.59:1 not 1.78:1. It is ridiculious to presume that 1.78:1 was an asethic compromise betwen 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 when 1.78:1 is 26% wider than 1.33:1 but only 4% less wide than 1.85:1... not a very sound compromise. There was very little consideration to concerns regarding letterboxing or pillar boxing - believe me, if you had been around the ASC in the mid 90s, you would have heard a LOT of screaming about this new format and the lack of consideration given to the artistic ramifications of it. Back to the subject at hand - the line of ""The choice of 16:9 HDTV was intended as a middle ground between TV's 4:3 aspect ratio, and 1.85:1." has been removed from the article as it is factually incorrect. I do appologize for the removal of the second line regarding the use of 2.40:1. Although the two statements did not belog together and without data to back it up - it is meaningless. I understand that you guys are very well meaning in your Wikiediting and commend you for trying to make Wiki a better place - but I heartfully request that you be much less defensive about your additions and back them up with a reliable, respectable and citable published source - as is Wiki policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. LACameraman 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are in the same boat with us, LA. Do you have a reference for 16:9 being due to a limit on tube technology? I've been following the subject since the '80s, and I've never heard that one before. Algr 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, Algr. It's "original research" first-hand knowledge of what was happening at the time. Discussions with ASC members and prominent members of the community. It's also based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary (safety with CRT manufacturing and the simple math). You'll notice, however, that I am not putting this information in the article (as I haven't found a published source for it yet - but also haven't looked very hard) so I'm relieved of the burden of a citation (but I'll look harder out of respect for my fellow wikipedia editors). LACameraman 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, my information is from published sources. The problem is that it is not on the internet, but trade publications of the time, so it takes longer to recover articles that I read 10 years ago in another city's library. Nevertheless I am certain the reference is there and it is only a matter of time before I track it down. Another bit of info: The limit on CRT size is doorways in American homes. Anything shipped into a home must be under 30 inches in at least one dimension, otherwise you can't get it through your door. You can make larger tubes, but they have to be larger in all three dimensions, and that would make them sellable to too small a market.
You provide a reputable reference and I'll accept the change and forgo protest. However, if you merely consider the math, your comment is unfounded. There is no logic whatsoever as 1.78:1 being a compromise between 1.85:1 and 1.33:1. I'll try to get out today and get a resource. Interesting note on the doorway dimension - something I had never thought of. However, that would not negate the creation of a CRT for industrial use. To my knowledge 40" is the largest CRT manufactured - which would mean the largest 16:9 CRT possible is 19.59" x 34.872" (40" diagonal)-(which would be over 300 pounds). If it were possible to manufacturer larger than 50" we would be using them all the time in concert and industrial venues. You know how amazing a Jumbotron CRT would be? Even a 2' CRT... 34" is the largest 16:9 (about 16.5" x 29.5") CRT I've found. Regardless, find a reputable resource to back up your statement and you'll shut me up. LACameraman 19:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a mathematical compromise, but an aesthetic one, where they sited a study saying that people reacted best to aspect ratios from 16:9 to 2:1, and that this was the balance where letterboxing/pillerboxing was least objectionable. I recall wanting to read this study directly and see how they established this, but I never got around to looking for it. It seems to me that the reasons why various specific aspect ratios were chosen ought to be central to this article. There was also an assertion in the text that 16:9 would be the universal standard for everyone and it would end all the compromises with pan-and-scan and letterboxing. This left me with the impression that filmmakers today are actively undermining any universal standard by shooting more 'scope, or rejecting it simply because it comes from television.
"CRT for industrial use." Yes, this is possible, but with projection sets available, I expect the market was too small to support a factory that could make this.Algr
I've seen a couple studies like the one you're referring to over the years. Primarily aimed at the Golden Mean - which is much closer to 1.66:1 than anything else. Although I'd agree with you that including the original intention behind any particular aspect ratio would be great - it's a very difficult thing to reference, unless you're actually speaking to the inventor (as in the case of Univisium), but that's rarely possible. I've seen theories that 16:9 was derived as a simple mathematical doubling of 4:3 (16 = 42, 9 = 32), which is only a theory, but mathematically sound. I've seen theories that it is a mathematical compromise between 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 (which is not true, it's actually 1.84:1, but proponents of this theory have very complicated math to support their hypothesis). We should comb through the text and remove POV that you're referring to "assertion in the text that 16:9 would be the universal standard for everyone and it would end all the compromises with pan-and-scan and letterboxing." I'll take a pass in a moment. And just to argue the point a step further, a projection CRT has nowhere near the quality and contrast possible with a straight-tube-viewing CRT. There's no comparison. LACameraman 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the Golden Mean was never a common aspect ratio for movies. For centuries it was practically the law for paintings. I agree with you about CRTs, but the question is how many of such giant CRT sets could you actually sell, and to whom? Bars might want them for football, but they might prefer bigger screens to better ones. Algr 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

After reviewing this article again - I would vote for a deletion of this section. Without reputable resources for these opionions, it has a weird non-neutral POV. It also makes a wierd arguement much more biased to broadcast of the images rather than origination, which - in my opinion - is backwards. LACameraman 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The first few sentences are self-evidently true, but then it does get into problematic recommendations. The second paragraph isn't criticism, it describes how aspect ratio can be utilized artistically. Algr 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I took a pass at cleaning up this passage. See how it reads to you (and anyone else following this conversation, of course). LACameraman 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks much better to me. Girolamo Savonarola 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Comparisons

The horizontal vs. vertical comparison of pictures in "normal" and widescreen mode is biased by the fact that the photographer may either choose a different lens, or choose another position, to capture any given scene. Thus the nose and tale of the shuttle, or the panoramic view of the palace, doesn't necessarily have to be cropped off when viewed in different aspect ratios.

Although there is consensus that Widescreen is better for panoramic pictures, and Academy format is better for portraits, the illustrations (the shuttle and the palace) in this article show this rather vaguely. This way their intent is easily interpreted as subjective, and I'm not sure that was the original meaning. Thus such differences is better "shown" by written explanation rather than by illustrations. The real difference between Widescreen and Academy format is of course the actual plane of the rectangels (superbly illustrated by the circle with different sized rectangles), and not what they illustrate - the latter which is completely subjective anyway.

The photographic illustrations do lighten up the article, but without a written explanation clarifying these important facts, the article would work better without them. --Kebman 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of common aspect ratios

In response to recent re-added entries in the list which I have subsequently deleted: these were deleted because it is a not a list of generic ratios or even aspect ratios in general. The article is about imaging technology aspect ratios - photography, film, and video. Perhaps a separate article on generic aspect ratios would be germane. Linking to the golden ratio or silver ratio probably is better done in the See also section instead, as these are not directly germane to the topic of this article but have some indirect relation to it.

I've reverted the 16:9 ratio from 1.777....:1 to 1.78 because it is common and standard industry practice to round the ratio to two significant digits beyond the decimal. The full ratio is given in the integer form in the description. You'll also find that virtually all aspect ratios are also rounded like this - see list of film formats and do the math on the dimensions; very few formats actually divide perfectly into a ratio with two or less post-decimal digits.

The image was also removed from the article mainly because it assumes the longer dimension to be the vertical one, which is incorrect for the ratios in the list as used in image technology. It also is more a comparision with non-image ratios mentioned above. Given the subject, it doesn't actually supply information useful for the topic. IIRC, that graphic was created for a different subject on the German Wikipedia? What probably would be an ideal graphic is one which is extremely wide (4.00:1 or greater) and shows all of the listed aspect ratios either from a common center or perhaps even more usefully, with a common side. If left as an open graphics format, this would also allow future editors to add more aspect ratios in usage to it and thus avoid obsolescence. Girolamo Savonarola 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then move the article to aspect ratio (imaging technology), and let the old article have a full list. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that aspect ratio and the pages it links to are mostly adequate for the information. Girolamo Savonarola 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption for Image: Common Aspect Rations

The caption for the common aspect ratios image could be better. While it's technically true that the red square is the largest in area and the blue the smallest, it's not apparent to someone not familiar with basic geometry. Why not simply state the ratios of the three boxes leaving out whether they're more used in tv or cinematography... Focomoso 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/p/Talk%7EAspect_ratio_%28image%29_ed13.html"