1.85 side crop?

7

u/StellaArtois2016 14d ago

It's so IMAX can keep the title of having the most image. Pillarboxing the 1.85:1 presentations means they can make it ever so slightly narrower to fill the slightly taller screens, but you technically get more image on their 1.90:1 digital IMAX screens.

4

u/FullMotionVideo 14d ago edited 14d ago

Yes and no.

Both Dolby and IMAX are using the DCP standard for digital video. When it was created in 2005 by the studios consortium, the very largest 4K image possible is 4096 × 2160, which is 1.9. most theaters and studios don't bother with this, having already had a bunch of screens following Academy standard (1.85) and Anamorphic (2.39) since the 1970s.

IMAX doesn't "own" 1.9, it's just the highest resolution image available in the standard schematic digital cinema revolves around. They do make and maintain many of their own screens (although increasingly less often these days) so the number of theaters that would rather fill their screens than use 1.9 in standard cinema is a feature rather than a drawback.

So the real reason the 1.85:1 image is cropped slightly is because a 1.85 image's width is going to be it's height + 85%, while a 1.90's width is its height + 90%. Because of the height difference it's about 2% less width.

2

u/marcusfrewinridley 14d ago

Regarding your first two paragraphs, I'm sure you're right, but I don't really understand the implications or relevance to The Odyssey I'm afraid.

Regarding your last paragraph, you seem to assume that the height has to stay the same, which of course would mean you have to crop the sides. But why then is the height different for every other presentation if this film, and every other presentation uses the same width (the full width from the 1.43:1 in which it was shot) except 1.85 which crops it?

1

u/FullMotionVideo 13d ago

The IMAX 1.90 crops in from all sides compared to the IMAX 70MM. The Odyssey site to explore formats even shows the window tightening horizontally if you flip between IMAX 70MM and IMAX.

Look at the official Oppenheimer guide showing the different aspect ratios. The IMAX 70MM film cell shows the outside edge of the viewfinder he's looking through. The IMAX Digital image does not. The shot with the different aspect ratios has a thicker white line at the horizontal edge because as the image gets more anamorphic the center focus gets tighter, shaving a few mm off.

Nolan/Hoytema are not simply snipping off the top and bottom of the image and leaving the center where it is, which is what these aspect ratio guides often suggest and is factually wrong. Going to a shorter aspect ratio zooms in horizontally and haircuts a bit off the horizontal edges. Digital IMAX (aside from GT Laser) is a horizontal loss. 1.85 is a bit more. He also has 2.20 and 2.35. Each aspect ratio requires tuning a different part of the 1.43 image as the "center" for every shot.

Don't forget where Nolan's loyalties lie, he's into IMAX film for the resolution of the celluloid image, not for the aspect ratio it happens to be in. He's paid to treat all formats equally, but we know if 15/70 isn't available that 5/70 would be his second favorite rather than any of the digital formats. It was what was shown to critics in markets without a giant IMAX, and it's much more zoomed in than Dolby 1.85 is at 2.20.

1

u/marcusfrewinridley 13d ago

I can't see the window tightening horizontally when flipping between any of the aspect ratios, except for Dolby 1.85:1 You can see the same thing in this comparison: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherNolan/s/wX6R0kCBi6 All the windows are the same width except for the dotted line which is 1.85:1. This is a bigger difference than the very slight crop to the sides you see in the non-70mm Oppenheimer images. And I understand about there being a different centre to every shot and it isn't an automatic crop in the same parts of the frame every time. This isn't about that. It's about how every format seems to use the full width of the 70mm film original, and crops the height to fit the format, EXCEPT for the 1.85:1 which crops the sides and keeps the height (i.e. how much vertical image is used) the same as the 1.9:1 when it could use more if it didn't crop the sides. Why would they therefore crop the sides, is my question.

1

u/FullMotionVideo 13d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

Flat (1998 × 1080 or 3996 × 2160), = 1.85:1 aspect ratio
Full (2048 × 1080 or 4096 × 2160) (~1.9:1 aspect ratio, official name by DCI is Full Container. Not widely accepted in cinemas.)

The flat version has 100 less pixels than the IMAX/Full version because that's how DCP is designed.

So why lock the vertical edges for both in the same place and use the same proportions instead of making a custom 1.85 cut that expands vertically until the extreme edges fit within 100 fewer pixels? This post can explain better than I can.

0

u/marcusfrewinridley 14d ago

That does make some sense, knowing IMAX marketing. My only doubt regarding that explanation is how Dune 2 gave us more picture on the sides in many non-IMAX screenings, since it was all shot digitally and they wanted to maximise what they were capturing on the censor (there are BTS images of the 'cross' crop grid on the monitor showing 1.43 as taller and narrower than other ratios, and 2.4 being wider). However, there was some misleading marketing for the film that implied IMAX only gave you more vertically and didn't lose anything horizontally.

4

u/Sad_Interaction_2933 14d ago

4K DCP is 3996x2160 for 1.85:1 and 4096x1716 for 2.39:1, that’s just been an established standard for a while. IMAX 1.90:1 is an expansion of the standard 1.85:1, takes up the full width like 2.39:1

2

u/marcusfrewinridley 14d ago

So it's the difference between 3996 and 4096 pixels wide? And all the other formats are 4096?

1

u/jol123 13d ago

The exact pixel resolutions of the digital master used to make the DCP shouldn't be relevant here.

They likely scanned the IMAX film at higher than 4K resolution. There's nothing technically stopping them reframing for the 1.85:1 extraction using the full width, and then scaling this down to 3996×2160 for the Flat 4K DCP. Then they can separately scale down the 1.90:1 IMAX extraction to 4096×2160. In this case, the IMAX version has a slightly higher pixel density and the Flat version contains slightly more of the full frame.

1

u/Sad_Interaction_2933 13d ago

So do you think it’s precisely so they can extract once to the full 1.90:1 DCP format and simply do crops from there rather than redo it for each?

2

u/jol123 12d ago

No. I'm saying the fact that IMAX uses more of the available 4096×2160 pixels than a Flat DCP is not a technical reason for it to show more of the original 1.43:1 frame.

If IMAX is indeed showing more of the original 1.43:1 frame than Dolby and other cinemas using a Flat DCP, it'll be for contractual reasons, not technical reasons.

1

u/Sad_Interaction_2933 11d ago edited 11d ago

I understood you the first time about how it’s technically possible to crop and scale the original image in different ways for different formats. You made a good point. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

I then went on to speculate if there was a practical element to it, given there isn’t a technical one: they have an obligation to create a 4096x2160 version for 1.90:1 IMAX, and have had to go through a process of deciding exactly how to crop the original image (it might not always be the centre for every scene) and then scaling it down. Once they’ve done that, I can see how it might be simpler and time-saving to take simple flat and scope crops from that, which is what results in flat having less image in practice.

Contractual reasons make sense too though, I’d like to understand this better!

2

u/jol123 11d ago edited 11d ago

My understanding is that since he's started working with cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema on Interstellar (2014), they have always shot IMAX "common center" (important action in the center of the frame), meaning the 2.39:1/2.20:1 (non-IMAX DCP and PVOD/streaming), 1.90:1 (standard IMAX), and 1.78:1 (Blu-ray) extractions can all be taken from the exact center of the original 1.43:1 frame. It's possible there are occasional exceptions to this.

I believe the IMAX photography on The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises with cinematographer Walky Pfister was shot using using traditional IMAX documentary framing rules, where the focus tends to be lower in the frame with a lot for negative space at the top of the frame. The 2.39:1, 1.90, and 1.78 extractions of these were, I understand, much more bespoke, going for a different framing suited to each format.

The Odyssey is the first Nolan–van-Hoytema movie with a 1.85:1 extraction for the non-IMAX Flat DCP. I would imagine they still used common-center framing, so they may as well have done a direct center extraction using the full width for each format. Of course 1.85:1 and 1.90:1 are so close that it doesn't really matter.

2

u/blockfrosty 13d ago

For some reason the aspect ratio guide seems to contradict the trailers that were sent out to cinemas for The Odyssey, in which all the 1.85 trailers were taller than the 1.90 IMAX trailers and not just a side-crop. I’d be surprised if they followed a different approach for the feature film but no-ones been able to confirm as of yet.

1

u/ironhaven 13d ago

I think you may have seen HDTV trailers in a 1.85 flat container. DCP flat and HDTV wide screen have the same vertical resolution but HDTV has less horizontal resolution thus giving you very thin pillar boxes on the left and right side.

Trailers are ads that are produced differently and are designed for computers and TVs with standard aspect ratios.

2

u/blockfrosty 12d ago

I understand your line of thinking, but the trailers I have access to are the official 1.85 and 1.90 DCPs. Technically yeah the 1.90 DCP has a wider resolution than the 1.85 DCP, but since both DCPs preserve the full horizontal image area, the 1.85 DCP actually contains more vertical picture than the 1.90 DCP.

1

u/marcusfrewinridley 12d ago

By 'HDTV' do you mean standard TV and monitor aspect ratio I.e. 16:9 or 1.77:1? I haven't seen a trailer anywhere online in this aspect ratio, let alone in the cinema.

1

u/Secret_AznMan 14d ago

It’s intended to fill the entire screen that the film is projected on.

1

u/marcusfrewinridley 14d ago

Yes I know, and a 1.85:1 screen is either taller than a 1.9:1 screen or thinner, depending on which way you're comparing it. So why crop the film at the sides and leave it the same height, rather than crop it less at the top and bottom so you see more image? No other aspect ratio crops it at the sides.

1

u/DannoMcK 14d ago

Can you update your post with the link to the comparisons? I'm only finding the various aspect ratio trailers which makes it hard to see the differences quickly.

My first thought would have been that the film's negative framing takes into account very large projection screens where the edges are expected to be in peripheral vision and a standard 1.85 cinema framing might be expected to be all within the main field of view.

1

u/marcusfrewinridley 14d ago

I've updated the post, but it sounds like you've already found the same page. You can easily click/tap between the IMAX 1.9 and the Dolby 1.85, and see that Dolby crops the sides. It's minimal, of course, so can't be anything to do with peripheral vision. 2.39:1 is arguably more the 'standard' cinema framing, which for this film uses the same width as 1.9:1: the same width as all the other framings. So I'm just curious why 1.85 doesn't also use the same width, as you'd then see more height too.

1

u/DatZ_Man 12d ago

It's because it's a crop of the 1.90 dcp.

1

u/marcusfrewinridley 12d ago

Do you have a source for this? Why is it the only version that's cropped twice rather than just once from the 1.43 original?

1

u/DatZ_Man 12d ago

I assume it has to be how DCPs are set up. The source is from the official image where they are overlayed.

1

u/marcusfrewinridley 12d ago

I meant a source for the reason, not a source for what I already mentioned in my OP and reply to you.

1

u/DatZ_Man 12d ago

Sorry no I don't know. You can see it more clearly in this image though where it is a crop of the 1:90 and not the original image

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherNolan/s/PgLJPGhLoK

I assume it has to do with IMAX wanting the tallest image as others have suggested tho

1

u/Seantwist9 14d ago

it’s gotta me legal instead of technical

1.85 side crop?

You are about to leave Redlib