Reasons to use 1.85 or 2.39

[Ocean Zen]

I'm curious.

 

2.39 is often preferred for anything with large outdoor landscapes.

But what other reasons are there to pick 1.85 or 2.39

 

 

I know the choice often comes down to personal preference and content,

but it'd be great to get a list in one thread of good reasons for both.

:)

I'd love to hear from all you pros.

[Max Jacoby]

I don't think it's tied to subject matter at all, just how you prefer to frame and stage the film. If in doubt, take a viewfinder and go have a look at your sets, that should help you to make up your mind.

[Paul Bruening]

What DP said that 2.39 was good only for shooting snakes and trains?

 

Personally, I love 2.39. I love the wide area available for staging players. That lends itself well to more dramatic and longer interactions between players per shot. At the same time, it can be a pain in the butt trying to find something to put in all that dead space on single subject, medium-body shots. It doesn't lend itself well to TV style directing. You know, cutting back and forth between single actors who fill up each frame.

[Ocean Zen]

What DP said that 2.39 was good only for shooting snakes and trains?

 

Personally, I love 2.39. I love the wide area available for staging players. That lends itself well to more dramatic and longer interactions between players per shot. At the same time, it can be a pain in the butt trying to find something to put in all that dead space on single subject, medium-body shots. It doesn't lend itself well to TV style directing. You know, cutting back and forth between single actors who fill up each frame.

Good point. - Thinking about it, a lot of comedies are in 1.85 and they often tend to do the back and forth thing.

 

I'm writing a spec script at the moment that I will direct (a few years away yet). A lot of it takes place outside in the woods, on fields etc, daylight and full moonlight. Probably about 70% is outside, so I'd love to do 2.39.

 

I also like the look of anamorphic 2.39 but I'm now thinking for the night shots outside the shallow depth of field might be a problem.

Maybe if the full moonlight was artificial there would be enough light to stop down the lenses so the dof isn't too shallow.

 

 

Is there anywhere where I can look at lots of film screenshots shot in anamorphic? I found google images to be pretty useless as so many DVDs use anamorphic to fit a film into 4:3 sd dvd.

 

Thanks guys

Edited June 18, 2008 by Ocean Zen

[Chris Burke]

Good point. - Thinking about it, a lot of comedies are in 1.85 and they often tend to do the back and forth thing.

 

I'm writing a spec script at the moment that I will direct (a few years away yet). A lot of it takes place outside in the woods, on fields etc, daylight and full moonlight. Probably about 70% is outside, so I'd love to do 2.39.

 

I also like the look of anamorphic 2.39 but I'm now thinking for the night shots outside the shallow depth of field might be a problem.

Maybe if the full moonlight was artificial there would be enough light to stop down the lenses so the dof isn't too shallow.

 

 

Is there anywhere where I can look at lots of film screenshots shot in anamorphic? I found google images to be pretty useless as so many DVDs use anamorphic to fit a film into 4:3 sd dvd.

 

Thanks guys

 

 

anamorphic doesn't equal shallow depth of field, any format can have that. 2.39 has a grander more dramatic feel to it that lends itself to more dramatic material. I think that what aspect ratio is used IS tied into the subject, contrary to what others have said. Your sets will also be affected by the story, so will your framing. Whether you shoot anamorphic or say 2 perf, you can have as deep a focus as you want.

 

with 2.39, I have heard, I think on these boards, that you can go from the objective to subjective within the same shot. Of course you can do that with 4:3 or anything in between, it is just easier with a scope format.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I too tend to think that the format in which you shoot should be tied to the story. I personally find 2.39 to pit man v/s the environments a bit more (because your char is smaller and generally you see more environment). But that's just my thinking, and it's all totally subjective.

 

Look at Punch Drunk Love for some nice Anamorphic shooting. It's recent and really nicely shows what's possible on today's stocks anamorphically IMHO.

[Ocean Zen]

I too tend to think that the format in which you shoot should be tied to the story. I personally find 2.39 to pit man v/s the environments a bit more (because your char is smaller and generally you see more environment). But that's just my thinking, and it's all totally subjective.

 

Look at Punch Drunk Love for some nice Anamorphic shooting. It's recent and really nicely shows what's possible on today's stocks anamorphically IMHO.

 

Good idea - I started to look for stills from specific films and got loads.

 

One of my favourite shots

Edited June 18, 2008 by Ocean Zen

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Blade runner was definitally beautiful..

 

As for anamorphic in comedy, Bridget Jones Diary was framed for 2.39:1, though I'm not sure off hand whether or not it was shot with anamorphics or just cropped.

[John Sprung]

Yes, singles are awkward in 2.39. But for the walk'n'talk three shot it's perfect.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Ocean Zen]

Yes, singles are awkward in 2.39. But for the walk'n'talk three shot it's perfect.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

What's a three shot?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

A shot comprised of 3 people.

[Giovanni Speranza]

Widescreen has to do with our eye's nature.

Try to look at a square image. I will seem vertical.

The 4:3 ratio instead seems square.

But our eyes are horizontally aligned and we have a widescreen sight.

Widescreen film is more natural for our sight.

[John Sprung]

I don't buy the idea of any particular film format being "natural" to our sight. We don't have frame lines, film does.

There's stuff in front of me that I can see, and stuff behind me that I can't see. But I'm not at all aware of the boundary.

 

Film has composition, everyday life doesn't. Everything in a flim should be controlled, selected, intended for a purpose.

That's what makes it worth our while to make and watch films. That's why it's an art.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Arni Heimir]

What DP said that 2.39 was good only for shooting snakes and trains?

 

Personally, I love 2.39. I love the wide area available for staging players. That lends itself well to more dramatic and longer interactions between players per shot. At the same time, it can be a pain in the butt trying to find something to put in all that dead space on single subject, medium-body shots. It doesn't lend itself well to TV style directing. You know, cutting back and forth between single actors who fill up each frame.

Fritz Lang

[Chris Keth]

What DP said that 2.39 was good only for shooting snakes and trains?

 

So it would be the perfect format for Snakes on a Train.

[Frank Barrera]

if we could forego the aesthetic discussion for a moment let's remember that a common decider of aspect ratio is the distributor.

Obviously they have little concern of storytelling or framing or whatever. they just pay the bills and make it all happen.

 

I have shot two features and the aspect ratio was not something that I and the director could discuss. It would be 16 X 9 or nothing.

[Freya Black]

What DP said that 2.39 was good only for shooting snakes and trains?

 

It's "snakes and Funerals!" trains didn't come into the matter!

As has already been suggested it was a quote from the great director Fritz Lang.

 

love

 

Freya

[David Rakoczy]

2:39 (whether anamorphic or spherical) also lends itself more to Overhead and Under Lens lighting.

[Michael LaVoie]

The differences go beyond the screen size. Anamorphic lenses are way heavier and longer and that affects your decision. It's difficult to shoot in practical tight locations with anamorphic lenses. They are also slower and that can play a role. There's also a spherical format called Super 35 which will give you the same aspect ratio without the distortion of scope glass which may or may not be desired. Some love the flares and other characteristics of scope glass. Super 35 however requires an optical blowup and can lead to a slightly softer picture, unless you're doing a DI but that's another reason why some might go with anamorphic. Visual Effects also play a key role. Many concerns beyond the screen size.

 

I've found that anamorphic projection in movie theaters tends to look like ass also because most projectionists today are high school students who really don't give a crap. Union projection is all but gone outside NY and other major cities and you'll often see misaligned lenses and things will look crooked, out of focus on the sides and just generally soft so your best opportunity to show your film in a multiplex is really subject to a 17 year old choosing to care whether it looks right. I'd rather stick to the 1:85 ratio and avoid the issue altogether. On DVD and home theater projection, 2:35 will mean a screen that is 40% blacked out. This is because there are no 2:35 televisions and home theater projection will require an anamorphic lens. These are very expensive items that also require a large space for the increased screen size. Most people won't own an anamorphic lens so although I love the look of 2:35, it's getting increasingly hard to justify providing a smaller picture to your audience. The original intention of 2:35 was to provide a larger picture.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Michael LaVoie

[Leo Anthony Vale]

What DP said that 2.39 was good only for shooting snakes and trains?

 

Personally, I love 2.39. I love the wide area available for staging players. That lends itself well to more dramatic and longer interactions between players per shot. At the same time, it can be a pain in the butt trying to find something to put in all that dead space on single subject, medium-body shots. It doesn't lend itself well to TV style directing. You know, cutting back and forth between single actors who fill up each frame.

 

Actually it was Fritz Lang & snakes and funerals.

Marcus Aurelius' funeral in the snow in 'The fall of the Roman Empire' is among the highlights of 70mm wide screen.

 

Think of it as negative space rather than dead space.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

As for anamorphic in comedy, Bridget Jones Diary was framed for 2.39:1, though I'm not sure off hand whether or not it was shot with anamorphics or just cropped.

 

There's all those Billy Wilder Panvision movies, 'One, Two, Three', 'Kiss Me, Stupid', 'The Fortune Cookie', 'The Seven year Itch' Well C'Scope)...

Frank Tashlin CinemaScope comedies 'The Girl Can't Help It', 'Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?'

& even all those Blake Edwards comedies.

[John Sprung]

.... & even all those Blake Edwards comedies.

It makes sense. Drama plays a lot in ones and twos. In comedy, a third or fourth person's reaction to what the first two are saying to each other is often what makes it funny. So, you get more three shots and up in comedy.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

I gotta' hang with John on this one. Sure you can make do with one person in all that space but it's a lot of dead space no matter where it falls. Look at Speilberg's compositions. He goes to great lengths to use foreground/background staging. I'm sure he has many good reasons for doing that. But, whatever his principle motivations, he avoids the dead space you end up with so often in scope framing.

 

Agreeably, there are some moments when a sense of smallness or alienation may be served by all that dead space. It's even a good time to play bokeh games. But for the most part, someone standing in all that space can seem awkward.

[Dan Goulder]

I gotta' hang with John on this one. Sure you can make do with one person in all that space but it's a lot of dead space no matter where it falls. Look at Speilberg's compositions. He goes to great lengths to use foreground/background staging. I'm sure he has many good reasons for doing that. But, whatever his principle motivations, he avoids the dead space you end up with so often in scope framing.

 

Agreeably, there are some moments when a sense of smallness or alienation may be served by all that dead space. It's even a good time to play bokeh games. But for the most part, someone standing in all that space can seem awkward.

Don't limit yourself by imposing a fixed, relative, imagined concept of "all that empty space". There are infinite ways of framing a shot, even a closeup. Neither theatrical aspect ratio needs to be treated as a "limitation".

 

Although there are many more modern examples, look at the Leone movies. Although they do include panaramic shots, as you well know, they are most famous for their closeups... and those famous closeups make such great use of 'scope framing that it would be hard to imagine them having the same impact in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

[Paul Bruening]

Don't limit yourself by imposing a fixed, relative, imagined concept of "all that empty space". There are infinite ways of framing a shot, even a closeup. Neither theatrical aspect ratio needs to be treated as a "limitation".

 

Although there are many more modern examples, look at the Leone movies. Although they do include panaramic shots, as you well know, they are most famous for their closeups... and those famous closeups make such great use of 'scope framing that it would be hard to imagine them having the same impact in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

 

Yea, I'm okay with the close-ups in scope. But, you know, the medium body single is the hub of editing and movie making. I don't mean that no other shots are used. It's just that you can make an entire movie out of medium body singles. As dependable a work horse as that shot is, it happens to be the glaringly worst shot in scope to work with. You have to goof with the scene or the shot to do something about a person standing in all that purposeless space. It's not just about making the dead space interesting. It's about putting something in the dead space that fills it a little, yet, doesn't make the viewer look over at any of the stuff other than the medium body single subject. I love how Stevie-boy does it. He sometimes puts stuff of lesser interest in the frame as BG or FG elements. These BG and FG elements do something with the frame to give it purpose but not distract the attention unless he needs it to. My God, he's fargin' good at that. You can see it evolving in his technique from Duel, to Sugarland, to Jaws.