Your preferred aspect ratio? (If someone held a gun to your head and forced you to choose.)

Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
I think my favorite is something slightly taller than 16:9. Kind of wish very wide aspect ratios (or "scope" ratios) weren't so popular.



I'm glad I already own Fallen Angels.

Scope is cramped. Of course movies can look wonderful in scope, but I don't know why you'd frame your movie around it when there are more versatile aspect ratios. Unless your hand is forced by the studio. Scope probably makes compositions harder. It's why few painters or photographers use very wide canvases. Blade Runner, for example, could look just as good in a taller aspect ratio if the director had had to shoot, position and frame everything for it, so I don't buy "It depends."

Ben-hur is one of the widest movies ever made. It's a good-looking movie. But a ton of its scenes have wasted space on the sides.



Probably looked very impressive for the few months it was exhibited in cinemas 61 years ago. Doesn't work as well without your own auditorium and a sixty foot curved screen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias
gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,119
1,874
118
Country
USA
I wonder if they wasted space on either side expecting it would end up on 4x3 TVs?

I hate black bars. I love when a 4K movie takes up the entire 16x9.

I am interested in gaming in ultra wide.
 
Ringo

Ringo

Regular Member
Jul 12, 2007
36
19
13
Country
Canada
I agree there are too many films working with wider than necessary aspect ratios. Too many urban stories in small spaces that don't suit the shape of the frame. Doesn't help that the popular visual mode trends towards longer lenses and handheld (long lenses and wider aspect ratios increase jitter).

I think academy or 4:3 is perfectly good for most films. Even with epics or westerns, it's never felt like an inappropriate choice to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezekiel
MrCalavera

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
Whatever's the aspect ratio on my phone, when i hold it vertically (Fuck you David Lynches and Martin Scorseses, i'm gonna watch your beautiful looking movies on my smartphone and you can't stop me.)

On a serious note, whatever works best for the artistic intent of the scene. But in general anything between 14:9 and 2,35:1 Cinematic Widescreen.
4:3 has its place, but feels antiquated to me, on top of not lending itself to people usually owning a pair of eyes. Not a fan of ultra widescreens outside huge screens, that are outside my financial reach anyway.

Ezekiel said:
Ben-hur is one of the widest movies ever made. It's a good-looking movie. But a ton of its scenes have wasted space on the sides.



Probably looked very impressive for the few months it was exhibited in cinemas 61 years ago. Doesn't work as well without your own auditorium and a sixty foot curved screen.
Click to expand...
I wish for eventually being loaded enough to watch 1927s Napoléon in intended 4:1(!!!) ratio.
 
Last edited:
Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
MrCalavera said:
Whatever's the aspect ratio on my phone, when i hold it vertically (Fuck you David Lynches and Martin Scorseses, i'm gonna watch your beautiful looking movies on my smartphone and you can't stop me.)

On a serious note, whatever works best for the artistic intent of the scene. But in general anything between 14:9 and 2,35:1 Cinematic Widescreen.
4:3 has its place, but feels antiquated to me, on top of not lending itself to people usually owning a pair of eyes. Not a fan of ultra widescreens outside huge screens, that are outside my financial reach anyway.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what if there was no artistic intent? What if the studio told the director it had to be filmed in a specific aspect ratio? What aspect ratio would you choose then? The director and DOP will have to accommodate your choice.
 
MrCalavera

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
Ezekiel said:
Okay, but what if there was no artistic intent? What if the studio told the director it had to be filmed in a specific aspect ratio? What aspect ratio would you choose then?
Click to expand...
How should i know? And it's not like i, as a viewer have any influence over the aspect ratio being chosen. Whatever works, works.

Ezekiel said:
The director and DOP will have to accommodate your choice.
Click to expand...
I don't know, because i'm a consumer, not a filmmaker. And i judge from consumer's perspective.
 
Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
MrCalavera said:
How should i know? And it's not like i, as a viewer have any influence over the aspect ratio being chosen. Whatever works, works.


I don't know, because i'm a consumer, not a filmmaker. And i judge from consumer's perspective.
Click to expand...
Okay then, you're dead.
 
Worgen

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,486
3,436
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Whatever aspect ratio the show/movie was original designed for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera
Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
Johnny Novgorod said:
Trick question. Blade Runner sucks because there's not enough NIT. Or maybe there's too much NIT, I don't know.
Click to expand...
I said Blade Runner 2049 has a muted look. When you told me it didn't, I showed you days later that it barely even uses its HDR container, which is odd even for most classic movies that are faithfully mastered for the new format. Hell, you can see that it's muted just by comparing it with the original, whether it's the Final Cut or Workprint version.

highdefdiscnews.com

Blade Runner 2049 – 4K UHD Blu-ray Screenshots

Full resolution uncompressed 4K screenshots from the 4K UHD Blu-ray release of the film "Blade Runner 2049" starring Ryan Gosling
highdefdiscnews.com highdefdiscnews.com

Blade Runner- The Final Cut_t00.mkv_snapshot_01.10.15.819.jpg
PNG: https://i.ibb.co/zn8pCxr/Blade-Runner-The-Final-Cut-t00-mkv-snapshot-01-10-15-819.png

Blade Runner - Workprint [1982, USA, Ridley Scott, BD].mkv_snapshot_01.07.28.566.png

Regardless, I don't see why that means I now have to get your snippy, irrelevant comments about it for years, like with Max Payne 3. Nonstop. Resuming the moment I came back. If you don't like me, fine, but at least follow the forum's code of conduct.

"HAVE RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to abuse others for any reason. If you can't communicate without using combative, hateful, derogatory, aggressive, passive aggressive responses, or ad hominem attacks, then consider that these may not be the forums for you. Focus your response on your disagreement with a person's opinion, not on the person.

"Disagreement is inevitable. However, this is not a license to misbehave. If you don't like a thread, the people in it, or anyone involved, don't post in it."
 
Last edited:
Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
Wintermute said:
I guess I'd get shot. As long as I can see the picture just fine I don't give a shit. I'd get shot again when I said "I'm fine with DVD quality".
Click to expand...
I watch DVDs all the time. Would be far too limiting not to.
 
MrCalavera

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
Ezekiel said:
Okay then, you're dead.
Click to expand...
Great, i won't have to worry about aspect ratios anymore then?

Worgen said:
Whatever aspect ratio the show/movie was original designed for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i think i can agree. From the example in the tweet, the main problem(aside change of coloring for some reason?) seems to be the loss of information, due to some of the shot being cut off.
As a rule of thumb: Stick to whatever the aspect a movie was shot in.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Novgorod

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,527
3,048
118
Ezekiel said:
I said Blade Runner 2049 has a muted look. When you told me it didn't, I showed you days later that it barely even uses its HDR container, which is odd even for most classic movies that are faithfully mastered for the new format. Hell, you can see that it's muted just by comparing it with the original, whether it's the Final Cut or Workprint version.

highdefdiscnews.com

Blade Runner 2049 – 4K UHD Blu-ray Screenshots

Full resolution uncompressed 4K screenshots from the 4K UHD Blu-ray release of the film "Blade Runner 2049" starring Ryan Gosling
highdefdiscnews.com highdefdiscnews.com

View attachment 1907
PNG: https://i.ibb.co/zn8pCxr/Blade-Runner-The-Final-Cut-t00-mkv-snapshot-01-10-15-819.png

View attachment 1908

Regardless, I don't see why that means I now have to get your snippy, irrelevant comments about it for years, like with Max Payne 3. Nonstop. Resuming the moment I came back. If you don't like me, fine, but at least follow the forum's code of conduct.

"HAVE RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to abuse others for any reason. If you can't communicate without using combative, hateful, derogatory, aggressive, passive aggressive responses, or ad hominem attacks, then consider that these may not be the forums for you. Focus your response on your disagreement with a person's opinion, not on the person.

"Disagreement is inevitable. However, this is not a license to misbehave. If you don't like a thread, the people in it, or anyone involved, don't post in it."
Click to expand...
How is my humorous dismissal of measuring a movie's quantity of units of luminance (equivalent to one candela per square metre) as the definitive form of critical appraisal a personal attack?
 
Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
Johnny Novgorod said:
How is my humorous dismissal of measuring a movie's quantity of units of luminance (equivalent to one candela per square metre) as the definitive form of critical appraisal a personal attack?
Click to expand...
As always, a joke on something I said, thus a joke on me, that isn't at all relevant, disrespectful also for undermining what I'm talking about. You know what you are doing, yet you somehow also have no self-awareness. Never do you say something to me that isn't disrespectful. Always some snide remark. The passive-aggressive attitude that a bunch of you were complaining about on the old forums.
 
Gordon_4

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,106
5,398
118
Australia
Ezekiel said:
As always, a joke on something I said, thus a joke on me, that isn't at all relevant, disrespectful also for undermining what I'm talking about. You know what you are doing, yet you somehow also have no self-awareness. Never do you say something to me that isn't disrespectful. Always some snide remark. The passive-aggressive attitude that a bunch of you were complaining about on the old forums.
Click to expand...
I’m no video or audiophile but I like movies to take as much screen space as they need to display themselves as intended. Colours should be balanced appropriately outside of specific artistic flourishes. Cinematography likewise. For picture as long as it is clear and it doesn’t skip or drop frames and desynchronise from the audio or artefact then I’m sweet. I’m not likely to tell the difference between a lot of the subtle nuances for colour and contrast and brightness the way you do. I’m simply not that invested in the process. And I doubt I’m alone.
 
Ezekiel

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
Baffle said:
1:1
Click to expand...
I would find a 3840x3840 TV useful, actually. For photos. It would be a monster. When watching movies, the display area would be on the bottom half.


The only model I know who does this with her photos. I rotate her photos, but that obviously gives me a much lower resolution and much smaller picture in full screen, with huge black bars on both sides. She knows that. On my PC desk, I sometimes switch between my horizontal and vertical monitor depending on the orientation of the high res photo or drawing. Would never need to do that with a square.

Getting back to film, I still feel like 2.4:1 and similar ratios are used more often than they need to be, sometimes simply because they're considered more "cinematic" and fill the projection screen for the few weeks they are exhibited theatrically. I doubt it's always the director or cinematographer's decision anyway. It can be mandated by the studio.


16:00 to 22:00: Snyder saying he wanted to present 300 in a more square aspect ratio. He couldn't because of cinema expectations.


Some more Ben-hur screenshots with emptiness on the sides.














 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom