Super wide aspect ratio in music videos.

Fluoro

Fluoro

Well-known member
I know it's sacrilege to go wider than 2.35:1 but I have a specific idea in mind that requires 3:1 at least.

My main question is: does anyone know of any music videos that have gone this wide or wider?

Here's a video (not music video) that is actually the perfect aspect ratio for what I have in mind but I don't have the gall to go that wide...

Okay I found a video that I think hits the sweet spot for being super wide but not ridiculous. It has an aspect ratio of roughly 3.47:1 which is impressive. I remember when I first watched this video a couple of months ago I didn't notice how wide it was but just enjoyed it for what it was enjoying the cinematography. I feel more confident now to go super wide.

[video]https://vimeo.com/album/2117888/video/49619096[/video]

Sorry for some reason it wont embed. Here's a still:

Screen Shot 2013-01-21 at 2.54.58 PM.jpg

Does anyone know if there are any standard aspect ratios around the 3.5:1 mark? Or is it just make up your own one time? I'm just interested from a historical perspective.

And I found a pretty wide music video. This one at 3.35:1

[video]https://vimeo.com/album/2117888/video/24614872[/video]

Screen Shot 2013-01-21 at 2.58.24 PM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Where do you get the idea that it's "sacrilege" to go wider than 2.35:1?

ben-hur-chariot.png
 
David Jimerson said:
Where do you get the idea that it's "sacrilege" to go wider than 2.35:1?
Click to expand...
At least, there was a purpose and a technical reason to go that wide at that time! ;)
Today, it's mostly an aesthetic choice: The more you crop from 1080p to get "wider" the less resolution remains in the end!

But I reckon that it looks great. And, after all, it's the final result that really matters!
 
David Jimerson said:
Where do you get the idea that it's "sacrilege" to go wider than 2.35:1?
Click to expand...

Ha! I'm talking music videos here. I've read threads where people have talked about whether to use 2:35:1 and others have argued you shouldn't even go wider than 16:9 because people don't like letterboxes on their TVs. I don't know if I buy that argument. If the music video is good who cares if there are black bars? You're going to be caught up in it.
 
The Lolita Lempicka piece was shot on Alexa - and looks to be anamorphic (from the bokeh).

I'd say that, rather than using the Anamorphic recording option, they simply recorded to the 16:9 sensor then corrected the aspect ratio. This gives the super-wide look that a lot of people like at the moment (and is used in many promos). Of course, they could have recorded ana and then made a further crop... but recording ana to 16:9 and then correcting the aspect ratio gives this look and you're not cropping (only squeezing).

In terms of composition, shooting anamorphic this way gives a different look to shooting spherical and cropping. If you're using a 35mm ana, you're getting a vertical FOV of 35mm and a horizontal of 17.5mm... so matching that look with a single spherical is hard. This is one of the nice things about ana lenses, IMO :)

But, as others have said, it's all about the piece itself in the end! :)
 
I've always thought that the wider aspect ratio you go for, the bigger the video/film should be shown at. I say this from a landscape photography perspective. For instance, if I want to take a photo of the grand canyon, I'm naturally going to want to take a shot with a really wide FOV. I typically would do this with a panorama (cropped or stitched) as apposed to just a really wide focal length since this would leave me with to much dead headroom with a 3:2 aspect ratio. But simply taking a wide shot doesn't make it look impressive, in fact the wider FOV you have the smaller your subject becomes which forces you to enlarge your image to the point where the viewer is totally immersed in the work. So if you want to create images of large landscapes then they ultimately need to be blown up big.
 
drapeama said:
Today, it's mostly an aesthetic choice:
Click to expand...

Fluoro said:
Ha! I'm talking music videos here. I've read threads where people have talked about whether to use 2:35:1 and others have argued you shouldn't even go wider than 16:9 because people don't like letterboxes on their TVs. I don't know if I buy that argument. If the music video is good who cares if there are black bars? You're going to be caught up in it.
Click to expand...

It's always been an aesthetic choice. Use the aspect ratio which works best for the artistic intent of your project, whatever that is.
 
For the particular aspect ratio that you have in mind I would suggest that you look at a 2x anamorphic lens. Such lens applied on your 16:9 aspect ratio will give you an epic 3.56:1 final aspect ratio and as a bonus you will get the oval bokeh and nice flares that are usually added in post for music video clips..
Of course filming anamorphic has downsides and shortcomings, however if you get it right I think it will be rewarding.
 
kostas said:
For the particular aspect ratio that you have in mind I would suggest that you look at a 2x anamorphic lens. Such lens applied on your 16:9 aspect ratio will give you an epic 3.56:1 final aspect ratio and as a bonus you will get the oval bokeh and nice flares that are usually added in post for music video clips..
Of course filming anamorphic has downsides and shortcomings, however if you get it right I think it will be rewarding.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that but the video is going to be a composite of a a few different shots that make up the overall image so I can just shoot in 16:9. Each image will then be manipulated and brought into whatever aspect ratio template I have decided upon. Hope that makes sense.
 
Nobody else? I think it looks overly pretentious, stupid and an attempt to look more cinematic. It's a joke. Better yet, let's make it wafer thin so we can only see it through $300 cardboard slit eye glasses. The thinner the better.

Oh, that would never happen.

courrgges+Andr%C3%A9-Courr%C3%A8ges-1965-white-slit-sunglasses2.jpg


Oops my battery is dead. See you tomorrow. :)
 
Gord.T said:
Nobody else? I think it looks overly pretentious, stupid and an attempt to look more cinematic. It's a joke.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! I'm surprised it took so long for such a comment! I'm sure people have thought it. I get what you're saying and I am wary of using such a device but in this case the idea for the piece really demands it.

Hopefully I'll have a finished video soon enough for you to critique.
 
Fluoro said:
Ha ha! I'm surprised it took so long for such a comment! I'm sure people have thought it. I get what you're saying and I am wary of using such a device but in this case the idea for the piece really demands it.

Hopefully I'll have a finished video soon enough for you to critique.
Click to expand...

I'm giving away free stupid comments this week as part of an as of yet unannounced promotional deal. Stay tuned.

I'm looking forward to your video. Shoot me a PM when it's done and I will be nice to you. Promise. :thumbup:
 
I don't know, I still prefer 1.78 or 1.85 over the wider aspect ratios, because you can show a human being (a vertically oriented creature) full body height, without him or her looking really tiny.

I suppose if I were filming snakes, I would want a wider aspect ratio ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top