2:35 crop for dramatic film.

From my perspective it's much more to do with the aesthetic of the frame than genre or even theme. It's basiclly the same principle as with cropping photographs or choosing canvas sizes even. It's all about how you paint the frame and handle space. For me personally scope means cinema. It's not a holy thing but that's how I like expirienceing movies from an esthetic standpoint in the cinema.

For me I think it's narrow to say that "generally" speaking scope doesn't work for comedies and non epics. Scope makes the epic not the other way around in many cases. It's just a choice in which how to relate the frame in any given project.
 
Can anybody tell me if there's an option to put a 'safe' guideline on your image as you shoot so that you can frame specifically for scope?
 
If you don't have CinemaScope grid lines (as with the Magic Lantern mod for the 5DII) some people stick two thin strips of coloured tape on the LCD to give some idea for framing.

I love CinemaScope but it's probably not perfect for every project. If you are shooting an intimate drama with just a few characters in average-size rooms, you'll feel the vertical height loss (that is if you shoot 16:9 crop rather than the full height -- lateral expansion -- of an anamorphic lens).
 
I think 2.35 is an overused ratio. It should be reserved for epic movies. I really hate going to the theaters and seeing romantic comedies and horror films in this ratio. It's so unnecessary. Oh well... personally, I love the 1.85:1 ratio...
 
Personally, I would not shoot for anamorphic unless I was using an anamorphic lens. I think that cropping the image to that AR is more trouble than it's worth.
 
I've cropped some shortfilms from 4:3 to 1.85:1, from a DVX100b footage, you loose image of course, but also you can re frame your shots, very useful. And I have re frame my shots 90% of the time.
 
ive seen great shorts with this aspect ratio and their not epic.
sorry this is such a cliche thing to say but once im watching, it doesnt even matter.
 
For those of us that also have an Art/Illustration background, it’s more of a subject to composition theme or look we're after. I prefer 2:1 and above. There is more to it than simply cropping. There is a visual science behind the wide image composition, and how our brain perceives/reads that visual imagery. I see wide composition framing used way to often; just for the sake of mimicking a certain film rather than the approach from the artistic/science angle. This happens more from neophytes than those that have sacrificed/labored time over learning their craft. For instance I love WideLux cameras; and have shot with them since I was a kid. Now that is way wider than 2:35:1 frame. However great for capturing the atmosphere of the environment; it transports the viewer into that place to experience that moment.

Wes Anderson is of the current directors that truly uses his anamorphic frame fully. Quite successfully too!


Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
.
 
Which is why I believe doing anamorphic should be done via the lens and not via the crop tool in post. You're not gaining any "wideness" in the picture when you simply crop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top