Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Aspect Ratio of 2.857142...

Shawn Nelson

Shawn Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,595
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Portland, OR
I've noticed a rash of top level music videos being released at 640x224, which is the tremendously odd aspect ratio of 2.85714285714286:1. Wtf? Where is this coming from? The closest thing I can find is the old Cinerama 3-strip aspect ratio of How the West Was Won of 2.89:1

It's definitely fun and interesting (after all, 16x9 is the new 4x3), but such an arbitrary aspect ratio to be repeated across several A list music videos seems weird. Or is it a tech deliverable for iTunes by Apple as a compromise instead of 3:1?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Ben's correct.

It's the Emperor's new clothes syndrome... it's fashionable to have a video shot on anamorphic lenses and go 'ultra-wide'. The high profile clips (big budget ones) are often Alexa (sometimes Epic/Scarlet), but all are shot on a 16:9 sensor and then de-squeezed.

It's a trend that started with DSLR's, where zooming into the cropped (to give the correct aspect ratio) will result in quality loss... and then it became fairly common to see this extreme ratio used. What you end up with is an 'ultra-wide' pillarbox effect. Obviously, if shooting on RED in 4K or over using this style, you could easily correct the ratio... but it's new being perceived as added production value.

Music videos go in cycles.

Check out the various anamorphic threads for thoughts on this.
 
They still must be cropping however, since a 2X anamorphic on a 16x9 (1.78) sensor gives you a 3.56 : 1 aspect ratio once unsqueezed. To get that 2.8571... ratio natively with a 2X anamorphic, your recording/sensor would have to be 1.43 : 1 and I don't know of any camera that does that.
 
Most of the videos I've seen in the 'extreme wide' anamorphic style are all 3:56:1 (corrected) within a 1920X1080 frame, so I don't think there's any cropping going on - just a direct A/R correction...

However, I suppose other ratios might just be over zealous uses of black mattes - to fake the look (?).

Maybe the OP can link to (or list) some of the promo clips he's thinking of? The stuff I'm thinking of is exemplified by the Taylor Swift video - and this is 2X on 16:9.

 
Ahh - not the ultrawide ones... the semi ultra-wide - LOL

At a rough guess that's around 1920X716 (or thereabouts - maybe 720).

Looks like an Alexa (XT) with 4:3 and anamorphic lenses. There's a wider FOV on them... this is something I've been noticing on UK TVC's/commercials and bumpers/stings (the anamorphic look combined with Alexas is very popular in the UK - even being used for grocery ads!). I'd put the A/R difference down to the Alexa and 4:3... but I could be wrong and someone in post could just be adding more of a black crop at the top and bottom :)

Not used a 4:3 Alexa myself, so maybe David or someone else can chip in?

Edit - wish I'd watched the Imagine Dragons clip rather than the Selena Gomez one!

BTW - here's a a random TVC in the same format/AR as the promos...

 
Last edited:
Suited for snakes and funerals...

Also it really messes with the heads of some AVS forum people, who think there is a "standard aspect ratio", and I find that very amusing.
I kind of like it, I guess it´s the eternal search to go somewhere where the other people are not going...
 
Andy White said:
Most of the videos I've seen in the 'extreme wide' anamorphic style are all 3:56:1 (corrected) within a 1920X1080 frame, so I don't think there's any cropping going on - just a direct A/R correction...

However, I suppose other ratios might just be over zealous uses of black mattes - to fake the look (?).

Maybe the OP can link to (or list) some of the promo clips he's thinking of? The stuff I'm thinking of is exemplified by the Taylor Swift video - and this is 2X on 16:9.

Click to expand...

This looks great. What camera and lenses were used?
 
Matt W. said:
This looks great. What camera and lenses were used?
Click to expand...

From the look, I'd say that's an Alexa with anamorphic lenses (I'd guess again at Hawks).
 
Do any of you guys "condone" the use of 2.857141? Or has anyone insisted you go wider than 2.40:1 or 2.76:1 even? I personally think its way too wide....my sister was freaking out over some Justin Beiber music video that was either 2.89:1 or 3.56:1 even....either way it was too wide....especially when you run the numbers and realize that the vertical resolution just gets completely sucked up. I think 2.85...:1 or whatever is weird though because David said there isn't a 1.43:1 digital sensor that I can think of unless its the result of maybe a hard Matte effect in After Effects, Premiere, FCP, etc. I did use an anamorphic lens once and tested out 3.56:1 and I remember it was just too wide....maybe on a Red you could zoom into 2.40:1 but on a DSLR thats just wrong :O :O I just hope this doesn't become some new trend that everyone wants...another excuse for 1.33x anamorphics to get more popular and cheaper XD
 
Looks great to me. Vertical resolution isn't altered by anamorphic lenses; its horizontal resolution, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top