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

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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)

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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-hi...-aspect-ratio/ (set your web browser to translate from Japanese).

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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..

[Ryan Elder]

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:

YouTube

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

[Josh Bass]

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

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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

[Patrick Tracy]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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