2:1?

[Vince Sweeney]

Can someone help me understand the thinking behind the 2:1 ratio? I was watching the surprisingly impressive House of Cards and noticed what might be 2:1. Trying to grasp why, overall, this is something appearing lately, esp. given that 99% of displays where this, and most content is seen, is 1.78.

 

[Alan Piper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

 

[Sergio Perez]

Can someone help me understand the thinking behind the 2:1 ratio? I was watching the surprisingly impressive House of Cards and noticed what might be 2:1. Trying to grasp why, overall, this is something appearing lately, esp. given that 99% of displays where this, and most content is seen, is 1.78.

I shoot mainly in this aspect ratio. Gives me room for certain reframing situations as well as post stabilization. Just keep my guides for both 2:35 and 1:78 on.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

Alan, thank you for the very interesting post, I had no idea Vittorio was behind this. I for one would love to see 2:1 become a more mainstream format for tv.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I have been a fan of 2:1 Univision since the start, and not only because of Storaro being Italian...

 

[Timur Civan]

I love 2:1, just shot a short in that aspect.

 

[Daniel Soderberg]

I shoot 2:1 every time a client wants a 2.4:1 ratio finish to give them room to adjust the image in post.
I just set guides to 2.4:1

 

[Mark K.]

I really like 2:1, I haven't had the opportunity to shoot anything in it yet, but it splits the difference between 2.35 and 1.78, and I find it a happier medium for cinematic framing.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I personally think 2.00 is a crappy choice because it's not an industry standard. I think theaters are set up for 1.85 or 2.40, and HD monitors are set up for 1.78 (very close to 1.85). Anything else is just an intellectual diversion to me.

I think people need to worry more about telling the story and making good pictures and not so much fretting about aspect ratios per se. There have been brilliant pictures shot in very conventional, ordinary aspect ratios. Hell, the Godfather movies were shot in 1.85, and they're plenty big and impressive in the theater. Shoot in 2.00, and all you wind up with is a smaller picture on average screens and displays.

Sometimes, maximum vertical height is more important than screen width.

 

[Vince Sweeney]

Agree, so far, with Marc. I don't see the benefit in most situations, or at least those I personally focus on.

Some questions responding to the other comments:

Why would someone shoot in 2:1 if a director wants to finish in 2.4? Why not 1.78? Does that not give you just that much more to work with in case re-framing is needed? Also, why would it be good for TV production? TV's are 1.78. Are you saying a small black bar at the top and bottom is good? Why? I see 2.4, obviously, but 2 does seem like a distraction.

So some people are framing this way just for the sake of tablets/phones? Are things like Kindle HD's, not optimized for "HD"? I didn't know they were 2:1, if that is the case.

 

[Mark K.]

I don't think many people consider it a practical choice Vince, but rather an aesthetic one. It's a widescreen format that fits less-objectionably than 2.40 into the 16:9 screens we view most content on these days.

 

[Marc Wielage]

So some people are framing this way just for the sake of tablets/phones? Are things like Kindle HD's, not optimized for "HD"? I didn't know they were 2:1, if that is the case.

Actually, the aspect ratio of iPads is currently just 1.33 (4x3). I believe the Windows Surface and a handful of others did embrace 16x9.

I worry more about the changes in color space (sRGB vs. Rec709) and gamma (1.8 vs. 2.2) between a HD project destined for broadcast vs. a project destined for the Web. This explains why a lot of well-shot material sometimes winds up looking wonky when it gets posted on the web.

To me, picture height is of huge importance, and I think people get so wrapped up in width, they don't realize how small their image is becoming on an average HD set or in a theater.