What is your philosophy on aspect ratios?

C

Claude

Do you have any solid reasons for using a certain aspect ratio?

Lately I've been kind of feeling that cropping to 2.35.1 or any widescreen ratio is an artificial, added aesthetic and that it doesn't necesarilly add depth to filmmaking, but it rather merely imitates bigger budget, hollywood productions.

I know it's a choice to be made depending on the project and personal preference in the end, but what take do you guys have on it?


To exemplify with what I believe was a good film to have this choice available and be able to take advantage of using certain aspect ratios, Grand Budapest Hotel. But generally, I feel that films don't offer this choice as a creative means so I'm asking because I feel I'm losing something using any, but not necesarilly gaining anything if I use one over the other.

With that said, I'm aware I kind of answered my own question, yet I'm hoping someone can offer a perspective I didn't think of yet?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Very few films use aspect ratios for practical reasons. The Grand Budapest Hotel used it to illustrate changes in time; Life of Pi used it to bring in the frame for the 3D, so that stuff could leap out; Xavier Dolan's Mommy used it to express opening up of characters' happinesses. But, generally, it's an aesthetic decision that the director and cinematographer need to make.

Some people love to have the frame as full as possible, and that's basically the philosophy behind IMAX. Some people like to have a long, narrow frame, in order to evoke a sense of panorama, and allow the eyes to travel naturally from left to right, as Western literature has made the default. The boxier Academy ratio restricts the frame from evoking the natural range of forward-facing eyes, but, used appropriately, it forces the viewer into a position either of nostalgia, or containment.

One of this year's Best Cinematography Oscar contenders, Ida, used a 1.37 aspect ratio. The film is also in black and white, and has themes like repression, identity and history, and, in that context, the aspect ratio choice makes logical artistic sense.

10659_5.jpg


Conversely, a film like Lawrence of Arabia needs the frame to expand, not only to fit the vast desertscapes in, but to offer that dreamlike evocation of imperialism and defiant spirit. TE Lawrence is all about seeking the open spaces, so a 1:1 aspect ratio would be very confining.

follow-my-film-the-script-lawrence_web.jpg


lawrence11.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Brains grow with their environment and I promise you the general public that watches films will subconscious feel better about a movie using 16:9 or 1:2.2. They have been trained to believe that is how a movie looks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Besides that, it is the way we percive the world: 2 eyes on a horizontal line create a wide video.

The other 'extreme' is vertical video.
This video is not only funny, but has some nice views on aspect ratio as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA

PS.
Well said, Nick
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think it's silly not to use the whole screen, that's just my philosophy.

If I am making something for youtube.. I do it with the aspect ratio of the general widescreen monitor. I don't want to add extra black bars and take away viewing area just to conform.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Claude said:
Lately I've been kind of feeling that cropping to 2.35.1 or any widescreen ratio is an artificial, added aesthetic and that it doesn't necesarilly add depth to filmmaking, but it rather merely imitates bigger budget, hollywood productions.
Click to expand...
Look at Nick's "Lawrence of Arabia" example and tell us again that
widescreen is an artificial added aesthetic that doesn't add depth.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in mine, wow,
what a difference the aspect ratio makes. We see "wide" - that
seems to be a solid reason to use a wide aspect ratio.

I love 1.33:1 and black and white. But shooting 2.35:1 is more
and just imitating bigger budget Hollywood productions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I feel that it all depends on the project. Dramas don't typically call for a super wide 2.40 look, yet a lot of beginning filmmakers do this because it "looks Hollywood". An often, those that do this merely add black bars to the footage and call it good. If you're going to use it, do it right. Ideally, this should be planned from the start. If you're doing action, sci-fi, some sort of visual epic, these may call for a 2.40 ratio. Frame for it while shooting. And when you master your film, do it in a sequence that is 2.40. Your final master should be a 2.40 image without the letterboxing bars. Going this route will help give a more professional look and feel. Nothing screams independent film to me like a small personal drama that's had the bars pasted over and screws with the framing. It's obvious they didn't plan for it or creatively use the space 2.40 offers. Some may say "I just the like the look of it". Great! You like the look. Now shoot for it and it'll look much better :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
El Director said:
I feel that it all depends on the project. Dramas don't typically call for a super wide 2.40 look, yet a lot of beginning filmmakers do this because it "looks Hollywood". An often, those that do this merely add black bars to the footage and call it good. If you're going to use it, do it right. Ideally, this should be planned from the start. If you're doing action, sci-fi, some sort of visual epic, these may call for a 2.40 ratio. Frame for it while shooting. And when you master your film, do it in a sequence that is 2.40. Your final master should be a 2.40 image without the letterboxing bars. Going this route will help give a more professional look and feel. Nothing screams independent film to me like a small personal drama that's had the bars pasted over and screws with the framing. It's obvious they didn't plan for it or creatively use the space 2.40 offers. Some may say "I just the like the look of it". Great! You like the look. Now shoot for it and it'll look much better :)
Click to expand...

First of all, I totally understand what you are saying.
When I plan on using 2.40 or 2.35 I use markers during shooting to make sure the framing is for that format.

But, when you put it on a 16:9 screen it will show bars.
On YouTube: it will show bars.
On a smartphone it will show bars.

It seems that only Vimeo and theatres are large platforms that support 21:9 and only the latter is not viewed on a screen that is often 16:9.

So if the framing is good and you still see bars: I have no problem with it.
The amateur feel comes from the bad framing and the bars are only a clue that they didn't use markers for framing.

:P
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
El Director said:
I feel that it all depends on the project. Dramas don't typically call for a super wide 2.40 look, yet a lot of beginning filmmakers do this because it "looks Hollywood".
Click to expand...

Interesting. Both you and Claude believe that filmmakers who chose
a very widescreen do so because it "looks Hollywood". I've never
thought that. I haven't met any filmmaker who thought that. Maybe
I'm out of touch. I always thought it was an artistic choice - even
by beginning filmmakers.

Some dramas use 2.40 (2.35:1) well. Look at William C. Mellor beautiful
Cinemascope black and white photography of the drama "Compulsion"
as an example.

Maybe some beginners do it only because they think it looks Hollywood
but every choice is a good learning experience.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wouldn't say I use 16:9 because it "looks Hollywood" but because it simply looks good. Wide screen formats simply look better, and that's a thing our minds have been trained to naturally enjoy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SkyCopeland said:
I wouldn't say I use 16:9 because it "looks Hollywood" but because it simply looks good. Wide screen formats simply look better, and that's a thing our minds have been trained to naturally enjoy.
Click to expand...

I would agree with the sentiment that we have been "trained" to see letterboxing as "hollywood standard", but that doesn't mean that it isn't also just the most sensible way to display films anyway. As someone up there said, our eyes naturally see "wide" so widescreen makes more sense than 1.33:1 because it emulates our natural field of view. In my opinion it's just a "know the rules before you break them" type of situation. Aspect ratio CAN be an artistic choice, but generally shouldn't be messed with unless you have a damn good reason.

I'm just waiting for theaters to have support for VVS (vertical video syndrome) :lol:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
WhiteOpus said:
.............

I'm just waiting for theaters to have support for VVS (vertical video syndrome) :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol:

You missed your change in 2014's editionof IFFR (International Film Festival Rotterdam): it had a 3 hour show full of experimental vertical cinema on a big vertical screen. They used a former church for it, because that building was high enough.
Unfortunately I couldn't make it: I like checking out experimental stuff :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
WalterB said:
:lol:

You missed your change in 2014's editionof IFFR (International Film Festival Rotterdam): it had a 3 hour show full of experimental vertical cinema on a big vertical screen. They used a former church for it, because that building was high enough.
Unfortunately I couldn't make it: I like checking out experimental stuff :)
Click to expand...

though i was joking at first, I now would love to see this happen in the future. experimental all the way!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I love wide. But I think it should be shot wide in the first place. I'm not thrilled by the practice of cropping 16:9 to make it look wider. I'm just generally against cropping. It's best to shoot wider in the first place. But, eh, I suppose if it's done well with good planning, it might do.

If you crop it to get the 2:39:1 look only to make it look more expensive or prestigious, then I suppose there would be something artificial about that.

If you crop it to get the 2:39:1 look because you love or want the 2:39:1 look (as I do), and you couldn't afford to shoot it that way in the first place, then I see nothing artificial, in the sense of phony, about it. Though I would still consider it a shame to crop and loose the information.

I loathe 4:3 and the like. I don't seem to care what artistic merit a filmmaker has for using it; I'll pass, usually. A notable exception would be Full Metal Jacket. I think he was foolish to shoot or crop anything to 4:3. I don't care that he's the genius and I'm, well, me. But, the film is far too good to reject, and that's how, if I understand right, the great man wanted it seen. In other words, Kubrick gets a pass. But probably no one else does. :P

But matting or cropping a 4:3 film like Full Metal Jacket to look 1:85:1 is beyond absurd, even as much as I prefer wide. It's as egregious, if not more so, as cropping a film shot with a wide aspect ration to fit a 4:3 screen. A travesty both!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
richy said:
.......

I loathe 4:3 and the like. I don't seem to care what artistic merit a filmmaker has for using it; I'll pass, usually. A notable exception would be Full Metal Jacket. I think he was foolish to shoot or crop anything to 4:3. I don't care that he's the genius and I'm, well, me. But, the film is far too good to reject, and that's how, if I understand right, the great man wanted it seen. In other words, Kubrick gets a pass. But probably no one else does. :P

......
Click to expand...

If the wideness of Lawrence of Arabia makes the movie feel fast and free, the 4:3 of full metal jacket makes it more claustrofobic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The wider the better. I love the look of 2.39:1 whether truly anamorphic or not - it screams 'CINEMA!' - all the same, I crop to whatever the picture needs - my current feature being 1.85:1

P.S. Not a fan of mixed aspect ratios in films - it spoils the immersion for me - I pick a ratio and stick with it.

P.P.S. You're not losing any information if you're framing for it - all the extraneous stuff is just that - extraneous.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top