My wife and I watch White Christmas each year, and this year when the "VistaVision" screen popped up at the beginning I, having learned all this from your video, began to explain to her all about the images being captured on filmed turn on its side and so forth. "That's nice, dear" is what I got. Oh well, I enjoyed understanding what I was watching. Great video.
@@QED_ Mansplaining is regarded with patronizing and condescending tune. Telling info as in the original comment above doesn't include any of that. So, why is that a mansplaining?
A few corrections: CinemaScope was originally 2.55:1 Adding optical and magnetic soundtracks reduced the image later. Todd-AO was at 26 fps for the first two and was meant to be shown on a curve screen - this was abandoned after Todd's death making it a flat screen process exactly like Super Panavision MGM Camera 65 dd not become Super Panavision or Panavision/70. Those were separate. It became Ultra Panavision, used in a few films for 70mm Cinema, before being dropped in 1966. It was revived for "the Hateful Eight" and the actual Ultra Panavision lenses are still used, although not displayed in anything other than the current 2.40:1 (The last two Avengers films, for example, include the Ultra Panavision logo.)
The first Cinemascope aspect ratio was 2.55:1 not 2.35:1. After both magnetic and optical soundtracks were included on theatrical prints from 1957 on, the aspect ratio changed to the less wide 2.35:1 to accommodate the two types of soundtracks. Also, Vistavision was photographed at a 1.5:1 aspect ratio (same as still photography), then cropped during projection to 1.85:1.
And after it morphed into Panavision, another tweak in the 1970's made most "scope" films actually 2.39:1; yet a lot of sources, including this video, continue to say 2.35:1 to this day. And most 1.85:1 films today are NOT shot in VistaVision; they are cropped or "matted" from more traditional ratios much like Shane was. (Most VistaVision equipment was repurposed for visual effects work where the larger sideways frame makes production easier.)
This was deeply fascinating. I love old films, particularly the epics from the 1950s and 60s. I never realized aspect ratio played such a large role in these classic films. Excellent presentation.
I have shown this video to my high school media students every semester for many years now. It is superb, and so is all of the content on this channel.
I'm really amazed by how this topic is very well-discussed in detail, for I have only known the basics of aspect ratio, but this video definitely gave me a new understanding on its history and formats. Thank you for this! 😄
I started this video and at first I was like, uh oh, I don't think I can handle this guys voice. Thought I might fall asleep. But I absolutely LOVE this video. Definitely subscribing
What I can't understand is why film producers continue cropping old movies filmed in 4:3 and convert them into 16:9. That's like mutilating important information from the film on the top and on the bottom. And even worse... sometimes, that 4:3 converted into 16:9 is even cropped on the tops and bottom (once again) to make it see like a 2:39:1 film. What's wrong with them? Please, respect original aspect ratio... don't chop a movie.
+RayDeLaCroix I know what you mean they did that with all the old The Simpson's episodes from 1989- 2009 that were in 1.33:1 (4:3) and cut off the top and bottom and formatted it to fit on modern TV's and I hate that they did that since I hate missing picture on a cartoon since i'm missing artwork i'd rather they just have left them all in there original aspect ratio and put mirrored images on the left and right that look really good and digitally restore the picture itself but leave the sound the way it originally was as well since for example in the first Christmas episode from 1989 I hate that during one of the scenes at the race track that they made the sound of the guy on the intercom louder since it makes it hard to hear other characters in the show that are reacting in that scene. Because of this i'd rather just watch the old ones on DVD since I can see the whole picture even if I have to look at it stretched to fill the frame or watch it with black bars.
Whenever I see a notification saying “This film has been modified to fit your screen,” I immediately feel uneasy... the information that was recorded should be consistent no matter when you play back the video!
RayDeLaCroix - as at 2019 the cropping of 4:3 movies into 16:9 seems to be regrettably normal in some people's eyes. I stopped buying Hammer movies on Blu Ray when I discovered to my 'horror' that some of the movies had been shorn of 25% of their original image be being reformatted to 16:9. A great source of older movies and tv series from the 40s to the 60s is UA-cam, where unfortunately they are relentlessly presented in 16:9. Its sad. I view it as a lack of respect. KAN 6.19 UK Afterthoughts: I recently had to STOP watching two priceless 60s programmes on Bob Dylan, both originally made in 4:3. The first had been thoughtlessly cropped to 16:9. The result was a disaster with many scenes where he had only half a head! The second disastrous programme brings to me the alternative way of showing 4:3 programmes in 16:9 - just by stretching the 4:3 image across the 16:9 screen. Absolutely crazy. This is what caused me to stop watching the second programme. Everyone looked half their height and twice as broad. Disrespect beyond belief, yet some people think it's ok to watch a movie in this way!!!
Correction: In 1953, CinemaScope started with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, utilizing the full silent 35mm frame with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze (the first few Scope films, including "The Robe" were shot in this ratio). However, very soon, they decided to add magnetic sound strips on the frame, which reduced the ratio to 2.55:1. In 1957, they further reduced it to 2.35:1. So, CinemaScope films between 1954 and 1956 (and some in 1957, like "The Bridge of the River Kwai") are actually in the 2.55:1 ratio. The 2.35:1 only came from 1957 onwards.
Correction #2: VistaVision was NOT solely 1.85:1. In fact, the aspect ratio could vary between 1.50:1 and 1.96:1, depending on how much of the film frame was used. Some VistaVision films were shot in 1.66:1, others in 1.75:1, others in 1.85:1.
John - Fantastic video. Many people could've read the history of this, but not in such an intriguing way. Thanks for taking us through the history in an incredible 18 minute video.
This is such a fascinating topic! I love how, even today, different aspect ratios are used to evoke different responses to an image. In the most recent season of Westworld, the aspect ratio would shift from the standard aspect ratio to a wider aspect ratio depending on whether we were in the real world or in one of Bernard’s many simulations. Other shows have done similar things. Back when I was in college studying film and television production - mid 1980s - one of our professors showed us The Graduate, projecting it from a rented theatrical film print. He also paid to have a widescreen version of it transferred to VHS for his own personal use. Why? The VHS version of the film that was commercially available was a pan & scan version. The professor showed us the ending in which the two characters are sitting next to each other in the back seat of the bus. In the widescreen version, you see both their faces at the same time as each looks at the other, with different emotions reading on their faces as they sit there. In the pan & scan version, you only see one face at a time, cutting back and forth between the two. By doing this, you miss the other character’s reaction to each glance. It totally changes the ending of the movie, and not in a good way. A couple of years after this, I bought my first LaserDisc player. Some titles were being issued in letterbox format on LaserDisc and I wanted the widescreen versions! I’d invite people over to watch movies at my place, but there would always be someone who complained about the black bars. They’d say they didn’t like seeing less of the picture, to which I’d respond by telling them that they were seeing MORE of the picture. They could never grasp that concept, though, no matter how I tried to explain it. Funny enough, however, was my discovery that some films were shot using a standard 35mm image and masked for widescreen screenings in theaters. The home video releases were of the unmasked full frame, so you actually saw more of the picture in the 4:3 version. Field of Dreams was one of these. I owned both a 4:3 version and a widescreen version of it, although I only ever watched the 4:3 version.
Okay, this is some seriously awesome stuff! As a history buff, and the historian for my American Legion post, I found this highly entertaining along with being educational. I shall subscribe and watch them all!
The thing about the 16:9 ratio being a compromise between the old TV ratio of 4:3 and the cinematic ratio of 2.20:1 is that nowadays programmes shot in 4:3 and archive material in 4:3 is treated very badly by modern TVs and broadcasters. Not every TV automatically pillarboxes 4:3 content, so you end up with a stretched picture (I have a Samsung TV which automatically changes aspect ratio on its analogue, SD SCART input, but not on its HDMI input, so if I watch a programme in 4:3 SD, I have to switch over to the SCART input, because incorrect aspect ratios bug me) and all too often when broadcasters want to insert old 4:3 archive material into a modern programme or even a news report, they'll crop the screen to fit rather than pillarbox it, giving a picture that isn't stretched but instead has bits cut off to fit the shorter picture (the BBC do this often) Even towards the end of analogue broadcasting (certainly in the UK) broadcasters actually came up with another compromise aspect ratio of letterboxed 14:9 for programmes shot in 16:9 for analogue transmission so they didn't have to letterbox too much, except that for certain programmes from the 1990s and 2000s the 14:9 version seems to be all that's available for the rerun, meaning even today you'll see reruns in 14:9, broadcast letterboxed in 4:3, stretched out by certain TVs to fill a 16:9 screen, which, as you can imagine, is ugly.
+GeoNeilUK Exactly. Very good points. In the same vein, the movie Woodstock was recently brodcasted on french TV channel Arte, and so the movie was in 2.35:1 aspect ratio but all the footage was in a format close to 16:9, which means it was pillarboxed to fill the 2.35:1 frame, but then it was broadcasted in 16:9 format, which mean it was also letterboxed, and so the actual picture was a tiny rectangle with big fat black bars on all four sides. And they're supposed to be professionals.
This is an incredibly complete, accurate, and fully entertaining view of this amazing topic. It explains it all so simply, so matter-of-fact. Fantastic!
Enters the digital screen. It’s a shame that in spite of the high engineering works, science and arts spent to achieve realism and aesthetics by optical scientists and engineers in the visual productions, it is dismaying to see most people are happy viewing distorted images on their digital screens. For almost two decades following the introduction of digital television and the broadcasting of digital signals on the air, most TV stations continue to transmit their programs in 4:3 format for CRT picture tubes. The viewers watch their 4:3 shows in 16:9 screens. The images are stretched sidewise with the people shorter, broad shoulders, fat faces and flat rounds. Surprisingly, people do not mind the distortion and if you adjust the image to normal, they are bothered by the black spaces at the sides. Shame for all the arts of the Vista Vision and Panavision
@@vlc-cosplayer theyre getting rid of motion interpolation arent they? I saw chris Nolan working with a TV company to have a feature where it's close as it can be to how the filmmakr intended
A very instructive video with just a few mistaken and glossings over. The first aspect ratio of CinemaScope was not 2.35:1 (that came later) and shooting of 70mm films was (in America) done on 65mm negative film. They were then projected (in suitably equipped cinemas) from 70mm film prints. (The extra 5mm carried the surround sound multi-channels.) But it gets across the important points very well. I like this series.
Epically good video on the subject, stunning images from those old movies specially _How the west was won_, _Ben-Hur_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_. Thanks a lot!
An excellent, excellent history of cinema. While it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, I found it very engaging and a well-performed, well-illustrated story. I will recommend this to anyone who wants to learn about film technology over more than the last 100 years.
I think you should also talk about aspect ratio and home video because we put up with pan and scan for a long time to make the picture fill our screens. You could give examples like how horses are cut out of the chariot race in Ben Hur or how a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has cuts between Indy and his father talking to each other when it's supposed to be both in the same static shot. Then there's all the scenes where someone is talking and you can't see them.
I used to be a projectionist manager many years ago and showing 70mm was amazing the depth and immersive quality is still with me today a different experience to Imax totally.
Once again: something I thought I knew a lot about and I get taught dozens of things. Fantastic! That 3 camera setup for ultra wide screen is like a modern day 360 camera!
A good overview. You could have usefully mentioned that the original aspect ratio of CinemaScope was a very wide 2.55:1 from 1953 until 1956 when it was reduced to 2.35:1 with the reinstatement of a full-width optical sound track on film prints to appease the many theatre owners who did not want the expense of converting to magnetic sound. This ratio in turn was amended to the current 2.39:1 in 1970 by the SMPTE in order to hide splice marks in the projected image. This ratio is sometimes referred to as 2.4:1, and occasionally (incorrectly) as 2.40:1, in DVD liner notes.
This is very informative and very interesting. I cannot say that it cleared everything up for me, and I'm glad I won't be tested on it, but it answered a lot of the questions I had. By the way, I'm 60 years old, and I was raised on the aspect ratio of television, which is, to me, the standard. Thank you for making it and for posting it here on UA-cam.
Unmentioned was what happened to widescreen films when they began to be shown on television, which of course used the older aspect ratio. In some countries, the letterboxed format was used, with black bars at the top and the bottom, so that the entire original image appeared. But in the USA, the technique was called "pan and scan", in which the image was shown at its full height so it filled the TV screen, but with the two ends cut off. When action wasn't happening in the center of the image, then you got a slow pan to the left or the right so it was visible. Not only was this annoying, but it destroyed the intent of the creators of the movie. Unfortunately people in the US got accustomed to this, and when letterboxed movies began to be shown that way, there was whining and complaints about those terrible black bars on the screen and the little skinny image in the center. Oh well.
Pan and scan made me nauseous--like, full-on motion-sickness. I worked at Blockbuster Video in those days and we'd have two VHS versions of certain films, a pan-and-scan and a widescreen (black bars) and I felt legitimately baffled when people would come in and specifically choose to rent a pan/scan format.
16:9 is a compromise, but also a mathematical reference, 'cause it's 4:3 squared. The next 'natural' exponential step (the third power of 4:3) is 64:27, equal to 2.37:1 (cinemascope). The format was also approximated and renamed 21:9 by Phillips which makes some 'cinematic' monitors with that aspect ratio.
And here I am watching this video on such a "21:9" monitor! There are a few creators who actually make youtube videos in this aspect ratio, and they are pretty glorious on this 34" screen. I do have a couple of them on my channel of a driving game I play at this aspect ratio.
Nicely done. A few tidbits about 1950's widescreen: Fox's 35mm CinemaScope process included turning the sprocket holes vertically to widen the usable area of the film stock - returning the aspect ratio almost back to the silent era's aspect ratio. Some films used the extra space for an additional on-film audio track (either stereo sound or monaural front with an ambient rear channel, i forget which films did which). Some early anamorphic projection lenses used adjustable prisms to accommodate different aspect ratios. Look at the Panavision logo - it's the three most common aspect ratios ;) 70mm films were shot on 65mm negatives and transferred to 70mm to make room for the audio tracks (though some road show venues used synchronous audio played back on another strip of film in the projection booth). 70mm prints had 4 magnetic audio stripes - 1 on each side of the film frame, and 1 very thin one on each edge of the film outside of the sprocket holes. The outside magnetic stripes were used by bigger theatres for ambient (surround) sound tracks while the two inner stripes carried distinct Left, Center, Right, and a backup Monaural track. Those magnetic stripes made the film thicker, by the way, and the edge stripes were needed to the keep the film from buckling on the reel. The extra audio tracks became a bonus whenthe Tod-A-O system was developed. More modern 70mm releases (mid 80's and up) included an optical track as a backup and added Left Extra and Right Extra audio in place of the Monaural backup track. By the 90's 70mm magnetic audio tracks were replaced with early digital audio systems and that optical backup track became the primary analog audio track for many theatres, increasing the usable area for the image again, great for re-releases of films like Laurence of Arabia. Now for 35mm prints. With wide screens for Scope movies having been installed in exhibition houses all over the world, a dilemma for threatre owners arose when showing non-Scope movies: the standard 1.35 aspect ratio looked like tiny home movies against that giant screen (curtains and masking started disappearing by the mid 1970's). Theatres began adding magnifying lenses to enlarge the non-Scope films to fill more of the screen, cropping off the top and bottom of the non-anamorphic image. By the 1980's the new, wider aspect 1.85 (or "Flat" aspect ratio) had been adopted by most studios who kept this cropped image in mind when shooting for the screen - I say this because, as a Projectionist, I could always tell a film was shot for television/home video by looking at the frame on the film: if it had wide frame lines, it could be assumed it was designed for cinema. Anamorphic (Scope) films used the full 1.35 ratio on the print and when Films like The Wizard Of Oz or Gone With The Wind were re-released in the late 80's and early 90's, I was a bit pissed that the took the original 1.35 aspect ratio and squeezed that through the anamorphic process in order to maintain the original height of the projected image- meaning that the image on the film was only a tiny vertical sliver with black pillars on either side. This was probably done so the booming multiplex movie theatres didn't have to remove their magnifying Flat lenses from the automatic lens turrets most projectors had for switching between Flat and Scope. The result looked like 16mm film. Oh... and one last thing... the curved screen was a must for the 3 projector Cinerama system in order to keep the azimuth of each projector correct which kept the the image from distorting. So why were they used for CinemaScope and Panavision? Focus. Simply focus. the sides of the screen needed to be the same distance from the lens as the center - or you would need to use a very expensive custom-ground-for-that-auditorium anamorphic projection lens.
One cold rainy day late winter early spring 5th grade class trip to a theatre in Montclair NJ, The movie? 2001 A Space Odyssey in cinerama, I'm guessing 1969 maybe, Absolutley blew me away as a kid what an experience, I still have the souvnier book, the curved screen was incredible.
you have the most informative, indepth, well produced, historical, entertaining videos on cameras and filming/video on youtube that I can find.. can you do a video about your history? it would be cool to know in the same video style how you came to know what you know and got to where you are now! thanks again
Also, the video should've included SuperScope (other than a simple mention), Techniscope and Super 35, which are different widescreen processes, but all sprung from the same basic idea. SuperScope was briefly used by RKO in the 1950s. They shot their films in normal, Academy Ratio 35mm format, then in post-production, they chopped off the top and bottom of the image, and transferred the film to 1.5x anamorphic squeeze 35mm, creating a 2.00:1 ratio. However, it was unpopular at theatre owners, since they already bought the 2x anamorphic lenses for CinemaScope, why invest in something else? However, the same idea resurfaced some 25 years later... Techniscope was used mostly by low budget B-movies and European productions in the 1950s and 1960s. They filmed on 35mm with normal spherical lenses, however, instead of 4 perforations, they recorded with 2 perforations per frame, creating an image with a Scope-like ratio. Transferring it to 2x anamorphic 35mm film in post-production, they created a 2.35:1 / 2.39:1 ratio, which could be projected the same way as CinemaScope, but without having to use expensive anamorphic lenses during shooting. Some all time classics, like Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns were filmed in Techniscope. This process also died, but the idea, combined with SuperScope's idea, resurfaced in the 1980s... Finally, in the 1980s, combining the two above processes, Super 35 was born. The basic idea of Super 35 is that they shoot films using the full silent 35mm frame, with the 1.33:1 ratio, and then, in post-production, chopping off top and bottom, transfer it to 2x anamorphic 35mm film for projection, creating a 2.39:1 Scope-ratio, which can be projected the same way as CinemaScope / Panavision. However, it has the following advantages over anamorphic ("Scope"): 1. Cinematographers can use spherical lenses instead of anamorphic ones, with a better depth-of-field, better speed, and more focal lenghts to choose from. 2. By using the full silent frame, e.g. a larger image than normal 35mm and anamorphic, the image is less grainy and more clear, more sharp. 3. Remember that the 1980s and 1990s were times when movies were transferred to television and home video chopping off sides of the image, so it could fit into the 4:3 TV screen, often cropping 40% of the actual image. In the case of Super 35, they could simply "unmask" the image and return to the original 1.33:1 negative for home video and television screening. Of course, again, it creted a highly different aesthetic than intended for the theatrical presentation, but at least it didn't chop off information from the screen. The first major movie using Super 35 was "Top Gun", in which the camera crew found it difficult to film with anamorphic equipment inside the small cockpit of fighter jets, so decided on trying out the new process. Super 35 also became the favorite of director James Cameron, who used it for "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2", and later also for "Titanic". Soon, the format became an industry favorite in Hollywood, and was widely (pun not intended) used in the 1990s and early-2000s, rivalring the popularity of anamorphic. Most of the major blockbusters of the era were filmed in Super 35, including "Gladiator", the "Matrix" trilogy, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the "Harry Potter" films, etc... This popularity ended only when digital filmmaking processes became dominant, making the points favoring Super 35 obsolete.
Well done, sir! I was a projectionist at a small town theater from the time I was 15 until I was 20. Best job I ever had. When I was doing it in the late 70s and early 80s, we just discerned between "Flat" and "Scope" lenses. The Scope lenses were heavy, and tricky to mount. With a "Flat" film (4:3), you always had to draw in the masking curtains to hide the extra screen. They also used a Vista-Vision projector in a traveling carnival that came to our town They projected the novelty film (the usual fare - racing down a canyon road before vaulting off the edge to become a scenic helicopter flight,etcetera - on the inside wall of a large domed tent filled with people sitting on the floor, swaying in reaction to the film. Same kind of films IMAX used to market itself with when it started trying to become more commercial. As I recall, the carnival called it "The ThrillSphere"...
Thank you, John Hess, for your thorough analysis of an intriguing subject. One technical aspect that always seems to allude filmmakers.... DREAMS. That ethereal product of the human mind subconsciously creating images in an aspect ratio no film or video camera will ever truly capture. I've always wished their was a camera that could capture dreams. So many of mine were low on plotlines and heavy on atmosphere. How I wish there was a device that could have saved my dreams from childhood to early adult years. Oh well....🇵🇷🇺🇸😎
This video is really a great cinematography class !! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge, WE really appreciate it. cheers and please keep it up :D
very good, only one little mistake: original Cinemascope (the one used in The Robe and other movies in the 50's) was 2.55:1, not 2.35:1. Final Panavision aspect ratio is around 2.39:1.
Yes, it´s true. I want to write this in discussions and Mr. Alessandro did it for me. The original Cinemascope with four sound channels (4 mg tape on a filmstrip) had 1:2,55 aspect ratio. Newly "ripped off" wide angle movies with 1 optical sound channel had aspect ratio 1:2,35. This wide anamorphic movie pictures projection was used because it was more practical - the original CS had closer perforation holes then 35mm movie pictures filmstrips => the problem with toothed rollers of projection machines. A tooth rollers in the machine was necessary to change for orig. Cinemaspope projection. And if a projectionist did forgot this changing??? ...It was a massacre for the CS filmstrip copy.
I read somewhere that 2.35:1 is old or not used or something, and now 2.39:1 (or 2:40:1) is the standard Panavision size. When did that happen? Wish I could find the article to make it a little clearer, but it was words to that effect.
2.35:1 is not correct aspect ratio, it is just "name", correct is 2.39 (1.19x2 - original sound film aspect ratio without masking with 2:1 lens compression). Originally Cinemascope was 2.66:1 (silent movie aspect ratio x2) but adding mag strips, the aspect ratio was reduced to 2.55:1
Very informative video. For years, I've always wondered to myself "why all the various screen ratios from one film to the next?" and this informative video explained it all.
OK, so there a couple of omissions from this. Widescreen did not start with Cinerama and cinemascope the first major use was in the mid to late 20s in fact many of the cinemascope cameras were reconditioned cameras from this earlier period. There were other examples too such as the silent epic Napoleon which featured finale of three panels using 3 projectors.
John, I have this feeling there are many film classes and archives taking note of your fine work here on UA-cam. I imagine some of your material is already being exhibited for their research. :-)
Thanks for this! Now I don't have to explain it to anyone anymore (just share this instead). Being older, I'm usually the one explaining, although I DID learn one tidbit here I didn't know before. The one thing that *still* bothers me to no end is that even paid/premium channels still don't always letterbox wider movies and cut them down to fit our new 16:9 TVs. Lots of people *think* they are getting the whole movie, but they're not. I prefer having them in letterbox than cut, or pan&scan which is even worse.
These videos are very informative, I became very interested in finding out more about cinerama. One thing I found interesting is that there was a Soviet film (travelogue) showed in the USA (Great is my country). Seems they used the same/similar system in the soviet union called "kinopanorama", although it had a lot more films filmed in that style. Asking my grandfather, he actually worked on projecting some of them at a cinema. Although in russian, there is a movie list on this wikipedia page, which I found interesting ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0. So not only did I find about what cinerama is through this channel, but also about other similar systems. Thank you Fillmaker IQ.
You maybe right. But I read somewhere years ago (So I'm going on memory) but wasn't 16 x 9 (1:77) for next gen TV's chosen as it was about the middle ground between American academy standard of 1:85 and European standard of 1:66. There was talk and many Society of American Cinematographers members lobbied Zenith and other manufacturers to adopt 2:40. Any movie shown with a narrower acquisition was shown with black bars the narrower the wider black bars were. NTSC rejected it because the cost of blow moulding tubes. Remember early HD's weren't Plasma or L.C.D yet, was astronomical. Also NTSC claimed most movies were not shot in Cinemascope or wider ratio's. Meaning only larger epic movies were favoured if they went with 2:4 or it's compromise of 2:1. I'd like you to make a episode on all the different HD proposals (5 X 3) 1125P analog, 1575p and i, and 1250 i and p Eureka. Among the many, that manufacturers presented hoping their version would be chosen. Propero's Books a feature was shot on one of the early Analog HD cameras (circa 1981) . 1125 if I remember correctly. Thanks for the upload, enjoyed it immensely.
My wife and I watch White Christmas each year, and this year when the "VistaVision" screen popped up at the beginning I, having learned all this from your video, began to explain to her all about the images being captured on filmed turn on its side and so forth. "That's nice, dear" is what I got. Oh well, I enjoyed understanding what I was watching. Great video.
Mansplaining is universally under-apreciated . . .
if you get the dear more than 3 times a day your not gettin any for a while
@@QED_ Mansplaining is regarded with patronizing and condescending tune. Telling info as in the original comment above doesn't include any of that. So, why is that a mansplaining?
@@ZiYaD-Bin-Fahad It's humor. Sorry that you don't understand. Maybe ask some native English speaking friends to explain it to you . . .
@@QED_ nah mansplaining is something only females use you must be a female
A few corrections: CinemaScope was originally 2.55:1 Adding optical and magnetic soundtracks reduced the image later. Todd-AO was at 26 fps for the first two and was meant to be shown on a curve screen - this was abandoned after Todd's death making it a flat screen process exactly like Super Panavision MGM Camera 65 dd not become Super Panavision or Panavision/70. Those were separate. It became Ultra Panavision, used in a few films for 70mm Cinema, before being dropped in 1966. It was revived for "the Hateful Eight" and the actual Ultra Panavision lenses are still used, although not displayed in anything other than the current 2.40:1 (The last two Avengers films, for example, include the Ultra Panavision logo.)
I watched this 10 years ago. It’s still the best video on the subject. Thanks John Hess.
The first Cinemascope aspect ratio was 2.55:1 not 2.35:1. After both magnetic and optical soundtracks were included on theatrical prints from 1957 on, the aspect ratio changed to the less wide 2.35:1 to accommodate the two types of soundtracks. Also, Vistavision was photographed at a 1.5:1 aspect ratio (same as still photography), then cropped during projection to 1.85:1.
And after it morphed into Panavision, another tweak in the 1970's made most "scope" films actually 2.39:1; yet a lot of sources, including this video, continue to say 2.35:1 to this day. And most 1.85:1 films today are NOT shot in VistaVision; they are cropped or "matted" from more traditional ratios much like Shane was. (Most VistaVision equipment was repurposed for visual effects work where the larger sideways frame makes production easier.)
Came here from Film Riot. That was so informative and well made!
Thank you for making knowledge this interesting.
Almost ten years later and this is the most comprehensive and effective exploration of the aspect ratio. Thank you for you service 🙏🏼
This was deeply fascinating. I love old films, particularly the epics from the 1950s and 60s. I never realized aspect ratio played such a large role in these classic films. Excellent presentation.
I have shown this video to my high school media students every semester for many years now. It is superb, and so is all of the content on this channel.
Holy shit its bill Alan!
I'm really amazed by how this topic is very well-discussed in detail, for I have only known the basics of aspect ratio, but this video definitely gave me a new understanding on its history and formats. Thank you for this! 😄
The best explanation I've ever seen. Congratulations and thank you for your work.
I started this video and at first I was like, uh oh, I don't think I can handle this guys voice. Thought I might fall asleep. But I absolutely LOVE this video. Definitely subscribing
Finally, for me, a definitive explanation of a very confusing subject! Thank you!
Awesome presentation! I feel like a student in a college classroom watching this video!
This is amazing. I learned a lot. Subscribed!
This is incredible. Love your presentation and I've learnt so much. Thanks :)
Yet again. Fantastic and entertaining delivery.
What I can't understand is why film producers continue cropping old movies filmed in 4:3 and convert them into 16:9. That's like mutilating important information from the film on the top and on the bottom. And even worse... sometimes, that 4:3 converted into 16:9 is even cropped on the tops and bottom (once again) to make it see like a 2:39:1 film. What's wrong with them? Please, respect original aspect ratio... don't chop a movie.
+RayDeLaCroix I know what you mean they did that with all the old The Simpson's episodes from 1989- 2009 that were in 1.33:1 (4:3) and cut off the top and bottom and formatted it to fit on modern TV's and I hate that they did that since I hate missing picture on a cartoon since i'm missing artwork i'd rather they just have left them all in there original aspect ratio and put mirrored images on the left and right that look really good and digitally restore the picture itself but leave the sound the way it originally was as well since for example in the first Christmas episode from 1989 I hate that during one of the scenes at the race track that they made the sound of the guy on the intercom louder since it makes it hard to hear other characters in the show that are reacting in that scene. Because of this i'd rather just watch the old ones on DVD since I can see the whole picture even if I have to look at it stretched to fill the frame or watch it with black bars.
Whenever I see a notification saying “This film has been modified to fit your screen,” I immediately feel uneasy... the information that was recorded should be consistent no matter when you play back the video!
RayDeLaCroix - as at 2019 the cropping of 4:3 movies into 16:9 seems to be regrettably normal in some people's eyes. I stopped buying Hammer movies on Blu Ray when I discovered to my 'horror' that some of the movies had been shorn of 25% of their original image be being reformatted to 16:9.
A great source of older movies and tv series from the 40s to the 60s is UA-cam, where unfortunately they are relentlessly presented in 16:9. Its sad. I view it as a lack of respect.
KAN 6.19 UK
Afterthoughts: I recently had to STOP watching two priceless 60s programmes on Bob Dylan, both originally made in 4:3. The first had been thoughtlessly cropped to 16:9. The result was a disaster with many scenes where he had only half a head! The second disastrous programme brings to me the alternative way of showing 4:3 programmes in 16:9 - just by stretching the 4:3 image across the 16:9 screen. Absolutely crazy. This is what caused me to stop watching the second programme. Everyone looked half their height and twice as broad. Disrespect beyond belief, yet some people think it's ok to watch a movie in this way!!!
Yeah, I hate that too... Maybe the films are heavily damaged and restoration need lots of money...
@@gridlock489 "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your TV." -Every VHS tape of my childhood.
Correction: In 1953, CinemaScope started with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, utilizing the full silent 35mm frame with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze (the first few Scope films, including "The Robe" were shot in this ratio). However, very soon, they decided to add magnetic sound strips on the frame, which reduced the ratio to 2.55:1. In 1957, they further reduced it to 2.35:1. So, CinemaScope films between 1954 and 1956 (and some in 1957, like "The Bridge of the River Kwai") are actually in the 2.55:1 ratio. The 2.35:1 only came from 1957 onwards.
Correction #2: VistaVision was NOT solely 1.85:1. In fact, the aspect ratio could vary between 1.50:1 and 1.96:1, depending on how much of the film frame was used. Some VistaVision films were shot in 1.66:1, others in 1.75:1, others in 1.85:1.
John - Fantastic video. Many people could've read the history of this, but not in such an intriguing way. Thanks for taking us through the history in an incredible 18 minute video.
Came here from IMDB. This video was linked in the FAQ section of The Hateful Eight. Very informative video.. Subscribed.
John Hess could explain grass growing and I would be completely enthralled. Excellent work.
Chris Keyser He has the same gravitas as Robert Osbourne from TCM
This is such a fascinating topic! I love how, even today, different aspect ratios are used to evoke different responses to an image. In the most recent season of Westworld, the aspect ratio would shift from the standard aspect ratio to a wider aspect ratio depending on whether we were in the real world or in one of Bernard’s many simulations. Other shows have done similar things.
Back when I was in college studying film and television production - mid 1980s - one of our professors showed us The Graduate, projecting it from a rented theatrical film print. He also paid to have a widescreen version of it transferred to VHS for his own personal use. Why? The VHS version of the film that was commercially available was a pan & scan version. The professor showed us the ending in which the two characters are sitting next to each other in the back seat of the bus. In the widescreen version, you see both their faces at the same time as each looks at the other, with different emotions reading on their faces as they sit there. In the pan & scan version, you only see one face at a time, cutting back and forth between the two. By doing this, you miss the other character’s reaction to each glance. It totally changes the ending of the movie, and not in a good way.
A couple of years after this, I bought my first LaserDisc player. Some titles were being issued in letterbox format on LaserDisc and I wanted the widescreen versions! I’d invite people over to watch movies at my place, but there would always be someone who complained about the black bars. They’d say they didn’t like seeing less of the picture, to which I’d respond by telling them that they were seeing MORE of the picture. They could never grasp that concept, though, no matter how I tried to explain it.
Funny enough, however, was my discovery that some films were shot using a standard 35mm image and masked for widescreen screenings in theaters. The home video releases were of the unmasked full frame, so you actually saw more of the picture in the 4:3 version. Field of Dreams was one of these. I owned both a 4:3 version and a widescreen version of it, although I only ever watched the 4:3 version.
Okay, this is some seriously awesome stuff! As a history buff, and the historian for my American Legion post, I found this highly entertaining along with being educational. I shall subscribe and watch them all!
The thing about the 16:9 ratio being a compromise between the old TV ratio of 4:3 and the cinematic ratio of 2.20:1 is that nowadays programmes shot in 4:3 and archive material in 4:3 is treated very badly by modern TVs and broadcasters.
Not every TV automatically pillarboxes 4:3 content, so you end up with a stretched picture (I have a Samsung TV which automatically changes aspect ratio on its analogue, SD SCART input, but not on its HDMI input, so if I watch a programme in 4:3 SD, I have to switch over to the SCART input, because incorrect aspect ratios bug me) and all too often when broadcasters want to insert old 4:3 archive material into a modern programme or even a news report, they'll crop the screen to fit rather than pillarbox it, giving a picture that isn't stretched but instead has bits cut off to fit the shorter picture (the BBC do this often)
Even towards the end of analogue broadcasting (certainly in the UK) broadcasters actually came up with another compromise aspect ratio of letterboxed 14:9 for programmes shot in 16:9 for analogue transmission so they didn't have to letterbox too much, except that for certain programmes from the 1990s and 2000s the 14:9 version seems to be all that's available for the rerun, meaning even today you'll see reruns in 14:9, broadcast letterboxed in 4:3, stretched out by certain TVs to fill a 16:9 screen, which, as you can imagine, is ugly.
+GeoNeilUK Exactly. Very good points. In the same vein, the movie Woodstock was recently brodcasted on french TV channel Arte, and so the movie was in 2.35:1 aspect ratio but all the footage was in a format close to 16:9, which means it was pillarboxed to fill the 2.35:1 frame, but then it was broadcasted in 16:9 format, which mean it was also letterboxed, and so the actual picture was a tiny rectangle with big fat black bars on all four sides. And they're supposed to be professionals.
Excellent job ! Every filmmaker should watch this !
Concise explanations with a great ending: "Use these tools to make something great."
Lovely to listen to a real expert.
I've been watching these during post-production on a short while taking breaks. Great stuff, guys. It's good stuff for a 17 year old.
Excellently thorough overview of this aspect of visual history. I especially appreciate the great use of film clips. Bravo.
This is an incredibly complete, accurate, and fully entertaining view of this amazing topic. It explains it all so simply, so matter-of-fact. Fantastic!
Enters the digital screen. It’s a shame that in spite of the high engineering works, science and arts spent to achieve realism and aesthetics by optical scientists and engineers in the visual productions, it is dismaying to see most people are happy viewing distorted images on their digital screens. For almost two decades following the introduction of digital television and the broadcasting of digital signals on the air, most TV stations continue to transmit their programs in 4:3 format for CRT picture tubes. The viewers watch their 4:3 shows in 16:9 screens. The images are stretched sidewise with the people shorter, broad shoulders, fat faces and flat rounds. Surprisingly, people do not mind the distortion and if you adjust the image to normal, they are bothered by the black spaces at the sides. Shame for all the arts of the Vista Vision and Panavision
@@vlc-cosplayer theyre getting rid of motion interpolation arent they? I saw chris Nolan working with a TV company to have a feature where it's close as it can be to how the filmmakr intended
A very instructive video with just a few mistaken and glossings over. The first aspect ratio of CinemaScope was not 2.35:1 (that came later) and shooting of 70mm films was (in America) done on 65mm negative film. They were then projected (in suitably equipped cinemas) from 70mm film prints. (The extra 5mm carried the surround sound multi-channels.) But it gets across the important points very well. I like this series.
Epically good video on the subject, stunning images from those old movies specially _How the west was won_, _Ben-Hur_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_. Thanks a lot!
An excellent, excellent history of cinema. While it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, I found it very engaging and a well-performed, well-illustrated story. I will recommend this to anyone who wants to learn about film technology over more than the last 100 years.
Wonderful explanation. Thank you!
This video is fantastic. Thank you!
Have watched most of your UA-cam videos and have enjoyed all. Thanks for posting.
I think you should also talk about aspect ratio and home video because we put up with pan and scan for a long time to make the picture fill our screens. You could give examples like how horses are cut out of the chariot race in Ben Hur or how a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has cuts between Indy and his father talking to each other when it's supposed to be both in the same static shot. Then there's all the scenes where someone is talking and you can't see them.
Great video, John! Just one correction - VistaVision uses the same 3:2 or 1.5:1 aspect ratio of 35mm still cameras, not 1.85:1 as stated in the video.
Loved this. Thanks. Especially at 16:25 and pausing to see all the shapes together for comparison.
I used to be a projectionist manager many years ago and showing 70mm was amazing the depth and immersive quality is still with me today a different experience to Imax totally.
These videos about filmmaking history are AWESOME! Thank You very much,
kitty!
+Fhurley Productions - Boo?
This was a much better summary than ones from film study textbook. Thank you.
This is definitely my 'go to' video to bridge the gap of understanding for those not-in-the-know. You have saved me many blue faces.
I got more out of this video than some of my college classes. Thanks for uploading great content.
Got to agree with some of the comments below, nice easy relaxed but informative presentation by John Jess. Thank you.
Once again: something I thought I knew a lot about and I get taught dozens of things. Fantastic! That 3 camera setup for ultra wide screen is like a modern day 360 camera!
Great video! Something the average person justs take for granted and yet is so fascinating to learn about, thanks!
A good overview. You could have usefully mentioned that the original aspect ratio of CinemaScope was a very wide 2.55:1 from 1953 until 1956 when it was reduced to 2.35:1 with the reinstatement of a full-width optical sound track on film prints to appease the many theatre owners who did not want the expense of converting to magnetic sound. This ratio in turn was amended to the current 2.39:1 in 1970 by the SMPTE in order to hide splice marks in the projected image. This ratio is sometimes referred to as 2.4:1, and occasionally (incorrectly) as 2.40:1, in DVD liner notes.
So much knowledge for free.
Thank you for doing this. You helped me shaping my career as an artist.
Such a great put together video. Thank you 👏
Your guys had clearly explained about the aspect ratio. Thank you very much.
This is very informative and very interesting. I cannot say that it cleared everything up for me, and I'm glad I won't be tested on it, but it answered a lot of the questions I had. By the way, I'm 60 years old, and I was raised on the aspect ratio of television, which is, to me, the standard. Thank you for making it and for posting it here on UA-cam.
Unmentioned was what happened to widescreen films when they began to be shown on television, which of course used the older aspect ratio. In some countries, the letterboxed format was used, with black bars at the top and the bottom, so that the entire original image appeared. But in the USA, the technique was called "pan and scan", in which the image was shown at its full height so it filled the TV screen, but with the two ends cut off. When action wasn't happening in the center of the image, then you got a slow pan to the left or the right so it was visible. Not only was this annoying, but it destroyed the intent of the creators of the movie. Unfortunately people in the US got accustomed to this, and when letterboxed movies began to be shown that way, there was whining and complaints about those terrible black bars on the screen and the little skinny image in the center. Oh well.
It wasn't only the US. Don't couch pan and scan as some sort of American conspiracy
Pan and scan made me nauseous--like, full-on motion-sickness. I worked at Blockbuster Video in those days and we'd have two VHS versions of certain films, a pan-and-scan and a widescreen (black bars) and I felt legitimately baffled when people would come in and specifically choose to rent a pan/scan format.
Marvellous. There’s the trend in recent years for 2:1 especially in 4K and streaming services and new dramas
16:9 is a compromise, but also a mathematical reference, 'cause it's 4:3 squared. The next 'natural' exponential step (the third power of 4:3) is 64:27, equal to 2.37:1 (cinemascope). The format was also approximated and renamed 21:9 by Phillips which makes some 'cinematic' monitors with that aspect ratio.
And here I am watching this video on such a "21:9" monitor! There are a few creators who actually make youtube videos in this aspect ratio, and they are pretty glorious on this 34" screen. I do have a couple of them on my channel of a driving game I play at this aspect ratio.
Best video i've seen on aspect ratio. Keep the good work up bro.
Nicely done. A few tidbits about 1950's widescreen:
Fox's 35mm CinemaScope process included turning the sprocket holes vertically to widen the usable area of the film stock - returning the aspect ratio almost back to the silent era's aspect ratio. Some films used the extra space for an additional on-film audio track (either stereo sound or monaural front with an ambient rear channel, i forget which films did which). Some early anamorphic projection lenses used adjustable prisms to accommodate different aspect ratios. Look at the Panavision logo - it's the three most common aspect ratios ;)
70mm films were shot on 65mm negatives and transferred to 70mm to make room for the audio tracks (though some road show venues used synchronous audio played back on another strip of film in the projection booth). 70mm prints had 4 magnetic audio stripes - 1 on each side of the film frame, and 1 very thin one on each edge of the film outside of the sprocket holes. The outside magnetic stripes were used by bigger theatres for ambient (surround) sound tracks while the two inner stripes carried distinct Left, Center, Right, and a backup Monaural track. Those magnetic stripes made the film thicker, by the way, and the edge stripes were needed to the keep the film from buckling on the reel. The extra audio tracks became a bonus whenthe Tod-A-O system was developed. More modern 70mm releases (mid 80's and up) included an optical track as a backup and added Left Extra and Right Extra audio in place of the Monaural backup track. By the 90's 70mm magnetic audio tracks were replaced with early digital audio systems and that optical backup track became the primary analog audio track for many theatres, increasing the usable area for the image again, great for re-releases of films like Laurence of Arabia.
Now for 35mm prints. With wide screens for Scope movies having been installed in exhibition houses all over the world, a dilemma for threatre owners arose when showing non-Scope movies: the standard 1.35 aspect ratio looked like tiny home movies against that giant screen (curtains and masking started disappearing by the mid 1970's). Theatres began adding magnifying lenses to enlarge the non-Scope films to fill more of the screen, cropping off the top and bottom of the non-anamorphic image. By the 1980's the new, wider aspect 1.85 (or "Flat" aspect ratio) had been adopted by most studios who kept this cropped image in mind when shooting for the screen - I say this because, as a Projectionist, I could always tell a film was shot for television/home video by looking at the frame on the film: if it had wide frame lines, it could be assumed it was designed for cinema.
Anamorphic (Scope) films used the full 1.35 ratio on the print and when Films like The Wizard Of Oz or Gone With The Wind were re-released in the late 80's and early 90's, I was a bit pissed that the took the original 1.35 aspect ratio and squeezed that through the anamorphic process in order to maintain the original height of the projected image- meaning that the image on the film was only a tiny vertical sliver with black pillars on either side. This was probably done so the booming multiplex movie theatres didn't have to remove their magnifying Flat lenses from the automatic lens turrets most projectors had for switching between Flat and Scope. The result looked like 16mm film.
Oh... and one last thing... the curved screen was a must for the 3 projector Cinerama system in order to keep the azimuth of each projector correct which kept the the image from distorting. So why were they used for CinemaScope and Panavision? Focus. Simply focus. the sides of the screen needed to be the same distance from the lens as the center - or you would need to use a very expensive custom-ground-for-that-auditorium anamorphic projection lens.
Love to here from a professional. When were you a projectionist.
I could watch John for days. Thank you!
One cold rainy day late winter early spring 5th grade class trip to a theatre in Montclair NJ, The movie? 2001 A Space Odyssey in cinerama, I'm guessing 1969 maybe, Absolutley blew me away as a kid what an experience, I still have the souvnier book, the curved screen was incredible.
Wow! A Tour De Force in aspect ratio history!
BRAVO!
SBF
Thanks John... very informative and entertaining
you have the most informative, indepth, well produced, historical, entertaining videos on cameras and filming/video on youtube that I can find.. can you do a video about your history? it would be cool to know in the same video style how you came to know what you know and got to where you are now! thanks again
the icing was your voice narration and edits..
The most cogent explanation of this, and its history, I've ever experienced. Thanks!
Absolutely amazing! Extremely well researched and presented. Thx!
Just ripping off a comment below, but you ARE the VSauce of filmmaking! Wonderful content!
Also, the video should've included SuperScope (other than a simple mention), Techniscope and Super 35, which are different widescreen processes, but all sprung from the same basic idea.
SuperScope was briefly used by RKO in the 1950s. They shot their films in normal, Academy Ratio 35mm format, then in post-production, they chopped off the top and bottom of the image, and transferred the film to 1.5x anamorphic squeeze 35mm, creating a 2.00:1 ratio. However, it was unpopular at theatre owners, since they already bought the 2x anamorphic lenses for CinemaScope, why invest in something else? However, the same idea resurfaced some 25 years later...
Techniscope was used mostly by low budget B-movies and European productions in the 1950s and 1960s. They filmed on 35mm with normal spherical lenses, however, instead of 4 perforations, they recorded with 2 perforations per frame, creating an image with a Scope-like ratio. Transferring it to 2x anamorphic 35mm film in post-production, they created a 2.35:1 / 2.39:1 ratio, which could be projected the same way as CinemaScope, but without having to use expensive anamorphic lenses during shooting. Some all time classics, like Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns were filmed in Techniscope. This process also died, but the idea, combined with SuperScope's idea, resurfaced in the 1980s...
Finally, in the 1980s, combining the two above processes, Super 35 was born. The basic idea of Super 35 is that they shoot films using the full silent 35mm frame, with the 1.33:1 ratio, and then, in post-production, chopping off top and bottom, transfer it to 2x anamorphic 35mm film for projection, creating a 2.39:1 Scope-ratio, which can be projected the same way as CinemaScope / Panavision.
However, it has the following advantages over anamorphic ("Scope"):
1. Cinematographers can use spherical lenses instead of anamorphic ones, with a better depth-of-field, better speed, and more focal lenghts to choose from.
2. By using the full silent frame, e.g. a larger image than normal 35mm and anamorphic, the image is less grainy and more clear, more sharp.
3. Remember that the 1980s and 1990s were times when movies were transferred to television and home video chopping off sides of the image, so it could fit into the 4:3 TV screen, often cropping 40% of the actual image. In the case of Super 35, they could simply "unmask" the image and return to the original 1.33:1 negative for home video and television screening. Of course, again, it creted a highly different aesthetic than intended for the theatrical presentation, but at least it didn't chop off information from the screen.
The first major movie using Super 35 was "Top Gun", in which the camera crew found it difficult to film with anamorphic equipment inside the small cockpit of fighter jets, so decided on trying out the new process. Super 35 also became the favorite of director James Cameron, who used it for "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2", and later also for "Titanic". Soon, the format became an industry favorite in Hollywood, and was widely (pun not intended) used in the 1990s and early-2000s, rivalring the popularity of anamorphic. Most of the major blockbusters of the era were filmed in Super 35, including "Gladiator", the "Matrix" trilogy, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the "Harry Potter" films, etc... This popularity ended only when digital filmmaking processes became dominant, making the points favoring Super 35 obsolete.
Well done, sir! I was a projectionist at a small town theater from the time I was 15 until I was 20. Best job I ever had. When I was doing it in the late 70s and early 80s, we just discerned between "Flat" and "Scope" lenses. The Scope lenses were heavy, and tricky to mount. With a "Flat" film (4:3), you always had to draw in the masking curtains to hide the extra screen. They also used a Vista-Vision projector in a traveling carnival that came to our town They projected the novelty film (the usual fare - racing down a canyon road before vaulting off the edge to become a scenic helicopter flight,etcetera - on the inside wall of a large domed tent filled with people sitting on the floor, swaying in reaction to the film. Same kind of films IMAX used to market itself with when it started trying to become more commercial. As I recall, the carnival called it "The ThrillSphere"...
S Rennie I work at a cinema and we also discern between Flat (1:85) and Scope (2:35).
"Flat" or widescreen is 1.83:1 not 4:3 modern "scope" is 2.39:1
Thank you, John Hess, for your thorough analysis of an intriguing subject. One technical aspect that always seems to allude filmmakers.... DREAMS. That ethereal product of the human mind subconsciously creating images in an aspect ratio no film or video camera will ever truly capture. I've always wished their was a camera that could capture dreams. So many of mine were low on plotlines and heavy on atmosphere. How I wish there was a device that could have saved my dreams from childhood to early adult years. Oh well....🇵🇷🇺🇸😎
This video is soooooo awesome. I would have liked if you would have included portions about IMAX 70mm.
1.43:1 isn't widescreen
@@murpyeddie1139 70mm is the film's size.
I take notes when John is talking. Oh my! It's like I am all over at the University classrooms. :D
This video is really a great cinematography class !!
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge, WE really appreciate it.
cheers and please keep it up :D
Great video, I'm totally addicted to your channel.
very good, only one little mistake: original Cinemascope (the one used in The Robe and other movies in the 50's) was 2.55:1, not 2.35:1. Final Panavision aspect ratio is around 2.39:1.
Yes, it´s true. I want to write this in discussions and Mr. Alessandro did it for me. The original Cinemascope with four sound channels (4 mg tape on a filmstrip) had 1:2,55 aspect ratio. Newly "ripped off" wide angle movies with 1 optical sound channel had aspect ratio 1:2,35. This wide anamorphic movie pictures projection was used because it was more practical - the original CS had closer perforation holes then 35mm movie pictures filmstrips => the problem with toothed rollers of projection machines. A tooth rollers in the machine was necessary to change for orig. Cinemaspope projection. And if a projectionist did forgot this changing??? ...It was a massacre for the CS filmstrip copy.
I read somewhere that 2.35:1 is old or not used or something, and now 2.39:1 (or 2:40:1) is the standard Panavision size. When did that happen? Wish I could find the article to make it a little clearer, but it was words to that effect.
2.35:1 is not correct aspect ratio, it is just "name", correct is 2.39 (1.19x2 - original sound film aspect ratio without masking with 2:1 lens compression).
Originally Cinemascope was 2.66:1 (silent movie aspect ratio x2) but adding mag strips, the aspect ratio was reduced to 2.55:1
Brilliant!
One of the best things i have seen on UA-cam.
Very informative video. For years, I've always wondered to myself "why all the various screen ratios from one film to the next?" and this informative video explained it all.
OK, so there a couple of omissions from this. Widescreen did not start with Cinerama and cinemascope the first major use was in the mid to late 20s in fact many of the cinemascope cameras were reconditioned cameras from this earlier period. There were other examples too such as the silent epic Napoleon which featured finale of three panels using 3 projectors.
Excellent presentation, thoroughly enjoyed the upload.
Well done !
You guys are so awesome I've learned most of this already and I had to watch it because of your awesome presentation! I love you guys!
John, I have this feeling there are many film classes and archives taking note of your fine work here on UA-cam. I imagine some of your material is already being exhibited for their research. :-)
Wow, incredible video! Learning about the 16:9 compromise there blew my mind! Thank you good Asian sir!
interesting history, I learned some new aspects about aspect ratios I didn't know before.
Excellent! Very informative, straightforward explanation of the history of film aspect ratio. Subscribed!
Really good - well presented and interesting, even for non-film makers. Thanks
Brilliant videos on your channel John, keep them coming!
This video: 200k+ views
Pissing on strangers just a prank bro: 7m+ views
gj internet
xD
Fantastic. Cheers guys. Incredible presentation. Subscribed.
Thanks so much for this crash course! Learned a lot.
this is one of the best videos i watched on youtube..thank you!!!!
Best explanation ever.
Required viewing for film students. Great stuff!
Thanks for this!
Now I don't have to explain it to anyone anymore (just share this instead).
Being older, I'm usually the one explaining, although I DID learn one tidbit here I didn't know before.
The one thing that *still* bothers me to no end is that even paid/premium channels still don't always letterbox wider movies and cut them down to fit our new 16:9 TVs.
Lots of people *think* they are getting the whole movie, but they're not.
I prefer having them in letterbox than cut, or pan&scan which is even worse.
your tutorials are great,,,very helpful and perfectly described....
Great job. Really well-done video!
Informative as per usual. Thanks a lot.
These videos are very informative, I became very interested in finding out more about cinerama. One thing I found interesting is that there was a Soviet film (travelogue) showed in the USA (Great is my country). Seems they used the same/similar system in the soviet union called "kinopanorama", although it had a lot more films filmed in that style. Asking my grandfather, he actually worked on projecting some of them at a cinema. Although in russian, there is a movie list on this wikipedia page, which I found interesting ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0. So not only did I find about what cinerama is through this channel, but also about other similar systems. Thank you Fillmaker IQ.
Very interesting and informative. Thanks for sharing.
You maybe right. But I read somewhere years ago (So I'm going on memory) but wasn't 16 x 9 (1:77) for next gen TV's chosen as it was about the middle ground between American academy standard of 1:85 and European standard of 1:66. There was talk and many Society of American Cinematographers members lobbied Zenith and other manufacturers to adopt 2:40. Any movie shown with a narrower acquisition was shown with black bars the narrower the wider black bars were. NTSC rejected it because the cost of blow moulding tubes. Remember early HD's weren't Plasma or L.C.D yet, was astronomical. Also NTSC claimed most movies were not shot in Cinemascope or wider ratio's. Meaning only larger epic movies were favoured if they went with 2:4 or it's compromise of 2:1.
I'd like you to make a episode on all the different HD proposals (5 X 3) 1125P analog, 1575p and i, and 1250 i and p Eureka. Among the many, that manufacturers presented hoping their version would be chosen.
Propero's Books a feature was shot on one of the early Analog HD cameras (circa 1981) . 1125 if I remember correctly. Thanks for the upload, enjoyed it immensely.