You should actually make a movie in 5.3:1. That's the equivalent of three 16:9 screens next to each other. With ultra wide screens becoming more and more popular, you'll create a movie experience that is either very artsy on a normal screen or very immersive on an ultra wide screen. The reason I'm here actually, to learn more on how to achieve just that. Edit: I’ve found that a more realistic approach would be a 32:9 aspect ratio, or the width of 2 screens. This actually comes close to an anamorphic ratio and I truly can see the benefit of it being the renewed standard. Not only for film, but in general for workspaces and online content alike.
I feel like it ties right into this aspect ratio video.. aspect ratios are much more than adding black bars to your footage and many i feel are not aware.. im particularly interested in how anamorphic squeezes the image to fit more into the frame over a spherical lens
@@StudioBinder I'll take anything you can cover on that subject, the history, the use of it, when is it necessary, why should I shoot or not shoot with ana lens, etc! Thanks for responding!
Here's the thing with the anamorphic, I understand it when used on analogue film. You squeeze the image to get more width into the standard frame and when you project it, you do it through anmorphic lens on the projector and get... cinemascope. But what happens with digital? If you shoot anamorphic on HD wouldn't you (computer) need to add missing pixels in software (effectively double the horizontal resolution)... what would be ending resolution... 3960x1080? And what about PAR (pixel aspect ratio) that is 1:1? And if you would like to avoid computer meddling and software interpolation wouldn't you need some weird resolution and (especially) PAR. All of this said, anamorphic lenses give quite an image nevertheless.
This was very illuminating for me. I've puzzled over the choice many times. I usually have had a "feeling" of what seemed suitable, but I've never really known why, until this explanation. Thank you!
Most but not all of my favorite films are shot in 2.35. I think what you say about height and intimacy concerning the other aspect ratios has validity, but there is also the matter of film makers being aware that a large portion of their audience will see their work on DVD or whatever they use at home, and I think that also plays into the decision about aspect ratio. because it converts much easier to a smaller format. On the other hand, there are a lot of films made where decisions about things like aspect ration are made by producers. There are only a handful out of thousands of directors who have the clout to make those kinds decisions on their own...There's so much more to say about this but i already took way too much of your time..lol
Truly appreciate your support! If you like this content, feel free to check out our blog: studiobinder.com/blog/ It's a great resource for any filmmaking-related topic. Enjoy! 🎬
specifically I want to know how to use dual lights to enhance storytelling (scarlet + blue and green +yellow colours, focussing on season 1 and season 2) and a detailed analysis of Season 3 episode 1( focussing about how to frame your shots when you are expressing a theme of "Resurrection" , and lastly season 3 Episode 5( the black n white scene) about how to shoot a perfect scene where you are showcasing the backstory of a Character within just 5 or 6 minutes
Thank you for this video. I used 16:9 in the past for an unfinished student film. I'm interested in exploring shot composition for a future animation style test. The style I'm researching is motion comic animation. There is this motion comic series of the Watchmen comic on RU-vid that use some interesting framing compositions in many of the scenes within the series. The animation is very limited but the storytelling is strong in how the subjects are framed in each shot. I know the scenes of the comic are from the original Watchmen comic but I want to explore how to use shot composition in a similar manner to tell an engaging story.
Thsi video helped out a lot lol been down with you guys for years. I had my disagreements with the 3 act structure thing. But thanks for the help guys. God Bless you all an everyone reading this stumbling upon this video.
Came to this video late in the game, but thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a freelance composer, but I've wanted to experiment with filming different activities as my own original source material. Many thanks!
This is great. I could never get my head around aspect ratio before this video. I always thought of aspect ratio in terms of letterboxing and pillaring. For example, in my mind, a wide aspect ratio would simply give you black bars at the top and bottom of your screen - I.e letterboxing - which would give you a "filmy" look. The Christopher Nolan comparison at 6:56 helped me understand the aspect ratio is actually about the composition of the shot and shape of the frame, for want of a better term!
Very informative video. I’m a 2.35:1 guy... where ever possible! Always pushing my clients in commercials to go for the more cinematic look especially when shooting on anamorphics. I’ll be shooting my ambitious Star Wars fan film ORIGINS in this aspect too as it’s all about landscapes. You can follow the journey of this crazy film I’m making on my channel. Thanks for the video, StudioBinder!
Happy to see our video essay helped! 2:35 is a great aspect ratio, but if you're making content to be viewed on mobile devices (which the majority of content is consumed nowadays), you might want to consider more modern aspect ratios that utilize the entire screen. I.e. 1:1, 1:135, etc.).
@@StudioBinder Big nope. 1:1 just isn't cinematic enough. Folks will just have to turn their phones landscape. Old school! Plus, cinema will always be widescreen format. These kids these days aren't going to change that! That said, I have shot commercials specifically for 9:16 and rotated the camera 90 degrees on the head to achieve max resolution. Here's an example... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iZDdIHzpPdk.html
@@StudioBinder Yeah, it is shorter sorry! It was designed for the Facebook platform - I shouldn't use shorthand on a video that's specifically about aspect ratio - but what I meant was for portrait format. And thanks! It was a fun gig.
Well... Storaro claimed that the perfect ratio was 2:1, the golden ratio is somewhere in the lines of 1.62:1, cinemascope is best filmed anamorphic... etc, etc... I stick with the 16:9 (1.78:1) untill they start making monitors and tv's in 2:1 ratio 😉
Im working on a film for my nonprofit. I can use the large landscapes and beautiful environment to help tell the story yet my film will be more about the students and staff that bring this environment to life so thanks to this video Im going to pick the 1.85 1 aspect ratio because the documentary/realism of my message- Big thanks for the content!!!
a good example of great use of aspect ratio is in the film 'mommy' (2014) directed by xaiver dolan, those who have seen it know what i'm talking about! if you haven't i'd definitely recommend checking it out
Great Video, but there's a bit of incorrect information: You said Paintings don't tell a story through time but there are many pieces that do and are framed in varying ways. Tribute Money by Masaccio being the first that comes to mind
I would argue that those paintings compress time to one moment in an effort to squeeze a whole story into a single frame. I thought at first that you were going to point to triptychs or other forms of sequential painting, where - arguably - the use of multiple frames allows a narrative to unfold through time... a very (very!) early precursor to the sequence of frames in a reel of film!
@@oxrockproductions Paintings by Masacio included some Frescos, which were essentially multi-framed murals for one story. My bad, should've included those in my comment :)
The video does a good job at highlighting the differences and benefits of 1:85 and 2:35 and touches on more exotic ratios such as vertical but how about 16:9? What ratios should be used shooting a commercial (for Web or mobile viewers) or something that will be broadcast on TV? ie: how to select the best ratios based on the medium used to watch? Thank you
Not to nitpick but technically, in digital times, DCPs tend to be 1.89 flat and 2.39 scope I think, for theatrical. I'm not a DCP tech though. Personally I love custom ratios like Storaro's univisium 2:1, in which he has shot much of his work over the last 20 years. House of Cards was also finished in 2:1. And I love the old Todd-AO 70mm ratio of 2.20:1 which is what I use for work intended to be screened at festivals and stuff. Seeing a 70mm print of 2001 or Lawrence should give you the original master 2.2:1 ratio. These movies are NOT 2.39 widescreen though ironically they may be the quintessential "scope" films in people's minds. Mindhunter is the main recent mainstream title that uses 2.2 ratio, for reference. That is why 2:1. and 2.2:1 are my most used ratios. Can't go wrong following Kubrick's, Lean's, Storaro's and Finch's lead. These are some of the greatest visual composers of their time, all working in relatively "unusual" boundaries for their medium.
I used to really dislike vertical video, and for a narrative film, I still prefer a landscape format. But, for social media content etc, I see that it works well, because most people view this type of content on their phone, vertically.
when ever i can animate again I plan on using an aspect ratio of 23:15, which is the in between of a 1:1, 2:1, & square plus the distance from my eye to the other
They tell stories through time or over time? I too like wide cinemascope for amazing scenery and landscape and 1.85 for the rest... although I do watch a lot of youtube so I guess 16:9 is great too.
My issue with aspect ratios outside a movie theatre is that you're not showing a wider image, you're just showing more of the black bars on your TV or device. I remember that moment watching a movie in a theatre when the curtains would widen, revealing the full projection screen, and the lights would dim to blackness, and your field of view would be filled with the opening credits to a presentation. But when you're sat at home watching the TV, or your PC screen, the screen doesn't get wider, and instead you are presented with a vertically narrowing image, and you feel like a third of the screen is being hidden from you. It just doesn't work. I've even watched comedies made for TV that have a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and it looks ridiculous to have those massive black bars on my 16:9 TV. So unless you're making a movie for theatres, you're not going wider, you're actually going shorter.
I have been using 16:9 because it is the size of my computer screen, I thought I was going to do computer animation strictly for internet, but now I am considering going to film festivals. I've put a lot of work into the scenery and scenes. It is going to be from a cat's point of view, so I think I want to use a higher aspect ratio to capture the height of things. I kind a also want to capture the large scenery as well, I might stick to 16:9 but I am considering the 1.85:1. I think this is what Blender studios used for their latest film and I think it looks good. I am going to have to experiment on this. Thanks for your info.
4:00 The DVD definition is 720x480 but pixels are not square, so the ratio is 4/3 or 16/9 depending of the content. Aspects ratios and definitions are not always equivalent.
Yep, our video is more on the viewing experience, but spherical vs. anamorphic would be a great idea. Should we make a video essay on this in the future?
@@StudioBinder mmm.... so I noticed a lot of new to semi new filmmakers hire their friends to operate the boom mic - so if they are going to have a friend doing it then maybe a video to help their friends know the basics of operating a boom mic. I would love to see something more business oriented, dealing with clients, contracts, working on notes and feedback on a project. These are the biggest problems I have. Maybe also rates, but that's a hard one cause it all depends on the work and the state one is working out of. I'm not sure.... If I think of something better I will def comment. When I started I thought the camera would get the shot but quickly found out that it's all about lighting - so maybe an episode all about cinematography. I can't think of anything right now other than those subjects. :)
I totally desagree with you about shot in 1.85.1 is better for catch taller things or into vertical, i shot into 2.55.1 and i can have exactly the same vertical or taller things than any aspect ratio used., but with much wider detailed screen from its origin thats all, accept if its a cropped screen for sure. I shot with my smartphone with modifed cam on it. This is what Cinemascope is all about. I think that its just a question of choice, not much.
Awesome video, so well produced and gave me a lot to think about. What aspect ration would you use for short-form social media ads? I produce videos like this and some people like the vertical aspect ratio you talked about for Instagram to fill up more space and therefore get more attention.
I think it depends on the platform. FB seems to like 16x9. Instagram might be a better home for 1:1 squares. In the past, I've nested 16x9 videos in a 1:1 square, which allowed me to add additional text and graphics around the video frame (it was a short film trailer, and on Instagram, it included festival laurels at the top and bottom)
Let's say you made a film about a snapchat story or some shit like that where everything is supposed to feel like I was recording me and my friends on some journey and it was meant to be played on phone I think it would be cool it would make the film look more realistic to a regular everyday life but posting it on RU-vid and having the borders ruins the whole feel I wouldn't do it but that's the only reason I can think of for someone to actually use it
Yep, that's a good point. Every platform deserves a tailored aspect ratio to get viewers engaged in the content easier. For example, making a 9:16 video is perfect for Snapchat or Instagram, but it wouldn't look good on RU-vid since the aspect ratio is wider. Which aspect ratio doesn't get used enough in your opinion?
I'm sorry... Is the guy hosting this episode related to me??? Jesus Christ, like s bigger version of me maybe. lol. Plus I can rock out the same sweet facial hair. OK, back to watching the video.
@@StudioBinder you guys keep putting out amazing content, to the point and yes, I know you have a product that you mention at the end of every episode and I actually like that. Keep making great content like this.
This is what I think: 16:9 for ur normal youtube videos u do everytime 21:9 for music videos, lyric videos and TV stuff without tall stuff like dinosaurs 18:9 or 16:9 for TV stuff with tall stuff in like dinosaurs
