1.85 or 2.39 aspect ratio for an sci-fi/fantasy film?

X

xhridhar

Active member
For an upcoming shoot, the camera being used is F3K ( with the kit lens) . No anamorphic lenses are going to be used. There are a lot of fight scenes, big landscapes ( CG ones mainly) and loads of greenscreen .

I am curious as to what you would choose if you were given the choice? Aspect ratio of 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 ? why would you choose one over another?

Is it only an artistic choice or are there any other elements to be considered?
 
2.40 feels epic to me. I'd probably use it on a film with a big scope and story, like a sci-fi / fantasy. Although, I do imagine that 1.85 will give you maximum resolution for your greenscreen work and composited landscapes, since you mentioned you aren't using anamorphics.
 
Finnegan said:
2.40 feels epic to me. I'd probably use it on a film with a big scope and story, like a sci-fi / fantasy. Although, I do imagine that 1.85 will give you maximum resolution for your greenscreen work and composited landscapes, since you mentioned you aren't using anamorphics.
Click to expand...

Just because you're cropping the image doesn't neccesarily mean you're losing resolution. As you crop the image, the image changes size, so less pixels are needed to resolve it.

If you start with a 1080 image at 1.85 and then crop to 2.35, your image is still 1080.

I'd probably go with 2.35 because of the landscapes and the epic factor. As long as that's what you want.
 
RyanT said:
Just because you're cropping the image doesn't neccesarily mean you're losing resolution. As you crop the image, the image changes size, so less pixels are needed to resolve it.

If you start with a 1080 image at 1.85 and then crop to 2.35, your image is still 1080.

I'd probably go with 2.35 because of the landscapes and the epic factor. As long as that's what you want.
Click to expand...

Depends on the cinema's projection capabilities. Many cropped 2.39:1 pictures need to be enlarged compared to 1.85:1 ones. For high end came, like the F3, this resolution loss is negligible, but for lower end cams its noticable.

CHILDREN OF MEN was shot 1.85:1, so don't think you can't shoot an awesome, epic sci-fi in this aspect ratio. It's easier for low budget films shooting in this ratio, and less intensive for effects (one of the reasons Spielberg shot JURASSIC PARK in 1.85:1 ).

Also, I believe Gareth Edwards shot MONSTERS with just one lens, so it's doable.

GOOD LUCK!
 
Just wanted to thank the OP for saying 2.39 and subsequently others the rounded figure 2.40. That is anamorphic widescreen aspect in today's world :)

To answer the question, I would choose between the two based on what I was shooting and the feeling I wanted. The previous poster is correct... many films have not been 2.39 and have kicked total ass. They were likely decided upon that format for many creative.

If were to shoot a movie with emphasis on scale or size, regarding height, I'd go 1.85. If I were doing a film that emphasized expanse of space, had multiple characters in shots, and etc, I'd do 2.39.

For example, if the movie was about a boy and his 10' tall monster friend, I'd probably go 1.85 to get them both in the frame without having to do a super wide shot all the time. If I were to shoot a film about a lone man's trek into the unforgiving desert expanse, I'd do 2.39.


Regarding cropping and resolution loss... I wouldn't worry about it unless you knew you were getting theatrical release. If you have distribution or a television deal, I'd confirm with the networks what the deliverables should be. Anamorphic lenses are tricky business, unless you have the cash to do it proper, it's best you not try and use anamorphics. The really good ones are very expensive to buy or rent, while all others are absolutely horrid to work with. Also, remember that only a few camera's can properly do 2x anamorphic squeeze. Most require you to use 1.3x lenses, which are even more rare and expensive. This is because 2x squeeze anamorphics are made for square aspect ratios, NOT 16x9.

If you are not confined by third party requirements, It is a decision to be made by the director and cinematographer.
 
Last edited:
Futchibon said:
Depends on the cinema's projection capabilities. Many cropped 2.39:1 pictures need to be enlarged compared to 1.85:1 ones. For high end came, like the F3, this resolution loss is negligible, but for lower end cams its noticable.
Click to expand...

Just curious why they would enlarge them. Would they enlarge/crop to fit their screen? It seems like if the horizontal size is correct, than the vertical shouldn't matter.
 
Well the math in my head says that cropping the image from 1920x1080 to say...1920x816? would produce a loss in picture quality (ok resolution). This wont affect any blueray or dvd release since they have black bars there either way but for an anamorphic theatrical viewing I guess the rules could be way different.
 
I'm going to make the perhaps highly controversial statement that 2.39/2.40/2.35 should be 'outlawed' for anyone not shooting a 'real' pro productions... why... because in almost all cases of the clips and shorts found here, and elsewhere by people who are not in that category, the effect is like looking through a tank pariscope, with the framing such that the actors almost always 'bounce/fall/crash' out of the frame, or correspondingly, into the frame. (a tank parascope is wide and narrow... the distinct view of 'confined angle of veiw... just to be clear...).

When I look at the 'pro' usage of the frame for these aspect ratios, if an actor falls out of, or in to, the frame... is because they were thrown off a building, struck by a car, or some other 'motivating' element, other than they were beset with some form of Saint Vitus' dance, perhaps having eaten moldy rye bread before coming on set.

Further, in almost all shots where there is a person, that person has their head well within the frame. Rarely there is a shot with a portion of a head, face, body, etc... but it is a rare occurrence, and again 'motivated' by something about the story.

Further, further more, when an actor is in motion, the camera moves to make sure the actor stays within the frame, until one of those 'motivations' for getting kicked out of the frame comes along...

What this means... for stories that have 'intimate' closeups, camera 'feels' like it is in the same room as the action, etc... the 2.40 aspect ratio is most likely the 'wrong' choice. (of course there are exceptions...). The wide ratio means, unless there is a lens setup otherwise, one is 'pulled back' from the action, or one uses a longer lens, thus flattening the shot, which is a different 'feel' than with more 'boxy' aspect ratios, and attendant lensing.

As for 'sci-fi' as a genre... if there are lots of 'space shots'... equivalent to the Western vast landscape vistas... sure... but then far more attention needs to be paid to the more 'intimate' or closeup shots.

Otherwise I have a hard time understanding why just 'sci-fi/fantasy' would require 2.40, just by genre alone.
 
No aspect ratio is inherently right or wrong for *any* genre. It's entirely up to the vision of the artist and the capability of the artist to carry out that vision. It is possible to successfully film an intimate drama in 2.4:1, and an epic sci-fi in 1.33:1. It's all dependent on how well the director and cinematographer use the frame.

And the idea that 2.4:1 should only be used by "professionals" just totally baffles me. The primary reason that widescreen shots by those not in the "professional" category tend not to work as well is relative lack of experience. Any skill takes time and experience to develop.
 
KMR said:
And the idea that 2.4:1 should only be used by "professionals" just totally baffles me. The primary reason that widescreen shots by those not in the "professional" category tend not to work as well is relative lack of experience. Any skill takes time and experience to develop.
Click to expand...

How many times have you seen a record put out by Vladamir Horowitz of his playing of Hanon's exercises...

I personally think the frequent use of the wider aspect ratio is not due to a desire to perform an 'exercise' and get feedback thereon, but sort of the same class as 'cool' pop technique like shallow DoF, which of course only heightens the lack of technique when used.

I probably wouldn't have this opinion, if it looked like the camera person had analyzed many 'pro' films in 2.40, and tried as best they could to emulate... but it because I think it is considered a 'cool' technique, that many fail to manage it well.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I'm going to make the perhaps highly controversial statement that 2.39/2.40/2.35 should be 'outlawed' for anyone not shooting a 'real' pro productions.
Click to expand...

I believe you can make the argument several other things should be outlawed, too:

  • Using shallow depth of field
  • Using an inexpensive follow focus
  • Using something from China
  • Using a Nikon lens
  • Using a DSLR
  • Using a camera
  • Using any film production equipment
  • ...

Declaring something should be reserved for only pros is a very, very porous argument.

For one, no one's creativity should be limited by the tastes of another. Secondly, EVERYONE shoots a dozen bad films before they do a good one, which means the lighting, acting, writing, directing, framing, anamorphic cropping - everything - will likely be bad, no matter the intentions, but it is those experiences that lead to growth. Denying anyone that growth is inherently wrong. Thirdly, try to define the word "pro" without stepping on people's toes. Any legitimate professional admits he or she is always a student, never a master. You have to make mistakes to learn from them, and everyone makes mistakes. Experimenting with cropping in post could be a great success or a horrible disaster, but that's not for anyone but the makers of that film to decide.

You may just be playing devil's advocate, which I'm all for, but I think your comment is weak and needs refining. I think I see where you're coming from, but I'm not seeing the intent.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
Thirdly, try to define the word "pro" without stepping on people's toes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps stepping on people's toes... for me 'pro' is more of an 'attitude' than 'whether someone is remunerated for a job'. When someone makes a 'demo reel', I have to believe they are trying to make a statement about their 'pro' status, that is that they aspire to better technique, and the reel demonstrates what they have accomplished. I have seen a number of 'demo reels' that would have been far better classed as 'experiments', and the feedback requested, 'does this work', and 'if not, why not, what can be improved'...

The original poster did not indicate in any way they had 'looked' at a large number of films with a critical eye to how 'pros' have used 2.40 vs. 1.85. I would also be astonished to find out if the poster had done a large number of 'finger exercises', camera in hand, models... or even baskets of fruit... and tried different aspect ratios to 'see' how to frame in each, and the, be led by that experience to what to do for their upcoming shoot, with 'landscapes', 'fight scenes', etc.

And also... let me be clear, I think sometimes 'pros' make some awful choices on any number of techniques... so one can't really just use one film for an example... a few years ago 'bleach bypass' look was 'in', many films came out... many films for me are really 'poor' because of it... then there's shaky cam... but I digress...

Speaking of 'focus follow'... don't have one form my 'DSLR'... but about a month ago, I was near the coast and there were a group of guys flying their gliders... I took the opportunity to shoot the gliders trying to manually 'track' the moving objects, at different zooms, etc... none of which will ever see the light of the LED display... but perhaps after a couple of months of shooting those, I may have something I would put in front of the viewership... some of the criteria for me doing so, would be it meets some idea I have of 'pro' technique, despite a DSLR, and 'manual focus and motion tracking'... (Ok, maybe I'll put it into AE and dial out a bit of motion for a presentation...).

Don't know if that 'clarifies', or not...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Perhaps stepping on people's toes... for me 'pro' is more of an 'attitude' than 'whether someone is remunerated for a job'. When someone makes a 'demo reel', I have to believe they are trying to make a statement about their 'pro' status, that is that they aspire to better technique, and the reel demonstrates what they have accomplished.

This is exactly what I am trying to do.

The original poster did not indicate in any way they had 'looked' at a large number of films with a critical eye to how 'pros' have used 2.40 vs. 1.85.

True.. I did not indicate how many films I have looked at with a critical eye. At least 1 film per day (sometimes more) in the past 2 years. Most of the times I did indeed tried to analyze them with my limited knowledge and experience.

I would also be astonished to find out if the poster had done a large number of 'finger exercises', camera in hand, models... or even baskets of fruit... and tried different aspect ratios to 'see' how to frame in each, and the, be led by that experience to what to do for their upcoming shoot, with 'landscapes', 'fight scenes', etc.

Not sure what constitutes as a ' large' number.. But I have made the same scenes in different aspect ratio to see how they looked .
Click to expand...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Perhaps stepping on people's toes... for me 'pro' is more of an 'attitude' than 'whether someone is remunerated for a job'. When someone makes a 'demo reel', I have to believe they are trying to make a statement about their 'pro' status, that is that they aspire to better technique, and the reel demonstrates what they have accomplished. I have seen a number of 'demo reels' that would have been far better classed as 'experiments', and the feedback requested, 'does this work', and 'if not, why not, what can be improved'...

The original poster did not indicate in any way they had 'looked' at a large number of films with a critical eye to how 'pros' have used 2.40 vs. 1.85. I would also be astonished to find out if the poster had done a large number of 'finger exercises', camera in hand, models... or even baskets of fruit... and tried different aspect ratios to 'see' how to frame in each, and the, be led by that experience to what to do for their upcoming shoot, with 'landscapes', 'fight scenes', etc.

And also... let me be clear, I think sometimes 'pros' make some awful choices on any number of techniques... so one can't really just use one film for an example... a few years ago 'bleach bypass' look was 'in', many films came out... many films for me are really 'poor' because of it... then there's shaky cam... but I digress...

Speaking of 'focus follow'... don't have one form my 'DSLR'... but about a month ago, I was near the coast and there were a group of guys flying their gliders... I took the opportunity to shoot the gliders trying to manually 'track' the moving objects, at different zooms, etc... none of which will ever see the light of the LED display... but perhaps after a couple of months of shooting those, I may have something I would put in front of the viewership... some of the criteria for me doing so, would be it meets some idea I have of 'pro' technique, despite a DSLR, and 'manual focus and motion tracking'... (Ok, maybe I'll put it into AE and dial out a bit of motion for a presentation...).

Don't know if that 'clarifies', or not...
Click to expand...


Let me clear up what I was trying to say, as I believe my attempt at a sarcastic tongue failed.

Simply put, to tell someone they should not do something because it is what the "pros" do is no one's place. Choosing an aspect ratio is a conscious choice by the filmmaker like any other. My previous point was "if you make it your prerogative to disallow a demographic from employing a common aesthetic in filmmaking, you might as well start drawing lines everywhere, from cameras to lenses, because choosing an aspect ratio is just as much a part of the holistic aesthetic of the film as the camera or the glass." It is just bad practice, in my opinion, to impose such limits on anyone. Experimenting, failing, learning, and doing it all over again is part of the process.

The thread is about the aesthetic choices of 1.85 or 2.39 aspect ratios and theorizing in what kind of film they work best, so I'll leave it there.

Happy shooting.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
What this means... for stories that have 'intimate' closeups, camera 'feels' like it is in the same room as the action, etc... the 2.40 aspect ratio is most likely the 'wrong' choice. (of course there are exceptions...).
Click to expand...

There are indeed. Some of the tightest closeups of faces in all of film are done in 2.35:1. Think Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West which was shot on 35mm 2-perf anamorphic Techniscope. The exception that illustrates the rule perhaps.

My personal favorite aspect ratio is the old Todd AO format (2.20:1). Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey was one of the rare features shot on 70mm with the Todd AO format. IIRC there were less than 25 or so films made this way. But it's a beautiful aspect ratio. Just sayin'.

The bottom line is that an aspect ratio won't mean either success or failure to a picture -- it's how it's used that counts.
 
Futchibon said:
Depends on the cinema's projection capabilities. Many cropped 2.39:1 pictures need to be enlarged compared to 1.85:1 ones. For high end came, like the F3, this resolution loss is negligible, but for lower end cams its noticable.

CHILDREN OF MEN was shot 1.85:1, so don't think you can't shoot an awesome, epic sci-fi in this aspect ratio. It's easier for low budget films shooting in this ratio, and less intensive for effects (one of the reasons Spielberg shot JURASSIC PARK in 1.85:1 ).

Also, I believe Gareth Edwards shot MONSTERS with just one lens, so it's doable.

GOOD LUCK!
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding the statement about less intensive for effects. Why would 1.85 be easier for effects and less intensive? I thought they shot Jurassic Park in 1.85 because it made more sense in seeing the height of the dinosaurs. You couldn't get the scale and scope of the things without a taller frame to view them in.
 
Bruce Watson said:
There are indeed. Some of the tightest closeups of faces in all of film are done in 2.35:1. Think Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West which was shot on 35mm 2-perf anamorphic Techniscope. The exception that illustrates the rule perhaps.
Click to expand...

That especially works when you have an actor who is know for his 'mister nice guy' roles, take on a bad guy, who shoots little kids.

Speaking of the olden days, I've not been so impressed with IMAX presentations, as given my foggy recollection, of such presentation methods as 'cinerama', or the like...

There are also films that don't look to good on the 'small' screen, even with something other than 4:3 or 9:16, despite good composition and movement in the frame... perhaps it's the 'letterboxing' that is required...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top