The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...is done forever.

[movielocke]

Memory is a tricky thing. I saw the star wars films on video dozens of times each, but never saw any of them on film. I saw the the special editions in theatres either once or twice in 1998, depending on which one it was. If you'd asked me a week after I saw the films to describe the shape of the screen I'd have said, "a rectangle, like TV, but BIG, and SURROUND SOUND!" (I was very impressed with surround sound then, having just discovered LD and wishing I could afford surround sound and a big screen tv). The point is that my memory was reshaped by the dozens of TV viewings that preceded it, and I still remember those screenings as being 'boxy' not widescreen. I didn't even realize widescreen was a thing until a year or so later.

Of course there's also a good chance that particular shitty mall-tiplex was showing everything in 2:1 rather than the right ratio .

[Mr Sausage]

That's it. This thread is done. No more.

[domino harvey]

Not sure where else to put this, so I’m raising this accursed thread from the dead… Was reading the huge career retrospective Movie printed with candid thoughts from Richard Brooks on all his films up through Lord Jim and was shocked to learn that Brooks filmed Elmer Gantry in Academy. I’ve seen this film multiple times over the years, always in 1.66, and I never once thought it looked cropped. (This excerpt arose in the context of Sweet Bird of Youth)

[GaryC]

I had the impression that Brooks made so many films in Scope so that the projectionist would have to respect his compositions and this seems to confirm it. He and Conrad Hall wanted to make In Cold Blood in 1.85:1 with an in-camera hard-matte, but Columbia vetoed that, although they were happy for them to make it in black and white when they had not allowed other filmmakers in the past year or so to shoot black and white. So they shot the film in Scope instead. As Hall pointed out, this makes the film pull in two directions - the black and white, the real locations and some of the participants in the case playing themselves leaned it towards documentary, the Scope and Quincy Jones's jazz score leaned it towards drama. Hall was Oscar-nominated for his camerawork, against four colour films as this was the first year that the Academy abandoned separate black and white and colour categories for cinematography, production design and costume design.

[EddieLarkin]

Apparently a contemporary article in Variety talked about this:

Brooks shot the film in the then rarely used, classic aspect ratio of 1.33:1, stating in a 20 Jul 1960 Var article that the story required the intimacy of the smaller proportions. As noted in that article, he then had to ensure that the picture would be exhibited in that ratio, rather than the more standard wide screens, and worked with certain theaters to provide the correct lenses.

Which evidently he failed to do to his own satisfaction. Perhaps Alton realised this and made sure to leave the appropriate headroom to allow the inevitable matting he knew would happen, explaining why the film looks fine in 1.66:1, and has always been presented that way going back to the non-anamorphic DVDs! Which then is the true intended AR? The one the director wanted and insisted on, or the one the DP in reality actually shot for?

[DeprongMori]

Apparently a contemporary article in Variety talked about this:

Brooks shot the film in the then rarely used, classic aspect ratio of 1.33:1, stating in a 20 Jul 1960 Var article that the story required the intimacy of the smaller proportions. As noted in that article, he then had to ensure that the picture would be exhibited in that ratio, rather than the more standard wide screens, and worked with certain theaters to provide the correct lenses.

Which evidently he failed to do to his own satisfaction. Perhaps Alton realised this and made sure to leave the appropriate headroom to allow the inevitable matting he knew would happen, explaining why the film looks fine in 1.66:1, and has always been presented that way going back to the non-anamorphic DVDs! Which then is the true intended AR? The one the director wanted and insisted on, or the one the DP in reality actually shot for?

I’m guessing they mean Academy ratio of 1.37 (the standard composite ratio for images on films with an optical soundtrack) rather than the full-frame silent film ratio of 1.33? (Though practically they are pretty much identical.)

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, 1.33:1 eventually became synonymous with 1.37:1, and largely remains so today.

[martin]

I spent a month in Portugal last winter. One thing I noticed was how many TV shows were in the wrong aspect ratio. It seemed like all original 4:3 content was stretched horizontally to 16:9. This happened on all networks. It looked horrible.

I was at a hotel, there were 100 cable channels or so and my TV was a no-name brand. So I initially thought it had something to do with how the TV was set up. But no. I realised that the network logos were always correct even when the pictures were stretched. One of the networks actually had the shape of a globe and it always had a perfectly circular shape even when the image was stretched. So the stretching of the video must have happened at a stage before the network logo was overlayed.

Now, I don’t understand Portuguese, so it wasn’t a big problem for me. Because this only happened on Portuguese language networks that showed reruns of 1990’s or early 2000’s TV shows or series (sometimes from Brazil). Eurosport and International film channels didn’t have this problem. So I was good.

But it left me wondering: Does no one care? It looked like crap. The actors and actresses looked abominable and the work of the film crew was being tampered with with the utmost disrespect. Was it really the case that no one noticed this?

Here’s a film on youtube with 500k views where no one mentions the wrong AR (or PAR). But there are many much worse cases. This music video with 130M views – from the original label’s account – is also stretched horizontally. I couldn’t check the +17K comments for complaints though.

Are people really immune to this problem?
Do you notice this in your countries too?
What’s your take? Are you indifferent?

[onedimension]

I hate the TV alterations, it's the new 'pan and scan'. 'Span and ___'...

For whatever reason, it's only late 90's/early 00's TV getting that treatment. It's possible the IP holders think the shows are "fresh" enough that they can capture younger audiences with a contemporary aspect ratio.

Luckily, the changes in the U.S. are usually minor and tolerable. It bothers me in the abstract, but I don't notice watching Seinfeld.

[willoneill]

But it left me wondering: Does no one care? It looked like crap. The actors and actresses looked abominable and the work of the film crew was being tampered with with the utmost disrespect. Was it really the case that no one noticed this?

That's exactly it, no one cares (or, the vast majority of people don't care). I lump this aspect ratio thing with motion smoothing, and the ad placement for ad-supported streaming. By ad placement I mean that some free streamers just place ads willy nilly, instead of in natural breaks, sometimes even cutting off scenes mid-sentence and then resuming 90 seconds later. I've even seen this on streaming of old TV shows that had ad breaks built into their editing. My guess is because it's an automated process and the ads are precisely and evenly spaced out.

If anyone could actually fight it, it would be the guilds, and sadly (but justifiably) I think they have bigger battles to fight.