Blackmagic Forum

(From my experience)
For a long run, there was an overwhelming number of short films/ commercials that were Anamorphic + Alexa Mini + Film Grain. They looked great and covered everything from car promos to narrative.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ch9_EZwLCwL ... _copy_link

Now, it seems like there is a trend towards 4:3 on sticks or steadicam with slower pace edits.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ch-Ev0_J ... _copy_link

I KNOW ABOUT WHAT EVER CATERS TO THE STORY.

But i've never really enjoyed the 16x9 as a framing requirement. I just don't get inspired with it. Even though i've seen some amazing work in that format, i just never gravitated towards it as something I can frame instinctively.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CfGVXPgDb2 ... _copy_link

Wide Angle + 4:3 has become increasingly popular in the last year for commercials.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ch-D2vop ... _copy_link

SO in closing, this is more about an examination of how i need to get over the natural hesitancies and embrace what is called for when it comes to format and deliverables.
(why did i even post this? 'cause i'm a verbal processor, haha.)


Here's an example of the same content with both 4:3 and 2.4:1 ratios....
which feels better?
4:3

2.4:1

Personally I've always loved 2.4:1 one more. It generally feels more cinematic to me. Beyond Anamorphic Lenses I do love the look of 2.4:1 with Spherical Lenses.

But aspect ratio can be used in so many ways. Look at Grand Budapest Hotel, which used aspect ratio to tell the story with differing aspect ratios to convey different time period.

I do love older classic films shot in 1.33:1, and the various great films shot in 1.85:1. 16:9 is so close to 1.85:1 in general size that I haven't had a major issue with it for framing.

I shoot my theatrical recordings in either 1.33x anamorphics with a 16:9 capture or use spherical lenses and capture 16:9 but always deliver 2.39:1. Capture 16:9 so I have the ability to reframe vertically in post. Comes in handy to ensure I can follow the action.

technically that's not 4:3 or 2.40:1, that's 16x9 with black bars added. If you really want to change your aspect ratio then you would have to change the resolution. for 4k if you want something close to 2.40:1 then the resolution needs to be 4096 x 1706 or you can do 4096 x 1712, 4:3 is 4096 x 3072. If you ever want to figure out the aspect ratio just divide the width by the aspect ratio number. Example 4K DCI is 4096 x 2160, 2.40:1: divide 4096/2.40 this gives you 1706, 4:3: divide 4096/4/3 or 4096/1.33333 gives you 3072.

Chris Shivers wrote:technically that's not 4:3 or 2.40:1, that's 16x9 with black bars added. If you really want to change your aspect ratio then you would have to change the resolution. for 4k if you want something close to 2.40:1 then the resolution needs to be 4096 x 1706 or you can do 4096 x 1712, 4:3 is 4096 x 3072. If you ever want to figure out the aspect ratio just divide the width by the aspect ratio number. Example 4K DCI is 4096 x 2160, 2.40:1: divide 4096/2.40 this gives you 1706, 4:3: divide 4096/4/3 or 4096/1.33333 gives you 3072.

Technically, what you have is not true 4:3 or 2.40:1; it's 16x9 with added black bars. To truly change the aspect ratio, you'd need to adjust the resolution. For 4K aiming for a close approximation of 2.40:1, you'd use resolutions like 4096 x 1706 or 4096 x 1712. For 4:3, the resolution would be 4096 x 3072. To find the aspect ratio, divide the width by the aspect ratio number. For instance, for 4K DCI (4096 x 2160), 2.40:1, divide 4096 by 2.40 to get 1706; for 4:3, divide 4096 by 4/3 or 1.33333 to get 3072.

And I’d like to find a TV with high resolution without black bars
OTOH, at least you have space for subtitles outside of the picture if going CS.
A projector with good black is a viable solution, though.

Aspect Ratio and Resolution are two different things. (period)

There are several films that have used various aspect ratios throughout... to success I would add.
Many times I will take some footage I just shot add put it into several timelines that have various aspect ratios. The ones I have been "playing" with are 2.4:1, 2:1, 16x9, 4:3, 1:1 and at times even some 9x16. The same shot can look and feel very different in each.

As to trends, I do not care too much... I chose what works for me. But yes, trends can be used to deliver a feeling to those trending might expect.

I would also go as far as saying selecting a particular aspect ratio can be similar to selecting a particular focal length lens.

Jeffrey D Mathias wrote:Aspect Ratio and Resolution are two different things.

Of course, but I was half joking. An old tube may have a true 4 by 3 AR, but only SD resolution

The other solution might be specific framing for the target format under supervision of the director.
AFAIK, David Fincher is doing that for cinema and TV.

DCI scope is 2:39:1 (before 1970 scope was 2:35); 2:40:1 is a rounding error, but may be required for some outputs; Blu-Ray, for example.

https://www.unravel.com.au/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet

you guys really know how to kill the point of a post, haha.
I downloaded aspect ratio templates and used them. I'm terribly sorry if those aren't accurate.

This was an exercise of how framing subjects and telling stories changes the mood/vibe/purpose with the view.

Adam Langdon wrote:you guys really know how to kill the point of a post, haha.

Yeah sorry, Adam. I love scope, particularly for titles, where it always works best, for me; and for something that TV could never do

Adam Langdon wrote:
Here's an example of the same content with both 4:3 and 2.4:1 ratios....
which feels better?
4:3

2.4:1

The thing is that when you do a comparison, it pushes us to gravitate to one. But it doesn't mean that the material wouldn't be as compelling in the other ratio. I liked the wider one, but the close up shots seemed more powerful when compressed. It was interesting how many of my favorite movies were shot in 1:33 (and often with crappy equipment.)

I’ve used an Arca-Swiss large format camera to experiment with aspect ratio. Because Arca-Swiss cameras are completely modular, I can set it up for both 8x10 and 4x5, and the ground glass for each has a grid. This makes it easy to tailor an 8"x10" or 4"x5" sheet of film to whatever aspect ratio I want.

Initially, I was interested in the idea of making photographs that met 16:9 video requirements. No cropping or black bars. Then I re-watched Chris Marker’s La Jetée and became interested in what he called “un photo-roman”. La Jetée was made with a 35mm, 3:2 camera, but that's just what Marker chose to use.

I do this with black and white film. Apart from the fact that I like black and white, colour film has become very expensive and doing this results in some waste. That said, if you see a 4x10 (1:2.5) panoramic photograph, it’s likely that it started life as an 8”x10” sheet of film that was used to make two 4x10 photos.

Further to the above post, here are two aspect ratio charts that I made. The second chart expands on the first by including a number of still photography formats. People who are interested in the aspect ratios, but not in the ramifications for 4x5 and 8x10, can just read the first column. Cinema ratios are in grey:

My favorite Star Trek movie, Galaxy Quest, which incidently isn’t a Star Trek movie, used 1.33, 1.85, and 2.39. All were warranted by the story and executed flawlessly.

Good Luck

Adam Langdon wrote:you guys really know how to kill the point of a post, haha.
This was an exercise of how framing subjects and telling stories changes the mood/vibe/purpose with the view.

I'll try to take you up on it. As with any passably persuasive movie, the choice will tend to feel inevitable -- but only after the fact. Because there's no ultimate truth for any given aspect ratio. Asian cinema is overwhelmingly widescreen, but the likeliest explanation is the widescreen compositions common to Asian art, not some imperative related to the story.

Try to make a generalization about what format is best suited to what subject matter, and it will instantly fall apart (there will always be persuasive exceptions). "Yojimbo", "Once Upon a Time in the West","The Thing" (terrific WS compositions, btw) or "Lawrence of Arabia" in 4:3?

Why not? Any ratio can be made to work. And viewers will come up with rationales for how brilliant the counter-intuitive choice was or how necessary the obvious choice was.

I think that it’s worth reading about Stephen Spielberg’s decision to shoot Jurassic Park in 1.85:1 and the choices of aspect ratio for the sequels. A search will disclose a fair amount of discussion about this.

I do have personal preferences, the result of shooting with several roll film formats over the years and experimenting with aspect ratio with sheet film. However, even when I have a great deal of control over aspect ratio (still photography), it isn’t the only consideration.

I grew up with 1.33, my kid has grown up with 9:16. Inevitably 9:16 will be nostalgic for a generation, or two.

Good Luck

It’s a taste or subjective choice.

Elephant was done in 2003 and was very much against the widescreen trends in its day pre TikTok.



There’s a great storytelling moment in Mommy where the character literally opens the frame up and changes the aspect ratio.



I’m surprised there aren’t more aspect ratio changes for storytelling reasons mid movie.

Dark Knight did it very well if you saw it in IMAX.

JB

I thought WAVES did this pretty masterfully.

I really love this movie is general, but that decision was super cool as well

John Brawley wrote:It’s a taste or subjective choice.

Elephant was done in 2003 and was very much against the widescreen trends in its day pre TikTok.

There’s a great storytelling moment in Mommy where the character literally opens the frame up and changes the aspect ratio.

I’m surprised there aren’t more aspect ratio changes for storytelling reasons mid movie.

Dark Knight did it very well if you saw it in IMAX.

JB

Elephant definitely made great use of the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. And, especially made great use of the long Steadicam shots. Made it all have a very vérité style. I chose one of those Steadicam shots for analysis in my Steadicam class in college.

As for The Dark Knight I feel like the aspect ratio changes were more in line with the technical limitations of shooting 1.44:1 IMAX and 2.4:1 35mm for the different scenes. It was effective when the screen opened up for the IMAX sequences. However, there were a few instances where it was a single shot in IMAX and then 35mm. This was after all the first movie that really utilized IMAX and it only expanded use from that film onwards.

Aspect ratios play a key role in visual design, with trends shifting towards immersive formats for modern screens.

tupi154 wrote:Aspect ratios play a key role in visual design, with trends shifting towards immersive formats for modern screens.

Steve Fishwick posted the Spartacus title sequence above. The sequence credits Saul Bass. It also credits him as “design consultant”.

This website covers the work of Saul and Elaine Bass on many films: https://www.artofthetitle.com/designer/saul-bass/titles

This is the page on Spartacus: https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/spartacus

Just a few words about anamorphic lenses because it was mentioned in this topic.

Anamorphic lenses are often tied to widescreen aspect ratios, but that's not the only reason filmmakers love them. They create a unique look that regular spherical lenses just can't match - and while everyone knows about those blue streaks and oval bokeh, there's so much more to how these lenses paint the image that gives it that magical cinematic feel. If you want these qualities to really pop, you'll want the classic 2x or 1.8x squeeze ratios - the newer 1.3x and 1.6x versions, while still nice, just don't quite match that.

Thanks for the link on Saul Bass. Always a fan of his work.

Gary

When I was teaching students in motion graphics, I often used his work as examples for early brilliance in the field. Of course, I was also referring Kyle Cooper for a more contemporary style.
Regarding the use of changing aspect ratio, a good example is "Cold Fever", where a Japanese man is going to Iceland to perform a burial ceremony for his parents who died there. It's used in a way that deeply supports the emotion in the story, while in "Budapest Hotel" it's sometimes a bit manneristic (even if I enjoyed the movie).