Toy Story 3 will be presented in a theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1; so says director Lee Unkrich who answered my question about this around an hour ago on Twitter, @leeunkrich!IMDb has been saying 1.85:1 for a while but the site can be unreliable on technical specs during production. Makes sense considering the first two films in the series were in the same aspect ratio.
Of Pixar's first ten masterpieces five (Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, and Up) were 'shot' in 1.85:1 while the rest (A Bug's Life, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, and WALL-E) were framed in the wider 2.35:1.
As I tweeted: "Only a true nerd would want to know this". Yeah.
Posts
11 comments:
Goody! I love those tech specs too.
Hmm, I was kinda hoping for a wider one, I feel less claustrophobic that way. But its not a big deal, and I guess consistency is always a good idea when ending a trilogy like this.
Could someone explain me which aspect radio is better?
Anonymous: It really depends on the film. Some films need more height, like Up, while others benefit more from width, like A Bug's Like.
^I meant A Bug's Life...
Almost all the early Pixar movies used the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which is the standard A.R. of theater screens in the U.S. and which translates to Widescreen TVs nicely.
Later Pixar movies used the wider 2.39:1 aspect ratio, perhaps aiming for a more "cinematic look".
Starting with UP, they decided to release all their future movies in stereoscopic format, aka "3D". Since digital projectors used for stereoscopic presentations usually have an aspect ratio of 1.896 (2048x1080, aka "2K"), it's only natural for Pixar to return to the 1.85 aspect ratio so their movies will better fit the image sensor in such projectors.
Just ideas.
My question is... even 2.35:1 aspect ratios which are "wider" still have the information on the top and bottom of the picture,but they chop off a little on the top and bottom and put black bars. So... why don't they just remove those black bars "Letterbox" and fill your entire tv with the image. It looks much nicer, just like Toy Story, and Up. It fills your entire tv and it is still wide. Clarity and overall viewing is nicer than seeing a movie with the black bars.
Ashley, I believe Pixar prefers to preserve the integrity of the director's vision. Lately they haven't even released "fullscreen" versions.
Yeah, I just wonder why they have to cut off some of the top and bottom of the picture somewhat when there is material there to be seen, and only adds to the picture,and which would fill the rest of the tv, Eliminating the black bars.
Nice information and nice Blog as well. I'm always highly interested in those technical information when it affects the experience of a movie. If that means I am a nerd, then I don't mind about it. ;):D
But I'm not really sure why Pixar does not produce all of their movies in CinemaScope? Isn't that one the standard aspect ratio of theater screens in the U.S., instead of 1.85:1 like Miguel said?
And @Ashley:
I'm not certainly sure what is your point, but if I got it right you're complaining about the black bars in widescreen formats like 2.35:1 or 2.39:1, when the movie is watched on a general 16:9 format television and you're wondering why the filmmakers don't just remove those bars.
Well, this issue is really simple. First of all, if the movie has that format (let's call it CinemaScope to keep it simple), then there's a reason for it. Most of the time it can be assumed that the director wants to fill the whole screen and almost all modern cinemas use to have screens with that format. Furthermore, CinemaScope allows the director to show the audience about 33% more of the filmed picture, which can be very favorable if you got scenes including lots of people simultaneously at one spot or if you're filming landscapes or the like.
Now, if they simply "eliminate" those black bars which you see on your TV because it just doesn't fit the film's original format, it would end up with the movie being awfully stretched vertically in order to fill the entire screen. I guess you agree with me that this is not the way it's meant to be.
Consequently, the only sensible way to fit the movie to a 16:9 TV is to cut off the sides of it. This is a common method, called "Pan & Scan", used by many TV stations and also some DVD production companies. Of course, you will lose about one third of the picture as a result.
So you gotta decide if you like it better to see only two thirds of a movie or black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, but are still able to enjoy the entire picture like the director designed it to be.
Another option I know would be the purchase of the Philips Cinema 21:9 TV, which is the world's first LCD television using a 7:3 aspect ratio (or 21:9 as a marketing term, compared to the common 16:9), designed to show films recorded in CinemaScope or the modern anamorphic format of 2.35:1.
@Ashley: Part II.
So you gotta decide if you like it better to see only two thirds of a movie or black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, but are still able to enjoy the entire picture like the director designed it to be.
Another option I know would be the purchase of the Philips Cinema 21:9 TV, which is the world's first LCD television using a 7:3 aspect ratio (or 21:9 as a marketing term, compared to the common 16:9), designed to show films recorded in CinemaScope or the modern anamorphic format of 2.35:1.
P.S.: @Webmaster:
Sorry for two posts in a row, but I got an error "Requested URI too large" when I originally tried to post all at once.
Post a Comment