2:35 crop for dramatic film.

reem12

reem12

Veteran
I will begin production on a suspense film this coming friday and needed some clarification on the resolution hit I would take if I decided to crop for a 2:35 feild of view. I will be using a 16 to 35 canon L, a 50mm canon 1.4 and a 85mm canon 1.2. and a zoom nikon 80 to 200mm.

Do most of you do the 2:35 crop for your Narritives and beneffit if any do you think it has over a regular 16 by 9 put out?
 
Purely an aesthetic choice as far as I know. Some people think it's more cinematic. I did it for my feature.
 
How much resolution did you use and did you like the look better for your feature? Thanks.
 
I'm gonna get mad flack for this: i think 2.35:1 is strictly for epic imagery. Or something large, out of the ordinary. It, like throwing everything out of focus, is so over and mis-used to me.

A drama set in urban areas or Comedy that is just comedy doesn't need a 2.35:1 matte. 1.85:1 unless sc-fi etc.

That's probably just me.
 
Kholi said:
A drama set in urban areas or Comedy that is just comedy doesn't need a 2.35:1 matte. 1.85:1 unless sc-fi etc.

That's probably just me.
Click to expand...
I agree with that to some degree. I think Sci-Fi and even thriller/horror can benefit from 2.35:1 though. Of course it all depends on how it's shot.

Definitely not for lighter fare though like comedies and such.
 
It's probably just a bit of math to figure it out. 16:9 is 1.78:1 vs 2.35:1 so yes you do lose quite a bit.

Without a lot of knowledge on your subject matter, story, locations, i.e. vision I can't comment on whether it's appropriate for 2.35:1.

But just be aware that shooting 2.35:1 will require wider lenses. It's harder to light for 2.35:1 on low budgets because usually they are shot on location in more confined spaces. So it's harder to place lights, keep C-stand and grippage out of the frame, etc whether it's in wide masters or even singles. Compositionally, you have to be aware that you're dealing with a lot of horizontal space that must be filled, well lit and filled with a dressed set. Also 2.35:1 may not be so good for action movies, cuz you'll miss a lot of the kicks and acrobatics.

But yeah, if you got it all going on and up for it, that widescreen will rock!
 
Yes I did like the look of it. I felt it gave the film a little more punch, and felt a little more 'epic'. The film is meant to have an 'operatic' heightened sense of reality so I felt it added to this. However as others have mentioned it's not the right choice for everything... depends on the project.

The film I'm referring to is Death of Seasons - www.deathofseasonsmovie.com
 
I use it because the environment my characters inhabit is inseparable from who they are. I don't just frame them, I frame them within the context of their environment and I usually need that extra room for the compositions that best illustrate that. yes, they are dramas and the stories are small. but the landscapes and emotions they navigate are epic.
 
A comedy I can think of off the top of my head is the Hangover and it was in 2.35:1 I believe. I think they did a great job with it. I think the key here is to take advantage of beautiful wide angle shots. That's just something I noticed about that movie.
 
I think the proper way to look at this kind of thing is to determine some of the tonal and thematic requirements for your film.

In the book Moviemakers Master Class, Martin Scorsese said that for Goodfellas, "there's a certain freedom in Goodfellas, as it's mostly medium shots, where the actors have room to move. But that's the world these characters live in. It's not a world of close-ups. They have people around them all the time, and what they do always affects the world around them. So you have to shoot it in medium shots."

When I first read this, I had an "a-ha" moment. Just like choosing between a wide or a long lens, or when determining the height of the camera in relation to the actor, aspect ratio is very important to the way an audience sees a film, maybe more at a subconscious level than anything.

Of course, some directors stick with one aspect ratio for all or most of their films. Guillermo Del Toro seems to prefer 1.85:1, as does M. Night Shyamalan. While other directors like John Boorman use 2.35:1 because, in his own words, he likes to play with the space between the actors. A 2.35:1 aspect ratio seems to allow for more play between objects onscreen.

I agree with what Barry is saying though. Certain types of films lend themselves to using those breathtaking wide cinemascope-style shots, while others function better when taking advantage of mediums and close-ups.

Of course, if any of you have seen any of Ken Burn's recent national parks doc that has been airing on PBS lately, the cinematography in that presents a strong case for using 1.78:1 (16x9) or 1.85:1 as an aspect ratio capable of framing epic shots usually associated with a cinemascope aesthetic.
 
Is that what those Isco lenses do that everyone seems to be buying - 2.39 in a 16:9 recording or something?

As if so that is freaking awesome.
 
Looks pretty awesome, but from what I'm reading you can't rack focus, aka change focus mid shot, you have to set it up and leave it at that focus or something? Bit confusing.

But if you can't change focus mid shot then doesn't it make it not useful for most tasks, I like to change focus myself heh.
 
On a practical note, a wide aspect is useful for capturing multiple characters in a frame. Westerns usually make good use of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top