No one said it was a problem.

Oh okay. I talked to another filmmaker and he said to shoot in 16:9 maybe cause his film was turned down by Netflix distribution because of the 2.39:1. But I found this odd, because movies like Bird Box are Netflix originals and that was 2.39.

On the other hand, another filmmaker I talked to says to shoot in 2.39 cause it shows investors that you are serious as a filmmaker. Does it though?

Shooting 2.39 doesn't really prove anything, since so many lower budget cameras can shoot it.

Decisions won't be made on the basis of the aspect ratio, investors etc don't really care about the aspect ratio, these filmmakers are deluding themselves.

They'll want to know who's in the film and the pitch, if the film doesn't exist and want production funding they'll want to read the script. If you've already made it, a trailer plus short scenes and other promotional material may get them wanting more. It's the actors and other aspects that will be important.

If you want to impress with gear shoot on a RED or an Arri Alexa otherwise keep quiet about ut.

Chances are if any of these filmmakers are in their early-mid 20s (as I assume you are), almost everything they are telling you is wrong. Talk to someone who has actually had some success. Hell, I can point to someone in Houston who might talk to you...she’s made several movies that have gotten distribution and aired on Hallmark or something, has some other stuff going on too. People who haven’t gotten anywhere giving each other advice is like the blind leading the blind. You likely won’t be able to grow until you break out of the closed bubble of student/amateur filmmaking... talk to a pro, get on a real set, etc.

I would think writing/acting/production quality and related issues would be far more likely reasons your friend’s film was turned down than the aspect ratio (unless that’s what they told him/her specifically).

You might look into a subscription to American cinematographer or buying a huge collection of that magazine off ebay. The entire purpose of that magazine is detailed looks into how many movies and tv shows are made and why the filmmakers made those choices. Literally all the stuff youve been asking for six or nine months (minus the sound stuff, but that’s what Jay Rose’s production sound book is for).

Also I would advise making quite a few short films to test all these things youve made threads about before tackling a feature. I don’t think you’re ready yet and if you do it anyway you’ll have something disappointing and undistributable that you will have wasted an enormous amount of time on, defeating the entire purpose of making it.

Okay thanks. The filmmaker I talked to, said Netflix turned down the movie specifically cause of the aspect ratio, which I found strange, since some of their original movies seemed to have been shot in the same ratio. He is in this thirties, or so he looks like.

The other filmmaker I am not sure how old he was who said 2.39, shows that you are serious, I am not sure how old he is cause I talked to him online. I think meant it shows you are serious cinematography or aspirations for theaters wise.

I made some short films so far, mostly shot in 16:9 but the last one was short in 2.39. I like both in different ways, so it's hard to decide. Lately I find myself leaning more towards 16:9 or 1.85 though, mostly just not having a reason for showing wider portions of the locations.

My mistake on the assumption then.

HOWEVER, people of any age can still be uninformed and give bad advice. I would still say the aspect ratio thing as a reason for turning down is suspect. I would think if Netflix thought the movie was good and would bring them revenue they would have taken it regardless of it being 2:39. Even if it’s just the way the 2:39 was implemented (some way that played havoc with the way they stream) it seems like there should be a simple fix for the filmmaker and he/she could rerender and resubmit. Shocking, but people lie and like to soft pedal rejection to us artistic types so maybe “aspect ratio” sounded better than “this movie is generally of poor quality.” I’m totally speculating here.

I stand by the rest of what I said above. Seriously, find a filmmaker with some actual distributed film credits under his/her belt and query them about all this. Offer to take them to coffee or lunch or something, see if they’ll give you an hour one day.

And look into back issues (or subscribe to learn about current movies/TV) of American Cinematographer on ebay. Probably every movie you’ve askes “why” about is in an issue somewhere.

I’m sure I mentioned this before but Frameforge has a free demo you could probably storyboard an entire movie with. You can recreate your actual locations in it, after taking measurements of the real locations, pose character models the way you think youd block the shots, and use lenses in all kinds of aspect ratios to basically see if your shot ideas are feasible in the real locations and help you decide which way youd like to shoot.

It's unlikely a good quality feature film, that's attractive to their subscribers, would be rejected because of the aspect ratio, you can "pan and scan" a scope film or one of the other variations used by broadcasters when transmitting one of these films. It sounds more like a quick excuse, so that the Netflix agent can move on to a more interesting productions, without going into bruising detail.

I second that emotion.

Okay thanks, makes sense that they would turn him down more gently.

I'm using to doing it with pencil and paper, but I can try out frame forge, thanks!

I don't know if I can get the locations before the storyboarding though, cause the locations usually come later in the pre-production process and by that time, you get so busy, that you want all the storyboards ready to go by then, especially since so many locations are subject to change a lot.

So I felt I had to guess what aspect ratio would work with the type of locations beforehand, rather than having them already to go.

I guess Im having trouble seeing how you can even visualize shots if you dont know where youll be shooting, except in the most general way.

Well I like to do preliminary storyboards but of course, once you get to a location certain shots may have to change of course. But I still like to have preliminaries ready to go for when meeting with DPs, so they have a sense of what I am going for, unless this is not the way to go?

Sounds reasonable.

Do you think that shooting a movie in black and white would be a kiss of death when wanting to get into festivals and hopefully get distribution?

In past short films viewers said they got distracted by unwanted colors in the backgrounds of locations and public places, that I had no control over, such as a bright neon red car parked in the background or something like that. I talked to a DP about it and he suggested that this project be shot in black and white to avoid unwanted color backgrounds since we are shooting on real streets, and not locations where he have control over everything. Or is that a kiss of death of a chance at success nowadays?

Homie, that is what color correction/grading is for. Select unwanted color, mute/desaturate it or change it completely. In some cases you may be doing this frame by frame.

Okay thanks, it's just every time I've tried to do this, not all the pixels get cut out and you can see incorrect pixels in the picture as a result, and it's quite obvious. I can keep trying with it though :)

I guess another reason about 2.39, is that I feel more confident with it, in the sense that it seems movies that are shot in 2.39 are usually more successful than movies shot in 1.85. Movies shot in 2.39 seem to be the bigger hits usually and I wonder if it's psychological, as in audiences are drawn into those movies more, so once they see them they get better word of mouth, because of the more cinematic experience with 2.39? Or am I wrong and they are just bigger hits cause most movies are shot in 2.39, but it has nothing to do with success?

Not sure what youre using to grade but DaVinci Resolve has a free version and the paid version is $300. That’s top shelf software for grading. You will have to get to know the tools well to isolate colors the way I mean and again you may have manually draw masks and go practically frame by frame depending on the situation. No one said it was quick and easy but if your budgetary limitations dictate you have crap in the background you dont want colorwise than thats your only real option.

No idea about aspect ratios but I guarantee they werent hits BECAUSE of that. Worry about writing, acting, production quality, etc., probably ANYTHING else before which aspect ratio will make your film more successful.

it seems movies that are shot in 2.39 are usually more successful than movies shot in 1.85.

Stanley Kubrick disagrees. (https://www.alternateending.com/blog/kubrick-and-his-ratios)

Forgive me if I've just opened a can of worms here, but it's true.

Yeah but Kubrick hasn't made any movies in the last 20 years and it seems in the last 20 years, and hardly any in the 90s even, so I meant today, people just seem more drawn to the movies shot in scope it seems.

It's been proven quite difficult to make movies when you're dead. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

Movies shot in 2.39 usually have a large amount of money invested in their production (with star names etc) and and a huge amount in the marketing. The latter is an important factor in the success of the films, even then success isn't guaranteed.

A comic franchise is probably what you want for box office success, these days.

However, bear in mind that your film is extremely unlikely to get a theatrical release, in the past it would've gone straight video or today the streaming services will be more likely.

I would put more effort into what is going to sell your film, rather spending so much time worrying about the aspect ratio. Using scope seems to be more about giving you confidence than what may be right for your film,

Genre films that aren't scope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Q7KnXpNOg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X4tuIa90n4

The title on this must've sold it, I caught 5 mins on the horror channel the other night. You need something that makes your film stand out in the market you're aiming for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6syMB7CQpE

In the end it's your decision, but the success of your film will depend on more than the aspect ratio. Coming up with a new take on a subject/genre or a touch of originality will take you much further.

It's been proven quite difficult to make movies when you're dead.

Yes, quite difficult... but not impossible, my friend. It can be done. Orson left us 33 years ago, but The Other Side of The Wind (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069049/) hit theaters just last November.

This is totally and utterly crazy! Are you really saying that Stanley Kubrick's movies are worthless and unworthy of watching because they don't conform to a size!!!!

Ryan - you've really got a bizarre idea of the entire movie industry if you believe this. Every movie, since the Keystone Cops has been judged on the content, and mainly the quality of the product in the theatres. Many started to do releases in multiple formats, and this is more evident now with things like IMAX.

The vast proportion of viewers care nothing for technicalities - it's how it comes across. I'd rather watch a Kubrick movie in any aspect ratio on any size screen than some of the rubbish we have access to nowadays.

I simply don't like masking, but if it had to be used to let that Kubrick movie be shown on my TV, computer monitor or cinema screen, the content says I'd put up with it. I don't know what the US is like, but the BBC here get good viewing figures for their re-runs of 1970s comedy TV, in 4:3, recorded in composite 625 line video.

Yeah but Kubrick hasn't made any movies in the last 20 years and it seems in the last 20 years, and hardly any in the 90s even, so I meant today, people just seem more drawn to the movies shot in scope it seems.

Are you aware how ridiculous this sounds? People are that stupid? I hate movies made recently - I have lost it totally - I start a movie on Netflix, and within 5 minutes I'm pressing stop - and I can say that the aspect ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I'll pop off and watch 2001 to cheer myself up.

Touche on Orson Welles.

Paul are you sure your physical and mental health are up to continuing in this thread?

I hate movies made recently - I have lost it totally - I start a movie on Netflix, and within 5 minutes I'm pressing stop

You're not alone. At home pretty much the only thing we have on the TV (which is happily off most of the time) is Turner Classic Movies. Although we've also had good luck recently with MGM-HD, RetroPlex and the Sony movie channel.

If I use some on-demand service like Netflix, then I'm usually deep-diving for something old and obscure that I've never seen or haven't watched in 20 years... that's what "new" is to me these days... my "new" is something old that I don't know.

For just about anything recent, I leave it up to my wife to choose. Just the other day, on a rare jaunt to the movies in order to check out a new theater that recently opened up nearby (Santikos for any fellow Texans), she suggested Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood ("even though it's Tarantino," she said, not really much of a fan). Sure, I replied, why not? I've learned to trust her on new stuff.

Anyway, we both loved it. In my opinion, it's Tarantino's best work ever.

And I have no recollection what aspect ratio it was shown in... nor do I care.

Netflix has plenty of good stuff but also plenty of crap. If it’s not one of the flagship shows (I barely watch features anymore) that everyone knows/makes the news/goes viral I look to what people are raving about on Facebook (yes I know many of you loathe/are not on FB.That’s fine). They’re USUALLY right. “Dead to Me” was the most recent case...I show I would never have watched but gave it a try cause people kept mentioning it and was pleasantly surprised.

Generally I think shows/series have replaced feature films as things to watch for quality entertainment.

Agreed. What really appeals to me about a mini-series is that so much more can be done with the narrative arc relative to a typical two- or three-hour film. Even if it's just one season, such as AMC's "The Terror," which was a terrific spin on the true story of the ill-fated Franklin Expedition of 1845 to find the Northwest Passage. It's an adaption of a book by Dan Simmons, who fictionalized the account into the horror genre, and it's very well done.

I've also really enjoyed AMC's Mad Men, Hell On Wheels and The Son, WGN's Manhattan, HBO's Deadwood, John Adams, Band of Brothers and The Pacific to name just a few. Firefly, from Fox (sadly, just one season). Yellowstone on Paramount. ITV's Downton Abbey. There are so many good ones.

This is totally and utterly crazy! Are you really saying that Stanley Kubrick's movies are worthless and unworthy of watching because they don't conform to a size!!!!

Ryan - you've really got a bizarre idea of the entire movie industry if you believe this. Every movie, since the Keystone Cops has been judged on the content, and mainly the quality of the product in the theatres. Many started to do releases in multiple formats, and this is more evident now with things like IMAX.

The vast proportion of viewers care nothing for technicalities - it's how it comes across. I'd rather watch a Kubrick movie in any aspect ratio on any size screen than some of the rubbish we have access to nowadays.

I simply don't like masking, but if it had to be used to let that Kubrick movie be shown on my TV, computer monitor or cinema screen, the content says I'd put up with it. I don't know what the US is like, but the BBC here get good viewing figures for their re-runs of 1970s comedy TV, in 4:3, recorded in composite 625 line video.



Are you aware how ridiculous this sounds? People are that stupid? I hate movies made recently - I have lost it totally - I start a movie on Netflix, and within 5 minutes I'm pressing stop - and I can say that the aspect ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I'll pop off and watch 2001 to cheer myself up.

Oh no, I'm not knocking Kubrick at all! I like the movies of his I've seen so far. It's just that scope is more popular nowadays, and with today's audience so I thought I would apply to what today's audience might like compared to when Kubrick was making movies, that's all.

Movies shot in 2.39 usually have a large amount of money invested in their production (with star names etc) and and a huge amount in the marketing. The latter is an important factor in the success of the films, even then success isn't guaranteed.

A comic franchise is probably what you want for box office success, these days.

However, bear in mind that your film is extremely unlikely to get a theatrical release, in the past it would've gone straight video or today the streaming services will be more likely.

I would put more effort into what is going to sell your film, rather spending so much time worrying about the aspect ratio. Using scope seems to be more about giving you confidence than what may be right for your film,

Genre films that aren't scope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Q7KnXpNOg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X4tuIa90n4

The title on this must've sold it, I caught 5 mins on the horror channel the other night. You need something that makes your film stand out in the market you're aiming for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6syMB7CQpE

In the end it's your decision, but the success of your film will depend on more than the aspect ratio. Coming up with a new take on a subject/genre or a touch of originality will take you much further.

Okay thanks. I forgot that The Raid was shot in 1.85:1. The Raid 2 was shot in 2.39:1, so why did they decide to go wider for the sequel though? Wouldn't 2.39:1 also serve for the tight boxed in feel for the first one, much like it did for Alien, for example?

And perhaps a lot of indie filmmakers are just using 2.39:1 the most cause most blockbuster movies use it nowadays? I went to a film festival, and so many of the indy films are using 2.39 now I am surprised. But they are using it cause it's the best aspect ratio in many regards for most movies, or because they feel they are doing it, cause everyone else is doing it?

You still haven't got it Ryan.

Viewers are not interested in the shape of the picture - to say they are more interested in scope is laughable. I'd bet that if you asked people what aspect ratio they liked best, you'd get a very strange look. if you gave them a clue it's about picture shapes, the best you'd get is wide screen?? A few may know the name Cinemascope, but just think it's wide screen, which it is, in loads of variants. Cinerama, VistaVision, Techniscope, IMAX etc etc. game show questions, but movie viewers only care about how good the movie is.

I'm not even sure what a blockbuster is any more?

on Kubrick's dislike of wide screen formats it's reported that he said:

1:85 lost potential information on the top and bottom of the screen that he liked to utilize. Ceiling to floor framing is one of his trademarks. Also interviews with colleagues confirms this such as his assistant Leon Vitali saying "He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist."
That sums up his attitude rather nicely?

Okay thanks. I forgot that The Raid was shot in 1.85:1. The Raid 2 was shot in 2.39:1, so why did they decide to go wider for the sequel though? Wouldn't 2.39:1 also serve for the tight boxed in feel for the first one, much like it did for Alien, for example?

The reverse happened with "Aliens", the sequel to "Alien". The reason you're getting more 2.39 at festivals is that it costs no more to shoot it than 1.85, unlike when films were being shot on film. Then low budget film makers were putting ground glass adapters onto the front of their 1/3" DV cameras, so that they could get a 35mm DOF,

It's basically the same thing, but now it's scope - you can get an anamorphic lens for your phone.However, doing all this won't increase the chances of your film being picked up by a distributor or being selected by a festival.

Same reason is likely for The Raid 2 being shot in scope, they had the option when it was being made because they were using a RED, Also the world is a city, not a vertical tower block, so it makes sense to use scope.

You keep repeating yourself with the same question. Know your story and its world and pick the aspect ratio that fits it best. No one here can answer that, so stop asking the same question and make a decision, that's what directors do.

Oh yeah I know most viewers do not know what scope is, it's just I thought maybe most audiences were drawn to scope without knowing it subconsciously, since so many of the movies that are hits were shot in scope.

The reverse happened with "Aliens", the sequel to "Alien". The reason you're getting more 2.39 at festivals is that it costs no more to shoot it than 1.85, unlike when films were being shot on film. Then low budget film makers were putting ground glass adapters onto the front of their 1/3" DV cameras, so that they could get a 35mm DOF,

It's basically the same thing, but now it's scope - you can get an anamorphic lens for your phone.However, doing all this won't increase the chances of your film being picked up by a distributor or being selected by a festival.

Same reason is likely for The Raid 2 being shot in scope, they had the option when it was being made because they were using a RED, Also the world is a city, not a vertical tower block, so it makes sense to use scope.

You keep repeating yourself with the same question. Know your story and its world and pick the aspect ratio that fits it best. No one here can answer that, so stop asking the same question and make a decision, that's what directors do.

Oh yeah, I noticed that in Aliens Cameron decided to go with 1.85, but was there a reason to go less wide, compared to the first one?

I thought they could just shoot the first Raid in scope by using 2.39 firmware on the camera, or just putting tape on the top and bottom of the camera, to frame for 2.39, and then just crop it out later. You don't need a RED camera to shoot 2.39. you can do it on any camera with firmware or tape on the monitor, and then crop the image to 2.39 in post, can't you? So why not do that for the first RAID instead of waiting to get a RED to do it?


As for Kubrick thinking 1.85:1 is too wide, I thought about the 4:3 aspect ratio as well for height, but thought audiences might not like that.

The firmware options now available didn't exist when The Raid was made, I gather they used a Pro 35 adapter, on a Panasonic AG-AF100 so they could use Zeiss motion picture lenses.

Cameron likes back projection, so that might be one reason for shooting 1.85. The other reasons were discussed earlier in the thread.

If you see a Kubrick film, it's on his terms regarding aspect ratio, it's up to the audience to adapt.

4 x 3 suggests period, so unless it's a classic film or recreating a classic film feel, there no reason to use it.

We're closing in fast on 200 posts in this discussion, nothing wrong with that; although it's been very circular the occasional side-roads have made it somewhat interesting.

Ryan, my friend, I hope we have managed to impress upon you that you are over-thinking the matter of aspect ratio a great deal.

Just shoot in 16:9 and turn your attention to filmmaking matters which are much more important -- such as the story itself, the caliber of acting, production planning, adequate lighting and sound, etc.

You're certainly welcome to keep at it here -- you have re-framed (heh!) the same question in a variety of different ways, and you're welcome to continue with that approach, but the answer isn't going to change.

If you're making something for fun that's just meant to be seen by a few friends on YouTube, then 16:9 is your friend.

If you're making something that you'd like to make money on / find distribution for / take to a film festival / whatever, then 16:9 is your friend.

If you want to experiment with some other aspect ratio, then by all means do so, but remember the excellent advice you received way back on Page One:

Don't reinvent the wheel, a strange aspect ratio is just another reason for a distributor to say no.

16 x 9 is the most sensible aspect ratio, because odds are that the film is going straight to video, with, at the very most, a very limited showcase theatrical release.

In reality the festival circuit is most likely to be the only theatrical screening for your film.

I can appreciate that you keep asking "what about [major film release X]" and so on, but there's really not much relevance there. None of those productions compare to what you're doing, in all honesty. Set your camera to 16:9 and start concentrating your efforts on how best to fill that frame and how best to move it. Those are the topics that really need your attention.

Best of luck to you and hope this helps!

(and no, I'm not closing this thread... yet)

Sorry if I got carried with it, I just didn't want to shoot in one and then regret it later, thinking I should have picked a different one for other reasons, etc.

Looking back on page 1, the responses mostly talk about how distributors want 16:9 to fill the whole frame with. I just found it odd, cause if you get distribution through say Netflix or Amazon Prime, all the movies I've seen on there that were shot in scope, still have the scope ratio while being broadcasted. They don't pan and scan movies on those services it seems, unless I'm wrong and they do sometimes?

Broadcasters and streaming companies use varying approaches to how they transmit scope films. Again, this has already been discussed earlier in the thread,

Films can be shown in 16;9, rather than full 2.39 or 2.20 or which other variation they can come up with to reduce the letterbox effect on standard screens. Ir depends on their policy and how they perceive their viewers reacting to not having their screen filled by the film. Some people don't like the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

Oh okay I know it was discussed before it's just I never see movies panned and scanned on streaming services anymore. If some people don't like the black bars, do streaming services do any pan and scan versions of the movie for them then? The only time I have seen panning and scanning is from old DVDs from the 2000s, before blu ray. But where are these panned and scanned movies nowadays on streaming?

The streaming companies may stream in the correct aspect ratio because it's their policy, Channel 4 a broadcaster in the UK does the same. I suspect their market expects full picture to be shown. Other markets don't

Again, the choice of aspect ratio ratio is entirely up to you

But where are these panned and scanned movies nowadays on streaming?

They're gone, hopefully.

Pan & scan was just a way to show widescreen films on old-school analog 4:3 television screens.

Since those no longer exist in any sort of significant number, pan & scan is thankfully a thing of the past now.

More about the history of aspect ratios here: http://gigazine.net/news/20151117-history-of-aspect-ratio/ (set your web browser to translate from Japanese).

I'd forgotten those awful ground glass adaptors for the 'cinematic' look. Did anyone ever get anything other than grainy soft results with them? I'm so glad that in my entire career, my quest has always been for no focus issues. Until the last few years shallow focus and soft backgrounds have been the thing I avoid like the plague. Now light levels have come right down because cameras are so good.

I'm never convinced that my determination of cinematic is DoF, or aspect ratio, or framing - but the overall look and feel. I am very traditionalist. I like stability, I like framing that lets my eye wander, I like pans and tilts that start and end smoothly and I need horizontal horizons.

Well the thing about shooting in 16:9 like some say to, is that since it's not near as wide, a lot of OTS shots, become dirty OTS shots as a result. Not sure if I like dirty OTS shots as much, cause those ones give a different feel. I suppose to you could have full OTS shots in 1.85, but then you have to push the characters further away into the picture.

Am I right on that?

Many great films manage to do OTS in 4 x 3, 1.66,. 1.85 etc, so use the aspect ratio that works for you..

Okay thanks. Well I want to shoot my project in the same style as High and Low (1963), that movie has mastershots in with quite a few people in some of the shots. Here is a video essay on some of the shots as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC8KYm85zig

Would those kind of wide mastershots with a few characters in work at 1.85:1 as well?

Setting up the shots you envision in Frame Forge could literally tell you exacty that.

Okay thanks, I keep trying to download the free trial, but every time I do it keeps saying an expected error occurs and it can't download for some reason. I'm downloading the PC version which my computer is, but maybe there is something else that is the matter.

Sorry to hear. Youve got me there, dont know what your issue might be. I’m on a Mac.

Sorry if I got carried with it, I just didn't want to shoot in one and then regret it later, thinking I should have picked a different one for other reasons, etc.

Scroll down to "Freedom of Choice."

https://www.apa.org/monitor/jan01/positivepsych

If you wish to to use horizontal space as in the Kurosawa film, go for scope, if not, go for 1.85 or 16:9.

If in doubt, write out a list of the pros and cons of the factors, then make a decision and stick to it. The aspect ratio is one of the easier decisions in making a film.

As you don't appear to be able to plan in advance, and need a rule book to follow like painting by numbers, why not increase the pixel count, go wider and then sort it out later.

You've also started to use terminology I don't understand. Dirty over the shoulder shot? Never heard that and really have no clue what it means? Something else you've grabbed from somewhere? Same with the constant use of 'scope' it's really terminology that is in many ways, akin to the audiophile groups. As in, a bit niche and strange.

https://www.actinganswers.com/what-is-a-dirty-shot

"Scope" is just short hand, it comes from Cinemascope, it doesn't mean you're using anamorphic lenses or a particular system. It's easier to say in conversation than 2.39:1, or you'd say anamorphic or the system being used eg Techniscope or Panavision

*Flat" widescreen would get used in connection 1.85:1 because it doesn't use anamorphic lenses. Since it refers to spherical lenses, Super 35 ( originally called Superscope) could come under that, but this allows a number of aspect ratios ( in film 1.85 or 2:39 using a common top).

"Dirty" seems to be used as the opposite to clean in lining up and blocking the shot. I've never heard anyone using it on a film set, unlike clean. However, "dirty" is usually more dramatic in framing,

Well I think after watching several movie scenes that may be similar to the shots I want, I think I will keep trying to download frameforge and hopefully it will work, so I can play around with it.

I think I am now leaning more towards 'flat', because, since my script is a horror thriller, there are fight scenes, and flat gives me more vertical space to work with in the fight scenes.

Flat also means less extras for the scenes you need crowded extras. Scope has it's advantages for looking good in certain wide shots, and being able to get real close in other shots, but I feel my two reasons for picking flat may be more important.