The Hangover and Wedding Crashers are 2.35:1
How important is aspect ratio to producers?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
The Hangover and Wedding Crashers are 2.35:1
Okay thanks, but here's what I don't understand. Let's say you shoot a movie with a 16:9 camera, and you want to convert it to 2:55. Then later, a distributor asks for a 16:9 version. There seems to be two things you can do.
1: Shoot it with the mics in the frame, and convert to 2:55 afterwords. Then photoshop the mic out of every frame after, for 16:9.
2. You can shoot with the mics not in the frame, but loose resolution cause you'll have to take a 16:9 frame, out from within the 2:55 frame.
Which is the way to do it?
1: Shoot it with the mics in the frame, and convert to 2:55 afterwords. Then photoshop the mic out of every frame after, for 16:9.
2. You can shoot with the mics not in the frame, but loose resolution cause you'll have to take a 16:9 frame, out from within the 2:55 frame.
Which is the way to do it?
Never put a mic in any visible portion of the frame that's being recorded no matter what you're cropping etc.
Repeat: do not put the mic in the frame at all, even if you plan on cropping it.
How do you lose resolution by a mic in or out of frame? I don't understand your logic.
If a mic is in a 16:9 frame, that means that to make a 16:9 version, you have to take your 2.4:1 or whatnot frame and chop off the edges to make a new 16:9 frame. You lose resolution doing this.
If the mic is not in the shot in the original, then you can use the original 16:9 frame.
Last edited:
Okay so a lot of movies use the original 16:9 frame then. That wasn't my logic when I said it, I just didn't understand it. Now I get that. But here's what I don't get. If you shoot a movie in 16:9 with no mics in the frame, then chop it down to 2:55, the picture is too close. Too much of the image is cut off. The only solution seems to shoot it at 2:55 originally with the mics being in the frame at 16:9. How do you shoot in 16:9 with the mics out, and then chop it down to 2:55 and not have the picture be too close?
Okay so a lot of movies use the original 16:9 frame then. That wasn't my logic when I said it, I just didn't understand it. Now I get that. But here's what I don't get. If you shoot a movie in 16:9 with no mics in the frame, then chop it down to 2:55, the picture is too close. Too much of the image is cut off. The only solution seems to shoot it at 2:55 originally with the mics being in the frame at 16:9. How do you shoot in 16:9 with the mics out, and then chop it down to 2:55 and not have the picture be too close?
And holy crap, I see now how 16:9 has more. I just watched the Matrix Reloaded car chase. The widescreen and full screen versions. The full screen in 16:9 has more cars flipping over in that part of the chase, compared to widescreen for example. So why is widescreen so popular compared to 16:9, if it results in seeing less, such as less cars flip over?
And holy crap, I see now how 16:9 has more. I just watched the Matrix Reloaded car chase. The widescreen and full screen versions. The full screen in 16:9 has more cars flipping over in that part of the chase, compared to widescreen for example. So why is widescreen so popular compared to 16:9, if it results in seeing less, such as less cars flip over?
16x9 is widescreen.
4:3 is still labeled full screen. Most TV's now are 16x9.
Anything wider than 16x9 is either letterboxed or cropped and scaled larger to fill your screen.
You can't shoot in anything wider than 16x9 without an anamorphic lens and accessories.
You can shoot with the intention to crop the top and/or bottom of the frame in post to create a wider aspect ratio. The raw recorded files (on your t2i anyway) are 16x9.
Mics don't need to be in the frame of a narrative production. Still don't understand why you'd plan ever to have a mic in the frame? Pick it up 8 inches so you don't see it, regardless of the aspect ratio. If there's an accident and the mic is in frame so you letterbox every shot to hide it, that's one thing. Please explain though why the mic would be in a shot intentionally so you can get a wider aspect? Still don't follow.
4:3 is still labeled full screen. Most TV's now are 16x9.
Anything wider than 16x9 is either letterboxed or cropped and scaled larger to fill your screen.
You can't shoot in anything wider than 16x9 without an anamorphic lens and accessories.
You can shoot with the intention to crop the top and/or bottom of the frame in post to create a wider aspect ratio. The raw recorded files (on your t2i anyway) are 16x9.
Mics don't need to be in the frame of a narrative production. Still don't understand why you'd plan ever to have a mic in the frame? Pick it up 8 inches so you don't see it, regardless of the aspect ratio. If there's an accident and the mic is in frame so you letterbox every shot to hide it, that's one thing. Please explain though why the mic would be in a shot intentionally so you can get a wider aspect? Still don't follow.
Hah! No, no mics in the frame intentionally. What I meant was that there are movies where's that's happened accidentally and they didn't care because they'd be cropping for the theater projection. Then later when lazy TV execs made the for-TV version, they just used the uncropped originals and you got weird stuff like that showing up.
It has to do with the frame's composition. In this case, the way it was meant to be seen by the filmmakers is the movie-screen-shaped version. In the 16:9 version they've apparently just used more of the original frame but it's not going to be composed the same way. Sometimes this is okay, sometimes it's going to take an aesthetic hit for the worse. Seeing more does not automatically mean "better".
Probably the most hysterically-bad example of this is the old TV 4:3 version of "Spies Like Us". The movie was shot with the intention of always being cropped for the theater and the 4:3 version just used the original uncropped 35mm frame. As a result, everything is small and in the vertical center 3rd of the screen. It looks bad.
Later, cinematographers began to make sure that the uncropped 4:3 frame would also look good in addition to the desired 2.35:1 (or whatever) movie screen cropping, so that the TV version wouldn't suck. This is a lot more work because now you got to ensure two good compositions in every shot you do.
As to why 1.88:1 and wider versions are more popular... well, that's how movie theater screens are shaped. 16:9 was a sort of compromise between 4:3 TV and wider theater-formatted screens, and a lot of movies are now shot so that a 16:9 crop still looks good.
I personally prefer the look of 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 because... because... I don't know, it just looks more cinematic to me. Grander, somehow.
It has to do with the frame's composition. In this case, the way it was meant to be seen by the filmmakers is the movie-screen-shaped version. In the 16:9 version they've apparently just used more of the original frame but it's not going to be composed the same way. Sometimes this is okay, sometimes it's going to take an aesthetic hit for the worse. Seeing more does not automatically mean "better".
Probably the most hysterically-bad example of this is the old TV 4:3 version of "Spies Like Us". The movie was shot with the intention of always being cropped for the theater and the 4:3 version just used the original uncropped 35mm frame. As a result, everything is small and in the vertical center 3rd of the screen. It looks bad.
Later, cinematographers began to make sure that the uncropped 4:3 frame would also look good in addition to the desired 2.35:1 (or whatever) movie screen cropping, so that the TV version wouldn't suck. This is a lot more work because now you got to ensure two good compositions in every shot you do.
As to why 1.88:1 and wider versions are more popular... well, that's how movie theater screens are shaped. 16:9 was a sort of compromise between 4:3 TV and wider theater-formatted screens, and a lot of movies are now shot so that a 16:9 crop still looks good.
I personally prefer the look of 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 because... because... I don't know, it just looks more cinematic to me. Grander, somehow.
Last edited:
That's what I meant when I said shooting with the mics in the frame intentionally, cause of that example.
I wish I would have done more research before buying all my movies in widescreen. To think of all the extra things in the frame I could have missed in action scenes, if that's the case. Some DVD's I own though, there is a widescreen and full screen version. On a 16:9 TV in the full screen though, the actors are more closer up and their heads are bigger, than in the widescreen version. But if widescreen is 16:9 cropped down, then shouldn't the size of the actors, remain the same?
I wish I would have done more research before buying all my movies in widescreen. To think of all the extra things in the frame I could have missed in action scenes, if that's the case. Some DVD's I own though, there is a widescreen and full screen version. On a 16:9 TV in the full screen though, the actors are more closer up and their heads are bigger, than in the widescreen version. But if widescreen is 16:9 cropped down, then shouldn't the size of the actors, remain the same?
Last edited:
Okay, I don't believe you on this one. I'm looking at my Matrix dvd right now. The widescreen version IS 16:9 (2.4:1). As Paul says, fullscreen is 4:3. If you're watching on a 16:9 TV, often they have an option to stretch to fit (makes everyone a little squished) for fullscreen, but widescreen is the full picture. On an older TV, which is 4:3, you get the "letterbox". In order to make a "fullscreen" version of the film, they either crop off the sides or employ "pan and scan".
Some reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterbox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan
http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml
Again, "fullscreen" is always LESS of the image. A "widescreen" dvd should play on your widescreen tv with no letterboxing (unless the original is wider than 2.4:1). If it IS letterboxed, you need to fix your dvd player and/or TV settings.
Bottom line: you did right to buy the widescreen versions. In the full screen version, the heads look bigger (and wider than they really are) because the image is cropped and stretched.
Oh okay, but I thought it was said on here before that stretching it is a no no, cause it results in de-resolution.
I watched a chase from The Matrix on youtube, so perhaps that wasn't the correct full screen and/or widescreen, or it was different somehow.
I watched a chase from The Matrix on youtube, so perhaps that wasn't the correct full screen and/or widescreen, or it was different somehow.
Last edited:
We're getting into the difference between producing and consuming a film here. Producing a film, yeah, you never EVER want to stretch anything. It causes all sorts of funky artifacts (not least of which is everyone's head looking wide!) However, some CONSUMERS don't like the "reverse letterbox" on their fancy tvs...so they turn on the stretch settings.
Better TVs will apply stretching to the outermost edge of the image, so the central image will look right, and any warping appears in the edges. It is slightly less noticeable.
Anyway, yeah, don't stretch your film. Crop if you want to change the aspect ratio. However, Joe Random who watches your film at home, may prefer things stretched to fit his tv (16:9).
Better TVs will apply stretching to the outermost edge of the image, so the central image will look right, and any warping appears in the edges. It is slightly less noticeable.
Anyway, yeah, don't stretch your film. Crop if you want to change the aspect ratio. However, Joe Random who watches your film at home, may prefer things stretched to fit his tv (16:9).
Oh okay, I was thinking that too, that if they crop, maybe the marketing guys don't take de-resolution in mind. I will see if I can crop my short down to 2.55 when it's done. For future projects, is it a wise idea, to put peaces of tape over the top and bottom my DSLR view screen? That way I can measure 2.55:1 in advance and know the exact frame of the shot I want. I will try it and see.
Last edited:
The version of Magic Lantern for the Canon 5D MkII comes with 2.4:1 cropmarks that display in the viewfinder. Very handy, that.
Okay, thanks... Well I will try to crop mine down and see how much I can before too much is out of the picture. I'll aim for 2.55.
Thanks I will. So how do I measure with the tape, when it comes to putting tape on the camera view screen to get a new ratio?
If you're shooting in full HD, 1920x800 is 2.4:1 (with 1920x1080 being the full 16:9 frame).
For any ratio of x:1, divide your horizontal resolution by x to get the vertical resolution:
The full formula for a ratio of x:y for any resolution frame h,v (horizontal, vertical) where you know h and want to find v:
For any ratio of x:1, divide your horizontal resolution by x to get the vertical resolution:
1920 / 2.4 = 800
1920 / 1.88 = 1021
1920 / 2.55 = 753
1920 / 1.88 = 1021
1920 / 2.55 = 753
The full formula for a ratio of x:y for any resolution frame h,v (horizontal, vertical) where you know h and want to find v:
v = (h * y) / x