Personal View site logo
New 2.20 Aspect Ratio Standard for Tomorrowland
  • geoffcbassettgeoffcbassett

    Just thought I'd mention this interesting development.

    I work in projection and when I received the trailers for Tomorrowland I found it interesting that it did not fill the scope frame, instead being shown cropped to 2.20:1.

    I just received the film itself and I find out that it must be shown like this. The first modern film to be shown in this format, which is the same ratio that 2001 was originally displayed. Not only that setting it up you can enter a contest as a projectionist if you set it up properly. Very interested to see if this is a new trend, as I cannot see Regal being exact in their projection of this film, instead they will just run it in flat. Jurassic world is supposed to be in an even weirder 2:1 ratio.

    What do you think of the new format? Personally I feel it is the perfect framing, not to wide or tall, about perfect for my eyes. However there is no natural way to capture this aspect ratio besides cropping the final image for most cameras so it's a bit of an acquisition nightmare.

  • 9 Replies sorted by
  • jleojleo

    I believe John Carpenter's The Thing had 2.20:1 prints in some cities. As well as Poltergeist, ET, Blade Runner and Firefox. Todd-AO was shot 2.20:1 but prints were closer to 2.35:1... I like Cinemascope 2:35:1, but the way most Hollywood movies are shot today, with continuous " cruise missile " CGI movement, they don't allow your eyeballs enough time to explore panoramic shots or deep focus scenes. 2:20:1 is probably better for your HDTV home theatre, filling up more of the screen. Thanks studio marketing dept. !

    Time to chuck out our 1.33x and 2x anamorphic adapters and wait for the new 1.25x adapters?

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I do not really care, only real aspect that must be used is 16:9.

  • SageSage

    Love the subtle impact different ratios can provide. 2.39 has always been preferable to 1.78 for me, as it is distinctly more atmospheric, forcing framing of people that emphasizes the continuation of the world beyond the frame.

    House of Cards also used a 2:1 ratio as a kind of hybrid between the cinematic grandeur of 2.39 and the convenience of 16:9 TVs. Experimentation is always welcome in the world of movies, and it will be fun to see how these experiments pan out (pun intended)

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Love the subtle impact different ratios can provide. 2.39 has always been preferable to 1.78 for me, as it is distinctly more atmospheric, forcing framing of people that emphasizes the continuation of the world beyond the frame.

    I made small research, around 90% of normal people do not care and just ask what exact idiot made it :-)

    Yet in advanced circles it was always cool to do something non standard (including use of anamorphic lenses now, despite them being made and used for very utilitarian reason).

    I think most of the time artists fool themselves.

  • arnarfjodurarnarfjodur

    90% of idiots don't know why the like something or don't like something. You need to measure their behavior if you want to understand them, not ask them questions.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @arnarfjodur

    Well, best idea can be to read history and how various rates appeared in cinemas.

    After this good addition is to find and read any audit papers about cinemas across the world (describing difference in brightness, screen quality, etc, etc).

    Artistic decisions are cool and such, but is you make shit, anamorphic lenses or aspect ration do not help.

  • arnarfjodurarnarfjodur

    "The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects 'unfamiliar', to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important."

    —Viktor Shklovsky, "Art as Technique"

    So I think we will always have new new (or reused old) "non standard" aspect ratios because it is a way to make your image "unfamiliar". I'm sure that within 5 years it will be considered really cool to use 4:3 aspect ratio. Not because it is better or worse, but precisely because it is non-standard.

  • SageSage

    1.33 has made somewhat of a comeback -

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518812/

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2278388/

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    So I think we will always have new new (or reused old) "non standard" aspect ratios because it is a way to make your image "unfamiliar". I'm sure that within 5 years it will be considered really cool to use 4:3 aspect ratio. Not because it is better or worse, but precisely because it is non-standard.

    May be, who knows. Apes are such a fans of meaningless things :-)

Add a Comment