searching for the perfect aspect ratio€¦ · eidophor,!" have never used phosphors, and...

SMPTE TUTORIAL

Searching for the Perfect Aspect Ratio

By Mark Schubin

Figure 1.Aspect ratio accommodation: (a) truncation; (b) shrinking; and (c) distortion.

!IJJJ OJ

c

some degradation of the imageryinvolved.' There are only three basicmethods of accommodating existingmaterial shot in a fixed aspect ratio on adisplay of a different fixed aspect ratio,though the techniques may be combined. These three basic techniques areshown in Fig. 1.

Figure I a shows the truncationmethod, a variant of which is sometimes referred to as "pan and scan."When going from a wider aspect ratioto a narrower one in this method, theheights of the two images are matched,and any excess width in the widerimage is removed from the display. Theposition of the displayed rectangle inthe pan-and-scan mode may vary eitherby gradual panning (or tilting, in thecase of accommodation of a narroweraspect ratio) or by rapid repositioning(cutting) between frames.

Figure 1b shows the shrinkingmethod, referred to as "letterbox," dueto the shape of the shrunken imagewindow when a wider aspect ratio isbeing accommodated on a narrowerdisplay. The black bands need not beevenly spaced. It is often the case thatthe lower band (when a wider aspectratio is being accommodated) is madelarger for the purpose of carrying subtitles, and, as will be discussed later inthis paper, when a narrower ratio isbeing accommodated, the elimination

BA

, 0, J

r---···-------------,. .

Aspect Ratio AccommodationIn fact, imagery is not "converted"

from one aspect ratio to another; oneaspect ratio is merely accommodatedby another, almost invariably with

That incompatibility became mostnoticeable in 1961, when the 1953CinemaScope movie, How to Marry aMillionaire, was broadcast on the NBCtelevision network.' Intended to be seenat an aspect ratio of 2.55: 1 (and withimage composition intentionally fillingthe wide frame), the movie was truncated to television's 4:3 (1.33:1). Almostimmediately, technical publicationsbegan to carry information about howbest to deal with the "conversion" ofone aspect ratio to another.'

Presented at the 137th SMPTE Technical Conferencein New Orleans (paper no. 137·61) on September 8.1995. Mark Schubin is a technological consultant inNew York. NY 10036. An unedited version of thispaper appeared in Moving Images: Meeting theChallenges, SMPTE. 1995. Copyright © 1996 by theSociety of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.Inc.

A 1988 paper entitled "Another./'"'\..Method of Aspect-Ratio Conversion For Use In Receiver-CompatibleEDTV Systems" begins: ''Two systemswith different aspect ratios are inherentlyincompatible."' (EDTV is extended-definition television.) The statement bearslooking into.

For the purposes of this paper, aspectratio will be defined as the ratio of animage's width to its height. Ever sincethere have been rectangular images,there have been aspect ratios (and itmay be argued that even ellipticalimages have aspect ratios).

We are surrounded daily by multipleaspect ratios not seeming to cause anyincompatibility problems. Images innewspapers and magazines have a variety of aspect ratios both greater and lessthan one; the same is true of paintingsand photographs. Even some computerdisplay screens may be rotated from ahorizontal aspect ratio (landscape) to avertical one (portrait). When theatricalmotion picture and television screens areconsidered together for the purpose ofdisplaying the same imagery, however,the inherent incompatibility becomesmore clear.

A debate is currently taking place over the appropriate aspect ratio foradvanced television displays. Any selected aspect ratio is inherentlyincompatible with any other and will require the use of some form ofaccommodation technique. The derivation of the 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratiofrom accommodation techniques and display modes is explained, as is therelationship between aspect ratio and display memory. Research into thehistory ofaspect ratios indicates that the 1.78:1 aspect ratio was adoptedby the Standards Committee of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers(SMPE) in 1930. It also indicates that the factors that may initially haveled to widescreen motion picture systems may no longer be applicable.The research for this paper found no clear indication of a preference forany particular aspect ratio for moving images nor any physiological reason to favor one over another. The research did show that cinematographers have not always favored the same aspect ratio.

460 SMPTE Journal, August 1996

Authorized licensed use limited to: Mark Schubin. Downloaded on August 22,2016 at 17:03:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

of one of the side bands offers the possibility of stacking additional images inthe other side band, a technique that hasbeen referred to as multiple picture-inpicture (MPIP).

Figure lc shows the distortionmethod, whereby the linearity of thegeometry of the image is changed tosqueeze it into a different displayshape. In a recent variation on this technique, a nonlinear distortion is used,affecting the edges of the image morethan the center (e.g., in two of JYC'sconsumer widescreen projectionreceivers).

As can be seen from the two rows ofFig. 1, the same basic methods applywhether the original image is widerthan the display or narrower. In fact,the same techniques apply whether thetwo aspect ratios are both film, bothvideo, or one of each. From 1961 todate, however, generally only the techniques of the upper row have beenseen, as widescreen movies have beenshown on narrower video screens inhomes, aircraft, or other venues. Unlessotherwise specified, the word widescreen, for the purposes of this paper,will be used as defined by the BritishKinematograph Sound and TelevisionSociety (BKSTS): "in general, picturespresented with an aspect ratio greaterthan 1.4:1."5

AlI of the accommodation techniques of Fig. 1 are problematic.Sometimes aspect ratio accommodationis demonstrated with so-called "neutral" imagery: pictures that appear noless desirable when cropped. Motionpictures and television shows are notshot to be neutral, however. The truncation technique clearly causes portionsof the image to be lost, and the variantsassociated with pan and scan introducemotion or cutting never intended in theoriginal.

The distortion technique clearlychanges the shape of not only theimage but also people and objects contained within it. An informal surveyconducted in association with theresearch for this paper found that distortion in the range of 2 to 6% may beconsidered acceptable, but that is muchless than the amount needed to accommodate a typical widescreen movie ona conventional television display orvice versa.

The shrinking technique (letterbox)

SMPTE Journal, August 1996

SMPTE TUTORIAL

preserves the original image composition but reduces the visual angle available to the viewer and, often, resolutionas well. Detail that is just perceptible inan image when it is viewed at a particular display resolution will be lost if thesame image is shrunk on the same display.

In most cases when the viewingscreen is video-based, this shrinkingresults in noticeably empty portions ofthe display device, a condition that hasbeen considered objectionable to audiences by some television programmers." One television set manufacturer(lVC) has introduced a widescreenmodel with a mechanical masking system that covers the unused portions ofthe display much as drapes maskunused portions of some motion picturetheater screens, possibly resulting in thereduction or elimination of such objections.'

A potentially more serious problemrelated to the shrinking technique isdifferential phosphor luminancedecay, a reduction in the light outputof the cathode ray tube phosphors inthe active picture section relative tothat in the blank section, often affecting blue phosphors more than red orgreen." As a result, when the full display area is viewed, the shrunkenimage area can become visible as astripe somewhat yellower than the restof the display. The effect is greater inprojection displays than in direct-viewdisplays due to the higher beam currents of the former.

It has been suggested that the differential phosphor luminance decay problem may be eliminated by making theinactive sections of the display grayinstead of black, but in one experiment,the outline of an inactive section of adirect-view picture tube was visibleafter 5,000 hours, even though that section had been excited with a 50% graysignal. Techniques have been devel-

Figure 2. Modular display configurations.

oped for excitation of the unused areaswith signals that vary to match averagepicture level, however, and those techniques appear to eliminate image striping." No investigation of viewer acceptance of display stripes with varyingbrightness was found in the research forthis paper.

The differential phosphor luminancedecay issue is related only to displaysusing phosphors, such as those basedon typical direct-view or projectioncathode-ray tubes. Some video projectors, such as the Schlieren-optics-basedEidophor,!" have never used phosphors,and advanced television displays maybe able to take advantage of other phosphor-free technologies. 11.12

There are two other techniques associated with aspect ratio accommodation, but they require that either theimage or the display be effectively nonfixed in shape. One of these techniquesis sometimes used in video walls. Asshown in Fig. 2, a video walI comprised of 4:3 image modules can createa 4:3 image when stacked in a 3 x 3 or4 x 4 module configuration, but thesame modules can create a 16:9(1.78:1) image when stacked in a 4 x 3configuration.

When the goal has been not aspectratio accommodation but the creationof a different aspect ratio than is commonly used in a particular medium,similar modular-screen techniques havebeen used in many film and video projection systems. These range from the19th-century Cineorama system (usingten interlocked motion picture film projectors)" to the current Geographicatheater (using three synchronized videosources) at the National GeographicSociety's Explorers Hall in Washington, D.C. The original Cineramawidescreen movie process, using threesynchronized film projectors, is probably the most famous of these systems.'It has been suggested that, at some

461


future date, consumers will be able toavail themselves of low-cost, nonfixedaspect-ratio displays, but at the moment,this technique does not appear to beapplicable to most homes.

Shoot and ProtectThe other technique of aspect ratio

accommodation may, in fact, be themost common used today, but it cannotbe used for existing material shot withjust one aspect ratio intended. The technique is sometimes called "shoot andprotect." It has been used to accommodate different aspect ratios both for theatrical film projection and for videodisplay.

In such a system, during productionthe captured image is framed so as tomake images appear in a desired fashion in one aspect ratio while additionalarea is suitably protected in the overallframe to allow the images to be seen ina different aspect ratio without lightinginstruments, masking, microphones,puppeteers, or the edges of set piecesbecoming visible. Such framing isfacilitated by the presence of referencelines (reticles) on the camera viewfinder for the desired (action) aspect ratio. IS

Thus, the inner action area is sometimes referred to as the reticle region,and the outer frame is sometimesreferred to as the aperture." The areabetween the reticle and the aperture,where significant action is to be avoided, has been referred to as "fluff."

Reconsidering Fig. 1b, in a shootand-protect system, the black bandswould not be black but would contain,instead, a continuation of the background of the image, the continuationarea avoiding anything critical to theaction. This is shown in Fig. 3.

A shoot-and-protect system allowsaspect ratio accommodation withoutimage truncation (and its associatedadditional pans or cuts), image shrinking (and its associated reduced viewingangle, reduced resolution, objectionableblank screen bars, and potential differential phosphor decay), and/or imagedistortion. On the other hand, it createsmajor restrictions in the way sets can bedressed and lit, the way sound can bepicked up, and the way action can beframed. A character cannot be positioned at the edge of a frame, for example, if that edge will not appear in oneof the aspect ratios.

462

SMPTE TUTORIAL

This restriction can affect not merelyaesthetic shooting preferences but alsoplot. In the play, Largely New York(1989), for example, a charactertrapped in a television signal tries to getout by pushing on the edges of theframe; if that material was captured in ashoot-and-protect system, in at leastone of the aspect ratios those frameedges would not be properly located, sothe plot device could not be used.Dramatic and comedic timing is sometimes affected by the moment when aparticular character enters a frame; in ashoot-and-protect system, a charactermay appear at different times on different displays.

There is an additional problem associated with shoot and protect of theform where the action area is thewider aspect ratio (upper portion ofFig. 3). This problem relates to theatrical projection framing. With no visualindication of the upper and lower limits of the wider frame, a projectionistmust guess at the correct framing, andthat framing is not necessarily intended to be centered in the protected aperture. I7.1R.19 Despite all of these problems, because home video, alone, hasresulted, since 1986, in greater domestic wholesale gross revenues for moviedistributors than has theatricalrelease," there is a strong financialincentive for this form of aspect ratioaccommodation, whatever its problems. Aside from its other negativeaspects, in 1987, pan and scan (andassociated) costs ran as high as $8,000per feature at one cable television network.' There is also a need to consideraccommodation of films shot in verywide aspect ratios on much narrowertheatrical screens."

It should be pointed out that theviewfinder markings of a shoot-andprotect system may be used even whenthere is only one intended aspect ratio,simply to allow the use of imagingequipment designed for a differentaspect ratio. The Sony Jumbotronscreen at the Skydome in Toronto hasan aspect ratio of 10:3 (3.33: 1), but itsimages come from conventional 4:3television cameras with appropriateviewfinder reticles. In fact, manywidescreen films shot this way (with areticle framing a widescreen image in aconventional 4:3 frame) have beenshown on 4:3 screens as though they

Action

1---------------Fluff

FIu Actionff

Figure 3. Shoot and protect.

had been created in a shoot-and-protectmode.

Unfortunately, such presentationoften shows viewers image areasintended by the director and cinematographer not to be seen. It is possible tosee a microphone intruding into the topof the image in Hatari! (1962), forexample, when that movie, intended tobe seen on a wider aspect ratio theatrical screen, has its full film frame exhibited on a 4:3 display. Theatrical projection masking would have kept themicrophone out of the shot. Nudityintended not to be seen in Bonnie andClyde (1967) is similarly a result offull-frame exhibition of material shot tobe shown with much less of the filmframe visible. In Psycho (1960), setmasking is visible when the full 4:3frame is presented.' Such visible microphone booms, masking, set edges, andeven lighting instruments have beenattributed, in some cases, to sloppyfilmmaking; the real cause is exhibitionin an aspect ratio never intended by thedirector or cinematographer.

In addition to the shoot-and-protectsystems of Fig. 3, it is also possible tocreate a shoot-and-protect systemmatching the shape of neither of theaspect ratios needing accommodationbut providing both with "equal pain."Such a system would have an outerprotection frame (aperture) as high asthe narrowest desired aspect ratio andas wide as the widest (when both have



,. ... -r---- -_ .. ";. ,

[I ~,

OJ.

I I. :, La __

, .:... --- - .. _.. -~

A B C

Figure 4. Equal-area shoot and protect.

equal area), and an inner action frame(reticle) as high as the widest aspectratio and as wide as the narrowest, Theouter and inner frames would have thesame aspect ratio. This new shootingaspect ratio is derived from the following formula:

D=W*(IIW)"'/(I/N)'" (I)

where D is a derived compromiseaspect ratio, W is the widest of a rangeof desired aspect ratios, and N is thenarrowest of the range.

The benefit of such a system wouldbe to reduce the amount of nonactionlinear dimension in all aspect ratiosbetween the narrowest and widestselected. Since the shoot-and-protectsystems of Fig. 3 have no nonactionarea for one aspect ratio (the reticle),however, that aspect ratio would actually suffer an increase in nonaction areathrough this plan. Of course, if a display screen happened to have the sameaspect ratio as the derived shooting system, it could be perfectly framed, withno nonaction area.

Figure 4 shows three possibilities forsuch equal-area-based shoot-and-protect systems. Figure 4a shows whatmight be considered a sublime exampleof such a system. The two extremeaspect ratios being accommodated areso close that the inner action frame isproportionally even larger than that ofthe SMPTE Safe Action area accommodating overscanning in TV sets.

Figure 4b shows what might be considered a ridiculous application of sucha system. The inner action frame is sosmall relative to the outer protectionframe that it is difficult to see how anydirector or cinematographer couldmake meaningful use of such restrictedframing.


SMPTE TUTORIAL

16:9Figure 4c shows the actual equal

area-based shoot-and-protect shapeproposed by Kerns Powers, then withRCA Laboratories, at the meeting ofthe SMPTE Working Group on HighDefinition Electronic Production onMay 4, 1984. It is clearly closer to thatof Fig. 4a than to that of Fig. 4b. Theaspect ratio was derived from the aboveformula through the substitution of 4:3for the narrowest aspect ratio and2.35: I (then the projected shape ofanamorphically expanded 35mm theatrical movies, commonly referred to as"scope," from the CinemaScope system) for the widest. The resulting ratiois just over 1.77: I, which was roundedup to 16:9 (somewhat less than 1.78: I)for convenient circuit design.

At the same time, the Motion PictureAssociation of America was evaluatinga new anamorphic projection formatusing an anamorphic expansion ratio of1.5: I instead of the scope 2: I toimprove screen illumination efficiencyand reduce projected jitter. That formatwould have had an aspect ratio of l.5/2times the 2.35: I aspect ratio, orI. 7625: I, very close to the derivedshoot and protect 1.77: I. 16

As a proposed electronic productionformat, 16:9 need not ever have beenused in a shoot-and-protect mode.Given sufficient resolution, a 16:9 electronic imager could be used to capturesingle-aspect-ratio moving pictures inany desired aspect ratio. For theextremes of 4:3 and 2.35: I, the 1.77: Ishape would allow minimum waste ofphotosensitive area (for a multi aspectratio imager) and simplify lens design.In single-aspect-ratio use, the actionarea could fill the intended displayaspect ratio.

Other beneficial properties havebeen claimed for the 16:9 aspect ratio.The two most common widescreennonanamorphic theatrical projectionaspect ratios worldwide are 1.85: I and1.66: 1.'9 A linear average of the two is1.755: I, again close to 1.77: I (but closcr still to the theatrical projection ratioof 1.75: I adopted by some major filmdistributors" and standardized by1956).'R There is also an interestingmathematical progression from 4:3 to16:9 (4/3 * 4/3) to approximately2.35: I (4/3 * 4/3 * 4/3).

It has been reported that the 16:9aspect ratio was unanimously approvedby the Working Group and that a number of cinematographers wereinvolved.":" Such reports have alsobeen disputed." Some of the conflictmay simply be semantic (e.g., whatmakes a person a cinematographer").For the purposes of this paper, the arguments over who knew or approvedwhat when are not significant.Interested readers are referred tosources listed here and elsewhere inthis paper.":"

Even before the Working Groupmeeting, in 1983 Joseph Nadan, thenwith Philips Laboratories in the U.S.,illustrated possible advantages for aconsumer high-definition television(HDTV) set that had a display shape of16:9. In a "polyscrcen" mode, the 16:9shape could be divided into twelve 4:3images (an inverse of Fig. 2's videowall); in MPIP mode, it could providethree stacked 4:3 images adjacent toone larger one." (Note that some in theconsumer electronics industry refer tothis mode as "picture-outside-picture,"or POP.) These display modes arc shownin Fig. 5.

It was also pointed out that 16:9 was"friendly" to two international recommendations: that HDTV have twice theresolution of non-HD TV; and that digital component non-HD TV have 720active picture elements (pixels) perscanning line. Twice 720 is 1440 for a4:3 aspect ratio. For a 16:9 aspect ratio,it would be 1920, and equivalent vertical picture clement resolution (squarepixels) would dictate 1080 active scanning lines, for a total of 2,073,600 pixels. A 2-Mpixel memory has 221 pixels:2,097,152, a near-perfect match." Evena slight aspect ratio increase to the

463


common widescreen 1.85: I wouldrequire 2,157,840 pixels, a poor fit tocommon random access memory(RAM) sizes.

The 16:9 aspect ratio also allowedfor a form of simplified dual aspectratio transmission. If a 16:9 image istransmitted at the common compositevideo digital sampling rate of fourtimes the color subcarrier frequency(4fsc)' a receiver can recover the full16:9 image by reading its memory at4fsc or can get a 4:3 truncated version(potentially in a pan-and-scan mode) byreading the memory at 3fsc.27 Onlyaspect ratios that have a 4/3 relationship (as do 16:9 to 4:3 and 2.37: I to16:9) can make use of this techniquewith common sampling rates.

Since "1.85 is far and away the mostcommon aspect ratio for motion pictures filmed in the United States.''" theproximity of 16:9 to 1.85:1 (less than4% difference) could also be considered beneficial for the display ofmovies. Circuit design generallyrequires integer values for multipliersand dividers. The 1.85: I ratio can beexpressed as the complex 37:20. Thesimpler 9:5 ratio is a very close 1.8:I,but it could not make use of the simplified dual-aspect-ratio transmission system described in the last paragraph, norwould it be able to double digital component resolution and still fit in a 2Mpixel memory. The 16:9 shape is theclosest aspect ratio to 1.85: I offeringthose other electronic system designbenefits.

The 16:9 aspect ratio is also wellmatched to the technique of economizing by shooting film frames three perforations high instead of the usualfour. 28

,29" o Again, it is the 4/3 relationship between the 4:3 aspect ratio andthe 16:9 aspect ratio that makes 16:9an appropriate three-perforation (3perf) aspect ratio. The same 4/3 relationship also makes possible the modu-

Figure 5. 16:9 alternative display modes.

464

SMPTE TUTORIAL

lar display shape modification shownin Fig. 2.

One more rationale for the selectionof 16:9 was probably unknown to proponents of the ratio in the 1980s. In1930, the standards committee of theSociety of Motion Picture Engineers(SMPE), recommended a new methodof projecting large-screen movies fromwider, 50mm film. The screen shapeused for the Society's viewing purposes was 41 ft by 23 ft, 1.78: I (theSociety rounded off its widescreen filmaspect ratio recommendation to 1.8:I).The aspect ratio was said to be in linewith the desires of the Academy ofMotion Picture Arts and Sciences(AMPAS).l' In 1953, an aspect ratio ofapproximately 16:9 was again considered as a standard ratio for theatricalprojection."

This plethora of beneficial aspects of16:9 has sometimes been carried toofar. It has been claimed, for example,that 16:9 is the only aspect ratio thatcauses the inner reticles and outer apertures of Fig. 4 to have the same shape;a mere glance at Fig. 4 indicates that allequal-area shoot-and-protect aspectratios have the same property.

The linear position of 16:9 between1.66: I and 1.85: I is also of questionable benefit. A linear average of theextreme aspect ratios of 4:3 and 2.35: Iis just over 1.84:1, a near-perfect matchfor the existing theatrical widescreenaspect ratio of 1.85:1 (though it may beargued that, to obtain the benefits of a4/3 relationship with 4:30, 16:9, lessthan 4% smaller, might have been chosen even if the desired aspect ratio were1.85:I).

The polyscreen and MPIP advantages of 16:9 may also have beenoveremphasized. While it is true thatonly 16:9 yields a polyscreen of twelve4:3 images and an MPIP of 3, Fig. 6indicates some poly screen and MPIPpossibilities of the 2: I and 5:3 aspect

ratios, and Table 1 shows that there aremany other possibilities.

Still more combinations are possibleif there are multiple columns of MPIPor if the images are not contiguous onthe screen. Though it has a 16:9 screen,for example, a recent RCA televisionreceiver allows up to five MPIPimages, not merely three."

The display-memory-size benefits of16:9 HDTV are also predicated on thevery specific requirement of doublingthe 720 active horizontal pixels of ITUR Rec. 601 for a widescreen display. Ifthe common practice of using 704 pixels to represent the picture width is considered instead, even a 1.85: I displaycan use common memory devices(twice 704 divided by 4/3 is 1056;1056 2 times 1.85 is 2,063,002, wellwithin the 2-Mpixel limit of2,097,152). Furthermore, while the1920 active pixels/line of some 16:9HDTV systems have a very simplerelationship to the 720 active pixels ofRec. 60 I, there is no such simple relationship between 1080 active scanninglines and the active scanning lines ofeither 525/59.94 or 625/50 televisionsystems. Even if only 480 active linesare considered for 525/59.94 instead ofthe more traditional 483 or 484, theresulting simple relationship, 9:4, is different from the horizontal relationship.If a relationship with Rec. 60 I isignored, a 2:1 display offers a perfectmatch to 2-Mpixel memories (2048 x1024), albeit with somewhat less vertical resolution than 1080 active lines.

Benefits derived from 3-perf production have also been questioned. The 3perf format has been said to be potentially more unsteady than 4-perf, tooffer poorer audio frequency response,and to require difficult projector conversion." For the moment, it also hasadditional costs associated with itsbeing a nonstandard format."

A rarely discussed issue is associatedwith the concept of using identicalscanning characteristics in both anequal-area shoot-and-protect production format and a display. In the case of16:9, for example, the shoot-and-protect system would allow the extractionof a 2.35: I image with 25% nonactionarea at the sides or a 1.33:I image with25% nonaction area at the top and bottom. A 16:9 display occupying only theaction area would be perfectly framed,



Figure 6. Alternative MPIP and polyscreen.

with zero "fluff." If, however, the camera and display have identical scanningcharacteristics, the display cannot beperfectly framed in the action reticule;it must occupy the entire aperture andwill, therefore, suffer 43% nonactionarea - considerably more than either a4:3 or a 2.35:1 display.

This problem is not specific to the16:9 aspect ratio, only to the concept ofan equal-area shoot-and-protect production system sharing scanning characteristics with a display. Even the 4:3aspect ratio suffers similarly in somefilm shoot-and-protect systems."

That shoot-and-protect display scanning issue notwithstanding, for any orall of its benefits, real or imagined, andperhaps for other reasons (such as political or economic considerations), within a few years after its 1984 introduction as a production technique, the 16:9aspect ratio had been adopted forATV/HDTV display not only in theU.S. (except for some HDTV transmission system proponents) but also inEurope and Japan, where differentaspect ratios had originally been proposed.":" By 1994, 16:9 appeared to beuniversally accepted, not only forHDTV but also for widescreen video ofordinary resolution in such systems asthe European PALplus and JapaneseClearvision.

Questioning 16:9In April 1994, however, the

American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) presented positions onaspect ratio of advanced television


SMPTE TUTORIAL

---

(ATV) distribution and displays at theArtists Rights Symposium, portions ofwhich are excerpted here:

"While the ASC would prefer anaspect that matches our current widestscreen production standard of 2.40: I,we realize that practical engineeringand manufacturing requirements mustalso be considered. Thus, the ASCadvocates 2: I as an adequate, if notideal, standard ratio." [Author's note:The 2: I expansion of the current 35mmanamorphic projection aperture yields a2.4: I image rather than 2.35: I, and theproposed anamorphic theatrical projection system with a 1.5:1 squeeze/expansion, therefore, now yields a 1.8: Iimage rather than 1.76:1.]38

"Every original film work would bemastered and distributed over U.S.ATV (Advanced Television) in itsnative aspect ratio. This might be 2.4: I,2.2:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, or 1.33:1 (or1.78:1 ifin the current HDTV format)."

"The ATV system should bedeployed so that all ATV recei vershave a 2.0:1 aspect ratio, at any and allstandards at which they mightoperate.'?"

It is worth separating this positioninto the two parts that affect the choiceof a 16:9 aspect ratio. First, the ASCwould like all "films" (the term is clearly used loosely, since it is meant toinclude HDTV productions) masteredand distributed in the aspect ratio forwhich they were shot. Second, theywould like ATV receivers to have a 2:1aspect ratio display.

The first position, excluding any

economic issues that may be associatedwith it (from the mass manufacture ofsingle-aspect-ratio electronic imagersor from potentially increased bit ratesfor constant-vertical-resolution transmission of wider aspect ratios, forexample), is one that should clearly befavored by both filmmakers and viewers. Filmmakers have long complainedof the need to compromise their theatrical framing to accommodate television.v? Consumers are already beingoffered choices for aspect ratio accommodation in some displays andvideodiscs. The cable television channel American Movie Classics (AMC)currently offers its widescreen moviesin repeated showings on the same day,once in a pan-and-scan format and thefollowing time in letterbox; if ATVreceivers offered the capability of locally accommodating different aspectratios, consumers could opt for theirchoice at any time.

A digital transmission system, as issupposed to be used for HDTV, lendsitself to the encoding of movies in anyaspect ratio. A few bits can indicate toreceivers what the picture aspect ratiois as well as carrying any pan-and-scanor other accommodation informationthat the filmmaker, distributor, and/orprogrammer choose to offer. The display memory (necessary in the receiverfor inverse bit-rate reduction) can beread in whatever manner the viewerdesires, subject to the capabilities of theTV set, of course.

2:1The second ASC position, adopting a

2: I display aspect ratio, is not as obviously beneficial to either filmmakers orviewers. A 2: I display aspect ratiosolves none of the aspect ratio accommodation problems, except that itfavors the widest aspect ratios to thedetriment of narrower ones.

As was noted previously, a 2: Iaspect ratio either uses picture memory circuitry poorly or must use horizontal resolution lower than twice thatof digital component video. For anygiven screen width or diagonal measurement, a 2: 1 aspect ratio will provide a smaller image than will 16:9.Even a screen of equal area willappear shorter. Only a screen of equalheight will clearly be bigger, but, if itis direct-view picture-tube-based, it

465


SMPTE TUTORIAL

Table 1 - Polyscreen and MPIP Possibilities

will also be deeper, heavier, and moreexpensive.

The cost of direct-view picture tubedisplays is related to a number of factors. The costs of phosphor screens andshadow masks are related to their area.The cost of electron beam deflectioncircuitry is related to display width. Thecost of a glass bulb is related to its volume, a specification derived fromscreen area times depth, with depthbased on deflection, which is widthrelated. The overall display cost, therefore, is based somewhere between areaand width, or, roughly (for aspect ratiosgreater than 1:1), on diagonal measurement.

For any given diagonal measurement, the largest possible rectangulardisplay will be square. Narrower aspectratio displays (of 1:1 or greater) will belarger in area than wider ones. Table 2shows the combined effects of a fixeddiagonal-based screen size and "letterbox" image display on overall imagesize for five common motion pictureimage shapes (expressed as ratios toone, as is common currently in cinematography) and five common existingor proposed display aspect ratios(expressed as integer ratios, as is common in display engineering). The datahave been normalized so that a 1.33:1image on a 4:3 display is considered100%.

While the 2: 1 display provides thelargest 2.4: 1 and 2.2: 1 images, it provides the smallest 1.33:1 images. Thecenter column, representing the mostcommon U.S. theatrical film aspectratio of 1.85:1, indicates that not onlydoes a 16:9 display provide a muchlarger image than would a 2:1 displaybut even a 3:2 display provides a larger

Table 2 - Image Sizes for Letterboxed Equal-Diagonal Displays

Display

4:3 100% 80% 72% 61% 56%

3:2 85% 87% 78% 66% 60%

5:3 73% 92% 83% 70% 64%

16:9 67% 83% 86% 72% 66%

2:1 55% 69% 77% 76% 69%

1:33:1 1.66:1 1.85:1 2.2:1 2.4:1

Image


Table 4 shows display resolutionreduction caused by letterbox and fixeddisplay memory size. As in Table 3,screens may be of any size. For a fixedmemory size, a narrower aspect ratiooffers more vertical resolution and awider aspect ratio offers more horizontal resolution. The data have been normalized so that the narrowest image(1.33:1) on the narrowest display (4:3)shows zero vertical resolution reductionand the widest image (2.4: 1) on thewidest display (2: I) shows zero horizontal resolution reduction.

Again, the 2: I display offers the bestresults for 2.2: 1 and 2.4: 1 images andthe worst for 1.33:I images. Again, the16:9 display offers the best results for1.85:I images.

Tables 2,3, and 4 all show, as probably seems obvious, a perfect fit for1.33:1 images on 4:3 display screens.There is a very large installed base of4:3 displays in TV sets and computermonitors worldwide, as well as verylarge libraries of roughly 1.33: I moving image programming - virtually allpre-1953 movies, virtually all televisionprogramming to date, virtually allnontheatrical films, and many post1953 movies. In 1958, 750 pre-1948movies were sold by Paramount toMeA for $50 million; in 1994, anotherParamount transfer, this time of 4,0004:3 TV episodes (as well as featurefilms and other desirable properties)was valued at $9.6 billion."

If ATV brings a wider aspect ratiointo the home, it may be expected thatsports coverage, shopping programs,game and talk shows, other entertainment programming, and even newscoverage will eventually migrate to thewider aspect ratio. The older moviesand television programs that form the

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

MPIP

2

6

12

20

30

42

56

72

letterboxed 1.85:1 image than would a2: I display. As it was intended to do,the 16:9 ratio provides approximatelyequal-sized images for both extremesof image shape.

A nonpicture-tube-based displaytechnology might not have a diagonalsize-related cost basis, however. Tables3 and 4 compare the same image anddisplay shapes for screens of any size.

Table 3 shows the amount of screenarea left blank to fit images into displays of a different aspect ratio. Thesame figures indicate the amount ofresolution reduction from the maximum that the display can deliver. Theboxed area indicates reduction of vertical resolution (traditionalletterbox); theunboxed area indicates reduction ofhorizontal resolution (blank screenareas at the sides of the image).

Again, the 2:1 display offers the bestresults for the widest aspect ratioimages and the worst results for thenarrowest. Again, for 1.85: I images,the 16:9 display is superior to all others. Again, the 16:9 display providesroughly equivalent results for theextremes of image shape.

Polyscreen:1

2.67

2

1.78

1.67

1.6

1.56

1.52

1.5

24

18

16

15

14.4

14

13.7

13.5

:98:3

2:1

16:9

5:3

8:5

14:9

32.21

3:2

Aspect Ratio

466


SMPTE TUTORIAL

Table 3 - Blank Screen Area and Screen-Based Resolution Reduction for Letterboxed Displays

Display4:3 0% 20% 28% 39% 44%

3:2 11% 10% 19% 32% 38%

5:3 20% 0% 10% 24% 31%

16:9 25% 7% 4% 19% 26%

2:1 34% 17% 8% 9% 17%

1.33:1 1.66:1 1.85:1 2.2:1 2.4:1Image

Table 4 - Fixed Memory SIze Resolution ReductIon for Letterboxed DIsplays

VertIcal Resolution ReductIon HorIzontal ResolutIon ReductIon

Display

0% 20% 28% 39% 44% 4:3 18% 18% 18% 18% 18%

6% 15% 24% 36% 41% 3:2 23% 13% 13% 13% 13%

11% 11% 19% 32% 38% 5:3 27% 9% 9% 9% 9%

13% 13% 17% 30% 36% 16:9 29% 12% 6% 6% 6%

18% 18% 18% 26% 32% 2:1 34% 17% 8% 0% 0%

1.33.1 1.66:1 1.85:1 2.2:1 2.4:1 Image 1.33:1 1.66:1 1.85:1 2.2:1 2.4:1

basis of much of the programming ofsuch channels as American MovieClassics, Nick-at-Nite, and TurnerClassic Movies will remain 1.33: I,however.

Table 2 also shows that, of commonexisting or proposed display shapes, 4:3offers the largest screen for a given costfor technologies with cost related todiagonal measurement, such as directview picture tubes. A transition of television to any widescreen aspect ratiowill introduce problems relative to theexisting 4:3 display and 1.33: I programming bases: Thus, it has beenargued that a 4:3 aspect ratio should beretained for ATV displays:'

Unfortunately, as Tables 2, 3. and 4show, a 4:3 display offers the smallestimages, the lowest resolution, and thegreatest blank screen area when displaying the widest aspect ratio imagery.Since it is unlikely that homes willhave different ATV displays optimizedfor different aspect ratios of programming, it seems that a compromise display aspect ratio may be desirable.

Using the same formula from whichthe 16:9 compromise aspect ratio wasderived, 2: I may be seen to be justunder the ideal equal-area compromise


aspect ratio for the extremes of 1.85: Ion the narrow end and 2.2: I on thewide end. Those are the widest commonly projected nonanamorphic 35mmtheatrical aspect ratio and the normal70mm theatrical projection aspect ratio,respectively. While more favorable to2.2: I and 2.4: I image aspect ratios thanis 16:9, 2: I is less favorable to the mostcommon theatrical 1.85: I and 1.66: Iaspect ratios" and is much less favorable to the 1.33: I aspect ratio. It would,therefore, be an appropriate compromise display format only if there issome reason to favor the 2.2: I and2.4: I aspect ratios over 1.85: 1, 1.66: 1,and 1.33: I.

It has been reported in the past thatwider aspect ratio films (2.4: 1) cammore theatrical revenues than otherfilms." That is definitely 110t the case atthe time of this writing. The highestgrossing film of all time, as reported byVariety in its February 20-26, 1995,issue, is E.T. - The Extraterrestrial(1982), a movie shot nonanamorphicallyon 35mm film and intended for projection at an aspect ratio not exceeding1.85: I. The second highest grossingfilm of all time, Jurassic Park (1993),was made the same way. The Variety

list of the highest grossing films of alltime may be compared with a listing oftheir aspect ratios." Such a comparisonindicates that while many of the top100 films were made at a 2.4: I aspectratio, they account for much less theatrical revenues than do the narroweraspect ratio films on the list. Lists ofthe top-grossing films of 1994 in bothdomestic and foreign markets in theFebruary 13-19, 1995, issue of Varietyyield similar results.

While a 2: 1 aspect ratio is morefavorable to the 2.4: I theatrical aspectratio than is 16:9 or any narroweraspect ratio, it does not match it in thesame way that a 4:3 display matches1.33:1 programming. The 2:1 (16:8)aspect ratio is, in fact, considerablycloser to 16:9 than it is to 2.4:1.Whatever its disadvantages, a hypothetical 2.4: I display would at least havethe advantage of allowing side panelsor drapes to mask unused portions of ascreen for all but the few movies thatwere wider than that aspect ratio. On a2: I display, however, side maskingfails for the many 2.2: 1 or 2.4: Imovies, which would have to be shownin a letterbox format if their aspect ratiowere to be preserved.

467


SMPTE TUTORIAL

and a quadratic equation is the result:

fering by just I%, but, according to thepaper, having no preferred aspect ratiobetween them."

where x is the larger section of a lineand y is the smaller section. If thewhole line is said to have a unit length,then

If the smaller section becomes theheight of a rectangle and the larger thewidth, the resulting rectangle has anaspect ratio of approximately 1.618: I

(2)

(4)

(3)

x'+x-J = 0

x+y= 1

x/y = (x+y)/x

The Golden RatioOne of the most powerful aspect

ratios listed was 1.618: I, a roundedversion of a mathematical relationshiptech nically cal1ed the di vision inextreme and mean ratio (DEMR) butmore commonly referred to as theGolden Section." It is worth notingsome of the many names used for thisquantity, because they appear frequently in the history of moving pictureaspect ratios.

Names for DEMR can be created bycombining the adjectives continuous,divine, golden, medial, or sacred withthe nouns cut, mean, number, proportion, quotient, ratio, rectangle, or section. It has also been called simply thesection, the jewel ofgeometry, the middle and two ends, the proportional division, the whirling squares, and themore bizarre he who understands,Faratra, phi. and Victoria. Dynamicsymmetry, a term that has been incorrectly used to identify DEMR, refers toan aspect ratio of a rectangle that cannot be divided into squares. While aGolden Rectangle meets the criterion ofdynamic symmetry, so do rectangleswith aspect ratios of the square roots of2, 3, or 5, all within the range of aspectratios from 4:3 to 2.35: I. In contrast,4:3,3:2,5:3, 16:9, 1.85:1,2:1,2.2:1,and 2.4: I do not meet the requirementsof dynamic symmetry.

The principle of DEMR is quite simple. A line is cut in such a way that theratio of the whole line to the larger section is the same as that of the largersection to the smaller section. This maybe expressed mathematically as

ratio said to be as narrow as1.15: I '145.46.47While a linear compromisehetween the two new extremes remainsncar 2: I (1.95: I), an equal-area compromise reverts, again, to 16:9 (1.78: I).

History of the Perfect AspectRatio

Since accommodation of differentaspect ratios necessarily adverselyaffects the images involved, perhaps itwould be worth ignoring issues of compromise between existing aspect ratiosand searching for an ideal aspect ratio.In addition to references already listed,there is a wealth of literature on the history of widescreen movies.":" Most references attribute the impetus behind thecurrent era of widescrecn movies tocompetition with television. In otherwords, the problem of showingwidescreen movies on television wasintentional. A study of the literatureindicates some other unusual facts:

• Widescreen motion pictures arc atleast a century old.

• The impetus for many widescreendevelopments had nothing to do with apreference for a wider aspect ratio.

• The terms wide and widescreenhave not always indicated a wideraspect ratio.

• Cinematographers and directorshave not always favored aspect ratioseven as wide as 2: I.

It might be useful to start at thebeginning, but it is difficult to saywhere that beginning is. Motion pictureantecedents have been traced to ancientRome55,56 and even curlier." Sinceaspect ratios are as old as rectangularimagery, however, if there is a humanpreference for a particular aspect ratio,that preference may be considerablyolder than motion pictures.

A technical paper in 1931 traced anindication of aspect ratio preference toan Egyptian papyrus document dated to4750 B.C.;5H that paper was referenced(indirectly) in a debate about the appropriate aspect ratio for advanced television that took place in 1940.59 Anothertechnical paper, this time referenceddirectly in the same debate, listed 16especially "powerful aspect ratios"between 1.236: I and 3.618: I in addition to some others that were merelypowerful. Both 1.309: I and 1.809: I fellinto the most powerful category; so did2.4472: I and 2.472: I. aspect ratios dif-

Part of the dissatisfaction with 16:9may be related to the fact that the ratiowas introduced as a shoot-and-protectproduction format, and the concept ofshoot and protect involves cropping ofnonaction area. It has been suggestedthat the use of 16:9 as a display formatprecludes the use of letterbox to preserve the composition of material shotin a wider aspect ratio. That is, ofcourse, not true. Any of the aspect ratioaccommodation techniques describedin this paper can be used on displays ofany aspect ratio. A 2: I display aspectratio will be no more free of accommodation techniques than is a 16:9 display, and the 2: I display will have touse those techniques to a greater extenton 1.33: I, 1.66: I, and 1.85: I programming than will a 16:9 display.

The ASC call for a specific 2: I display aspect ratio appears to have originated in a presentation by the cinematographer Vittorio Storaro at a formats seminar conducted by theTechnology Council of the MotionPicture/Television Industries onJanuary 29, 1994. Seeking standardization on a single aspect ratio, Storarosuggested a linear compromise betweenHDTV at approximately 1.8: I and70mm theatrical projection at 2.2: 1.41

Using linear averaging rather thanequal area could be one reason to rejecta 16:9 aspect ratio, but again, a linearaverage between the same limits of1.33: I and 2.35: I is just over 1.84: I,not 2: I. Another option would bechanging the limits. Given the vastlibraries of 1.33: I programming, itseems unreasonable not to consider thatratio, but the upper limit could beextended to the 2.75: I aspect ratio ofsuch movies as the 1965 epic, TheGreatest Story Ever Told (because suchmovies were meant to be seen theatrically on curved screens, it is difficult toattribute a particular aspect ratio tothem; the chord and the arc of thescreen will yield different figures forwidth)." An equal-area compromisebetween those aspect ratios would bejust over 1.91: I; a linear compromisewould be just over 2.04: I.

If the few movies with 2.75: I aspectratios are to be considered, however,what about those created in the yearsbetween the advent of the sound trackand the institution of the Academyaperture in 1932, films with an aspect



(the absolute value of one solution ofthe equation); if the opposite is done,the resulting rectangle has an aspectratio of approximately 0.618: I (theother solution). Both shapes are GoldenRectangles.

The mathematical principle ofDEMR has been known for centuries.In the 19th century, Gustav Fechnerconducted experiments to find outwhether there was a most preferredaspect ratio, and his results seemed toshow a preference in the vicinity of theGolden Ratio." A noted physicist andsti mulus/sensation investigator,Fechner is considered a pioneer of psychophysics and contributed much to thetechnologies of both film and video,including the principle that, within certain limits, the intensity of visual stimulation increases as the logarithm of thestimulus (a principle reiterated frequently in the technical literature),"

After Fechner's publication of aseemingly preferred aspect ratio, whatappeared to be evidence of that ratiowas said to be found in works of artdating back to ancient times, and suchreports appeared (and continue toappear) in the literature of aesthetics,architecture, art, mathematics, perception, and psychology, e.g., "Much evidence of the conscious use of the proportions of Golden Rectangles can befound in early Greek art and architecture."?' Even one of the ATV systemsproposed to the Federal Communications Commission selected theGolden Section as its aspect ratio."

There appears to be a similarly largebody of literature debunking theGolden Ratio as an aesthetic preference, however. One researcher repeatedFechner's experiments and found thatthe supposed preference appeared to bean artifact of the experimental technique.?" Another found that any shapeeven vaguely near the Golden Ratiohad been considered to be evidence ofits use; he nevertheless acknowledgedthat the raw data "would supporthypotheses that suggest that preferredrectangles often have ratios associatedwith a spread of values containingpoints from the interval between 0.6and 0.7" [horizontally oriented ratiosbetween 1.43: I and 1.67: I].67

Indeed, there have been numerousexperiments performed with differenttechniques at different locations, and all


SMPTE TUTORIAL

seem to show a preference for an aspectratio in that range for still pictures." Fora "Wide Film" symposium conductedby the Technicians, Producers, andDirectors branches of AMPAS onSeptember 17, 1930, the Academy'sassistant secretary distributed a memorandum stating that "Howell andDubray, Lane, Westerberg, andDieterich agree that the most desirableproportions are those approximating1.618: I, which correspond to those ofthe so-called 'whirling square' rectangle (also known as the Golden Cut),based on the principles of dynamicsymmetry which have predominated inthe arts for centuries."

The director Sergei Eisensteinresponded in a speech at the meetingthat '''Predomination in the arts for centuries' should in itself be a cause for theprofoundest suspicion when applicationis considered to an entirely and basically new form of art, such as theyoungest art, the art of cinema."Eisenstein went on to point out that cinema is based on dynamics."

It is easy to see why a dynamicimage medium may elicit differentaspect ratio preferences from those of astatic image medium. A photograph ofa skyscraper may be appropriatelyframed in a vertical image format,while one of a python is more appropriately framed horizontally. In adynamic medium, however, a horizontal format can tilt down from the tip ofthe skyscraper to its base; the verticalformat can pan the python from tip oftongue to tip of tail. Furthermore, acharacter may walk into or across aframe or may rise from a chair ordescend stairs. It would seem important, therefore, to study aspect ratiopreferences specifically for movingimage media; unfortunately, it is difficult to find such studies.

Static vs. Dynamic Image AspectRatio Preferences

It has been stated that there is a preference for wider aspect ratios in moving image media, even if that meanssacrificing resolution." A classic case isthe Techniscope film format, developedby Technicolor Italiana in 1960, essentially dividing a standard film frameinto two much wider aspect ratioframes, thereby losing half the available vertical resolution.'>"> Although

used by a number of directors, including Sergio Leone and George Lucas,Techniscope is not commonly usedtoday.

The previously mentioned 1994Technology Council formats seminaroffers anecdotal evidence of aspectratio preference for moving pictures.As reported in International Photo-grapher, "The votes were consistent. Theaudience always preferred the widestformat with the largest image area.,,71The largest image area presented, however, was the 70mm format at 2.2: I,while the widest was anamorphic35mm at 2.4: I. Thus, the largest imagearea was not the widest; yet, accordingto that report and others, the largest waspreferred.

The test did not include IMAX, withan image area much larger than anything tested but one of the narrowestaspect ratios (1.43: I ).72 From IMAXand other formats, there is anecdotalevidence that viewers may prefer narrower aspect ratios when they are presented on screens very much largerthan those of wider aspect ratios.

In a staged event held at Radio CityMusic Hall in April 1954, Paramountwas able to demonstrate its relativelynarrower aspect ratio VistaVision format very favorably by comparing itwith CinemaScope's wider aspect ratioprojected on a smaller area.' (It'simpossible to assign a specific aspectratio to VistaVision because Paramount allowed "a great deal of latitudewith respect to aspect ratio. Our pictures can be played in anything from 4to 3 up to 2 to I in aspect ratio.")"Much later, the author's contemporaryreport of a demonstration of the narrower aspect ratio FuturVision 360 filmformat at the SMPTE convention onOctober 28, 1986, stated, "As theFuturVision screen is lowered after thedemonstration, the normal, wide theaterscreen behind it looks as tiny as a television set."74

A more formal study found a clearpreference for 16:9 moving imagesover 4:3, even when the 16:9 imagesare smaller." Unfortunately, only thosetwo aspect ratios were tested, so whilethe study may show a preference forwidescreen imagery, it docs not necessarily identify the preferred aspectratio. It is also possible that the programming selected affected the out-

469


come. The movies chosen were all saidto have been selected partly on thebasis of their having been shot withboth theatrical presentation and television in mind. Thus, shoot and protectwas used, with key action likely to bekept within the confines of the wideraspect ratio. The preference shown forthe wider imagery may have been apreference for less fluff in the frame; itis also conceivable that it was a preference for something different from ordinary television.

An unpublished study conducted forPhilips using moving images found thataspect ratio viewing preference wasinfluenced slightly by the originallyintended aspect ratio. It was also influenced slightly by viewer habit (TVviewers who saw few movies preferrednarrower aspect ratios; movie goerswho watched little TV preferred wideraspect ratios) and by viewing angle."The previously mentioned study foundno relationship between aspect ratiopreference and screen size and contradictory preferences based on viewingdistance (screen size and viewing distance are the only factors affectingviewing angle)." A third study found acorrelation between preferred screensizes and viewing distances but one thatcontradicts the results of the other studies." The research for this paper foundno clear indication of any particularaspect ratio preference for movingimages.

The AMPAS meeting of directors,cinematographers, producers, engi-

SMPTE TUTORIAL

neers, and technicians in 1930 was heldto determine the best action to take onaspect ratio following the introductionof the sound track. The 4:3 35mmframe, essentially unchanged since its1889 introduction in the EdisonKinetoscope, was suddenly narrowedby the addition of a sound track. Atapproximately the same time, numerous widescreen film techniques werebeing tried. Virtually the entirety of theJanuary 1930 issue of the Journal ofthe SMPE was devoted to the topic ofaspect ratio. No one, it seemed, likedthe newer, squarer ratio formed by thesound track, and this seemed an opportune time to change it to somethingeven wider than 4:3.

Communication No. 410 from theKodak Research Laboratories wasreprinted in the Journal as "RectangleProportions In Pictorial Composition."The paper came up with yet anotherterm for 1.618:1, "the Golden Rule,"and it performed statistical analyses onsome 250 museum paintings, specifically excluding those with verticallyoriented aspect ratios. A frequencycurve was plotted, similar to that inFig. 7.

The thrust of the paper was to haveprovided impetus for a change inmotion picture aspect ratio, but theaverage of the aspect ratios shown wasjust over 1.4:I, and by far the greatestfrequencies noted were in the range ofthe presound-track 4:3 aspect ratio."Perhaps curiously, the exact same technique, averaging the aspect ratios of

museum artworks, was used byParamount's Lorenzo del Riccio to justify the creation of a 1.85:1 aspectratio." The differences between the twostudies may be related to the artworksselected and/or the measurement techniques used. The inclusion of pictureframes results in a narrower aspectratio, as shown in Fig. 8.

Another paper in the January 1930Journal was from the Bell & HowellCamera Co. and suggested three different film widths, all with a 5:3 aspectratio." That proposal was particularlysignificant coming from an organization that previously "had an ironcladcompany policy to refuse to manufacture, modify, or repair any cinemachine not of the standard 35 mmgauge.'?'

That 5:3 ratio was also referred to asthe Golden Rule, a fact explained bythe Academy's memorandum: "Forsimplicity, the ratios 5:3 (which equals1.667:1) or 8:5 (equaling 1.6:1) aregenerally advocated instead of1.618: 1."69 Part of the current aspectratio debate seems to involve nomenclature," so it is worth pointing out thatcinematographers (even ASC members) frequently referred to ratios as 5:3or 8:5 (or 3:5 and 5:8) at the time of the1930 debates." It is true that a ratiorelating to one provides a more immediate sense of the shape of an aspectratio than does an integer ratio like 4:3,16:9, or 64:27; there is a small technical difference, however, between1.33:I and 4:3 and an even larger dif-

Rectangle Proportions In CompositionJSMPE Jan. 1930, p. 37

35

30

25f \

\\'-

20

15

10

5

o1

._1 •... • • • ,. ..',"..., . .-=1=- -+----t---+----+---4-----. +- .0'. ··t - _ ·t- • I ~". '-+

1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95

Aspect Ratio

•I

2

Figure 7. Aspect ratio frequency in museum paintings.



SMPTE TUTORIAL

Inner Aspect Ratio 2: I

Outer Aspect Ratio 5:3

Figure 8. Picture frame effect on aspect ratio.

ference between 1.66:1 and 5:3. Again,circuit design also commonly requiresinteger factors for multiplication ordivision.

Perhaps the most urgent paper in theJanuary 1930 Journal was fromAMPAS. It described a situation inwhich standardization had brokendown, and both theater owners andmovie studios were taking matters intotheir own hands. Nine different projection apertures and 11 differentviewfinder reticles were noted to be inuse, none matching any standard, andmany with different aspect ratios."

The stage seemed to be set for thefirst major change in motion pictureaspect ratio. Heads and feet weresometimes being chopped off by arbitrary projection apertures that variedas much as 14% from the standard.There were many proponents of anaspect ratio approximating the GoldenSection and some for aspect ratioseven wider. Eisenstein's call at theAcademy symposium for a "DynamicSquare" has been misinterpreted as alone call for square imagery. Instead,Eisenstein wanted a square frame intowhich filmmakers could place anychosen aspect ratio, whether verticalor horizontal." D. W. Griffith in theU.S. and Germaine Dulac in Francehad previously masked images tohighlight certain areas and, well afterthe Academy symposium, Eisenstein'sdream was realized in the SovietUnion's Vario film systems, the mostflexible of which, Vario-70, could deal


with any aspect ratio from 0.46: I to2.35: I. A short film sponsored by theBritish Film Institute, The Door in theWall (1955), later also made use ofvarying aspect ratios, both horizontaland vertical, in a single movie.'>"

4:3The amazing result of all the aspect

ratio discussions circa 1930 was theAcademy aperture, standardized bySMPE in 1932, based on the desires ofAMPAS. The projection aperture wasprecisely 11:8 (1.375: 1), very close tothe presound-track 4:3"3 (it has sincechanged to 1.37:1).39 It was not the firsttime the roughly 1.33: 1 aspect ratiowould survive a challenge, and itwouldn't be the last. It is difficult toexplain why AMPAS and SMPEreverted to 1.375: 1, especially sinceprojection focal lengths and apertureshad to be changed anyway. It may havebeen the case that 11:8 was the onlyshape on which agreement could bereached (both AMPAS and SMPE hadpreviously tentatively decided on 4:3,84but SMPE wanted a firm decision fromproducers)," and agreement on something was certainly necessary, as anarticle by an ASC member in the 1931Journal noted." That article called fora 4:3 aperture, despite its author's previously expressed preference for theGolden Section."

The widescreen historian JohnBelton suggests that knowledge of theGolden Section helped create the 4:3motion picture aspect ratio in the first

place. William Dickson, in developingfor Thomas Edison the first motion picture camera to use flexible transparentfilm, ordered film 1.375 in. wide(almost 3 mm), because that could beobtained by slitting existing photographic film stock down the middle.Running the film vertically and perforating it dictated an image width of Iin. The height of the image was not dictated mechanically, however.Dickson's probable desire for theGolden Section as an aspect ratio in1889 was tempered by another desire towork in 1/4-in. picture increments.Therefore, the first movie frame, 1 in.by 3/4 in., 4:3, was as close as he couldget to 1.618:1.2•

87

Unfortunately, some parts of thehypothesis seem weak. Dickson did,indeed, report increasing picture size in1/4-in. increments," but his perforations appeared 64 times/ft, or every3/16 in., proving that he worked inincrements other than 114-in. As far aspicture size is concerned, Edison's firstpatent caveat, submitted in 1888,describes images just 1/32-in. in size;the third caveat specifies lI8-in.images."

Had Dickson felt strongly enoughabout the Golden Section, he could easily have masked the height of the imageto that ratio. If that would be considered a waste of film, he could have, ashas more recently been suggested.f-"made images three perforations highinstead of four, thus saving a great dealof film. Though it would have requireda different design, the film could alsohave been moved horizontally throughthe camera aperture (as in Fear's SuperPictures, Glamorama, VistaVision,Technirama, and IMAX, for example)"instead of vertically, thereby removingthe I-in. width restriction.

Belton suggests that Dickson mayhave been influenced by OuomarAnschutz,' whose 1887 animated photography display system used largetransparencies in a 3:4 aspect ratio (theopposite of 4:3).13 One might then question why Anschutz selected 3:4. It mayhave had to do with the shape of hisapparatus or with the recurring ancientPythagorean 3-4-5 right triangle (a loopof flexible material 12 units of lengthlong, with each unit marked, can beused to create a perfect right anglerepeatedly, a principle that was used in

471


SMPTE TUTORIAL

Figure 9. Balcony overhang screen height limitation.

Bakonv

palaces, the balcony problem became aserious issue. Today, however, balconies are becoming ever more rare,removing perhaps the major reason forthe advent of wider aspect ratios.Belton notes the change in subheadingsof his last chapter, "The Return of theNickelodeon," regarding multiplex theater complexes with small auditoriums,and "The Return of the Peepshow,"regarding video.'

There were also supposed economicconsiderations pushing a wider aspectratio. "Though the opinions of cinematographers were not canvassed, artdirectors favored the wider frame as itmeant they did not have to build sets ashigh, and production managers favoredit because it was felt the larger, clearerimages would eliminate the need forcloseups and the additional time toshoot them.?" Even today, it hasbecome necessary to point out thataspect ratio does not determine theheight of a scene being shot."

Similar arguments have been madeabout video production in a high-definition, wider aspect ratio format - thatit will be possible to use fewer camerasand less editing. Like the impetus created by balconies, the impetus created byany real or imagined economic benefitsassociated with widescreen productionhas also vanished, as the publicityabout 1995's record-cost widescreen(1.85:1) Waterworld indicates.

Visual Aspect RatioPeriodically, during aspect ratio

debates, allusions have been made tothe human visual system - that thereis something about it that would favor

AhsoluteScreenHeightLimit

L---------============ Viewer

tion, camera and projector mechanicaldesign, and, if the theater could accommodate it, even a larger image."Similar benefits remain true today forlarger film formats." Another drivingfactor for wider film width had nothingto do with pictures; the wider the soundtrack, the higher the sound quality (aposition disputed, however, at the 1930Academy symposium)."

The term wide film was clearlydefined in an Academy publication:"Wide Film has a width greater thanthe standard 35mm."9<1 By that definition, current scope movies are not widefilm.

There are also references to widescreens that indicate simply largerimages, not necessarily with a wideraspect ratio.v":" A publication of theNational Association of TheatreOwners states, '''Wide-screen' becamethe industry watchword for an array offilmmaking techniques and projectionsystems that delivered high, wide, andmighty images that dwarfed the typical16-foot by 20-foot theatre screen of theday" [emphasis added]."

Why WideThere were, however, considerations

favoring wider projected aspect ratios.Key among those was the architectureof the auditoriums in which movieswere projected, especially the existenceof balconies in movie theaters.~2,~3.9~.99.,oo

The overhanging balconies limitedsightlines from the rear of the auditorium, placing an absolute limit on pictureheight, as shown in Fig. 9. As movietheaters changed from small, singlelevel nickelodeons to huge, multilevel

the construction of the pyramids). The4:3 aspect ratio was attributed in 1940to the ancient Greeks."

There was a plethora of differentshapes for photography and animationprior to Dickson's 4:3, and there was asimilar plethora afterward. An 1899survey listed 89 different movie projection systems in its "Present-DayApparatus" section, many with different aspect ratios, then added another 56announced systems."

Even though they were using 35mmfilm, Auguste and Louis Lumierebegan with a 5:4 aspect ratio frame."For compatibility with Edison'smovies, they later adopted both a 4:3aspect ratio and the use of four perforations per side per frame. In 1898, however, when they developed the widestfilm motion picture format (75mm), forspecial projections at the ParisExhibition of 1900, they retained the4:3 aspect ratio, even though the camera, screen, and projector were allunique and needed no compatibilitywith anything else." Similarly, Maxand Emil Skladanowsky, independentof Edison compatibility and seeminglyindependent of mechanical requirements, adopted a 4:3 aspect ratio fortheir first Bioskop projection system."

One of the first post-Kinetoscopewide-aspect-ratio systems, the LathamEidoloscope (1895), was developed byDickson, who is said to have adopted awider film, frame, and aspect ratiospecifically to avoid infringing Edisonpatents.' Dickson may welI have soughtto avoid infringing aspects of Edison'spatent claims, but none of those claimsspecified any film size or aspect ratio."Other film systems developed at thetime - even those using wider filmdid not always have an aspect ratiowider than 4:3.lJ.~4"J4

There was a strong impetus for widerfilm (but not necessarily wider aspectratios) regardless of patent infringement issues. That impetus was therequirements of projection versus thoseof the "peep show" Kinetoscope viewers for which Dickson had first developed the 4:3 35mm format.

In an era of nitrate film stock, brightness could not be increased indefinitelywithout danger of fire; a larger frame,therefore, meant a brighter image. Alarger frame also offered benefits relatcd to jitter, resolution, lens magnifica-



one aspect ratio over another (separately from any psychological preferences). As is the case with the GoldenSection, however, arguments are oftenmade on both sides. One researcherfound that the maximum visual field isapproximately twice as wide as it ishigh," while another found it to beonly 1.6: I for the range captured bythe eyes individually and I: I for botheyes together.""

"A widely spread opinion has it thatthe screen with a horizontal location,with an aspect ratio of approximately1:2 [2: I] constitutes the optimum psychophysiological condition. Someauthors believe that such a screen format best satisfies the requirements of afull field of view for the two stationaryeyes. Such a conclusion is incorrect,however, because the field of distinctvision of the eye is equal to only 2 or 3degrees. It is only within this smallangle that the acuity of vision isapproximately 50-100%."102

The preceding appeared in theJournal of the SMPTE in 1969. Earlier,an article in Film Quarterly expressedsimilar views but expanded them toinclude wider visual fields, all the wayout to peripheral vision, and found thateven the widest screens stimulate onlya tiny portion of the visual field.'?'Another paper published in the SMPTEJournal found important contributionsto "sensation of reality" from a widefield display, however, and that paper,in part, forms the basis for the desirefor a wider aspect ratio for HDTV.'ll-'

Whether a sensation of reality isvaluable or not (a director/film-systeminventor recently suggested that it canactually interfere with traditional fictional filmmakingj.!" and regardless ofhow we see, the key to argumentsabout visual field is the fact that aspectratio has little or no effect on the retinalangle stimulated by an image. The horizontal visual field angle is determinedprimarily by the display width and theviewer's distance from it (there are alsooff-axis contributions); the verticalfield is determined by the same distance and the height of the screen. Theprinciple is similar to that used to arguethat aspect ratio is not a determinant ofscene width during shooting."

The BKSTS recommended theatricalseating plan has the front row no closerthan twice the screen width and the rear


I

SMPTE TUTORIAL

no farther than six widths. s That is amuch greater range than the differencein aspect ratios between 4:3 and 2.4: I.Wide angular ranges can also be foundin a SMPTE theatrical presentationmanual,'?' and common theatrical practice exceeds both BKSTS and SMPTErecommendations. Television alsooffers widely varying visual angles.Though the preceding argument renders the fact irrelevant, it may be pointed out that the largest motion picturescreens have always had aspect ratiosless than 1.4:l.n , I07,1O"

Stimulated retinal angle is not theonly shape-related aspect of vision.Panel 2 of the National TelevisionSystem Committee (NTSC) in 1940 setitself the following task as its questionnumber 1: "Considering the shape andnature of the binocular visual field ofview, can there be deduced any preferred aspect ratio for television pictures? Are there any other theoreticalbases for the selection of any particularpreferred aspect ratio?'?"

The panel investigated various artforms and vision. In retinal isopters(intensity perception contours) an"aspect ratio" (a slight favoring of thehorizontal versus the vertical) betweenI: I and 1.2:I was found. In color fields,it was 1.3: I. Visual acuity offered thewidest "aspect ratio" disparity, between1.5: I and 1.6: I (a possible reason thatthe poor vertical resolution due to television's 2:1 interlace has not been asmuch of a problem as it might otherwise have been). An effect called thevertical-horizontal illusion was said tofavor 1.1: I, and field of fixation (saidto be related to eye movement) 1.2: I.No other vision-related differences thatwould suggest a bias for a particularaspect ratio were reported.

The NTSC also surveyed 31 existingtelevision systems around the world.There were one with an 11:8 aspectratio, 19 with 4:3, 7 with 5:4, one with6:5, 2 with 3:4, and one with anunspecified aspect ratio.

A clear preference for a horizontallyoriented aspect ratio was expressed:"Since most of man's activities occur ina horizontal plane, it is reasonable thatthere should be more freedom ofmotion horizontally than vertically."For aesthetic reasons, there were proponents on the NTSC of an aspect ratio ofthe Golden Section. That was consid-

ered too wasteful of the surface area ofthen-round picture tubes, however. Tocope with the roundness problem, thecommittee set itself an aspect ratio limitof 1.4:I.

In the end, having found no compelling physiological or aesthetic reason to adopt a widescreen format, theNTSC selected a 4:3 aspect ratio anddeclared that the controlling factor wasthat it "has all advantages found inmotion picture practice." The othercited advantage was that it "permitsmotion picture scanning withoutwaste." It was a slightly curious choice,given that the motion picture industryhad changed to 11:8 (the Soviet TVaspect ratio investigated by the NTSC)a decade earlier.

The Eventual Advent ofWidescreen

Today's problems of aspect ratioaccommodation might be even worsehad the NTSC met in 1929 instead of1940. A technical paper published thatyear!" also tried to rationalize an aspectratio for television and came to thesame conclusion as did the NTSC that motion picture practice should bethe deciding factor. Since, at the time,sound tracks had eaten into the 4:3frame, the selected aspect ratio was 6:5.

By the time of the sound-track crisis,circa 1930, wide-aspect-ratio film technology was relatively advanced. All ofthe techniques that would later be usedin the current widescreen era anamorphic squeezes and expansions,wider film, masked frames, multiplefilm strands - had been demonstrated,sometimes used for theatrical release,and generally found to be technicallysuccessful.

Even before the Academy's standardization on an 11:8 (1.375: I) aspectratio, however, the early era of widefilm appeared to be going nowhere.The earliest wide-aspect-ratio systems(e.g., Eidoloscope) failed either becausethey were technically flawed orbecause the Motion Picture Patents Co.dominated the industry.' As early as1913, however, it was suggested toexhibitors in Britain to try masking 4:3frames to create a wider aspect ratio.According to the article, "the result is abetter shaped picture - more artistic.The portion masked off will never bemissed."!" There does not appear to be

473


any evidence of mass defections from4:3 prior to the introduction of thesound track, however.

The I 920s saw a great deal of largescreen experimentation, each new formof which was supposed to herald a newera. Magnascope was simply an enlarging lens system. When dropped in frontof an ordinary projection lens, it causedthe picture to double linearly in sizeboth horizontally and vertically (andbecome much dimmer), retaining a 4:3aspect ratio or changing (through cropping) to whatever size the theater architecture would allow. It was said that itreceived a standing ovation when it wasfirst used."

The Fox Grandeur system was verymuch like today's 70mm systems. HenriChretien's Hypergonar anamorphiclens, used in production in 1927, is, infact, the same lens that madeCinemaScope possible (it had been usedto create both wider and narroweraspect ratios, the latter by rotating thesqueeze axis by 90°). The triptych presentation in Abel Gance's Napoleon(1927) was in some ways a precursor ofCinerama (though it wasn't used thesame way). In 1929, SMPE's StandardsCommittee considered four large-framewidescreen systems ranging in filmwidth from 35mm (horizontal film travel, 10 perforations/frame) to 70mm andin aspect ratio from 1.84:I to 2.27:1.111

(As it has been recently suggested that16:9 was developed as a linear compromise between the sound-track apertureand 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 as a compromisebetween 4:3 and 2.35: 1,112.113 it is worthnoting that 1.85: I was proposed as apreferred aspect ratio by two unrelatedorganizations long before the existenceof 2.35: 1.)

An article called "Wide Film" in The1931 Film Daily Yearbook of MotionPictures summarized the situation succinctly: "Dormant condition of the subject is attributable to two major reasons.First, the fact that recent-year experiments failed to convince producers thatenlarged pictures exercise a definiteinfluence at the box office. Second,gigantic costs would be involved inchanging the industry over to accommodate them."!" There was an economic depression, and the industry had justbegun to accommodate sound. Widefilm, and wider aspect ratios, wouldhave to wait.

474

SMPTE TUTORIAL

After the NTSC's standardization ofU.S. television (with a 4:3 aspect ratio)in 1941 and the end of World War II,the movie exhibition situation changed.Average weekly movie theater attendance in 1929, when SMPE'sStandards Committee met to discusswide film, was 95 million. In 1946,right after the war, it was about 90 million, about the same as in 1930, despitea growing population. By 1953, however, it had dropped to just 46 million, areduction generally attributed to television.!" The movie industry decided tofight the audience loss by offering sensations that could not be experiencedby watching television at home.!"

"From an historical point of viewboth the so-called 3-D - stereoscopicfilms - and wide screen pictures arenot new, dating back as they do to theearliest days of the art and industry.However, 3-D and wide screen picturesburst upon the American motion picture scene in the closing weeks of 1952with all the suddenness of new-foundcomets. Each week, indeed, almostevery day of 1953 was marked with anannouncement of a new method,process or scheme. "51 One suchprocess, Scanoscope, appliedCinemaScope's 2: I anamorphic principles to television.!" 3-D television wasalso broadcast at the time.I 17

It wasn't only 3-D and widescreenthat exhibitors tried. The 19th-centuryCineorama technique of completelyencircling viewers with synchronizedmovie screens was revived atDisneyland in 1955. Cinerama andTodd-AO both used higher frame rates(26 and 30 frames/sec, respectively).Those systems and others used deeplycurved screens, sometimes extendinginto the seating area. During a rockslidesequence in It Came From Outer Space(1953), some theatrical viewers werepelted with foam rocks. Vibratorsadministered "shocks" to some seatswhen viewers watched The Tingler(1959), a technique recently revived inone of the motion picture attractions atthe Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas (the sametheater's screen has a 0.5: I or 1:2aspect ratio). Behind the Great Wall(1959) was exhibited in Aromarama,featuring 72 different smells."

None of these techniques was able torestore movie attendance to pre-1950levels. In fact, it continued to fall,

reaching a low of 15,800,000 in 1971.Nevertheless, wide-aspect ratios, in atleast some versions (cropping andanamorphic projection, neither ofwhich was particularly expensive for anexhibitor to implement), endured, orperhaps more precisely, thrived (moreexpensive processes, such as three-projector Cinerama and the multichannelsound version of Cinema Scope wereless successful).

Recognizing a need for revenuesbeyond a limited market of speciallyequipped theaters, producers of moviesin some of the new systems also shotthe same scenes on ordinary 35mmframes, thereby eliminating aspect-ratio(and, in some cases, frame-rate) accommodation problems. Producers of ordinary 35mm movies, seeking to cash inon the attraction of widescreen, faced adifferent problem.

Shane (1953), composed and intended for viewing in a 1.375:I aspect ratio,was projected instead at 1.66:I when itwas premiered at Radio City MusicHall, a ratio Paramount found tolerable,as it involved cropping just 10% fromthe top and bottom of a 4:3 image.(Paramount adamantly opposed projection at any ratio greater than 2: I, evenfor VistaVision movies, which werecomposed for wider aspect ratios.)!"The Band Wagon (1953) fared less wellin cropped exhibition, with complaintsreceived about the loss of the dancingfeet of Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse.Nevertheless, cropping of existingmovies became common practice. "Thefact that many actors found their headschopped off and many dancers foundthat their feet were not on the screendidn't seem to bother the exhibitor orthe theater patron to any degree. Thepublic was fascinated with the widescreen.'?'

Distributors were very flexible aboutaspect ratio, lest they lose the businessof some exhibitors. A UniversalInternational promotional document forImitation of Life (1959) informsexhibitors "Aspect ratio: any ratio up to2:1."

Acceptance of cropping continues tothe present, regardless of the intendedor displayed aspect ratios. The mostcommonly noticed form of croppingoccurs when widescreen movies areshown on television screens via thetruncation method. A scope movie con-



verted to a flat print for theatrical projection at between 1.66: I and 1.85: 1also undergoes cropping, however,even though no video is involved. I?

Ordinary 4:3 U.S. television coverageof the 1992 World Series baseballchampionship was shown on the 10:3(3.33: I) Jumbotron screen of theToronto Skydome to accommodatefans. Although the uncropped picturewas available free of charge on broadcast television, viewers paid to watchthe cropped version in the stadium (ona giant screen but one with a smallvisual angle due to its great distancefrom viewers).

Filmmakers' Acceptance ofWidescreen

It is readily understandable why afilmmaker would not favor cropping.Even when cropping was not an issue,however, (here were initial objectionsto wide aspect ratios among cinematographers and directors.

Cinematographer Fred Westerbergactively opposed ratios as wide as 2: Iduring the sound-track aspect ratiodebates circa 1930. During the samedebates, cinematographer Karl Struss,who favored 5:3, said 2: I would resultin smaller images and its lack of proportional height was problematic; andJoseph Dubray, described as a "motionpicture engineer and erstwhile cameraman," said that the consensus inHollywood was that 2: I was "neitherpretty nor desirable.'?" More recently,cinematographer Lee Garmes said, "Ifound working in CinemaScope a horror - shallow focus, very wide angles,everyone lining up, awfuL,,119

Other cinematographers in the sameperiod had somewhat more forgivingcomments. Walter Lassally: "I think'scope is all right. I'm not mad about itpersonally, but it is suitable for certainsubjects. It's very good for outdoorsubjects, Westerns, scenes of epic proportions, but it's no good for intimatesubjects." Paul Beeson: "I think ifyou've got a very small intimate subject it's crazy doing it in Panavision;you're just wasting the process.Panavision is really for a large canvas.When you're in close-up all the timeit's very difficult to compose forPanavision. There's a lot of wastedspace on either side, but these difficulties can be overcome if the director


SMPTE TUTORIAL

requires this format, although I don'tthink the subject gains anything.,,40Lucien Ballard: "I like 1.75, 1.8, almostthe old screen ratio best.,,'2o

Director George Stevens was perhaps the most acerbic, referring to theCinemaScope aspect ratio as "a systemof photography that pictures a boa constrictor to better advantage than a man."He also provided the adage that "noscreen is larger than its smallest dimension."'"

In 1994, director Stanley Kubrickreleased a restored version of Dr.Strange/ave or: How I Learned to StopWorrying and Love the Bomb (1964).Film Forum in New York screened therelease in "the squarish 1.66: I ratioKubrick originally intended, with moredetail now visible at the top and bottomof the screen."!" As recently as 1995,Lassally wrote, "The adoption of, say,1.75: I as a universal new standard...would in my opinion greatly benefit theindustry as a whole."!"

Except for those in the precedingparagraph, however, it has been roughly 25 years since the most recent ofthose sentiments was expressed, and, asthe ASC's position on displays indicates, there has clearly been a shift ofposition. It was Stevens's Shane thathad been cropped at the beginning ofthe current widescreen era; he went onto direct (and produce) the very wideaspect ratio (2.75: I) epic The GreatestStory Ever To/d (1965).

Some of the unfavorable commentsmay be attributed simply to a change intraditional methods. In an article called"New Medium - New Methods,"Director Jean Negulesco wrote of hisexperiences with CinemaScope.'''Writing for the new wide screenshould be easy,' I told my script writer.'All you have to do is put your paper inthe typewriter sideways.' Well, hedidn't laugh either."

Henry Koster, director of the firstCinemaScope movie, The Robe (1953),said the process made "a director at lastfree of the camera" without having "toworry about 'dolly shots' and 'panshots' and 'boom shots' and all othercamera movements." Negulesco addedthat Cinema-Scope freed a directorfrom concern about cuts, dissolves,closeups, and inserts." Clearly, evensuch favorable comments have aged;today, scope cameras are dollied,

panned, and boomed often, and theresulting shots are intercut, dissolved,and inserted; there are even widescreencloseups.

The Perfect Aspect RatioIt is normal for opinions and tech

niques to change with time. Standardization of a particular display shape,however, especially when that shape isimposed upon a large glass bulb, locksin a specific preference well into thefuture. Therefore, it is worth very carefully considering any proposed displayaspect ratio for ATVIHDTV.

IMAX was designed originally toallow nine 35mm film images toappear simultaneously on a singlescreen.!" and it retains its basic nonwidescreen camera aperture" (its projector aperture has been variouslyspecified, and its screens vary, too, butthey are usually near 4:3 and are nevereven as wide as 1.66:1).72 It is anextremely popular film format.?' andhas recently added feature-length andstar-cast fictionall dramatic movies.Does this indicate a trend towards narrower aspect ratios in motion picturefilm? Should such a trend be considered?

HDTV is said to have a need to beinteroperable with other media. Themost common computer picture tubedisplay shape is 4:3, though such displays vary between 1:1 and 1.5:1 (andmay be rotated 90 0 to create aspectratios less than I: I). In print, thefamiliar U.S. 8-1/2 x l l-in. piece ofpaper has an aspect ratio of 0.77: lor,rotated 90 0

, 1.29: I; its internationalcounterpart, the A4 size, is 210 x 297mm, with an aspect ratio of 0.71: I, or,rotated 900

, 1.41:1 (21/2:1). In a bookon the history of papermaking, there isno evidence of any aspect ratio of 2: 1or greater.!" Photographic aspectratios commonly used (ignoring vertical orientations) range from a minimum of 1:1 to a maximum of 1.5:1,except for rarer panoramic formats.!"

Here is a list of some currently usedor proposed aspect ratios for movingimage media displays:

• Infinite. This is one way todescribe the cylindrical surround theaters such as those found at Disneyamusement parks. It seems highlyimpractical for a home advanced television display.

475


• 48:9 (5.33:1). This is the ratio ofToshiba's HD Horizon system, usingthree 16:9 projected HDTV imagesplaced end to end. The first use of thesystem was documentation of therestored Michelangelo-painted ceilingof the Sistine Chapel.

• 4:1. This ratio is commonly created when three 4:3 images are combined, as at the Geographica video theater in Washington, D.C. In the TokyoAudio Visual Center SuperwideVision system, the combination isinternal to a video camera, so a singlelens may be used.

• 10:3 (3.33:1). This is the shape ofthe Jumbotron display at the TorontoSkydome.

• 2.75:1 to 2.55:1. Some anamorphic film projection and most anamorphic video projection falls within thisrange, the latter because it is the resultof applying a common 2:1 anamorphicexpansion to television's 4:3 aspectratio, resulting in 8:3 (2.67:1).

• 2.4:1 to 2.35:1. This is the projection range most commonly recommended for 35mm anamorphic movies.Theaters do not always abide by recommendations. If it is accepted thatthis is the widest commonly foundaspect ratio, then a display of thisshape offers the benefit of allowingmasking for narrower images to bedrawn in from the sides (like theatricalcurtains), rather than from the sides,top, and bottom.

• 2.2:1. This is the recommendedshape of projected 70mm movies;again, theaters do not always abide byrecommendations.

• 2:1. This is the display aspect ratioproposed by the ASC. A fewwidescreen movies were shot in thisaspect ratio. For comparison purposes,it may be expressed as either 18:9 or16:8 (2:1 is already an integer ratio).

• 1.85: 1. This is the projectionaspect ratio most commonly recommended in the U.S. for nonanamorphic35mm widescreen movies." There isless than 4% difference between thisaspect ratio and 16:9 (there is a comparable difference between the originalAcademy aperture of 1.375:1 and1.33:1).

• 1.8:1. This ratio was selected bySMPE in 1930 on the basis on anAMPAS recommendation to be usedwith wide film. For its tests, SMPE

476

SMPTE TUTORIAL

used a 1.78:1 (16:9) screen. In the current edition of the AmericanCinematographer Manual (1993),1.8:1 is listed as the aspect ratio of aproposed theatrical anamorphic projection system designed to replace thecurrent 2.4:1.3S There is much less difference between this ratio and 16:9than between the Academy aperture of1.37:1 and 1.33:1. There is also muchless difference between 1.8:1 and 16:9than between 2.4:1 and 2.35:1.

• 16:9 (1.78:1). This is the aspectratio of the standards SMPTE 240Mand SMPTE 260M. It has also beenadopted by other countries around theworld for both HDTV and other formsof widescreen television.

• 1.75:1. This is a popular projectionaspect ratio in some theaters aroundthe world. It was once called "thewidest screen possible without changesin camera technique" [from that usedfor nonwidescreen movies]."

• 1.66:1 (5:3). This is a popularwidescreen projection aspect ratio inmany theaters outside the U.S. SomeHDTV programming has been shot inthis aspect ratio.

• 14:9 (1.56:1). This is a very common aspect ratio used to mitigate theeffects of letterbox when HDTV isdownconverted to non-HD TV.127 It isso commonly desired that it exists as apreset function in some aspect ratioconversion equipment!"

·16:10.7 (1.5:1). This strangely enumerated ratio (an integer ratio of 3:2),also called Cinema Wide, is offered byPioneer in projection televisionreceivers.!" Like 14:9, it is intended asa compromise ratio between HDTVand non-HD TV. The method of numbering the ratio appears intended topromote it as having even larger numbers than 16:9, lending some credenceto a complaint about the promotionaluse of the 16:9 ratio relative to othersin press releases." As 1.5:1, this aspectratio is also the shape of theVistaVision frame" and has been suggested as a shape for the future.!"

• 1.375:1 (11:8) to 1.37:1. This isthe shape of almost all movies shotbetween 1933 and 1953 and manythereafter. It is sometimes described asbeing 4:3 or 1.33:1 even though it differs from that aspect ratio by 3.2%,almost as much as the differencebetween 1.85:1 and 16:9.

• 4:3 (1.33:1). This is the shape ofvirtually all television programmingand display screens, virtually all CRTbased computer display screens, andmany movies. As the narrowest commonly used or recommended aspectratio, it is the most efficient for themanufacture of cathode-ray tubes (1:1would be even more efficient, if suchdisplays were commonly used). It isthe longest-lived aspect ratio for moving imagery and continues to be chosen for recent large-format film systems, such as the 70mm IMAX andDynavision systems."

• Narrower than 4:3. This is theshape of some post-sound-track, preAcademy-aperture movies, some computer display screens, and some specialvenue films. Data Check, a manufacturer of television monitoring equipment, in 1995 introduced tiny 1:1 picture-tube-based monitors on whicheven 4:3 images are displayed in a letterbox format.

ConclusionThis paper began with the statement

that two aspect ratios are inherentlyincompatible and has ended with a listof well over a dozen different aspectratios. The techniques of aspect ratioaccommodation are equally applicableto any. There is no clear evidence of anaesthetic or physiological reason tochoose anyone aspect ratio overanother.

For the particular ranges of aspectratios between 4:3 and 2.35:1 (orbetween 1.15:1 and 2.75:1), a displayshape of approximately 16:9 willrequire the least aspect ratio accommodation for both extremes of the range.For the specific requirement of doubling ITU-R Rec. 601 (720 active pixelslline) resolution for HDTV, 16:9best matches random access memory(RAM) capacities.

If those characteristics and the others listed in this paper are consideredinsignificant or become outweighed byother considerations, there may nolonger be a strong reason to choose16:9. The 16:9 aspect ratio has alreadybeen chosen, however, and is in usearound the world. The research forthis paper has not found any compelling reason to change any existingchoice of aspect ratio.



ReferencesI. w.F. Schreiber, "Another Method of Aspect

Ratio Conversion for Use in ReceiverCompatible EDTV Systems," M.LT.,Institute of Technology, ATRP-T-9i, July21,1988.

2. J. Belton, Widescreen Cinema, Harvard Univ.Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1992.

3. W. Beyer, "TV Safe Action Limits for WideScreen Films," American Cinematographer,43:366-367,381-384, June 1962.

4. M. Schubin, "Wide Not?," Videography,15:18-28, Oct. 1990.

5. BKSTS Dictionary of Audio-visual Terms.Focal Press, London, 1983.

6. B. Fox, ''The Digital Dawn In Europe," 1EEESpectrum, 32:50-53, Apr. 1995.

7. M. Schubin, "On The Other Hand ...."Yideography, 17:16-28, June 1992.

8. R. Hopkins, "Advanced Television Systems,"Educational Sessions, IntI. Conf. onConsumer Electronics, Rosemont, III., June 8,1988.

9. K. Katsumata, et aI., "Development of PictureConverting System Applying an NTSCSignal to a Wide Aspect Display," IEEETrans. on Consumer Electronics. 38:303312, Aug. 1992.

10. H. Johannes, The History of the EidophorLarge Screen Television Projector, GretagAktiengesellschaft, Zurich, 1989.

II. G. Hewlett and W. Werner, "Analysis ofElectronic Cinema Projection with the TexasInstruments Digital Micromirror DeviceDisplay System," Moving 1mages: Meetingthe Challenges. pp. 435-445, SMPTE, 1995.

12. W. Glenn, G. J. Dixon, and P. Bos, "HighEfficiency Light-Valve Projectors and HighEfficiency Laser Light Sources," MovingImages: Meeting the Challenges, pp. 446458, SMPTE, 1995.

13. B. Coe, The History of Movie Photography,Eastview Editions, Westfield, N.J., 1981.

14. L. J. Roberts, "Aspect Ratios and theCinematographer," International Photographer, 55:17,22-23,25, Mar. 1984.

15. K. Powers, "Framing the Camera Image forAspect-Ratio Conversions," NAB BroadcastEngineering Conf., Las Vegas, March 21,1994.

16. R. 1. Stumpf, "Forging a HDTV System forProduction and Post Production - AWorking Group Report," Components of theFuture. pp. 370-384, SMPTE, 1985.

17. G. Lobban, "Guide To 35 mm Release PrintFormats," supp. to 1mage Technology, 72,June 1990.

18. British standard BS 2784, 1956.19. R. Hummel, "Pros and Cons of 1.85, 2.35 and

Super 35 Film Formats," AmericanCinematographer Manual, ASC Press,Hollywood, 7th ed., pp. 13-28, 1993.

20. H. L. Vogel, Entertainment IndustryEconomics, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England, 3rd ed., 1994.

21. R. Mitchell, "The Origins of Ratios,"American Cinematographer. 75:8-10, May1994.

22. J. Hora, "Past is Prologue," AmericanCillelll£ltographer. 76:110-119, Apr. 1995.

23. J. Hindman, "Creative Issues AffectingTerrestrial Transmission of AdvancedTelevision Systems," FCC Advisory


SMPTE TUTORIAL

Committee on Advanced Television (ATV)Service, Advisory Group on Creative Issuesof the Planning Subcommittee of the FCCCommittee on Advanced Television Service,Apr. 5, 1988.

24. G. S. Dibie, letter from InternationalPhotographers Guild to Advanced TelevisionSystem Committee, Dec. 8,1988.

25. J. S. Nadan and R. N. Jackson, "SignalProcessing for Wide-Screen Television: TheSmart Receiver," SMPTE J.• 93:726-729,Aug. 1984.

26. C. A. Poynton, "HDTV for ComputerWorkstations," Television: Merging MultipleTechnologies, pp. 197-203, SMPTE, 1990.

27. C. Rhodes and J. Lowry, "Compatibility ofWidescreen and Non-Widescreen TelevisionTransmissions," U.S. Patent 4,651,208, Mar.17,1987.

28. J. Dickson, "3 Perf Film In The Future,"International Photographer, 55: 19, Dec.1984.

29. R. Ericson, "Three Perfs for Four," ImageTechnology. 69:100-110, Mar. 1987.

30. "Film Formats," Panavision Price Catalog:May 2, 1994.

3 I. "Report of the Standards and NomenclatureCommittee," J. SMPE. 15:818-823, Dec.1930.

32. "Standard Ratio: 1.66 to 1.79?" Showmen'sTrade Review. pp. 10-I I, May 16, 1953.

33. RCA 34" G34170AT CinemaScreen 16 x 9WideScreen Monitor/Receiver. ThomsonConsumer Electronics Inc., Indianapolis,Form CS-4728, 1994.

34. G. Kennel, 1. Pytlak, R. Sehlin, and R. Uhlig,"Major Motion-Picture ProductionStandards," SMPTE J.• 97:985-990, Dec.1988.

35. "TV Production Format Policy," Warner Bros.Technical Operations, Feb. 24,1993.

36. M. Rotthaler and A. Orring, "WidescreenTelevision Systems," 1mage Technology.74:9-12, Jan./Feb. 1992.

37. M. Schubin, "Politics, Numerology, andHDTV," Yldeography, 15:27-30, Apr. 1990.

38. "Cinematographic Systems," AmericanCinemarographer Manual. ASC Press,Hollywood, 7th ed., pp. I-12, 1993.

39. "HDTV Aspect Ratio," Image Technology,77:70-76, Mar. 1995 (Widescreen Issue).

40. R. Campbell, ed., Practical Motion PicturePhotography, A. Zwemmer Ltd., London,1970.

41. I. Blonder, "Aspect Ratio: Cost vs. Art,"Communications Technology, 2:12, Feb.1986.

42. L. Maltin, ed., Leonard Maltin's Movie &Video Guide. 1996 Ed.• Signet, New York,1995.

43. D. Heuring, "Formats Seminar: ExpertsDebate Pros and Cons," AmericanCinematographer, 75:24-32, June 1994.

44. G. Lobban, "Reflections On Deep CurvatureScreens," Cinema Technology. 8:56-59, July1995.

45. B. Salt, Film Style and Technology: Historyand Analysis, Starword, London, 2nd ed.,1992.

46. V. Nilsen, trans. by Stephen Garry, TheCinema As Graphic Art, Ncwnes, Ltd.,London, 1937.

47. L. A. Jones, "Rectangle Proportions in

Pictorial Composition," J. SMPE, 14:32-49,Jan. 1930.

48. R. E. Carr and R. M. Hayes, Wide ScreenMovies: A History and Filmography of WideGauge Filmmaking, McFarland & Co.,Jefferson, N.C., 1988.

49. M. Z. Wysotsky, Wide-Screen Cinema andStereophonic Sound, trans. from Russian byA. E. C. York, ed. by R. Spotiswoode, FocalPress, London, 1971.

50. "American Widescrccn" (special issue), TheVelvet Light Trap. 2/: 1-80, Summer 1985.

51. J. L. Limbacher, "Width," Four Aspects oftheFilm. Brussel & Brussel, New York, 1969.

52. M. Quigley, Jr. (ed.), New Screen Techniques,Quigley Publishing, New York, 1953.

53. R. Mitchell, "History of Wide ScreenFormats," American Cinematographer,68:36-41, May 1987.

54. G. Lobban, "Worth a Thousand Words: Widescreen & 3-D Film Formats,' BKSTS J., 65: I563-565, Oct. 1983.

55. C. F. Jenkins, "History of the Motion Picture,"Trans. SMPE. no. I, pp. 136-49, 1921 (nomonth).

56. H. Hecht, Pre-Cinema History, British FilmInstitute and Bowker-Saur, London, 1993.

57. R. W. Hubbell, 4000 Years of Television. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1942.

58. M. M. Ditts, "The Golden Section," BellLaboratories Record, 10:97-98, Nov. 1931.

59. D. G. Fink, ed., Television Standards andPractice: Selected Papers From TheProceedings of the National TelevisionSystem Committee and Its Panels, McGrawHill Book Co., New York, 1943.

60. A. Van Dyck, "Dynamic Symmetry in RadioDesign," Proc. 1RE, 20:1481-151 I, Sept.1932.

61. R. Herz-Fischler, A Mathematical History ofDivision in Extreme and Mean Ratio, WilfridLaurier University Press, Waterloo, Ont.Canada, 1987.

62. G. T. Fechner, Yorschule clerAesthetik, vol. I,Breithopfund Hartel, Leipzig, 1876.

63. C. A. Poynton, "Gamma and Its Disguises,"SMPTEJ.• 102:1099-II08,Dec. 1993.

64. G. E. Runion, The Golden. Section lIlld RelatedCuriosa. Scott, Foresman and Co., 1972.

65. "An HDTV Proposal from FaroudjaLaboratories, lnc.,' Faroudja Labs, submission to FCC, Mar. 10, 1988.

66. M. Godkewitsch, "The 'Golden Section'; AnArtifact of Stimulus Range and Measures ofPreference," American J. Psychology,87:269-277, Mar-June 1974.

67. R. Fischler, "On the Application of the GoldenRatio in the Visual Arts," pp. 349-351,Autumn 1981.

68. B. L. Jones, "Aspect Ratio Preference Study,"Report 9/84, CBS Technology Center, Nov.20,1984.

69. "The Dynamic Square," Close Up. 8:3-14,Mar. 1931.

70. H. Mathias, "Image Quality from a NonEngineering Viewpoint," SMPTE J., 93:712716, Aug. 1984.

71. B. Fisher, "Choice of Film Formats is as Oldas the History of the Movies," InternationalPhotographer, 66:27, Mar. 1995.

72. W. C. Shaw and J. C. Douglas, "IMAX andOMNIMAX Theatre Design," SMPTE J.•92:284-290, Mar. 1983.

477


73. L. L. Ryder. "Economic Aspects of UtilizingNew Engineering Development s," J. SMPTE,65:80-84, Feb. 1956.

74. M. Schubin, "SMPTE Convention : OneMan' s View," Yldeography, 12:31-33 , Jan.1987.

75. K. Pills and N. Hurst, "How Much Do PeoplePrefer Widescreen (16x9) 10 Standard NTSC(4x3)?," IEEE Trans. Consumer Electronics,35:160 -169, Aug. 1989.

76. Personal conversation with W. E. Glenn,Communications Technology Center, FloridaAtlantic University, Boca Raton, Aug . 17,1995.

77. M. Ardito and M. Gunetti, "The Impact ofDisplay Parameters on the Quality Perceivedby the Viewers," IEEE 1995 lntl. Conf. 011

Consumer Electronics, Digest of TechnicalPapers, pp. 112-113, June 1995.

78. J. Lasky with D. Weldon, I Blow My OWII

Hom, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, N.Y.,1957.

79. A. S. Howell and J. A. Dubray, " So mePractical Aspect s of and Recommendationson Wide Film Standards," J. SMPE, 14:5984, Jan. 1930.

80. M. Ehrenberg and L. J. Roberts, "SeventyFive Years of Motion Picture Standards:Contributions of the Bell & Howell ce..SMPTE J.. 92:1058-1065, Oct. 1983.

8 t. F. Westerberg, "The Academy's Symposium," International Photographer, 2: 1415, Oct. 1930.

82. L. Cowan , "Camera and Projector Aperturesin Relation to Sound-on-Film Pictures," J.SMPE,14:109-12I,Jan.1930.

83. "Report of the Committee on Standards andNomenclature," J. SMPE, 19:477-490. Nov.1932.

84. P. N. Sands, A Historical SlIIdy of theAcademy of Motion Picture Arts andSciences, Arno Press. New York, 1973.

85. F. Westerberg. "Standardization of the PictureAperture and the Camera Motor - ANeeded Development," J. SMPE, 17:395397, Sept. 1931.

86. F. Westerberg. "Wide Film and ItsPossibilities," International Photo grapher,1:12-13,Aug.1929.

87. J. Belton, "The Origin s of 35mm Film as aStandard," SMPTE J., 99 :652-661 , Aug.1990.

88. W. K. L. Dickson, "A Brief History of theKinetograph, the Kinetoscope and theKinetophonograph,' J. SMPE, 21:435-455,Dec. 1933.

89. G.Hendrieks, The Edison Motion PictureMyth, University of California Press,Berkeley, 1961.

90 . H. V. Hopwood, Living Pictures: TheirHistory, Photo-Production and PracticalWorkillg, Gutenberg Press, Ltd ., London,1899.

91. L. J. Roberts, "Historical Review of MotionPicture Standards," lntemational Photo-grapher, 54:18, Nov. 1983.

92. F. P. Liesegang, trans. by H. Hecht, Dates andSources, A Contribution to the History of theArt of Projection and 10 Ctnemato-graphy,The Magic Lantern Society of Great Britain,London, 1986.

93. T. A. Edison. "Kinetographic Camera," U.S.Patent 589,168, Aug. 31, 1897.

478

SMPTE TUTORIAL

94. A. Reeves, "Wide Film," InternationalPhotographer, 1:8-9, June 1929.

95. K. MacGowan, Behilld The Screen: TheHisto ry and Techniques of the MotionPicture, Delacortc Press, New York, 1965.

96. L. Cowan, cd., Recording Sound for MotionPictures, McGraw-Hili Book Co., New York,1931.

97. R. H. Heacock, "W ide Screens in Drive- inTheaters ," J. SMPTE, 64:86-87, Feb. 1955.

98. B. Stones, America Goes to the Movies: 100Years ofMotion Picture Exhibition, NationalAssociation of Theatre Owners, N.Hollywood,1993.

99. F. M. Falge, "Motion Picture Screens - TheirSelection and Use for Best PicturePresentation," J. SMPE, 17:343-362, Sept.1931.

100.1. lzod, Hollywood ami the Box Office 18951986, Macmillan Press, New York, 1988.

101. W. Szabo, "Some Comments on the Designof Large-Screen Motion-Picture Theate rs,'SMPTEJ., 85: 159-163, Mar. 1976.

102. V. G. Komar, "Recent Work on Varios-copicCinematography," J. SMPTE, 78: 851-857,Oct. 1969.

103. E. Callcnbach, "Optometrical Criticism,"Film Quarterly, 16:25, Summer 1963.

104. T. Harada, H. Sakata, and H. Ku sata,"Psychophysical Analysis of the 'Sensationof Reality' Induced by a Visual Wide-FieldDisplay," SMPTE J., 89:560-569, Aug.1980.

105. B. Fisher and M. Rhea , "Interview: DougTrumbull and Richard Yu ricich, ASC,"American Cinematographer, 75:55 -66,Aug. 1994.

106. D. V. Kloepfel, cd., Motion-PictureProjection and Theatre PresentationManual, SMPTE, 1969.

107. K. MacGowan, "T he Wide Screen ofYesterday and Tomorrow," Quarterly ofFilm, Radio, and Television, II :217-241,Spring 1957.

108. P. Robertson, The Gulnness Book of MovieFacts & Feats, Abbeville Press, New York,5th cd., 1993.

109.1. Weinberger, T. A. Smith, and G. Rodwin,"The Selection of Standards forCommere ial Radio Television," Proc. IRE./7:1584-1587, Sept. 1929.

110. "Th nt Show's Different. Why?" Klnematograph and Lantern Weekly, 12: 1675, Feb.20,1913.

Ill. "Report of the Standards and NomenclatureCommittee," J. SMPE, 14:122-137, Jan.1930.

112. J. Horn, "The Chicken and the Egg,"American Cinematographer, 75:22, Jan .1994.

113 . G. Sutor Vuille, "This Is Sutoramu,"American Cinematographer, 75:10-12, July1994.

114. A. W. Eddy, "Wide Film," The 1931 FilmDail y Yearbook of Motion Pictures, TheFilm Daily, New York, 13th ed., 1931.

115. H. L. Vogel , Entertainment IndustryEconomics, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, Eng., Ist ed., 1986.

116. S. Rosin and M. Cawein, "Wide-ScreenTelevision," J. SMPTE, 66:404-406, July1957.

117. M. Schubin, "The Other Stereo, Part II, in3D," Yidcography, 12:104-107, Mar. 1987.

118 . L. L. Ryder, "VistaVi sion, the NewParamount System," Motion PictureHerald: 22, Apr. 10, 1954.

119. C. Higham, Hollywood Cameramen: Sourcesof Light, Indiana Uni versity Press ,Bloomington , 1970.

120 . L. Maltin, Behind the Camera, TheCinematographer's Art, Signet, New York,1971.

121. "Still Scary, Now In Mint Condition," TheNew York Times, CI4, Nov. 4, 1994.

122. W. Lassally, "Letters to the Editor," BKSTSImages, 4:2, Sept. 1995.

123. G. G. Graham, Canadian Film Technology,Associated University Presses, London,1989.

124. M. Schubin, "Commonplace vs. CommonPlace." Yideography, 20:22-28,122, Feb.1995.

125. D. Hunter, Papcrmaking: The History andTechnique of all Ancient Craft , Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 2nd ed., 1967.

126. J. Hedgecoc, The Book of Photography,Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1980.

127. C. R. Caillouet and C. Pantuso, "Woodstock' 94 - A Live Multi-Format Production,"NAB/ITS Advanced TeleproductionConference, LasVegas, Apr. 10, 1995.

128. Snell & Wilcox ProductGuide 1995/6, Snell& Wilcox, Hampshire, U.K., 1995.

129. Pioneer 1995 Audio/video Product Catalog,Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., LongBeach, Calif., Dec. 1994.

130. R. A. Strain, "The Shape of Screens toCome," SMPTE J., 97:560-567, July 1988.

THE AUTHOR

Mark Schubin is a technological consultant in New York City. He is a multiple Emmy Award-winning production engineer, a forensic video analyst,a teacher, a historian , and an international award-winning writer who hashad hundreds of articles about videotechnology published. Schubin is aFellow of the SMPTE and serves onthe Board of Editors of the SMPTEJournal.



searching for the perfect aspect ratio€¦ · eidophor,!" have never used phosphors, and...

Documents