# Cinemax HD Aspect Ratio



## AED55 (Oct 2, 2008)

The HD Cinemax movies all fill my 16X9 screen without black bars and they do not appear to be stretched or zoomed. Does Cinemax make all their content conform to one aspect ratio, or is this something Dish does? I wish there was a way to do this with DVD's without using the stretch or zoom options on my TV.

I was under the impression one of the digital/HD standards was to adhere to an aspect ratio that would conform to 16X9 widescreen TV's. I thought when I scrapped my old 4X3 TV, the days of "zooming" to get a full screen were over.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Cinemax is owned by HBO and, HBO has a policy of converting all HD to 16x9 unless prevented by a contract that the owner of the movie has.


----------



## olds403 (Nov 20, 2007)

standards for digital TV have nothing to do with dvd's. Movies are filmed in the aspect ratio chosen by the director and should not be modified. If you have a widescreen tv the black bars aren't that big of a deal anyways, they are considerably smaller than when shown on a 4:3 tv. If you have to fill the screen I guess zoom would be your best option(stretching sucks).


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Directors who do not film in 16:9 suck. I have spoken.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Many of the DVDs I get are "anamorphic" stretching whatever the theatrical presentation was to 16x9. Hopefully not stretching too far. I like using all of the pixels on my screen but I prefer OAR to any stretch. These superwide movies that seem to be 16:5 (they are not, but they seem to be) are the most annoying. Even with that complaint I wouldn't want to restrict movie producers to 16x9.

My biggest aspect complaint is watching is "full screen" movie that has been "edited to fit your screen" ... in other words, cropped to 4x3. My screen isn't 4x3 so they have "edited" the movie to fit someone else's screen - not mine.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

As more people switch to watching movies only at home, I hope we see more 16x9 native. Directors need to learn that they are filming more for the small screen than the big one.


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

jclewter79 said:


> As more people switch to watching movies only at home, I hope we see more 16x9 native. Directors need to learn that they are filming more for the small screen than the big one.


I agree. Especially those of us with kids!  Movie theaters were never on the top of my list; now they're a thing of the past entirely.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

1.85:1 and 2.39:1 are the most common film aspect ratios. Both of these require bars on the top and bottom of a 16:9 screen, or cropping the image at the sides to fit 16:9.

Give me OAR ... I want to see the movie in the original format.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Is there any film-based motion picture that was originally shot in 16:9 aspect ratio?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Oh I'm sure there is one, I just can't think of one right now. I agree, I see it becoming commonplace in the next few years.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

That was a rhetorical question. I don't think it's likely that such a movie exists because there is no film format that results in a 16:9 movie. It would require a film maker to deliberately crop (by means of photographing a mask of some kind) every frame of the film in order to make a 16:9 original format film-based movie.

Now if it's shot on digital video, well that's another matter. Certainly there are made-for-TV or made-for-video movies that are 16:9 and shot on HD or other digital video cameras, and perhaps even some made-for-cinema movies that are shot on digital cameras or made in a digital studio (such as an animated film) that would perhaps be 16:9 original format.

Mostly I am trying to point out that 16:9 ratio requires cropping or letterboxing for the vast majority of films, and IMHO I'll take letterboxing rather than cropping. To "fill the screen" requires cropping. Cropping films to fit on a TV screen is only a few notches up from stretchovision IMHO.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> Is there any film-based motion picture that was originally shot in 16:9 aspect ratio?


Movies shot in 1.85:1 are usually cropped to 1.77:1 so they fit a 16x9 screen perfectly (very little has to be removed to do this). Some have tiny bars on top and bottom. This ratio is usually chosen for comedies, dramas, and other movies that don't rely on special effects or outdoor panoramas.

2.35:1 is the most common movie ratio these days, and is usually chosen when a director is making strong use of backgrounds or special effects. These movies with an OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) transfer, such as is generally used for Blu-Rays, will have black bars on top and bottom, even on a 16:9 TV. However, some TV networks have succumed to subscriber ignorance/preference and use, when available, transfers that have been center-cut or panned-and-scanned (i.e., the sides chopped off) to fit a 16:9 frame.

Many people (wrongly) assume that "HD means my expensive new screen is ALWAYS completely filled" and will call or write to complain if it isn't. Unfortunately, that means we're STILL having information that the director intended us to see removed. Movie buffs want OAR, to see what the director intended, and fortunately, as more people become educated and get used to using the format/zoom controls for their new TVs, OAR transfers are becoming the norm.

Here are a few good websites that show examples:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/home/wsfaq.html

And an example of 4:3 pan & scan that shows very well how much information is lost and why it is so important to be able to see what the director intended you to see.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Thanks IIS, you are absolutely right. This is one reason (among many) that I still prefer to watch movies on DVD rather than on Cinemax or other channel on TV.

With the right DVD player, a regular anamorphic DVD can look very nearly as good as a typical Dish-Network HD broadcast and retains all of the original aspect ratio in most cases.


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

i for one like the super wide format, and have no problems with the black bars on a 16x9 tv.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Mr.72 said:


> 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 are the most common film aspect ratios. Both of these require bars on the top and bottom of a 16:9 screen, or cropping the image at the sides to fit 16:9.
> 
> Give me OAR ... I want to see the movie in the original format.


I too want OAR, I just want 16x9 to become more commonplace as a OAR.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

jclewter79 said:


> I too want OAR, I just want 16x9 to become more commonplace as a OAR.


Again, it depends on the type of content. Directors who are used to 2.35:1 for their action/FX movies aren't going to narrow down their movies so they fill your TV. They care primarily about the theater experience.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

IIP said:


> Again, it depends on the type of content. Directors who are used to 2.35:1 for their action/FX movies aren't going to narrow down their movies so they fill your TV. They care primarily about the theater experience.


Theaters have been closing down, and seeing less traffic here lately. Cost way too much to go to the theaters for what you get. Those directors need to change with the times or get ready for the soup kitchen line. There is no reason that a director cannot fit his vision into a 16x9 aspect ratio. A movies main audience is the home viewer now, not the theater goer. Let those theater goers suffer with the bars on their screen.


----------



## olds403 (Nov 20, 2007)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 2.35:1 movies. I don't mind the black bars on my TV, at 60 inches it isn't that big of a deal. It wasn't my favorite ratio when I had my 4:3 36" crt, the bars occupied alot more space then, but now it is not a big deal.


----------



## AED55 (Oct 2, 2008)

Thanks for all the replies and opinions, I did not think my question would generate so much debate. Most of my own confusion comes from my ignorance of aspect ratio in general. I guess what I assumed was that all theatre movie screens, no matter what the size, were a 16X9 ratio of width to height and that wide screen TV's would maintain this ratio, even if the actual screen size was much smaller. 

I have heard that in many cases studios make more money on the DVD than they did on the original theatrical release. I'm sure if this trend continues movie formats will gravitate toward what the majority of home viewers prefer.

I would would really hate to see theatres go away completely, but if things don't change, the economy will ultimately dictate what happens. It's a simple issue for families, go to the theatre and spend 40 or 50 dollars or wait a few months, rent the movie and everyone watches it for a tenth of the theatre admission.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Some plan both ways ... wide for the theater and 16x9 for DVD. Although the purists probably want theatrical aspect on the DVDs as long as it is the director's decision it "fits with the vision of the film".

I have not seen it lately but some of the theaters I have been in have had curtains that moved out for the feature presentation. After previews and commercials were done the curtains moved to the sides and the whole panorama opened up.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For me...

Preference #1 is Original Aspect Ratio. I always want to see in the intended aspect, even if that means unused parts of my TV screen.

Preference #2, I will admit my eyes wouldn't be offended if more 16x9 original aspect was generated. I suspect most things generated for TV airing will be that way... and theatrical releases will continue to have variances... but if movie studios started framing more new movies for 16x9 and made that a "standard" for the future, I'd be ok with that too.

Mainly, I just want it the way it was intended.. and if the intentions happen to go towards 16x9 that would be fine with me.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Well they are not going to begin "filming" in 16:9 because film does not have that format. 1.85:1 is as close as it gets. There is no 16:9 original aspect ratio for film. If the original format was digital, then it may well start out as 16:9. However if that is the case, then the movie is probably intended for direct-to-video release. So far I have not really seen many decent movies done this way, but I guess it could happen. It sure is a lot cheaper to make a movie on HD-digital than it is to use film.


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

jclewter79 said:


> Theaters have been closing down, and seeing less traffic here lately. Cost way too much to go to the theaters for what you get. Those directors need to change with the times or get ready for the soup kitchen line. There is no reason that a director cannot fit his vision into a 16x9 aspect ratio. A movies main audience is the home viewer now, not the theater goer. Let those theater goers suffer with the bars on their screen.


I second this motion! 

Instead of giving us the content and style we want, though, the directors and movie theaters will blame Internet downloaders and violate at least two constitutional amendments trying to sue college students.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

James Long said:


> I have not seen it lately but some of the theaters I have been in have had curtains that moved out for the feature presentation. After previews and commercials were done the curtains moved to the sides and the whole panorama opened up.


It's been that way since the 1960s! Movie theaters have 2.35:1 screens, and use curtains to "crop" the screen down to fit any alternate aspect ratios.

I remember clearly being a 7-year-old kid seeing Star Wars (in 1977) and knowing that it was about to start when the curtains opened all the way (after showing trailers in 1.85:1).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> Well they are not going to begin "filming" in 16:9 because film does not have that format. 1.85:1 is as close as it gets. There is no 16:9 original aspect ratio for film. If the original format was digital, then it may well start out as 16:9. However if that is the case, then the movie is probably intended for direct-to-video release. So far I have not really seen many decent movies done this way, but I guess it could happen. It sure is a lot cheaper to make a movie on HD-digital than it is to use film.


On the digital front, I believe one or two of the last-released Star Wars movies was shot on digital cameras... but not at 16x9.

I know film isn't 16x9 either, but lots of directors frame for a different aspect than the larger film size... so IF 16x9 TV users keep screaming, there may be a move for more mainstream 16x9 aspect movies.

In any case, I want to see what is intended.


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

> Theaters have been closing down, and seeing less traffic here lately. Cost way too much to go to the theaters for what you get. Those directors need to change with the times or get ready for the soup kitchen line. There is no reason that a director cannot fit his vision into a 16x9 aspect ratio. A movies main audience is the home viewer now, not the theater goer. Let those theater goers suffer with the bars on their screen.


What an ignorant statement.


The 16X9 ratio is not a standard aspect ratio for making movies. It never has been. the only reason why HDTV monitors have a 16:9 ratio screen is because the 16:9 ratio is an "average" between numerous, different aspect ratios.

The most common aspect ratios are:
1.33:1 "academy format"
1.66:1 European Widescreen
1.85:1 American Widescreen
2.39:1 Super Widescreen

16X9 is a decent average between those formats without letting black bars from letter boxing or pillar boxing get too large on the screen.

I am absolutely against any campaign to pan and scan any and all movies to the 16X9 ratio. It's probably even worse than the routine panning and scanning seen on old 4:3 television sets. The super wide movies would get seriously cropped at the sides and old classics in academy format would have their film frames all screwed up as well.

If someone has a problem with movies having black bars then they just need to stick with watching TV shows.

Finally, the notion that filmmakers need to get with the times and start making all their movies for HDTV is a destructive mindset. The situation is very simple. If the movie industry had no movie theaters there would be NO movie industry. Then everything would be made for 16X9 televisions, with a "made for TV" low budget and vying for air time on a TV network.


----------



## olds403 (Nov 20, 2007)

amen


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Right on, Bobby H.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Episode 1 had many scenes shot with an early, pre-production Panavised Sony CineAlta F900, while Ep 2 was shot entirely with a production CineAlta F900 and Ep 3 with a CineAlta F950.


----------



## olds403 (Nov 20, 2007)

And the significance of this is?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

olds403 said:


> And the significance of this is?


Someone had noted not knowing of any movies shot on digital cameras that weren't 16x9 and either for TV or direct-to-video. I replied that I believed the recent Star Wars movies might have been shot with digital cameras and not at 16x9.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

HDMe it is the other way around. I was suggesting there are no movies shot on film that are 16x9 and that it is reasonable to expect the only films that are shot in 16x9 are digital video. This doesn't mean it could be expected that all or likely any movies made for cinema are going to be shot in 16x9 format regardless of whether they are shot on a handi-cam or Panavision.


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Bobby H said:


> If the movie industry had no movie theaters there would be NO movie industry.


You speak of this as if it is a bad thing. :lol:

I am, of course, only joking... but, it really is time for a change in Hollywood. They've become stale, predictable, expensive, arrogant and demanding. DRM is just the beginning.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> HDMe it is the other way around. I was suggesting there are no movies shot on film that are 16x9 and that it is reasonable to expect the only films that are shot in 16x9 are digital video. This doesn't mean it could be expected that all or likely any movies made for cinema are going to be shot in 16x9 format regardless of whether they are shot on a handi-cam or Panavision.


I realized that after-the-fact... I was just explaining the "what does that have to do with anything" post. I over-simplified in my original reply, but figured if I tried to correct all that now it would get even more confusing!


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Yeah I figured. It's an easy logical circle to get into 

Here's the elementary version for those not following the whole thread:

1. film-based movies are not ever shot in 16:9 original aspect ratio (normally 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 in the USA)
2. because of #1, most movie theaters are equipped to show films in aspect ratios other than 16:9 since what they play is on actual film which is never 16:9 (usually 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 in the USA).
3. it is possible for film makers to use digital video format to shoot a movie that will have a 16:9 OAR but there is no reason for them to do so unless the movie is not intended to be played in a movie theater (i.e. direct-to-video, or made-for-TV)

So, Cinemax HD is cropping virtually every movie they play, changing it from the original aspect ratio, in order to play it in 16:9.

There are a number of reasons why I prefer watching movies on DVD over Cinemax HD, and this is one of them.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Bobby H said:


> The 16X9 ratio is not a standard aspect ratio for making movies. It never has been. the only reason why HDTV monitors have a 16:9 ratio screen is because the 16:9 ratio is an "average" between numerous, different aspect ratios.
> 
> The most common aspect ratios are:
> 1.33:1 "academy format"
> ...


I too thought that 1.78:1 (16:9) is a good middle ground. But then again, I have an older black framed 42" Pany plasma mounted against a flat-black painted wall framed by flat-black painted shelving with all black components (except for that stupid Wii my wife and the rest of the family had to have). Black bars in this situation are essentially invisible to the mind.

Ignoring 1.33:1 (4:3), the "worst case" on a 42" 16:9 TV are 2½ inches top and bottom bars for super widescreen which I haven't found distracting once my brain handles the change. The 1¼ inches on each side with European Widescreen is invisible. As for American Widescreen, we're talking about on each side less than a ½" of bar or cropping, neither of which is critical.

Yes, 4:3 TV is annoying to me but apparently not to my wife. In my case, it is only because those 3½ sidebars cause my brain think "be annoyed as I'm missing something" which I am except for old TV shows. The sooner that size offering goes away the better. But I really don't fret over those few things I have to watch in 4:3.

Admittedly, I don't know how I'd feel about these numbers increased proportionately from a 42" TV to a 72" TV. But they never have bothered me on a theater screen.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Bobby H said:


> Finally, the notion that filmmakers need to get with the times and start making all their movies for HDTV is a destructive mindset. The situation is very simple. If the movie industry had no movie theaters there would be NO movie industry. Then everything would be made for 16X9 televisions, with a "made for TV" low budget and vying for air time on a TV network.


Just because a movie is made to fill up a TV screen means that it is low budget and has to vye for network time? I do not beleive that. I think that one day in the near future you will see that movies will be released in the theater, on DVD, and On demand all on the same day. The customer will get to pick how he wants to view his entertainment. If this happens and more people decide to watch at home than the theater then, it would only be smart to make that movie in 16x9 to fill the majority of the customers screens. The minority of the customers that are at the theater can just watch it in a nice average aspect ration such as 16x9 and it can fill most of their theater screen. If the movie industry does not adapt to the changing market their will be no movie industry but it wont be because of 16x9 aspect ratio. Just ask the music industry how well holding onto the old ways gets you.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> Yeah I figured. It's an easy logical circle to get into
> 
> Here's the elementary version for those not following the whole thread:
> 
> 1. film-based movies are not ever shot in 16:9 original aspect ratio (normally 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 in the USA)


In terms of altering original aspect to fit 16x9... The 1.85:1 is the lease offensive at least. While it does result in some loss, it is minor compared to what would happen to a zoom/crop job on the 2.39:1.

When we used to have Voom, and still sometimes now with HDNet, I do see some 1.85:1 and there are tiny slivers of black at the top/bottom on my widescreen set... so IF they modified that to fit I would have a harder time noticing.

But other than that one situation, I prefer the original aspect and IF the movie is good, I find myself appropriate immersed in the experience and forget all about those black bars on the screen. IF I find myself noticing those bars, it usually means the movie is boring me and I should find something better to watch.


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

> You speak of this as if it is a bad thing. I am, of course, only joking... but, it really is time for a change in Hollywood.


I agree major Hollywood studios and the giant media companies who own them need to stop it with all the derivative movies. Countless sequels of movies whose original was too crappy to be made. How about those TV shows turned into movies? _There is a reason why it was a TV show: it wasn't good enough to be made into a movie!_ Super hero movies have had a good run, but Hollywood will be sure to beat that horse long after it is dead.

Media corporations only like predictability. They like being able to forecast growth to stock holders and predict customers will buy even more of the same old vanilla flavored slop they've been selling and re-selling for many years. That approach doesn't work with a creative business like the movie industry or music industry. Fresh changes are often required. But that requires taking chances on new ideas. Big corporations hate taking risks on new ideas.

Regardless of how bland the movie industry has become, it is still very important to the TV broadcasting and cable/satellite industries. Hollywood movies drive a big part of electronics industry sales -especially HDTV sets and the like.



> Just because a movie is made to fill up a TV screen means that it is low budget and has to vye for network time? I do not beleive that.


That's viewing the situation from the narrow prism of the HDTV set in a living room and not seeing the overall bigger picture.



> I think that one day in the near future you will see that movies will be released in the theater, on DVD, and On demand all on the same day.


That concept is a business fantasy that will not work. The people promoting the "day and date" idea are bean counting types looking only for short term gain. The productions of many movies are financed with borrowed money that accrues interest -a lot of it. The bean counters merely want to repay those loans as soon as possible. That's all.

The bean counters ignore the truth if movies are released in theaters and on home video the same day most people will just watch the video. Very simple math. Not anywhere near enough people will continue going to theaters for them to stay in business.

Theater profit margins are narrow enough as it is. Theater circuits like AMC, Carmike and at least several others have either been in and out of bankruptcy or close to it over the last 10 years.

Hollywood needs movie theaters because that release "platform" earns the studios and their productions a lot of extra money. They wouldn't see that coin if all their productions went direct to video. The commercial movie theaters give Hollywood's biggest and most important movie productions a unique showcase apart from the countless numbers of direct to video movie releases.

Even if someone doesn't see a certain movie in a movie theater, chances are he will be more aware of that movie because it played in movie theaters.

Commercial movie theaters are part of what legitimizes a movie as being a real movie instead of some piece of direct to video trash. Even low budget independent films fight hard to get on at least a few movie theater screens in major cities. It's a pretty important issue -especially in marketing terms.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Another good post from Bobby H. 

The one movie I saw that was an effort to release all at once in cinema, DVD and TV was "Bubble". That's one of Mark Cuban's big dreams, to release movies in three formats at once. That movie wasn't worth watching on DVD, or even the time spent watching it for free on TV, and I can't imagine someone actually paying for a ticket to see it in a theater. Step 1 in the movie business is to make a good movie that people want to see. There is a higher bar for movies releasing in theaters than there is for those on DVD, and then a still-lower bar for the ones releasing on TV. From what I've seen, the lowest bar is for movie(s) released for all three at once.

Maybe since home theaters are improving in quality we may see more quality movies making it to direct-to-DVD (or blu-ray) or direct-to-VOD/HD, but it will have to include movie-ticket style pricing to become viable for serious movies. Be careful what you wish for. The demise of the movie theater may come at the cost of DVD rentals $10/ea and VODs at $20.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> Well they are not going to begin "filming" in 16:9 because film does not have that format. 1.85:1 is as close as it gets. There is no 16:9 original aspect ratio for film.


They can choose any aspect ratio they want on film by using a lens-mask instead of relying on the interior/film to mask I think. For example, put a piece of black paper in front of a film camera with a small square hole cut in the center. What's the resultant image? 1:1. it's not using all of the film's area, but it's the format chosen. In this way the film's aspect ratio could be chosen to match the video format, since all of the cutting would be to black areas without any important detail. Any info that the director wants in the shot would be placed knowing what will be on-screen in all formats.



> If the original format was digital, then it may well start out as 16:9. However if that is the case, then the movie is probably intended for direct-to-video release. So far I have not really seen many decent movies done this way, but I guess it could happen. It sure is a lot cheaper to make a movie on HD-digital than it is to use film.


Lucas was pushing for all digital, and I believe his second star wars trilogy was done this way... whether they were decent movies is more of a personal judgement call. 

The digital shot wasn't 16:9 though I'm sure.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

> Lucas was pushing for all digital, and I believe his second star wars trilogy was done this way... whether they were decent movies is more of a personal judgement call.


Please note the context of my remark. I was talking about films intended for direct-to-video release, which almost routinely are not decent movies by my judgment. That's far different than George Lucas or any other well-regarded film maker making cinema-release movies all digital.

There are a large number of all-digital movies released in theaters that are very good movies.


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

> They can choose any aspect ratio they want on film by using a lens-mask instead of relying on the interior/film to mask I think.


Movies aren't cropped/matted during filming.

4-perf 35mm movies shot in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio are usually photographed full frame 1.33:1. 35mm release prints may be matted to the 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 ratio. If not, the projection plates can do the same job.

There is no matting in a movie shot in anamorphic 35mm super wide screen. The 2.39:1 ratio is locked into the original image. The anamorphic lens squeezes roughly double the image width onto a 4 perf 35mm film frame. Decompression lenses on film projectors expand the image back to normal proportions.

Movies shot on 5-perf 65mm film have an in camera ratio of 2.20:1. Mild anamorphic lenses have been used on 65mm cameras for formats like Ultra Panavision 70, a 70mm format with a 2.70:1 aspect ratio. Large format films like 65mm are rarely used anymore.

Super35 is another matter. It has a 2.39:1 aspect ratio just like anamorphic 35mm. But it is shot with normal spherical lenses. Basically the camera people are shooting a movie like they would a standard 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 show but composing for an even more narrow part of the film frame. Super35 doesn't have as much film resolution as anamorphic 35mm. However, it doesn't have the exaggerated depth of field and unique optical artifacts anamorphic lenses feature either.

Ultimately, Super35 is very popular because it is home video friendly wide screen. Instead of chopping off the sides of the original image to fill a normal TV screen they restore the top and bottom of the film image.

The increasing use of CGI and digital intermediate is removing much of the home video friendly advantage of Super35. CGI effects and digital intermediates are often processed in the aspect ratio of the theatrical release. That can result in a movie shot in Super35 needing to be severely panned and scanned just like any anamorphic 35 movie adapted to 4:3 television sets. At best, the CGI and DI may be opened up to 1.85:1, but not any taller than that.

Digital video cameras have original footage based on the dimensions of the imaging chips in the camera. Not all are 16 X 9 and 1920 X 1080 in dimension. Most CGI and DI work as been in 2K resolution but a greater push is now taking place to move post production work flows into 4K. Some 6K and 8K work has been done -with the Blu-ray release of _Baraka_ being a very good example.


----------



## manicd (Jan 30, 2003)

Cinemax doesn't crop everything for I have seen a (very) few movies in 2.35 OAR. Off hand, I don't remeber which ones and was pleasantly surprised to see them that way.

Since the balance of the movies shown on Cinemax are primarily 1.85 and 16:9 is 1.78 there is only a .07 differnce from the OAR.

I do not have a problem with this minute difference since it really is meaningless. I do want to see movies (or cartoons) that were filmed in the 2.35 or any 2.+ format to be shown that way at all times and those people that don't like the black bars on the top and bottom can zoom or wharever. If it is cropped to fit a 16:9 TV, you can't zoom out to get the whole picture, for it is not there.


I find IMDB.com a good source to see what the OAR of a movie was.


----------



## rasheed (Sep 12, 2005)

Of course, many movie theaters have drapes that move up and down to handle the various ratios.. I thought there were some 16 x 9 sets that could move the top and bottom up/down to 'hide' black bars.

Rasheed


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You can do anything with the right equipment. I have not seen a film theater adjust height ... generally it is a curtain that pulls back to widen the screen. But if someone wanted to put vertical curtains on a home theater setup it could be done.


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

manicd said:


> Since the balance of the movies shown on Cinemax are primarily 1.85 and 16:9 is 1.78 there is only a .07 differnce from the OAR.
> 
> I do not have a problem with this minute difference since it really is meaningless. I do want to see movies (or cartoons) that were filmed in the 2.35 or any 2.+ format to be shown that way at all times and those people that don't like the black bars on the top and bottom can zoom or wharever. If it is cropped to fit a 16:9 TV, you can't zoom out to get the whole picture, for it is not there.


This.

If they can make a minute change that makes the whole experience better, I'm cool with that... I'm not a purist. The purists are out there buying DVDs and Blu-rays anyway.

I agree though that a 2.+ format doesn't need to be 16:9. It looks horrible.


----------

