Talk:Aspect ratio (image)

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clarification

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]