Use of widescreen bars in your films?

[cheeseandachallenge]

"Super widescreen" seems to be a little bit of a thing right now. I'm sure many of us have used widescreen bars in our films. Yet, I presume most of us don't have anamorphic lenses (and even if you do, the discussion I want to have is still relevant) - which means literally cropping the 1080p (or bigger) footage that we bought that nice camera to get in the first place.

Of course, the super widescreen look is aesthetically pleasing to most (maybe less so on a computer screen?). But how do you justify the choice artistically? Does your choice come down to "it looks cool"? For me, I feel everything needs to be there to support the story, or 'say something' as it were. Everything else is pretty carefully chosen in film, so I'm sure that aspect ration should be too.

I'm currently debating with myself as to whether or not I should use it in my current film. The film deals with a sort of cycle of content (where we aren't really that happy, and are in some ways paradoxically discontent with our content lives, but don't break out of this cycle) and would use widescreen as a kind of meeting of audience expectations and false glamorisation of what is being portrayed (in the same way we do what is expected of us, and kind of glamorise our lives to hide our unhappiness). But i'm also aware that this will mostly be lost on people - apart from the very few who bother to engage and ask themselves "why has he chosen to do this.

 

[RED ROBOT]

Well , saying that aspect ratio bars have some deep meaning behind you story is quite pretentious .

But yes , widescreen bars can or can not support your story .

For instance if I'm making a dramatic movie I always like to add the aspect ratio bars as I think it adds to the feel .

However if I'm doing comedy or something like that I usually don't use aspect ratio bars because it makes the film looks way too serious .

I guess it all depends on your story and your genre .

This however is talking Youtube wise .

You really need to know where are you going to showcase your film .

Some festivals do not accept movies with aspect ratio bars added in .

Some video platforms does not work well with aspect ratio bars and make your movie kinda stretched and kinda make it feel all odd .

It really depends on a lot of things .

P.S . Take a shot every time I said '' Aspect Ratio Bars '' .

 

[MileCreations]

Sometimes it seems to be based on the genre of the film. For example action and sci fi currently seem to be guaranteed to be shot anamorphic, while comedy and drama are more often not. This general fact has influenced myself in some of my videos in the past.

Often it seems to be associated with an epic feel (which I agree with). One film semi recently that I saw that it's aspect surprised me was Sherlock Holmes 1. It was not anamorphic (the 2nd was) but it completely felt like it should have been.

I do know one main thing though, usually when i choose one over the other for a story I don't have a verbal reason, it just *felt* like it should work better

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

Well , saying that aspect ratio bars have some deep meaning behind you story is quite pretentious .

I understand why you say that, but to that also infers that to say anything in a film with meaning (which is everything, really) is pretentious.... Everything is chosen in film, and so it has meaning (ascribed by the filmmaker or not) - so every choice has to be thought out. It doesn't have to be 'deep and meaningful' - it can be (as Milecreations suggested) as simple as making a genre film, or creating an epic, larger than life feeling (because your film is set in a world that most people can't relate to and is hyperbolised - e.g. action, sci-fi, western).

 

[itarumaa]

For me it seems that most people like to use widescreen bars in their films, because everyone else is doing the same.

I just do not undersand why there are no logic with the bars, for instance I used 1.85:1 bars in my film because they seem to fit nicely for the movie, but 2:35:1 or 2:40:1 would be way too much, since the movie is never planned to have that kind of bars.

So instead doing what every else is doing, you should think what kind of bars if any is needed for the movie.

 

[Yodaman]

I think for more dramatic/serious films, slapping a 2:35:1 letterbox over the footage could help create that feeling, primarily because almost every other film of that nature seems to always be anamorphic. Or, if you're trying to create an "old cinematic" look, it could help with that, as well as adding in 35mm film grain filters and an occasional slight jitter.

But for comedies, just keep it to the 16:9 aspect ratio. Again, seems to be how films of that nature work (take 40 Year Old Virgin, for example, a very non-serious film and is full 16:9)!

 

[jax_rox]

It really comes down to your own personal aesthetic and what aspect ratio you think looks and works better for your story.

It should be decided before shooting, as you should BR framing for your eventual crop.

Actually using anamorphic lenses is a different aesthetic again.

 

[Rayandmigdalia]

FYI - Amazon will not distribute two of our films as "VOD downloads" because they
are letterboxed...they want a squeezed image.

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

I think for more dramatic/serious films, slapping a 2:35:1 letterbox over the footage could help create that feeling, primarily because almost every other film of that nature seems to always be anamorphic.

I accept this reasoning, and that it's how a lot of people who use it feel about it. But I don't know if it's great logic... It just seems somewhat mindless

I feel that this approach is a much better way of looking at it

It really comes down to your own personal aesthetic and what aspect ratio you think looks and works better for your story.

But I don't think everyone does that - the approach seems to be more "well it has guns and action and stuff, therefore it needs to look 'epic' - oh, we'll shoot for a letterbox aspect ratio"

 

[MileCreations]

But I don't think everyone does that - the approach seems to be more "well it has guns and action and stuff, therefore it needs to look 'epic' - oh, we'll shoot for a letterbox aspect ratio"

Still there's the perception that it was chosen for aesthetic purposes, the aesthetic here being that it 'will' automatically make it more epic.

 

[jax_rox]

But I don't think everyone does that - the approach seems to be more "well it has guns and action and stuff, therefore it needs to look 'epic' - oh, we'll shoot for a letterbox aspect ratio"

Most of the time, such films are shot on anamorphic lenses, which gives them that aspect ratio natively.

 

[harmonica44]

"Super widescreen" seems to be a little bit of a thing right now. I'm sure many of us have used widescreen bars in our films. Yet, I presume most of us don't have anamorphic lenses (and even if you do, the discussion I want to have is still relevant) - which means literally cropping the 1080p (or bigger) footage that we bought that nice camera to get in the first place.

Of course, the super widescreen look is aesthetically pleasing to most (maybe less so on a computer screen?). But how do you justify the choice artistically? Does your choice come down to "it looks cool"? For me, I feel everything needs to be there to support the story, or 'say something' as it were. Everything else is pretty carefully chosen in film, so I'm sure that aspect ration should be too.

I'm currently debating with myself as to whether or not I should use it in my current film. The film deals with a sort of cycle of content (where we aren't really that happy, and are in some ways paradoxically discontent with our content lives, but don't break out of this cycle) and would use widescreen as a kind of meeting of audience expectations and false glamorisation of what is being portrayed (in the same way we do what is expected of us, and kind of glamorise our lives to hide our unhappiness). But i'm also aware that this will mostly be lost on people - apart from the very few who bother to engage and ask themselves "why has he chosen to do this.

I actually don't care so much for the wider ratio look, but I would use it cause it makes a movie look more epic to people, so I would use it for that effect. I don't understand what anamorphic lenses have to do with it cause either way, you are still shooting on 1080p, so what difference does it make if you have to crop it, since it will always be 1080p (if that's what your camera is shooting on), no matter what lens you shoot on. Unless I am wrong?

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

FYI - Amazon will not distribute two of our films as "VOD downloads" because they
are letterboxed...they want a squeezed image.

Are you sure about this?

 

[jax_rox]

Are you sure about this?

They probably want a cropped image, rather than a letterboxed image or a squeezed image.

 

[MileCreations]

I actually don't care so much for the wider ratio look, but I would use it cause it makes a movie look more epic to people, so I would use it for that effect. I don't understand what anamorphic lenses have to do with it cause either way, you are still shooting on 1080p, so what difference does it make if you have to crop it, since it will always be 1080p (if that's what your camera is shooting on), no matter what lens you shoot on. Unless I am wrong?

I'm not sure you understand anamorphic lenses correctly. The way they shoot is that they stretch the image and then get re proportioned later. AFAIK the easiest way to spot a true anamorphic against someone who has slapped black bars on is the lens flare. Lens flares from anamorphic lenses are typically stretched more across the screen..

So yes, you're shooting on 1080p (or whatever your size) but you later squish it down to correct the image so that it's more like 1920x800.

Original

Final

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[jax_rox]

I'm not sure you understand anamorphic lenses correctly. The way they shoot is that they stretch the image and then get re proportioned later. AFAIK the easiest way to spot a true anamorphic against someone who has slapped black bars on is the lens flare. Lens flares from anamorphic lenses are typically stretched more across the screen..

So yes, you're shooting on 1080p (or whatever your size) but you later squish it down to correct the image so that it's more like 1920x800.

Original

Final

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

That's correct. Anamorphic lenses are designed to fit a much wider image (about 2x as wide) onto a normal 4-perforation high frame of film. To do this, it squeezes the image onto the frame. To view the image properly, you need a ground glass that will desqueeze the image back to a normal aspect ratio.
On digital, this usually happens with some internal processing (RED Epic shoots '5k Anamorphic' at an effective resolution of ~3.2k because of how it desqueezes), with the exception of the Alexa 4:3, which has an optical viewfinder.

Lens flares certainly are an indicator of anamorphic lenses, however not all anamorphic lenses flare as much as others, or in the same way. Another tell tale sign is oval bokeh, as opposed to the standard spherical bokeh found in spherical lenses, as well as some other less obvious tells, such as greater depth of field for an apparently wider frame.

For example:

Anamorphic:

Star Trek 5

Spherical (S35):

Star Trek 6

This is what people talk about when discussing the 'look' of anamorphic glass - it's much more than simply 'black bars' or lens flares.

 

[harmonica44]

Oh okay I misunderstood. It's obvious now. I can see why they used anarmorphic lenses back in the older days on film. Cause cropping film may have been more difficult maybe, is that it? But aren't anamorphic lenses kind of obsolete now, in the digital age, when cropping on computer costs so much less?

 

[jax_rox]

Oh okay I misunderstood. It's obvious now. I can see why they used anarmorphic lenses back in the older days on film. Cause cropping film may have been more difficult maybe, is that it? But aren't anamorphic lenses kind of obsolete now, in the digital age, when cropping on computer costs so much less?

It was in fact easier to 'crop' 'back in the day' - indeed, every spherical widescreen film was 'cropped'. The cropping, however, was done in the projection, at least up until the popularisation of the Digital Intermediate.
Masks were put on the projectors to mask the top and bottom of the image, essentially 'cropping' it to a wider aspect. This is also why you'd sometimes see boom mics at the top of frame in major Hollywood films - 9 times out of 10 this was due to the mask being set wrong, rather than the crew screwing up on set or in the edit.

Anamorphic lenses are far from obsolete. As I say - the look of an anamorphic lens is completely different to that of a spherical lens, even when cropped. If you look at the two example pictures I posted, they are actually the same aspect ratio, but the images look completely different, even though they're on very similar focal lengths. That's why people use anamorphic lenses, moreso than the wider aspect - though in cases like large landscapes, the choice can stem from the perceived 'epicness' of the format.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I think for more dramatic/serious films, slapping a 2:35:1 letterbox over the footage could help create that feeling

You really shouldn't be "slapping" any kind of letterbox over the footage. Aspect ratios have a big impact on composition. Two people standing at the edges of a 4:3 television frame have a much different effect than two people at the edges of a 16:9, which is different again from two people at the edges of a 2.35:1 frame. A medium shot in 16:9 cropped to 2.35 becomes a close-up, etc.

If you're going to do 2.35:1 letterbox you should be deciding that before you shoot, so that your individual shot compositions are designed appropriately for the end result.

Well , saying that aspect ratio bars have some deep meaning behind you story is quite pretentious .

If all you're doing is cropping your film to give it a 'more epic' feel then that may be the case. But some people actually take composition very seriously, and recognize that it does in fact convey meaning in and of itself - we're essentially speaking with a visual language. Aspect ratios change the range of options available to you - they define the visual 'words' you have at your disposal when speaking.

 

[harmonica44]

That's correct. Anamorphic lenses are designed to fit a much wider image (about 2x as wide) onto a normal 4-perforation high frame of film. To do this, it squeezes the image onto the frame. To view the image properly, you need a ground glass that will desqueeze the image back to a normal aspect ratio.
On digital, this usually happens with some internal processing (RED Epic shoots '5k Anamorphic' at an effective resolution of ~3.2k because of how it desqueezes), with the exception of the Alexa 4:3, which has an optical viewfinder.

Lens flares certainly are an indicator of anamorphic lenses, however not all anamorphic lenses flare as much as others, or in the same way. Another tell tale sign is oval bokeh, as opposed to the standard spherical bokeh found in spherical lenses, as well as some other less obvious tells, such as greater depth of field for an apparently wider frame.

For example:

Anamorphic:

Star Trek 5

Spherical (S35):

Star Trek 6

This is what people talk about when discussing the 'look' of anamorphic glass - it's much more than simply 'black bars' or lens flares.

I missed your examples before. I don't really see a lot of difference in the two though. I saw the new Star Trek: Into Darkness, which I read used anamorphic lenses to give it that old look Star Trek movie look. A lot of the shots although wide, had barrel distortion in them though, and I didn't really find that appealing. Are anamorphic lenses usually big on barrel distortion, or was that just something separate that the director was going for?