Or distributors? Would a 1.84:1, have a better chance of being picked up, then say a 2.35:1, or 1.77:1 one? Or does it not really matter much? What if a filmmaker shot a movie in an unusual one like 2.55?
Last edited:
How important is aspect ratio to producers?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
aspect rations don't matter
Stick to standard 16x9, which is now the standard tv/monitor size.
What is your intended output format (TV, Internet, theaters?) That will help you answer that question. Too many filmmakers start with script, then move forward. After the script, if you work backwards from your eventual release, you'll have a much clearer picture of what you need to shoot.
Well it seems 1:85 and 2:39 are the most popular. I kind of like 2:55 in mostly old movies, myself.
I'm doing my first 2.4:1 and the footage immediately looked more "cinematic". It's my favorite aspect ratio so far (from a framing/cinematography perspective). 16:9 is good, and I can't stand 4:3. I've never tried 1.85:1.
(I'm shooting in 16:9 on a 5D MkII using Magic Lantern to show me 2.4:1 crop marks. The actual cropping is done in Premiere, which makes it super simple for me to just throw my 16:9 footage into a 2.4:1 sequence and just edit away w/out transcoding.)
(I'm shooting in 16:9 on a 5D MkII using Magic Lantern to show me 2.4:1 crop marks. The actual cropping is done in Premiere, which makes it super simple for me to just throw my 16:9 footage into a 2.4:1 sequence and just edit away w/out transcoding.)
No matter which Aspect ratio you shoot in, you'll have to produce for standards as well: Broadcast namely. 4:3, 16:9, etc.
Keep that in mind when you go to shoot.
I will probably always shoot and crop in post from now on unless there's a massive budget.
That's a freebie, one you don't learn until you have to deal with a thing called deliverables.
So yeah, aspect does matter. xD
Keep that in mind when you go to shoot.
I will probably always shoot and crop in post from now on unless there's a massive budget.
That's a freebie, one you don't learn until you have to deal with a thing called deliverables.
So yeah, aspect does matter. xD
I think it matters in that you need to be aware of what the final format needs to be. I'm cutting in 2.4:1, but will be able to easily throw that into a 16:9 sequence when I go to do a blu-ray or DVD export. I think it's more important to shoot as close as you can to your desired display ratio so you lose as little resolution as possible -- for instance, shooting 4:3 and cropping down to 2.4:1 is generally going to be a bad idea.
Naturally, the point actually wasn't in response to you but general knowledge.
You will have to make both a 4:3 (and oft times no black bars) and a 16:9 broadcast ready deliverable for your product.
The end format will probably several formats if you plan on hitting a wide distribution net, or if someone's buying your product.
And, unless you're a big name, they really don't care what your movie is supposed to look like.
Well I am shooting at 16:9, and I am going to crop it down to 2:55 in post, once it's done. The film I am shooting right now, probably won't go to distributors, but I am using it to practice with for future possibilities. So let's say I shoot a movie in 16:9 and then crop it down to 2:55 for theaters or film festivals. Then someone wants it in 16:9. Do I give them the original 16:9 copy before I cropped it down, or do I have to make another 16:9 by cropping down from the 2:55 cropped version?
Last edited:
Depends on how you want your framing. If you're going to have more than one version, you'll have to shoot with an eye on both what 2.55:1 and 16:9 will look like so you don't have bad framing in either version. Then you can hand them the "uncropped" 16:9 version when necessary. This will also give you the best quality. If you chop a 2.55:1 video down to 16:9, you'll lose resolution and your image quality will suffer.
What I like about Premiere is that I'm editing 16:9 clips inside a 2.4:1 sequence, so if I wanted a 16:9 version I'd just have to copy/paste the timeline into a 16:9 sequence.
To make a 16:9 frame that shows the 2.4:1 version (eg. if I'm making a DVD or whatnot), I just drop the 2.4:1 sequence inside a 16:9 sequence.
What I like about Premiere is that I'm editing 16:9 clips inside a 2.4:1 sequence, so if I wanted a 16:9 version I'd just have to copy/paste the timeline into a 16:9 sequence.
To make a 16:9 frame that shows the 2.4:1 version (eg. if I'm making a DVD or whatnot), I just drop the 2.4:1 sequence inside a 16:9 sequence.
Oh crap, you're right I will loose resolution. Well I guess I will have to keep the original 16:9 version than, in case. Which is ironic cause a wider aspect ratio is suppose to show more than 16:9, but in this case it will show less.
Last edited:
Sorry, I meant that if you take your 2.55:1 and then chop it down to 16:9, as opposed to reverting to the 16:9 originals. In the first, you lose resolution. In the second, you have to pay very careful attention to make sure that your 16:9 framing is good during shooting. -- If you watch some old full-frame TV versions of movies you'll often see microphones and other things near the edges of the frame because the negatives were always meant to be cropped down for movie screens. When they went back to the original non-anamorphic 35mm originals to make the 4:3 TV version, all those things the director knew would be cropped out snuck back in.
Yeah thanks. I realized what you meant just after I posted that so I went back and changed the post. I didn't shoot it with 2:55 in mind originally. There are a few shots where certain props can't be seen if I chop it down that much. Such as holding a piece of paper and looking at it, you can't see the paper etc. I might have to keep it in 16:9 but I will see once it's done. The next one I make I will try to shoot with that in mind, but perhaps it's better to get a camera with that aspect ratio option, or a closer ratio. Wouldn't chopping down a 16:9 to a 2:55 make the pixels bigger too though? Since the ratio is longer, then picture will have to be blown up closer therefore.
Last edited:
cropping a 16x9 (1.78:1) down to a 2.55:1 will still be the same width, just fewer pixels vertically... but if the image is more what you were looking for in your head, then that's what you want to do. This is first a distribution choice, second an artistic choice... although you can find ways to distribute anything... so it's mostly just an artistic choice.
Basically 16x9 for television (with 4x3 safe zones)
1.85/1 for comedy or DTV movie
2.4/1 for blockbuster, sci fi, or epic type movies, also higher end dramas such as historical epics.
2.4/1 provides the most horizontal scope and cine feel, but does not convert as well for television as a 1.85/1
Depends what you want
1.85/1 for comedy or DTV movie
2.4/1 for blockbuster, sci fi, or epic type movies, also higher end dramas such as historical epics.
2.4/1 provides the most horizontal scope and cine feel, but does not convert as well for television as a 1.85/1
Depends what you want
This is a great list.
I was shocked at just how much more professional my footage looked merely by cropping to 2.4: 1.
I like your approach, knightly.
This is a great list.
I was shocked at just how much more professional my footage looked merely by cropping to 2.4: 1.
I may do some experimenting with it in the future. My monitor will actually put 2.35:1 crop marks on the image for me if I want so you don't have to do it with tape..
Thanks, there's alot of blindly driving ahead without knowing where the road is going. Generally, I drive like that sometimes for fun, but usually, I'm headed toward a destination... that tells me which roads to follow. Experience teaches me which roads not to follow