Victor Nhat Nguyen
Well-known member
I have always heard of 2.4:1 and academy standard, 16:9. But I never know why we use those aspect ratio. Anybody mind telling me?
How aspect ratio affect composition
- Thread starter Victor Nhat Nguyen
- Start date
Egg Born Son
Veteran
The short answer is it is because 'they' decided them to be the standards. It is as much an accident of history as anything else. Screens can be any size, at one point a circular tv screen was seriously considered. But standards are needed due to technological limitations and for playback compatibility. Cinemas need a screen that can play back your movie and tvs need an entire unit per format as the screen is an integral part, not just a projection surface.
As to why you'd pick one over the other...some movies benefit from a wider format to take in vistas and peripheral vision of complex action sequences. Intimate movies benefit from a more closed screen, tighter framing and less distracting space to the sides so wide formats are less useful there. 16:9 (or 1.77) is close to the long standing movie standard ratio of 1.85 and was a selling point in the tv market made possible by new technologies. This in turn has resulted in 16:9 sometimes being used instead of 1.85 in the cinema because 'it's close enough' and means no pan and scan on the DVD. So standard ratios are still evolving. Digital playback and storage virtually eliminates the cost incentive to standardise ratios so now it is more of an artistic decision. Custom ratios are now more of a practical reality than ever before (should you have a reason to deviate from the familiar standards) so who knows what the future holds.
Check out aspect ratio on wikipedia for more details on the history and find out that there are dozens of other standard ratios over the decades, you forgot 4:3.
As to why you'd pick one over the other...some movies benefit from a wider format to take in vistas and peripheral vision of complex action sequences. Intimate movies benefit from a more closed screen, tighter framing and less distracting space to the sides so wide formats are less useful there. 16:9 (or 1.77) is close to the long standing movie standard ratio of 1.85 and was a selling point in the tv market made possible by new technologies. This in turn has resulted in 16:9 sometimes being used instead of 1.85 in the cinema because 'it's close enough' and means no pan and scan on the DVD. So standard ratios are still evolving. Digital playback and storage virtually eliminates the cost incentive to standardise ratios so now it is more of an artistic decision. Custom ratios are now more of a practical reality than ever before (should you have a reason to deviate from the familiar standards) so who knows what the future holds.
Check out aspect ratio on wikipedia for more details on the history and find out that there are dozens of other standard ratios over the decades, you forgot 4:3.
cpc
Well-known member
My piece on aspect ratios and implications.
on the OP about composition,
some of the benefits of 2.35-2.55,
- wide vistas in establishing shots, adventure, epic feel
- more 3d perspective in over the shoulder shots with a shoulder silhouette, a character, and background/window, ...etc.
- establishing location in wide full frame shots in a busy city street/farm road with 2 or more characters talking and roads/farm in the background
- establishing distance between two characters fighting/having different views/ going separate ways, or including physical (metaphorical) obstacles between two characters fighting/having dinner/having internal problems
- alienating character to the viewer with a dolly out while establishing where the character is sitting/standing, it takes less time on the dolly out with a wider perspective.
- a character standing/posing in front of a giant/colossal obstacle/object/henchman with a slight Dutch angle
- establishing location and characters in a car scene
- seeing a character in a crowd of people and also establishing that he is doing something, or other office activities around him
- a character being confused about where he is is easier to establish with a slight jib/elevation on a wider aspect ratio
- establishing physical/metaphor distance between a character/couple and the rest of the group
...etc.
it might not be a big of a jump as going from 1.33 to 2.35, but it still gives you more tools and more freedom to things otherwise not possible or shorten negative time space/useless time in establishing shots pans, jib moves. instead of a 6-7 second pan(boring/negative footage) a 2-3 second dolly with the actors and location already in frame, the user would be more interested in seing what is about to happen. or a shorter time on a jib shot would help the pace of the movie, ...etc.
public places with a lot of people/action in the background like dinners, cafe, restaurant usually benefits from a wider angle in wide and medium close shots.
some of the benefits of 2.35-2.55,
- wide vistas in establishing shots, adventure, epic feel
- more 3d perspective in over the shoulder shots with a shoulder silhouette, a character, and background/window, ...etc.
- establishing location in wide full frame shots in a busy city street/farm road with 2 or more characters talking and roads/farm in the background
- establishing distance between two characters fighting/having different views/ going separate ways, or including physical (metaphorical) obstacles between two characters fighting/having dinner/having internal problems
- alienating character to the viewer with a dolly out while establishing where the character is sitting/standing, it takes less time on the dolly out with a wider perspective.
- a character standing/posing in front of a giant/colossal obstacle/object/henchman with a slight Dutch angle
- establishing location and characters in a car scene
- seeing a character in a crowd of people and also establishing that he is doing something, or other office activities around him
- a character being confused about where he is is easier to establish with a slight jib/elevation on a wider aspect ratio
- establishing physical/metaphor distance between a character/couple and the rest of the group
...etc.
it might not be a big of a jump as going from 1.33 to 2.35, but it still gives you more tools and more freedom to things otherwise not possible or shorten negative time space/useless time in establishing shots pans, jib moves. instead of a 6-7 second pan(boring/negative footage) a 2-3 second dolly with the actors and location already in frame, the user would be more interested in seing what is about to happen. or a shorter time on a jib shot would help the pace of the movie, ...etc.
public places with a lot of people/action in the background like dinners, cafe, restaurant usually benefits from a wider angle in wide and medium close shots.
EndCredits
Well-known member
Also consider sprockets in a film camera.
As I understand it (albeit loosely) 2 sprocket holes is wide screen (2.35) 3 sprocket holes is 16x9 and 4 sprocket holes is 4x3.
The physical size and shape of film has had an affect on what options were available.
Simple practicalities are usually what shapes the things we do.
That said, any one who knows better please correct me as I haven't touched a film camera since I studied many years ago and I could be talking total poop
As I understand it (albeit loosely) 2 sprocket holes is wide screen (2.35) 3 sprocket holes is 16x9 and 4 sprocket holes is 4x3.
The physical size and shape of film has had an affect on what options were available.
Simple practicalities are usually what shapes the things we do.
That said, any one who knows better please correct me as I haven't touched a film camera since I studied many years ago and I could be talking total poop
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Just to add to the above: do not do docs in 2.35 aspect ratio (unless it's based on vista images such as "Baraka") - as mentioned many times above aspect ratio is a choice and unless it's supported by your content (i never saw a doc that would call for 2.35 ratio) you are just using it as a "cool element" rather then intelligent conversation about the issues. In other words with that aspect ratio you reveal you immature approach to the film language - thus you might not be taken too seriously when it comes to your actual knowledge of your doc.
Leon Bailey
Well-known member
I learned a few things from this thread and that article that was posted.
kittykatro
Active member
What do you people think about music videos shot in 2.35:1 ? Does it make any sense? If you have a person singing and dancing wouldn't the classic 4:3 format be more suitable for framing?
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
For current digital cameras, anything other than 16:9 or the 'natural' aspect ratio given the amount of pixels available... is a 'less than'... 'super wide', but chopping vertical resolution by 1/4, to me is a negative.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Bourne is in cinemascope and its shot like documentary, this ratio was from stretching of anamorphic lens and now people do some philosophies about it.
For me is not aspect ratio but how its shot and if it was planned with aspect ratio or just cropped to make it look cinematic for no reason.
For me is not aspect ratio but how its shot and if it was planned with aspect ratio or just cropped to make it look cinematic for no reason.
starcentral
Veteran
The idea of widescreen partially came after the depression in the 30's when television posed a threat to cinema back in the day with fallen attendance. Back in the late 1800's cinema films were 4:3 (more or less) and TV came out using about the same aspect ratio. Cinema decided to invent WIDESCREEN for the ultimate "wide" experience you couldn't get anywhere else. (sarcasm there)
This trickery was accomplished many of ways but here are just a few that will impress you:
- One was not to add the matte until projection. Which means to this day there are still some films on reels where you can see boom pools and lights hanging into shots still on print.
- The other was matting in camera which didn't require any special attention for projection.
- The third was by using anamorphic lenses to squeeze the "wide" image into the regular sized film frame, then expand it later when being projected.
A bit of fact and history for ya all.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
2.39:1 or 2.40:1 when rounded, is the replacement for 2.35:1 as a standard in projection and that happened over three decades ago. The 2.35:1 is like a bad fart... it just won't go away. Even engineers commonly get it wrong. Drives me nuts. It's one of my few pet peeves .
drapeama
Well-known member
Read it from something posted in another thread. Very interesting. I've even spread the word on hv20.com.
Very interesting and useful information in it.I learned a few things from this thread and that article that was posted.
cpc
Well-known member
Thanks, drapeama and Leon.
Anything can make sense, if you can justify it.
But if you are shooting for web/TV, going wider than 16:9 needs a good reason. I can tell you that on my 5:4 display anything cinemascope (2.4:1) looks ridiculous: anyone thinking they are giving me a "cinematic experience" with their super wide stuff on Vimeo couldn't be more wrong. And on my 16:10 display the black bars on top and bottom are not exactly pretty. 16:10 is probably the prevalent computer display ratio at the moment, if you shoot for web, you should have this in mind.
Anything can make sense, if you can justify it.
But if you are shooting for web/TV, going wider than 16:9 needs a good reason. I can tell you that on my 5:4 display anything cinemascope (2.4:1) looks ridiculous: anyone thinking they are giving me a "cinematic experience" with their super wide stuff on Vimeo couldn't be more wrong. And on my 16:10 display the black bars on top and bottom are not exactly pretty. 16:10 is probably the prevalent computer display ratio at the moment, if you shoot for web, you should have this in mind.