Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Aspect Ratio'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cinematography News
    • Lighting
    • Camera Operating
    • AC's & DIT's
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Grading, DI and Telecine
    • Students and New Filmmakers
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Camera Accessories & Tools
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Business Practices
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Regional Cinematography Groups
  • Not Cinematography
    • Producing
    • Directing
    • Sound
    • Editing
    • Off-Topic
    • Forum Support

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My Gear


Found 12 results

  1. Hi everybody, I have a question related to the film To the Wonder by Terrence Malick. In an interview for the American Cinematographer magazine, director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki says that for “To the Wonder we did some tests and decided on the compromise of going 2.35 but shooting spherical— partly because I really, really love the sharp, clean Master Primes. We also went with spherical because we were shooting in a lot of houses.” Since Lubezki speaks about the 'compromise' of going 2.35 but shooting spherical, my question is: does that mean that they shot super 35 and then cropped the image, therefore loosing some part of the original frame? Thanks!
  2. Hello, When would be a use to film in 4K DCI or 2K DCI (1.90:1)? I apologies if this seems like a obvious answer but I have found a obvious answer and thought It’d be best to ask experienced Camera Crew. Thank you for your time.
  3. I hope some knowledgeable person here can help me settle something. I'm assisting a friend with setting up his animation project , which at first was going to be done at 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio at 1920 x 1080 , but he is now considering whether to work at 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio. I thought that 1.85:1 was 2048 x 1107 and that 16:9 was 2048 x 1152 because on several different websites I've found handy 'Aspect Ratio cheat sheets' posted which give those numbers, for example here : https://dannybribiesca.com/aspectratio/ , and here: https://www.unravel.com.au/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet and here: https://blog.chameleondg.com/post/111891072017/resolution-aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet which all give the 2K square pixel resolution for 1.85:1 aspect ratio as 2048 x 1107 . (and for 16:9 they list the number 2048 x 1152) However, my friend put this to an editor of long-time experience and was told by the editor: "I've always worked at 2048 x 1080 , I've never heard of the number 2048 x 1107" . Well, that set me back ... What does that mean? Also, in terms of 16:9 the 'Aspect Ratio cheat sheets' referred to above all give the 2K pixel resolution for 16:9/1.78:1 aspect ratio as 2048 x 1152, however another article I found while doing my research insists that 2048 x 1152 (for 16:9 aspect ratio) is a wrong, ("a total crock") , that 16:9 2K resolution is not 2048 x 1152 , but rather 2048 x 1080 . http://endcrawl.com/blog/2048x1152-is-a-total-crock/ This article says: This is confusing. 2048 x 1107 seems to be mathematically correct for 1.85:1 aspect ratio , not 2048 x 1080 . (or 1998 x 1080 according to http://endcrawl.com/blog/2048x1152-is-a-total-crock/ ) Likewise 2048 x 1152 seems to be mathematically correct for 16:9/1.78:1 aspect ratio . Why would that article say "2048 x 1152 is a total crock" ? Can anyone clarify this for me ? If one were going to work at 1.85:1 aspect ratio should the project be originated at 2048 x 1107 or 2048 x 1080 ?
  4. I am trying to find if any major tv series were broadcast in scope aspect ratio? I know some shows such as The Walking Dead and True Detective s02 were shot anamorphic with a 16:9 extraction, but looking on line I was not able to find any series broadcast in scope except a british show called Broadchurch which apparently was shot anamorphic for 2:1 screening. Also the great doco Wild Wild Country was shot scope (seems anamorphic). Any other thoughts?
  5. Hello everyone! I´m preparing a class for filmmakers students, and I want them to consider the aspect ratio of their projects. We are going to use American Hustle (2013, Dir.: David O. Russell - DP: Linus Sandgren) to analyze the use of the aspect ratio. The first thing I will show, it will be the same frame with different aspect ratio: Original In 1.89:1 In 16:9 In 4:3 It would be great if you can share some of your tips on how you decide your own aspect ratio for your projects. Thanks! Emilio.
  6. Hey folks, My school likes to go through color lab for film processing/telecines, but it seems as though they are limited only (as evidenced by the telecine form) to 4:3 and 16:9 Aspect Ratios. Shooting on Super 16, I framed for the native AR of 1.66 and would prefer not to crop the top and bottom of my frames -- even if it's still "...the same basic shape" as they put it. Are there any other easy to use/ship to and quality labs that can telecine our rolls at a 1.66? Thanks in advance! Any help is appreciated.
  7. If I decide to film something in 4K, and some years from now TV channels around the world decide to broadcast their content in 8K as the new standard, how will my 4K film appear on an 8K screen? What happens in the reverse case, if I show a higher-resolution video on a lower-resolution screen?
  8. Hey everyone, just thought I'd mention this interesting development. I work in projection and when I received the trailers for Tomorrowland I found it interesting that it did not fill the scope frame, instead being shown cropped to 2.20:1. In fact I just received the film and I find out that it must be shown like this. The first modern film to be shown in this format. Not only that after setting it up you can enter a contest as a projectionist if you set it up properly. Very interested to see if this is a new trend, as I cannot see Regal being exact in their projection of this film, instead they will just run it in flat. What do you think of the new format? Personally I feel it is the perfect framing, not to wide or tall, about perfect for my eyes. However there is no natural way to capture this aspect ratio besides cropping the final image for most cameras so it's a bit of an acquisition nightmare.
  9. So 65mm has an aspect ratio of 2.20:1, but does it give you a wider horizontal FOV like the anamorphic process does? That is, if I were to slap an 80mm lens on a 65mm camera and a 32mm lens on S35(cropped to 2.20:1) would it give me the same image in terms of spatial compression and horizontal FOV? Or would I have to shoot on a 50mm Anamorphic lens and crop the sides? This is all hypothetical of course-I'm just trying to get a grasp on the 65mm format so I can further appreciate the films that utilized the process.
  10. Shooting with Sony F5, the idea is to have a final film with a cinemascope look once it'll be projected. I know I can't have the choice but to shoot with the native aspect ration of 17:9 of the F5, I'll so put the letterboxing markers (2.4) that crops the native aspect ratio. My question is: do I lose lots of resolution once I put 2.4 mattes on the 17:9 native to create the cinemascope look? What could be the solutions? If I shoot 4K external could be a better compromise to the loss of resolution? Since I'm recording with an higher resolution then the internal 2K? (When I set the mattes in the camera, do I record already with them? or the markers are just guide lines that help me framing knowing what would be the cinemascope look at the end?) If I shoot with Red Epic (Dragon sensor), what could be the best aspect ratio settings for a final cinemascope look? 6 wide, or do I crop later with the mattes? I can't use any anamorphic so I can't take this possibility into account. Thanks a lot for any help!
  11. Hi everyone, I am a very new "Cinematographer/director" I have no experience and I am trying to learn some fundametals, some of the questions come to my mind about frame Aspect ratio, Why would a Cinematographer choose 16:9 over 2.35:1 for example or vise versa ? and how does this effect the story? And there is some movies where you can see both of tha aspect ratio like for example Chris Nolan's Batman the dark knight rises where he used 35 mm in most of the movie where the aspect ration are 2.35:1 or so and Imax 65 or 70 mm in a lot of the scenes where the aspect ratio is 16:9. doesn't this effect the harmony of the film ?? Screen shots from Batman the dark knight rises
  12. Hello, I'm going to be shooting my first feature in a few months. It's going to be a low budget project. I'll be wearing multiple hats. Even though I will be working with some great people I like to get 2nd opinions on the best way to approach problems. The first issue is I'll be shooting on epic at 2.35:1. I will also be shooting on the Canon XA20 at 16X9 and 5D at 16X9. The problem is knowing what I'm capturing when shooting 16X9. Obviously when it's in AVID you can apply a 2.35:1 mask, but then it's cutting off your footage. I know END OF WATCH used similar cameras and finished 1.85:1. SNITCH used similar cameras and finished 2.35:1. Even BLACK SWAN finished 2.35:1 and shot scenes with the 7D. I know there is no way they just shot and crossed their fingers that nothing would be cut off when shooting 16X9. There must be some workflow when doing this. I don't want to guess. The bulk of the film will be shot on Epic and then I have found footage with the other 2 cameras. I want the shoot 2.35:1 so what should I do? Also any opinions on the Canon XA20. END OF WATCH used the XA10. I wanted to spend around 2000 for a camera with XLR inputs. Also since its found footage i wanted a fixed lense so I can run and gun and not be pulling focus. Thanks for the help.
  • Create New...