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

[Brian Drysdale]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

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/usi...e-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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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 .

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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...?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.