What aspect ratio should i shoot for a 35mm blow-up on a 16:9 camera?

[Futchibon]

If I masked off the 16:9 image for 2.39/2.4:1, would that lead to a loss of quality if it was blown up to 35mm and shown at 2.4:1, as opposed to shooting at 16:9 and being shown at 16:9?
Also, wouldn't shooting at a masked 2.4:1 mean that the objects in frame would have to be further away than if shooting at 16:9 (to fit them in), and therefore slightly less quality?

I've looked at other low-budget films that have been shown on 35mm:

ONCE: 1.85:1
PRIMER 1.85:1
PI 1.66:1
FOLLOWING 1.37:1
EL MARIACHI 1.33:1

So it seems no ultra low budegt film was shot at 2.4:1

What do you guys think?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Yes and no.

Masking an image for 2.39:1 by letterboxing does remove pixels, thus the resolution won't be as much as a full 16x9 image. But then again, when projected onto a screen, if the width of the image were projected the same, meaning the HD cropped to 2.39 and the HD 16:9 were projected at the same horizontal width, the resolution of the image wouldn't be better or worse... there would just be more image to look at. Meaning both images would have the same resolution per square foot, one would just have more area to look at. Now there is a thing called perceived resolution... meaning should one of them be projected upon a smaller screen than the other, the resolution will appear to increase and etc. An anamorphic film might be projected onto a wider screen thus losing resolution in comparison to 16x9 on a smaller screen.

Yes, shooting anamorphic ratio by means of cropping and keeping vertical composition size, for example a frame that goes from the chin to the top of an actors head, will have you put the actor a bit further back. However if shooting on actual anamorphic lenses you don't have to, as the vertical resolution stays the relatively the same. In regards to less quality, I'm not sure that is really the case. Yes the object will be further away from camera but if focused properly, I can see this effecting your DoF (by making it a little deeper) more so than the quality. But yes, there will be less pixels comprising the subject, so I can see where you are coming from.


If 2.39:1 is your desire, don't compromise your artistic choice of aspect ratio for some border pixels. That is my opinion as an artist. With that said, it would be smart to talk to some possible distributors. They won't ever pass on a good film, but it can help a sale of a film which is on the border of being picked up if there are certain features. For instance, some films are 'easier' to sell if in color, and etc. Look at the Cohen brothers masterpiece, The Man Who Wasn't There. Shot beautifully for black and white, by the greatest master of our time, Roger Deakins ASC/BSC, but in order to get international distribution had to have a color version for overseas. Lame, but true.

I guess you need to ask yourself which aspect ratio serves the story best... and probably go with that. If you're doing anamorphic aspect just because it's cool, or makes a film look more cinematic, it might not be the best aspect ratio for your film.

-Ryan

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Look at the Cohen brothers masterpiece, The Man Who Wasn't There. Shot beautifully for black and white, by the greatest master of our time, Roger Deakins ASC/BSC, but in order to get international distribution had to have a color version for overseas. Lame, but true.
-Ryan

Couldn't they have run a 'pre-film' sequence, like...

"Do not attempt to adjust your television, we are in control"...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If I masked off the 16:9 image for 2.39/2.4:1, would that lead to a loss of quality if it was blown up to 35mm and shown at 2.4:1, as opposed to shooting at 16:9 and being shown at 16:9?
Also, wouldn't shooting at a masked 2.4:1 mean that the objects in frame would have to be further away than if shooting at 16:9 (to fit them in), and therefore slightly less quality?

I've looked at other low-budget films that have been shown on 35mm:

ONCE: 1.85:1
PRIMER 1.85:1
PI 1.66:1
FOLLOWING 1.37:1
EL MARIACHI 1.33:1

So it seems no ultra low budegt film was shot at 2.4:1

What do you guys think?

I'm not a fan of the 2.39:1.. unless the 'story works'. I tend to like 1.66/1.85/1.78(16:9). At the moment most of my short film scripts are pretty much 'close up', or 'indoor spaces', and so the 2.X width I think would require an 'aesthetic' that doesn't match the material. 1.66:1 is a very nearly the 'classic' aspect ratio, phi, reaching back to greek/roman architecture.

 

[Futchibon]

Thanks for the reply Ryan - I though this would be right up your alley!

Masking an image for 2.39:1 by letterboxing does remove pixels, thus the resolution won't be as much as a full 16x9 image. But then again, when projected onto a screen, if the width of the image were projected the same, meaning the HD cropped to 2.39 and the HD 16:9 were projected at the same horizontal width, the resolution of the image wouldn't be better or worse... there would just be more image to look at. Meaning both images would have the same resolution per square foot, one would just have more area to look at. Now there is a thing called perceived resolution... meaning should one of them be projected upon a smaller screen than the other, the resolution will appear to increase and etc. An anamorphic film might be projected onto a wider screen thus losing resolution in comparison to 16x9 on a smaller screen.

How are films in other aspect ratios shown in the US? Here in Australia, when you go and see a movie, the curtains open to 16:9 for the ads, then opens to 2.39:1 for the trailers. Then the lights go down and the film starts, but occasionally if it's a 1.85 :1 or 16:9 feature (like PRIMER or WOLF CREEK), the curtains will close back in to fit the correct aspect ratio. So the horizontal width does change. In this case, if you took the smaller cropped 1920by800 image out and then expanded it to the bigger 2.39 screen size, I imagine there would be a significant loss in quality? Is that how they do it in the States?

Yes, shooting anamorphic ratio by means of cropping and keeping vertical composition size, for example a frame that goes from the chin to the top of an actors head, will have you put the actor a bit further back. However if shooting on actual anamorphic lenses you don't have to, as the vertical resolution stays the relatively the same. In regards to less quality, I'm not sure that is really the case. Yes the object will be further away from camera but if focused properly, I can see this effecting your DoF (by making it a little deeper) more so than the quality. But yes, there will be less pixels comprising the subject, so I can see where you are coming from.

We'll be shooting either 5d or gh13 or AF100, so I would imagine with using a lower-end cam, loss of pixels would be more of a concern than a high-end cam?

Shooting on a DLSR you soon learn that the wides are much softer than the higher-end cams, so it's better to stay closer in (like HARD CANDY), and I imagine 16:9 would enable you to get closer than 2.39.

I'd like to shoot 2.39:1, but 16:9 certainly wouldn't be the end of the world. My script is a low-budget sci-fi/real world drama in the vein of PI and PRIMER, and they both framed for the less-wide ratio. Have you ever framed for both 16:9 and 2.39:1? If so, does it feel like a compromise? Also, is it just me, or is 2.39 much easier for booming mics as there's less wasted headroom?

If 2.39:1 is your desire, don't compromise your artistic choice of aspect ratio for some border pixels. That is my opinion as an artist. With that said, it would be smart to talk to some possible distributors. They won't ever pass on a good film, but it can help a sale of a film which is on the border of being picked up if there are certain features. For instance, some films are 'easier' to sell if in color, and etc. Look at the Cohen brothers masterpiece, The Man Who Wasn't There. Shot beautifully for black and white, by the greatest master of our time, Roger Deakins ASC/BSC, but in order to get international distribution had to have a color version for overseas. Lame, but true.

Yes, very lame. I could imagine that happening in the 80s, and 90s, but not in 2001! Can you believe a great DP such as Deakins still has the time and generosity to host his own cinematography forum where newbs can ask him questions? I hope you're still answering our questions Ryan when you're an AA winning dp! Thanks for your help, much appreciated, you really give your all on so many different questions, as a film student I really appreciate it.

Here's the link to Deakin's site if anyone's interested:

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/

 

[Snapper123]

When I saw Green Lantern, I noticed how before the film or official previews started, that the local business commercials/trivia questions/music videos were shown by a 1920x1080 format, and then when the film started up, the curtains on both sides of this already-huge screen (modern theater, opened in 2008.) widened by only what must have been only five feet on each side; this change to a 2K ratio barely did anything, and the 1080P ratio that was shown beforehand looked entirely fine - the end result that is if the curtains aren't widened, then there's no black bars on the side, and no one known any difference. But when the curtains widened to 2K, there was a 1080P footage still playing and the black bars showed up, so then it was noticeable that the previous ratio was 1080P. Yet, when the curtains were just a bit more closed, the whole image filled up the entire screen, and you really couldn't tell wether it's was 2k or 1080P - in effect, this is what you call a conspiracy - the theaters widen their screens so that more Reds and Anamorphic Lenses sell, it's not actually anything anyone notices until the curtains get wide enough to the point the black bars show up. If they curtains stay skinnier, no one sees black bars, and no one knows it's 1080P. There's barely a difference, certainly not a "Okay filmmakers these dang theaters widened their screens horizontally so now you need to use a anamorphic lens or chop have your video up instead of us simply asking them to keep their curtains closed a bit." difference. It's bogus in my opinion, and adds complex matters to distribution, ratios that no one truly cares about, certainly not a casual audience.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

How are films in other aspect ratios shown in the US? Here in Australia, when you go and see a movie, the curtains open to 16:9 for the ads, then opens to 2.39:1 for the trailers. Then the lights go down and the film starts, but occasionally if it's a 1.85 :1 or 16:9 feature (like PRIMER or WOLF CREEK), the curtains will close back in to fit the correct aspect ratio. So the horizontal width does change. In this case, if you took the smaller cropped 1920by800 image out and then expanded it to the bigger 2.39 screen size, I imagine there would be a significant loss in quality? Is that how they do it in the States?

If talking about celluloid film... the projectionist will put a hard matte in the projector. Meaning if you shot 1.85, or 2.39 S35mm crop, they just drop in different hard mattes. Interesting enough, if you were to watch an older s35mm matted for anamorphic film, you can see peripheral areas of the film not intended for the audience to see, thus you might see the bottom of a boom mic and other cool stuff that is in the area intended to be 'lost' when projected with a matte. Cinematographers used to fear that rural and ill-maintained theaters would play the intended matte films without the matte, and thus ruining composition and possibly showing things not intended to be seen, such as an audio boom. Regarding real Anamorphic celluloid projection, the projector would need a lens to 'unsqueeze' the image.

As far as digital projection, I suspect the projector has a maximum resolution, and the films to be played are pillar boxed or letter boxed accordingly. How else can it be done? My experience seeing the local preview ads before a film has almost been 100% two projectors used. One is simply 1080 for local adds and b.s., while the feature presentation is projected by a high class 2k or cine-level resolution.

We'll be shooting either 5d or gh13 or AF100, so I would imagine with using a lower-end cam, loss of pixels would be more of a concern than a high-end cam? Shooting on a DLSR you soon learn that the wides are much softer than the higher-end cams, so it's better to stay closer in (like HARD CANDY), and I imagine 16:9 would enable you to get closer than 2.39.

Yes and no. It's not totally about resolution as it's also perceived resolution and sharpness. Meaning I have seen many DVD's (standard Def) and Blu-Ray movies (1080) that looked much more sharp than DSLR footage. Why? For the reasons you mentioned. DSLR compression is retarding it's 'HD' resolution. So I suppose if shooting 1080 (16:9) cropped for 2.39, you'd lose vertical resolution and some shots would be adjusted for by moving the subjects further away. With that said, I wouldn't fear wide shots shooting on HD cameras that have reasonable sharpness, does not suffer from large compression, and etc.



I wouldn't like to protect an image for 2.39 and anything else. It's too different, imo. I'll do it for 16:9 and 1.85:1, as they are not terribly far off. But I find 2.39 done right isn't ever 2.39 done for 16:9 extract. However, my reluctance to do so, doesn't mean I won't have to. I've not been put in that situation yet, but I imagine if I shoot more 2.39:1 material and it finds its way onto cable television, I'll see it pan and scanned. I have not yet had this happen, and lucky for me, it seems with 16:9 HD televisions, the HD channels are playing letterboxed versions of popular films (ie I'm watching Inglorious Basterds in HD, right now, and it's got letterboxing for the true 2.39 experience. I'm very happy about that. It wasn't long ago, every widescreen film was brutally destroyed by 4:3 SD pan-and-scan. Watching BenHur in 4:3 makes me sick, and it's happened (Ben Hur was 2.55:1 ratio! That's almost half of the image. Gone.)

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If talking about celluloid film... the projectionist will put a hard matte in the projector.

I have seen some theaters in addition to the projection matte, the curtains on the screen have also been adjusted to the format as well.

Yes and no. It's not totally about resolution as it's also perceived resolution and sharpness. Meaning I have seen many DVD's (standard Def) and Blu-Ray movies (1080) that looked much more sharp than DSLR footage. Why? For the reasons you mentioned. DSLR compression is retarding it's 'HD' resolution

One of the continual battles in the Clark household involves apparent 'sharpness of images'. The Wife, use to real(tm) film (stills) will yell and scream about the 'softness' of a digital image. Early on, we 'learned' the technique of using a bit of unsharp masking to get rid of this sort of 'haze' that digital images have. This has never set well with the Wife, but it seems to 'clean' up apparent sharpness noticeably.

Is using light unsharp mask filters used in 'video/digital film'?

Also the hardness of the light does affect the perception of 'sharp' as well...