2:35:1 or 1:85:1

i think its terribly interesting that so many people feel 2:35.1 find its more difficult to compose in. i thinks far more expressive and provied ample space around subjects. from which you can build elements of tension direction and make viewers aware of space. i cant stand square frames, canvasa, or photograps. i live wide vista like images.
 
I love 2.35:1, and I use it whenever I can. I think it's a lot easier to compose a good looking 2.35:1 image than, say a 4:3 image.

Cinemascope just looks more cinematic. :)
 
personally i prefer viewing scope, and also prefer to shoot it. simply due to its ability to make one feel as if they are seeing so much of what is focused on, and so little of anything else.

.. simply stated, for me, the scope ratio for me gives the feeling of peering through a little slat in the venetian blinds. we see enough, but nothing more than that. this is in contrast to the wider to 4:3 ratios which give a more open feeling and provide more of a sense of "i feel like i know what is all around me. the only real exception to this for me is when a large horizon is displayed using scope. it too can then seemingly fullfill our desire to know everything about what is there to see. i really enjoy that "window to another world" feeling though, and i believe that is why it often feels more "epic" in proportion even though it is more often than not ..actually a crop of what could be included in a 1.85 or 4:3 frame. given these more open aspects, i generally feel more at home and comfortable with the environment presented in the scene, and the film feels less otherworldly and accordingly .."epic" in scale. if i had to be scientific about it, iwould go with the theory that since the human eyes actually have persistant vision in a ratio closer to 4:3, any constriction of the normal pattern gives us that "slat in venetian blnds" feeling which which we are less comfortable with, and more at awe within.
 
A have another theory.

Big productions uses 2,35:1

Home Video uses 1,33:1

Big productions uses 24P

Home video uses 50i/60i

Big productions uses artificial lights

Home video uses natural lights

etc etc

We like it because thats how great picture shall look.
 
MalcolmOng said:
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
Click to expand...

Ghostbusters 1-2 and Blading Saddles were comedies shot in 2.35:1

I can say that 90% of all my future projects will be in 2.35:1. When it comes to framing with 2.35:1, I know my way since I've studied this ratio closely. The framing possibilities seem higher with this aspect ratio and the composition can make subjects much more specific.
 
Well Steven Speilberg said that he usually doesn't shoot 2:35 because if takes more effort and thought to compose frames. Since he likes to work fast, it's easier to frame for 1:85 while 2:35 you have to be a lot more deliberate, otherwise it just looks unneccesarily wide.

Another thing to consider is that human vision, when relaxed, usually "sees" the world in a 1:85 frame. That's why it was chosen as the "standard" for widescreen film.
 
EA_Cru_2002 said:
Another thing to consider is that human vision, when relaxed, usually "sees" the world in a 1:85 frame. That's why it was chosen as the "standard" for widescreen film.
Click to expand...

where'd you pick up that gem
 
1.85 or 16x9 seem the most natural for me. Compositions just feel right when I'm working with that kind of space so it's what I like to use.

I think it really does depend on the kind of movie you are making. Much of it has to do with scale and landscape. If you're gonna have huge vistas or thousands of extras then of course you're going to want 2.35. It's simply a compositional neccesity with the appropriate scale.

However, I don't think that the 2.35 ratio gives you an epic feel on it's own. It seems to becoming more popular which personally I find a bit annoying since I really don't think it's suited to a lot of movies. More and more often I'm getting used to seeing a lot of wasted space or space filled with the back of someone's head. I don't think a lot of people really know how to use it but unfortunatly it's becoming the standard.

Oh, and you can make some pretty amazing compositions with 4:3. It is the golden rectangle after all.
 
Weston said:
That is really interesting.....Spielbergs aspect ratio choices. Heres all I can figure.

In his early career he was still a nobody...I assume all his favorite directors shot in 2:35:1 so wanting to be like them he did too.

As he began establishing himself and started to have success he may have begun thinking about different ways of going about shooting. Its also possible that a cinematographer of Allen Daviau's talent may have talked him into 1:85:1 for the color purple and Empire....

That could also be the reason for shooting 1:85:1 so much with Janusz...simply the cinematograhers preference. Also it seems that most movies that are in the WWII era are all in 1:85:1 whearas almost everything occuring or filmed in the 70's is in 2:35:1. Could it be that since Munich was supposed to occur in the 70's he chose to film it in 2:35:1? He may associate that time in history with looking like that...because of his previous films or for other reasons.

As for A.I. being in 1:85:1 and Minority Report 2:35:1...those films occur two years apart in the future as far as I can remember (2051 and 2053?...is that right?)...yet the future looks is vastly different in both. Could the aspect ratio just be something to further separate them from each other stylistically? Either that or Kubrick may have wanted A.I. in 1:85:1.

Hmm...its possible none of that makes any sense...but thats all I can think of.
Click to expand...

I've heard he indeed let the story decides. Why did he pick 1.85 for Jurassic Park and War of the worlds? because the feel of height (dinosaurs, tripods) was important...
On the spielbergfilms.com forum there is a discussion about it, very interesting.
 
Very interesting thoughts from everyone!! I don't usually hang out in the cinematography subforum here, but maybe I should do it alot more because of topics like this.

I've been wondering about this by myself too.

Personally, on any dramatic project, I would shoot it on a 1.85:1 ratio, film or video. Being from a film background (film student here on his final semester but have worked on 2 features yay lol), if it's not 1.85:1, it doesn't feel like film LOL. Im being very shallow of course but to me, it just doesnt feel right or it doesnt look pleasing if it's not shot in that aspect ratio. I guessed Im used to the aspect ratio watching films in cinema and all that.

You guys talked about dramatic productions being shot on 1.85/2.35. What about documentary films? Seen any that is worth the discussion if it could've been shot in a different aspect ratio? I've shot a short documentary on MiniDV+Letus35 Flip for one of my student projects and I shot it for 1.85. The subject was on Singapore's (my country) National Stadium which will be torn down to make way for a new sporting hub. I felt that it had very much to do with the subject/content that motivates the framing. I discussed it with my director and he's more than agreeable to do it. It is a mood piece and one which brings nostalgia for a wide range of Singaporean audiences and can even potentially be a universal topic for anyone.

Having said that, looking back, if I had the equipment, I would've loved to shoot it 2.35 instead LOL. I composed alot of wideshots of the stadium and damn, I can only imagine what it might have been.

As for whether I will consider shooting for 2.35 in future, I might if I have access to 35mm film or HD and if the content/subject motivates it, be it dramatic or documentary.

Practically, it is harder to work with 2.35 because of the added complexity of the anamorphic lens but I love the limitation of the frame size because it means that you have to be much more disciplined to put in or to leave out things in the frame. Do it well, and your picture will have an amazing look to it which lends authenticity to the film which you're trying to make.

Someone mentioned shooting 2.35 on the SR2. Are anamorphic lenses for 16mm easily attained? If it is, I think you should try the SR3 or other Super16 cameras instead because of the wider frame size.

Consider this. Many ancient/historic paintings were drawn on long scrolls or long canvases. Do you think that perhaps these paintings could've influenced some filmmakers to go for 2.35? And given that these ancient paintings tell big stories, could this be in fact why epic films are typically shot in 2.35?

My favourite Asian cinematographer is Zhang Yimou and I absolutely love his epic films and his compositions in Yellow Earth and Hero. I think he has stamped his trademark style of accentuating the picture with extremely wide compositions in those films.
 
I shoot 16:9.

BUT, I put a 2.35:1 transparent letterbox in DV Rack, and try to frame things so I can go either way.
 
GenJerDan said:
I shoot 16:9.
BUT, I put a 2.35:1 transparent letterbox in DV Rack, and try to frame things so I can go either way.
Click to expand...

When you say you shoot 16:9, which camera are you using and what are your NLE import/export settings for the footage?

I've been wanting to know if I could achieve a fake 2.35 without using an anamorphic lens and I wanna see how it looks like.
 
DVX-100A, Squeeze, regular widescreen settings in Vegas, then crop to 2.35

But I don't have anything up anywhere to show you.
 
This is a silly post. You guys are all stuck on the idea that things should be letterboxed because "they look cool like that."

I have a friend who shot a film on 16mm. When i saw the final cut it had a 1.85:1 letterbox. I asked..."how is your film widescreen if you shot 16mm? 16mm is a 1.33:1 ratio." He said, "because it looks cooler like that."

Oh boy! First, letterboxing and widescreen are the SAME THING. You can use the terms interchangably. Widescreen has caught on more recently because it sounds less harsh that LETTERBOX.

It is ANAMORPHIC that differs. ANAMORPHIC can be compared to better as the term SCOPE. Anamorphic is specifically, shooting with an anamorphic lens. In 35mm film, the image on the film strip per cell looks stretched as a result of the anamorphic lens. The projector uses a SCOPE lens to readjust the aspect ratio to fit the screen.

No, 2.35:1 is not only used in "epics" as you called it. In fact, the majority of all film produced by hollywood are shot 2.35:1, however, upon dvd release, they recrop to 1.85:1 so the viewer isn't as annoyed by the tiny viewing frame.

The point of widescreen or scope is to show the entire frame that was intended to be shown specifically wide. But with most digital cameras, cropping a letterbox matte is not real widescreen. You are just cutting video information from the top and bottom from effect; you are not actually showing anything wider!

My personal preference: don't just use scope of letterbox cropping because it "looks" cool. Fully understand the options of shooting widescreen, and understand why you may want to utilize it.
 
Im going to give my 2 cents.

2.jpg

2.35:1
Has room for background image, enough width to cover both subjects, and you dont need to go any wider, in terms of how much headroom and chest room there is. Virtually perfect.


1.jpg

1.85:1 (Roughly)
Still enough room for two subjects, though they have to be closer together (if the second subject is another person). If two subects are needed, you would have to increase headroom and chestroom. There isnt much background picture.


4-3richie.jpg

4:3
Room for one close-up subject, and no background picture. All in all- terrible.


Those are my opinions. The wider the aspect ratio, the more you can fit in, and the more background detail you can include, as well as more people (such as shots with the entire cast together, but with no necesary chest-room.

2.40:1 and 2.35:1 are best.
 
dasonras said:
This is a silly post. You guys are all stuck on the idea that things should be letterboxed because "they look cool like that."

I have a friend who shot a film on 16mm. When i saw the final cut it had a 1.85:1 letterbox. I asked..."how is your film widescreen if you shot 16mm? 16mm is a 1.33:1 ratio." He said, "because it looks cooler like that."

Oh boy! First, letterboxing and widescreen are the SAME THING. You can use the terms interchangably. Widescreen has caught on more recently because it sounds less harsh that LETTERBOX.

It is ANAMORPHIC that differs. ANAMORPHIC can be compared to better as the term SCOPE. Anamorphic is specifically, shooting with an anamorphic lens. In 35mm film, the image on the film strip per cell looks stretched as a result of the anamorphic lens. The projector uses a SCOPE lens to readjust the aspect ratio to fit the screen.

No, 2.35:1 is not only used in "epics" as you called it. In fact, the majority of all film produced by hollywood are shot 2.35:1, however, upon dvd release, they recrop to 1.85:1 so the viewer isn't as annoyed by the tiny viewing frame.

The point of widescreen or scope is to show the entire frame that was intended to be shown specifically wide. But with most digital cameras, cropping a letterbox matte is not real widescreen. You are just cutting video information from the top and bottom from effect; you are not actually showing anything wider!

My personal preference: don't just use scope of letterbox cropping because it "looks" cool. Fully understand the options of shooting widescreen, and understand why you may want to utilize it.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr dasonras. We'll, uh ..... take it under advisement.
 
It is my understanding that letterbox and widescreen are not the same thing. When I think of letterbox I think of making a 16:9 image work in a 4:3 screen. Widescreen to me is a true 16:9 image. or an image cropped to 16:9.
a dvd is not letterboxed. It is widescreen. If you play it on a 4:3 tv, the dvd player "letterboxes" it for you. If you play it on a 16:9 display it will use the full screen.
A letterboxed image (as I think of it) will not display full screen on a 16:9 display.
so anyways, how I understand it, letterbox and widescreen are not interchangeable terms

Jason
 
This is like asking a painter why they use a wide canvass for one painting and a more square one for another. There are a lot of reasons. Sometimes its your taste. Sometimes it just feels right. More quantifiably, 2:35 has typically been used for landscape shots because of composition with the horizon. It can also be used for distance and surface divisions between objects. Two people opposite each other on a 2:35 aspect ratio are a lot further away. Also, for spectacle, which is why wider formats were historically made - on a big screen, 23:5 is simply bigger.

Of course in this day and age, with 4:3 and 16:9 being the home standards, 2:35 ends up being smaller. But back in the hayday of the palace theaters, they didn't think we'de have projectors in hour houses.

There were a lot of different ratios back in the day, from 4:1 to 1:33. People experimented, and for cost reasons, film camera reasons, and audience reasons, they sort of settled on those. Of course with anamorphic 35, it's actually 2.39, but we still call it 2.35
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top