I just want my widescreen tv to play the dvd in it's precise correct original aspect ratio but then theres all these aspect ration options to select from on your DVD player AND if thats not confusing enough on your widescreen tv too, such as, full screen, normal screen, pan and scan, letter box, cinema conversion to film or video, and to set your tv to 16:9 or to 4:3 through your dvd player too, and when you make your selections you don't know if you're watching the correct original precise aspect ratio of that particular dvd. At least you would think the tv screen should confirm if thats the correct aspect ratio of the dvd you're watchin instead of creating a puzzle that seems like it can't be solved. Heres an example, i'm trying to watch The Little Rascals that has an original aspect ration of 1:37:1 on a 16:9 widescreen tv, but it seems the video is a bit too wide at tv screen type 16:9, screen format normal, cinema conversion to video, and dvd aspect ratio (set 16:9 dvd video output to display on a 4.3 screen tv to) pan and scan. HOW ABOUT THIS SETTING?---DO YA WANT TO WATCH THIS DVD IN IT'S PRECISE ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO instead of driving me crazy due to keep on ejecting the blu ray in order to keep on changing the selections?
1.85:1 is close. The black bars are barely noticeable on a 16:9 screen. I know a few filmmakers have made their films 16:9 when they're intended for streaming. Zack Snyder did this for "Army of the Dead".
Regular 35mm motion picture film - 4 perforations vertical VistaVision 35mm motion picture film - 8 perfs horizontal> In the industry it was referred to as "lazy-8" on account of the 8 pers and the horizontal orientation.
His trilogy is tremendous superhero film making but Jesus Christ both rebel moon movies sucked hopefully his directors cut will have some redeeming qualities to it
Sorry Snyder is a hack - he is good at only two things shot composition and casting for looks If he doesn't have a good writer (Dawn of the Dead - Gunn) a good cinematographic for the look (Larry Fong - 300, Watchman, Sucker Punch...) A good fight coordinator - Guillermo Grispo - BvS Batman warehouse fight You get Rebel Moon He is good at copying stuff or bringing visuals to the screen when he has help
Snyder is a MASTER at showing stories visually. If his films had no dialogue, they would be pieces of art. 90% of directors will never touch his worst work. He’s a visual storyteller. However, he can’t craft a compelling narrative story and dialogue AT ALL. He can take a good script and focus too much on the visuals that take away from the impact of the dialogue. He NEEDS a person that can rein him in and let him handle the visuals while they handle the dialogue. Tim Miller is the same. Their action sequences are masterful. A good example is Wonder Woman 1 and 2. The first film looks like a Snyder film because he did the heavy lifting in CGI and directing action sequences, but Jenkins handled the story and it is an amazing film. Snyder wasn’t involved in the 2nd one and the action is laughable and movie feels amateur. If Snyder found a partner/script writer that he trusted to and they trusted him to shoot dialogue and action they way they both want to, you’d have every film be 300 and Watchmen. A heavy dialogue writer and you get BVS, if Snyder does it, you get Sucker Punch and Rebel Moon.
I really like Zack Snyder, however, I feel like he still has problems actually bringing his opinions to screen. For example, he's an outspoken anti-fashist, though a lot of his movies seem to adore the aesthetics of fashism, like 300.
I mean you can like something in fiction and not think its a public benefit in the real world in Zack's defense. Like I can like movies about mafia/gangsters that have them viewed in a glorifed light and still not want to live under their bullshit in the real world for example. I do think Zack can like fashism in his movies and still not want to live in a society dominated by it in real life, but yea it is a bit odd its glorified in his work regardless.
@@roadkilledpigeon I mean, thats the thing, isn't it. Take 300 for example, I'm sure if you`d ask him he would say you're not supposed to think the Spartians are the good guys, they just defended their home. However, the movie just can't help itself but glorify everything about them, even the stuff Zack would say are not admirable. Thats the reason why a lot of fashists like and why he always needs to publicly distance himself from these people.
Yeah, but It was an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel. If anything, your problem should be with Frank, not zack, as he was just adapting the book to screen
@@DRAI-ow1nq Who Cares, Wait to see Director’s Cut Of Rebel Moon, You Snyder Cultist Hack!!! #FireJamesGunn #BoycottDCstudios #BoycottWBD #RestoreTheSnyderverse
Snyder's movie's are either very loved or very liked no in between Cristoper nolan is very loved...almost all the time tho Also Most people like but not loved ZSJL,300,MOS....wow these 3 are the only acceptable movie he has Just my opinion and also the low number of people being converted into the snyder cult kinda boost my point
How it's even matter of discussion!? Hes fking top tier! Of course he have his good and bad movies, maybe cause hes out of touch in term of scripts, but they are always visually pleasant. Hes an elite director. Period!
Yea his movies look cool, but the story is usually really bad. I couldn't even enjoy batman vs superman because of that horrid script, from him losing to batman (not a superman fan, but hes a speedster to an extent) , superman not explaining things to bats, him calling his mother by her first name in his dying breath ect. Another complaint I've heard is that Zach doesn't understand the characters at all, and I agree with that. I will say though batman using guns and killing people and all that, superman killing Zod for no reason (it wasn't required to save the civilians, he could have just moved his damn head if he was strong enough to snap it like he did.) aquaman not being a complete bore (Zach co produced that, dunno if you count it as one of his) ect. doesn't bother me too much, Zach can have a different take on them I suppose. He does lose the essence of all the characters in my opinion when he does so but on the other hand he is more focused on spectacle and does pretty well there, if thats more important that story to his fans theres not really anything wrong with that, but I certainly don't agree with it. Story and consistent in universe logic and lore are just so much more important than visuals to me.
Eh, we should see how James Gunn's superman is before spamming this noise, just because you like snyder doesnt mean Gunn can't do a good job. Ey, I'm not saying he will but theres at least a decent chance.
@@roadkilledpigeon Who Cares, Wait to see Gunn’s Superman movie is Already Flopped, All Because for Snyder Fans. #FireJamesGunn #BoycottDCstudios #BoycottWBD #RestoreTheSnyderverse
You just got my sub man, however I have a question: How were TV shows that were shot on 35mm film for standard 4:3 TVs shot? Were they shot in 1.37 or 1.33?
Beyond question the 90's was the true golden age of cinema, that is a fact. On IMDB 104 of the 500 greatest movies of all time are 90's movies, 1/5th! 4 of the top 20, 1/5th! 26 of the top 100, 1/4! 2 of the top 5, almost half! 5 movies from the 90's are in the top 20 most oscar winners. One of the 3 tied for most oscars is Titanic (11 oscar wins) More ORIGINAL stories were told in the 90's than any other decade. Remakes were relatively rare. Re-boots didn't exist. Totally original film scripts like Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction and The Green Mile set the bar for how good movies could be. Titanic showed us the PERFECT blend of digital and practical effects (it may never age). T2, Phantom Menace and The Matrix changed the way movies were made forever (for better or worse). Saving Private Ryan left you with your jaw hanging open. The 90's were the peak of hollywood cinema. It's indisputable.
@@CallumVandenberg GREAT doc you've made btw, subbed. What really clinches the 90's for me is the f/x usage. Apollo 13, Titanic and Jurassic park look flawless 30+ years later. Today you see all the digital crap. In those movies the f/x are nearly indistinguishable.
Very true! I would also include the early 2000's. The Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean are great examples of blending digital with real life.
Great explanation. I was wondering, as the new Criterion Collection release of Lord Of The Flies is in 1.37. Which made me balk. I am going to assume that was the aspect it was filmed in (!963) but still it raged my inner , Hatred?, which isn't a strong enough word I think I have for "Full screen". I know in many classics there is no choice and I swallow it as needed. But as a collector when you lay out 35-40 bucks for something and it happens to be in such an aspect ratio it's quite the hard pill to swallow...lol I suppose I will still get it anyway, but I sure wish it had been filmed in cinemascope or something LOL. But at least now I know what 1.37 is and won't be shell shocked when I put it on as I'll know what's coming.
this is a perfect video, i mean in a short time you delivered all the information with no fluff, i wish it was legally mandated all videos were like this. Thank you
This is the first I've heard of this. I have read that Toei did some animated films on VistaVision into the 80s, like at least one of the Lupin III films. And the Production Report of Akira mentions a bigger film format than usual (though I can't find what the actual camera negative was). I have not read anywhere that EoE used VistaVision. I would love sources on this as I'm a big nerd both for animation, and film formats. :)
great video. very well explained. I have a question, do you know how I can film on these ratios with my canon Eos r6? because whenever I change the ratio, it only affects my photos and as soon as I turn to video recording the ratio turns back to 16:9. thnx
I'm glad you enjoyed it! I'm not sure about filming in a 4:3 ratio on the Canon EOS R6. I normally shoot on Panasonic, so I'm not very familiar with Canon. You could try filming in 16:9, but frame the shot for 4:3. Then in post you could reframe it on a 4:3 timeline.
actually there's 2 "Standards", standard "these days" usually means 16x9. (these days meaning after 1985-ish) If you cannot see an actual ratio on the packaging, you can look for trailers of the film which could give you an indication. The year of the film can usually be a good indication, if it's after 1990 it's probably called 16x9, prior to that you can start running in to the greater possibility that it's using the word "Standard" to mean 4x3. It's always a roll of the dice if you cannot find an actual numerical ratio on the packaging and it's just using the word "Standard" without a ratio listed by it. I often have to deep dive on a film if I run into that problem since I have such a personal visceral "issue" with 4x3...lol. I've actually purchased a dvd a couple times and mistakenly got the "Full screen" version and tossed it in the bin when it came and had to go find the widescreen version LOL.
There is movies I want to buy which say their original aspect ratio is 2.39:1 but the Blu Ray's is 2.40:1, how much of the image does this mean I am missing?
You wouldn't be missing any of the image. They're the same aspect ratio. 2.40:1 is 2.39:1 rounded up. Essentially, it is two ways of saying the same thing.
@@CallumVandenberg After making this comment, I checked the specs on IMDb like you said and it says "2.35:1" so now I am back to wondering how much this means I'd be missing again, lol. I have been researching aspect ratio and it just gets more and more confusing, do you have any advice or a good source?
My guess is that the Blu Ray is mislabelled. But it could also be that there is a slight crop on the top and bottom to convert the 2.35:1 image to 2.39:1. DVD/Blu Ray departments are not the best at preserving the director's vision. Criterion Collection excluded.
@@CallumVandenberg That's inaccurate. They're the same for all intents and purposes but some DVDs show the film as 1920 x 804 which is 2.39:1 and some DVDs show 1920 x 800 which is 2.40:1. Basically the same but they're not exactly the same. The film in a movie theater is 2.39:1 coming out of the projector but because of the matting around the screen it ends up more like 2.40:1.
I had the opportunity to see Abel Gance's production of "Napoleon" as a press screening. Originally made in 1927, the format was the squareiish 1.33:1/1.37:1 ratio for all but the last reel. The last reel displayed a forerunner of 3-strip Cinerama. It was projected using an anamorphic lens and depicted the final battle. Three separate views of the battle played together, on 35mm film complete with the separation lines of the images much like the 3-strip format.
That already happens. Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey for instance both were scanned in 8K and released on UHD Bluray in 4K. Patiently waiting for the underrated Ryan's Daughter and Grand Prix to get the same treatment. Ice Station Zebra and especially It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World would also be great candidates.
