Widescreen format question

We just got a new widescreen TV last week, so I decided to watch a couple of DVDs. First was Gladiator, whose case states that it was presented in a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. Next was The Shawshank Redemption, which was presented in a “matted widescreen format.”

Gladiator looked significantly better, but I still had the black bars at the top and bottom of my screen, they were just a little smaller than they are on a normal TV screen for a widescreen movie. Shawshank filled out the whole screen, and it didn’t seem like any of the edges were cut off (could be wrong on this, though).

Anywho, why are the movies presented in these ways? Is the format that Gladiator used typically better (quality-wise) than that of Shawshank? Should my entire screen have been used for Gladiator? If so, how can I fix this? BTW, I believe the television’s screen has a ratio of 16:9. Thanks in advance.

There are two mainstream formats for widescreen film presentation:

1.85 by 1. This is commonly used in your smaller budget films, your comedies, your occassional summer movie, and your animated flicks. It is roughly the same ratio as your 16x9 television screen.

2.35 by 1 (Anamorphic). This is used for more “epic” and visually active films. Your e-ticket action flicks, your important, epic dramas, etc, are filmed anamorphically, which is a bit more involved than filming “flat” in 1.85x1. This is wider than your screen, so to present films like this properly – such as Pulp Fiction, Gladiator, Star Wars, etc – you will see small black bars.

Occassionally you’ll see a film that is 1.66 by 1. Mostly stuff shot in 16 or in Europe. Your TV is wider than these films, so you may either have parts of the tops and bottoms clipped, or you’ll see black bars on the sides.

If you’d like to see the two aspect ratios side by side in the same movie, take a look at The Horse Whisperer. (I can’t recommend the movie on any other basis, but…) During the beginning section, before we go out to the country, the movie’s in 1.85:1. Then, to convey the awe of nature, director Redford expands to true widescreen, 2.35:1.

Now, I confess, I have no idea how this is handled on the DVD, but I can imagine two alternatives. One: They might fill your wide screen with the first section, and then shrink down to show all of the wider image by putting black bars at top and bottom. Or, two: They might anticipate the later shift, and show the whole thing with black bars at top and bottom, which means the beginning section would also have black at left and right. Either way, it’d look weird, because the effect was designed for the cinema. I guess it’s possible the whole thing was dumped for DVD. Might be worth a look, though.

Or older movies, since widescreen was a competitive innovation developed in the 1950s (IIRC). Gone with the Wind and Casablanca and so on were all shot in 1.66:1 (“Academy ratio”), which was then adopted as the standard size for ordinary television screens. In the late 1970s, as I recall, there was a horrible trend wherein older movies would be re-released to theaters in “widescreen” editions, which meant the frame was trimmed at the top and bottom to simulate the wider image.

Oh, and Stanley Kubrick requested that his movies be released on home video in 1.66:1 editions. He composed his images in the viewfinder so they’d work either in a trimmed-off 1.85:1 theatrical version or with the top and bottom of the frame intact. That’s why there aren’t any “widescreen” editions of his movies on DVD (except, I believe, 2001). One wonders how his opinion on this might have changed if he’d lived to see the advent of commonly-available widescreen televisions.

Yeah, good point about Academy Ratio. All the best movies were shot in that. They only went widescreen later in the film biz to differentiate from television. But that’s our gain, its a better viewing experience.

Also, Spartacus, Kubrick’s orphaned film, is in 2.35x1 on DVD, I do believe.

The film ratio initiated by Edison in 1893 that eventually became the industry standard was 1.33:1. After the addition of the soundtrack to the film strip, the Academy ratio was adjusted in 1932 to 1.37:1, which is the ratio at which Gone With the Wind and Casablanca were shot.

The Acadamy standard of 1.66:1 was not introduced until 1954.

The pre-HDTV television screen ratio has been at 1.33:1 since the late 1930s.

Shakey, first thing you need to do is make sure that your DVD player is set up for 16:9 so that when you pop in an anamorphic disk, it’ll automatically stretch it to fill your widescreen tv.

Next, for DVDs that are anamorphic, your TV will need to be set to the 16:9 STANDARD ratio. For non-anamorphic (matted) widescreen, you will need to be in 4:3 ZOOM mode.

1.85:1 DVDs (like Spider-Man) will fill your screen completely. 2.35:1 DVDs (like Gladiator, LotR, Star Wars) will still have bars at the top and bottom of the screen but not nearly as much as it your tv were 4:3.

D’oh! You’re correct, of course. Serves me right for posting at 1 a.m. when I should be going to bed. Sort of conflated a few details there, didn’t I? :o

BTW, the widescreen explosion of the 1950s that began with the release of This Is Cinerama (1952), and that gave us CinemaScope, Panavision, Todd-AO, and more, was actually the third widescreen period in motion picture history. The first was in 1896-1905, when the American Mutoscope Co. (later American Mutoscope & Biograph), produced thousands of short films on 68mm film that offered almost four times the image size of competitor Edison’s 35mm film.

The second widescreen period was in 1929-1931, when features like The Big Trail, starring John Wayne, Happy Days, and Fox Movietone Follies of 1929 were shot on 65mm film by the Fox Grandeur system (frame ratio 2.10:1). With the addition of a soundtrack, the release prints were on 70mm film.

So, when I’m watching Citizen Kane or any Marx Bros. movie or the aforementioned Casablanca, I’m getting the correct ratio and not being ripped off by pan and scan?

Yes, that’s right.

In fact, wasn’t it the Cartoon Network that, for a while, would play the old Warner Bros. cartoons, which were made in the TV-screen-ratio, with a small border around the whole image, to signify that they weren’t cutting anything off the sides? Where did I see that?

Another movie that used two aspect ratios was Brainstorm (1981). It went to widescreen and surround sound whenever someone was using the Brainstorm device.

But notice, Cervaise, that the four-sided borders on the Warner Bros. cartoons shown on TV happen only during the credits. When the story itself begins, the borders are gone. The borders are there to keep all of the opening screen credits visible. Television tends to “overscan” and some of the screen image is lost under the edges of your TV screen.

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

Regarding the OP, there are two ways in which a widescreen film, be it 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, can be encoded on a dvd. The first method, and the method most often used in the early years of dvd, is letterboxing. In this format, the black bars at the top and bottom (of a 1.33:1 tv) are hard coded to the cd, which is to say, they are actually recorded as part of the picture. When a dvd of this type is played back on a conventional tv, you get small black bars if it is 1.85:1, and larger ones if it is 2.35:1. Because the black bars are part of the recorded image, fewer scan lines are actually used for the visible image.

The second method of presenting a movie widesreen on a dvd is anamorphic widescreen (which is unrelated to anamorphic filming or projection). A widescreen movie is stored on the dvd horizontally compressed, or it has the sides squeezed in to fit into the 1.33:1 storage format. On a conventional 1.33:1 tv, the dvd will electronically create the black bars by leaving out every fourth horizontal scan line, which decreases the resolution but restores the movie to it’s proper resolution.

Thus, on a 1.33 tv, an anamorphic widescreen dvd and a letterbox dvd will look identical, with black bars at the top and bottom, and the same number of scan lines used to display the picture. Thus, there is no advantage to anamorphic dvd’s on a conventional tv (with the exception of a small number of sets that do the ‘anamorphic squeeze’, by vertically compressing the sceen instead of leaving out scan lines, but these are rare).

On a 16:9 tv, things work differently, and this is where you get the benefits of anamorphic recording and playback. A movie filmed at 1.85 is filmed on standard 1.33:1 film, and for playback in the theater the top and bottom portions of the film frame are matted out, resulting in the widescreen image you see on the film. For dvd, only this middle “safe” portion of the film frame is recorded to the dvd, and it is horizontally squeezed into the 1.33:1 shape of a conventional tv. When the dvd player is hooked up to a 16:9 tv and fed an anamorphic dvd, it horizontally expands the compressed image to the full width of the tv. The result is that all of the scan lines are used to display the image instead of every fourth one being deleted, resulting in an image that has 1/3 more detail.

A letterboxed dvd, one that isn’t recorded anamorphically, has the black bars recorded as part of the image. Instead of stretching the image horisontally, it needs to be zoomed to fill a 16x9 tv. If the dvd is properly encoded and the dvd player and tv set are both set up right, this will be done automatically, but because fewer scan lines are filling the screen, the image quality can suffer a little to a lot. If the dvd isn’t properly flagged as non-anamorphic widesreen, you get either a window boxed picture (black bars on top, bottom, and the sides) or a picture that is incorrectly stretched horizontally, making everyone look too fat. This is easily compensated by selecting the zoom aspect on the tv, which will fill the screen with the image, but, as I said before, a lower resolution image.

A movie that is filmed at 2:20:1 or higher is filmed anamorphically (unrelated to anamorphic dvd’s), using a “fisheye” lens to horizontally squeeze a very widescreen image onto the 35mm film frame, and a matching lens on the projector is used to expand it in the theater. When these are recorded onto a dvd, most of what was described above for 1.85 images still applies, but now the anamorphic image is both horizontally compressed and has black bars encoded at the top and bottom. When the movie is expanded by the tv, the black bars remain, but they are much smaller than on a conventional tv. Letterboxed 2.35:1 movies are handled the same way as described above.

Gladiator and Shawshank are both anamorphic dvd’s. The key words to look for on the box are either “anamorphic” or, more commonly, “enhanced for 16 x 9 tv’s”, which means the same thing. If you try to play a widescreen dvd that’s not anamorphic (say, From Dusk Til Dawn), and it doesn’t display properly (there are a lot of factors involved here that affect this), all you have to do is use your tv remote and change the aspect from “full” to “zoom” and the picture should fill your screen, but without any increase in resolution. You can also use 4:3 mode, which will result in a windowboxed picture, which can look better in some cases. If your tv is an RPTV, you should ALWAYS watch such movies is zoom mode, never windowboxed, which can cause uneven wear. If you have a tube tv, it’s a matter of taste, the uneven wear is negligible.

Concerning the anamorphic issue, it’s important to note that as far as 2:35 films go these days, the Super 35 process is being used much more frequently.

For those who are unfamiliar: True anamorphic photography consists of using a distortion lense to squeeze a 2:35 image unto a 1:33 negative. Then image is then “unsqueezed” during projection.

The Super 35 process, which has become more popular with filmmakers due to the (misguided, in my view) public dislike for letterboxing, simply uses a unmatted 1:66 (or thereabouts) film negative from which a 2:35 image is made by matting. This way, a filmmaker can shoot a 2:35 film and not have to worry about two-thirds of the image being chopped off when it’s pan-and-scanned for home video release…the mattes are removed, and the image re-positioned, so that no important information needs to be chopped out.

A recent example of this is “The Recruit”. Shot on Super 35 and shown in theatres in a 2:35 ratio, it’s been re-composed to 1:77 for the DVD release. Instead of chopping the edges off to acheive this, they merely matted it less, hence the claim on the back of the box: “Director’s 1:77 aspect ratio…shows you MORE of the movie than you saw in theatres!”.

D’OHH!!!

I also just bought myself a widescreen TV and was wondering why there were still huge black bars at the top and bottom of movies played from DVDs. Sure enough, the DVD player itself was still set to 4:3 Letterbox instead of Widescreen.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart…

Barry

Number Six, that was the best and clearest description of Anamorphic as regards to DVD that I have ever read! Now it makes sense.

And I appear to have been misinformed by a lot of articles in DVD magazines!