7
The shape of the screen
Aspect ratio
The ratio of the longest side of a rectangle to the shortest side is called the aspect ratio of that rectangle. The aspect ratio of a film or television frame and the relationship of the subject to the edge of frame has a considerable impact on the composition of a shot. Historically, film progressed from the Academy aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (a 4:3 rectangle) to a mixture of CinemaScope and widescreen ratios. TV inherited the 4:3 screen size and then, with the advent of digital production and reception, some countries took the opportunity to convert to a TV wide-screen ratio of 1.78:1 (16:9).
Figure 7.1 Film and TV aspect ratios include: (a) 2.35:1 – 35 mm anamorphic (Panavision/CinemaScope); (b) 1.85:1 – widescreen film; (c) 1.78:1 (16:9) – video widescreen; (d) 1.69:1 – super 16 mm; (e) 1.33:1 (4:3) – Academy ratio and TV
There is a striking similarity between the commercial considerations involved in the introduction of film widescreen in the 1950s and the national politics and commercial debate to establish TV widescreen transmissions in the 1990s. It was hoped to increase cinema attendance by changing the shape of the film screen in the mid-twentieth century just as 50 years later it was hoped to sell more television sets by changing its shape. In fact manufacturers were guaranteed to sell more digital widescreen sets if they could convince governments to switch of the existing 4:3 analogue sets and render them obsolete. This chapter discusses how film and TV images arrived at their present displayed aspect ratios and the influences that have changed these shapes over time.
As well as the production aspect ratio there is also the aspect ratio of the screen on which the image is displayed. If there is a mismatch between the aspect ratio of the original and that of the reproduced image, a number of problems arise. Considerations about the different shapes of display screens now and in the future and their effect on how the original composition of an image could be protected, are dealt with in Chapters 8 and 9.
The shape of the screen and composition
The composition of a film or TV image can only be designed in relation to an enclosing frame. As we discussed in the previous chapter, the enclosing frame has a significant influence on how we perceive a shot. Many images created in the past such as cave paintings, wall painting and frescoes had no frame, but film and TV images are watched on a display screen with a specific shape. That shape has been the subject of commercial, political and technological debate but seldom have the aesthetics of the shape been discussed. The shape of the screen is vitally important to directors and cameramen but their work is often mangled by the technology of delivery to an audience. Sometimes, in this development, the shape of the screen is either seen as a technical consideration or sometimes as a commercial requirement. What is often ignored is the incompatibility of the original creative decisions by the image makers for their images to be all things to all screens.
Framing for a specific aspect ratio is an inherent part of a production's identity. Directors, cinematographers and cameramen should have the assurance that the aspect ratio of the presentation screen matches their original compositions. Both in the cinema and via the television screen, film and TV images are often subject to gross distortion for commercial considerations. There are a variety of film and TV aspect ratios and they are not compatible. Neither can they be made compatible by cropping the projector's aperture, panning and scanning, or shoot and protect production techniques.
In 1952, when newsreel commentator Lowell Thomas introduced Cinerama images to a cinema audience, he suggested that pictures in the past had been restricted in space; that a painting is hemmed in by its frame. Cinerama breaks out the sides of the ordinary screen and presents very nearly the scope of normal vision and hearing. The primary intention of this widescreen innovation was to compete with the television small screen, one of the causes of falling cinema attendance, by offering a ‘wrap around’ image – a different visual experience. The Cinerama image filled the spectator's field of view (at least towards the front of the cinema), and virtually eliminated the awareness of a horizontal border to the picture. After the brief success of Cinerama, films were produced in a variety of widescreen formats but faced increasing problems in projection and television showings. The edge of the screen came back as a major consideration when composing an image.
Viewfinder as an editing tool
The viewfinder is selective – it excludes as well as includes visual material. The frame of a shot creates an ‘enclosure’, a fence that separates the image from its environment – a bright rectangle surrounded by blackness. To some extent (ignoring size) a film image is viewed in a darkened cinema in a similar condition as an optical viewfinder on a camera. A video viewfinder image, however, is seen by the cameraman in very different conditions to the television viewer (see Figure 5.24). But both optical and electronic viewfinders display images that deviate in significant ways from our normal experience of perception. A viewfinder image has a hard cut-off, a border that concentrates the compositional elements of the shot. When viewing this small image magnified and projected on a large screen, certain compositional elements lose their impact. How the image will be displayed – cinema or television screen – affects compositional decisions as well as the aspect ratio of the image frame.
Could it have been different?
There is nothing inevitable about technological development or innovation in film or television. Contemporary film aspect ratios and changing television aspect ratios are the result of vested interests, competing commercial requirements and economic competition between countries. In tracing the history of how the current situation was created what is often missing are accounts of decisions that could have been taken and the reasons why they were not taken.
There is a story of a three-hour hospital management meeting that discussed details of the structure and organization of a hospital without ever mentioning the patient. The development of widescreen in television is very similar. For nearly 20 years there have been endless technical discussion groups and committees about new forms of television but little or no mention of the needs of the viewer. The viewer is probably very happy with their 4:3 analogue set and have no wish to buy new and expensive equipment. It is the content they are interested in, not the hardware. In the words of a prominent television executive:
Widescreen has proven to be an important element in attracting the public to digital services, as it is a very visible differentiating factor for simulcast services that might otherwise be regarded as merely ‘more of the same’. The 16:9 format is seen as a particularly important feature of the digitally simulcast traditional analogue terrestrial services. It provides a highly visible new element in a world dominated by multiplicity of channels. It also provides a ‘fresh look’ to go with the new services.
A ‘fresh look’ to re-brand an old product is, in this case, to change the shape of the screen. In unravelling the history of any decision making it is easier to identify the decisions that were made, rather than the ideas that failed to be taken up or were simply not reported. It is the views and opinions that were never adopted that are the most difficult to trace but they are the ones that could have shaped an alternative present. The current mixture of aspects ratios is neither inevitable nor a logical progression to near perfection. It is simply the end result of a series of commercial pressures.
The invention of a world format standard
Throughout the economic and political arguments over a proposed international video format, one standard format has remained relatively unchanged for over 100 years. 35 mm film has remained a universal standard in the cinema and television and, before sound was introduced in the late 1920s, any 35 mm print could be shown and understood in any cinema throughout the world. How a 35 mm film frame became the standard appears to rely on the work of one man who was in fact looking, in the late 1890s, for a convenient film strip for Edison's Kinetoscope (peepshow).
In 1889 (Edison and Dickson may have created an earlier date for their inventions in order to support their patents), W.K.L. Dickson, Edison's assistant, an engineer, was searching for a film strip that provided an image of sufficient quality at minimal cost (Belton, 1992). Dickson was an amateur photographer and he had to decide between the traditional vertical portrait format and the horizontal format of landscape used in painting and photography at that time. He settled on a negative image, 1 inch wide and 4inch high. He arrived at this frame because Eastman mass-produced film strips of 70 mm and 90 mm gauge. Dickson slit the 70 mm strip into two 35 mm widths and then had to decide on the frame size. Some still cameras at this time produced circular images. Dickson rejected this shape and, after perforations were punched in the film, he had an image width of 1 inch. To match the 1-inch horizontal frame he could have chosen a frame height of 1 inch, which would have resulted in a square frame. Instead he decided on a i-inch frame height to maximize the number of frames in the 50-foot strips of film he was using. This negative frame size provided sufficient quality of image for the peepshow.
The golden rectangle was greatly admired by mathematicians and engineers such as Dickson (but not necessarily by artists – see misunderstandings about the golden rectangle below) and the 1.33:1 dimensions of a 1 inch × i-inch frame size he chose was close to the 1.618:1 of the golden rectangle. The 4:3 shape was also a compromise shape between the portrait and landscape formats used in still photography. With slight modifications, Dickson's design lasted for over 60 years in the cinema and up to the present day in television film production.
The early days of film production were enmeshed in contested patents and legal challenges to infringements of patents. One method of circumventing Edison's patent was to film using a non-standard aspect ratio. This involved not only widescreen film apertures but also the ability to project in widescreen. Alternative widescreen aspect ratios died out by the 1910s, probably because cinemas could not economically handle different aspect ratio formats.
Widescreen appeared again with Abel Gance's three-screen production of ‘Napoleon’ (1927) and the development by Henri Chrétien of his ‘anamorphoses’ lens, which not only allowed widescreen but also ‘tall’ screen as well (2.66:1 widescreen and 1:2.66 tall screen). In the quest to attract audiences, larger cinemas were built, which in turn required larger screens. Some of these cinemas could seat 3000-6000 people, but most of this extended audience was viewing a smaller image. There was a demand for a larger negative size but there was no agreement between studios on a standard width and they experimented with film gauges of 50 mm, 65 mm and 70 mm, although an aspect ratio of 2:1 was commonly favoured.
Widescreen film gauge may have eventually been agreed during the late 1920s if the experiment had not coincided with the advent of sound in 1926-1927, which required expensive re-equipping of film studios and cinemas.
Sound forced a reduction in the standard 1.33:1 aspect ratio into a nearly square shape of 1.15:1 to accommodate the 2 mm sound track. Because the cost of re-equipping with sound and a new shape screen, many cinemas carried on projecting the new ‘squarer’ shape on their old 4:3 screens. Heads and feet were cropped in the mismatch of the two aspect ratios. The Academy of Motion Pictures in 1932 agreed to a modified 4:3 shape to accommodate the sound track but the smaller frame took up 36 per cent less negative. Although cinemas could use their old screen and slightly magnify the projected image, it did result in a slightly lower quality image. Cameras were fitted with the new 1.37:1 aspect ratio masks. It is still customary for cameramen to talk about Academy Ratio of 1.33:1 when they really mean 1.37:1. It probably occurs in this book as well!
Widescreen returns
Cinema-going in the USA fell from an average weekly attendance of 90 million in 1948, to an average of 60 million in 1950 and down to 18 million by 1972. The collapse of the cinema-going habit was the result of a number of social changes. In the post-war years the American population became more affluent and developed the taste, time and money for more active recreation. The studios had always relied on mass urban audiences. People now had the money and the ambition to move out to the suburbs and, although drive-in cinemas were a cheap and convenient way to reconnect with this relocated audience, film entertainment was a passive activity provided for the audience whereas many of them wanted recreation in their leisure time that allowed them to participate.
Studios saw television as its principal competitor. They believed that with a greater emphasis centred on the suburban home, television kept people away from the cinemas. They decided to fight back by offering a widescreen image and surround-sound experience that attempted to completely involve the audience in the film
During the twentieth century, large screen displays had occurred in expositions, amusement parks and exhibitions. Cinerama was developed by Fred Waller away from the film industry and shot on three ganged cameras each covering 48° of the field of view, making up a composite image of 146° horizontal by 55° vertical. This closely approached human vision of 165° × 60°.
Because of Cinerama's enormous curved screen, stereo sound and an aspect ratio of 2.77:1, many of the audience were less aware, if aware at all, of the edge of the horizontal frame, unlike their normal visual experience of the standard Academy ratio movie. Most of the Cinerama audience was seated so that the screen filled their field of view. Human vision uses a series of small eye motions called saccadic eye movement to scan 5-35° of their field of view. The Cinerama screen, covering 146°, meant the audience's visual attention was scattered across the screen. This duplicated the experience in reality of scanning across a panoramic view. Unlike the Academy ratio movie, the audience's attention (unless you were sitting in the front seats), was not focused on a single framed image. Cinerama, and later CinemaScope, attempted to reduce or eliminate the audience's awareness of the horizontal screen border in the cinema.
The advertising for Cinerama suggested that the audience was drawn into the film and had the physical experience of whatever motion was depicted. The emphasis of the film was on movement, not story. The audience did not watch the screen, they participated in a roller coaster ride. It was not something they saw but something they did. Avoiding any strong plot or stars, the film was an extended travelogue with sequences of Niagara Falls, a gondolier ride in Venice, etc. Waller suggested it was the large curved screen duplicating peripheral vision that enhanced the visual experience.
Cinerama had a number of limitations compared with the standard ‘flat’ screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. ‘Flat’ was used to differentiate between the curved cinema screen of Cinerama and the flat screen of standard aspect ratio. The joins between the three screens were difficult to hide and required special compositional arrangements when shooting. The seams, once disguised in shooting, also precluded tracking, panning or tilting. Flat lighting had to be used to balance out the enormous width of screen and the three separate images, and the film cameras were fitted with 28 mm lenses, which made normal camerawork technique of close-ups, etc., impossible. In essence, Cinerama was a fairground entertainment and not part of the Hollywood standard movie of star and story. The technology was the hero and appeared to be only suitable for travelogues and spectacle. And yet it had an enormous impact on the limited audience that saw it and the major studios recognized its crowd-pulling appeal. Cinerama opened at the Broadway Theatre, New York on 30 September 1952 and played, on its opening run, for 122 weeks.
1953 was the crucial year for the studios looking for a similar wide-screen format as Cinerama but without its technical imperfections. Twentieth-Century Fox made it a top priority and agreed with Henry Chrétien to use his Hypergona lens. He was surprised they needed to make any agreement with him as it was out of patent in 1951 and the design was in the public domain. But Twentieth-Century Fox was in a hurry to get a film into production and could not wait for new (and subsequently better) lenses to be designed and built. CinemaScope started with an aspect ratio of 2.66:1 (later 2.55:1) projected onto a slightly curved screen with four-track magnetic sound. It was advertised as three-dimensional to distinguish it from the older 4:3 ‘flat’ screen movies, but its illusion of depth was only achieved by a larger screen. True three-dimensional (use bi-coloured spectacles) only had a commercial life of one year. Twentieth-Century Fox research engineers redesigned the 35 mm frame to have smaller sprocket holes to carry two, two-track magnetic strips either edge of the film, positioned outside the sprocket holes, which allowed a slightly larger negative area for the picture.
Twentieth-Century Fox attempted to make this the standard wide-screen format and pressurized other studios and cinema owners to convert to this gauge. Every major studio wanted a widescreen format to duplicate the Cinerama ‘experience’. Eventually, after initial rivalry and haggling, United Artists, MGM, Columbia, Warners and Disney signed up to make films in CinemaScope. Paramount held out and launched VistaVision, an eight sprocket hole, two frame negative image rotated 90° but reduced to a 35 mm projected print in a variety of aspect ratios varying from 2:1, 1.85:1 to 1.33:1. Paramount had a secondary format argument and claimed that height was as important as width of screen.
Figure 7.2 (a) The full 2:1 ratio frame; (b) the compressed 4:3 frame
Before they were allowed to show CinemaScope, Twentieth-Century Fox required cinemas to re-equip with new projectors, a new screen (their patented Magic Mirror screen for a brighter image), and a complex magnetic track stereo sound system. Most cinema owners ignored the sound requirements and although Twentieth-Century Fox provided various prints to accommodate monaural, optical stereo systems, they finally capitulated and in 1956 they reverted to standard sprocket holes and an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. The release print had a combined magnetic and optical sound track.
CinemaScope was developed in ten months. New Bausch & Lomb CinemaScope lenses in 1954 allowed the anamorphic attachment to be combined with the objective lens to make focusing easier and constant.
Other widescreen formats followed, including CinemaScope 55 shooting on 56.625 mm negative but projected using 35 mm prints. Although it was sharper on the large screens the audience was not generally aware of the difference. CinemaScope as a format finished at Fox in 1967.
In order to reduce anamorphic camera distortion, Panavision was created using a pair of prisms that could be moved in relation to each other to alter the anamorphic horizontal expansion factor. Cinema projectionists could adjust to accommodate any film with compression squeeze ratios from × 1.1 to × 2.
Todd AO arrived in the mid- to late 1950s and used 65 mm negative to film and 70 mm prints (to accommodate sound tracks). This process allowed four lenses to be used – 128, 64, 48, 37° so that standard storytelling technique could be employed through a range of shot size and camera movement. Other widescreen processes such as MGM Camera 65, Super Panavision 70 mm, Super Technirama 70 meant that many cinemas re-equipped to project 70 mm film. 70 mm film became synonymous with image quality even when, to save production costs, some producers used 35 mm to shoot and then print up to 70 mm for release.
Widescreen film aspect ratios still remain a mixture of sizes but the most common are Academy Flat (1.85:1) and Anamorphic Scope (2.35:1). 1.66:1 and 2.20:1 (70 mm) ratios are also used (see Figure 7.1). Composition is often planned, when shooting, so that the release print can be accommodated on different aspect ratio display screens without seriously compromising information or the integrity of the image (see Chapters 8 and 9).
Design of the TV aspect ratio
The factors that influence the aspect ratio of television, such as resolution, line structure and bandwidth, share certain similarities to film in the debate about negative frame size, release print and the size of projected image.
Most video images are eventually displayed on a television screen. The quality of the screen, how it has been aligned and adjusted, any reflections or ambient light on the surface of the screen, the size of the screen and the distance at which it is viewed will all affect the quality of the image as seen by the viewer. Some compensation can be built into the video signal to mitigate receiver limitations but other factors affecting viewing conditions are outside the control of the programme maker.
Unlike film, where the projected image consists of light reflected from a screen, a television tube emits light. The maximum white it can emit is dependent on its design and how the display has been adjusted. Black is displayed when there is an absence of any signal but, even when the set is switched off, there is never a true black. The glass front surface of the tube, acting like a mirror, will reflect any images or light falling on the screen, degrading ‘black’. These two aspects of the display, its maximum high intensity white and how much ambient light is reflected from its screen, set the contrast range that the display will reproduce independent of its received signal.
The size of the display screen and its viewing distance will be one factor in how much detail is discernible in a televised image. Because of the regulation of television transmissions, the design of the system (e.g., number of lines, interlace, etc.) and the permitted bandwidth will affect the detail (sharpness) of the broadcast picture. Bandwidth will determine how much fine detail can be transmitted.
In those countries with a 50 Hz power supply using PAL 625 analogue colour system, the active number of lines (visible on screen) in a 4:3 picture is 575. However, a subject televised that alternated between black and white, 575 times in the vertical direction would not necessarily coincide with the line structure and therefore this detail would not be resolved. The limit of resolution that can be achieved is deduced by applying the Kell factor, which for the above example is typically 0.7. This results in a practical resolution of 400 lines/picture height. The horizontal resolution will be 4/3 of 400, equalling 533. The number of cycles of information/line equals 533/2, resulting in 266.5, taking place in 52 [LS (time taken per line).This results in a bandwidth requirement of 266.5/52 [LS – approximately 5.2 MHz for 625 4:3 picture transmission.
5.2 MHz bandwidth will be required for each channel broadcast using PAL 625, 4:3 picture origination. Other systems will have different bandwidth requirements, such as 1250 HDTV PAL, which has twice the resolution and needs 30 MHz. Digital transmission allows some bandwidth reduction using compression.
The basis of these electronic parameters were designed in the 1920s and the early 1930s. A number of different methods of creating an electronic picture could have been developed but, like Dickinson deciding on the aspect ratio of the first 35 mm film frame, research engineers such as Philo T. Farnsworth and Vladimir Zworykin in the USA and Blumlein & McGee in England, devised a television signal that varied in detail but was similar in principle.
On 2 November 1936 the British Broadcasting Corporation started the first television service alternating between the 240 line Baird system and the 405 line Marconi/EMI system. In February 1937 the Baird transmissions were discontinued. Circular faced cathode ray tubes were used as television display screens and it was felt the maximum area of the tube face could be used if the aspect ratio of the television image was 5:4. On 3 April 1950, the BBC changed the screen shape to a 4:3 image, which coincided with the Academy film ratio. It was ironic that this shared film and television standard aspect ratio would only last three years before CinemaScope was launched in 1953 with an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. It would be nearly 50 years before television changed its screen shape to 16:9 widescreen.
HDTV
The first developmental work on a high definition television system began in 1968 at the technical research laboratories of Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK) in Tokyo. Dr Takashi Fujio at the NHK research laboratories carried out research on viewers’ preference for screen size and aspect ratio and his findings largely formed the justification for the NHK HDTV parameters. The research suggests that the majority of viewers preferred a wider aspect ratio than 4:3, plus a larger screen with a corresponding increase in resolution, brightness and colour rendition. His conclusion was that maximum involvement by the viewer was achieved with a 5:3 picture aspect ratio viewed at 3-4 picture height distance. Normal viewing distance (in Japan) was 22.5 m, which suggested an ideal screen size of between 1 m × 60 cm and 1.5 m × 90 cm. With bigger average room dimensions in the USA and Europe, even larger screen sizes may be desirable. Sitting closer to a smaller screen did not involve the viewer in the action in the same way. High quality stereo sound increased viewer involvement.
By 1980, when the NHK system of a 60 Hz field rate and 1125 lines picture was publicly demonstrated, all the necessary production and domestic equipment was available. There was widespread support for a single worldwide standard for HDTV service. The International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) supported a 60 Hz-field rate but this was incompatible with the PAL/SECAM field rate of 50 Hz and the NTSC 59.94 Hz. The NHK choice of 1125 lines was chosen after the calculation that the midpoint between 525 and 625 lines is 575 lines. Twice that number corresponds to 1150 lines, but this even number of lines could not produce the alternate line interlacing thought to be essential in any scanning standard. The nearest odd number having a common factor with 525 and 625 was the NHK choice: 1125 lines. The common factor 25 would make line-rate trans-coding NHK HDTV, NTSC and PAL/SECAM systems comparatively simple.
On 3 June 1989, NHK inaugurated a regular HDTV programme transmission by satellite for about an hour each day. In the USA, the 1125/60 format was proposed by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) for adoption as an American National Standard. After many objections, the standard was rejected because it would be difficult to convert to the NTSC system. The same objections were made in PAL countries. A more significant reason was the concern that a world standard originated by NHK would lead to Japanese manufacturers dominating world equipment supplies and it would require a completely separate HDTV production and reception service. At an international standards meeting in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, in May 1986 the conference voted to delay a decision until 1990.
Throughout the following years the commercial considerations were intertwined with the technological implications of two frame rates. Also, it was foreseen that the existing analogue services would be replaced by digital transmission. All parties wanted to protect their own broadcasting industry and their domestic TV services. There were two competing concepts of the future of television. The USA wanted to phase in HDTV alongside its existing NTSC system. It wanted the same compatibility that had been achieved with the introduction of colour. The viewer could choose at what time they paid for HDTV. It would be available to all.
The Europeans, after developing a 50 Hz HDTV system, decided to jettison the use of the larger bandwidths necessary for HDTV and, instead, introduce a multi-channel, digital, widescreen service. The viewer would have more choice of channels, a widescreen, but there would be no high definition system.
The need for a universal video format
Broadcasting is a massive industry worldwide. As well as the manufacture and sales of production and domestic television equipment, video programme exchange and using video in film post-production play a significant part in world trade. 35 mm and 16 mm film can be shown in nearly every country in the world. The three major analogue/digital TV systems require conversion before the exchange of programmes. Dual-format post-production (525/625) is commonplace for international distribution but, when agreement broke down to provide an international standard HDTV, there was still the search for a video format of sufficient quality that would be invisible when transferring film to video or to any format required.
With the transition from analogue to digital and the introduction of new television formats, as well as duplicating and designing very complex technical systems to accommodate all of the required standards, the post-production portion of programme generation would inevitably increase.
There was a need for a single originating video format that could be easily converted to all other formats with the minimum of degradation. A 1080 line, progressive scan picture with a frame rate of 60 Hz (1080P/24) is the most likely format to be adopted as a world production standard. This will not be transmitted but will be the ‘master’ originating format.
16:9 television widescreen
After 30 years of worldwide research, international debate, arguments and proposals for high definition television, improved definition television (IDTV) systems, conventional systems modified to offer improved vertical and/or horizontal definition known as advanced television (ATV) or enhanced definition television (EDTV) systems, the one common characteristic that survived in the changeover from an analogue to a digital television service in Europe is the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9. Why was this single (non-technical) factor retained?
Since the early 1970s when NHK (the Japan Broadcasting Corporation) first began research into a high definition television system, there has been a prolonged and often heated debate about what constitutes the ideal aspect ratio for television. These arguments often repeated the same concerns and advantages expressed in the earlier film industry controversies when widescreen aspect ratios were introduced.
Although there were numerous technical committees and meetings on the technology of the ‘new’ television system, the shape of the screen was usually assumed to need no discussion. Although research carried out by Dr Takashi at NDK established that most viewers preferred a 5:3 (15:9) shape, endorsed in March 1984 by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) in the USA, very few people challenged the orthodoxy of the 16:9 shape – except the 230 members of The American Society of Cinematographers. In 1993, an ad hoc committee of the society studied the various HDTV proposals from a creative perspective (a rare event in the 30-year history of TV transition). They felt that either recomposing or letterboxing 35 mm anamorphic (2.35:1) or unsqueezed 70 mm format (2.2:1) film would require unacceptable artistic compromises. ASC president Victor Kemper commented: ‘There is a rich artistic heritage of some 40 years of widescreen Hollywood films, which would be compromised with a 16:9 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio.’ ASC felt that 2:1 was an acceptable compromise between artistic purity and commercial realism.
Despite their collective prestige, they had little influence in Washington, DC, against the economic lobbying power of manufacturers who, after ten years of research and development had a vested interest in maintaining the HDTV status quo. To them, the 16:9 aspect ratio was an irrevocable fact.
The supporters of 16:9 were in the majority and their reasons for changing the television screen shape to this aspect ratio usually centred on five basic points:
1. the shape is more ‘natural’ because human vision sees more horizontally than vertically;
2. 16:9 is a reasonable compromise between competing aspect ratios and can accommodate film widescreen productions easier. It is therefore more efficient to have a universal screen shape for film and TV;
3. any problems that arise with the changeover to widescreen TV are ‘interim’ problems that will eventually be resolved when 16:9 reception is universally adopted;
4. the 16:9 rectangle is close to the golden ratio, which has been the preferred shape of artists for centuries. The divine proportion has been traditionally accepted as the perfect shape;
5. the fierce debate and unwillingness to agree to a universal TV format indicates the fifth pressure to change. There was a huge economic incentive to re-brand and make obsolete a worldwide product.
16:9 aspect ratio is closer to human vision
Television widescreen enthusiasts usually suggest that the wider for mat is more closely akin to the human perceptual experience. As we have discussed, the eye focuses on a very small segment of the total field of view, such that the smallest detail of interest in the scene subtends an angle of about one minute (1/60°) of arc, which is the limit of angular discrimination for normal vision. The eye jerks quickly from one point of interest to another in what are termed saccade patterns. The eye must constantly move in order to perceive an object of any size. To enhance the experience of increased depth or ‘realism’ with a two-dimensional image, Cinerama demonstrated that a very large curved screen is required in order to provide the experience of peripheral vision. With peripheral vision there is an awareness of peripheral movement but no real information is collected. It is unlikely that a domestic television screen large enough to provide the Cinerama or CinemaScope ‘wraparound’ visual experience would be economically viable or desired. Average television viewing involves watching a screen that is a very small part of the field of view. Whatever the shape of the screen, it cannot duplicate the experience of peripheral vision. Human perception relies on short saccadic eye movements. Television production units and viewers may prefer the wider screen television but it has little or nothing to do with human visual perception or an enhanced experience of increased depth.
A reasonable compromise between competing aspect ratios
One of the considerations for changing the television screen shape was the need to accommodate the showing of widescreen films. During the last 40 years, virtually all movies made for the cinema were wide-screen. Pan and scan and letterboxing are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9, respectively – it was the need to address the problem of simulcasting different aspect ratios on television that led to a compromise aspect ratio of 16:9 being proposed. In addition, television programme makers wanted to originate their productions in one aspect ratio (16:9) that, after compositional precautions, would be suitable for existing 4:3 viewers. Dr Kerns Powers made the initial recommendation for a 16:9 aspect ratio within the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE).
An engineer who suggested that the ASC were too late with their recommendations for a 2:1 ratio and that 16:9 falls nearly exactly in the middle between 1.66:1 and the 1.85:1 aspect ratio met with the rejoinder:
The logic of picking something right in the middle between 1.66 and 1.85 may make sense from a mathematical standpoint, and carry international goodwill, but ... in the real world ... It's like saying that if you want to build kitchen appliances and sell them in the US and UK, you should build them to run on 165 volts, because that's halfway between 110 and 220.
(Sgt Joe Beats, a pen name)
But Dr Kerns Powers points to additional features of the 16:9 aspect ratio:
Other than the universal ‘shoot-and-protect’ feature, there are additional potential advantages of this choice. The rounding up to 16:9 permits some interesting polyscreen displays in consumer TV sets equipped with 16:9 picture tubes, but displaying 4:3 images. A possibility for film production would be to capture images on 3-perf 35 mm film at a full-frame aspect ratio of 1.78, using the above shoot-and-protect method, thereby saving some cost in raw film stock during shooting and editing. 3-perf film has been discussed in combination with 30 frame-per-second shooting as a method of balancing the 25 per cent increase in cost of the film stock from the higher frame rate. Finally, the 16:9 aspect ratio would be appropriate to a new proposed Scope format with 1.5:1 anamorphic lenses, leading to possibly higher brightness and lower-grain presentation. Scope's on-film aspect ratio would be retained.
The divine proportion
The golden section, golden ratio or divine proportion is called by a number of different names but all refer to the number achieved when dividing a line so that the ratio of the whole line (a) to the largest section of the line (b) is equal to the ratio of the larger piece to the smaller piece (c).
Figure 7.3
Figure 7.4 The front face of the Parthenon, Athens, with the golden section ratios proposed by numerical mystics. Although it is quite likely that the Greeks used the ‘divine’ proportion it is very difficult to provide accurate measurements to substantiate some of the golden section claims
The divine proportion is when the value of (a) divided by (b) equals 1.61803 and the value of (b) divided by (c) equals 1.61803. If a rectangle is constructed that has the ratio of the longest side to the shortest side of 1.61803:1, it is called a golden rectangle.
The proportion to achieve this condition is 1.61803. A rectangle can be constructed that follows this ratio with its sides 14.5623:9. A rectangle with such properties is dubbed the golden rectangle.
This proportion has fascinated mathematicians for many centuries. From it can be constructed a nest of rectangles, all with the same ratios, spirals, and pentagons and pentagrams. The conclusion by some people is that a ratio that has so many symmetrical relationships must have a universal significance.
How the golden rectangle was used in antiquity
Many people following this numerical mysticism have sought to reveal this proportion in structures such as the pyramids and the Parthenon in Athens. The difficulty of measuring a building, such as the Parthenon, which has been eroded or has fallen into ruin with no clear indication of what the precise original lengths were, undermines the accuracy of this type of ‘proof’. The ancient Greeks did use the ratio as a building module not because they thought it had outstanding aesthetic attraction – the most pleasing shape known to man, as some advocate – but because it was a useful theory of design. The concept of it as a pleasing or beautiful shape only originated in the late 1800s and does not seem to have any written texts (ancient Greek, Egyptian or Babylonian) supporting this claim.
Another popular example by a golden ratio enthusiast is the work of Leonardo da Vinci, particularly the drawing of the head of an old man. By superimposing rectangles over this profile it is relatively simple to achieve ‘proof’ of the existence of golden ratios by varying the thickness of the line and choosing on which points of the drawing to centre the rectangles. Most descriptions of Leonardo's life and work give no indication that he used the golden rectangle.
Gustav Fechner in the 1860s claimed that the preferred choice of most people was the golden rectangle. His conclusion was arrived at by offering participants ten different rectangle shapes. When 48 rectangles were used in a similar experiment in the twentieth century, many people could see little or no difference with ratios close to the golden rectangle.
Another popular myth about the golden rectangle concerns the proportions of the human body. This suggests that the ratio of a person's height to the height of their navel conforms to the divine proportion. The height of a person's navel is an imprecise measurement that allows the maths to work if numerical mysticism requires it to.
Engineers still have a fascination with the mathematical flexibility of the ratio. It has been suggested that it influenced W.K.L. Dickson in his choice of the 4.3 film aspect ratio that he designed in the 1890s, and the golden rectangle is still advanced in support of the 16:9 widescreen, even though 1.777:1 is not the 1.61803:1 of the golden ratio and is not the preferred ‘most pleasing shape’ of the average viewer.
Widescreen - the shape of a banknote
The findings discovered by the research carried out by Dr Takashi Fujio at the NHK on viewer's preference for screen size and aspect ratio have never been properly implemented in the USA or Europe. His findings did, however, give a quasi-scientific justification for a completely new television service. They provided a pretext for the massive re-equipping for production and reception required for the separate HDTV service set up in Japan. If a manufacturer is to persuade the consumer that his old TV set is redundant, the new replacement model has to be significantly different from ‘yesterday's’ model. CinemaScope 55, shooting on 56.625 negative but projected using 35 mm prints, was sharper on the larger cinema screens but the audiences were largely unaware of the difference and the format was withdrawn.
The changeover to the 16:9 format in European television has been extensively used to market the new digital services. In Europe, NHK research into HDTV has gradually been usurped by 16:9 digital broadcasting. The quest for high definition has gradually been eroded by market forces to end up with a 16:9 digital system, which is a muddle of different aspect ratios that provide lower definition (often less lines than are available) distortion of the image (viewer choice of aspect ratio to fill the screen) and, because of the greed for maximum channels, sometimes excessive digital compression that causes blocking of the digital image. How have we ended up with a worse system than the 4:3 analogue system it sought to replace?
The disturbing element in this aspect ratio debate is that frequently the technical quality and economic viability is argued in detail whereas the knock-on effects of cropping and compositional distortions are considered a side issue. The justification of widescreen in the first place was that it was closer to human vision, it was a reasonable compromise between worldwide competing formats, it was close to the ‘most pleasing shape’ preferred by most people, and it was able to engage the audience. Most of these arguments are tenuous, if not untrue.
We are moving to a universal 16:9 shape (but still without a universal format for the exchange of programmes) not because of aesthetic, technological or even compelling physiological reasons but because of the commercial pressure to make the existing TV sets forcibly redundant by switching off the analogue delivery system. The redesign of screen shape is to provide a marketing brand to sell digital television to a public who are not interested in the hardware that provides them with their favourite programme but only in the intrinsic interest of the programmes themselves. A 16:9 widescreen screen has been commercially spun into a ‘must have’ consumer product with a complete disregard of the huge back library of 4:3 productions and with a muddle of distorted images stretching beyond a supposedly ‘interim’ period until all programmes are produce in widescreen. The question the viewer should ask is, for whose benefit is this forcible transition (there is no choice) being undertaken, and at what cost to the huge back library of 4:3 TV productions on the shelves of TV companies?
The 16:9 format is the hardware – programmes are the software. It is what is done with equipment that is important, not the equipment itself, but it is the hardware that is constantly being promoted. With Cinerama, it was the format that took precedence over story or star, the content followed on from the widescreen ‘experience’.
Widescreen television is a technical toy to be played with. There are buttons for the viewer to push to distort or expand the image to fit the new shape. From a manufacturer's point of view, the new product must look different (e.g., at least 16:9 – 14:9 is too similar to 4:3). Manufacturers (and engineers) claim they simply deliver the message – someone else is responsible for the content, but their motive is to re-brand an old product whilst ensuring the existing product is made legally obsolete.
The promotion of widescreen stereo television as home cinema is a misleading label. A curved large cinema screen cannot be duplicated as a viable domestic TV screen. Most people live in small rooms. TV is quite a different communication system, despite sharing many similar characteristics with the cinema.
Of all the justifications for changing the shape of the TV screen the need to expand markets appears to be the most compelling. If governments can be persuaded to switch off the old analogue services, there will be a huge boom in the sale of digital widescreen TV. Until that day, the decision to simulcast programmes in both 4:3 and 16:9 in Europe does allow the continuation of a single production format. We will discuss in Widescreen composition and TV’ (Chapter 9) if a single format can be all things to all screens.
Summary of film and television formats mentioned
During the development of film widescreen and HDTV, a number of formats were developed and performance levels classified. These include:
standard systems: the NTSC, PAL and SECAM systems prior to proposals to develop advanced systems;
improved definition television (IDTV) systems: standard systems modified to offer improved vertical and/or horizontal definition. These are also known as advanced television (ATV) or enhanced definition television (EDTV) systems. ‘Advanced systems’ often refers to all systems other than standard ones, or all systems other than standard and ‘true’ HDTV;
high definition television (HDTV) systems: systems having vertical and horizontal resolutions approximately twice those of conventional systems;
simulcast systems: systems transmitting conventional NTSC, PAL or SECAM on existing channels and HDTV of the same programme on one or more additional channels;
production systems: systems intended for use in the production of programmes, but not necessarily in their distribution;
distribution systems: terrestrial broadcast, cable, satellite, videocassette and videodisc methods of bringing programmes to the viewing audience.