[deleted]
Se7en Aspect Ratio
Got tickets for Se7en for IMAX and very excited. I looked up the aspect ratio to see if it was possibly in something not 2.39:1, and I got these two results alongside it via IMDb.
What are the chances it’s shown in the 1.66:1 or 2.20:1? I don’t know what “negative ratio” means.
It’s 2.39.
1.66 negative ratio is what full frame of the original film negative that ran through the camera was. Se7en was never theatrically presented in 1.66.
And back in the day for 70mm blowups of 35mm films, they would blow up the image to fill the entire 70mm frame, which is 2.20, rather than protect the intended aspect ratio of 2.39. This was standard back then.
You say that when the 2.39:1 was printed onto 70mm, it was converted to 2.20:1 — is this a crop of the 2.39:1 or is it expanded from the 2.39:1 (using more vertical image from the 1.66:1 negative)
Also I heard there is an open matte 1.78:1 version that was accidentally printed onto a few Blu-ray’s back in the day, idk if this is true.
The 70mm 2.20 prints would have been blowups of the 2.39 35mm master, so effectively cropping some of the top, bottom, and sides.
Indeed there was a 1.78 version released. I managed to find one sealed for 12 bucks. To me even though it's only 1080i it feels like an IMAX version with more information added above and below the original aspect ratio. My only other gripe with it is no subtitles were included with it.
It was shot in super 35 system. The original negative would have been enlarged ('blown up') and squeezed to create anamorphic release prints for presentation in 2.39:1 it is quite possible non anamorphic copies could have been made from the original negative. It was not shot with anamorphic lenses so therefore there could well have been a 1.78 version on DVD.
In fact there was, accidentally, in Canada, in the early days of Blu-ray, using a widescreen TV master.
I’m confused - if it wasn’t shot with anamorphic lenses then why would the release prints be anamorphic? There’d be no squeezed image on the print to be desqueezed in projection, surely? Or am I misunderstanding?
Super 35 is a spherical format - you get a full 35mm frame negative and none of the visual artifacts of using anamorphic lenses.
You frame for 2.39 during production from the full square frame, and then extract that 2.39:1 frame during post production to make scope prints of the movie.
There's no other way to get 2.39:1 off of 35mm release prints without an anamorphic squeeze, as Super 35 was never a release format. 4-perf 35mm print film is effective 1.33:1, so you squeeze when printing the extracted 2.39:1 image onto the film, and desqueeze during projection using a scope projection lens.
Yeah this doesn’t sound right
Sounds about right.
Super 35 became popular from the 1970's onwards. It utilised the whole of the 35mm frame. The DoP protects for the intended projection ratio. They enlarge then anamorphicly squeeze in order to make release prints. Only the release prints are anamorphic. It's the reason Super 35 often looks rather grainy it's because they were enlarged or 'blown up' if you prefer. Many big movies used Super 35. It's cheaper they don't need to hire anamorphic lenses and they have the freedom to make non anamorphic prints for TV. Super 35 is still used with Digital cameras now. Arri Alexa have a Super 35 camera now. Anamorphic lens systems are still very popular and produce some very sharp images.
Having now seen "Se7en" on an IMAX can say. This remastered copy is brilliant. A vast improvement on the original film copy I saw 30 years ago. The grainyness has gone and it's actually quite sharp, especially in the close ups. The grain on Super 35 did vary from movie to movie. Some Directors like that look. Zack Snyder would be a good example. Personally I hate too much grain. Still the worst system ever was - Techniscope.