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

[Brian Drysdale]

No one said it was a problem.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Josh Bass]

I second that emotion.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Josh Bass]

Sounds reasonable.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?