Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Is it just me, or do other people prefer the 2:1 ratio, too?

David Mullen ASC said:
As for 16x9 (1.78 : 1), honestly, it's SO close to 1.85 that it's a bit silly to make an argument that one is more pleasing visually or more cinematic than the other. Truth is that I'd prefer that theatrical movies, if one is going to have two choices, be either 1.66 and 2.40 so that there is a more dramatic difference.
Click to expand...

Personally, I am ideologically opposed to 16x9 for exactly the reason that it is so close to 1.85.

Since it has been admitted that the initial reasons for creating 16x9 were erroneous, it continues to boggle my mind that HD didn't go with 1.85 or 1.66 instead of proliferating a new format...

I have yet to shoot 2:1, but I would be ecstatic if I woke up one day and 16x9 was just gone.

1.85 and 2.40 have always seemed to be very pleasing ratios to me, and sufficient for nearly every purpose. I've never been a fan of 1.66 - anything wider than 1.85 looks a little too square to me.
 
Charles Angus said:
I have yet to shoot 2:1
Click to expand...

2:1 on a big ol' 30mm x 15mm sensor sounds like it might be quite an experience. I don't know if you can use the full width of the sensor, but if you can it seems like the lenses would be very close to behaving like they would in a 135 camera on the horizontal axis. Of course that assumes the image circle of your lenses can cover a 30mm wide sensor, but it makes for a very interesting proposition. An 18mm should have around the width of ~21mm on 135 cameras instead of being more like ~28mm. That's kind of a big deal if it works out like it looks like it's going to.
 
It's funny, back in the DVX100 days, I shot 4:3 for the conservative stuff, and 16:9 was cutting-edge for the film-like creative projects like drama and action films, and music videos.

I do feel that HD TVs and cameras have made 16:9 the new 4:3. After years of pushing for conservative clients (corporate and commercial) to accept 24p and 16:9, that's now all they want, and 4K HD is what I work with the most.
Heck, even YouTube prefers 16:9 now, and my old 4:3 videos with letterboxing look terribly antiquated.

I see 2:1 as the new cutting-edge for those film-like and creative projects, like a recent music video. I can't wait for Build 21 to hit release status, so I can start shooting some 4.5K with the Tokina 11-16mm.

I'm sure at some point, 2:1 (if Jim takes over the world with his displays) and 2.35:1 will become common place, so we'll have to switch to anamorphics, and after that, wait for the Epic 617 to arrive.

Maybe when that's all over, 4:3 will seem new again and we'll go full circle. Or switch to vertical.
 
2:1 is the future...

Jim
 
Other than testing out the 4.5k 2.3333:1, I'm shooting 2:1. It's a pretty nice aspect ratio.

Graeme
 
16:9 Is the real bastard....Its a very difficult format to compose in. In the early 90ties when I shot loads of music videos, it was cool to have a letterbox on TV because it gave the cinematic feel. I have grown to hate the format since. I really only enjoy framing in 2:1 and above, and for TVCs where odd framings are often used, 4:3 is sorely missed.
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
16:9 Is the real bastard....Its a very difficult format to compose in. In the early 90ties when I shot loads of music videos, it was cool to have a letterbox on TV because it gave the cinematic feel. I have grown to hate the format since. I really only enjoy framing in 2:1 and above, and for TVCs where odd framings are often used, 4:3 is sorely missed.
Click to expand...

i really hate 16x9, it gives me always the feeling that its not wide enough, or close enough, or too much headroom, there always something that disturbs me. its just awful. my second hating is 1:1.85

edit: and i hate the porjectionists in cinemas who just screen everything in 1:1,85 also you can cleary see that the framing is not right and the movie is shot in 2,4...after some yelling usually the guy changes the screening mode
 
16:9 Is the real bastard....Its a very difficult format to compose in. In the early 90ties when I shot loads of music videos, it was cool to have a letterbox on TV because it gave the cinematic feel. I have grown to hate the format since. I really only enjoy framing in 2:1 and above, and for TVCs where odd framings are often used, 4:3 is sorely missed.
 
The majority of people I know outside the industry who have 16:9 TVs are quite content to stretch everything to fit that aspect because they don't like seeing black bars, or were told it would damage their TV. I also see it in restaurants and bars, 4:3 content stretched to 16:9... it drives me NUTS!
I even know two people with 16:9 computer monitors, and video cards that can only output 4:3, but they don't seem to mind, whereas I would have an aneurysm after a while.

It has brought me to the conclusion that aspect ratio is not terribly important to the masses, and that it's up to those of us that care to try and insure that our content is played back in the aspect ratio we intended.

As a side note, Philips makes a 2.35:1 (which they refer to as 21:9) television:
http://www.cinema.philips.com
 
It seems to me that the best solution is not to try to standardize film output. The very essence of standardization is counterproductive to creativity and innovation. Directors, DPs and Producers will all have different perspectives on what format to choose going between each production, picking the right tool for the job in each case. Standardizing output will only lower the creative scope of film and eventually normalize everything.

To me, the right solution is to make the displays adapt to the film, not the other way around. I am thinking of something that changes ratios itself, physically adapting to the needs of the source, no matter what shape it is. Maybe far fetched with LCD technology but maybe more feasible with OLED or Projection based technology.

KO
 
Yeah, hopefully in the future there will be no standards for the frame. Personally, the format I like the most is 1.66, but would love to frame everything at 1.618034. Somehow I feel cold and intimidated by larger aspect ratios. When I think 1.66 I think of Nostalghia, L'Argent, La Notte, Cries and Whispers, and with 1.85 I think of Malick.
 
Kevin Olsen said:
To me, the right solution is to make the displays adapt to the film, not the other way around. I am thinking of something that changes ratios itself, physically adapting to the needs of the source, no matter what shape it is. Maybe far fetched with LCD technology but maybe more feasible with OLED or Projection based technology.

KO
Click to expand...

In theatres, there are typically movable light baffles around the edges of the screen.
 
Jannard said:
When we make displays we are going to make them 2:1. :-)

Jim
Click to expand...

How killer would that be...Watching a movie "shot on RED" through a 4k REDRay on your 4k REDivision (or REDisplay) :emote_happyhappy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top