2:35:1 or 1:85:1

John_Hudson said:
Any thoughts on when and why ?

Why choose one over the other ?
Click to expand...
Hi,

My understanding is one ratio you can a wider frame. Known as Anamorphic. More picture information when projected on movie screens. On 35mm film camera a special lense is added. Standard widescreenis 1.85:1 otherwise on video we know as 16:9.

I think it gets down to athestics and the kind of look you want with a given project IMO.

Chris
 
imageonepictures said:
Hi,

My understanding is one ratio you can a wider frame. Known as Anamorphic. More picture information when projected on movie screens. On 35mm film camera a special lense is added. Standard widescreenis 1.85:1 otherwise on video we know as 16:9.

I think it gets down to athestics and the kind of look you want with a given project IMO.

Chris
Click to expand...
Oh yes... Spiderman 2 was shot this was 2.35.:1.

Chris
 
I don't know. I shoot 2.35:1 all the time because it's how I think. I feel like it more closely matches our vision (whether I am right or wrong...) and I think it gives a larger then life feel to a film. I have shot a couple pieces in academy and I find some shots are a little awkward. I still like it, but it's not for me.
 
When I'm doing shorts, or anything "cinematic," I use 2.35:1. If I'm doing a corporate piece for a client, or anything anything else, then I use 1.85:1 or 4:3
 
I think it has something to do with 2.35 looking more deliberate. Not sure, but when I see most 2.35 (like my own stuff) I feel like the composition was important and intentianal. Where as 16:9 is less retrictive and forgiving.

Those are opinions rather than facts mind you.
 
John_Hudson said:
Any thoughts on when and why ?

Why choose one over the other ?
Click to expand...



2.35 can be somewhat tougher to compose for if there are small but pertinent details within the frame (assuming final format is TV). Since the overall picture must be smaller to fit within the ratio, tiny items (ie. a gun on a table top) can lose their "voice" within the comp. The extra negative space also requires more attention to art direction/production design and lighting.

Possibly not as friendly for ECUs - due to the "unbalanced" nature of the frame.

That said, it's still my favorite ratio to watch though and I would definitely explore it as an option.

Are you thinking of using 2.35 for HorrorFest?


dmc
 
Well, speaking from a bit of recent experience... I shot my film Smuggler's Ransom for a 16:9 crop... I like having a lot of frame to play with... After getting into post we tried 2:35:1 out as we knew it'd give the film a bit more of an "epic" feel. The comps didn't work as we had framed for 16:9 and would lose too much... We then went to 1:85:1 which worked wonderfully, maintaining our compositions and also adding some epicness to our framing... I think 2:35:1 and 1:85:1 are very close in feel... My next film will be shot for a 2:35:1 crop... Hopefully it will be SR2! :)
 
Personally I feel 2:35, whilst it can look beautiful on epic expansive shots is way too limiting for compostion in any part that is dramatic from anywhere to MCU to ECU. I would rather go for 1:85 and use a wide angle to add a bit more, then have more room.
 
ncje said:
Personally I feel 2:35, whilst it can look beautiful on epic expansive shots is way too limiting for compostion in any part that is dramatic from anywhere to MCU to ECU.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think there's much more to 2.35 than feeling "epic". Watch Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. That's an incredible example of how flexible and effective it can be.
 
2.35:1 tends to cater to the more dramatic film types - i don't think i've seen it used in any comedies before...

On the side, what if they made an epic action comedy(no, i don't mean POTC). I mean with about 20 million orcs on screen
 
I think large screens look wonderful in 2.35:1 because you still get the larger center of the screen for tight shots. For stadium seating where everyone is closer to the image, it allows for the personal feel while maintaining the "epic" quality. On smaller screens, for me anyway, the tight shots lose something--much less forgiving.
 
"Cinemascope isn't a format for men. It's a format for snakes"

Just thought I'd add this pearl from Fritz Lang playing himself in Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt), shot by the way in 1:2.35.
 
I'm a fan of shooting 2.35:1. I feel more comfortable composing shots in that aspect ratio. Perhaps it's because I'm a huge Carpenter nerd and that's how he shoots.
 
I remember watching the extra features of the mediocre movie The Interpreter, Sydney Pollack goes into detail why he shot 2:35:1 after so long. I mean he even shot Out of Africa in 4:3(or whatever it is) a movie that should have been cinemascope! His arguments were that he feared that when out of africa went to Video it would get butchered, so better to shoot it in 4:3. He said he specifically chose 2:35:1 aspect ratio because he could tell the audience where to look, he could key into certain shots that gives clues. I don't think he matted, but what he meant was aesthetics have nothing to do with it, it's about framing. He could frame better with 2:35:1. He even compared that to pan and scan and how **** it is.

However we are talking about film here, not dv, in dv the disadvantages are cropping and loosing resolution. But the argument in having 2:35:1 in DV is not only the fact that it looks pretty good, but if you're framing for a certain shot i.e. you want show the depth of landscape in some remote hills, you matte to meet 2:35:1 to show the awe of it. Or in another example you want show just the eyes of your hero, 2:35:1 is more effective in showing that.

Also, one thing that bugs me is Kubrick never shot in 2:35:1 always full frame. Interesting isn't? I've always imagined Kubricks films as being in full cinemascope, but no they never were or are, but look just as good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top