What is the best way to get 2:35:1 HD with standard lenses?

S

Soldier

Well-known member
What is the best way to get 2:35:1 HD with standard lenses?

Should I be looking to shoot 1920x1080 and crop it to 1920x810? I am shooting on a Panasonic GH1. My lenses are: 14mm panasonic pancake, 24mm nikkor, 35mm Nikkor, 50mm Nikor, 70-210mm Nikkor. I've read a little about anamorphic adaptors, but they seem to be only useful on really wide lenses. I'm worried that if I only use wide lenses, it will be hard to get a decent DOF unless I'm right in the talent's faces.
 
I would suggest just cropping. Don't forget that you will need a wider lens for a similar shot on HD because of the wide aspect ratio. Anamorphic adapters are relatively expensive and not always the best quality. However, if you are looking for anamorphic bokeh and lens flares you would be better off with anamorphic lenses/adapter.
 
1920 divided by 810 = 2.37.

1920/817 = 2.35
1920/803 = 2.39
1920/800 = 2.40

I contacted several film festivals regarding which aspect ratio to shoot a micro-budget feature in, and they all recommended 1.85:1 rather than 2.39:1 (it doesn't help that IMDB still says 2.35:1 even though it went out decades ago!)

The reasons they gave were:
* The resolution is better or equal to 2.39 (depending on the capabilities of the cinema), in some cases 2.39 is far worse
* 1.85 places more emphasis on the vertical, and most micro movies are mainly about people talking to one another rather than panoramas. Humans are more vertical than they are wide, so 1.85:1 suits many "human dramas" while films with epic landscapes suit the horizontal aspect ratio of 2.39:1
* Most films make the most money in rental and TV sales rather than thatrical release, and audiences prefer as close to 16:9 as they can get (and most 2.39:1 movies are cropped for TV broadcast)

Most fimmakers starting out prefer 2.39:1 because they believe it looks more "cinematic", but you should ask yourself which aspect ratio fits your project best. GODFATHER, SHAWSHANK, KING'S SPEECH, CHILDREN OF MEN were all shot 1.85:1 and certainly aren't any less "cinematic" than those shot at 2.39:1

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Futchibon said:
Most fimmakers starting out prefer 2.39:1 because they believe it looks more "cinematic", but you should ask yourself which aspect ratio fits your project best. GODFATHER, SHAWSHANK, KING'S SPEECH, CHILDREN OF MEN were all shot 1.85:1 and certainly aren't any less "cinematic" than those shot at 2.39:1

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Well, I prefer ratios around 1.66:1 (Golden Ratio), 1.5:1 (35mm still ratio, as well as an rather seldom used 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 large format that I liked...), and 1.85:1. Since 1.77:1 is within those bounds, I'm ok with shooting such.

I can't think of what I would shoot at the moment that would 'benefit' by 2.39/2.40:1... unless it is my "Maurice of Arabia"... a lesser known, in fact completely unknown player in the WWI era desert war...
 
It's a film set rurally. Big wide open country with mountain ranges in the background. very few close ups - only when talent walks into them.
 
Soldier said:
It's a film set rurally. Big wide open country with mountain ranges in the background. very few close ups - only when talent walks into them.
Click to expand...

Then your film is probably one of the few that I'd appreciate the 2.40 ratio. These sorts of choices really are aesthetic based, and so I'm using my personal aesthetics in my commentary.

It would seem your choices are anamorphic, or cropping. Since the list you give are mostly still camera lenses, cropping is the only option there. I'm not familiar with true 'cine' lenses, but I recall there are GH-1 adapters for some types of cine lenses, and that adapter does not add 'optical' surfaces, as maybe a 'front of the lens' accessory may, and so should not degrade the image. (People use dopters all the time to change lens characteristics, but I've not been a fan of putting more glass around an existing lens.).
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
These sorts of choices really are aesthetic based
Click to expand...

Amen! A while back I watched The Haunting (the 1963 film, not the 1999 abomination) on DVD. This is not an "epic" type of picture that would seem to call for Panavision anamorphic, but I swear that Robert Wise and Davis Boulton filled every square inch of that frame with meaningful information. While chopping a widescreen film to 4:3 is generally never a good thing, the effect of this film is greatly diminished when cropped.
 
KMR said:
Amen! A while back I watched The Haunting (the 1963 film, not the 1999 abomination) on DVD. This is not an "epic" type of picture that would seem to call for Panavision anamorphic, but I swear that Robert Wise and Davis Boulton filled every square inch of that frame with meaningful information. While chopping a widescreen film to 4:3 is generally never a good thing, the effect of this film is greatly diminished when cropped.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Wise also did "The Day the Earth Stood Still"(1951), in Academy, 1.37:1, "Run Silent, Run Deep"(1956), 1.85:1 (2.40 on a submarine???, maybe in 'wraparound' projection...), and in the 60's, "West Side Story"(1962), 2.20:1, and "Sound of Music"(1965) 2.35:1.

So, I'd say he had a range, that was commensurate with the technology of the day... if you recall, 'Cinerama' was the rage of the age, something like IMax is today...

(I'll not quibble about what exact ratios, as those are the ones listed in IMDB... so they could be off. But point is that Wise used the tools at hand. (The number 2.20 pops of frequently though... and the 70mm Wiki page seems to make that aspect ratio association.).
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Yes, but Wise also did "The Day the Earth Stood Still"(1951), in Academy, 1.37:1, "Run Silent, Run Deep"(1956), 1.85:1 (2.40 on a submarine???, maybe in 'wraparound' projection...), and in the 60's, "West Side Story"(1962), 2.20:1, and "Sound of Music"(1965) 2.35:1.

So, I'd say he had a range, that was commensurate with the technology of the day... if you recall, 'Cinerama' was the rage of the age, something like IMax is today...

(I'll not quibble about what exact ratios, as those are the ones listed in IMDB... so they could be off. But point is that Wise used the tools at hand. (The number 2.20 pops of frequently though... and the 70mm Wiki page seems to make that aspect ratio association.).
Click to expand...

My point was about that one specific film, The Haunting. What else that Robert Wise may have made is totally irrelevant. He chose Panavision for The Haunting and they designed the picture to use the entire frame throughout the whole movie. Had he decided to go Academy they probably would have done the same thing--i.e., design the picture to use the entire frame (and it would have been an entirely different movie, and would not have looked like the VHS version of the picture that was actually made).
 
KMR said:
My point was about that one specific film, The Haunting. What else that Robert Wise may have made is totally irrelevant. He chose Panavision for The Haunting and they designed the picture to use the entire frame throughout the whole movie. Had he decided to go Academy they probably would have done the same thing--i.e., design the picture to use the entire frame (and it would have been an entirely different movie, and would not have looked like the VHS version of the picture that was actually made).
Click to expand...

Experience with a format is relevant. One of the comments on the special features section of "Rebel Without a Cause"(1955), was the director Nicholas Ray, had never done 'cinemascope' before this movie, and had 'anxiety' about how to 'fill' the frame.
 
How about you just use what you want cause you want to use it? This is filmmaking, not brain surgery. There is no *right* or *wrong*, only interesting and boring.
 
The guidelines surrounding composition don't change. Just note that its important to know where your frame is if you must crop. For example: One of the projects I DP'ed last year was 2.40:1 aspect ratio and although the Red was capturing at 2:1 the framing guide can be set for 2.40:1 so you see exactly where everything is in relation to the final crop and there is no guesswork.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Experience with a format is relevant. One of the comments on the special features section of "Rebel Without a Cause"(1955), was the director Nicholas Ray, had never done 'cinemascope' before this movie, and had 'anxiety' about how to 'fill' the frame.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that whatever else Wise had done was irrelevant in regard to the question of "Was Panavision the right format for The Haunting?" My original post had to do with something some posts back that talked about widescreen being more appropriate for "epic-like" pictures. Most certainly I agree that a director's and DP's skills are relevant--they always are. But the issue I was originally getting at is that aspect ratio cannot really be tied to genre; it's more properly tied to what the director's and DP's vision is for the work, whatever its genre. Ultra widescreen can work for intimate dramas, and Academy can work for big epics and sci-fi spectaculars. It all depends on how the frame is used.

I had forgotten about the comment on Nicholas Ray and Rebel Without a Cause. I guess you could say either that he had no reason to be anxious, or that his anxiety served him well because he ended up doing a splendid job.
 
KMR said:
My original post had to do with something some posts back that talked about widescreen being more appropriate for "epic-like" pictures. Most certainly I agree that a director's and DP's skills are relevant--they always are.
Click to expand...

I did make that association, and it is based on my subjective aesthetics about what framing seems to suit certain genres, or more generally certain types of stories. There are counter examples galore...

However, for example the following quote...

Svart said:
How about you just use what you want cause you want to use it? This is filmmaking, not brain surgery. There is no *right* or *wrong*, only interesting and boring.
Click to expand...

Sure, and how about offering the 'suggestion' to learn how to effectively use the format, technique, to service a 'story', rather than using a technique that is 'hot' at the moment.

Quite a bit of the various user videos that are put up here, to me sometimes sort gives me a response of 'why' was this or that technique used, was because 'that's what the big boys use', rather than an understanding of why 'the big boys' use it.

And even The Big Boys make some incredibly unintelligible choices... like, Baz Luhrman's announced '3-D' remake of 'The Great Gatsby'... what on earth could 3-D do to 'service' that story...

But I digress...
 
Well that's still part of what I said. I tried to use words that would convey a humorous intent but still kinda get the point across..

But yes, if something seems terribly *off* then it's just going to detract from the whole film and can be considered "wrong". Although, I do believe that a good story can transcend ANY aspect ratio or glaring problems and still end up as interesting(and might seem intended!). It's those stories that are iffy and generally mediocre that *might* need help with certain parts to keep interest going. However, what you like may not be what the guy next to you likes. So how do you determine what is "effectively using" the format? People need to be ENCOURAGED to break the molds of the accepted norm. Yes, it might look ugly at first but someone might just think up something NEW and FRESH with their newfound freedom. A lot of experimentation might be involved and a lot of movie makers might try it out, which might make it seem "hot" at the moment..

I personally love 2.40:1 for just about anything. Folks can call me wrong but when you frame something like that, it seems more natural to me as you tend to lack huge amounts of useless headroom and footroom. It also allows you to position your audience in a more surrounding(like) environment without being required to needlessly do a lot of pans/cuts to establish location. This is, of course, my opinion though. I don't think it's right, nor wrong and certainly don't think anyone else is right or wrong to (dis)agree with me.

If it doesn't look good then it'll bore the audience. If it does look good, then they'll like it. However you have to keep in mind that you can't please everybody.

But as a filmmaker, you need to make your film for yourself first and the audience second or else you'll end up doing s**t like remake The Great Gatsby in 3d. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top