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

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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

Stanley Kubrick disagrees.

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

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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:

YouTube

YouTube

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.

YouTube

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.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

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 hit theaters just last November.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Josh Bass]

Touche on Orson Welles.

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

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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?

[Paul R Johnson]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.