It wouldn't be so bad if this had been shot in wide screen format, but it's been shot in 16/9
and cropped in the edit, that's why the tops of their heads are cut off.
The camera crew must be p'd off seeing their careful framing butchered like that.
I doubt it, framing is the director/DP's job, never the camera crew's...
If the director intended to do that, he'd have almost certainly told the DP in advance, as the lighting for 2.35:1 is different to 1.78:1. So chances are, even if it was cropped in the edit, it will have been framed and lit specifically for that occurrence...
It wouldn't be so bad if this had been shot in wide screen format, but it's been shot in 16/9
and cropped in the edit, that's why the tops of their heads are cut off.
The camera crew must be p'd off seeing their careful framing butchered like that.
Close ups in Scope are always done with the very top of the head cut off, its done on purpose as the bit the viewers are watching is the bit from the brow of the head to the chin.
With close ups in scope they try and fill the frame with the person as much as they can!
Yes about the adverts being made in 16:9 and the film trailers are projected like that too for simplicity even if it is a trailer of a scope film!
Only if a film is in scope to they bother switching the projection of the image and then only if the screen is actually a 2.4:1 screen!
If the screen is actually 1.85:1 they may mask it but I have seen films that are in scope and they didn't mask the screen when the screen was 1.85:1!
One of my pet peves about modern cinemas! I've seen both types of lazyness (especially at Odeon cinemas):
projecting 2.40:1 'scope' letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen, (ok fair enough, in this case maybe they only had a 1.85:1 screen available)
and...
projecting 1.85:1 pillarboxed on a 2.40:1 screen (just pull the damn masking in! Surely it's just a matter of flicking a switch!?)
Regarding the 1st scenario. I've only ever seen vertical masking used in the mighty (old) Odeon/New Victoria decades ago here in Bradford. It was actually a rather strange hybrid of both horizontal and vertical masking used in the enormous Odeon 2 theatre. They did it right in those days, always using proper masking, and you NEVER actually saw an screen. Only an image, or travellers (curtains).
One of my pet peves about modern cinemas! I've seen both types of lazyness (especially at Odeon cinemas):
projecting 2.40:1 'scope' letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen, (ok fair enough, in this case maybe they only had a 1.85:1 screen available)
and...
projecting 1.85:1 pillarboxed on a 2.40:1 screen (just pull the damn masking in! Surely it's just a matter of flicking a switch!?)
Regarding the 1st scenario. I've only ever seen vertical masking used in the mighty (old) Odeon/New Victoria decades ago here in Bradford. It was actually a rather strange hybrid of both horizontal and vertical masking used in the enormous Odeon 2 theatre. They did it right in those days, always using proper masking, and you NEVER actually saw an screen. Only an image, or travellers (curtains).
Sorry for going way off topic there!
Yes it looks like in the digital world they have got lazy about masking.
I do have to wonder though about trailers reels when it was film, did they put them all into a 1.85:1 flat package on the film frame even if it was a scope movie and would normally require the anamorphic lens? Or did they place everything within the scope frame for when they were showing scope films.
Seeing as they have to tailor trailers for the film they are showing eg film genre and rating ect of the actual film shown, it would in theory make sense to do the trailers in scope for scope films and flat 1.85:1 for flat 1.85:1 films, that's not to say crop them but rescale them to fit!
I went to see the hobbit botfa back in January and the screen was a scope shape so when they showed the trailers they were pillarboxed into the centre no masking with scope trailers windowboxed!
I went to see the kingsman last week and that was a scope film on a 1.85:1 screen and no masking for the entire film!
It would have been fun for the Grand Budapest Hotel being in three aspect ratios and none filling the 1.85:1 container that it was in so none could be masked properly, maybe that is less of an issue if the screen has good contrast?
I don't know why you are talking about Cinema presentation, this is a programme made for television and nobody has a TV which displays this wide screen format properly.
It should have been produced to fit a 16/9 display.
There is far too much "Arty" production used these days.:-(
I don't know why you are talking about Cinema presentation, this is a programme made for television and nobody has a TV which displays this wide screen format properly.
It should have been produced to fit a 16/9 display.
There is far too much "Arty" production used these days.:-(
I have a Masquerade CIH projection setup so I can take advantage of wider ratios, TV or film - why should I lose out?
I don't know why you are talking about Cinema presentation, this is a programme made for television and nobody has a TV which displays this wide screen format properly.
It should have been produced to fit a 16/9 display.
There is far too much "Arty" production used these days.:-(
If you don't like arty productions don't watch them, but I and others are glad they are here to stay, would you have the guts to tell a painter they have to use a certain shape canvas?
I don't know why you are talking about Cinema presentation, this is a programme made for television and nobody has a TV which displays this wide screen format properly.
It should have been produced to fit a 16/9 display.
There is far too much "Arty" production used these days.:-(
It does fit in a widescreen display!!
Just because you have backness at the top and bottom doesn't make it 'arty'
It means it was shot using a wider angle and something no one forced you to watch!!
I love the fact that the nations 'main' broadcaster felt they could not only shoot, but transmit in prime time a drama in 21:9. Even using this format on the trailers, when sometimes trailers are zoomed / cropped to standard 16:9 and that includes archive materiel (pre 2000) such as Afternoon Classics on BBC Two.
I'd also love to see Doctor Who shot and transmitted this way even if it was only for the first, last or Christmas episode to give it a real cinematic look.
So that the other 50,000,000 + viewers don't lose out .
Many people still have 4/3 TV's , to them it's just a narrow strip across the middle.
I've worked in the television industry for 50 years, so I have a good idea what people want.
But I'm not the one selfishly saying it should have been produced in 16x9 - why should I be forced to watch something you prefer just because you think a certain presentation is arty?
There are various ratio settings on either the TV/STB the viewer can choose to display content full screen if they don't want black bars.
So that the other 50,000,000 + viewers don't lose out .
Many people still have 4/3 TV's , to them it's just a narrow strip across the middle.
I've worked in the television industry for 50 years, so I have a good idea what people want.
So, in technological terms, broadcasters should be catering for the lowest common denominator rather than providing what is artistically correct and what the director wants?
Or perhaps we should be encouraging people to upgrade to technology that has now matured (as it has been around for close on 15 years) by offering what is now the accepted norm (a 16:9 braodcast, even if it's 21:9 in a 16:9 wrapper).
Otherwise there is never any incentive for people to move on.
Or perhaps we should be encouraging people to upgrade to technology that has now matured (as it has been around for close on 15 years) by offering what is now the accepted norm (a 16:9 braodcast, even if it's 21:9 in a 16:9 wrapper).
.
Yes, 16/9 is the norm today, so produce material in 16/9, so you can have nice close shots without cutting off the top of peoples heads.
As for saying "If you don't like it, don't watch it", I don't think the TV executives would agree, they would say, "Please, please watch our programme, we need the viewing figures."
Yes, 16/9 is the norm today, so produce material in 16/9, so you can have nice close shots without cutting off the top of peoples heads.
As for saying "If you don't like it, don't watch it", I don't think the TV executives would agree, they would say, "Please, please watch our programme, we need the viewing figures."
What if the director wanted to cut off the tops of people's heads? It's not like 16:9 would stop him from doing that...
And the BBC gets your money regardless, and MPs have recommended keeping the licence fee, so some of the major hurdles from the charter renewal are gone. They don't give two shits if you watch their shows or not...
What if the director wanted to cut off the tops of people's heads? It's not like 16:9 would stop him from doing that...
That's the point - the director has the artistic licence, he directs the drama as he sees fit, according to what he wants to portray and how he wants to portray it.
It is then up to the viewer (or theatregoer/cinemagoer) to decide if they like that direction or not.
That's how it works for the theatre, cinema or TV.
Yes, 16/9 is the norm today, so produce material in 16/9, so you can have nice close shots without cutting off the top of peoples heads.
As for saying "If you don't like it, don't watch it", I don't think the TV executives would agree, they would say, "Please, please watch our programme, we need the viewing figures."
Sorry, I don't see the relation between aspect ratios and tops of peoples heads. How actors are filmed is down to the director, if they want a close up of someone's eyes it highly likely the top of their head will be cut off no matter what ratio.
The content is what draws viewers in, aspect ratios are secondary, as are HD and the audio, these are what make the presentation more enjoyable.
So that the other 50,000,000 + viewers don't lose out .
Many people still have 4/3 TV's , to them it's just a narrow strip across the middle.
I've worked in the television industry for 50 years, so I have a good idea what people want.
50 years eh? I was in it for 36 and neither I nor anyone I know claimed to have such knowledge of the public taste. We thought/hoped we were right but were often, and expensively, proved wrong. Hardly any homes have a 4X3 TV as their main set and programmes can't be compromised because some one still has one in their kitchen. No programme has ever had 50M+ viewers. You are probably a similar age to me, the world moves on, I have, you must. I have no objection to 21X9 dramas where the ratio enhances the feel of the programme and it does on this one.
I would also love to see a Top Gear special shot at this ratio too.
Top Gear deserves to be shot at ultra, ultra, ultra widescreen.... specifically 1920:1.
I'm sure that the bombastically self-important Jeremy Clarkson would enthusiastically approve the idea. Everyone else would benefit by seeing him squashed to the height of a single scan line on a regular 1080p telly.
Though that's still one scan line too many IMHO...
Top Gear deserves to be shot at ultra, ultra, ultra widescreen.... specifically 1920:1.
I'm sure that the bombastically self-important Jeremy Clarkson would enthusiastically approve the idea. Everyone else would benefit by seeing him squashed to the height of a single scan line on a regular 1080p telly.
Though that's still one scan line too many IMHO...
Here's a novel idea .......
You obviously don't like it, so you could simply not watch it, and leave those that do enjoy Top Gear to continue to enjoy it in its current aspect ratio.
Top Gear deserves to be shot at ultra, ultra, ultra widescreen.... specifically 1920:1.
I'm sure that the bombastically self-important Jeremy Clarkson would enthusiastically approve the idea. Everyone else would benefit by seeing him squashed to the height of a single scan line on a regular 1080p telly.
Though that's still one scan line too many IMHO...
You realise on SD that would come out at 720*1 anyway! The equivalent stretched out to square pixels of 1024*1!
Ether way it wont happen as its a well liked show still.
and leave those that do enjoy Top Gear to continue to enjoy it in its current aspect ratio.
I like how you say that as if my proposal was remotely serious, and not just an obviously flippant and tongue-in-cheek excuse for a jibe at Clarkson and his Top Gear chums.
In all seriousness though, I note the defensive sense of entitlement that's very common these days- the whiny implication that people have a right not to have others express dissenting opinions about things they like.
Too bad... so long as that puffed up buffoon gets to appear on my TV before I have a chance to flick the channel, or in the news via some contrived publicity stunt (coincidentally happens every time he has a new book or DVD out), you're damned right I'm going to feel free to take the p**s out of him.
Yeah I know! But it can be shot animorphically, however this show wasn't. It's 16:9 masked.
It doesn't matter though full HD TVs and the majority of digital cinema projectors would only show 1080 lines high and would have to squash the anamorphic image down to be the right shape within ether 2048*1080 for digital camera projectors and 1920*1080 for TV.
This means that a 2.40:1 ratio will be roughly 800-850 lines high anyway, exactly the same as masking it off during filming, unless a 4 or 5 k sauce is used for filming which can yield much higher resolutions of course, but still will be projected at most cinemas as 2048*850 and on full HDTVs as 1920*800 with black areas on both to fill out to 1080.
Comments
I doubt it, framing is the director/DP's job, never the camera crew's...
If the director intended to do that, he'd have almost certainly told the DP in advance, as the lighting for 2.35:1 is different to 1.78:1. So chances are, even if it was cropped in the edit, it will have been framed and lit specifically for that occurrence...
Close ups in Scope are always done with the very top of the head cut off, its done on purpose as the bit the viewers are watching is the bit from the brow of the head to the chin.
With close ups in scope they try and fill the frame with the person as much as they can!
One of my pet peves about modern cinemas! I've seen both types of lazyness (especially at Odeon cinemas):
projecting 2.40:1 'scope' letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen, (ok fair enough, in this case maybe they only had a 1.85:1 screen available)
and...
projecting 1.85:1 pillarboxed on a 2.40:1 screen (just pull the damn masking in! Surely it's just a matter of flicking a switch!?)
Regarding the 1st scenario. I've only ever seen vertical masking used in the mighty (old) Odeon/New Victoria decades ago here in Bradford. It was actually a rather strange hybrid of both horizontal and vertical masking used in the enormous Odeon 2 theatre. They did it right in those days, always using proper masking, and you NEVER actually saw an screen. Only an image, or travellers (curtains).
Sorry for going way off topic there!
Yes it looks like in the digital world they have got lazy about masking.
I do have to wonder though about trailers reels when it was film, did they put them all into a 1.85:1 flat package on the film frame even if it was a scope movie and would normally require the anamorphic lens? Or did they place everything within the scope frame for when they were showing scope films.
Seeing as they have to tailor trailers for the film they are showing eg film genre and rating ect of the actual film shown, it would in theory make sense to do the trailers in scope for scope films and flat 1.85:1 for flat 1.85:1 films, that's not to say crop them but rescale them to fit!
I went to see the hobbit botfa back in January and the screen was a scope shape so when they showed the trailers they were pillarboxed into the centre no masking with scope trailers windowboxed!
I went to see the kingsman last week and that was a scope film on a 1.85:1 screen and no masking for the entire film!
It would have been fun for the Grand Budapest Hotel being in three aspect ratios and none filling the 1.85:1 container that it was in so none could be masked properly, maybe that is less of an issue if the screen has good contrast?
It should have been produced to fit a 16/9 display.
There is far too much "Arty" production used these days.:-(
I have a Masquerade CIH projection setup so I can take advantage of wider ratios, TV or film - why should I lose out?
If you don't like arty productions don't watch them, but I and others are glad they are here to stay, would you have the guts to tell a painter they have to use a certain shape canvas?
It does fit in a widescreen display!!
Just because you have backness at the top and bottom doesn't make it 'arty'
It means it was shot using a wider angle and something no one forced you to watch!!
I'd also love to see Doctor Who shot and transmitted this way even if it was only for the first, last or Christmas episode to give it a real cinematic look.
So that the other 50,000,000 + viewers don't lose out .
Many people still have 4/3 TV's , to them it's just a narrow strip across the middle.
I've worked in the television industry for 50 years, so I have a good idea what people want.
But I'm not the one selfishly saying it should have been produced in 16x9 - why should I be forced to watch something you prefer just because you think a certain presentation is arty?
There are various ratio settings on either the TV/STB the viewer can choose to display content full screen if they don't want black bars.
You haven't a clue what I want....;-)
So, in technological terms, broadcasters should be catering for the lowest common denominator rather than providing what is artistically correct and what the director wants?
Or perhaps we should be encouraging people to upgrade to technology that has now matured (as it has been around for close on 15 years) by offering what is now the accepted norm (a 16:9 braodcast, even if it's 21:9 in a 16:9 wrapper).
Otherwise there is never any incentive for people to move on.
Yes, 16/9 is the norm today, so produce material in 16/9, so you can have nice close shots without cutting off the top of peoples heads.
As for saying "If you don't like it, don't watch it", I don't think the TV executives would agree, they would say, "Please, please watch our programme, we need the viewing figures."
What if the director wanted to cut off the tops of people's heads? It's not like 16:9 would stop him from doing that...
And the BBC gets your money regardless, and MPs have recommended keeping the licence fee, so some of the major hurdles from the charter renewal are gone. They don't give two shits if you watch their shows or not...
It is then up to the viewer (or theatregoer/cinemagoer) to decide if they like that direction or not.
That's how it works for the theatre, cinema or TV.
Sorry, I don't see the relation between aspect ratios and tops of peoples heads. How actors are filmed is down to the director, if they want a close up of someone's eyes it highly likely the top of their head will be cut off no matter what ratio.
The content is what draws viewers in, aspect ratios are secondary, as are HD and the audio, these are what make the presentation more enjoyable.
50 years eh? I was in it for 36 and neither I nor anyone I know claimed to have such knowledge of the public taste. We thought/hoped we were right but were often, and expensively, proved wrong. Hardly any homes have a 4X3 TV as their main set and programmes can't be compromised because some one still has one in their kitchen. No programme has ever had 50M+ viewers. You are probably a similar age to me, the world moves on, I have, you must. I have no objection to 21X9 dramas where the ratio enhances the feel of the programme and it does on this one.
Top Gear deserves to be shot at ultra, ultra, ultra widescreen.... specifically 1920:1.
I'm sure that the bombastically self-important Jeremy Clarkson would enthusiastically approve the idea. Everyone else would benefit by seeing him squashed to the height of a single scan line on a regular 1080p telly.
Though that's still one scan line too many IMHO...
Here's a novel idea .......
You obviously don't like it, so you could simply not watch it, and leave those that do enjoy Top Gear to continue to enjoy it in its current aspect ratio.
You realise on SD that would come out at 720*1 anyway! The equivalent stretched out to square pixels of 1024*1!
Ether way it wont happen as its a well liked show still.
Oddly enough, that's exactly what I (don't) do.
I like how you say that as if my proposal was remotely serious, and not just an obviously flippant and tongue-in-cheek excuse for a jibe at Clarkson and his Top Gear chums.
In all seriousness though, I note the defensive sense of entitlement that's very common these days- the whiny implication that people have a right not to have others express dissenting opinions about things they like.
Too bad... so long as that puffed up buffoon gets to appear on my TV before I have a chance to flick the channel, or in the news via some contrived publicity stunt (coincidentally happens every time he has a new book or DVD out), you're damned right I'm going to feel free to take the p**s out of him.
All 2.35 (2.40):1 in the cinema is letterbox, see DCI.org for further information. There are no anamorphic digital release formats.
It doesn't matter though full HD TVs and the majority of digital cinema projectors would only show 1080 lines high and would have to squash the anamorphic image down to be the right shape within ether 2048*1080 for digital camera projectors and 1920*1080 for TV.
This means that a 2.40:1 ratio will be roughly 800-850 lines high anyway, exactly the same as masking it off during filming, unless a 4 or 5 k sauce is used for filming which can yield much higher resolutions of course, but still will be projected at most cinemas as 2048*850 and on full HDTVs as 1920*800 with black areas on both to fill out to 1080.