2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

WAUU

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:36 am

2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSat Jun 15, 2013 4:24 pm

Whats up with all those numbers. I mean when I put letterbox in Final Cut Pro X I only have the option to use 2.35:1 while people often tell me that 2.35:1 is not used very often. They claim people use 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 but when I go to IMDB and check most recent movie technical info, it almost always says 2.35:1 .... now what is the right aspect ratio to use? Does it matter? Is the 2.35:1 i Final Cut Pro X really 2.35:1 or is it 2.39:1 because a lot of people call 2:35:1 , 2.39:1 .... This is confusing, someone who can clarify this? Thanks :)
Offline

JB Schiess

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 4:55 am
  • Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSat Jun 15, 2013 4:34 pm

I'm pretty sure that 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 exist because Panavision has a patent on the 2.40:1 aspect ratio.
Offline

ChrisBarcellos

  • Posts: 329
  • Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:34 am

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSat Jun 15, 2013 4:49 pm

Internet is your friend. Here a good article.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 13843
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSat Jun 15, 2013 7:01 pm

ChrisBarcellos wrote:Internet is your friend. Here a good article.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml


Chris, that is an interesting summary. However I get the feeling this Information is either dated and therefore incomplete or it may be simply wrong when it talks about a 2.4:1 aspect ratio and the projection screen gate. Wikipedia appears to be more accurate and up-to-date. Wikipedia includes the physical dimensions of the gate width and height for the latest Academy widescreen which is approximately an aspect ratio of 2.39:1. Widescreen.org seems to reference 2.35:1 in so many of its aspect ratio discussion points and of course software like FCP X continues to make use of the 2.35:1 aspect ratio as in the prior post, but modern software really should settle on 2.39:1 or 2.4:1 at least when creating digital media for cinema projection I believe.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Last edited by rick.lang on Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

justinsch

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:44 pm

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSat Jun 15, 2013 7:15 pm

When I make scope DCP files for digital projection at my local theatre, the dimensions used are 2048x858, which ends up being ~2.39:1
Offline

WAUU

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:36 am

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 12:15 am

So generally shooting in 2.39:1 is the safest bet if you plan showing your film on Cinema? :)
Offline
User avatar

justinsch

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:44 pm

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 2:29 am

WAUU wrote:So generally shooting in 2.39:1 is the safest bet if you plan showing your film on Cinema? :)
If you want a wide aspect ratio, then yes. Otherwise 1.85:1 is also an option for 2K projection (1998x1080).

i am the one

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 3:21 am

Movies like Transformers are listed on IMDB as being a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Yet the actual picture size on the Bluray is 1920x800 which is an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

I haven't gone to check old panavision releases on bluray, but anything made in the last 10 years that is wider than 16:9 is always listed on IMDB as 2.35:1 when it is actually 2.40:1.
Offline

ChrisBarcellos

  • Posts: 329
  • Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:34 am

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 3:59 am

rick.lang wrote:
ChrisBarcellos wrote:Internet is your friend. Here a good article.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml


Chris, that is an interesting summary. However I get the feeling this Information is either dated and therefore incomplete or it may be simply wrong when it talks about a 2.4:1 aspect ratio and the projection screen gate. Wikipedia appears to be more accurate and up-to-date. Wikipedia includes the physical dimensions of the gate width and height for the latest Academy widescreen which is approximately an aspect ratio of 2.39:1. Widescreen.org seems to reference 2.35:1 in so many of its aspect ratio discussion points and of course software like FCP X continues to make use of the 2.35:1 aspect ratio as in the prior post, but modern software really should settle on 2.39:1 or 2.4:1 at least when creating digital media for cinema projection I believe.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Amazing is all I can say...
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2634
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 1:43 pm

They are used interchangeably.

From memory Panavision 35mm anamorphic gate apertures are 2.39 which is often just rounded to 2.40 and Arri were 2.35.

Just because a DVD or blue ray is 2.40 doesn't mean the film was shot that way either. And IMDB is also often wrong. Camera formats and distribution formats often also get jumbled up by people, usually ignorant producers.

In the real world it doesn't make much difference....these are all close.

JB.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline
User avatar

sean mclennan

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:28 pm
  • Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 2:25 pm

I wanna shoot 3:1

Blaze a new trend...
Offline
User avatar

Peter Odio

  • Posts: 149
  • Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:44 am
  • Location: Los Angeles

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 5:40 pm

2.39:1 or 2:40:1 also known as Scope, is a common projection format for theaters. You may also use a 1.78:1 Full Frame/Anamorphic Broadcast Standard Format.

For Network TV, 1.78 HD Cam SR, 1080p/23.98 PsF, title and action safe for 4x3.

One your work goes international markets, a M&E will be required in NTSC and PAL with these audio channel configurations:

Ch 1 & 2 - English Stereo (L&R)
Ch 3 & 4 - Stereo Music & Effects (L&R)
Ch 5 - Left composite
Ch 6 - Right Composite
Ch 7 – Center
Ch 8 - Left Surround
Ch 9 - Right Surround
Ch 10- Subwoofer
Ch 11&12 – MOS (add’l language would be added on Chl’s 11 & 12)
promedios.tv
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2634
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 9:39 pm

sean mclennan wrote:I wanna shoot 3:1

Blaze a new trend...



For a while, legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro was espousing 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

I don't think any single film was ever shot using it but RED have put 2:1 in their cameras as a recording option.

jb
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline
User avatar

sean mclennan

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:28 pm
  • Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostFri Jun 21, 2013 12:07 am

John Brawley wrote:
sean mclennan wrote:I wanna shoot 3:1

Blaze a new trend...



For a while, legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro was espousing 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

I don't think any single film was ever shot using it but RED have put 2:1 in their cameras as a recording option.

jb


The link you posted John lists a couple movies shot in 2:1...and the Netflix series House of Cards, which I certainly enjoyed!!
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2634
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostFri Jun 21, 2013 12:12 am

sean mclennan wrote:
John Brawley wrote:
sean mclennan wrote:I wanna shoot 3:1

Blaze a new trend...



For a while, legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro was espousing 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

I don't think any single film was ever shot using it but RED have put 2:1 in their cameras as a recording option.

jb


The link you posted John lists a couple movies shot in 2:1...and the Netflix series House of Cards, which I certainly enjoyed!!


I don't believe the entire film for those examples were shot 2:1

JB.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline

D Gary Grady

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:07 am
  • Real Name: D Gary Grady

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSun Oct 04, 2020 11:21 am

I'm seven years late to this discussion, but for what it's worth, 2.35:1 was the old Cinemascope ratio. The standard was changed by SMPTE (at Panavision's instigation as I recall) in 1970. It's sometimes rounded to 2.4 and then a 0 tacked on, but it's really 2.39:1. The DCI standard mentions two standard projection ratios, namely 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 (to the nearest two decimal places anyway), both achieved by cropping the full 4096x2160 frame (which is approximately 1.9:1).

While I'm at it, Academy ratio was 1.375:1 (or 1.37:1 if you prefer), not 1.33:1 as you often see. (Adding the optical soundtrack ate into the picture area by about 2 mm and the Academy decided to reduce the frame height by the same 2 mm, which also hid splices better.)
Offline

D Gary Grady

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:07 am
  • Real Name: D Gary Grady

Re: 2.35:1 vs 2.39:1 vs. 2.40:1

PostSun Oct 04, 2020 11:32 am

John Brawley wrote:
sean mclennan wrote:I wanna shoot 3:1

Blaze a new trend...



For a while, legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro was espousing 2:1.

[Wikipedia link in original message]

I don't think any single film was ever shot using it but RED have put 2:1 in their cameras as a recording option.

jb


Back when proposals for the HDTV aspect ratio were being debated in American Cinematographer 40 year or so ago, a number of people advocated 2:1. Netflix has finally made that ratio moderately popular by (as I understand it) limiting original content to no wider than 2:1. Now Stranger Things and a number of other are produced in 2:1 and lots of cameras including those from Blackmagic have 2:1 frame lines as an option. Interesting how there's still flux on this even in the 7 years since this thread appeared.

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests