2.40:1 aspect ratio for Passion of the Christ

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Barney, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. Barney

    Barney Guest

    I saw this movie tonight on DVD. The ratio was listed as 2.40:1. What?
    Most movies that are wide (at least today) are mainly 2.35:1. So does
    anyone know how or why or what's going on with this aspect ratio?

    The only information I found was a posting by someone some time ago who
    said...

    "One thing I am confused about, in the current ASC handbook (8th) it
    clearly states that modern anamorphic 35mm was standardised at 2.40:1 in
    1972. However when I read The ASC mag, they frequently refer to Super35
    productions as "2.35:1 Super 35mm". How can this be possible on a standard
    anamorphic print? Is this just an old carry over where most DVD covers say
    2.35:1 - the mag-optical CinemaScope ratio, even though this was changed in
    the early 70's? I'm not trying to be pedantic, just accurate"



    I feel the same way. I wonder if anyone knows why there's some movies that
    are 2.35:1 and others listed as 2.40:1?


    Thanks,



    Barney
     
    Barney, Oct 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Barney

    David Z Guest

    Does anyone know why its listed as 2.40:1, and not 2.4:1 ? The extra 0 is
    unnecessary.

    "Barney" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9591131B72512NoSpamNoSpamcom@68.6.19.6...
    >I saw this movie tonight on DVD. The ratio was listed as 2.40:1. What?
    > Most movies that are wide (at least today) are mainly 2.35:1. So does
    > anyone know how or why or what's going on with this aspect ratio?
    >
    > The only information I found was a posting by someone some time ago who
    > said...
    >
    > "One thing I am confused about, in the current ASC handbook (8th) it
    > clearly states that modern anamorphic 35mm was standardised at 2.40:1 in
    > 1972. However when I read The ASC mag, they frequently refer to Super35
    > productions as "2.35:1 Super 35mm". How can this be possible on a standard
    > anamorphic print? Is this just an old carry over where most DVD covers say
    > 2.35:1 - the mag-optical CinemaScope ratio, even though this was changed
    > in
    > the early 70's? I'm not trying to be pedantic, just accurate"
    >
    >
    >
    > I feel the same way. I wonder if anyone knows why there's some movies that
    > are 2.35:1 and others listed as 2.40:1?
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    >
    >
    > Barney
    >
     
    David Z, Oct 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Barney

    Jim Nason Guest

    "Barney" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9591131B72512NoSpamNoSpamcom@68.6.19.6...
    >I saw this movie tonight on DVD. The ratio was listed as 2.40:1. What?
    > Most movies that are wide (at least today) are mainly 2.35:1. So does
    > anyone know how or why or what's going on with this aspect ratio?
    >
    > The only information I found was a posting by someone some time ago who
    > said...
    >
    > "One thing I am confused about, in the current ASC handbook (8th) it
    > clearly states that modern anamorphic 35mm was standardised at 2.40:1 in
    > 1972. However when I read The ASC mag, they frequently refer to Super35
    > productions as "2.35:1 Super 35mm". How can this be possible on a standard
    > anamorphic print? Is this just an old carry over where most DVD covers say
    > 2.35:1 - the mag-optical CinemaScope ratio, even though this was changed
    > in
    > the early 70's? I'm not trying to be pedantic, just accurate"
    >
    >
    >
    > I feel the same way. I wonder if anyone knows why there's some movies that
    > are 2.35:1 and others listed as 2.40:1?
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    >
    >
    > Barney
    >

    The standard were changed twice from the 1970's on. At 2.35:1 aspect ratio,
    a theater using a full height aperture plate would sometimes show visible
    splices at the frame line. It was lowered first to 2.39:1, then later to
    2.40:1. When projected with the new aperture plates, no splices are visible.
    Please note that the standars are for projection only. Cinematographers
    still compose for 2.35:1, and the camera apertures are still 2.35:1. This
    has led to much confusion.

    Cinematographers are more precis in their terminology than are motion
    picture exhibitors. For example, back in the days of Super Panavision 70,
    cinematographers would refer to the process as Panavision 65, which was
    correct for the film size they were were working with.

    I hope this helps.

    Jim Nason
     
    Jim Nason, Oct 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Barney

    Shinner Guest

    "Jim Nason" <> wrote in
    news::

    > The standard were changed twice from the 1970's on. At 2.35:1 aspect
    > ratio, a theater using a full height aperture plate would sometimes
    > show visible splices at the frame line. It was lowered first to
    > 2.39:1, then later to 2.40:1. When projected with the new aperture
    > plates, no splices are visible. Please note that the standars are for
    > projection only. Cinematographers still compose for 2.35:1, and the
    > camera apertures are still 2.35:1. This has led to much confusion.
    >
    > Cinematographers are more precis in their terminology than are motion
    > picture exhibitors. For example, back in the days of Super Panavision
    > 70, cinematographers would refer to the process as Panavision 65,
    > which was correct for the film size they were were working with.
    >
    > I hope this helps.


    not the OP, but thanks for the explanation...that's pretty interesting.
     
    Shinner, Oct 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Barney

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Barney" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9591131B72512NoSpamNoSpamcom@68.6.19.6...
    >I saw this movie tonight on DVD. The ratio was listed as 2.40:1. What?
    > Most movies that are wide (at least today) are mainly 2.35:1. So does
    > anyone know how or why or what's going on with this aspect ratio?
    >

    ==============================
    Many movies are 2.40:1
     
    Richard C., Oct 29, 2004
    #5
  6. Barney

    Jay G. Guest

    On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:00:04 GMT, David Z wrote:

    > Does anyone know why its listed as 2.40:1, and not 2.4:1 ? The extra 0 is
    > unnecessary.


    I'd say it's because all other theatrical aspect ratios parse the number
    out to 2 decimals. For example, 16x9 is often restated as 1.78:1, even
    though the decimal is actually .7 repeating.

    I'd say it's comparable to how we use decimal places in monetary terms. If
    someone has a dollar and a half, we'd write it as $1.50 rather than $1.5

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Oct 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Barney

    Jay Stewart Guest

    "Barney" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9591131B72512NoSpamNoSpamcom@68.6.19.6...
    > I saw this movie tonight on DVD. The ratio was listed as 2.40:1. What?
    > Most movies that are wide (at least today) are mainly 2.35:1. So does
    > anyone know how or why or what's going on with this aspect ratio?


    It's like this because Jesus would want it that way
     
    Jay Stewart, Nov 2, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dvd

    passion of christ

    dvd, May 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    700
    Blinky the Shark
    May 13, 2004
  2. rocky
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    580
    DarkMatter
    Mar 6, 2004
  3. Red Cow
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    864
    Jimbo700
    Apr 23, 2004
  4. SickBoy

    Passion of the Christ on DVD Sept. 9

    SickBoy, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    457
    Metlhd3138
    Apr 21, 2004
  5. Writer R5
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    1,746
    Eric R.
    Aug 31, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page