There are so many choices and when shooting an entire movie, I feel I could use a certain aspect ratio for one type of a shot, and a different one for another, and it's tough to decide.

It seems to me that the best aspect ratio would be somewhere around 2.20:1, but how does one decide though, which one in that range, is best?

It seems that most filmmakers prefer 2.39:1 to the point where it has become a popular default. But is there a reason why most choose that?

Do cinemas prefer it, projection wise? Is the decision based on film festival requirements, or can the filmmaker choose any they want, purely based on artistic reasons?

How do you decide?

I was told by one filmmaker that unless you know for sure your movie is going to theaters, just shoot in 16:9, but I feel that I should probably decide based on what serves the story best, rather than what media platform it's going to be shown on. Would that make more sense?

You can use whichever aspect ratio you want, but you will need to fit it inside a film and TV industry standard aspect ratio,

For 2.20:1 you would probably need to have black pillars on either side of 2.39:1 , just as 4x3 aspect has on a 16x9 screen

This question was more or less answered when you asked about using a 2.1 aspect ratio, so you're going over old ground.

The dynamic screen was used back in the silent days.

If you're going to sell your film, chances are it's going to be shown on a 16 x 9 screen, odds on getting a theatrical release are very small. However, you can letterbox scope or 2.20 for a 16 x 9 screen,

Most indie feature films are probably 1.85:1, rather than scope. I would read your old thread i suspect the answer lies in there.



Again, the choice is up to you,

There are many choices:

Split Screen in Movies on Vimeo

Oh right, sorry I wasn't thinking of that previous post before, sorry. You said before that it's probably better to just stick to one of the standard aspect ratio for film festivals.

So out of the two standard ones, I can't decide which is better between 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 since they have their pros and cons.

One reason I read why a lot of microbudget filmmakers go with 1.85:1, is that you don't have to fill in empty space with set design.

However, I feel that this doesn't help 1.85:1 in a lot of cases. If you have four or more people in a mastershot for example, you won't be able to fit them all in the shot at 1.85:1 as well as 2.39:1. So you will have to still back up the camera therefore in 1.85:1. So if you back up the camera to fit everyone one, wouldn't you still have the same amount of deadspace still then to have to fill?

They managed to frame 4 or more people when they were shooting in 4 x3 for the cinema, I don't get your point, You block out your action for the framing that's being used, there's no such thing as dead space, the environment is all part of the mise en scene.

A filmmaker decides on aspect ratio based on expected distributions. If 2.39:1 and 16:9 are expected, the shots should be composed so that they fill the screens and look good in either format.

This is about creating a viewer experience. Success in festivals or other distributions comes with understanding the viewer experience of our works. IMO planning for pillar boxes or letterboxing is a waste of screen area that could be used in creating that experience.

Oh okay, I thought that I had to decide based on what was best based on viewer experience.

But if I have to know what the distributor expects, what if I am shooting a feature film and I don't have a distributor yet, so I don't know what one will expect later on, depending on who picks it up? What then?

Don't reinvent the wheel, a strange aspect ratio is just another reason for a distributor to say no.

16 x 9 is the most sensible aspect ratio, because odds are that the film is going straight to video, with, at the very most, a very limited showcase theatrical release.

In reality the festival circuit is most likely to be the only theatrical screening for your film.

Oh okay, well when it comes to choosing between the three standard ones 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1, I thought I was suppose to choose based on what tells the story best, rather than based on what size screen people will see it on.

Is fitting the screen size, more important than what best tells the story?

Plus, I thought maybe a distributor would just as likely say no to a 16:9 movie, cause they could look at it and say, that too many movies are being shot in 16:9 and it doesn't look cinematic enough as a result. So I thought they could just as well see it that way too maybe.

A distributor will be more interested in who's in the film and factors other than the aspect ratio, Chances are they'll put it out on 16:9 regardless of which aspect ratio you finally shoot it on.

They're only interested in making sales and they don't want anything to reduce their chances. Many audiences want their screens filled and don't want it letter boxed.

Oh okay, well if say a movie is shot in 2.39:1, and a distributor wants to zoom in, to make it 16:9, that would mean they are loosing resolution, if they have to zoom in, so would they be okay with that?

They do it all the time, just you may lose control of the final composition, since it may be someone further down the chain doing the work.

Oh okay thanks, that gives me some things to think about. Thank you very much for all your information :).

I have another question when it comes to distributors wants if that's okay. When it comes to doing the sound mix I thought I would go for the 5.1 mix, since that is what most distributors want I was told, if that is correct.

However, I also read that a lot want a stereo mix in addition. I was wondering if that's true, and if it's worth doing two sound mixes therefore? Or why is it that they would want a stereo one as well, when they already have a 5.1?

Many outlets don't have 5.1 and distributors don't want to spend money in creating a stereo mix.

Okay thanks, but I thought that 5.1 still sounded good on other outlets. For example, at home I usually watch movies on a TV with two speakers, and some movies on DVD have a 5.1 mix only. But they still sound good coming out of my two speakers, so I thought 5.1 sounded good, no matter if it's coming out two speakers, or even one, unless I am missing something?

I recall watching short films with surround sound in a stereo cinema and there always seemed to be a hole in the centre of the stereo image.

They should be compatible, but you're trying to do sale, so it sounds better if you have it available. You don't want to be explaining things. However, they'll be buying on who's in it and if they can sell it in the current market.

In technical stuff in the sale, shooting on an Alexa is easier to sell than shooting on a DSLR.

However, it's the name actor who will really attract them.

Oh okay, can they tell easily what camera the movie was shot on?

It depends, you'd probably have problems telling a Ursa Mini Pro from an Alexa, but a DSLR won't have the same quality.

It depends if they are using the camera as a filter, because so many films are shot with DSLRs, it's an easy way of taking them out of the mix,

A name actor trumps that.

Okay thanks. I assume I won't be able to get a named star or supporting character names actor for the movie, so I was trying to do what is best in other areas too...

An excellent original story, well acted, compelling characters and well told is what's best. Have that and you can shoot with a iPhone if it's appropriate for the stroy.

Okay thanks, I will try direct the story and acting as best I can of course :).

As for aspect ratio, and choosing between 16:9 and 2.39:1, I suppose the types of shots, also you help you choose, right?

I wanted to do a lot of mastershots, similar to the movie High and Low, since High and Low is possibly my most favorite movie in terms of how the shots are storyboarded.

So I would like to do shots like this in the movie:

3 Brilliant Moments of Blocking (in Kurosawa's High and Low) - YouTube

So if you want mostly mastershots, like in High and Low, which aspect ratio is better for shots like that, or do they both work for that?

There are a number of factors that come into consideration.

1. Where is the audience viewing your film? "High and Low" is totally aimed at a cinema release, which is different to if your film is going to be viewed by people watching a streamed video on a mobile phone.

2. The nature of the spaces in your sets. Are they primarily horizontal or vertical? If the latter, the use of a crane/jib is way to adjust vertical spaces into moving horizontal spaces for scope films. There is great use of vertical space in the best 1.33;1 feature films. Generally. horizontal spaces work better with scope, but it depends on the nature of the story.

3. How wide do you want the figures to be? For roughly the same background you can have a CU in the foreground in scope. while in say 1.85:1 it will be an MCU.

Both types will work for roughly similar blocking, just you may find you've got a MCU instead of a CU when you frame it.

Ryan - do you view your projects as Art or Craft? If I was making a movie like the old Lawrence of Arabia - sweeping desert vistas and lots of shots in your mind of hundreds of horseback riders appearing over a sand dune, then your image format is a no brainer - WIDE! Movies, however have been shot in multiple formats over the years and when I was young and you had the main movie, a short, and lots of adverts, each projector change would see the curtains going in and out like yo-yos!

I shoot 16:9, for TV and occasionally when it suits, I'll drop in black top and bottom when it fits the effect and feel I want. Because it looks right! No idea what format it is?

I would say I view them as art. When you ask if I have any idea what format is, what do you mean by format in this context?

There are a number of factors that come into consideration.

1. Where is the audience viewing your film? "High and Low" is totally aimed at a cinema release, which is different to if your film is going to be viewed by people watching a streamed video on a mobile phone.

2. The nature of the spaces in your sets. Are they primarily horizontal or vertical? If the latter, the use of a crane/jib is way to adjust vertical spaces into moving horizontal spaces for scope films. There is great use of vertical space in the best 1.33;1 feature films. Generally. horizontal spaces work better with scope, but it depends on the nature of the story.

3. How wide do you want the figures to be? For roughly the same background you can have a CU in the foreground in scope. while in say 1.85:1 it will be an MCU.

Both types will work for roughly similar blocking, just you may find you've got a MCU instead of a CU when you frame it.

Okay thanks, but I thought that the composition and framing were more important than where the audience is viewing it. For example, if I want a close up of a character, where the rest are in the background like in a 2.39:1 ratio, than isn't the shots I want more important, than whether or not it's in a theater or not?

Knowing how the audience is viewing a film is vital. A large screen in a theatre provides more information to the viewer, than the same film viewed on a mobile phone.

On a large screen you can see more detail, you can let things build within the shot without cutting because the audience can switch their attention within the frame.

Scope films were intended for large screens, not a style statement on a small screen.

Oh okay, but a lot of people seem to enjoy scope films on small screens, cause people still watch them on small screens, and the companies do not pan and scan them. So are people that bothered by it, and if so, why don't the companies pan and scan them then for video release, after theaters?

They did pan and scan in the days of 4 x 3 TV, today they they may do it partly for 16:9 or show them in a cropped 2.20:1 aspect ratio on a more commercial channels. Some channels will letter box to show the whole 2.39:1 aspect ratio..

However, you're not getting the full impact of the film on a small screen, but with the increasing size and resolution of modern TVs you can acheive a similar screen width to viewing distance in the domestic environment.

Oh okay, I didn't think audiences cared cause they watch 2.39:1 movies all the time on smaller screens and they often look like they are in the full ratio to me.

Well chances are the movie will not be shown in theaters outside of festivals, but I was told to always aim for how it will look in theaters, just in case, and any changes for video can be made later. I mean a lot of filmmakers nowadays at festivals seem to shoot in 16:9, with a stereo soundtrack, and I think to myself that they didn't aim as high as they could have, and maybe their movie would have looked better on 2.39:1 on the festival screen, with a 5.1 mix.

Unless I'm looking at it the wrong way...

Formats - the things we're talking about. Frankly, 2.39:1 format is a mathematically accurate and totally meaningless screen ratio. Most TV sets and monitors have inbuilt masking and few now have controls to allow you to shrink/stretch in H and V planes to fit the visible area of the screen. I have one that annoyingly clips the very top of the image so anything placed there is invisible.

Cinamascope wasn't even a fixed ratio - 2.35 to 2.66:1
Academy at 1.375:1

and of course loads of others - designed for specific movies.

I really think that if it's art - then you produce in whatever looks best. However, as pointed out, you are really just throwing pixels away, so definition is pretty fixed, and of course you cannot determine how each TV or projector will deal with your weird shape.

Pan and scan destroys the director's intensions. It satisfies people who want the screen filled, but don't care about the art.

You are not going to find rules for this one Ryan. You're on your own. No policies or industry standards to follow, as with your usual technical questions. This one is art, so there are no wrong choices, because you could make a movie with the image a circle, if there was an artistic need for it.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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'.

Oh okay. I thought that Alien and Die Hard maybe would have benefited by cutting off the sides of the framing more, making the sides of the frame, the unknown from which the threat can appear.

The script I'm planning to direct is a suspense thriller kind of similar in tone and atmosphere to a movie like The Silence of the Lambs or Seven.

The Silence of the Lambs was 1.85, and Seven was 2.39, and the genre and type of feel of the movie seems very similar, at least to me.

So I feel therefore, I am not sure which one to pick. I read that in 2.39:1 is more of a challenge cause you have to find more set pieces to fill the wider frame with but is that true, especially if in 1.85, you have to back up the camera further to fit everyone in for lots of shots, which means that you will see a lot of background still anyway?

Wider will usually need more filling, plus it can be harder to get the light stands etc out of shot.

I suspect you'll just have to go with your gut feeling regarding the aspect radio , because people here can't provide that for you. Only you know the locations, story, action and feel needed and asking more questions won't provide the answers. You should discuss it with your DP, since they are the person who will need to frame your film..

I'm not sure about everyone else, but when I'm ever in a position to make a mistake in the future, I cheat.

If I do not know what format to use, then I shoot taller and frame with the notion of possible cropping later. I tend to zoom out a little wider, and leave some space at the sides. In practice I end up going in a little in the edit - with of course the ability to pan and tilt a little too. in a real movie this would be planned in advance. If I cannot do this, then I shoot knowing it can be adjusted. I also do it when there are booms as the occasional dip happens, so framing a tad wide and not revealing this as an 'unnecessary' feature to the sound folk gives me again, more options. they have their invisible barrier not to cross just a little further away than need be - but they don't need to know that.

Anecdote time. What always surprises me is that people seem afraid to ask questions. I do it all the time. working with some UK big names last week, being old works for me. I was able to go up to the female and quietly explain that her very short skirt would be tricky in the next sequence. She looked me in the eyes and said really, why? I explained and it seemed nobody had mentioned exactly what was coming next. She was very appreciative, and the Director blocked around 'my' problem. She was really grateful, because she told me that nobody would have told her, in case she was cross. I told her that all I cared about was making people look the best I could, and even if she'd been angry I needed to tell her. I got a hug, and a sudden genuine result.

Somewhat annoyingly though - she has also decided I look like a friend of hers - Pete Waterman, so she's calling me Pete now.

Yes, today you don't have to shoot with anamorphic lenses with 2.39;1, you can use "flat" lenses, so decisions can be postponed or changed at a later stage by cropping.

I should qualify "asking more questions won't provide the answers" by "asking more questions here", since we have so many unknowns.

The safe answer is to shoot 16:9, but that may not be the ideal for this particular film, although you may be the only member of the audience who knows.

BTW, You don't need short skirts to have an issue, Female MPs should take care when sitting behind the Prime Minister in the UK parliament when the Prime Minister stands at the dispatch box.

What was Fritz Lang's quip on Cinemascope? "...good only for snakes and funerals"
.
There was much discussion in the film industry when in early 1953 Fox announced that it would film ALL future productions in Cinemascope (which never happened). How to fill the wide screen? It's interesting to look at some of the earlier Cinemascope films to see how this was achieved.