There's only ONE correct aspect ratio, and it is ...
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- Okay, so as usual this is all just my opinion. Even moreso than usual because I'm not stating much in terms of technical information, but I think this is still worthy of discussion. And many of you will burn me at the stake for this one. Flame on!
I shoot everything at 1x2160. Just one line of detail is all I need.
Makes me think of the video the Slo-Mo Guys did on how Nintendo displayed on CRT monitors.
2 by 1 is where it's at. 4K? 4000 x 2000. 6K? 6000 x 3000. Etc.. Look how satisfying those numbers are.
I shoot everything in 4.3. it is the original cinema ratio
I'm really glad you talked about *Univisium* format, because I really think it's the best compromise between that **slight** "cinematic feel" and the naturality of 16:9.
I shot my last short films in this aspect ration and been really liking it.
Yeah it's an interesting middle ground. But still, the black bars remain...
I appreciate that this channel isn't yet another one only interested in feeding the acquisition of gear. It's just good old nerding out.
Thank you! Yeah sadly there’s a bit of a machine with heavily gear centric channels. Even if they claim to be impartial, they need to feed people’s desire for gear, or else no one would send them anything.
This budget anamorphic FAD is utterly ridiculous. Anamorphic existed on cellular stock for a reason. There is almost no reason for CZcamsr X to be gong anamorphic. One guy, i saw on his channel was buying all these anamorphic lenses, shooting at 16:9 on his FX30, THEN desqeezing and cropping in to a 16:9 picture for his output..... You can imagine how this messed my OCD!!!
i’ve been thinking about this for a while and I’m so glad somebody said this. i’ve been looking to shoot the exclusively in 16 x 9.
Do it! The important thing to remember is that this is a creative endeavor. If you do what makes YOUR heart sing, you'll do better work. Strong opinions make for strong art.
keep doing this type of videos
Will do! Thanks for watching!
I have set my medium format to 16:9 and will shoot with it for a while. Thanks for the idea.
Awesome! Let me know how it goes.
I’ve been more and more interested by 3x2 Open Gate ratio, mainly to be able to crop it later during editing to 16:9 and/or for the stupid (but popular) Portrait format for social networks… I can’t stand people filming vertically, but unfortunately I think we lost that battle and if we’re making content for social networks, we have to crop to Portrait… and there’s nothing worse than cropping a 16:9 recording to Portrait, most of the time we end up very zoomed in, we lost all space, etc… while if you’re shooting Open Gate from the beginning, you can easily adjust yourself during shooting and already get your center Portrait guidelines on the center of focus…
Yeah, if you have to worry about 9x16 framing then you simply can't do your best 16x9 work. No arguments with me about SHOOTING in open gate though. It's always better to have that latitude, as long as you have an idea what you're trying to frame for as a deliverable.
Even though I see beauty in all ratios, I found this video somewhat cathartic because of how underutilized 16:9 has been in modern filmaking. It often feels like 2.39 has been the mindless default for making any image (brace yourself, I am about to use the C word) "Cinematic". Rare is it to find a modern film that uses that width effectively, instead of looking like a 16:9 image struggling to get out.
And to your point on immersion, I recently saw Dune 2 and Civil War in theaters and I think I agree that it just feels more enveloping. I do enjoy the artifice of 2.39 and wider, but for immersion I think it is no contest.
I think you've nailed it.
For me a big reason for shooting in different ratios comes from how it forces you to make different composition choices. Coming from regularly shooting anamorphic, trying my hand at 4:3 made me choose different or more interesting framing, especially for dialogue scenes where I found myself kind of accidentally adopting an older style using more deep focus shots and less over the shoulder stuff.
Your probably pretty correct about 16:9 being an ideal, but nowadays people are consuming films shot for imax on their phones or on Netflix while scrolling through Instagram. We can obsess over our home theatre setups but that's not how most people consume films, and i think presenting your filmin a slightly different way using an odd aspect ratio is one way you can try and peak the interest of your viewers, even if it strictly not ideal.
FOR SURE it's true that different ratios lead to different composition choices. The constraints always influence the product. But I find the popular blasé refrain of "people consume on phones and instagram" to be unhelpful, if not irrelevant. Maybe you want to shoot your content with an intention to satisfy the Tik Tok crowd. But I'm interested in shooting for large-screen delivery (whether that's LARGE as in cinema, or large as in home theater). The death of the moviegoing experience has been greatly exaggerated as well. I don't think it will ever die, as long as there are passionate people who want it to exist, because that passion translates into dollars. Tenet, Top Gun, Dune. That's passion which became profit, and it shows no signs of dying, in my opinion 🙂
Also!! I take inspiration from something Christopher Nolan said, which is 100% true. If a film is made at the highest possible quality, such that it's beautiful on a very large screen (like IMAX, or my personal favorite - Dolby Vision) - that quality filters down to every subsequently-smaller format, all the way down to and including a smartwatch. It's OKAY that people watch movies on an iPhone. If it was done right, it will look great there, or on their laptop, or in their home theater, or in a Dolby auditorium.
@@nick_salazar Yeah I agree there's always going to be a place for the cinema experience, I'm just trying to say that the novelty of a gimmick like an odd aspect ratio is a useful cinematic tool. You don't really need more of a reason that just "because it looks cool" to make a decision about how to shoot / display your film, and i think many of the most passionate and legendary filmmakers make somewhat unusual technical decisions all the time because it is interesting to them and not because they're searching for an ideal.
@@nick_salazaryeah i agree with this quote in general but on this specific point about aspect ratio Nolan is very willing to make concessions. I think all of his IMAX movies have been released in theatres in widescreen formats, if you look at the bts for Oppenheimer they’ve literally got widescreen frame guides on the monitors and aren’t framing people outside of them
@@maxpovey6877 For sure. Everyone approaches these ideas differently. But as far as "novelty aspect ratios," I think they're best in moderation, like how in "Poor Things" you'll see the fisheye shots framed as circles, just as they came out of the camera. But if the ENTIRE movie were that way it would be exhausting. 4x3 ... I don't want to see that for a whole movie ever. Justice League should have just filled the screen, please. I'm quite sure you had the information available.
If i had to choose a aspect ratio to make popular it'd be 1:1 because i like my Hassy 6x6 photographs also squares are cool.... "the" aspect ratio changes with whatever screen aspect ratio is popular... i assume in the near future as more devices start having 16:10 screens we will get 16:10 as "the" aspect ratio
Great video nick and great to see you again!
The human FoV has a pretty weird shape so the aspect ratio depends on what areas and orientation you assign more significance to. For me personally that results in 2:1, even though that leaves out quite a bit of the lower half of the rounded upside down triangle shape of binocular vision. But really you could make an argument for basically every aspect ratio in regards to our own FoV, depending on eye strain, binocular vs total FoV, visual acuity, etc
He claims it's 16:9 FYI.
If people click on a 12-minute video discussing aspect ratios, I don’t think their first order of business will be to come digging into the comments to find out what’s on the other end of the title’s ellipsis. But maybe I’m wrong and you’ve done a great public service. ;-)
@@nick_salazar I was searching this comment, just wanted to know what aspect ratio you were claiming to then listen to your discussion. Couldn’t be bothered listening to the whole video and having the answer somewhere hidden in your long speech. Give what people are expecting to receive, especially when you tease it that much on your title. I would’ve given more care to this video if done it that way.
Best
The answer IS the whole video. In reality there is no “correct” ratio. Just individual opinions. My opinion is strong, hence the 12 minutes of explanation. If you don’t like the fact that the title is missing the phrase 16:9, well that’s your opinion and I respect it as well. Maybe you can make a 12-minute video about the flaw of incomplete video titles ;-)
I got quite wide vision. Something like equiv of 30-35mm. So I like 2.4:1 :D, cause it seems natural to me.
But 16:9 is also ok :D.
And what about your screens? Are you sitting that close to them that the unused space in the top and bottom make a difference?
@@jandzoe9249 Depends on the screen.
My TV is to small for that, I see lot of the wall too :D. But sometimes I sit so close to my 21: 9 monitor that it's covering almost 100% of my FoV.
"you are wasting space" This just seems like a left brain vs right brain way of seeing things. Some filmmakers/DPs treat every frame like a painting, you are creating a piece of art. It would be weird to tell a painter to use a different size canvas for x or y technical/business/commercial reason. Which what happened to Snyder and Justice League, his director cut is his artistic vision. There is no "wasted space", he wants the character to feel taller and the aspect ratio helps that along with how he originally composed the shots for that aspect ratio.
For sure, you’re definitely articulating one of the many good arguments against my point here. But I’d state your theory of the case slightly differently. I still think from an *artistic* standpoint 16:9 is the right way to go. For me, watching a 4:3 presentation takes me out of the movie, like seeing a 555 phone number or a crewmember in the background. The black bars scream something to my right brain, and that goes away when the screen is filled. Again, you can still disagree with me and that’s okay!
Very interesting discussion. Taken to an extreme, this is probably why I obsess about hating instagram and the advent of vertical aspect ratios. I just think it's ridiculous. And I have thought about how wasteful 4:3 is as well, when I watch an older formatted movie. I also learned something - which is getting to be a habit from watching your content? LOL
Thank you! I'm so glad you feel like these videos are worthwhile. They're mostly just me ranting at the camera, which can be a dangerous thing to do. But as long as you keep watching, I'll keep ranting! ;-)
@@nick_salazar I’m actually very grateful to be able to share in your adventure. But also, I’m thankful that you share your thinking and you’re inner process so that I can short circuit my learning as well!
Cinemascope is the maximum screen coverage in theatres. So if cinema is your ultimate goal, cinemascope is definitely a better coverage. Then there's always the creative choice, your story should dictate the the aspect ratio in my opinion. Cinemascope has more space for dialogue, while 4:3 gets you into the mind of your subject. 16:9 subconsciously communicates tv shows, or tv films.
That’s incorrect. Most cinema screens are close to 16:9. If you are watching in CinemaScope, they will not be using the entire top and bottom of the screen.
@@nick_salazar incorrect sir, most are 2.4:1. At least.. Here in Europe.
4:3 yes absolutely
i love the hoorays 😂😂
Thank you! It was a fun way to incorporate my 5-year-old into the video. We recorded each of us saying "hooray" like four times each, then layered them all together 🙂
For T.V. viewing maybe but if you're shooting for theaters, 2:39 to 1 scope, there are no black bars or wasted space.
Sure there is, they're just (perhaps) less noticeable. Remember that theaters still use a physical screen. Most are roughly 16x9 in shape. Anything projected onto it that doesn't match the size will simply not fill it, resulting in black bars and wasted space.
@@nick_salazar Most movie screens are 1:185 flat, my last screening was scope and the theater offered dedicated scope or flat screens. Most modern theaters are adjustable in size, so there are not actual black bars in the film, curtains maybe to shape the screen
Right, 1.85 is very close to 1.78. The curtain thing is actually common in older theaters, not newer ones. And it’s not like bringing in the curtains versus black bars makes a real difference … It’s still wasting screen space.
When David Lean was prepping "Bridge on the River Kwai", his producer Sam Speigel asked him if he wanted extra time for camera tests in pre-production because it was the first time he was going to be shooting cinemascope instead of acadamy. "Why would I need that?" he replied. "It's just a different shape." His view was that an aspect ratio was unimportant and that a well composed image was an well composed image in any shape. I defy anyone to watch "Les Enfants du Paradis" for example, one of the great visually artistic achievements in the history of cinema, and tell me that academy was an inferior format.
I do disagree, that’s the whole point of the video ;-)
Yes there are brilliant movies made in every format. The format doesn’t dictate the quality of the art. But I still think there’s a best choice to be made.
Hey Nick, I have a Komodo and the Nisi Athena Set as well. Hit me up and I'll be your B-Cam!!!
2.40 in and I’m already disagreeing 😉
And then there's Apple - 16:10 ? Of course that comes with its own set of excuses. But for the most part, 16:9 is good. Now to toss another one in the pot... when you shoot 360° content, it's actually a 2:1(actually it's called equirectangular) which covers a full sphere and then you can pick whatever viewing ration you want. Not a blank pixel in view.
wouldn't 16:10 be 8:5 ?
@@NeoRazor agreed but more importantly, it's the issue of what's the screen size being sold to viewers and Apple's screens are sold as 16:10. This is not me, it's Apple using that terminology
@@VirtualTourPhotographer I hear you brother
@@NeoRazorprobably just to make it more obvious for the consumer that it's a bit taller than 16:9. With some people not understanding that 1/4 is less than 1/3 I think that's a good strategy lol
2:1
You’re dead on that hill. You just haven’t realized it yet. In what venue will you present the film and what do you want an audience to feel? Aspect ratio choices shape how the viewing experience feels and that shapes the impact of the story. If you want a middle of the road place to begin if you don’t have a specific plan for ratio then 16:9 is a reasonable choice. But there are excellent reasons to experiment with all of them. And a lot of the time you don’t want to make the audience comfortable. Often you want them leaning in to figure things out and ratio choices can make a big difference.
Most theaters have a screen that is roughly 16x9 in shape. Most homes have a screen that is 16x9. Sure, you can use other aspects to convey an idea (as I do in the video demonstrating them). But I prefer to fill the space regardless, for the reasons stated. Consider the Sphere in Vegas. Sure, they use smaller ratios at the beginning of their show so that the "full sphere" video can really pop. But then once they switch to "full sphere," they never deviate. Even when 80% of the image is just blue sky for a given shot, they don't crop in to get you to focus on the ground elements ... they just leave the sky so it fills your view. Same concept as I'm describing here.
@@nick_salazar It is a safe, middle-of-the-lane choice which will work fine a lot of the time, especially for commercial work. Just the same, there are thousands of effect reasons to use alternatives to help tell a story whether that creates bars around the image on certain screens or not. I think “The Creator” was shot at an effective ratio of 3:1 and “cropped” to something like 2.7:1. It’s a beautiful film and I have no quibbles their ratio choice. Of course they knew what they were doing and had a clear sense of how to compose shots that wide. It does take real skill and practice to make stuff like that work, but when done well it’s totally worth it.
@@waveland In some cases you'll be limited by your equipment. They were shooting a Kowa 2x, on a 16x9 sensor, so yeah you start with 32:9 which is 3.55:1. With those lenses and that camera you don't really have enough spatial resolution to go to 16x9 without losing a lot. So their equipment basically dictated what they'd be able to capture. Still, I'd have loved to see the visuals of The Creator with more height. See my comment regarding going in and out of "IMAX scenes" during movies.