Choose: 1.85 or 2.35 perspective?

[Chris Pickle]

The thing about 2.35 is, it's really a theatrical format and it requires that the audience be given enough time to view the frame cut to cut in order to achieve it's best potential. I don't think it's that successful a format when used handheld or with high tempo cutting. Long, fluid tracking shots and good steadicam work look nice in 2.35, but in the hands of a smash cut MTV editor, your eye is led kinetically through the frame and your field of view narrows based on the movement of the action. I think it is also difficult to achieve a real sense of intimacy with the actors in 2.35 sometimes, because as David points out, you tend to have more of the surroundings in the frame. I think it maintains an emotional distance between the audience and the actors, because it becomes somewhat disconcerting to push in on someone's face too closely in 2.35. I don't get those reactions in 1.85.

It's important to note that I'm basing my opinions on a theatrical presentation. I hate 2.35 letterboxed on DVD, first of all, you lose the scale of it unless you have an 8 foot screen. Most people that will see the film on DVD have much smaller viewing environments. Since the film will be in the theatre for a week or two and then on DVD (or whatever) for years and years, why not give the film it's best chance at finding an audience in the arena or venue where the most people will discover it?

I love 2.35 in the theatre, it's great, who doesn't. But IMHO, all the scale and gravitas that aspect ratio is suited for when the image overwhelms you, is utterly lost when it's letterboxed on a 42 inch plasma. I've seen films that use it just for the sake of using 2.35 when the story, tone and environment they're shooting in is best suited to 1.85. Kinda like "Look at this EPIC day care center we shot!"

I love discussions like these, they are very enlightening, I am in the same line of work. I just delivered a pitch reel for a feature in 2.35 and the director asked my opinion on this specific issue. I told him that if you are shooting in 2.35, make sure your subject is important enough to deserve 2.35. 2.35 has presence and gravitas and scale and if those characteristics are important in your project, go for it. I don't think it's a very "intimate" aspect ratio.

Thanks for such a thoughtful reply. I too am fascinated by the subject. I want very badly to shoot 2.35 on my low-budget film, but I know that my thoughts are driven somewhat by the romance of it and not just what is best for the project, or distribution options and such.

My film will have lots of handheld--not too frantic, but handheld none the less. There will be some opportunity for nice wide beautiful stuff, but I need to remember the emotional connection to the characters as well. So you make a good point.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it's OK to shoot in 2.35 even for limited projection in film festivals or a few theaters. I always believe that if you achieve the maximum effect for the viewer in a movie theater, then it tends to play fine on DVD later anyway, and you've created some momentum for the film by impressing the few, perhaps, people who saw it projected.

I think it's a bad idea to deliberately make your theatrical version weaker simply because it will play better on TV later, even if more people ultimately will see it on TV. That goes against my very nature and philosophy, which is to make the theatrical experience as good as you can make it for the viewer. TV tends to take care of itself.

But again, this supposes some level of projection. If there is no chance of projecting this image for an audience, then don't bother with 2.35 unless the subject matter really benefits from that shape compositionally.

And I think there are cases, not just epics, where the 2.35 frame is a better choice artistically. Modernist tales of alienation like "The Parallax View" or "Klute" for example -- Gordon Willis did some great work in 2.35 that was not for epic movies. Here are some examples, though I didn't get the 16x9 squeeze out correctly:

 

[Robert Sanders]

Well, thankfully VHS is dead and buried (for the most part). No one's renting or buying movies on VHS anymore. And now that digital TV is about to switch over 16x9 is the new "common denominator". So for me personally I don't think of "full frame 4x3" as a deciding factor on formats anymore.

i watch a lot of HBO-HD and have noticed that there's no real consistency between the way 2.35 movies are broadcast. Some are presented 2.35 letterboxed and others are full frame presentations.

i noticed that anamorphically shot 2.35 movies are usually a 16x9 center cut of the 2.35 frame (since there's no additional vertical picture information). Super35 movies seem be presented full-width, allowing for a taller frame (Spider 2's presentation showed more picture information top and bottom than the 2.35 matted version). Anamorphic films like Transformers seem to hold up very well center cut and cropped. However, I felt the full frame 16x9 version of Serenity made the movie feel more like the TV show and the 2.35 letterboxed version felt much more "theatrical".

So it's a bit of the wild west out there in terms of broadcast deliverables. I'm sure if you querried HBO they'd ask for full frame 16x9 deliverables and probably don't care if it's center cut or P&S. But there doesn't appear to be a hard/fast rule on the matter since other features have been presented letterboxed.

This brings up an interesting dilemma for myself. I'm on the verge of selling my film to a major cable broadcaster. We shot our film 16x9 HD with 2.35 framing. While we made sure the top and bottom of the frame were as clean as possible, I'd HATE to have to release the film unmatted (the compositions would go to hell). Theoretically I could zoom in and extract a 16x9 center cut from the 2.35 frame (816px tall), but I'd only be able to deliver a 720P master. Most broadcasters want 1080.

It was probably foolish to frame a straight-to-DVD film in the 2.35 aspect ratio. But I'm so passionate about that frame shape it is very difficult to try and imagine shooting in any other format. To make matters worse I particularly adore the anamorphic look. And yes, 16x9 is just not wide enough for my taste (I'm a freak, I know).

Oy. So many options. So many deliverables.

 

[Daniel García]

wide? or tall?

wide? or tall?

I really do not want to hijack this thread so please excuse me if this is off topic, but I really wanted someone with experience to give their take on this matter that I'm wondering about.

The Dark Knight. I've only seen the 2.35/35mm/regular version. And one thing that boggles me is how it telegraphed me a special feeling of verticality, despite being the widest format available. It often felt like a very tall movie, and I don't really know how to adecuately put it into words.
I guess there were many factors into account... the use of framing, action lines (the trailer flipping), wide angle lenses (?), the chicago skycrapers, etc.
Also, fitting the Imax frames into the anamorphic version must have caused some headscratching all the way from the DP to the editor.

Here's a very interesting blog post that touches some of this.
What are your thoughts on this? Any specific insight or techniques?

 

[Joe G.]

-

-

Personally I found the Dark Knight too distant and not intimate at all. And it didn't work for me. A lot of that was direction, script and acting. But, it's hard to ignore that 2.35 working to keep a distance from the characters, and noting that if it didn't work in that instance it's a relevant example.

I guess I'm going to have to consider 1.85 as the preference unless there's a very compelling reason not to use it.

You feel closer to the characters, and that is not to be underestimated.

 

[Harrison Diamond]

If you see TDK in IMAX, there are a lot of scenes that gain that intimate feel (they didn't just use IMAX for action sequences) when it cuts to the IMAX aspect ratio, which is much much taller. I definitely feel that 1.85 would be my preference for a more intimate feel.

 

[10s]

I understand Spielberg shoots only 1.85 now because he feels it's closer to how we humans see. He talked about how we see up and down quite a bit beside left to right, so 1.85 is his choice. Personally I like 2.39 for the wide expanse of the Epic feel, [that's if you happen to have a set full of interesting & appropriate BG] but 1.85 is easier to frame & works great for most features. To each his own!

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think Spielberg just picks what he thinks is appropriate for the film his last 2 films Munich and Indiana Jones were both 2:40:1 films one super 35 the other anamorphic.
I've also herd he likes to shoot 1:85 because he can frame it up faster but who knows.

 

[Jason Murphy]

What? No love around here for 1.66:1?

 

[Harrison Diamond]

I guess not Jason... All you'd really need to do would be record 4K 16x9 and then crop down to 3840 (quad HD) width or thereabouts while maintaining the full height.

 

[Robert Sanders]

I think Spielberg just picks what he thinks is appropriate for the film his last 2 films Munich and Indiana Jones were both 2:40:1 films one super 35 the other anamorphic.
I've also herd he likes to shoot 1:85 because he can frame it up faster but who knows.

Yeah, I read that he likes to shoot 1:85 because he can shoot a lot faster. But at the time of that article I don't think he'd ever shot a Super35 feature. Only anamorphic. And I can understand how shooting anamorphic might slow you down a little (bigger lighting packages take more time to tweak, the lenses are huge and heavy, and there's no room for headroom correction in post).

Since the time of that article he shot Minority Report and Munich in Super35. I wonder if continuing to use spherical lenses (but with 2.35 framing) allowed him to shoot as fast he usually likes to? I wonder if returning to the anamorphic format on Raiders frustrated him?

Unfortunately, not too many industry magazines ask questions I'm interested in. Spielberg used to be the MASTER at widescreen composition and framing. It was one of the reasons I studied is work so closely in film school. I was disappointed when he started shooting 1.85 almost exclusive right after Schindler. I really really wanted Saving Private Ryan to be a huge widescreen epic. It wasn't. And it still bothers me to this day. LOL!

 

[Zk2007]

Sure, the 4x3 pan & scan version is awful to make. I don't look at it...

The thing is that it only makes sense to shoot for 2.35 if you plan on projecting the image. For straight to DVD work, stick to 16x9 or 1.85.

Hi David. It's probably something stupid that just came to mind, but how feasible would it be shooting for 1.85 while "protecting" to 2.35 when using 1920x1080? That way one could maybe get the best of both worlds?
I know it wouldn't be a walk in the park because 2.35 is quite tricky to compose, but I guess it could be doable. So you could have 2.35 for projecting and 1.85 for DVD. I remember I shot a short once all composed to 1.85 and in editing I decided to letterbox it to 2.35 and it ended up working quite nicely. But what would be the ins and outs of actually consciously shooting for 1.85 while protecting to 2.35 in your opinion?

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Hi David. It's probably something stupid that just came to mind, but how feasible would it be shooting for 1.85 while "protecting" to 2.35 when using 1920x1080? That way one could maybe get the best of both worlds?
I know it wouldn't be a walk in the park because 2.35 is quite tricky to compose, but I guess it could be doable. So you could have 2.35 for projecting and 1.85 for DVD. I remember I shot a short once all composed to 1.85 and in editing I decided to letterbox it to 2.35 and it ended up working quite nicely. But what would be the ins and outs of actually consciously shooting for 1.85 while protecting to 2.35 in your opinion?

If you're going to shoot 2.35 stick with 2.35 I hate it when I get a dvd that was supposed to be 2.35 and it's now 1.85 for some reason.

 

[Zk2007]

If you're going to shoot 2.35 stick with 2.35 I hate it when I get a dvd that was supposed to be 2.35 and it's now 1.85 for some reason.

I was more thinking the other way around. Shoot 1.85 with the possibility of tightening it up later to 2.35 for projection only.

 

[Zk2007]

The thing about 2.35 is, it's really a theatrical format and it requires that the audience be given enough time to view the frame cut to cut in order to achieve it's best potential. I don't think it's that successful a format when used handheld or with high tempo cutting. Long, fluid tracking shots and good steadicam work look nice in 2.35, but in the hands of a smash cut MTV editor, your eye is led kinetically through the frame and your field of view narrows based on the movement of the action.

Tell that to Paul Greengrass. The Bourne Ultimatum was 2.35 and the snoopy camera work got me sick. I agree with you.
The thing about 2.35 nowadays is that it is becoming a cliche. Everybody wants to give that "epic" look to their films. You see a whole bunch of DV movies online letterboxed to 2.35 just to look more "cinematic". Hollywood too. Now even comedies and romantic comedies like Mamma Mia are shot in 2.35. It's a miracle that blockbusters like Die Hard 4, Sweeney Todd, Hellboy 2 were shot in 1.85. So I think 2.35 is losing a bit of it's strength and becoming a cliche. Unless when it's real anamorphic. For those few left brave enough to shoot real scope it is still interesting because of all the anamorphic format brings in besides the aspect ratio. But the whole S35 in 2.35 fever is starting to get tiresome.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Blockbusters like Die hard 4 shot in 1.85? Die hard 4 is 2.35 super 35.

 

[Zk2007]

Blockbusters like Die hard 4 shot in 1.85? Die hard 4 is 2.35 super 35.

Oh, sorry. I had just seen the trailer while watching another DVD and it was 1.85. for some reason. Never caught it on theaters, just seen it once a little while ago. But still. Hellboy 2 and a couple of others are 1.85, which is rare today, very rare. But it just goes to show how common place 2.35 is these days.