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???
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???