I think I’m on a quest to get ryan to do what he thinks and not get sidetracked by second guessing. He’s probably a better film maker than me, because I always lack artistic vision. When I stand in for the director they ALWAYS pick different solutions to mine. Mine would work but theirs is usually better in the end!

this goes back to art, Ryan. Technology has given you far more choices, but you cannot write a rule book to follow, which is what you always strive for. Shot 3 has problem 201, turn to 201 in the book and apply rule. shot 4 has problem 22, and so on. You cannot work like this. Whenever people give advice, you add it to the rule book. However - every single piece of advice has a context, and you miss this.

You nearly got it here.
You had it, but then added the "unless I'm wrong". You felt they should be both in focus. That's an executive decision by the film maker. YOU made the decision so go with it. Why would other people have better judgement than you? I really cannot imagine on the Citizen Kane set the man in charge wondering if he was wrong? He knew he was right. Almost certainly people on set thought he made very odd decisions, but he didn't - he had the vision.

We're very good at answering questions, but we are not always right. Perhaps technically, we are - but part of being in charge is having the courage to collect viewpoints, and then do what you think best, and not constantly double-check every decision. I work for very big production companies, and in my role make on the spot decision that have big implications. My contract essentially says make it happen, and the bosses support the decisions I make on their behalf, even when later it turns out I was wrong. you are in this position apart from you have no boss.

If you want a shot to have shallow DoF, then in your head you already know why this is. Maybe to hide the background, but probably to pull people's attention to the things in the frame you wish them to be looking at. A fully sharp image can present them on the big screen with a jumble of things to look at. Is this good? Only you know!

Oh okay. Well it's just in the past, if I tried to follow my own instincts on how a shot should be, I was told that is not professional looking.

For example, in that same scene, I broke the 180 degree rule on the close up of the actress, and I had no problem doing this, but people told me it wasn't good and they said I should flip the image, so I don't cross the 180 degree line. That's why the lighting doesn't match on her close up, cause I was told to flip the image.

If I were to follow my own instincts and not go by rules, I say that for future shoots, if more than one actor are moving around a scene, I could keep them both in focus with a deep focus, but if it's just a close up, then I have a shallow DOF.

However, it was said on here before, that I maybe I should traditionally keep the DOF the same for all the shots in a scene to keep it consistent, so is that instinct of mine, not good then?

Know the rules before you break them.

Crossing the line is best done for a dramatic reason, just crossing for a CU usually doesn't work that well. Directors switch the line and stay over, however, they usually don't do so when just cross cutting between characters as they chat.

The line maintains the geography of a scene, so crossing it has to be done for a reason..

The 180° Rule (And How to Break It) - YouTube

Oh okay thanks. But what if I wanted to a scene where I am breaking the rule while cross cutting back and forth between two characters talking.

It happens in this movie scene:

Ex-Machina clip: feel bad for yourself. - YouTube

So what are they doing different that allows for it to be okay, since it is cutting back and forth in a conversation?

In that scene the geography is carefully set up at the beginning. The breaking of the line is used to show the disconnect/alienation between one character and his boss. It's also reinforced by the framing, with the space behind him seeming to slowly add pressure as the free talking boss softly gives his thoughts.

So, it's been done for a reason. The switch over the line occurs when he learns that there will be a next model - the dramatic revelation of the scene. This will set in train what happens in the rest of the film.

What we don't know, looking at the completed film, are other angles that were shot at the time, the standard arrangement may have also been covered (This appears to be case with at least one shot), but during the editing this is one that was used for the above reasons.

You can't do it for the sake of it, otherwise it won't work and you end up confusing/annoying the audience. There needs to be something that carries you over the line.

I never would have thought of any of that. Not that I don't watch the cinematography when I watch movies/shows but often the subtler stuff escapes me or goes over my head.

If it works, within the context of the scene, you shouldn't be aware of it.

I've seen the film, so I know where this scene fits in the story.

NCIS crosses the line quite often for no reason (other than coverage) and I'm aware if it. They get away with it because they cut on nearly every sentence, but it doesn't carry any dramatic weight.

I've never produced a remotely good 5.1 mix simply because my studio is not set up with the necessary speakers and balanced system. I can produce 5 tracks easily, in the right format, but I would have no idea how much to put in the rear, or how the balance between centre and L+R would work. When I've brought in a 5.1 mix to do things with, I'm amazed at what is in the individual tracks - I simply can't work out how the balance was achieved. Stereo only for me.

I'm an NCIS fan too, Bryan - and it's frankly the only US series I can comfortably watch without getting annoyed at. They seem to constantly break rules, invent new ones and give the audience a mix of soft, gentle edits exactly where I would have made them, then suddenly slam some sharp cuts in for effect. They work so well that I'm never aware of 'editing' as a feature, just editing to make the story run. There are lots of unusual framed shots too. If I was still teaching, NCIS would be a good collection of subject material for evaluation.

In that scene the geography is carefully set up at the beginning. The breaking of the line is used to show the disconnect/alienation between one character and his boss. It's also reinforced by the framing, with the space behind him seeming to slowly add pressure as the free talking boss softly gives his thoughts.

So, it's been done for a reason. The switch over the line occurs when he learns that there will be a next model - the dramatic revelation of the scene. This will set in train what happens in the rest of the film.

What we don't know, looking at the completed film, are other angles that were shot at the time, the standard arrangement may have also been covered (This appears to be case with at least one shot), but during the editing this is one that was used for the above reasons.

You can't do it for the sake of it, otherwise it won't work and you end up confusing/annoying the audience. There needs to be something that carries you over the line.

Oh okay, well that's why I did it, to show that one character was on a different mental level than the other one. However, don't I establish the geography though, by showing a wide shot of the room with both of them first, before breaking it and then cutting back and forth?

I haven't watched NCIS for so long but I can check it out.

In your case I don't think it would work, the actress can do that though her performance and without the subtext for a reason and an approbate set up, it just looks like you made a mistake. .

In the "Ex Machina" example they jumped the across line earlier in the scene, so it had already been established and there was a build up to the key point. There are other methods could've been used to give the same feeling.

Bear in mind that NCIS isn't cinematic in its styling.

I can't quite decide on that one, Bryan. It certainly isn't normal TV, but it isn't really cinema, so what would the style be. The constant camera movement, the unusual framing - can't quite pigeon hole it?

I suspect it has its roots in documentary, "Hill Street Blues" started a fashion for it in US police shows.

I'd suggest that NCIS has been running so long, to such success, that they've been working on developing a unique sub-genre of the police procedural.

This is what happens in 16 years with such talent. Staff get tired of what they did 5 years ago and keep pushing!

Amazing how slow paced Barney Miller is in comparison

What I think I like is that the writers simply cram as much in as they can, the people who shoot it ram in as much as they can and there's simply no room left for any shot that has no purpose. No point in useless cutaways, they waste time, so plan the thing properly so as to make every single piece a A shot list, and the B shot list a very short one.

They usually write TV dramas slightly over length and then reduce it to the final running time during the edit.

In your case I don't think it would work, the actress can do that though her performance and without the subtext for a reason and an approbate set up, it just looks like you made a mistake. .

In the "Ex Machina" example they jumped the across line earlier in the scene, so it had already been established and there was a build up to the key point. There are other methods could've been used to give the same feeling.

Bear in mind that NCIS isn't cinematic in its styling.

Oh okay thanks. What about the 180 degree rule, in a fight scene. I shot a fight scene for a short film before, but I was told I broke the rule, as if was bad, but you see the rule being broken all the time in othe movies, so is it okay?

It broke sometimes when the actors fought and entered from one room to another, but that is pretty much because the rooms were shaped in a way, in which I did not have enough space, to maintain the rule, and had to put the camera elsewhere. But what are the rules when it comes to breaking the rule, in a fight scene, out of curiosity?

The rule is quite simple. You don't do it, unless you need to and can justify it by it making the edit better. There is no way you can expand on this rule to makes something that you follow by prescription. It either works or it doesn't.

I see the rule being broken on a number of occasions in films and TV, usually it's a mistake. Sometimes you can spot the corrections in feature films where a shot has been flopped. EDIT It happens in "Waterloo" during a cavalry charge where the sabres are in their left hands.

The video earlier in the thread gives examples of the rule being broken and gives reasons why it works in these occasions. Doing so because the set hasn't much space isn't a reason, you can usually cheat the shots so you don't cross the line.

Fight scenes really do need to make geographical sense, otherwise the blows don't connect correctly, resulting in the scene losing its power. The line can switch during a scene, if you set up the switch, that's different to you cutting so that people are facing the same direction for no reason..You might get away with the change if one actor is kicked into a room and you cross the line on the cut to inside the new room, however, him falling on the line straight towards the camera may be more powerful and then cutting to the other side for the next shot.

The rule for breaking a rule is that it must work.

Oh okay thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind...

As for aspect ratio, after thinking about it, I think I am more set on 1.85:1 than 2.39:1 but only because it saves on needing as many extras in the scenes, since there are scenes of crowds of people. 1.85:1 means less extras, but I feel I am making the aspect ratio decision out of budget, more than out of artistic choice, but is that bad to put the budget before art in that sense?

Ryan - remember the art discussion? You are now reconsidering aspect ratio to save the quantity of extras????

Remember - Vision. What do you need it to look like. In all my years I have never even considered making artistic decisions on variables like this? Sure - budget is important, and I've swapped locations that will be cheaper, I've swapped cameras and even crew for budget reasons, but people in the shot are simply dressing. I really don't understand you. You've made amazingly heavy water out of the aspect ratio, and now don't care, and are picking it because you have to find extra people? Could you not reblock them, or do other artistic things to make your chosen size fit?

We've talked this to death then you throw it all away on a whim.

I'm really sorry Ryan, but this just makes me cross that we wasted so much time and energy trying to help, and you throw this in at the last minute and make all the discussion pointless.

The title of the thread is 'How does a filmmaker decide which aspect ratio to shoot in?' - the answer appears to be, he bases it on the budget he has to fill the image with people? We could have done that 1st post, if you said I want to go wide, but can't afford to have that many extras.

You let this topic get HOW big, before throwing this in? You're just messing us about.

You’re describing the natural course of all his threads. For my sanity, I find it best to only discuss the subject for its own sake and not concern myself with giving him advice or solving his problems. You’ll inevitably end up angry and frustrated for wasting your time.

He should have a disclaimer at the beginning of all his threads. “Warning all advice and answers for the questions I’m about to ask will be discarded due to budgetary restrictions.”

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was throwing away in advice! I considered all the advice, but I was told that on here before, that in the end, I need to learn to make my own decisions for my own reasons.

So if that's true, than I felt needing more actors and set design in the frame might take up more budget, and thought that was a deciding factor in which one to choose. Was I wrong to have my own reasons to make that decision?

It's your decision, in the past the economics would've driven the decision, so you probably wouldn't have asked the question.

Well I guess I just had to take all the advice and weigh it all and think about it. Both aspect ratios are in good in different ways, which makes it difficult to make a decision. So I guess I just thought I should make it out of budget then, if both are good in different ways. But I could go back and rethink it and make a decision, that is all about the art, and not budget based, then if that's better.

For me it's a simple matter of letting the technology dictate what I use. I have cheap cameras that all put out 16:9, and the vast majority of displays anything I produce will be seen on are compatible with 16:9, so I work within that format.

The limitations of technology have always constrained and influenced artistic decisions, often in ways that inspired the people producing the art. Since I'm an "audio first" thinker it's the history of recording that serves as my model. For example, Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a pair of Studer 4-track decks. Although 8-track machines were available, the record company wouldn't pay for them, so George Martin had to make do with what he had, which he did brilliantly with a bit of planning. When he filled up all the tracks on one machine he had to mix down to one or two tracks of the other. Was that masterpiece created in spite of or because of the limitations? Hard to say.

So perhaps use your budget limitation as inspiration. Maybe you'll make the next El Mariachi.

Oh okay. It would be awesome of course to make the next El Mariachi.

Well I never thought of cameras not having a 2.39:1 ratio being a problem as you can just load some free firmware onto a lot of cameras that will give you that aspect ratio.

The budget dilemma for me, it means I need more extras in the shots, as well as more set design, since more of a room is shown 2.39.

Do you think that maybe I should put art before budget first though? For example, I showed the script I want to make to a DP, who may be interested, and he said he really would like to use a drone for some shots, but I don't know if I want to spend the money and permits and insurance for a drone, but he thinks it will really add to the art of the movie if we do. That is just another current example of art vs. budget.

I've lost the plot altogether - Ryan. What exactly are you? you now have a DP who wants to do drone shots, you were a boom op, then a cameraman, then a producer, now I have no idea/

You seem to want to be everything, then nothing. If you have a DP then that person would be thinking much the same as you - so can we sort out what you have on your business card? Ryan Wray - XXXXXXXX

What is the XXXXXX? (This week) - it's confusing the heck out of me, and as soon as I think I've got you sorted, as in you are the director, you morph into something else.

Please stop asking what we think of every variable - we don't know, because you never give a full explanation to anything - ever!

IS it your money funding all these people? If it is, why to you allow other people to tell you what to do?

how are you choosing your team, or is there already a team and you are the person expected to fix everything.

We're willing to help, but we now need to understand you, what you do, where the funds come from, what happens to the finished product and where do you go from here.

Oh sorry, I'll try to explain more.

I want to direct and produce a feature film to send into festivals and hopefully if distribution happens, that's great.

I've done boom op work for other people on their productions. This DP is a connection I made through doing such work, and he asked if I had any projects I want to do, and I told him about this one and he was interested.

I don't have to be own my DP of course, but still have to make a lot of decisions as director, such as aspect ratio or types of shots of course. I haven't chosen a team yet because before going to a team, I want to get all the storyboarding done first, so I have it ready to present to them. It would be my money, plus the possible money from any investors I can attract later, but want to get the storyboards done first as well as other things, before presenting it to them, or to a team.

Does this help explain more?

We've talked this to death then you throw it all away on a whim. I'm really sorry Ryan, but this just makes me cross that we wasted so much time and energy trying to help, and you throw this in at the last minute and make all the discussion pointless.

You’re describing the natural course of all his threads. For my sanity, I find it best to only discuss the subject for its own sake and not concern myself with giving him advice or solving his problems. You’ll inevitably end up angry and frustrated for wasting your time.

I think it's important to point out here that most any discussion thread on DVi -- especially one like this, which goes on for pages and pages -- will usually, if properly conducted, transcend well beyond the original poster's purpose or intentions. And that's a good thing.

To state it another way, a discussion thread of this size typically goes above and beyond whatever the Original Poster (OP) was getting at. The result is that it positively affects other readers who come upon it later. It doesn't matter if the OP has taken our advice or not. Perhaps somebody else will. Other people can learn a lot from reading through it. The topic is broad enough and general enough and is discussed well enough that there's plenty of potential for it to be useful for other people. I've said before that I want this site to appeal to all of the lurkers -- all of those folks who read but choose not to post. They will definitely benefit from all of this. Meanwhile, the OP can take it or leave it. His questions were answered in good faith and that's all that matters.

So yes, please, by all means discuss the subject for its own sake. Other eyes will gain from it besides (or instead of) the OP.

Thanks all,

Are you Ryan Wray or Ryan Elder?

I'm Ryan Wray

Actually I think you're both Ryan Wray and Ryan Elder, and I'm not quite sure how to handle that from an administrative perspective, so I've given you the custom title "also known as Ryan Elder." Because as far as I can tell, you're going by both names. Or perhaps you were Ryan Elder and recently you became Ryan Wray, which is all well and good and fine of course, but I just wanted to avoid any confusion about who you are.

For example, on your YouTube page your name is Ryan Elder. And yet, in your most recently uploaded YouTube video, you credit yourself as Ryan Wray. And that's just one example. It's really not that big of a deal, but the members of this particular forum generally prefer to know who they're talking to. And the thing is, you're currently posting on another forum right now as Ryan Elder. In fact you've been posting on a wide variety of forum sites as far back as 2012, which is also okay, but it's important to understand that DVi isn't like other forum sites.

Ultimately it's really no big deal as it's clear to me that you're not trying to impersonate someone else or anything -- I mean, see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9866858/ -- that's you, right? However, for the sake of my own sanity, I've got you down as Ryan Elder below your username.

Oh I just with Ryan Wray cause I thought it sounded better for a credited name, for projects I've worked on that's all.

I could have posted my real name on here, if I should have, sorry.

If going off on tangents about movie making and going into other areas than what I originally posted is bad, I didn't mean to have bad form, I just get all anxious about the whole process, in a good positive way I think, and just want to have all my bases covered.

I could have posted my real name on here, if I should have, sorry.

That is in fact the policy here.

Fixed. Thanks!

Well I reread over the advice, and quite a few responses say to shoot in 16:9 or 1.85:1 because the odds of getting a theatrical release are low, but other indie films shoot in 2.39, even though they don't know what release they will get, don't they? Did the filmmakers of an indie film like Moonlight for example, shot in 2.39, know they were going to get a theatrical release, before making the movie?

Do you think that maybe I should put art before budget first though?

I think you should make your own decision based on your own artistic sense and within your own practical constraints.

Well it's tough without knowing more. Like for example, why were movies like Terminator 2, and Manhunter both shot in 2.39:1, even though those movies mostly took place in tight locations?

I suspect it's because they are movies and they use the scope frame for the full big screen blockbuster effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbpk0pv60DE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwSysg9o7wE

Same with "The Great Escape", even though much of the film takes place in a POW camp. However, In this case, scope makes the camp even claustrophobic and gives a greater sense of freedom after the escape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Q_WESQUVw

A good decision should be based on how it serves the story, not on if it's an interior or exterior film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxL8uBmdulY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoEGW4Hb9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04P1dCLvc_0

Compare "The Hunt for Red October" with "Das Boot", but remember the latter was made as a TV mini seriesl, with the feature film being a cut down version. However, the aspect ratio serves the story in both cases or at least framed to serve the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r37MmBuFoc0

I'm aware that the video links are not embedding properly.

It might take a day or two to get the situation resolved but I'm working on it... it is a priority.

For now, you can click through the video links to go straight to YouTube (in a new browser tab).

Okay thanks. I watched all the videos. When comparing The Hunt for Red October to Das Boot, it seems that either ratio will work for my story, but in different ways for some of the shots, where as other shots, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Why did James Cameron choose to shoot T2 in 2.39, but the first Terminator in 1.85?

The main reason was probably the budget (it's pretty much a first feature apart from directing part of Piranha II ) and making the stop motion easier. Terminator 2 was shot on Super 35 (as was "The Abyss). Aliens was shot in 1:85. I gather Cameron doesn't like shooting anamorphic..

Oh okay, but Cameron shot anamorphic for T2 and Titanic so I thought he would have preferred it therefore.

But did you have to shoot anamorphic back in the 80s to get 2.39? Couldn't you shoot with spherical lenses and just add black bars to the film some how, or crop it off?

But I guess that's another thing all together. One movie that is shot in 2.39:1 is Manhunter, but how come The Silence of the Lambs, also a Hannibal Lecter movie, was shot in 1.85 in comparison? What advantage is there with 1.85 over 2.39 for that type of psychological thriller?

I've only once had a chance to look through a viewfinder on a camera with an anamorphic lens on and I'm not sure I could ever get used to it. The point being that 100% of the frame size is utilised. Black bars waste an awful lot of the available image. Anamorphic just squeezes more information into a space - not the same as bunging a wide lens on and letterboxing!

But did you have to shoot anamorphic back in the 80s to get 2.39? Couldn't you shoot with spherical lenses and just add black bars to the film some how, or crop it off?

But I guess that's another thing all together. One movie that is shot in 2.39:1 is Manhunter, but how come The Silence of the Lambs, also a Hannibal Lecter movie, was shot in 1.85 in comparison? What advantage is there with 1.85 over 2.39 for that type of psychological thriller?

Yes, unless you wanted to shoot Techniscope, which is 2 perf pull down 35mm camera negative, which can be grainy; the Lab then created a squeezed internegative for producing projection prints. Quite a few films were shot with this, including the Italian dollar films with Clint Eastwood and "American Graffiti". It fell out of use during the 1980s, however, usage increased since around 2000, when a new generation of cameras came available, combined with digital intermediates etc. Cameron used it to shoot the Titanic wreck in the feature film.

The choice of aspect ratio is a creative/financial one, which is up to the director and DP. You can ask why all you want, but you won't get a catch all answer.

I've only once had a chance to look through a viewfinder on a camera with an anamorphic lens on and I'm not sure I could ever get used to it. The point being that 100% of the frame size is utilised. Black bars waste an awful lot of the available image. Anamorphic just squeezes more information into a space - not the same as bunging a wide lens on and letterboxing!

Oh okay, is there a big difference between letterboxing to 2.39 compared to shooting in anamorphic and squeezing down the image? I thought 2.39, was to create a certain, feeling. Whether or not you use anamorphic compared to letterboxing, most viewers are not going to notice, are they? I mean I know there is a big difference between the two as someone into filmmaking, but is there a big difference to most viewers?

There is a difference, the most noticeable ones with anamorphic lenses are the oval bright highlights instead of round ones with background lights and the horizontal flares. In the days of shooting film, the grain would be more noticeable on non anamorphic films especially in the cinema, some shots in the dollar trilogy are pretty grainy.

Some 16:9 TV dramas are being shot with scope anamorphic lenses because of the look. They just use a 16:9 frame within the 2.39 one.

Viewers can vary, if they're into watching films they'll probably be more be aware than those who are indifferent.

Do they notice their to is showing so pictures sometimes? Anamorphic lenses were always so expensive, and choices of real photographic physical formats were all down to budget, and the distribution chain. No point having a new movie in a format most projectors can't handle. The shape of the image is just a historic selection of ones that were popular. Nowadays you can shoot in your own aspect ratio and do whatever you want. Somebody makes a choice as to what they think will look best, that's all.

Yep for sure, I can tell the difference with anamorphic lenses, it's just when I ask friends' opinions they say they don't even notice unless I point it out to them. So I don't think it would be worth getting anamorphic compared to just letterboxing.

But as for choosing whatever aspect ratio I want, I was told not to do this as if you want your movie to be successful, and hopefully find distribution, that a lot of distributors prefer just the two standard aspect ratios, if that is true.

It doesn't matter if they're aware or not, it's like an artist using different types of brushes and their palette knife for a particular effect in their painting, most viewers won't be aware of what is being used in its creation.

But Ryan - what is the point? You limit yourself to using a specific focal length lens and while some are cheapish - many are crazy money, and all to just fill the sensor corner to corner. if you buy a sensor with more pixels, could you not shoot full frame and the crop, still ending up with more actual definitions and used pixel count. I don't see the attraction. you never have enough money, so why limit yourself so much at the capture stage. If you're thinking about hiring real cinema quality cameras, then I can see the point, and the extra crew costs these things require, the extra bits to handle focus and the additional complications of very shallow DoF.

I like to look at people like Philip Bloom - who uses the right tool for every job. not getting bogged down in the technology. He gets excellent images from virtually every single camera system and sensor size - because he he very good at what he does. watch his youtube videos and then try to work backwards, and you'll see that kit is NOT the driving factor behind his images.

Oh okay, I've seen some of Phillip Bloom's videos. If kit is not the driving force, then shooting 2.39 without anamorphic lenses, shouldn't be a problem then, right?