A correction on Dunkirk's cinematography: The widescreen frames of the film were shot in 2.20:1 65mm open gate with spherical lenses, not 35mm anamorphic. Nolan has switched between IMAX and 35mm anamorphic before, as with The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar, but since Dunkirk and even for the upcoming Oppenheimer, he's used only 65mm film. EDIT: Original comment mentions the use of IMAX for Inception. This isn't true, as some scenes used Panavision 65 cameras, not any IMAX was shot.
@@joegamer6914 Where do you source that? IMDb, Wikipedia and news articles describe the film as to be shot entirely on 65mm stock, in IMAX and Panavision Panaflex 65.
Nothing but love for you as you know. One quick correction: all of leone’s films were shot on spherical lenses with 2-perf film. Creating 2.35:1 with technoscope processing.
A little correction since you show the good, the bad and the ugly as examples of anamorphic when they weren’t shot on anamorphic, they were shot on spherical 2 perf 35mm, granted all the prints for cinemas were anamorphicided to 4 perf so they can be projected like any other movie, but it was recorded on 2 perf. This was called techniscope since it was technicolor who created this method
There are some nitpicks to be done here. Firstly, the chronology. Yes, there was 1.37:1 until the mid 50's but... a lot of shenanigans went on. And 1.85:1 came after Cinemascope and other formats duked things out. Also, using Sergio Leones films for Scope is a bit of a mistake, I think. Sure, the prints were scope-compatible by design. But the cameras used 2 perf pulldown and non-anamorphic lenses to save on production costs. Only during printing were they stretched vertically to fit the Scope projectors. And as they usually could use faster and more sharp lenses, they usually had a clearer image compared with real scope features despite using only half the film. And as others have pointed out. The wider scenes in Dunkirk, like Tenet after it, uses 65mm 2.2:1 film as Nolan has practically abandoned the 35mm format completely for the foreseeable future. And... DCP's do have those two ratios standardized yes. Scope and flat, that is. But essentially. There's nothing stopping distributors from using the full 1.90:1 DCI max resolutions in most theaters. But as far as I know. Only digital IMAX uses that ratio. It especially annoys me when filmmakers use 2.20:1 and the distributors put that in a 1.85:1 frame and then theaters see the notation on the harddrive to use FLAT on the Scope shaped screen. So you end up with a windowboxed final image on screen that is almost half the available size.
Great video as always. However, I wouldn't consider IMAX to be a niche ratio considering it has a proprietary film stock, and Dunkirk certainly wasn't cropped from 1.85 to achieve 1.43. IMAX film is a native 1.43 as it is 15perf horizontal. If anything, most 1.43 IMAX theatrical releases have to be cropped to 16:9 for home media, so I think scale of IMAX has been really understated here.
I was gonna mention this, in relation to Justice League. Both versions are the same width, as far as I know, but Snyder's version is taller, rather than narrower.
@@skindreadsnevertheless it's a narrow fit in our 16:9 tv screens. I understand the creative use of ratios within a movie, but having the whole movie fixed to a narrow ratio doesn't look as good. Unless it's an older era feel. Regarding Snyder's choice, I feel that if the height effect was achieved, why not let the camera pick more or not remove the width? Disney+'s enhanced IMAX looks great with the very narrow horizontal bars.
Outstanding work, as always. Thank you for sharing your knowledge - I have nothing to do with the film industry, but I watch every one of your videos as soon as they're posted - very informative and well-presented
I'm glad that someone understands aspect ratios, as there are some people who STILL say "16 by 9" when they are not stating the aspect ratio of "1.78:1". 1920x1080, is actually 1920 DIVIDED by 1080, which gives you 1.78:1, as is 3840x2160. This is more for displays than for projected images, but, it is important to also know that for broadcast deliverables to Netflix and Hulu (for example) as they have VERY specific requirements for codecs and aspect ratios. Another CRITICAL point is the use of the term "4K", as there are many different examples, yet, the actual "K" part of this is a multiple of "1,024"...so, "4K" would be 4,096 (1,024 X 4). If someone asks you to deliver them a "4K" product, it is important to know which variation, as DCI 4K is 4,096 horizontal lines, NOT 3,840 lines, is tghis gives a "K" rating of 3.75K. Yes, you read that right, all those so called "4K" televisions and monitors, are probably just 3.75K. Sorry.
ZSJL is a bad example of 1:33:1 movie because all principal cinematography was done with 1:85:1 extraction in mind, and showing full frame with all the negative space on the top and bottom was something Snyder decided on a whim years after the fact. So only a handful of scenes shoot (or rendered) exclusively for Snyder Cut are actually in 1:33:1, rest of the movie is really an open mate.
I would say the reasoning is solid. It really looks like comic-book frames realised in live action rather than usual CBMs being influenced by the typical Hollywood look.
Not exactly. Principal photography was was done with 1.66:1 in mind for framing. Zack only was okay with the theatrical release being in 1.85:1 because the studio told him that they didn’t want to release the movie in 1.66:1.
@@artemislindemann5739 I'm going by what DP said in the AC magazine (framed for 1:85:1 with rest of the frame being kept clean for IMAX). Snyder initially (as in during production) said that he went from 2:40 anamorphic to spherical 1:85 because of the experience on seeing portions of BvS in IMAX. After ZSJL became officially a thing, he went with 1:66 version you mentioned, then after the first trailer in 1:33 he started to claim that he actually shoot the movie in 4:3 from the start. In other words, I'm going with the DP version, since Snyder's isn't exactly consistent. Plus, you can do what I did and just watch the movie cropped to 16:9 yourself, 90% of the movie looks completely fine with horizontal composition lines being exactly when you expect them to be (for example eyes and mouth in close-ups), unlike when viewing full frame.
+it was mostly seen online and almost all TVs are 16:9. So if you see the full frame the image with look smaller and if you crop in you lose some resolution. It's not like they added extra resolution on top and bottom, It's still gonna be 2160p vertically and resolution will be cut off. That is on top of already compressed stream. So Snyder was basically manipulating fans into thinking it's very "artistic"
Its (kinda) major weakness (from a practical point of view) is that it requires thick black bars for TV viewing, which some viewers (myself included) find off-putting or downright distracting. Yes, my phone's (well, 1 of them) 2:1, but I don't wanna watch TV on a tiny screen.
I remember going to see 'Brainstorm', the film about VR recording of experiences directly to and from the brain, by Douglas Trumbull, which was intended to show off his Showscan process (which was shot on horizontally exposed 65mm film at 60 fps for optimal fidelity) but unfortunately had to opt for simply switching between "flat" widescreen and anamorphic cinemascope for the 'Brainstorm' sequences in cinema releases, but it was still quite effective with the screen "opening up" for the VR shots! Showscan was never adopted but some earlier processes tried simillar innovations; like the original Cinemascope which used 3 cameras/projectors and a curved screen, and Todd AO which was a 65mm process shot at 30 fps.
Just came by to drop a personal anecdote about what a big difference the aspect ratio makes to your perception of a film. As a project I made a fan edit of Amazon's Wheel of Time TV show into a film. I choose to crop the original footage from 1920x1080 (16:9, 1.78:1) to 1920x880 (2.2:1) to give it a more cinematic look, just about the tightest crop I could get away with without having any frame look cramped. From all the feedback I received people REALLY noticed the difference, which is surprising since it's usually such an invisible part of the film (literally!). Just made me realize what a big difference out makes. Much love from 🇿🇦
I use Sony FX30 and Lumix S5IIX with Siriu anamorphic lenses 24mm and 35mm 1.33. I choose desqueeze 1.33 on the menu (on the menus Sony and Lumix) but when I download the videos on my computer the files are not desqueeze? What I have to do?
I'll watch anything as long as it's not "shot safely" and then cropped. Decide what you want, how you want it, and why, then compose for that shape. If you want the 2x anamorphic look, but in 16:9, then either set the camera to 8:9 or compose the shot with the intent to crop the excess off. Whatever you do, if I know or suspect that there's a version that exists that is uncropped and would ADD to the experience, I will want THAT version, and will be pissed if I can't get it. Especially if you crop something into being wider than it was when filmed, and release the cropped-wide version (chopped off top and bottom) as the physical release. Stupidest move ever to release a cropped version that's very short to a consumer market full of 16:9 screens.
We need digital file containers that can handle multiple aspect ratios (I think .MKV does to an extend). And let the player/screen do the blanking - they know best.
For me, 2.40:1 is not only what I associate with cinema, but I think that anamorphic widescreen also works best for horror films. Because having the frame vertically compressed and the faces distorted creates this uncomfortable claustrophobic feeling. But _Zack Snyder's Justice League_ showed me the power of UNCROPPED 1.33:1 and how it definitely works best for big concept stories. Also, it showed me how I REALLY hate it when an image is manually cropped in post-production. 1.85:1 honestly feels smaller than both 2.40:1 and 1.33:1 to me. It makes the movie look too plain and boring. Only a few movies I love use 1.85:1 effectively, such as _Jurassic Park._
I watched The Blair Witch Project on HBO Max recently. They cropped it from 1.33 to 1.89, which kind of defeats the purpose of feeling like found amateur video shot on a Hi-8 camera from the '90s.
@@nathanpollard1223 1.89 is the aspect ratio of Super 35 film (not what The Blair Witch Project was shot on). It's slightly wider than 1.77 (more commonly known as 16:9).
I'll take your word for it. I'd think that they'd crop it to 16:9, or maybe 1.85 for a cinematic feel, but I wouldn't think they'd go for the weirdo that's 1.89. Or maybe I've just overlooked 1.89 & am not aware of just how popular it is...
I don't like the Christopher Nolan approach when movies change aspect ratios. Watching Interstellar for the first time, I found it very distracting seeing black bars on the shot, and then no black bars in the next shot, and then black bars again in the shot after that. This aspect ratio flip-flopping happens all across Interstellar, and I found it very distracting.
It's interesting how the names of aspect ratios change between film and photography. Like you say 2x3 or 3x4 in photography not 1.5 or 1.334. The obvious advantage is that it's easier to tell how square a ratio is. Or is there another reason?
A great exemple of emotional expression throughout aspect ratio is that one scene in «Mommy » by Xavier Dolan, sad you didn’t include it ! It’s here for those who dont know what i’m talking about: th-cam.com/video/cfpCRtHQZ6M/w-d-xo.html
my question is...eventhough a director chooses his stylistic choice of aspect ratio he wants to use, wont it still be projected at whatever aspect ratio the cinema (theatre) projects it in. most likley the wide aspect 2.40:1 ..... Won't it be unsual to see black bars in the theatre? im not sure how this works... but im curious will a theatre project a 4:3 aspect ratio? or is this gimmick only useful for platforms like netflix and amazon
When DCPs are created you set the aspect of the DCP either being 2K/4K flat/scope. But you can also set the aspect ratio of the film within that image. Yes there will be black bars projected, but a proper projector will project it as pure black, and you shouldn’t notice the black bars in the theater. Also some theaters will set the curtains on the side to the aspect ratio of the film. You may have seen the curtains move between the previews and feature presentation. I know black bars bother home viewers but i don’t see why they would bother anyone in a theater where everything is usually pitch black to begin with.
My nitpicks aside. I am very much convinced that you can use pretty much any aspect ratio for any film. Especially in todays movie world where DCP's can be cropped to whatever is needed inside the 1.90:1 DCI spec form factor. All you need to do is know what crop you are framing the image for and use that to compose the elements in the image according to the needs of the story. You can make any ratio feel cramped or expansive if you are sensible in your approach to framing.
I think best choice is whatever ratio most TVs these days are made with. 16:9 probably but don't quote me on that. I just don't like when some of the pixels are slacking off not being used. I paid for the whole TV I'm gonna use the whole TV dangit
I'm buying a 56" 2.39:1 TV to watch some shows (the last decade has offered quite a few ultrawide series) & movies. I also have a 4:3 TV, & there's an abundance of them (though many are small & SD), so, for the millions of people who have the space & money ($1000 would easily allow for a nice set-up) to do so (or can get a projector), there's not much to complain about. For most people, though, there is, or at least there would be, if this wasn't much of a problem to begin with. Anyway, I think it'd suck if everything was done in 16:9, as I think it's a poor ratio relative to 4:3 & 21:9 & it'd make shows & movies (on the whole) less interesting.
The biggest mystery of cinema in my opinion is the aspect ratio. I will never understand how it is possible that filmmakers choose to cut the image and decrease the portion of the picture. Cropped image = depowered image. I don't know how they can pass it off as an artistic choice. If I were a director I would exploit every single pixel of a camera and I would have the feeling that it is not enough.
Some cameras can capture 1.55:1 or 1.33:1. Some cameras are capable of capturing an image that is 2.20:1. Which camera would you choose? The answer is that it depends on how you want to frame your story, ie, an artistic choice
@@gusmackenzie2361 But from my point of view any artistic choice that takes away space from the visual picture is a disastrous choice. If I were a filmmaker I would pray every day that someone would invent video cameras that could offer just 10 more pixels. One should hope for "more" not "less".
@@danielexcf789 so what sort of aspect ratio would you shoot for? The largest camera sensor size ever is 15/70 IMAX, which has an aspect ratio of 1.43:1
A correction on Dunkirk's cinematography: The widescreen frames of the film were shot in 2.20:1 65mm open gate with spherical lenses, not 35mm anamorphic. Nolan has switched between IMAX and 35mm anamorphic before, as with The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar, but since Dunkirk and even for the upcoming Oppenheimer, he's used only 65mm film.
EDIT: Original comment mentions the use of IMAX for Inception. This isn't true, as some scenes used Panavision 65 cameras, not any IMAX was shot.
Lol I was about to say this but I’m glad someone else noticed
on oppenheimer he's using 35mm anamorphic
@@joegamer6914 Where do you source that? IMDb, Wikipedia and news articles describe the film as to be shot entirely on 65mm stock, in IMAX and Panavision Panaflex 65.
@@bowserjjumetroid3645 youre right it was old info it used to say that on wikipedia
@@joegamer6914 Ok, no problem.
Nothing but love for you as you know. One quick correction: all of leone’s films were shot on spherical lenses with 2-perf film. Creating 2.35:1 with technoscope processing.
A little correction since you show the good, the bad and the ugly as examples of anamorphic when they weren’t shot on anamorphic, they were shot on spherical 2 perf 35mm, granted all the prints for cinemas were anamorphicided to 4 perf so they can be projected like any other movie, but it was recorded on 2 perf. This was called techniscope since it was technicolor who created this method
There are some nitpicks to be done here. Firstly, the chronology. Yes, there was 1.37:1 until the mid 50's but... a lot of shenanigans went on. And 1.85:1 came after Cinemascope and other formats duked things out.
Also, using Sergio Leones films for Scope is a bit of a mistake, I think. Sure, the prints were scope-compatible by design. But the cameras used 2 perf pulldown and non-anamorphic lenses to save on production costs. Only during printing were they stretched vertically to fit the Scope projectors. And as they usually could use faster and more sharp lenses, they usually had a clearer image compared with real scope features despite using only half the film. And as others have pointed out. The wider scenes in Dunkirk, like Tenet after it, uses 65mm 2.2:1 film as Nolan has practically abandoned the 35mm format completely for the foreseeable future.
And... DCP's do have those two ratios standardized yes. Scope and flat, that is. But essentially. There's nothing stopping distributors from using the full 1.90:1 DCI max resolutions in most theaters. But as far as I know. Only digital IMAX uses that ratio.
It especially annoys me when filmmakers use 2.20:1 and the distributors put that in a 1.85:1 frame and then theaters see the notation on the harddrive to use FLAT on the Scope shaped screen. So you end up with a windowboxed final image on screen that is almost half the available size.
Great video as always. However, I wouldn't consider IMAX to be a niche ratio considering it has a proprietary film stock, and Dunkirk certainly wasn't cropped from 1.85 to achieve 1.43. IMAX film is a native 1.43 as it is 15perf horizontal. If anything, most 1.43 IMAX theatrical releases have to be cropped to 16:9 for home media, so I think scale of IMAX has been really understated here.
I was gonna mention this, in relation to Justice League. Both versions are the same width, as far as I know, but Snyder's version is taller, rather than narrower.
@@skindreadsnevertheless it's a narrow fit in our 16:9 tv screens.
I understand the creative use of ratios within a movie, but having the whole movie fixed to a narrow ratio doesn't look as good.
Unless it's an older era feel.
Regarding Snyder's choice, I feel that if the height effect was achieved, why not let the camera pick more or not remove the width?
Disney+'s enhanced IMAX looks great with the very narrow horizontal bars.
Outstanding work, as always. Thank you for sharing your knowledge - I have nothing to do with the film industry, but I watch every one of your videos as soon as they're posted - very informative and well-presented
Sergio Leone's movies were shot on Techniscope, this means a 2 perforation used per frame.
I'm glad that someone understands aspect ratios, as there are some people who STILL say "16 by 9" when they are not stating the aspect ratio of "1.78:1".
1920x1080, is actually 1920 DIVIDED by 1080, which gives you 1.78:1, as is 3840x2160.
This is more for displays than for projected images, but, it is important to also know that for broadcast deliverables to Netflix and Hulu (for example) as they have VERY specific requirements for codecs and aspect ratios.
Another CRITICAL point is the use of the term "4K", as there are many different examples, yet, the actual "K" part of this is a multiple of "1,024"...so, "4K" would be 4,096 (1,024 X 4).
If someone asks you to deliver them a "4K" product, it is important to know which variation, as DCI 4K is 4,096 horizontal lines, NOT 3,840 lines, is tghis gives a "K" rating of 3.75K.
Yes, you read that right, all those so called "4K" televisions and monitors, are probably just 3.75K.
Sorry.
ZSJL is a bad example of 1:33:1 movie because all principal cinematography was done with 1:85:1 extraction in mind, and showing full frame with all the negative space on the top and bottom was something Snyder decided on a whim years after the fact. So only a handful of scenes shoot (or rendered) exclusively for Snyder Cut are actually in 1:33:1, rest of the movie is really an open mate.
I would say the reasoning is solid. It really looks like comic-book frames realised in live action rather than usual CBMs being influenced by the typical Hollywood look.
Not exactly. Principal photography was was done with 1.66:1 in mind for framing. Zack only was okay with the theatrical release being in 1.85:1 because the studio told him that they didn’t want to release the movie in 1.66:1.
@@artemislindemann5739 I'm going by what DP said in the AC magazine (framed for 1:85:1 with rest of the frame being kept clean for IMAX). Snyder initially (as in during production) said that he went from 2:40 anamorphic to spherical 1:85 because of the experience on seeing portions of BvS in IMAX. After ZSJL became officially a thing, he went with 1:66 version you mentioned, then after the first trailer in 1:33 he started to claim that he actually shoot the movie in 4:3 from the start. In other words, I'm going with the DP version, since Snyder's isn't exactly consistent.
Plus, you can do what I did and just watch the movie cropped to 16:9 yourself, 90% of the movie looks completely fine with horizontal composition lines being exactly when you expect them to be (for example eyes and mouth in close-ups), unlike when viewing full frame.
+it was mostly seen online and almost all TVs are 16:9. So if you see the full frame the image with look smaller and if you crop in you lose some resolution. It's not like they added extra resolution on top and bottom, It's still gonna be 2160p vertically and resolution will be cut off. That is on top of already compressed stream. So Snyder was basically manipulating fans into thinking it's very "artistic"
This was so good, thank you for this wealth of knowledge
Thank you. I needed a video on this. Great channel.
2:1 or 18:9 was the perfect balance of 2.39's wideness & 1.85's height.
Its (kinda) major weakness (from a practical point of view) is that it requires thick black bars for TV viewing, which some viewers (myself included) find off-putting or downright distracting.
Yes, my phone's (well, 1 of them) 2:1, but I don't wanna watch TV on a tiny screen.
I remember going to see 'Brainstorm', the film about VR recording of experiences directly to and from the brain, by Douglas Trumbull, which was intended to show off his Showscan process (which was shot on horizontally exposed 65mm film at 60 fps for optimal fidelity) but unfortunately had to opt for simply switching between "flat" widescreen and anamorphic cinemascope for the 'Brainstorm' sequences in cinema releases, but it was still quite effective with the screen "opening up" for the VR shots!
Showscan was never adopted but some earlier processes tried simillar innovations; like the original Cinemascope which used 3 cameras/projectors and a curved screen, and Todd AO which was a 65mm process shot at 30 fps.
4:3>>>>>>everything
Just came by to drop a personal anecdote about what a big difference the aspect ratio makes to your perception of a film. As a project I made a fan edit of Amazon's Wheel of Time TV show into a film. I choose to crop the original footage from 1920x1080 (16:9, 1.78:1) to 1920x880 (2.2:1) to give it a more cinematic look, just about the tightest crop I could get away with without having any frame look cramped. From all the feedback I received people REALLY noticed the difference, which is surprising since it's usually such an invisible part of the film (literally!). Just made me realize what a big difference out makes.
Much love from 🇿🇦
Groovy! What film is that at the first of the video where the lady with the blue hoodie slips underneath the police tape?
Top Gun Maverick did a great job with the utilization of aspect ratios to immerse viewers in the cockpit of the fighter jet.
I learn so much from the comments and the video. A twofer!!
I didn’t realize until wider screen became the norm that square and now vertical videos gave / give me migraines/ headaches.
Wasn’t 1.85:1 first introduced with 35mm 8-perf VistaVision?
Thank You !
🙂🙏
7:14 Didn't expected to see here mr. Navalny 🕊
I use Sony FX30 and Lumix S5IIX with Siriu anamorphic lenses 24mm and 35mm 1.33. I choose desqueeze 1.33 on the menu (on the menus Sony and Lumix) but when I download the videos on my computer the files are not desqueeze? What I have to do?
You have to desqueeze on the editing software I belive.
Great video as always, my man 🧐
Starting to see a lot more of 2:1
I'll watch anything as long as it's not "shot safely" and then cropped. Decide what you want, how you want it, and why, then compose for that shape. If you want the 2x anamorphic look, but in 16:9, then either set the camera to 8:9 or compose the shot with the intent to crop the excess off. Whatever you do, if I know or suspect that there's a version that exists that is uncropped and would ADD to the experience, I will want THAT version, and will be pissed if I can't get it.
Especially if you crop something into being wider than it was when filmed, and release the cropped-wide version (chopped off top and bottom) as the physical release. Stupidest move ever to release a cropped version that's very short to a consumer market full of 16:9 screens.
Thanks for the video and explanation, may I ask you you can change aspect ratio between scenes or not?
Great Video!
What's the source for the clip at 0:59 ?
We need digital file containers that can handle multiple aspect ratios (I think .MKV does to an extend). And let the player/screen do the blanking - they know best.
For me, 2.40:1 is not only what I associate with cinema, but I think that anamorphic widescreen also works best for horror films. Because having the frame vertically compressed and the faces distorted creates this uncomfortable claustrophobic feeling.
But _Zack Snyder's Justice League_ showed me the power of UNCROPPED 1.33:1 and how it definitely works best for big concept stories. Also, it showed me how I REALLY hate it when an image is manually cropped in post-production.
1.85:1 honestly feels smaller than both 2.40:1 and 1.33:1 to me. It makes the movie look too plain and boring. Only a few movies I love use 1.85:1 effectively, such as _Jurassic Park._
I watched The Blair Witch Project on HBO Max recently. They cropped it from 1.33 to 1.89, which kind of defeats the purpose of feeling like found amateur video shot on a Hi-8 camera from the '90s.
1.89?
@@nathanpollard1223 1.89 is the aspect ratio of Super 35 film (not what The Blair Witch Project was shot on). It's slightly wider than 1.77 (more commonly known as 16:9).
I'll take your word for it. I'd think that they'd crop it to 16:9, or maybe 1.85 for a cinematic feel, but I wouldn't think they'd go for the weirdo that's 1.89.
Or maybe I've just overlooked 1.89 & am not aware of just how popular it is...
06:27 I see what you did there
Theatrical Justice League release was 1.85:1. Small correction.
I don't like the Christopher Nolan approach when movies change aspect ratios. Watching Interstellar for the first time, I found it very distracting seeing black bars on the shot, and then no black bars in the next shot, and then black bars again in the shot after that. This aspect ratio flip-flopping happens all across Interstellar, and I found it very distracting.
It's interesting how the names of aspect ratios change between film and photography. Like you say 2x3 or 3x4 in photography not 1.5 or 1.334.
The obvious advantage is that it's easier to tell how square a ratio is.
Or is there another reason?
Decimals (without getting overly awkward) are more precise.
Great video.
Very informative
Thank you for french subtittles !
would there be any point of a small aspect ratio and an ultrawide angle lens?
great video
A great exemple of emotional expression throughout aspect ratio is that one scene in «Mommy » by Xavier Dolan, sad you didn’t include it !
It’s here for those who dont know what i’m talking about:
th-cam.com/video/cfpCRtHQZ6M/w-d-xo.html
my question is...eventhough a director chooses his stylistic choice of aspect ratio he wants to use, wont it still be projected at whatever aspect ratio the cinema (theatre) projects it in. most likley the wide aspect 2.40:1 ..... Won't it be unsual to see black bars in the theatre?
im not sure how this works... but im curious will a theatre project a 4:3 aspect ratio?
or is this gimmick only useful for platforms like netflix and amazon
When DCPs are created you set the aspect of the DCP either being 2K/4K flat/scope. But you can also set the aspect ratio of the film within that image. Yes there will be black bars projected, but a proper projector will project it as pure black, and you shouldn’t notice the black bars in the theater. Also some theaters will set the curtains on the side to the aspect ratio of the film. You may have seen the curtains move between the previews and feature presentation. I know black bars bother home viewers but i don’t see why they would bother anyone in a theater where everything is usually pitch black to begin with.
I'll tell you what's NOT the best aspect ratio to shoot your next video in: Vertical.
My nitpicks aside. I am very much convinced that you can use pretty much any aspect ratio for any film. Especially in todays movie world where DCP's can be cropped to whatever is needed inside the 1.90:1 DCI spec form factor. All you need to do is know what crop you are framing the image for and use that to compose the elements in the image according to the needs of the story.
You can make any ratio feel cramped or expansive if you are sensible in your approach to framing.
How did they "desqueeze" the anamorphic shot neg back in the film days?
Lens in projector
More recently Blonde had 4 different aspect ratios, ranging from a 1.00:1 to 2.39:1. Dont think I've seen a film with that many changes in size.
The last Transformers movie had like 5-6 aspect ratios changing continuously.
@@adityadas5820 Every. Single. Shot.
wow.
Nice
Dude shows 35mm 2-perf (Techniscope) spherical footage for anamorphic.
🔥🔥🔥
informative 12mins.
Nothing new.
The Enterprise D got destroyed for 2.39:1!
And the ox got replaced by a dog in Alien 3 for 2.20:1!
Gonna shoot my next movie i 0:0 🎉
I think best choice is whatever ratio most TVs these days are made with. 16:9 probably but don't quote me on that. I just don't like when some of the pixels are slacking off not being used. I paid for the whole TV I'm gonna use the whole TV dangit
I'm buying a 56" 2.39:1 TV to watch some shows (the last decade has offered quite a few ultrawide series) & movies.
I also have a 4:3 TV, & there's an abundance of them (though many are small & SD), so, for the millions of people who have the space & money ($1000 would easily allow for a nice set-up) to do so (or can get a projector), there's not much to complain about. For most people, though, there is, or at least there would be, if this wasn't much of a problem to begin with.
Anyway, I think it'd suck if everything was done in 16:9, as I think it's a poor ratio relative to 4:3 & 21:9 & it'd make shows & movies (on the whole) less interesting.
1.25x is much better for this video. He speaks too slowly.
The biggest mystery of cinema in my opinion is the aspect ratio. I will never understand how it is possible that filmmakers choose to cut the image and decrease the portion of the picture. Cropped image = depowered image. I don't know how they can pass it off as an artistic choice. If I were a director I would exploit every single pixel of a camera and I would have the feeling that it is not enough.
Some cameras can capture 1.55:1 or 1.33:1. Some cameras are capable of capturing an image that is 2.20:1. Which camera would you choose? The answer is that it depends on how you want to frame your story, ie, an artistic choice
@@gusmackenzie2361 But from my point of view any artistic choice that takes away space from the visual picture is a disastrous choice. If I were a filmmaker I would pray every day that someone would invent video cameras that could offer just 10 more pixels. One should hope for "more" not "less".
@@danielexcf789 so what sort of aspect ratio would you shoot for? The largest camera sensor size ever is 15/70 IMAX, which has an aspect ratio of 1.43:1
@@gusmackenzie2361 But not everyone can afford the Imax, I would stay at least on the 16:9 standard for every production, so as not to waste space.
And 2:1 ratio?
7:15 Дизреспект за вставку Навального