How does a filmmaker decide which aspect ratio to shoot in?

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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

YouTube

YouTube

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.

YouTube

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

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

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.

YouTube

[Chris Hurd]

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).

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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..

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Paul R Johnson]

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!

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?