• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

2.33:1 -- Why are you doing that?

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

This is a sincere question to all the indie filmmakers who are making movies in the 2.33:1 ratio. What is your reasoning?

Needless to say, this art is 100% subjective, and there's no right or wrong way to do things. I just don't get it, to be completely honest.

None of our cameras are shooting in that aspect-ratio. So, you have to put tape over your lcd screen, or monitor. Then, you have to crop the image in post, and you've lost resolution. And in the end, there's no realistic hope that your creation is going to be seen the way that this aspect-ratio should be seen -- on a GIANT canvas; realistically, the vast majority of the people who see your film are going to watch it on either a 16:9 computer monitor, or a 16:9 HDTV.

So, why are you doing this? Again, there's no wrong answer. "I just like the way it looks" would be a perfectly valid response, as would "I think it looks more cinematic".

I'm just wondering if there's more to it than that.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Different content for different aspects. It's subjective, but the presentation aspect changes the way an audience member sees the world, so changes the experience.

Mostly, though, its just a choice these days. Just like shooting anamorphic. I like shootng anamorphic but it's inefficient and purely for aesthetic purpose when I choose to.

The cam I use shoots a 2.35:1 natively, I like it, but it's not appropriate for everything I shoot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's a good question. And there are not just aesthetics but reasons and film evolution behind it. But b4 we start discussing that, you mean 2.39 right? Bc if u really mean 2.33, then im as confused as u r.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ernest Worthing said:
That's a good question. And there are not just aesthetics but reasons and film evolution behind it. But b4 we start discussing that, you mean 2.39 right? Bc if u really mean 2.33, then im as confused as u r.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yes, you're right -- I got the number wrong. Not sure why I thought it was 2.33, but that is what I thought. Also, I wasn't aware (as Kholi pointed out) that some cameras do shoot in this aspect ratio. Anyway...

Kholi, thanks for the answer. One follow-up question I have for you. You mention that a different aspect-ratio changes the way in which the audience experiences the movie. Well, yes, but I'm kind of hoping for more specifics. Exactly what sort of experience are you hoping will be acheived by using this aspect-ratio?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Lol. Yes, you're right -- I got the number wrong. Not sure why I thought it was 2.33, but that is what I thought. Also, I wasn't aware (as Kholi pointed out) that some cameras do shoot in this aspect ratio. Anyway...

Kholi, thanks for the answer. One follow-up question I have for you. You mention that a different aspect-ratio changes the way in which the audience experiences the movie. Well, yes, but I'm kind of hoping for more specifics. Exactly what sort of experience are you hoping will be acheived by using this aspect-ratio?
Click to expand...


Well, right off the cuff your entire lens choice changes the second you decide to compose for either 1:85:1 or 2.35:1. That changes relationships between subject, fore, and backgrounds through distances and angles of view. Compression of spaces, etc.

I won't be shooting heads @ 2.35:1 frequently, but at 1.85:1 it's more natural. Most of my coverage @2.35:1 aspects will be wider. Because of that you change the scope of the visual narrative.

1.85:1 I'm going to use a 50mm for most of my coverage. 2.35:1 I'm gonna use a 28 or 35mm range.

For comedy I'd shoot 1.85:1, unless it's a larger action comedy or something more gritty like The Hangover.

For most action or large scale content, hd tv or not, I'm going to shoot a 2.35:1 or similar for scale.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have a 1.33x anamorphic lens adaptor that allows me to shoot at 2.39:1, but I haven't really used it for any projects yet. It's been fun to mess around with, and it gives amazing lens flares. I'm hoping to eventually shoot a sci-fi short with it. As for cropping in post, I'm not really a fan.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What Kholi said, basically. It's an aesthetic choice, with obvious compromises - just like choosing black and white vs. colour, mostly wide-angle lenses vs. mostly telephoto lenses, 16mm vs. 35mm vs. 2/3" digital vs. S35 digital.

For example, Roger Deakins chose to use 2.35:1 for No Country For Old Men despite most of his previous work with the Coen brothers being 1.85:1 - he felt that the wider aspect ratio would be more suited to the vast landscapes he was working in.

When working on film, it may be to do with costs as much as aesthetics - two-perf or three-perf film use 50% and 25% less film stock respectively.

Lastly, I think an aspect ratio wider than 1.78:1 (16:9) says "cinema" to a lot of people - they may be watching on a squarer television or computer screen, but those black bars make them feel like this isn't television any more, like how a lot of us would notice the difference between 30p and 24p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
What Kholi said, basically. It's an aesthetic choice, with obvious compromises - just like choosing black and white vs. colour, mostly wide-angle lenses vs. mostly telephoto lenses, 16mm vs. 35mm vs. 2/3" digital vs. S35 digital.

For example, Roger Deakins chose to use 2.35:1 for No Country For Old Men despite most of his previous work with the Coen brothers being 1.85:1 - he felt that the wider aspect ratio would be more suited to the vast landscapes he was working in.

When working on film, it may be to do with costs as much as aesthetics - two-perf or three-perf film use 50% and 25% less film stock respectively.

Lastly, I think an aspect ratio wider than 1.78:1 (16:9) says "cinema" to a lot of people - they may be watching on a squarer television or computer screen, but those black bars make them feel like this isn't television any more, like how a lot of us would notice the difference between 30p and 24p.
Click to expand...

Especially landscapes and the las pointt, what we've been sort of trained to see as Cinematic. Whenever I see properly composed images at any aspect ratio I never question the choices. I only notice when compositions are way off, and that's typically because it was an afterthought for a lot of people.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When I was prepping my black and while thriller I saw
a screening of "Compulsion" and was blown away. I had
seen the film before but seeing it on the big screen just
really struck me. So I decided to shoot my movie in 2.35.

I am too much of a right brain person to know "why", I
just know I like it. I know no one will see it on the big screen
( however, at one festival it was shown on a big screen in
the proper ratio) and , the vast majority of the people who
see your film are going to watch it on either a 16:9 computer
monitor or a 16:9 HDTV, but that did not enter my creative
choices. I just chose that aspect ratio because it was unusual
for an unusual film. It just felt right.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
When I was prepping my black and while thriller I saw
a screening of "Compulsion" and was blown away. I had
seen the film before but seeing it on the big screen just
really struck me. So I decided to shoot my movie in 2.35.

I am too much of a right brain person to know "why", I
just know I like it. I know no one will see it on the big screen
( however, at one festival it was shown on a big screen in
the proper ratio) and , the vast majority of the people who
see your film are going to watch it on either a 16:9 computer
monitor or a 16:9 HDTV, but that did not enter my creative
choices. I just chose that aspect ratio because it was unusual
for an unusual film. It just felt right.
Click to expand...

Maybe too much assumption on my part, but was Compulsion shot on a Prosumer Video Camera? DVX, HVX or similar?

The 2.35:1 ratio actually lends itself to the format if you're only using wide angle adapters at most. As long as you're matting the LCD or the Lens the entire time (instead of doing making the decision in post) then it forces your camera placement further back away from the subject, which typically looks more cinematic IMO.

The viewing source is almost irrelevant in the chain for anyone who doesn't already have theatrical distribution lined up. Even if it's only hitting an HD TV, Computer, or even an SD television the presentation will still be effective.

Already mentioned it, but, it's typically when it's an afterthought that it begins to do something strange or negative.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top