Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals?

Pete Cofrancesco · September 2nd, 2020, 10:22 AM

Deja vu all over again. This is from 2 years ago!

https://forums.creativecow.net/docs/...tid=43&pview=t

Brian Drysdale · September 2nd, 2020, 11:29 AM

It's amazing how Ryan can waste so much time asking the same questions over and over again. I notice there was also a 300mm lens question on that forum. .

Paul R Johnson · September 2nd, 2020, 02:35 PM

On that other forum I spotted one thing we've not seen before - Ryan actually tried to help somebody by replying to somebody else's topic. That's got to be a record!

The number of times Ryan says "I've been told..." truly amazes me - there are either lots of people in his area doing movies , or the same person keeps telling him all this rubbish.

As they said in Star Trek - the Prime Directive does not apply as there has been no progress in years, just stagnation.

Ryan Elder · September 2nd, 2020, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Cinemascope doesn't mean just width though - it means less height. My world of theatres is a good example - the only critical thing for number of dancers is stage width and depth, height is unimportant, so cinemascope theatre would simply have lower scenery and drapes. 4:3 would have lots of height many theatres don't have. Unless you intend shooting totally in wide shot, the more cast argument doesn't work. If you shoot 16:9 and pull back till your cast fill the frame it has no real impact on cast quantity.

Oh okay, I see what you mean. Well I can't remember what musical it was, but the producer did not want to shoot cinemascope because it would mean more extras. But was that producer incorrect, and he didn't realize it was all about framing and not aspect ratio therefore? Or perhaps aspect ratio does make a difference in terms of extras in a dancing movie, because you want to see their feet, but if it's not a dancing movie like mine, aspect ratio does not matter in terms of extras, because no feet have to be shown?

Pete Cofrancesco · September 2nd, 2020, 06:00 PM

Maybe if you added dancing to your movie you could use the wider aspect ratio. Only cut the feet off if the villain is trying to send a message.

Ryan Elder · September 2nd, 2020, 06:55 PM

Lol that's funny.

Well I suppose if I am not going to use 1.66 then my instincts say to go with 1.85 perhaps then.

Brian Drysdale · September 3rd, 2020, 12:28 AM

There's a vast difference between shooting Cinemascope and 1.85 and the former would probably involve more dancers, plus other costs Having filmed shorts in Super16 (1.66) that had also to be framed for a 1.85 35mm blow up, I can tell you that you won't be saving on extras. These aspect ratios are pretty similar in their requirements.

On the budgets you're working with, you frame for the number of extras you've actually got on the day.

Pete Cofrancesco · September 3rd, 2020, 01:13 PM

If He wants to save money on extras he should film in on a phone (vertical). There be barely enough room for the principles. lol

Ryan Elder · September 3rd, 2020, 04:21 PM

Oh no, I definitely do not want to go over 1.66:1 as I think anything less will probably have too much height.

September 2nd, 2020, 10:22 AM	#16
Pete Cofrancesco Inner Circle Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA Posts: 3,005	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? Deja vu all over again. This is from 2 years ago! https://forums.creativecow.net/docs/...tid=43&pview=t Last edited by Pete Cofrancesco; September 2nd, 2020 at 04:37 PM.

September 2nd, 2020, 11:29 AM	#17
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? It's amazing how Ryan can waste so much time asking the same questions over and over again. I notice there was also a 300mm lens question on that forum. .

September 2nd, 2020, 02:35 PM	#18
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? On that other forum I spotted one thing we've not seen before - Ryan actually tried to help somebody by replying to somebody else's topic. That's got to be a record! The number of times Ryan says "I've been told..." truly amazes me - there are either lots of people in his area doing movies , or the same person keeps telling him all this rubbish. As they said in Star Trek - the Prime Directive does not apply as there has been no progress in years, just stagnation.

September 2nd, 2020, 06:00 PM	#20
Pete Cofrancesco Inner Circle Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA Posts: 3,005	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? Maybe if you added dancing to your movie you could use the wider aspect ratio. Only cut the feet off if the villain is trying to send a message.

September 2nd, 2020, 06:55 PM	#21
Ryan Elder also known as Ryan Wray Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Saskatoon, Canada Posts: 2,888	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? Lol that's funny. Well I suppose if I am not going to use 1.66 then my instincts say to go with 1.85 perhaps then.

September 3rd, 2020, 12:28 AM	#22
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? There's a vast difference between shooting Cinemascope and 1.85 and the former would probably involve more dancers, plus other costs Having filmed shorts in Super16 (1.66) that had also to be framed for a 1.85 35mm blow up, I can tell you that you won't be saving on extras. These aspect ratios are pretty similar in their requirements. On the budgets you're working with, you frame for the number of extras you've actually got on the day.

September 3rd, 2020, 01:13 PM	#23
Pete Cofrancesco Inner Circle Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA Posts: 3,005	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? If He wants to save money on extras he should film in on a phone (vertical). There be barely enough room for the principles. lol

September 3rd, 2020, 04:21 PM	#24
Ryan Elder also known as Ryan Wray Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Saskatoon, Canada Posts: 2,888	Re: Would shooting in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio be too weird for film festivals? Oh no, I definitely do not want to go over 1.66:1 as I think anything less will probably have too much height.