Why An Aspect Ratio?

[mad_hatter]

I’ve been thinking recently about which aspect ratio to use for my film. I have no real preference, although I do like the idea of letterboxing, giving that “Hollywood” feel…

Anyhow, “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls” was on TV the other day and I noticed that the picture took up the whole frame of my TV, so 16:9 (1.78:1). I felt sure the film wouldn’t have been shot in that aspect ratio, so I checked IMDb which has it listed as being 2.35:1. So why, has it been reframed for TV? Is it just because TV audiences don’t like letterboxing? And then, what’s missing from the shot?

This all led me to taking a look at a variety of films from my DVD collection. I remember watching “Scream” recently, thinking how unusually wide the film appeared to be. So, I compared what the DVD sleeve says, to what IMDb says, to what I could physically measure on the screen.

This is what I found:

Scream: IMDb = 2.35:1
Case = 2.35:1
Screen = 3:1
Scream 2: IMDb = 2.35:1
Case = 2.35:1
Screen = 3:1
Scream 3: IMDb = 2.35:1
Case = 2.35:1
Screen = 2.35:1
RZ’s Halloween: IMDb = 2.35:1
Case = 2.35:1
Screen = 2.35:1
RZ’s H2 (BR): IMDb = 1.85:1
Case = 16:9 1.85:1
Screen = 16:9
Insidious (BR): IMDb = 2.35:1
Case = 16:9 (Original Version 2.40:1)
Screen = 2.35:1

As you can see, Scream and Scream 2 are incredibly wide. The closest I can find to this is 2.75:1 Ultra-Panavision. But if the film was shot at 2.35:1, to be presented wider than that, it must be cropped in post. So what are we losing there? And why bother?

Then there are discrepancies on H2 and Insidious, between how it was filmed, what’s on the case and what’s shown on a 16:9 TV.

Any ideas why any of this is so? And why do filmmakers select a particular aspect ratio for a particular project? Especially if there will be multiple presentation formats?

And that brings me back to my original question… What aspect ratio should I be using???

 

[jax_rox]

I felt sure the film wouldn’t have been shot in that aspect ratio, so I checked IMDb which has it listed as being 2.35:1. So why, has it been reframed for TV? Is it just because TV audiences don’t like letterboxing? And then, what’s missing from the shot?

Yes. If you think back to the olden days of VHS, films were released, and then later on 'widescreen' versions were released. 4:3 versions were released because that was the aspect ratio of your TV, and later on, you could view it I guess 'as it was intended'. With TV, having that much black space at the top and bottom of your frame for that long looks awful. 2.40:1 only ever happens on commercials, if it happens at all.
The sides are cropped, but in the process the frame can also be repositioned so as not to lose anything.

As you can see, Scream and Scream 2 are incredibly wide. The closest I can find to this is 2.75:1 Ultra-Panavision. But if the film was shot at 2.35:1, to be presented wider than that, it must be cropped in post. So what are we losing there? And why bother?

I would be suspect as to your measurements

Any ideas why any of this is so? And why do filmmakers select a particular aspect ratio for a particular project? Especially if there will be multiple presentation formats?

Personal preference based on the story. Some movies just suit 2.40:1. Others don't. Some just suit 1.85:1. Some suit 1.33:1 (4:3). Just depends on the look you're going for. There will always be different formats and different ratios to conform to, no matter what you shoot in.

And that brings me back to my original question… What aspect ratio should I be using???

What do you like? What's your film about? What aspect does your script lend itself to? Are you going for theatrical (ie: 1.85:1 or 2.40:1 - maybe 1.78:1 at a stretch) or TV (1.78:1/4:3)?

 

[Sweetie]

And that brings me back to my original question… What aspect ratio should I be using???

If you have to ask, 16:9 is your answer.

 

[MileCreations]

Philip, being a bit mainstream/cliche (can't think of the right word) typically I've noticed that a drama will be 1.85:1 while an action will be 2.40:1.

With TV, having that much black space at the top and bottom of your frame for that long looks awful. 2.40:1 only ever happens on commercials, if it happens at all.

Personally I disagree. I prefer the 'black bars' and most of my DVDs are at 2.40:1 (or 2.35:1 depending) bar the ones that were theatrically created at 1.85:1 like Sherlock Holmes 1.

 

[MileCreations]

TV (1.78:1/4:3)?

Also 1.78:1 isn't the same as 4:3, unless you're meaning 1.78:1 as a standard for tv as well as 4:3 being a (ex) standard.

 

[jax_rox]

Personally I disagree. I prefer the 'black bars' and most of my DVDs are at 2.40:1 (or 2.35:1 depending) bar the ones that were theatrically created at 1.85:1 like Sherlock Holmes 1.

You perhaps, but as a television network you have to cater to everybody. Unless you're a dedicated movie network, black bars just often don't work.

Also 1.78:1 isn't the same as 4:3, unless you're meaning 1.78:1 as a standard for tv as well as 4:3 being a (ex) standard.

My bad, that was a typo on my part. 1.78 = 16:9 4:3 is 1.33 expressed as a ratio to 1.

 

[rayw]

Any ideas why any of this is so?
Might be how the DVD distributor's subcontractor sets up the display on the disk's programming, kinda like how the audio will come out 2.0, 3.0, or 5.0/5.1 depending upon your system.
I'll guess for legal reasons the distributor is required to have the jacket printed with the aspect ratio the studio released the film, but the subcontractor who actually prints/presses/copies the DVDs... probably get it right most of the time.
Thus a discrepancy.
Broadcasters rarely letterbox as the snack gobbling audience prefers bigger pictures to more picture.
And most contemporary directors know this and block their shots to accommodate lopping off the ends for eventual broadcast TV display.

And why do filmmakers select a particular aspect ratio for a particular project? Especially if there will be multiple presentation formats?
16:9 / 1.78 is fine for most youtube or broadcast TV destined products.
2.35 is fine if you want more emphasis on epic settings and graphics than on the emotives of characters.

And that brings me back to my original question… What aspect ratio should I be using???
There's no "should", but probably 16:9 / 1.78 just on general principle.
Unless you WANT to direct the audience's attention to epic settings and graphics.

Director's discretion.

Doesn't matter a whole lot.
I've never read any imdb.com comments about "fantastic usage of 1.78 aspect ratio!" or "terrible usage of 2.35 aspect ratio!"
Ever.

 

[mad_hatter]

I would be suspect as to your measurements

Hey, you and me both! But, trust me, my TV measures 920x517mm (sorry for the metric, I'm British! (and that's bang on 16:9)), "Scream" measures 920x307mm (approx. 3:1!) and Scream 3" measures 920x400mm (approx. 2.35:1).

If you have to ask, 16:9 is your answer.

Can you expand on that? I think I get what you're saying, it's the safest option. But why? Most theatrically released movies (those which we all so desperately want to emulate) are at least 1.85:1. Why not go for that, or 2.35:1, just for the 'look'?

 

[CraigL]

Personally I disagree. I prefer the 'black bars' and most of my DVDs are at 2.40:1 (or 2.35:1 depending) bar the ones that were theatrically created at 1.85:1 like Sherlock Holmes 1.

This harks back to when it started. On NTSC or VHS tape, there just wasn't enough vertical resolution to make widescreen viable. The TVs were smaller and the resolution sucked. Pan-n-scan as it was "affectionately" know become the normal, so named as they'd zoom in on the 50% or so of the image that was "important", then scan back and forth to whatever part of the frame the action was happening in. Nowadays, the casual TV viewer still expects to not have half their TV "wasted" on black bars, without regard for what's being lost when they're zoomed in.

although I do like the idea of letterboxing, giving that “Hollywood” feel

That's exactly why it started. Academy format started as 1.37:1 or something, but was adjusted as TV became popular to differentiate itself and make it more "artistic". Anamorphic systems (where the lens squishes a wider image into the same width of film) made the final image even wider, again to make film better than TV.

For big films, the main choice is cost. Pay for the anamorphic equipment, or stay spherical and cheaper. It can always be matted, but you're losing resolution again if you do.

Otherwise, it's just an artistic choice it seems.

CraigL

 

[jax_rox]

Imagine all the stereotypical old people who would take their TVs back to the shop thinking it was broken if TV networks broadcast letterboxed programs

I'd also disagree that the main choice is cost. You can get cheaper PL-mount anamorphics that will mount on any camera. Any decent budget studio film has the budget for anamorphic if they want to. It's more of a preference than anything else. Roger Deakins doesn't like shooting anamorphic, even though he has the budget and crew for it.

 

[Sweetie]

Director's discretion.

I understood it was more the DP's discretion.

Can you expand on that? I think I get what you're saying, it's the safest option. But why? Most theatrically released movies (those which we all so desperately want to emulate) are at least 1.85:1. Why not go for that, or 2.35:1, just for the 'look'?

What I meant is if you don't know the answer, then your answer should be 16:9. If you don't have a reason, use the current standard. 16:9 can be used for cinema, Bluray, DVD and HD broadcast tv.

Slightly more advanced answer: It depends on what genre you're trying to shoot. There's little reason to use 2.35:1 for comedies, romances, or even horror movies. They are more suited to movies that utilize panoramic views, like adventure films.

Truth be told, you can use it if you must. I just suggest that you work out a reason for it.

Next point. Most of the general viewing public don't really care. Ask 10 friends what was the aspect ratio of the last movie they saw in the cinema. I'd be surprised if any knew the answer.

 

[Will Vincent]

Back when 4:3 was the standard for television screens, some movies were shot 4:3 and cropped to 1.85 for theatrical display. The one that immediately comes to mind when I think of this is Air Force One

 

[wheatgrinder]

I like being able to crop my shots after the fact..

I shot "the Hot Rod" 16x9 but I edited it wider. That let me re-frame some shots where the eye-line was too low in the shot or otherwise vertically framed a bit off.

To me thats the best reason to go wider then 16x9. A little wiggle room can help in the edit.

 

[jax_rox]

Back when 4:3 was the standard for television screens, some movies were shot 4:3 and cropped to 1.85 for theatrical display. The one that immediately comes to mind when I think of this is Air Force One

All movies shot on film are shot in 4:3, even still. The film negative has a native aspect ratio of 4:3. That's how anamorphics work. Then they're cropped to 16:9, 1.85:1, or 2.40:1. Anamorphic films are de-squeezed to 2.40:1.

 

[Will Vincent]

All movies shot on film are shot in 4:3, even still. The film negative has a native aspect ratio of 4:3. That's how anamorphics work. Then they're cropped to 16:9, 1.85:1, or 2.40:1. Anamorphic films are de-squeezed to 2.40:1.

Not all movies shot on film use a 4:3 aspect ratio, nor are they all shot anamorphic.

Film does not have ANY native aspect ratio, it's just a long strip of film, the frame can take up a taller or shorter portion based primarily on the size gate that is used.

Super35, which is what many (perhaps most) films shot on 35mm occupy the space of about 3 sprocket holes on the film stock.

Cinemascope (usually what's used for anamorphic) occupys the space of roughly 4 sprock holes on the film stock.

 

[jax_rox]

Not all movies shot on film use a 4:3 aspect ratio, nor are they all shot anamorphic.

Film does not have ANY native aspect ratio, it's just a long strip of film, the frame can take up a taller or shorter portion based primarily on the size gate that is used.

Super35, which is what many (perhaps most) films shot on 35mm occupy the space of about 3 sprocket holes on the film stock.

Cinemascope (usually what's used for anamorphic) occupys the space of roughly 4 sprock holes on the film stock.

You're confusing what I said, or are confused about how anamorphic works.

Movies shot on 4-perf 35mm, be it standard or S35mm are in a 4:3 aspect ratio (standard 35 is perhaps not quite 4:3, but it's close) as the cameras are designed with the gate and pull-down of 4-perf 35mm. 3-perf and 2-perf are different, but then 3-perf and 2-perf have really only become really popular over the past couple of years. 3-perf has an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 which is why it's become popular for widescreen television - you save film (and therefore money) and keep the same resolution. 2-perf is 2.33:1, which is easily cropped for either 2.39:1 or zoomed for 1.85:1.

Because of the advent of television, widescreen was developed to make the theatre experience different.

Cinemascope was the initial anamorphic lens system, which gave an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. In the late 60s, Panavision, amongst others, superseded the Cinemascope series. However, as it was the first system, anamorphic is still often referred to as 'scope'. It has to do with the lenses, not the film itself - anamorphic squeezes the image so that the same 35mm image area can be used. Later on, a de-squeeze is applied which makes it wide (rather than a squeezed 4:3 image). With non-anamorphic films or widescreen television, the top and bottom are cropped off the 4:3 image to give you a widescreen aspect ratio. With anamorphics, because the entire film negative is being used to create a wide image, rather than the top and bottom being cropped off, anamorphic is often regarded to have higher quality than standard or super 35mm.

Because of the way anamorphics work, you cannot use anamorphic lenses and get a 2.x:1 aspect ratio without using a 4:3 sensor (be it film - standard or super 35mm, or digital - the Arri Alexa Studio). 16:9 sensors (3-perf 35mm, almost all digital cameras) have to be cropped to allow the anamorphic aspect ratio. By doing so, however, you don't get the other qualities of an anamorphic lens (spherical bokeh, lens flares) which is often part of the reason that a Director or Cinematographer will want to shoot anamorphic.

Anamorphic films are often shot on Panaflex cameras, mostly because the more popular anamorphic primes are Panavision primes. Panavision have their own proprietary lens mount (PV) and therefore, the lenses can't be mounted onto an Arriflex or similar.

You might be thinking of VistaVision, in which the film runs horizontally through the camera, rather than vertically. Paramount Pictures pioneered the use of it as they didn't use Cinemascope (anamorphic) for their widescreen material. VistaVision uses 8 perfs. It's use had pretty much died by the late 90's apart from a few films. Contact was shot on VistaVision, and short sequences (and VFX material) from more recent films have been shot on it.

Super 35mm is still 4-perf 35mm film, just that a slightly larger image area is used. Standard 35mm, just like standard 16mm has an area for sound. In Super 35 (and Super 16), this area is instead used for image, giving you a higher quality image.

 

[Will Vincent]

You clearly have no idea what I was saying, and I maintain that you are wrong.

 

[MileCreations]

although I do like the idea of letterboxing, giving that “Hollywood” feel

That's exactly why it started. Academy format started as 1.37:1 or something, but was adjusted as TV became popular to differentiate itself and make it more "artistic". Anamorphic systems (where the lens squishes a wider image into the same width of film) made the final image even wider, again to make film better than TV.

For big films, the main choice is cost. Pay for the anamorphic equipment, or stay spherical and cheaper. It can always be matted, but you're losing resolution again if you do.

Otherwise, it's just an artistic choice it seems.

CraigL

Just pointing it out, I did not say "although I do like the idea of letterboxing, giving that “Hollywood” feel"

 

[jax_rox]

You clearly have no idea what I was saying, and I maintain that you are wrong.

Perhaps you could clarify your point then. S35mm or standard 35mm running through a non-modified camera is 4-perforations high, whether you're shooting standard or super 35mm with spherical or anamorphic lenses.
3-perf film is 3-perforations high, though you need a modified camera with a 3-perf aperture and pull-down. A cropped 1.78:1 aspect image from a 4-perf negative would be the equivalent of 3-perforations of image area, but the actual captured image area is 4-perforations high and a 4:3 aspect ratio is captured. From that, a 1.78:1 image is extracted. Super 35mm is simply 'full aperture' in that the entire negative area is used for image. This is due to the camera itself, not the piece of film.

Anamorphic/CinemaScope is a lens system that squeezes the image onto a 4-perforation high space of film. Anamorphic/scope is shot on 4:3 4-perforation film, just as standard or S35mm. The difference is anamorphic is de-squeezed to get the wide aspect ratio, so you're using the entire negative area to get a widescreen picture, unlike 35 or S35 where you use standard spherical lenses and crop the 4:3 image to get a widescreen aspect ratio, be it 1.78:1, 1.85:1, or 2.40:1.

You seem to be implying that S35mm is 3-perforations high, whereas anamorphic is 4-perforations high, which is simply wrong, unless you're specifically comparing 3-perf cameras with spherical lenses to 4-perf cameras with anamorphics, though if you are you should make that distinction, and also realise that it's mostly television that shoots 3-perf because of the inherent 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Studio 35mm features are still often shot on 4-perf, regardless of whether spherical or anamorphic lenses are used.

 

[Jack Lynt]

This wikipedia page on aspect ratio is nice.

I agree with Sweetie. Shoot 16:9. Or 1:85:1 or 2:40:1, if you can.

I say that because, personally, I loathe 4:3. But then, who would want to shoot 4:3 these days, anyway, when TVs and computer moniters are generally 16:9?

Thank god the TV manufactures adopted a widescreen format like 16:9. Aesthetically, even if the original material was shot with a non-widescreen aspect ratio, I loathe it. Of course, I wouldn't want a 4:3 film to be cropped to be "widescreen," either.

For me, widescreen is much more aesthetically, and theatrically/dramatically, pleasing than the square(er) ratios.

What are you shooting with? My impression is that most recent cameras allow you to shoot 16:9 very easily. Please do...do it for me. =)

If you're old like me, you may have gotten into laserdisc so that you could get your movies in widescreen --that is, unbutchered!

I used to be a card carrying member of this. The Cult of Widescreen. I still am in spirit. I probably will be again. That was when it wasn't clear that widescreen would be adopted for the American HD standard. Reading those wikipedia pages, apparently they didn't actually do so? But, at least the TV manufacturers must have. Thank goodness.

Anyway, if it were up to me, you'd shoot 16:9 (probably because it will nicely fit on today's TVs and PC moniters) or wider (Wheatgrinder's idea of having wiggle room sounds good). And because wide just looks better and is better. My opinion anyway.

Oh, I suppose there may be reasonable, artistic reasons for shooting something in 4:3, or something similar. But I'm not very sure about that, and I hate to even admit the possibility. =P


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf-IgoUqutA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_geFomhGuHU

And it really annoys me that they still often fail to take Siskel & Ebert's advice and outline and color subtitles yellow. Geesh.