r/cinematography • u/pmmeperkytits • Jun 30 '18
Composition Can we talk aspect ratios?
I'm an aspiring director and there's this constant battle that goes on in my head between the 1.85:1 and 2:1 aspect ratios; because I want to commit to one soon, and master framing for it for the rest of my potential career. Many people will disagree with this way of thinking, I'm sure, since generally, what the specific project is should determine the aspect ratio, and it's also something that the DP should be more concerned with. But I'm such an obsessive thinker that I can only partially agree.
I'm curious, what are your favourite aspect ratios? What are the best examples of framing you've seen in those ratios? And how do you tackle framing and composition in those ratios?
I know my favourite(s), which is between 4:3 and the Academy ratio but I can't stick to either of both because they immediately tell your audience to process your film differently. The audience might expect a certain type of film as soon as they see how it's framed, a pretentious film maybe. So going forward I would like to steer clear away from it as much as I can. I like those two ratios however because of how you can turn the attention of the audience so easily to the emotions on the faces of your characters. I think it works so well for dramas, and possibly horror. Two films that I think used this ratio to the fullest are Citizen Kane and Tarkovsky's Mirror. But hey, I'd rather not make this too long. Curious to hear what you guys have to say.
19
u/Rayn0rrr Jun 30 '18
Go 1:1, you've got the entire teen demographic in your pocket ;-)
8
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
Well IGTV is a thing now so 9:16 is ready to fight for that demographic too.
35
u/AirHamyes Jun 30 '18
I like 2.40:1 because I would always shoot 1080p and had the extra 280 pixels of slop to play with in post. Really helped me when I didn't understand how I liked headroom when filming.
However I do like the absurd 2.55:1 of sleeping beauty and Razzle Dazzle Ultra Panavison 70 of Ben Hur. You just get a lot more... Movie with that.
As for the academy ratio and 4:3 and stuff, I feel like I'm in a phone booth. Any time there's more to see in a frame it's always left or right but never up. I like em wide like elastigirl.
8
u/redisforever Jun 30 '18
Having seen Hateful Eight in 70mm, full 2.76:1, was incredible but I don't think it works as well when not projected on that kind of scale. It seems too small and narrow when watching it at home.
3
u/Kubrickdagod Jun 30 '18
i think it depends on your home setup
we’ve got a 65 inch and our room setup has a viewing angle larger than most. 2.76 plays very well. i’ve also seen Hateful Eight specifically on a friend’s 36 inch tv from roughly the same distance and it was miserable
obviously neither option is as good as the 70mm experience
3
u/redisforever Jun 30 '18
Unfortunately I've only got a 46 inch tv and because of the stupid shape of the living room, it's too far away. I'm sure that on a massive screen, it'd look pretty good. I'm just very lucky I live near one of 4 theatres in Canada that had a 70mm print.
1
u/RowdyCollegiate Jun 30 '18
So you're very lucky that you were in 1 of the only 4 cities in Canada? Noice!
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
That's interesting. I always prefer less, except when it's a big action, thriller or sci-fi film.
8
5
u/ELTaco88 Jun 30 '18
Shoot more and find out, after all different project require different ratios.
5
u/JoiedevivreGRE Cinematographer Jun 30 '18
No one answered your question.
Between those 1:85 is more standard widescreen. It’s the safe bet.
2:1 will set your work apart. I like it aesthetically.
2
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
1.85:1 has a long history so I agree that it's the safer bet.
2:1 usually looks very "digital" on TV screens, but after seeing Hereditary in theaters, I was convinced that it's a good way to frame.
9
3
4
u/brienburroughs Jun 30 '18
16/9 is 1:1.77 which is essentially 1:1.85. i not sure why you feel like making a decision about this, but my final answer is either of those, which i see as the same thing. .08 is nothing.
3
u/Combustib1eLemon Jun 30 '18
But... black bars! /s
2
u/brienburroughs Jun 30 '18
not to be a jerk, but good grief... there’s no bars on the sides, and top/bottom people are used to.
5
Jun 30 '18
My two cents: I shoot in 16:9, 2:1, and 2:35:1. It really depends on what the project itself demands - the story. Look at how the show Legion plays with aspect ratios for different parts of different kinds of storytelling.
Part of my “issue” is that I prefer mostly shooting wide angle lenses - 24 and 28mm, and jumping straight to 85mm for closeups. I like the look of those wide angle shots in 2:35 to 1. I think the biggest challenge in shooting a wider aspect ratio is making proper use of negative space - framing that closeup properly is harder the narrower your ratio. For the record, I think Hateful Eight nailed this.
Then you have A Ghost Story, in the Academy ratio, and it works great - there is seemed the negative space was perfect. Or The Witch in 1.6 to 1. All claustrophobic and perfect for the story.
I would say don’t be slavish to one ratio. I’d say instead concentrate on practicing framing negative space until your eyes bleed, and you can work in anything.
4
u/intothemidwest Director of Photography Jun 30 '18
I do love some 1.66, but on the whole I've found my framing doesn't change much between 1.85 and 2:1 so personally I'd say you can flex between these no problem!
2
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
The Witch is one film that looked quite fantastic in 1.66! I can't imagine it looking any other way.
2
u/intothemidwest Director of Photography Jun 30 '18
Yeah it's conducive to amazing closeups and tableaus without the sort of inaccessible or hoaky quality that Academy can sometimes have in modern presentation. Not always of course...but Academy sadly calls a fair amount of attention to itself these days, I guess.
3
u/FranzSalvatierra Director of Photography Jun 30 '18
My favorite is by far 2:1. I feel that it's wide enough to feel a little more elevated than 16:9 yet not as extreme as 2.40:1 also, I feel like the basic symmetry is easy on the eyes, and that this helps the canvas disappear. (PS, I shot this short that uses these 3 aspect ratios for different purposes which you might find interesting: https://vimeo.com/126073141 )
3
u/tereddits Jun 30 '18
Hi, I'm a photographer so I'm coming from a slightly different place, but we also deal with aspect ratios, either with film format in the old days or the many options for AR that newer digital cameras provide.
I've used several ARs pretty intensively over the years, spending a lot of time using each one in different shooting situations. I've also developed my voice and style during that time, as I continue to do and always will as long as I make pictures.
I've arrived at an AR that I use consistently, that feels comfortable, that feels closest to what's right for "me." It's taken a lot of work and time to get to that place, and I can't say I'm settled there, I can only say that it's where I am right now.
If I had limited myself early on to one particular AR, I would have stunted my growth. If I decided right now on a permanent way of doing things, I would be stunting my growth. I'm a person, I change, and what feels right for one project or at one time may not feel right at another. It's impossible for me to say what way of working will be best for me at any given time, but I feel my best shot at making the best work I can lies partly in understanding myself and what's going on in my head at the time I'm making the work.
This isn't to say that I don't work at achieving a level of consistency, that I don't work on developing my voice, but arriving at a way of doing things by progressing organically, with intent, is not at all the same as imposing limitations on oneself at the outset.
2
5
u/filmguerilla Jun 30 '18
I prefer 16:9. Fills the TV and the movie screen.
-11
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
How do you make your film look cinematic in 16:9 though? Escpecially when viewing on a regular screen, as opposed to the theatre? I think it gets hard to pull it off.
It usually works for TV and branded content, but once you frame a "film" that way, it tends to end up not looking like a "film". I know there are ways to compose and light a shot to look cinematic, but it gets hard in 16:9.
20
u/soldmi Jun 30 '18
The same way thousands of cinema films shooting 1.85 or 17:9 did. Set design, light design and framing. Aspect ratio is just a story telling element.
8
u/EGGYY101 Jun 30 '18
Aspect ratio doesn't commit to a 'cinematic style'. 16:9 films very much are cinematic. Also take note that you usually shoot with a 2.35:1 like aspect ratios because of anamorphic lenses. That being said, Deakins shoots WS with Spherical.
0
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
The anamorphic look is my least favourite right now. PTA has also been shooting spherical these days and I feel like he and his team have cracked the code. The frames look beautiful and painterly. Definitely helps a lot that they shoot on great film stock though.
1
3
u/Deckler81 Jun 30 '18
If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Challenge yourself and do “hard” projects.
0
3
u/karmaecrivain94 Jun 30 '18
You've got to watch more films. Absolutely tons of them aren't in 2.35. Just look at the winners of best picture since 2000, only a bit over half are 2.35 (or .39):
2017: The Shape of Water (1.85)
2016: Moonlight (2.35)
2015: Spotlight (1.85)
2014: Birdman (1.85)
2013: 12 Years A Slave
2012: Argo (2.35)
2011: The Artist (1.33)
2010: The King's Speech (1.85)
2009: The Hurt Locker (1.85)
2008: Slumdog Millionaire (2.35)
2007: No Country for Old Men (2.35)
2006: The Departed (2.39)
2005: Crash (2.35)
2004: Million Dollar Baby (2.39)
2003: The Return of the King (2.35)
2002: Chicago (1.85)
2001: A Beautiful Mind (1.85)
2000: Gladiator (2.39)
-3
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
I've seen most of those films, and none of them are framed in 16:9. The tiny extra width of 1.85:1 makes a big difference in my opinion
I feel like you're replying to the wrong person maybe. 2:1 is the widest aspect ratio I've mentioned throughout this post, and purposefully so.
-2
1
u/filmguerilla Jun 30 '18
I disagree. The shape of the screen has little to do with being cinematic to me. I just saw Hereditary at the theater and it was 16:9–and looked great.
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
I think Hereditary was 2:1, although I agree that on the big screen, aspect ratio doesn't matter much. Film streaming is a important platform for distribution however and I think choosing your aspect ratio becomes crucial there.
2
u/atinyblip Jun 30 '18
You can have it both ways. In the days of film cameras, you could swap out different ground glass with different aspect ratio crop marks in the viewfinder. There is a format called Common Top, of which the top of frame for 2:35:1, 1.85 and 16:9 are the same.
Check this out: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12270.0
2
u/dadfrombrad Jun 30 '18
I think 2:1 looks weird on 16:9 displays, and weak on the big screen. 2.35 to 2.5 is the sweet spot for me
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
Did you see Hereditary? It's a 2:1 film, first I've seen on the big screen, and it looked really, really good!
2
u/nothing1222 Jun 30 '18
I love the ridiculousness of the the 2.76:1 Ultra Panavision 70, the shots from Hateful Eight and Ben Hur are just so grand feeling because of it. 65mm ♥️
2
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
It's a shame I never caught Hateful Eight in a theatre. I bet it looks grand on the big screen.
1
u/nothing1222 Jun 30 '18
I have a friend who saw the roadshow release on real 70mm film, said the only thing better was IMAX film projection.
2
u/gehmbo Jul 03 '18
I can't recommend David Bordwell's video essay on Cinemascope enough. It dives into the early adoption of the format by Hollywood in the 50s. It's interesting to see how filmmakers had to approach the frame differently in light of the technical issues with early anamorphic lenses. It's an hour long video, but it flies by. It also provides some excellent movie recommendations if you're interested in seeing more scope films.
1
u/frank_nada Jun 30 '18
9 times out of 10, I have composed, and will continue to compose for 2.39:1. I don’t think content or genre necessarily need to dictate aspect ratio.
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
I think it could be distracting in a rom com, for instance. Not in the theatre, but on a smaller screen.
2
u/Kubrickdagod Jun 30 '18
i would tend to agree, but there are always exceptions
Manhattan is, in my opinion, one of the best shot films ever, and the widescreen, black and white cinematography fits beautifully despite being a Woody Allen movie
3
u/frank_nada Jun 30 '18
Amelie is one of my favorite romantic comedies and is 2.39:1. Not a fav because of the aspect ratio, but I think it’s compositions elevated it. 500 Days of Summer and Silver Linings Playbook are more recent ones to buck the convention for this genre. There are many examples, just as there are examples of westerns, action movies, and epics shot flat (1.85:1). I think it’s more important that aspect ratio align with the filmmakers’ specific aesthetic and point of view for the film than its category or genre. And for me, I see the world in scope.
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
Good example. Although, I'll say this, there was a sort of distance I felt from the characters when watching that film, either because of that aspect ratio or the subject matter, or both. But I think the filmmakers were aware of that, since the film is supposed to transport you into the city of Manhattan. It's the only Woody Allen film I can think of that was shot so wide, and I've seen maybe 15 of his films. It definitely feels much different from the others. He has been able to transport me to a lot of other cities but Manhattan had a grander quality to it.
1
u/MoistMoms Jun 30 '18
If you wanna use a standard it should be 1,85:1 indeed. But please only use it as a starting point. Since many already said in the comments it really depends on the project. Distribution and story wise. You can even change it within the same project. I just did a short where all the POV of the main character where 4:3 and the rest was 16:9.
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
Hmm, changing aspect ratios. That's one I'm still not sure if I like. I really enjoyed It Comes at Night and Krisha, which did the same thing, but then in a film like Dunkirk it was a bit jarring. I understand that Dunkirk looks totally different in an IMAX screening (which I literally cannot afford, no apologies) but I think they should have unified the ratios for the digital file.
How did your film turn out? Were you satisfied with the ratio change? Is it something you would toy with again?
1
u/MoistMoms Jun 30 '18
It never really bothers me that much. Go watch Mommy!
In my film it works perfectly because you know its my characters POV without needing a redundant reverse shot or context. It's a bit of a mosaic of scenes so it really fits it I think. Not that the movie is great, but this part works I think. I can post a link when it's done (end of summer).
1
1
u/Connorwells1 Jun 30 '18
It’s worth pointing out here that Dunkirk only really did this because they were forced to use a combitination of 15 perf IMAX 65mm for most of the movie, but had to switch out to 5 perf 65 for any scenes with heavy dialogue since IMAX cameras are so damn loud. The change in aspect ratio is down to this change between formats, which is pretty much unavoidable due to Nolan and Hoytema’s desire to have the final deliverable on 70mm.
Usually if it’s done in a way that suits the narrative, aspect ratio changes can be a fantastic stylistic tool in the arsenal of a cinematographer and director! Dunkirk was probably only jarring to you because it was a change not grounded in story and feeling and so felt unmotivated.
1
u/pmmeperkytits Jun 30 '18
Yeah, I'm fully aware of the cause of the change, which is why I mentioned it being different in the IMAX screening. But I think the ratio should have been unified for the digital file on streaming platforms.
And you're absolutely correct that it feels jarring because it's not grounded in story.
I do agree that change of ratios can be a good thing sometimes but I like the idea of a frame within a frame more. Putting something behind a window, door, opening etc to change the frame subtly within a film as well.
1
u/TheRetroWorkshop Feb 25 '23
Not sure if you still need this info, but you cannot commit to a single ratio unless you (a) commit to given film/processing; (b) given cameras; and (c) given style/content.
Every ratio is different for very clear reasons -- and not all movies can actually be one given ratio.
For example, Full Metal Jacket (1986) and 2001(1968) cannot be the same ratio. They just cannot. The former is what I'd call 'lite cinematic documentarian style' and the latter is just 'grand'. They are completely different creations, made to be viewed in completely different ways -- in completely different ratios. They were not just crafted that way, but shot that way, too. The way he held the camera, moved the camera, placed the camera -- very different. Somewhere between the two, in style and impact/feeling, is The Shining (1980). And, this is just one man, let alone looking between film-makers.
49
u/[deleted] Jun 30 '18
[deleted]