Episode 36: Aspect Ratios, Human Bananas & Star Wars Make-Up [Discussion]

[marilee]

Ryan talks about aspect ratios and the guys try some homemade make-up.

Watch or download this episode now!

[spiffy577]

Hello Ryan (etc.),

Just watched your episode on aspect ratios and you stated that you should never watch a show full screen. Agreed. However, correct me if I am wrong, if you are watching a widescreen dvd on a widescreen tv, you shouldn't see those lovely black bars on the top and bottom of your screen, right? (as in, you should zoom in to watch it fullscreen?) That would be the correct aspect ratio?

Thanks,

Josh

[ryanconnolly]

Originally Posted by spiffy577

Hello Ryan (etc.),

Just watched your episode on aspect ratios and you stated that you should never watch a show full screen. Agreed. However, correct me if I am wrong, if you are watching a widescreen dvd on a widescreen tv, you shouldn't see those lovely black bars on the top and bottom of your screen, right? (as in, you should zoom in to watch it fullscreen?) That would be the correct aspect ratio?

Thanks,

Josh

Hey Josh,

If the film was shot 16x9 (1.78:1) and you were watching it on an HD tv then yes, it would be the correct aspect ratio. But most films are shot either 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. So unless you have one of the new 2.35 tvs, it would still be "full screen".

Ryan

[evan_s]

Any resources for reading up on this stuff more in-depth?

[jackierulesall]

If you're interested in aspect ratios, this segment on HD Nation goes into it as well.

[cfen]

You guys do nice effects really smooth and seamless. The gun shots were the best I would like to know how you pull that off.-------------- Oh!!!! never mind I just saw episode 3 cool.

Cfen

Also here is a link to a little more info on aspect ratios http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...reenorama.html

[gabeja]

It's all about the room.

[jken97]

2.53:1 is simply disregard to viewer and the viewing device. You can tout "the way it's intended to be viewed", but in the end,if the filmmaker had the forsight to consider the average widescreen (16:9) tv, they'd frame for 16:9. True, pan and scan is a lame solution, but isn't having a smaller overall picture on our pricey hdtvs just as much of a Fu from the studios?

It's time for a standard, no lame "unused space" arguments... Just a common agreement on what size TVs we should get and what those artsy movie directors frame their shots to.

When a film fills my 16:9 HDTV, it looks spectacular. When a good movie looks that good, I'll buy it. If a good movie only fills a portion of my scree... why bother? Tim Burton is respctful pf his audience in this regard. Nearly everyone else only considers the theater audience... I don't know about you, but my home theater trumps my local movie theater.

I think my hatred for *not* filling my HDTV screen matches your despise of odd shaped movies being resized and cropped to fit the average viewers tv.

If we all update our tvs again, what's to stop the movies from going even wider? It's all just inconsideration.

[allupons]

Originally Posted by jken97

2.53:1 is simply disregard to viewer and the viewing device. You can tout "the way it's intended to be viewed", but in the end,if the filmmaker had the forsight to consider the average widescreen (16:9) tv, they'd frame for 16:9. True, pan and scan is a lame solution, but isn't having a smaller overall picture on our pricey hdtvs just as much of a Fu from the studios?

It's time for a standard, no lame "unused space" arguments... Just a common agreement on what size TVs we should get and what those artsy movie directors frame their shots to.

When a film fills my 16:9 HDTV, it looks spectacular. When a good movie looks that good, I'll buy it. If a good movie only fills a portion of my scree... why bother? Tim Burton is respctful pf his audience in this regard. Nearly everyone else only considers the theater audience... I don't know about you, but my home theater trumps my local movie theater.

I think my hatred for *not* filling my HDTV screen matches your despise of odd shaped movies being resized and cropped to fit the average viewers tv.

If we all update our tvs again, what's to stop the movies from going even wider? It's all just inconsideration.

You seem to treat framing(one of the main purposes of varying aspect ratios) as if it is an irrelevant decision that has no artistic merit. TVs come primarily in 16x9 because that is what TV shows and sports are broadcast in. Many directors and DPs opt to go with a much wider framing for film though, as typically the framing is felt to be much more cinematic. Losing some screen space to black bars isn't the end of the world, but changing the intended screen composition does alter the final product unnaturally. Realize that aspect ratios(framing) are just another artistic variable that is just as valid as color grading, focal length, sound, score, actors, dialogue, etc. Once you can get past that, it is easier to appreciate watching the film as the creators intended it to be seen.

[jken97]

While I agree that current films shouldn't be cropped to fit our devices, I don't agree that the "artistic direction" can't be such that it fits the medium. Cropping something that's already framed for one size won't ever work right, but if it were framed to fit from the beginning it'd make everything better. In most cases, that seems to be nothing more than *not* cropping off the top of the actor's head. Black bars aren't the end of the world, but it sure does suck to have so much "unused space" and empty space around the subject that you loose detail *on* the subject. Substance vs art, I guess.

Key words are "as the creators intended it to be seen", which is the root of the issue... creators who don't have the forethought to consider anything outside of a theater, that's all I'm saying.