2:35:1 or 1:85:1

Personally, I think 2.35 is great when it's not reality. Terminator 2, Indiana Jones, LotR, or even stuff like Fight Club and Memento all have qualities that make them non-realistic, but they're made that way and are better because of it. For stuff like Schindler's List, Goodfellas, or Children of Men, the filmmakers wanted to make it completely realistic so they used 1:85.

Personally, I've been using 1:85 recently as I'm trying to make more realistic, personal movies. However, on my next film I'm stuck. As mid-way through the film I switch styles from action-thriller (my choice is 2.35) into a psychological thriller (my choice is 1.85). Still not sure. Heck maybe I'll just change mid-film and see if anyone catches it.
 
I like the idea of 1.85 for thriller, mystery, scary monster at my door/under my bed. If Hitchcock was still alive, I think he would say something like that.

I also agree with the idea of movies where it matters where the movie takes place (outerspace, western, mountains) to film in the 2.35. But I couldn't see the movie "Tape" being done in 2.35 or Indiana Jones being done in 1.85

JF
 
I'm with those who say that the choice of aspect ratio should depend on the particular project in question. But skillful directors and DPs can do amazing things with unexpected aspect ratios. For instance, who would have thought that THE HAUNTING (1963) would be a candidate for 2.35:1? Nearly all of it takes place inside the house, and the subject matter sort of calls for a claustrophobic effect. But in nearly every shot, the whole frame is filled with information, none of it superfluous. Watch it in pan/scan, and the movie loses A LOT!
 
i agree with Timur. I prefer 2.35:1 for everything. and would only consider 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 in the case where the mise en scene would benefit from the additonal vertical space. I think "assigning" aspect ratios to specific genres is like willfully shackling yourself to the conventions of that genre. everything I do is a declaration of sorts. and in my own voice, I prefer to say that this aspect ratio (2.35:1) is the frame though which I subjectively see the world -- a world I hope to share with an audience. my 2¢.
 
The last music video I did played with different aspect ratios. I actually animated it from 16x9 to close to anamorphic and then back out again. The why was because I didn't need to see everything above and below what I cut off and I wanted more blacks around the image to help bring the colors out more.
 
This is a great thread. So much info here, it deserves a sticky. I've never shot anything to go to 2.35, it scares the hell out of me.

Then again, I still shriek like a little girl when a spider gets too close unnoticed.


And John, nice breakdown earlier with all the different formats and relative frame sizes. I thought 1:85 and 16X9 were the same thing. Now I know different. There's not a hell of a lot of difference, but it's still great to pick up something new.


Thanks all!
 
Last edited:
Like a couple others here I just think in 2.35. I went through some shots I took recently and framed them in 2.35 and 1.85. Both looked fine, no problems BUT to me something was off...just looked better in 2.35 and in 1.85 it was just OK.

- Kyle
 
2: 35 to 1 is made for epics and in my opinion is pointless uless u have the money or content to fill that wide frame. I will never understand comedies shot in 2: 35 to 1. Castaway was shot in 1: 85 to 1 because Zemickis (spell check) wanted to see the sunset and tom hanks in the same frame. It really is just up to you, and yes people we can all tell when u have cropped ur stuff down it's obvious.
 
renegadewill said:
2: 35 to 1 is made for epics and in my opinion is pointless uless u have the money or content to fill that wide frame. I will never understand comedies shot in 2: 35 to 1. Castaway was shot in 1: 85 to 1 because Zemickis (spell check) wanted to see the sunset and tom hanks in the same frame. It really is just up to you, and yes people we can all tell when u have cropped ur stuff down it's obvious.
Click to expand...

OK, let's say you have the content (whatever that may be) what are some key rules to consider regarding composition such as eyeline. In the HDSLR screening room a teaser for a feature was posted that raised some debate about the fillmakers use of 2.35:1 crop. One user commented:

"Oh I'm a huge fan of 2:35 myself, but it has to be done really well. It's not just about framing backgrounds and actors. In fact, it's not about that at all in narrative, it's about framing the action and performance. Otherwise the director will lose all impact in the scene and trust in the audience. Things like eyelines and scanning have to be very guided otherwise it becomes a tiring experience.

You'll see what I mean, put on any recent film shot on 2:35 and watch where the eye-lines are positioned and how the next cut flows with the eyeline. Notice how their eyes are usually pointing in the correct direction and you don't have to dart your eyes so far for the next cut. In fact, most of the time the juxtaposed eyes are near enough the same position, or the action is lead into that zone, or the camera moves in such a flowing way.

Alternatively, like the very first 2:35 movies, the camera is quite wide and you see everyones reactions, as opposed to the traditional 4:3 cutting in close ups for coverage."

What are cinematographers' views here regarding 2.35:1 composition? When you use it what are your choices, main considerations. I'm trying to find how you use guys use it rather than why you use it.

Thanks
 
2.39 or 2.40(rounded)
common people! 2.35 has been a dead format for over 30 years.
head_explode-470x327.jpg


Sure this may seem a little picky, but how odd would it be to you, if I kept saying lets shoot this at 1.84, or 16:10, or 3:4?

Someone has to help turn what is quite possibly the most commonly mis-stated aspect (no pun) in cinematography terminology. Anamorphic, in modern day terms based on broadcast and capturing standards is 2.39 but referred to as 2.40 commonly. I still don't know why some DVD's say 2:35... it's a conspiracy to piss me off, I think.... Now where is my medication? :)
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
2.39 or 2.40(rounded)
common people! 2.35 has been a dead format for over 30 years.
head_explode-470x327.jpg


Sure this may seem a little picky, but how odd would it be to you, if I kept saying lets shoot this at 1.84, or 16:10, or 3:4?

Someone has to help turn what is quite possibly the most commonly mis-stated aspect (no pun) in cinematography terminology. Anamorphic, in modern day terms based on broadcast and capturing standards is 2.39 but referred to as 2.40 commonly. I still don't know why some DVD's say 2:35... it's a conspiracy to piss me off, I think.... Now where is my medication? :)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's picky, thanks for the info. I was hoping someone like you would respond and you have rightfully highlighted mine and others' ignorance, which means I am now a little less ignorant, thanks :)

So, when you are shooting anamorphic...(re: my post above ;)
 
To answer your question, when discussing a film with the director, the director will usually already have an idea of what they want, but they will always bounce it off me during some of our first meetings... "What aspect ratio do you see for the film, and why?"... I find all directors I have worked with have been open or very open to suggestion or input.

My personal beliefs on aspect ratios off the top of my head are for the following reasons: (no particular order)

1) Cast size in given scenes
2) Landscape or locations
3) psychological reasons or the effect of composition

1) If I have a large cast, of perhaps 3 or more people on screen more than once, I'll think about anamorphic. It's better for composition to get 4-5 people in a group all on screen at once with anamorphic. I don't have to shoot WIDE shots for all of them to be in the scene at once. Many directors like the ability to have 3-5 or so people in Medium shots on the big screen. This way the audience can see them all react and play off of each other at once, instead of the editor picking and choosing reaction shots and etc. It provides a different viewing experience. Think about the film "St. Elmo's Fire". Exactly what I am talking about.

1691_1_large.jpg


2) Sweeping landscapes have long been a reason for anamorphic or wider aspects, such as Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Australia, etc. On the other hand, I've wished 4:3 was still in favor sometimes, because some sets/locations, such as buildings with high ceilings, cities, and etc... favor a taller frame. I've been in some wonderful location interiors and wished I could show the beautiful ceilings and floors in the same wide shot, but on 1.85 or anamorphic 2.40, I would have to go to a super-wide shot which usually doesn't work for story and for architecture.


3) hand in hand with what I've discussed thus far, is how these frames work with composition and the human psyche. I shot a film which took place in the lonely, unpopulated apocalyptic future. Of course I choose 2.40 to showcase the empty vastness of the surrounding area, which was usually low and flat... then again, I chose it because the characters (only two people in the film) would be tiny in the wide frame. The wide or medium wide shots would have them very isolated and loney, re-emphasizing their lonely and scary world.


I find, in my films, that one convention I'd love to see broken by the next generation of filmmakers (including me!) is a way to break aspect continuity throughout a film. If we could use non-jarring ways to transition from one aspect to another, I think we could tell a story in much more specific and powerful ways. Some scenes I would want to use 4:3 and feel claustrophobic or give lots of head room, or show off some tall architecture, while other times use 2.40 to give lots of negative space on the edges or unbalance a frame for unease.

I think with digital projection and digital acquisition , we should start to be able to stop having to pick ONE aspect ratio and stick with it. That is my hope. I think some scenes work better with A and some with B... if we can find a way to not break the audiences attention when transitioning, I think it would be a great tool. IMAX scenes of Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister's work, isn't so much aesthetics as it is for the resolution change, but people don't often complain about how jarring that is, so I think the future can be as such.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara; said:
2.39 or 2.40(rounded)
common people! 2.35 has been a dead format for over 30 years.
Sure this may seem a little picky, but how odd would it be to you, if I kept saying lets shoot this at 1.84, or 16:10, or 3:4?

Someone has to help turn what is quite possibly the most commonly mis-stated aspect (no pun) in cinematography terminology. Anamorphic, in modern day terms based on broadcast and capturing standards is 2.39 but referred to as 2.40 commonly. I still don't know why some DVD's say 2:35... it's a conspiracy to piss me off, I think.... Now where is my medication? :)
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I don't know if Arri would agree with you. They still sell and list 2.35 ground glass. Check page 13 on this link
http://www.panavision.co.uk/pdf/downloads/equipment-info/arri/format-guide.pdf

The Arri gate size is slightly different to the panavision gate size. It's even listed on page 13 here in their catalogue.

http://media.panavision.com/ReferenceLibrary/pdfs/info_catalogs/pvau_catalog.pdf


Although no one actually says it, it seems that Arri and PANAVISION have slightly different ideas about camera apertures. One is closer to 2.35 and one is 2.39. Neither of them are 2.40 !!!!!

Jb
 
John Brawley said:
I don't know if Arri would agree with you. They still sell and list 2.35 ground glass. Check page 13 on this link
http://www.panavision.co.uk/pdf/downloads/equipment-info/arri/format-guide.pdf

The Arri gate size is slightly different to the panavision gate size. It's even listed on page 13 here in their catalogue.

http://media.panavision.com/ReferenceLibrary/pdfs/info_catalogs/pvau_catalog.pdf


Although no one actually says it, it seems that Arri and PANAVISION have slightly different ideas about camera apertures. One is closer to 2.35 and one is 2.39. Neither of them are 2.40 !!!!!

Jb
Click to expand...

We have been through this before at RedUser.net. If I remember, you referenced Panavisions listed numbers which came out to 2.30 which I think might be a mistake, although the page has been updated and it remains the same.

You linked to this in the past: http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/tbleframelist.asp

It says... 2.30 which is strange to me, but if you take the w/h numbers it comes out the same. I'll have to look around the Arri Website to confirm... I just know 2.39/2.40 is the set standard in the US and the American Cinematographers Manual 9th edition states twice that 2.35 is not modern anamorphic but 2.39/2.40 is.

To clarify, I never said it was 2.40, that is just a rounded number people use to refer to 2.39.
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
...
Although no one actually says it, it seems that Arri and PANAVISION have slightly different ideas about camera apertures. One is closer to 2.35 and one is 2.39. Neither of them are 2.40 !!!!!

Jb
Click to expand...

Modern day Scope ratio of 2.40 being the common reference of 2.39 is correct. When I set my camera framing to overlay scope onto the viewfinder you do in fact choose 2.40 from the menu. Arri and Panavision with all that history behind them are welcome to do whatever they want. Knowing the history of the development of cinemascope and all of its derivatives doesn't confuse me at all.
 
Arri's MScope Anamorphic program they are/were pushing with the D-21 is 2.39/2.40. (I don't see why they would not incorporate this into the Alexa when shooting anamorphic with their 4:3 chip.) They are only referring to it as 2.40, however. I assume they are using it as a rounded number that refers to 2.39, as most of us do, however their final resolution numbers do come out to exactly 2.40:1 or 1.20:1 for 2x anamorphic film projectors.

Download and read the MScope PDF. The following is from a PDF written by Arri in regards to what anamorphic is and what Mscope does:

"The anamorphic format works by using an
anamorphic camera lens that optically squeezes
a 2:40:1 widescreen image onto a 4:3 film
frame or an electronic sensor.
The squeezed image can be stretched out to
its full width for postproduction work and is
finally projected through another anamorphic
lens in cinemas. This process utilizes the
largest possible area on a 4:3 film frame,
but most digital cameras have 16:9 HD
sensors and so are less than ideal for use
with anamorphic lenses.
Uniquely, the D-21 and D-21 HD have a
Super 35-sized 4:3 sensor that is perfect for
anamorphic production, and Mscope is an
output format that is available only for the
D-21 and D-21 HD. "

"After post production the image has been
downscaled and cropped to cover a 2.40:1
area (1920 x 800 pixels for HD distribution or
1728 x 1440 for ARRILASER film recording)."
Click to expand...
You can read this Mscope release here:
http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/...era/Camera_Technologies/ARRIMscopeleaflet.pdf

I think we can all agree with one thing... Arri's numbers seem to be the confusing factor. 2.30 aperture listed by Panavision, 2.35 groundglass, but in a world of 2.39 US presentation standards... yet now advertising at 2.40. :)

Darn hootin' Germans!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top