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

[Josh Bass]

I never would have thought of any of that. Not that I don't watch the cinematography when I watch movies/shows but often the subtler stuff escapes me or goes over my head.

[Brian Drysdale]

If it works, within the context of the scene, you shouldn't be aware of it.

I've seen the film, so I know where this scene fits in the story.

NCIS crosses the line quite often for no reason (other than coverage) and I'm aware if it. They get away with it because they cut on nearly every sentence, but it doesn't carry any dramatic weight.

[Paul R Johnson]

I've never produced a remotely good 5.1 mix simply because my studio is not set up with the necessary speakers and balanced system. I can produce 5 tracks easily, in the right format, but I would have no idea how much to put in the rear, or how the balance between centre and L+R would work. When I've brought in a 5.1 mix to do things with, I'm amazed at what is in the individual tracks - I simply can't work out how the balance was achieved. Stereo only for me.

I'm an NCIS fan too, Bryan - and it's frankly the only US series I can comfortably watch without getting annoyed at. They seem to constantly break rules, invent new ones and give the audience a mix of soft, gentle edits exactly where I would have made them, then suddenly slam some sharp cuts in for effect. They work so well that I'm never aware of 'editing' as a feature, just editing to make the story run. There are lots of unusual framed shots too. If I was still teaching, NCIS would be a good collection of subject material for evaluation.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

In that scene the geography is carefully set up at the beginning. The breaking of the line is used to show the disconnect/alienation between one character and his boss. It's also reinforced by the framing, with the space behind him seeming to slowly add pressure as the free talking boss softly gives his thoughts.

So, it's been done for a reason. The switch over the line occurs when he learns that there will be a next model - the dramatic revelation of the scene. This will set in train what happens in the rest of the film.

What we don't know, looking at the completed film, are other angles that were shot at the time, the standard arrangement may have also been covered (This appears to be case with at least one shot), but during the editing this is one that was used for the above reasons.

You can't do it for the sake of it, otherwise it won't work and you end up confusing/annoying the audience. There needs to be something that carries you over the line.

Oh okay, well that's why I did it, to show that one character was on a different mental level than the other one. However, don't I establish the geography though, by showing a wide shot of the room with both of them first, before breaking it and then cutting back and forth?

I haven't watched NCIS for so long but I can check it out.

[Brian Drysdale]

In your case I don't think it would work, the actress can do that though her performance and without the subtext for a reason and an approbate set up, it just looks like you made a mistake. .

In the "Ex Machina" example they jumped the across line earlier in the scene, so it had already been established and there was a build up to the key point. There are other methods could've been used to give the same feeling.

Bear in mind that NCIS isn't cinematic in its styling.

[Paul R Johnson]

I can't quite decide on that one, Bryan. It certainly isn't normal TV, but it isn't really cinema, so what would the style be. The constant camera movement, the unusual framing - can't quite pigeon hole it?

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect it has its roots in documentary, "Hill Street Blues" started a fashion for it in US police shows.

[Seth Bloombaum]

I'd suggest that NCIS has been running so long, to such success, that they've been working on developing a unique sub-genre of the police procedural.

This is what happens in 16 years with such talent. Staff get tired of what they did 5 years ago and keep pushing!

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Amazing how slow paced Barney Miller is in comparison

[Paul R Johnson]

What I think I like is that the writers simply cram as much in as they can, the people who shoot it ram in as much as they can and there's simply no room left for any shot that has no purpose. No point in useless cutaways, they waste time, so plan the thing properly so as to make every single piece a A shot list, and the B shot list a very short one.

[Brian Drysdale]

They usually write TV dramas slightly over length and then reduce it to the final running time during the edit.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

In your case I don't think it would work, the actress can do that though her performance and without the subtext for a reason and an approbate set up, it just looks like you made a mistake. .

In the "Ex Machina" example they jumped the across line earlier in the scene, so it had already been established and there was a build up to the key point. There are other methods could've been used to give the same feeling.

Bear in mind that NCIS isn't cinematic in its styling.

Oh okay thanks. What about the 180 degree rule, in a fight scene. I shot a fight scene for a short film before, but I was told I broke the rule, as if was bad, but you see the rule being broken all the time in othe movies, so is it okay?

It broke sometimes when the actors fought and entered from one room to another, but that is pretty much because the rooms were shaped in a way, in which I did not have enough space, to maintain the rule, and had to put the camera elsewhere. But what are the rules when it comes to breaking the rule, in a fight scene, out of curiosity?

[Paul R Johnson]

The rule is quite simple. You don't do it, unless you need to and can justify it by it making the edit better. There is no way you can expand on this rule to makes something that you follow by prescription. It either works or it doesn't.

[Brian Drysdale]

I see the rule being broken on a number of occasions in films and TV, usually it's a mistake. Sometimes you can spot the corrections in feature films where a shot has been flopped. EDIT It happens in "Waterloo" during a cavalry charge where the sabres are in their left hands.

The video earlier in the thread gives examples of the rule being broken and gives reasons why it works in these occasions. Doing so because the set hasn't much space isn't a reason, you can usually cheat the shots so you don't cross the line.

Fight scenes really do need to make geographical sense, otherwise the blows don't connect correctly, resulting in the scene losing its power. The line can switch during a scene, if you set up the switch, that's different to you cutting so that people are facing the same direction for no reason..You might get away with the change if one actor is kicked into a room and you cross the line on the cut to inside the new room, however, him falling on the line straight towards the camera may be more powerful and then cutting to the other side for the next shot.

The rule for breaking a rule is that it must work.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind...

As for aspect ratio, after thinking about it, I think I am more set on 1.85:1 than 2.39:1 but only because it saves on needing as many extras in the scenes, since there are scenes of crowds of people. 1.85:1 means less extras, but I feel I am making the aspect ratio decision out of budget, more than out of artistic choice, but is that bad to put the budget before art in that sense?