Be aware that flat now generally refers to the lens being used, anamorphic v spherical (flat lens). so I wouldn't use it when shooting with a digital camera, it could cause confusion, since you generally use spherical lenses, regardless of the aspect ratio.

It's a historical term from when film cameras were using spherical lenses to shoot flat widescreen (1.85) as against anamorphic widescreen (2.39) using Cinemascope lenses etc Widescreen being wider than the 4 x 3 used on television at the time.

Oh okay thanks :). I can just use the terms 1.85, and 2.39 then to avoid confusion.

Using the aspect ratio in use will avoid confusion.

What do you mean by using the one 'in use'?

The one that you're using.

Just curious, Ryan, what camera are you using? Is it a Canon DSLR?

You might have mentioned it earlier but I can't find it since this discussion is 14 pages long now.

I thought I saw A7s or something somewhere.

“dirty single” and “dirty over” are definitely terms I’ve seen before [jnsert joke here]. And I have even heard dirty used that way on actual sets.

Yeah I've used the A7s II before, rented, and I own the Canon 7D as well, but prefer the A7sII if I can use it since it's 4K. But I don't like the full frame as much as the DOF is too shallow at times, so I might want something like the A7s II, but not full frame, if possible for this current project.

One problem with the Sony though is that I can't find any firmware to shoot at 1.85:1, and I was told that is the aspect ratio I need for making a DCP, if I decide not to shoot in scope.

“dirty single” and “dirty over” are definitely terms I’ve seen before [jnsert joke here]. And I have even heard dirty used that way on actual sets.

It could be a US term, you're more likely to hear cockney rhyming slang on a UK set.

Oh I've only heard dirty OTS, and that is when the person who's camera is over the shoulder of, you cannot see much of their head, compared to seeing their whole head, if that makes sense. Don't know any other 'dirty' types of shots.

Looking on line, it seems to cover a range of things, although these could a misuse of the term, plus it's not that common in a google search, It also seems rather vague for describing a shot.

I wonder where it came from. Was it a director shouting "I don't vont it clean on him I vont it dirty" ? Or from film schools trying define a shot when a character isn't framed cleanly?

I've asked an editor friend. who works on dramas. and they use the term during editing for a shot with an out of focus part of a person in the foreground. Out of focus seems to be key for using the term.

Oh okay, I was told the term when it came to OTS shots where the back of the person's out of focus head was cut off, as oppose to showing the whole head. So I thought that 2.39, might be better for showing the whole head.

You can't choose aspect ratio on a shot-by-shot basis.

Also, the Sony A7s II has an aspect ratio guide for 1:85:1 built right in.

Oh cool, when I used the Sony before it didn't have 1.85, or 1.66 even. Is this a newer update maybe?

You can also show the whole head in 1.85 and 16.9, it's just how you frame it. The dirty aspect seems to be if it's not a clean shot, more grabbed in nature, someone's body walking across the foreground out of focus for example.

Yeah it's just if I show the whole head in 1.85, I have to move the actors closer together, or frame them closer together. Not sure if that's a bad thing or not, compared to 2.39, where you have more freedom of space in some ways.

It's not new to the A7s II -- it's always been there. It's found under the Marker Settings menu.

To be clear, it's a framing guide. You're still recording in 16:9 but the aspect ratio guide markers allow you to frame the image for your chosen aspect ratio. Later on in post you can conform it from 16:9 to 1.85:1 without losing anything you wanted to keep in frame.

This procedure is known as "shoot & protect." You're actually shooting in 16:9 which is native to the camera. The various aspect ratio marker guides help you frame your shots for whatever aspect ratio you choose to conform to later on during post production.

I don't think you're going to find any firmware that will change the native 16:9 aspect ratio of that camera's video mode. The available aspect ratio marker guides are already there for a reason.

It depends on the power dynamic of the scene. Some directors create that same closeness in 2.39 by framing the over the shoulder to one side of the frame, with space behind the character nearest the centre of the frame.

It's not new to the A7s II -- it's always been there. It's found under the Marker Settings menu.

To be clear, it's a framing guide. You're still recording in 16:9 but the aspect ratio guide markers allow you to frame the image for your chosen aspect ratio. Later on in post you can conform it from 16:9 to 1.85:1 without losing anything you wanted to keep in frame.

This procedure is known as "shoot & protect." You're actually shooting in 16:9 which is native to the camera. The various aspect ratio marker guides help you frame your shots for whatever aspect ratio you choose to conform to later on during post production.

I don't think you're going to find any firmware that will change the native 16:9 aspect ratio of that camera's video mode. The available aspect ratio marker guides are already there for a reason.

Oh okay. I know it's just framing in the camera, but didn't know that camera had a 1.85 setting. On my last project, I asked the DP/camera operator if he had a setting to set it to 1.85, and he said the camera didn't have it, unless he was incorrect, or misunderstood.

When it comes to framing in aspect ratios, I found this article before:

https://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/using-aspect-ratios-like-a-pro-part-1

The article says that they decided to go with 1.85 for a certain project, because they didn't like the cramped feel that 2.39 gives you in close ups. However, if the actor's head or face is too cramped in 2.39, then can't you just back up the camera a little though?

I suspect you're getting to the stage that you can't see the wood for the trees. That article quickly goes through the points you need to consider when selecting your aspect ratio. The story, and the nature of its world, are going to be main factors in selecting the aspect ratio, not heads in over the shoulder shot..

Those shots can be framed according to the power dynamics within each scene, but they're not the main reason for selecting the aspect ratio.

Backing off will reveal more horizontal space within the shot when using 2.39, when you may want it to be more on the character .

Oh okay, but I just don't understand how they can say that a character feels cramped in close up to 2.39, when they can just back up the actor, or back up the camera a little so it's not, or can they not do that?

Ryan one thing you will have to learn to do is INTERPRET what people say/write where all this art stuff is concerned rather than taking everything at face value. There is the context in which something is said, personal biases, personal experience, etc. Some things like “2+2 is 4” are objectively true while “2.39 is too cramped for closeups” (or whatever the quote was) may have everything to do with that cinematographer or director’s taste, style they were going for, etc., it’s not a simple true or false statement.

I used to sometimes work with this guy (who acted as basically a director and/or producer) who drove me crazy cause he would read or hear something, somewhere and believe it as an absolute e.g. never cut off the chin in a cu”—-well, what if it’s so tight its either chin or eyes that get cut? Or some quote from Gordon Willis on the Godfather films about letting it be dark and not caring about seeing the actor’s eyes...this was a choice they made for mood etc. but annoying guy took this to mean you NEVER need to see eyes and stuff can always be overly dark.

What I’m getting at is many things are situational, contextual where this stuff is concerned. Who knows what they meant about it being too cramped? If it wasn’t elaborated upon that still doesn’t make it an absolute rule. You have to learn understand WHY they said it and if it applies to your particular situation. Unfortunately much of that just comes with time and experience.

Oh okay, and that makes sense, and maybe that's why it's hard for me to make a decision on what to choose. Cause when I read other people's reasons and read their what they say the pros and cons are, I often ask myself, well can't you show it the exact same way, as long as you back up the camera more, or go in closer, and therefore show it the same way in the other aspect ratio...?

It could be that the story is more intimate, so that 1;85 is more focused on the characters and not their environment as in 2.39.

"Manhattan," which is one of the YouTube videos earlier in thread shot in 2.39, has the main characters, but they are living their private lives and expressing emotions surrounded multitudes of other people, who are always there.

You seem to be thinking mechanically, knowing your story and its world will reveal the aspect ratio you need to tell it. Forget over the shoulder shots, they'll work whichever choice you make.

Oh okay. Well the over the shoulder shots were just one example. But if those can work in either than another reason I like 1.85 is because of the vertical space you get in fight scenes compared to 2.39. However, maybe you can get the same amount of vertical space in 2.39, if you back the characters up though...

Ryan, you're just stuck In a loop. If you have one shot where you have a line of people moving towards the camera and the next one of a juggler, these both shout loudly for different formats in terms of framing. You just have to deal with the entire production and pick the most appropriate. Which one, as so many have said, is a principal decision. The person in charge, with the money calls the shots, then after discussion with the team. You move on. We've said this so many times.

Please don't now post "thank you. I've heard ..... (Or been told.......)"

You have the advice, now it's time to move on. The question is reall simple. How wide? The answer is wide enough.

You're still thinking mechanically and not about how the more vertical aspect ratios emphasize the human aspects. The portrait and landscape frames are given those names for a reason.

What can I do to not think mechanically, or what am I missing then?

As a director you have to know your story, the characters and their world and your vision of it. Take the strategic view and the individual shots will naturally fall into place.

But what's the difference between strategic and mechanical?

Go to first principles, write out the pitch for your film. If it's about the conflict between characters go for 1.85, if it's their conflict within a larger world go for 2.39.

The mechanical is worrying about individual shots, being strategic is telling the story.

Oh okay, but why do you use that reason specifically, to determine what aspect ratio to shoot in?

Because you need to know what the film is about, if you don't, how do you expect to direct it?

Oh okay, but I already know what it's about though. So can't a script be directed with either ratio, even if it's about the same thing?

Yes, they can, it depends on how much of the larger world the director wishes to impinge on the characters. That's part of the director's vision,

The Big Country (1958) Official Trailer - Charlton Heston, Gregory Peck Movie HD - YouTube

The Misfits trailer - YouTube

Ryan is totally missing the point here. It's like famous musicians who produce amazing music, and then a student goes up to them and asks them about modes - why did you pick Mixolydian rather than Dorian? They shrug their shoulders, not having a clue why they picked it, or sometimes not ever having come across the term. It just sounded 'right'. They sold millions of copies without knowing why the Major third in a chord works so well and even kind of trade marked it into many of their famous songs.

It's like asking why an impressionist painter decided to disregard the rules formulated over thousands of years?

I really don't think he gets this at all.

I'm not a dancer. I'm not a pilot. I'm very musical but I cannot ever be a drummer. I know how to do all three things. I have even passed some exams in little bits of them. I cannot do it because I have no spacial awareness and poor coordination when it comes to moving 4 limbs at the same time. Three professional pilots told me to stop having lessons. A famous TV dancer said I had ruined his record - and the drummer who was the inspiration for animal in the muppets slapped me on the back and said - "you're right son, drumming's not for you".

I have no way to be any of these three things because I just don't 'know'. This, sadly, is what I think is happening with Ryan. He has boiled everything down to the ingredients, and he has a massive collection of recipes but has no taste buds to evaluate the success, and is therefore 100% reliant on other people to help. Trouble is everyone injects their own experience, and poor Ryan cannot filter and categorise it.

He's reliant on contrast, and cannot see light and shade.

Surely, this topic has opened the blinds just a little way. Wanting something doesn't mean it's possible.

Let’s back up the discouragement train a bit.

Ryan has made other films, two that we’ve seen so far (the wine mogul short and the Battle Damaged Souls doc).

So, Ryan, if you directed both of those you made creative decisions/choices in those two cases (and probably other things we havent seen). Surely you didnt poll a digital forum for 6-9 months about each and every little thing before making those movies, so HOW did you arrive at shot/editing choice on those projects (where applicable—I know you didnt necessarily direct or edit everything youve posted)? You must have followed some creative urge, an instinct. With your feature here you have a story you want to tell. WHY? Why that story, those characters, that plot? There must be a reason you felt drawn to those things.

What everyone’s getting at is you to learn to FEEL things and follow where those feelings take you in terms of cinematography etc.

If someone has criticized your ideas/execution in the past or on here, again this goes back to the interpretation thing. Getting at WHY a shot/choice didnt work is important to your learning/growth. That might be more helpful here, at this point. Post more work and see what people have to say, and where they dont like something, find out WHY. This will show you the difference between what may have been a good idea in its raw form but the execution was flawed, and will hopefully show you how to do it differently/better next time.

And that might be more helpful than knowing why James Cameron (or whoever) chose this or that on their hundred million dollar feature with every resource imaginable.

Let’s back up the discouragement train a bit.

Ryan has made other films, two that we’ve seen so far (the wine mogul short and the Battle Damaged Souls doc).

So, Ryan, if you directed both of those you made creative decisions/choices in those two cases (and probably other things we havent seen). Surely you didnt poll a digital forum for 6-9 months about each and every little thing before making those movies, so HOW did you arrive at shot/editing choice on those projects (where applicable—I know you didnt necessarily direct or edit everything youve posted)? You must have followed some creative urge, an instinct. With your feature here you have a story you want to tell. WHY? Why that story, those characters, that plot? There must be a reason you felt drawn to those things.

What everyone’s getting at is you to learn to FEEL things and follow where those feelings take you in terms of cinematography etc.

If someone has criticized your ideas/execution in the past or on here, again this goes back to the interpretation thing. Getting at WHY a shot/choice didnt work is important to your learning/growth. That might be more helpful here, at this point. Post more work and see what people have to say, and where they dont like something, find out WHY. This will show you the difference between what may have been a good idea in its raw form but the execution was flawed, and will hopefully show you how to do it differently/better next time.

And that might be more helpful than knowing why James Cameron (or whoever) chose this or that on their hundred million dollar feature with every resource imaginable.

Oh well when it comes to aspect ratio on the two past short films I posted on here, I chose 16:9 for Sad and Battle Damaged Souls because a lot of it was a person talking in a chair, while there is a black background behind him, so there wasn't anything really to show off with a 2.39 aspect ratio I felt.

With the wine one, I decided to go with 2.39, cause I wanted to experiment with a wider ratio. I liked the character composition in it, but I felt it's more of a challenge to keep backgrounds interesting, especially when the locations are real, and not as interesting as movie sets, where you have more control.

I guess the reason I am much more reluctant to pic on this current one is because unlike those shorts, this is a feature film which a lot more money is beings spent on, so I do want to be as close to a perfectionist as I can be and try to make all the right decisions, since a lot more money is at stake.

Unfortunately, getting near perfection is unlikely, even with a huge budget, there are always compromises. Even though it appears like a lot of money to you, in the scheme of things you are working with a low budget, so you need to be daring and creative because playing safe won't be making the most of your limited resources.

Being trapped by indecision is the last thing you need, you have to make a decision and move on from there.

https://www.buckley.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/732139/indecision-is-a-decision/

See, but I still don’t think you’re ready for this feature, or all of these decisions would come to you more naturally. I think you should do more shorts and experiment...try different things, see what you like, what works and what doesnt, etc., precisely BECAUSE there’s money at stake and its better to fail when there isnt anything at stake than to get in over your head which I think would you if do a funded feature. Do a buttload of shorts, learn grow. I think you’ll know when youre ready for that feature. The other option is to proceed as you are and probably have everything be an unsellable trainwreck that wastes a lot of your own money and God forbid other people’s.

Well it's just I've been helping a lot of other filmmakers on their projects, trying to get as much experience as I can as well as making my own for quite a while now, and I am in my mid 30s and would like to get some kind of career started in directing. I feel like if I'm not ready by my age now, than I won't be, and it's time to just bite the bullet for once I feel.

I think it's probably just my state of my mind and I need to make myself believe I am ready, rather than always not feeling so, unless I'm wrong. But I've talked to other filmmakers I've worked for who have made their first features and they said they were terrified in the process, and that being scared is normal, if they are right?

Having a good producer/production manager on board will reduce the pressures, You don't want to be doing that and directing at the same time.

Yeah true, I am usually wearing most of the hats, accept operating the camera, but including booming the mic while directing usually.

You can't really see what's going on with the actors if you're booming the mic. It works with documentaries, but not drama, some well known directors operate the camera, at least then you can see the actors faces.

Oh okay, well there are more camera operators I know than boom operators who are available so that is why I chose to operate the boom. How do some directors do a good job without looking through the camera though? For example, when Orson Welles or Mel Gibson directed themselves, as they acted and not behind the camera, how do they do it, if you are in a position, where you cannot be looking through the camera?

Just make sure to get a really good DP?

As the Director, you're a director of acting. Not photography.

During pre-production, you will have reviewed the shot list that the DP had prepared, and the two of you will have already discussed the framing, the look and feel of the camera work, all of these issues relating to imaging, you and your DP will have discussed all of this in advance well before shooting ever begins. Your relationship with your DP should be built on mutual trust and familiarity. Your job on the set is to look after your actors and make sure you're getting the performances that you want. Anything camera-related at that point really isn't your concern. That's what the DP is for. You don't need to be looking through the camera. If you have a video village, watch the monitors. If not, watch the actors themselves.

Oh okay, but I should be doing the storyboards myself, shouldn't I, or at least a lot of directors decide on their own shots in the past. For example, when you watch movies done by certain directors, you know they picked those shots.

Plus I was told to do my shots in Frameforge before as it might help, unless the DP should be doing that?

You create the storyboard and give it to the DP.

From that, the DP creates the shot list and gives it to you.

For more info, see the entire presentation at Storyboards and Shot Lists (https://www.slideshare.net/newestprod/storyboards-and-shot-lists).

Ryan - if you have the money, and the drive, then in all honesty, you have one real choice. trust your instincts and go for it - IF, and only if, you have the thing planned out.

You do need to get a few things straight.
You are the boss. Other people work FOR you.
The actors need to believe (because they're all terribly indecisive people in the main). that you're direction is right and appropriate. When they ask questions, you give immediate responses, and when you direct them, do NOT put up with them changing the vision. You can make it clear you are receptive to input, but at the end of the day - it's your movie and they will do what they are told.
The DoP will offer you shots. You can accept them, or reject them. Your sound people might suggest things, and again - are they just lazy and hoping you go for the easy way, or are their suggestions valid ones you should follow.

The advice to shoot 16:9 makes huge sense, giving you the ability to see how cropping will work (or not).

LAST THING - Stop responding to "I was told" from all these people. Learn to reject information and advice, and do what you want. Why bother learning to use a piece of software designed to help you visualise? You'll end up formulaic and boring. Can you draw? a pile of printed 16:9 boxes does perfectly well if you can draw.

Have you ever been told to use say, photoshop when you've never used to before and tore your hair out. I know I have, when somebody tells me I MUST use X, Y or Z.

I don't know if you have actually settled on your role and the parameters. You should leave the photography as Chris says, to the DoP/cameraman - IF - you trust them to carry out your vision. I'm not sure you trust any of your team. Equally - they need to trust you and again, do they? They seem to continually disagree with you and tell you how to do things.

I really wish you luck with this - but it's not a cooperative, is a hierarchical pyramid with you at the top.