For example, when watching a 2.35 or a 1.85 movie, say that the characters are watching a news story on TV. They show a shot of the TV and then the next cut is a shot of the actual broadcast, filling up the whole screen. It just feels weird, since then it basically means what they're watching is..sort of not possible.

Similarly, with a film like Sicko, they had shots of random old time movies, and news reports, and all of them were fit to the aspect ratio of the movie, which was 1.85.

Anyone else feel slightly 'taken out' of the movie, or annoyed? If so, do you have any particular examples?

On the other hand would it be more distracting if they put black bars randomly when the ratio was wrong?

Speaking of which, what exactly is the AR of a theater screen? Is it a default 1.85?

This is what's usually done, or the sides of the TV will be shown on the sides of the image to show that, well, it's on a TV.

Black bars on the sides can be more distracting in a movie theater, in my opinion. We're used to black bars at home; on the good ol' theater screen, it might just remind people that "hey, it's only a movie". If it's a sequence that uses footage from a different-AR film, I don't mind if they alter the image to suit the main feature's AR. In Shadow Of The Vampire, footage from Nosferatu is used to great effect and nearly fills the screen, being cropped from the original academy ratio to fit the 2.35:1 frame (black shadow is added at the side so that they don't have to remove too much from the top and bottom). Now, if a film is one aspect ratio and changes to another, that can be interesting too. Brother Bear and Galaxy Quest both had their AR's change from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 in theaters; the 1.85:1 was projected with black bars onto a 2.35:1 area. In both cases, the filmmakers wanted to "open up" the characters' perception and scope - when the main fella sees through the eyes of a bear, when they find themselves in space, respectively. Galaxy Quest actually begins with a matted 1.33:1 "On TV" image.

No default. Some are 1.85:1 and matte curtains come in from the top and bottom to create a 2.35:1 viewing area. Some are 2.35:1 and have matte curtains come in from the sides to create a 1.85:1 area.

I especially dislike this trend in documentaries. I watched some of one about Ella Fitzgerald the other night. The AR of the documentary was 16x9. When showing kinescopes of her TV performances, originally shown as 4x3, they were cropped top and bottom to fix 16x9. I realize that if they were to black bar the 4x3 footage that it looks strange on a 4x3 TV, with the image surrounded by black on all four sides. But, the TV footage was supposed to be shown at 4x3. Also, when all TVs are 16x9, we're still stuck with the documentary with the cropped footage.

A welcome trend with some recent things that I have seen is to show the 4x3 footage at the correct ratio with black bars at the sides if the main program is 16x9.

Galaxy Quest got it right

Isn't Kubrick's Strangelove presented with "multi-aspect ratios", i.e. with aspect ratios changing throughout (1.66:1 for most of the film, but 1.33:1 for the action bits, if I remember correctly). I just thought that it is an example of a case where changing aspect ratios actually seems to work.

Alanis Morissette - Feast on Scraps DVD bugged the hell out of me because of this.

Well, that and the fact that along with aspect ratio, the sound quality, video quality, camera style, actual performance changed constantly, every 10 to 20 seconds, in the middle! of EVERY single song. Gah! Got to stop think about it. It's pissing me off again.

I do not ever recall a feeling that I would describe as "annoyed" from a change in aspect ratio.

I most certainly feel slightly "taken out of a movie" and this is typically the INTENDED effect.

Indeed, in the only cases I can recall, the changing aspect ratio was a deliberate attempt to clue the viewer into realizing that the footage was historical, or perhaps vintage, or perhaps a mise en scene (film within a film). One example mentioned above, of course, is when a character in the film is viewing a television broadcast. The new aspect ratio is a "convention." In any of the arts, conventions are used all of the time. It is a convention when a character suddenly bursts into song in a musical. It is a convention when a camera focuses on a clock, and then then the clock suddenly moves forward several hours. It is a convention in the visual arts when a religious figure has a halo above the head. It is a convention in music when the end of a pop song just fades in volume, while the song appears to continue. It is a convention in film when a voiceover narrator is heard. It is a convention in certain traditional stage works when a character delivers an aside directly to an audience, or even speaks a soliloquy. It is a convention in film when a director inserts a lens flare in a night scene. Those who much experience with the artform quickly learn those conventions. Those who do not have as much experience are often a bit confused, or distracted, until they have a proper vocablulary in that artform.

Just my opinions...

Hope that this helps,

-Bruce

I doubt it's intended, since I presume that most filmmakers don't assume that their audience is thinking "this should be 1.33 or 1.85 but is actually 1.85"

Yes.

It is intended. Most audience members have never understood the terminology "1.33:1" or "1.85:1." However, they cannot help but notice that the picture is shaped differently.

I just finished viewing "Black Snake Moan." I suggest you rent it, and listen to the director's commentary. The aspect ratio changes in all of the segments featuring the interviews with the blues singer. In every case, the change in aspect ratio was deliberate, as is discussed, to force a stark transition and to signal the audience that we are (supposedly) viewing the "Blues gods of the past" (their words, not mine).

Last month, I viewed JFK. Stone changes aspect ratios whenever we are viewing flashback, to simulate the "newsreel" feel, and this is done somteimes when he used actual footage, but also when he used his own feature footage. The changes from color to black and white are also added to evoke the same effect. I can assure you, it was intentional (and manipulative).

Watch the opening 45 seconds of Tombstone, where some scratchy, flawed footage of the old outlaws the of the west are featured, in 1.35:1 camerawork. The footage is sepia toned. It has the "flicker" we associate with silent films. It has dropouts, and the camera speed is just a bit too fast. Then, watch as the image suddenly begins to grow, at the sides, until it fills a 16 X 9 widescreen television, all while the flaws disappear, the scratches cease, and we are viewing a beautiful John Ford-like beautiful wide vista.

This was no accident, I assure you.

If you need other examples, they are easy to find.

I would be curious if anyone can cite a single case of a feature film where the aspect ratio changes "accidentally." I cannot image how this could occur, in fact, knowing how much cost and care is put into camera rentals in the first place.

I stand by my post above.

Take care,

-Bruce

BSpielbauer, you may be missing the point of the original post entirely. He's not referring to movies changing their aspect ratio for artistic reasons. He's referring to movies cropping footage from one aspect ratio to fit into their own. For instance, a documentary that shows old TV footage that we know is 1.33:1 but it's been cropped to fit into the widescreen frame of the movie.

Yeah BSpielbauer, that's not what I'm talking about, but coincidentally I did rent Black Snake Moan, and will see it tomorrow/today.

In theaters, it would be correctly shown at 1.66:1. The changing ARs is just the result of you seeing what's on the 35mm element. The HD remaster is 1.66:1 throughout now.


Around the World in 80 Days starts with the prologue in 1.33:1 (including clips from Melies' A Trip to the Moon). Starting with a shot of a rocket taking off, the screen slowly opens up to 2.20:1. Really cool since it would have been awesome on a huge screen in 1956. On TV, it's not really that impressive, but the change from mono to full 5.1 is made at that point, at least.

The documentary "The Cutting Edge" (that's on the Bullitt SE, HD-DVD/BluRay) was made in HD. The HD discs actually have it in full 1080p. Everything is shown in the original AR (Ranging from 1.20:1 to 2.55:1), either windowboxed or letterboxed within the 1.78:1 frame.

I have'nt seen Sicko yet, but noticed the problem with Fahrenheit 9/11. Since a huge amount of footage is made up of news clips that was 4x3. It was horribly obvious the image was severley cropped to 16.9. Since text at the bottom of the screen was cut in half, and the tops of peoples heads was cut off as well.

It depends. I love how they do it on Around the World in 80 Days. It was really awesome and I hope I can see it on the big screen someday.

I personally didn't see it in the theatre, but I've heard that Brainstorm has at least three different aspect ratios.

Peter Greenaway I think does multiple AR:

'The Pillow Book'
'Prospero's Books'

come to mind.

Kubrick prepared a similar transfer for 'Lolita' for the Criterion laser-disc, but this approved transfer was never used on a DVD.

Here's one that pisses me off to no end. It's not a movie, but it does have annoying aspect ratio changes.

The Season 1 DVD of How I Met You Mother is fullframe (even though it was shot 16:9). The special feature are also, 1.33:1 for the interviews, etc., but when they show a clip of the TV show, it 16:9 letterboxed!!! So if you have a 16:9 TV, you end up seeing the show clips in a 16:9 window in the middle of the TV screen!

Ok, so I misread what the topic was about in my first post. That DVD is still my most annoying music DVD purchase ever.


This reminds me now of the Xena video commentaries. They had footage of the stars as they were sitting around making the commentary tracks and they were watching the full screen episodes on a widescreen tv with the picture stretched to fill the screen.