# 2.40 vs. 2.35 Dvd

6 replies to this topic

### #1 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
• Basic Members
• 83 posts
• Cinematographer
• Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2008 - 02:59 AM

Hello everyone.

As far as I know, in 1970 (or around that time) 2.35 was ditched for 2.40. Reading the ASC manual, it is very clear that referring to anamorphic films as 2.35 is a common mistake. Therefore, I would like to know why DVD's are almost always 2.35 ratio and how can that be?

Are we seeing more than theatrically intended when we watch a film on DVD? I would assume the width isn't changing but there is an added height from 2.35 to 2.40.

If someone could shed some light on this discrepancy I would be most appreciative!

Thank you,
Ryan

Edited by Ryan Patrick OHara, 16 June 2008 - 03:01 AM.

• 0

### #2 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
• Basic Members
• 2873 posts
• Cinematographer

Posted 16 June 2008 - 03:27 AM

It all really is 2.39 or 2.40. Thay just call it 2.35 because those who don't know expect that. All of the projector masks and telecine gates are 2.40.
• 0

### #3 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
• Basic Members
• 83 posts
• Cinematographer
• Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2008 - 02:18 PM

It all really is 2.39 or 2.40. Thay just call it 2.35 because those who don't know expect that. All of the projector masks and telecine gates are 2.40.

Thank you! It's strange that about 38 years later people can't let go of 2.35.
• 0

### #4 John Sprung

John Sprung
• Sustaining Members
• 4635 posts
• Other

Posted 16 June 2008 - 02:27 PM

It all really is 2.39 or 2.40.

If you do the math on the actual aperture dimenisons, the one and only right answer is 2.39:1. The problem with 2.35 was that with more height, you could sometimes see the edges of wet splices in the negative. Why anybody would say 2.40, I can only guess. Perhaps they don't understand rounding, perhaps they don't like a number that sounds like a supermarket price.... ;-)

-- J.S.
• 0

### #5 Ryan Patrick OHara

Ryan Patrick OHara
• Basic Members
• 83 posts
• Cinematographer
• Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:27 PM

If you do the math on the actual aperture dimenisons, the one and only right answer is 2.39:1. The problem with 2.35 was that with more height, you could sometimes see the edges of wet splices in the negative. Why anybody would say 2.40, I can only guess. Perhaps they don't understand rounding, perhaps they don't like a number that sounds like a supermarket price.... ;-)

-- J.S.

Ah yes, indeed the real number is 2.39 but it is commonly referred to as 2.40 perhaps for a reason not far off of the one you mentioned.
I assume it's the same reason we say 24fps vs 23.976 (dealing with video of course)

Edited by Ryan Patrick OHara, 16 June 2008 - 07:28 PM.

• 0

### #6 John Sprung

John Sprung
• Sustaining Members
• 4635 posts
• Other

Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:42 PM

I assume it's the same reason we say 24fps vs 23.976 (dealing with video of course)

Perhaps, but in that case, the rounding is mathematically correct. Calling it 2.4 instead of 2.40 would also be correct.

-- J.S.
• 0

### #7 John Lasher

John Lasher
• Guests

Posted 26 June 2008 - 04:36 PM

I think the reason it's rounded up as 2.40:1 is that having 2 decimal places on the X coordinate of the ratio seems to look more correct.
• 0