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

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. Well there is one thing that comes to mind.

I was told before, not only on here, but by a couple of other sources as well, that theaters can only show 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 cause those are the two standards that the projector settings are built for, and that they don't want to go through a hassle of projecting any other ratio.

However, movies come out with weird aspect ratios sometimes, such as Tomorrowland (2.20:1), Dunkirk (2.20:1 and 1.43:1) Star Wars: Rogue One (2.76:1), The Hateful Eight (2.76:1), and La La Land (2.55:1).

So when these movies are released, do the theaters have to go out of their way to project them differently and go through a hassle to do so, or no?

[Brian Drysdale]

Usually they fit them within the standard ratios by either using pillars or letterboxes.

Either that or they crop them to fit into the standard ratios, unless you're watching in a cinema that can project 70mm film prints.

Cinemas don't do anything special, unless they've got Stanley Kubrick chasing after them about projecting his film in the correct aspect ratio.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well I remember it was said before that I could fit an aspect ratio into a standard one but as a newcomer, it would be safer for me to pick one of the two standard ones, if that's true.

When it comes to what screen it would be viewed on, I thought it was better to choose based on what is best to tell the story to a degree.

If I were to pick 16:9 or 1.85:1 to fill the average screen more, I wonder how it would look when trying to shoot a movie with staging compositions like High and Low...

I wonder if I could do the storyboards first and then pick which aspect ratio is best later, when talking to a DP about it, it's just that the storyboarding books, already come with the aspect ratios printed, so I feel I have to choose the aspect ratio before storyboarding, if that's best...

[Paul R Johnson]

If you actually produce your product in a strange pixel specification - lets say 2015 x 936, quite a few devices will struggle to display it. This is totally different from having a 1980 x 1080 format, and simply not using the top and bottom chunks to make a letter box. My cameras cannot record in the new popular weird frame ratios, so my only choice is cropping - ignoring the top and bottom. A bit of tape on the viewfinder sorts that out.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh sorry, I meant making a letterbox in 1080, that's what I meant, sorry.

Same with my camera and other people's cameras I know. One short film I shot on 2.39:1, but we used firmware on the camera to give us that aspect ratio on the monitor screen. Then later I added the letterboxes in post.

[Brian Drysdale]

Best plan before you begin, so know your aspect ratio when start to storyboard.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, but how do other filmmakers tell which one is best for them, before they have their storyboards laid out, and then deciding based on the storyboards? Howe do they know which one they will want before the storyboards?

As for whether or not the locations are more horizontal or vertical, I haven't gotten a lot of the locations yet, so not sure.

I wanted to storyboard before I start location scouting and getting a DP, cause once I do that, things get so busy, that you won't have near as much time to storyboard, so I wanted to have preliminary storyboards beforehand, if that's best. I just don't know which aspect ratio is best, before having the storyboards laid out.

[Brian Drysdale]

You usually can see it in your mind as you play it though.

Take a stills camera to some possible locations and see what works.

I would find locations and then storyboard, otherwise you may be creating scenes that don't work and you'll have to change them. Also, the locations will suggest ideas to you.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I have all the possible locations in mind, just don't have confirmed yesses from all of the location owners. But I can storyboard with those possible locations still. But as far as to whether or not they are better suited for 16:9 or 2.35:1, how does one tell?

I took some pictures but took them all in 3:2 still photo format. I guess I could take them in both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 if that's better, but it's hard to tell with no actors in the shots as well.

Another thing, is as I am comparing the two ratios, storyboard wise, in a 16:9 ratio, the actors will have to be pushed further into the background compared to 2.39:1, like it was said before.

So even if 16:9 fills a whole 16:9 screen the viewer will be forced to watch the actors, further away in the scene. So is filling the whole frame more important, if it means the actors have to be pushed back farther to fit them all in and they are further away therefore?

[Brian Drysdale]

These are your decisions, they are ones that directors have to make all the time.

However, be aware that the physical size of the faces etc on the screen may be the roughly same if you are letterboxing the scope into a 16;9 screen. This is different to how scope was originally screened in many cinemas where the height remains the same, but the sides open out, so you end up with a much bigger screen.

In many modern multiplexes you get more real estate with 1.85:1 because the width remains the same.

[Brian Drysdale]

You don't need scope to be cinematic, here is "The Train" which was shot in 1.66:1 and uses it to show the non human stars to full effect. No CGI or models, they blew up the real thing.

The Train (2/10) Movie CLIP - Allied Bombing Raid (1964) HD - YouTube

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan, look back and you'll hopefully see why I asked if you were talking about art or craft. You said art. You are however thinking craft. Do you think that all directors think about pixels and ratios? They know old TV shape, new TV shape and the movie wide and not tall shape. These three things are really two now that 4:3 is gone. In their mind they visualise it. It's difficult to describe but if the movie will take place in a spooky forest with trees, or in St. Paul's cathedral or outside the Statue of Liberty in the critical scenes, then the lack of height makes ultra wide the wrong choice. If it takes place on desolate beaches or other locations that have little height content but plenty of width, then this becomes important. Some directors will also consider what happens to it if it's on the shelf for years. How it will translate to new formats. I mean that maybe phone orientation will drift us into vertical letterboxes in 20 years time. How will a wide screen product be viewed? You see directors using their hands to simulate the frame all the time. It's the art of film making. You are clearly thinking like a DoP wanting instructions on how we are shooting. You don't have the star from the artistic creator. We just cannot help here.

Sometimes Ryan, you just need to know what YOU want, and not try to follow a rule book. All your topics are based around collecting rules, that sometime you will need to break, but breaking them is usually something the breaker just 'knows' have to be broken. Every single topic you start on every single different subject contains the same feature. At some point you say "you've been told ......" And we try to explain that sometime you were told wrong, or misunderstood. Why do you torture yourself like this.

You do not have the skills naturally, and are on a quest to learn everything, instantly, without trying and developing. I've said it before, but I KNOW what I am bad at, and with huge effort and considerable time I can improve, but neve be a natural. I also know where NO amount of effort will work. I am a terrible artistic person. I do not have the vision, the ideas, the spark. No amount of wanting will work. However, I'm rather good at taking these ideas and making them work. That is what I get paid for. Whenever I have had to deputise for the director or executive producer I can just about hold the course they set, but I cannot set a new direction. When a new captain arrives I'm far happier and they ALWAYS choose a new direction, and not the one I carried out. I simply don't think based on previous topics that you, like me, have the vision.

You simply cannot picture in your minds eye, the critical things. Directors would have the idea and come to the forums with questions on how to solve the problem. You want the problem solving BEFORE it arises!

I really urge you to do an internal audit of your existing skills and understanding, then use it to form your future. We can help with the craft. I don't think we can help with the art.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay I probably meant craft then. As for whether the locations are more taller or wider, I would say some are taller, some are wider for the project.

What about movies like Die Hard and Alien? Die Hard takes place in a very vertical location, yet they chose to go with 2.39:1 for it. Alien takes place in a tight boxed in location yet they chose to go with 2.39:1. Why were those choices made for those movies?

[Brian Drysdale]

Alien generally stays on the same plane, with the area above being the unknown from which the Alien can appear.

Alien (1979) Trailer - YouTube

Pretty much the same with Die Hard.

Die Hard | The Greatest Christmas Story | 20th Century FOX - YouTube

This film uses the verticals as part of its look

THE THIRD MAN - Official Trailer - Restored in Stunning 4K - YouTube

[Paul R Johnson]

I-Max does it the other way because they take delight in have vertical motion, that the non-letter box format works better for. I'd actually forgotten Alien - some of those amazing scary sections would have been rubbish without the limited height.

There was some flack with 2001 a Space Odyssey which had various formats inflicted on it during it's life in the cinema - 2.21 and 2.35, but with mangled versions of what was cut off. Blade Runner as a comparison, has gone the other way and decreased the ratio to 1.9, which gets marketed as 26% MORE for IMAX venues.

I guess you need to look at this more as if you were a painter, selecting a scene to paint, considering what is going to be in it. It isn't a recipe of every bit in every scene, it's the whole thing, the concept, the look, the stimulus for creating emotion in the viewer. That is not something to be defined or measured - it just 'is'.