Support NeoGAF

[M3d10n]

The output doesn't matter. You're arguing something entirely different. They're arguing that the wide aspect is used to artistic purposes, not to match the aspect ratio of a specific device. Of course, my line of thought is, if you have a full screen to use, use it. Make cinema pictures a little bit higher, and presto, you have 16:9 without losing anything (well you'd lose room to hide the boom mics).

Due to this thing called gravity, both people and objects surrounding us are mostly laid out horizontally. The increase of vertical FOV would only show more of the ceiling and floor, in a slightly distorted fashion, if you want to preserve the horizontal FOV.

Sounds like my mother, who complained when I got her a widescreen monitor when the 4:3 equivalent was "much bigger".

Hate borders as much as you want, but please either buy the 4:3 versions or use your player's zoom function. Leave the filmmaking alone.

 

[Pancakes]

This thread sure blew-the-fuck-up over nothing.

Anyway, I too can not believe all of the "black bar" hate coming from some people.

Watch this

Spoiler

Now shut up. Pan and Scan gives Sidney Pollock the hebegebies and that's bad.

Very informative stuff, thanks.

 

[faceless007]

The cinema experience is evolving.

From movie theater to small TV that takes up about a tenth of my field of vision is more like devolution.

 

[faceless007]

Listen. We're saying to make the native size 16:9. There's nothing in cinema that requires a movie to be 2.35:1. Movie theatre screens can adapt to any aspect ratio.

People are arguing that 2.35:1 is important for *artistic* purposes.

I gave this example before and you just ignored it (surprise) so I'll give it again. Spider-Man 1 was in 1.85, but when planning 2, Sam Raimi realized he needed more room to film the Spidey/Doc Ock fight scenes so he switched to 2.35.

That's just one example, obviously, but the two standards are 1.85 and 2.35, so everytime a director or DP chooses 2.35, he/she must have a reason for doing so. If no one ever had a reason to choose it, 2.35 would have just died out like other strange aspect ratios.

If that were the case, why would we limit developers artistic design by forcing a 16:9 aspect ratio unto them?

Game developers don't have much of a lobby with the HDTV makers.

 

[KevinCow]

I have never understood why the black bars bother people. It's not even a matter of preserving the director's vision (though I do agree with that as well), it's just never bothered me in the slightest. I never even thought about it as black bars until I heard someone else refer to it like that. I just thought about it as simply using part of the screen.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

I have never understood why the black bars bother people. It's not even a matter of preserving the director's vision (though I do agree with that as well), it's just never bothered me in the slightest. I never even thought about it as black bars until I heard someone else refer to it like that. I just thought about it as simply using part of the screen.

Some people are fucking stupid!

 

[Uncle]

If no one ever had a reason to choose it, 2.35 would have just died out like other strange aspect ratios.

4.00:1, now that's wide.

 

[Splash Wave]

Can someone tell me what the hell happened in this thread?

 

[Uncle]

Can someone tell me what the hell happened in this thread?

Black bars.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

Can someone tell me what the hell happened in this thread?

The black bars turned evil.

 

[hteng]

this thread is epic, all with just black bars

 

[bitq]

So does anyone know why computer monitors use 16:10 instead of 16:9? Why not just have one standard? And forgive me if this was answered somewhere in this thread. I don't feeling like reading the whole thing.

So when super wide screen movies are transfered to bluray, do they have 1080 lines vertical? If they did, then one could simply zoom the image and get a normal 16:9 1080p image. Directors usually try to keep most of the action in the middle of the frame anyway.

 

[pizzaguysrevenge]

So does anyone know why computer monitors use 16:10 instead of 16:9? Why not just have one standard? And forgive me if this was answered somewhere in this thread. I don't feeling like reading the whole thing.

So you can edit 16:9 video and still have room for toolbars and shit.

Spoiler

I think

 

[Unlimited4s]

So you can edit 16:9 video and still have room for toolbars and shit.

Spoiler

I think

This + the fact that the internet/text editing is basically vertical instead of horizontal.

(and 16:10 is pretty much the golden ratio)

 

[bitq]

So you can edit 16:9 video and still have room for toolbars and shit.

Spoiler

I think

-_-

That's a pretty specific application. Why not just make special 16:10 monitors for video editing? It's easy to have many different resolutions on computers.

Back to the super wide screen black bars thing. Don't the people in charge of making the movie get most of their money from dvd sales, not box office? Maybe it's just that way with TV shows.

 

[Dead Man Typing]

To bring this back around to video games...

Halo 2's cutscenes when watched on a 4:3 TV added black bars(I believe) on a 16:9 TV there were no bars. In Halo 3's cutscenes, even on a widescreen TV they add black bars, I think RE5 is going to be the same judging from trailers.

Shenmue I had no black bars for cutscenes but Shenmue II did.

There's the argument that having the bars there or not helps a player differentiate between playing the game and watching the game. For Halo 3's story to be truly epic, I don't think they needed to make the screen wider.

Metal Gear has always done a good job of forcing a wide screen perspective by having the big border at the bottom for subtitles and the small one at the top. But for the life of me I can't remember if MGS4 kept that or just went full 16:9 all the way (I'm sure it did).

Edit: changed one word "and" to "or".

 

[DDayton]

Learn to read, please. I said it was unlikely in my post. And "or something" means I was just asking if he had any vision problem, not just colorblindness. Read between the lines, dude.

So, in other words, you're saying that when you say "are you colorblind", you don't actually mean "are you colorblind."

I don't think my reading skills are the issue here.

(In any event, "colorblindness" isn't a "vision problem" that would have any impact on his ability to ascertain image clarity or definition. In fact, it might improve his ability to determine those things in a limited number of cases.)

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I lol'd hard. <3 MS Paint.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

I'm with TheExodu5 on this on. I'm not really bothered by black bars but there is no reason to not use 16:9

The whole periferal vision story is a nice one, but can anyone actually point out at what screen size it really makes a difference? Afaik, having a cinema screen above a certain width strains your eyes even more than having a screen of a non 2.35 ratio. Having to flick your eyes left to right and refocus seems more strenuous than being able to relax your eyes.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Problem with the dude is much more than being HD-illiterate, he just proved to be very much a GAMING-illiterate since every one who'd call himself a "gamer" knows that the cables coming inside the box are shit, it's always been that way.

Especially more so being a PAL gamer (like the OP), I don't know how's even possible he didn't at least consider going with a RGB Scart cable, forget HD and the likes.

And yes, composite and RGB scart are like night and day.

The whole periferal vision story is a nice one, but can anyone actually point out at what screen size it really makes a difference?

Screen's size not the point in the slightest?
Just think what a movie like Star Wars or the duel scenes in A Fistful of Dollars/the Good The Bad and The Ugly would look like in 1.85:1.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Problem with the dude is much more than being HD-illiterate, he just proved to be very much a GAMING-illiterate since every one who'd call himself a "gamer" knows that the cables coming inside the box are shit, it's always been that way.

Especially more so being a PAL gamer (like the OP), I don't know how's even possible he didn't at least consider going with a RGB Scart cable, forget HD and the likes.

And yes, composite and RGB scart are like night and day.



Screen's size not the point in the slightest?
Just think what a movie like Star Wars or the duel scenes in A Fistful of Dollars/the Good The Bad and The Ugly would look like in 1.85:1.

I was commenting on the argument that our eyes have adapted to earthly conditions.

 

[Cdammen]

Sydney Pollack on pan & scan of movies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw

He he, it's kinda funny seeing this YouTube video. It's an 16:9 image (I think) in a 4:3 frame (because YouTube has just recently switched to widescreen). Now those are some unecessary black bars :lol

 

[Dash Kappei]

I was commenting on the argument that our eyes have adapted to earthly conditions.

:lol Whooops!

 

[Kyo]

Originally Posted by Kyo:
People, get your logic straight. You don't get more into a frame just by using a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. One perfectly correct way of looking at it is this: If you framed the same scene in 16:9, you could fit in all that's in the 2.4:1 shot plus more at the bottom and at the top.

Everything would be zoomed out in order to accomplish that.

Err... no! And that was the main point of my statement. As I said, get your logic straight. Sheesh...

 

[drizzle]

I'm with TheExodu5 on this on. I'm not really bothered by black bars but there is no reason to not use 16:9

The whole periferal vision story is a nice one, but can anyone actually point out at what screen size it really makes a difference? Afaik, having a cinema screen above a certain width strains your eyes even more than having a screen of a non 2.35 ratio. Having to flick your eyes left to right and refocus seems more strenuous than being able to relax your eyes.

What about sitting on the right place at the theater (aka, in the middle of it) as opposed to 3 rows from the front or in the last row?

 

[Dash Kappei]

Err... no! And that was the main point of my statement. As I said, get your logic straight. Sheesh...

that's how a number of filmmakers shot their movies (open matte) and you can be sure said televised versions aren't nearly as evoking at their cinema counterparts.

Try watching Full Metal Jacket full screen dvd, or any number Kubrick's films.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Err... no! And that was the main point of my statement. As I said, get your logic straight. Sheesh...

Actually, by opening up the frame more on top and bottom you throw off the balance of objects in it, resulting in a picture the "feels" off. Films are shot with certain amounts of area left open to keep the frame balanced and more pleasing to the eye. By opening that up and exposing more area on top and bottom, you lose the original artistic intent and balance in the frame.

Go take a class or read a book about shooting films, they talk about how you need to balance things in the frame. With 2.35 you get more horizontal space to show things, but with 1.33 or 1.78 you lose the space on the sides. You could still fit as many things horizontally, but then the vertical balance is off as a result, which is equally as bad as losing horizontal framing. It is pretty basic stuff you learn in not only film but regular art classes as well. But what do I know about that stuff, I only have an art degree.

Perhaps I am now open to more idiotic attacks from people who have no clue what they are talking about. They just want all their little pixels used and dont care about artistic intent, but yet will get on a bandwagon labeling something as "bad art" when it suits their purposes. Learn a little bit more about what you are talking about before you start coming in here making completely stupid remarks.

 

[TheExodu5]

What? You spent $5000 on a screen for an AE3000!? I think your money would have been better spent on a better projector (SXRD/LCoS) with less on the screen.

Honestly, the entry level screens sucked. Also, we bought 3 years ago. It would have not been worth spending $5000 on a 720p projector 3 years ago that would be worth $700 now.

edit: Basically, the screen is a fixed cost, one-time expense. You're not going to save money by waiting for screens to evolve in the next few years, but you will with a projector.

AE3000 is nothing to snuff at either. Sure SXRD would be nice, but projectors are just evolving so fast that it would be wasted money at this point. We're waiting for things to peak off, and more importantly, to have everything payed off before upgrading.

 

[TheExodu5]

There's no forcing going on; plenty of movies are shot in 1.85:1. Some directors choose wider formats.


Actually, there are good reasons. For one, the human visual field is wider than it is tall, and wider screens help fill more of the peripheral field, increasing a sense of immersion. (They don't fill it entirely, since it's over 180 degrees, but they come closer than almost all home theater setups.)

Second, it is cheaper per seat to build wide theaters than tall ones, since the seating rake has to get very extreme--as in IMAX--before ergonomic spacing will allow greater capacity.

Finally, its logically identical to ask why TVs aren't manufactured in the 2.39:1 ratio. Then 1.85:1 films would be windowboxed, and we could all be arguing about how they should just film the movies in "true widescreen" so they wouldn't be wasting all those pixels with black bars at the sides.

If TVs were manufactured in the wider then wide, then yeah I'd argue that movies should fit them to not be windowboxed. The truth is though, this is the first time in the past century that we've switched from 4:3 to a wide standard. I think it's highly unlikely that TVs ever change from 16:9 at this point, so the most logical solution is for movies to adapt to TVs. And as for the vertical seating argument...do any of you really live in a theatre where vertical space is a precious commodity at your theater? Seats at my theatre are a good 3 feet up from the next row...vertical space is aplenty.

It's really not a huge issue, but it would be nice to have movies fit my screen.

From movie theater to small TV that takes up about a tenth of my field of vision is more like devolution.

Then you're doing it wrong. Projector FTMFW.

 

[Gagaman]

Playing that on the Saturn is a pain in the arse; you either have it all on the screen so the bullets are hard to make out or zoom in and get get shot by off screen enemies. Much prefer to play Gaiden any day. I'm sure it was awesome in the arcades though.

 

[TheExodu5]

I gave this example before and you just ignored it (surprise) so I'll give it again. Spider-Man 1 was in 1.85, but when planning 2, Sam Raimi realized he needed more room to film the Spidey/Doc Ock fight scenes so he switched to 2.35.

That's just one example, obviously, but the two standards are 1.85 and 2.35, so everytime a director or DP chooses 2.35, he/she must have a reason for doing so. If no one ever had a reason to choose it, 2.35 would have just died out like other strange aspect ratios.

Well if they are being used for good reason, then that's fine with me. My problem is just with some half assed use in movies like Wall-E. If you've got the digital copy that came with the 3-disc edition, zoom in on your iPhone with it. It doesn't really feel like you're missing anything, to be honest. And since Wall-E doesn't use a physical camera to capture the film, it's very easy to adjust any scene to fit any aspect ratio.

So does anyone know why computer monitors use 16:10 instead of 16:9? Why not just have one standard? And forgive me if this was answered somewhere in this thread. I don't feeling like reading the whole thing.

So when super wide screen movies are transfered to bluray, do they have 1080 lines vertical? If they did, then one could simply zoom the image and get a normal 16:9 1080p image. Directors usually try to keep most of the action in the middle of the frame anyway.

I'm not sure why WXVGA started out at 16:10. All I know is, I'm glad the standard is finally switching to 16:9 (slowly but surely). I do like 16:10, but I'll sacrifice that small fraction of screen to have uniformity between all my media devices.

So, in other words, you're saying that when you say "are you colorblind", you don't actually mean "are you colorblind."

I don't think my reading skills are the issue here.

(In any event, "colorblindness" isn't a "vision problem" that would have any impact on his ability to ascertain image clarity or definition. In fact, it might improve his ability to determine those things in a limited number of cases.)

Yep. Seems to help me a bit. My vision's rated at 20/10, though sometimes I get the impression all of this working on PC monitors is killing my long distance vision.

 

[dallow_bg]

Well if they are being used for good reason, then that's fine with me. My problem is just with some half assed use in movies like Wall-E. If you've got the digital copy that came with the 3-disc edition, zoom in on your iPhone with it. It doesn't really feel like you're missing anything, to be honest. And since Wall-E doesn't use a physical camera to capture the film, it's very easy to adjust any scene to fit any aspect ratio.

How can you even judge when it's being used for a good reason? It's their artistic choice as to how they want a film to be framed.
Someone mentioned fitting the 2:35 image into a larger 16:9 frame. But that adds more picture to the top and bottom that perhaps, they do not want. It's not the scene they're looking for, it's not the effect they want to show/give.

You're not a director, a cinematographer, or photographer.
You're just the consumer, and you want it to be convenient when art is not always convenient.

 

[TheExodu5]

How can you even judge when it's being used for a good reason? It's their artistic choice as to how they want a film to be framed.
Someone mentioned fitting the 2:35 image into a larger 16:9 frame. But that adds more picture to the top and bottom that perhaps, they do not want. It's not the scene they're looking for, it's not the effect they want to show/give.

You're not a director, a cinematographer, or photographer.
You're just the consumer, and you want it to be convenient when art is not always convenient.

There's no reason for it to be used in Wall-E. Sure, it gives us a few nice landscape scenes (of which there are only a few), but then it steals us of 25% of the detail in the picture. Suddenly our beautiful 1080p image is not 1080p, but 810p. There's a greater reason to use it with live action movies, since the recording hardware could be a limiting factor, but when it comes to digitally created film, there is no such limitation. If he wants to fit more on a screen, the camera can be as zoomed in or zoomed out as he wants. Again, I don't consider giving a picture an unnecessary wide ratio adds to the "artistic vision". If it was such an issue with artistic vision, then we'd see many different ratios (4:1, 3:2, 1:1, etc...). The aspect ratio is a question of practicality.

 

[Kyo]

Actually, by opening up the frame more on top and bottom you throw off the balance of objects in it, resulting in a picture the "feels" off. Films are shot with certain amounts of area left open to keep the frame balanced and more pleasing to the eye. By opening that up and exposing more area on top and bottom, you lose the original artistic intent and balance in the frame.

Or you don't lose the balance after all... If you really think that adding some 100 pixels to the top and bottom of a 1080p picture totally changes the feel of every scene, you're deluding yourself. I bet most people wouldn't even notice the difference if they saw their favorite movies in 16:9 open matte versions instead of the original 2.4:1. It's just not a huge difference. We're not talking 4:3 fullscreen DVD compared to twice-as-wide Cinemascope here.

Perhaps I am now open to more idiotic attacks from people who have no clue what they are talking about. They just want all their little pixels used and dont care about artistic intent, but yet will get on a bandwagon labeling something as "bad art" when it suits their purposes. Learn a little bit more about what you are talking about before you start coming in here making completely stupid remarks.

LOL! I laugh at the idea that most directors pick an arbitrary yet popular aspect ratio as 2.4 or 2.35:1 merely for artistic reasons.

 

[TheExodu5]

Or you don't lose the balance after all... If you really think that adding some 100 pixels to the top and bottom of a 1080p picture totally changes the feel every scene, you're deluding yourself. I bet most people wouldn't even notice the difference if they saw their favorite movies in 16:9 open matte versions instead of the original 2.4:1. It's just not a huge difference. We're not talking 4:3 fullscreen DVD compared to twice-as-wide Cinemascope here.

LOL! I laugh at the idea that most directors pick an arbitrary yet popular aspect ratio as 2.4 or 2.35:1 merely for artistic reasons.

Good to have someone on my side. :lol

 

[Kyo]

I also wish more directors would realize that the 16:9 home screen is where their work will be viewed more often in the long run and where it'll most likely make them and the studio the most money, too. They might as well try to make their work more enjoyable for the majority of viewers. To play the devil's advocate here I'd say that if you really fail to achieve in 16:9 what you want to say in 2.4:1, I guess you're just not that great a director/cinematographer after all.

And generally I just don't get this infatuation with ultra-wide formats, particularly when people throw ridiculous arguments like "it's more epic" around. Coppola filmed The Godfather in 16:9 and I don't recall anyone complaining about that movie. :lol

 

[dallow_bg]

I also wish more directors would realize that the 16:9 home screen is where their work will be viewed more often in the long run and where it'll most likely make them and the studio the most money, too. They might as well try to make their work more enjoyable for the majority of viewers. To play the devil's advocate here I'd say that if you really fail to achieve in 16:9 what you want to say in 2.4:1, I guess you're just not that great a director/cinematographer after all.

And generally I just don't get this infatuation with ultra-wide formats, particularly when people throw ridiculous arguments like "it's more epic" around. Coppola filmed The Godfather in 16:9 and I don't recall anyone complaining about that movie. :lol

1:85:1 and 16:9 are not the same.

If you don't see black bars during the Godfather it's because you're TV is overscanning them.

 

[NekoFever]

So does anyone know why computer monitors use 16:10 instead of 16:9? Why not just have one standard? And forgive me if this was answered somewhere in this thread. I don't feeling like reading the whole thing.

It's not a new thing; if you work it out several of the popular 4:3 ratios like 1280x1024 are actually 5:4. 1280x960 is the 4:3 equivalent.

On the subject of the point of using wide ratios, I think it's interesting to point out movies that actually have an aspect ratio switch. Two fairly recent ones that come to mind are Enchanted and Brother Bear, both of which have the main character undergoing some kind of change that has a profound effect on their world view. Both of them start in 1.85:1 and, when the change occurs, they open out to 2.35:1 to emphasise the change in perspective by giving the viewer a literal change.

On DVD/BD they actually pillarbox the 1.85:1 scenes so that the switch to 2.35:1 adds to the size of the picture rather than ostensibly taking away from it. It doesn't work as well as it must have done on the big screen, but I think it's a fairly cool storytelling tool.

In any case, thankfully there's a lot of correlation between early adopters of new home video formats and movie buffs - see the widescreen dominance of LD, DVD, and now Blu-ray - so the whiners will have to put up with it

Spoiler

until some studio starts doing fullscreen BDs all cropped to 1.78:1

 

[AKS]

im currently playing dead space on my samsung 720p hdtv and i have stupid black bars at the top and bottom of the screen

obviously im doing something wrong here in my ps3 settings or wathever it is
my ps3 is hooked up with the cables that come standard with it
(dunno what you call them but maybe thats important to figure out the prob)

halp

You'll get a good razzing for your thread, but I'm glad you made it if that's what it takes to get your gaming affairs in proper order. I'm glad you asked rather than continuing to play that way even if you'll also get verbally roasted.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Or you don't lose the balance after all... If you really think that adding some 100 pixels to the top and bottom of a 1080p picture totally changes the feel of every scene, you're deluding yourself. I bet most people wouldn't even notice the difference if they saw their favorite movies in 16:9 open matte versions instead of the original 2.4:1. It's just not a huge difference. We're not talking 4:3 fullscreen DVD compared to twice-as-wide Cinemascope here.




LOL! I laugh at the idea that most directors pick an arbitrary yet popular aspect ratio as 2.4 or 2.35:1 merely for artistic reasons.

Actually, not all movies at 2.35 can be opened up. It depends on the kind of lenses and film stock used while filming it. If they use anamorphic lenses then there is nothing to open up on the frame, but if they shot using Super 35 film stock then technically they can open it up, but if that was their intention in the first place, they would have just shot the film in 1.85.

And why is it funny that directors use 2.35 for artistic reasons? Is it silly that an artist uses oil paint over watercolor for artistic reasons? Or that he chooses to paint a picture in portrait layout as opposed to landscape? Or that he uses red instead of green?

 

[PhoncipleBone]

The thing I find so infuriating and humorous about this thread is that a lot of people are attacking director's for using a certain kind of framing and saying they arent good artists or whatnot if they cant work within the confines of one type of film or framing, yet will attack certain games for being "bad art" or being on one system instead of another. Double standard much?

 

[Kyo]

1:85:1 and 16:9 are not the same.

If you don't see black bars during the Godfather it's because you're TV is overscanning them.

You're right, it's a liiiiittle wider than 16:9 (last time I saw it was on a front projector). It's very close though, much closer than to the usual 2.35:1.

 

[Kyo]

And why is it funny that directors use 2.35 for artistic reasons?

It's funny to think that so many filmmakers' individual (?) visions should fit more or less the same aspect ratio.

 

[AFreak]

Funny story guys, yesterday my friend brought in his PS3 because he broke it(don't ask how, he was drunk and stupid). So, we started talking and he told me he's beein playing with composites the whole fucking time. I lol'd.

Anyway I set him up with an HDMI cable and his jaw hit the floor when he saw the difference.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

It's funny to think that so many filmmakers' individual (?) visions should fit more or less the same aspect ratio.

And also they have only so many aspect ratios to use because of film sizes and screens around the world. There are only so many different frame sizes they have available to them for technical reasons. Many chose to work in 2.35. Some work in almost nothing but 1.85. They have a choice of tools available to them, and they use what they think can best accomplish the goal they have in mind. That is why Andrew Stanton chose to work in 2.35 with Wall-E, because it was the format that best suited what HE wanted to see in the film.

 

[dallow_bg]

And also they have only so many aspect ratios to use because of film sizes and screens around the world. There are only so many different frame sizes they have available to them for technical reasons. Many chose to work in 2.35. Some work in almost nothing but 1.85. They have a choice of tools available to them, and they use what they think can best accomplish the goal they have in mind. That is why Andrew Stanton chose to work in 2.35 with Wall-E, because it was the format that best suited what HE wanted to see in the film.

:hugs:
Exactly.

 

[Kyo]

So basically you're saying that the choice of 2.35:1 (or similar) quite often has technical reasons just as much as (or even more so than) merely artistic ones? Well, on that we can agree.

Earlier filmmakers were experimenting with various aspect ratios much more (look at the very different aspect ratios Kubrick has used, for example). Back then I found the "artistic decision" argument much more believable. These days both the format and the "excuse" for using it has become such a cliché that I often have a hard time believing the artistic part of it. Quite often thinking along the lines of "that's just the way it's done" seems more like the reason to me.

 

[Fenderputty]

Funny story guys, yesterday my friend brought in his PS3 because he broke it(don't ask how, he was drunk and stupid). So, we started talking and he told me he's beein playing with composites the whole fucking time. I lol'd.

Anyway I set him up with an HDMI cable and his jaw hit the floor when he saw the difference.

Someone stated earlier in this thread that they wondered if more people out there have HDTV's yet never utilized them. It's pretty clear that is the case. Kinda sucks too.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

And also the kind of film stock used has technical reasons. Super 35 film stock is cheaper to use and shoot with than using anamorphic lenses, it also makes the camera lighter to move around, and that is why some director's use that instead of anamorphic. Another thing with super 35 is that it does allow them to use open matte framing for the eventual morons who dont want the film in its original aspect ratio. It is stuff the director never intended for you to see, but it is visible on the pan and scan version all the same. It all breaks down to HOW it was filmed if there is the possibility to have more picture in a 16:9 framed version. But even with opening up the frame, it throws off the careful balance the cinematographer achieved while framing for the INTENDED aspect ratio.

As for picking a wider format over another, it sometimes goes back to purely artistic reasons. Sam Raimi shot a lot of his films in 1.85, but chose to shoot For Love of the Game in 2.35, mainly because he is a baseball nut and wanted to see baseball on the big screen in cinemascope. As others mentioned before, with Spider Man 2 he chose to use 2.35 because that way he could fit MORE of Doc Ock on screen than he could in 1.85.

With Jurassic Park III, Joe Johnston shot it in 1.85 for a few reasons. First is so that it matched with the first two films, even though Johnston prefers to shoot in 2.35. The other is that way the frame is smaller, allowing the dinosaurs to appear larger in the frame. If he had the extra space on the sides, the dinosaurs would not look as imposing.

Ridley Scott shoots in 2.35 most of the time, but shot Hannibal in 1.85 to match Silence of the Lambs.


So sometimes they shoot wide for technical reasons, sometimes for artistic. Just imagine the chariot race in Ben Hur in anything less than its original width. The sheer size and impact of the scene is lost when anything is cut out. Open up the top then the objects of interest become smaller in the frame, thus destroying the focus of the picture.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

So basically you're saying that the choice of 2.35:1 (or similar) quite often has technical reasons just as much as (or even more so than) merely artistic ones? Well, on that we can agree.

Earlier filmmakers were experimenting with various aspect ratios much more (look at the very different aspect ratios Kubrick has used, for example). Back then I found the "artistic decision" argument much more believable. These days both the format and the "excuse" for using it has become such a cliché that I often have a hard time believing the artistic part of it. Quite often thinking along the lines of "that's just the way it's done" seems more like the reason to me.

Christopher Nolan experimented with Dark Knight by shooting certain parts in IMAX. Wally Pfister (the cinematographer) framed those scenes for IMAX presentation, but was careful to make sure the balance also worked within the 2.35 anamorphic frame that non IMAX theaters would see the movie in. Nolan usually works in 2.35 as his preferred method, but wanted to experiment with a LARGE format. It was too loud and expensive, so that is why only select scenes were shot that way. The funny thing is that even on a widescreen set, parts of the IMAX scenes are gone, but he shot it that way as an experience you can only get at the theater. That is the same reason James Cameron is moving so aggressively with 3D...it is something that cannot be fully replicated at home. These people design movies for THEATERS, not homes. How is that NOT artistic intent. Why do I chose to put the character of interest on the right side of the screen instead of left? Why make the character wear pinstripes instead of plaid? It is artistic reasons, and the way I portray that intent is also for artistic reasons. If I wanted to make something for a certain aspect ratio, that is my decision to make...what best will express my artistic intent.

Why shoot in black and white instead of color? Why have a shadow visible in the picture instead of the person casting it? Why buy a green car instead of red? Why wear Nike instead of Reebok? It is apples to oranges. People pick one way over the other for various reasons.