Jurassic World shooting in 2:1

mad_hatter · Mar 19, 2014

IGN have this interview with the director of Jurassic World. Apparently, they're shooting the film with an aspect ratio of 2:1. This it to keep the film wide (presumably to preserve the epic scope of the scenes) but also tall enough to fit the dinosaurs on screen.

It doesn't seem to have been used much before, in fact it seems as though the only person to use it for features is it's "inventor", who has called it Univisium. Apparently though, 2:1 is a selectable setting on RED cameras, and was used to shoot House Of Cards.

I just thought that was interesting. Perhaps it's another option for us indie types to crop our HD footage to, to get a more cinematic look.

Oh, and the other three Jurassic Park films were all shot at 1.85:1. I never noticed. That's pretty interesting too.

Jack Lynt · Mar 20, 2014

Really interesting.

I had to Google 2:1.

Wikipedia: Univisium

I don't know. Unfortunately, I don't have a head for numbers and math.

It would help my little brain understand what we're talking about to see some visual comparisons, or something. But it sounds reasonable.

If you have a good reference, please share.

This Red page might be helpful. If you scroll down, I guess some three quarters of the way down the page, there seems to be a screen grab comparison.

Red.com: Video Aspect Ratios

Is that what we're talking about? So, am I right to interpret that image to mean that 2:1 saves the width of 2.39:1 (er, well, almost?!), and just adds some height? If so, looks good to me!

And for those of us who don't speak Smartese, what will/would that mean for viewing 2:1 content on 16:9 HD screens...compared to what we're watching now?

jax_rox · Mar 20, 2014

richy said:
Is that what we're talking about? So, am I right to interpret that image to mean that 2:1 saves the width of 2.39:1 (er, well, almost?!), and just adds some height? If so, looks good to me!

Yes, you would be correct. :yes:

And for those of us who don't speak Smartese, what will/would that mean for viewing 2:1 content on 16:9 HD screens...compared to what we're watching now?

You would have a letterbox - it would be slightly more letterboxed than a 1.85:1 movie, and slightly less letterboxed than a 2.39:1 movie

mad_hatter · Mar 20, 2014

richy said:
This Red page might be helpful. If you scroll down, I guess some three quarters of the way down the page, there seems to be a screen grab comparison.

Red.com: Video Aspect Ratios

Is that what we're talking about?

I guess so. Although, from what I gather from that page, it looks as though the native aspect ratio of a RED sensor is 1.9:1 (pretty close to 2:1, anyway). The image you’ve posted seems to indicate that the camera records the frame at 2:1, but you can overlay crop marks to help with framing of a 2.35:1 aspect ratio shot. That’s essentially the exact same thing as many of us do with Magic Lantern on our Canon dSLR’s!

Presumably though, those behind Jurassic World will be using Anamorphic lenses (???) to squash the image to 2:1. The article also states that they are shooting film; 35mm and 65mm! That adds another level of complication that I don’t understand!

richy said:
…for those of us who don't speak Smartese, what will/would that mean for viewing 2:1 content on 16:9 HD screens...compared to what we're watching now?

To be perfectly honest, I’m not all that clued up on how footage gets encoded to DVD or Blu-Ray anyhow. But whatever the process, presumably footage shot at 2:1 would be handled in exactly the same manner as footage shot at 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. The picture would be letterboxed, with the black bars being bigger than those at 1.85:1, but smaller than those at 2.35:1.

moonshieldmedia · Mar 20, 2014

film aspect ratios are no different than normal ratios. 2:1 just means "two to one" so the width will be double height (Imagine 2 identical squares side by side, forming a rectangle) -- 2 units of width for every 1 unit of height!

And if you look at 16:9, which is what most of us shoot at, you can figure the width is not quite double the height, because 9x2 is 18, not 16. (so it's less wide than 2:1)

2.39:1 (two point thirty-nine to one) is the widest of all of these because 1x2=2, so the width is double the height PLUS that extra .39 per unit -- so there's 2.39 units of width for every 1 unit of height!

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone further....

rotwang · Mar 20, 2014

Here is a visual comparison of the frame sizes, RED Dragon is nearly 2:1.

mad_hatter · Mar 20, 2014

That image is more about comparing resolutions, not aspect ratios. Hence the reason that HD is a little box, stuffed up in the corner, compared to 5K and 6K.

Here's an image I've just taken the liberty of creating....

Hopefully that shows a little better what the more common aspect ratios would look like on most peoples screens.

To be honest, 2:1 doesn't look too bad. It's a nice middle ground between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Might be something worth considering, if the big boys a likely to start using it with more frequency.

Jack Lynt · Mar 21, 2014

Aw, nice, thanks guys, all. Speaking for myself, anyway, those explanations help a lot.

Imagine, going from Safety not Guaranteed to shooting a Jurassic Park film in Hawaii. Not a bad gig, huh? Good for him.

Tony Fiction · Mar 25, 2014

They should shoot it in cinerama, with three red dragons. Bring it back.