Negative ratio and Intended ratio in IMDB
Harrie Frericks
of them and the aspect ratio is usually 4:3 (1.33:1). When I looked these
movies up in IMDB.com, under technical specs, aspect ratio it usually says:
1.37: 1 negative ratio, 1.75:1 intended ratio.
Does anyone know what this means?
Many thanks,
Harrie
jayembee
Up until late 1953, all films (with a few notable exceptions)
were shot at what's referred to as Academy Ratio, which is
1.37:1. That's the ratio of the area on the film negative that
gets exposed. The film would get printed and projected at
the same ratio.
When widescreen became a regular thing starting in late
1953 (though Academy Ratio films continued to be shot
well into the 1960s), various processes were developed.
Details vary, but in general broke down into two separate
classes:
(1) Anamorphic processes, which used an anamorphic
(or "fish-eye") lens to squeeze a wider image -- generally
2.35:1 -- onto a standard 1.37:1 negative. The film would
then be printed in squeezed format, and then another
anamorphic lens on the projector would unsqueeze it
back to its original ratio.
(2) "Flat" processes, which used a normal lens, and fell
into two sub-categories: (a) soft-matte, and (b) hard-matte.
(2a) "Soft-matte" films were shot at Academy Ratio, i.e.
the full 1.37:1 negative area was exposed, and again,
printed. When the film was projected in the theater, the
projector would have a special aperture plate (called a
mask) fitted onto it that would crop off the top and bottom
of the picture, so that the film would be projected at the
intended wider ratio, typically 1.85:1 (in the US) or
1.66:1 (in Europe and Asia)
In fact, with soft-matte films, there wasn't necessarily a
world-wide standard for projection. The same film might
be projected at 1.66:1 in, say, the UK, and at 1.85:1
here in the US.
Some 1.75:1 was used. Disney apparently had a liking
for this ratio. It's generally believed that it was so the
composition wouldn't be harmed by overmatting at
1.85:1 or undermatting at 1.66:1.
(2b) "Hard-matte" films were matted in the camera, i.e.
the aperture plate would matte off the top and bottom
of the image as it was exposed onto the negative. In
general, hard-matte films are matted to 1.66:1. I don't
off-hand know if there are any films hard-matted at
1.85:1.
Anyway, when soft-matte films are shot, even though
the whole negative is exposed, the director's monitor
has guidelines to show him what parts of the image
fall within the 1.85:1 (or 1.66:1) frame, and what
parts fall out of it. That way, they can ensure that all
necessary elements are on-screen after the picture
has been matted.
When video transfers are made, more often than not,
they are what's referred to as "open matte" or "full
frame", which simply means that the full frame of
the negative or print is transferred without matting.
The result is that you actually see more image at the
top and bottom than you would if seeing the film
projected in a theater. But this extra picture isn't
really intended to be seen, and might sometimes
contain things you are *not* supposed to see, such
as lights or mikes.
So, all of this is a long-winded way of saying that
when the IMDb says that the negative ratio is 1.37:1
and the intended ratio is 1.75:1, it means that the
picture was shot soft-matte.
This is useful to know, as it makes you more informed
in deciding to buy or not buy a video release of the
film. While most cinephiles would prefer that the
video release be in the intended ratio, a good number
of them might find a open-matte presentation to be
"acceptable", even if not desirable, since it's not
actually *removing* parts of the picture that are meant
to be seen, as with a pan-&-scan release.
-- jayembee (jerry period boyajian at-sign eds period com)
"So what do you think? Alien?" "Yeah. I definitely ruled
out genetic mutation." "Too far from Jersey?" "Exactly."
Bill Vermillion
jayembee (Jerry Boyajian) <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:30:57 +0200, Harrie Frericks babbled...
>> I'm thinking about buying a few of the Walt Disney classics.
>> I checked a few of them and the aspect ratio is usually 4:3
>> (1.33:1). When I looked these movies up in IMDB.com,
>> under technical specs, aspect ratio it usually says: 1.37: 1
>> negative ratio, 1.75:1 intended ratio.
>
>> Does anyone know what this means?
>Up until late 1953, all films (with a few notable exceptions)
>were shot at what's referred to as Academy Ratio, which is
>1.37:1. That's the ratio of the area on the film negative that
>gets exposed. The film would get printed and projected at
>the same ratio.
[Deletia - wjv]
>(2) "Flat" processes, which used a normal lens, and fell
>into two sub-categories: (a) soft-matte, and (b) hard-matte.
You might call this trivia.
You missed one hybrid that used spherical lenses but typically wide
angle. Techni-Scope. It pulled down 2 perforations of film so you
had a viewable wide image - width the same but the height one
half of the normal 35MM frame. Duringing printing this was
squeezed horizontally and then expanded during projection.
As it used 1/2 the film stock it was cheaper to shoot 'wide-screen'
this way than even standard ratios. Use a lot in for more cheaply
produced films and a great many of Sergio Leone's spaghetti
westerns used this process - eg A Fistful Of Dollars, A Few Dollars
More, etc.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com