What is your preferred aspect ratio?

[steve hyde]

...speaking of aspect ratio and presentation more generally, I just watched the Criterion version of Kaneto Shindo's "Onibaba". I'm still reeling from this film (absolutely stunning!) The film itself in 2.35:1, which Shindo states in the DVD interview was the best choice for the tall grassy fields where the film was made. It works.

In addition, there is a lot of Super 8 footage on the Criterion DVD. Shindo had a "private film" made on location during the 1964 shoot.
The Super 8 footage shows up in two places on the DVD - full screen 4:3 in the extras - and also masked 4:3 in the intercuts between interviews with Shindo. The masked 4:3 looks richer to me The image is smaller of course, but the image is contained - it's framed and it looks more like cinema and less like television some how.

To my eyes this is the most aesthetic way to letterbox super 8.

Steve

Edit - reference:

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release. ... on=feature

[StantheMan]

Hey, super8man, why don't you go back to our bmx boy's bikes and giant slotcar tracks you've built in your basement because you're a loser?

hahahahahahaahahaha

[mattias]

Shouldn't aspect ratio be a visual design choice based on content instead of randomly selecting one?

yes. not only content though. how, where and to whom it will be shown is also important in my opinion.

/matt

[steve hyde]

Shouldn't aspect ratio be a visual design choice based on content instead of randomly selecting one?

yes. not only content though. how, where and to whom it will be shown is also important in my opinion.

/matt

...certainly true. I guess this brings us back to the original question on preferences - and maybe a bit further - which aspect ratio yeilds the most options for presentation and why?

Steve

[Nigel]

It all depends on what I am shooting....

Right now I am have an idea that I want on 1.33 B&W Super8. Tomorrow I might have an idea for a 1.85 shoot. Who cares?? Do what feel good.

Good Luck

[kentbulza]

2.25 isn't an option. That's my choice -- e.g. 65mm 5 perf.

[teadub]

Oh well, I remember reading a TV guide where they said 16:9 would be the most natural aspect ratio on earth based on human vision.

maybe, but who said cinema has to adhere to real world principles like that? i like 4:3 *because* it's square. it allows me to create lots of interesting frames using the space above and below what the eye tends to focus at. same reason i like 2.35:1 but then it's on the sides. 16:9 is an invite to making over the shoulder medium closeups that look incredibly "realistic" but also very boring.

/matt

I totally agree. If you feel mischeivious, you can play with horizontal spaces in 4:3 and vertical spaces in 2.35:1. I would shoot 16:9 only for exhibition convenience.

The Super 8 footage shows up in two places on the DVD - full screen 4:3 in the extras - and also masked 4:3 in the intercuts between interviews with Shindo. The masked 4:3 looks richer to me The image is smaller of course, but the image is contained - it's framed and it looks more like cinema and less like television some how.

I like windowboxing too. It gives a detatched from the TV feel. Almost like watching super 8mm / 16mm projections on my Da-Lite screen.

Just like they do now with the f***ing volume for commercials versus the actual show you're watching.

I hate that shit. As Cool J would say, I have a Booming System, some of those commercials are damn loud.

EDIT
Oh yeah, I voted for 2.35:1. But it just barely wins,

[rurgis]

an interesting addition to the different scopes is Storaro´s Univisium 2:1.
i think its unfortunate this havent yet been propperly introduced, both to simplify the difficulties between the big and smaller screens, and for estetical reasons.

for anyone intrested check out Storaso´s home page:

http://www.storarovittorio.com

[B Movie Mogul]

I guess because I was doing 35mm still before motion picture, is the reason I prefer 1.66:1 for widescreen, as it most closely resembles the 3:2 aspect ratio of a still transperency while still being a somewhat standard AR. I recently discovered also that the Panasonic PV-GS19 has a 'cinema mode' that leterboxes to approximately 1.66:1, I now have the camcorder for video work

[tlatosmd]

Everytime I look at a "widescreen" image, I keep thinking it would be nice to see the WHOLE picture...you know, the area in the black bands above and below the 4:3 square.

I think that's a matter of image composition by the director of photography or the individual camera operator. There are shots suitable for 1:2.35, there are shots suitable for 4:3. It's all based on the style of shooting.

That's why simple letter-boxing after shooting in 4:3 without proper image composition for that in mind during shooting looks almost as bad as that modern video look where they simply squeeze their footage vertically into wider aspect ratios because they have not the slightest idea about the anamorphic concept. It's similar when vidiots work with actually anamorphic footage and don't know they have to correct it from 4:3 to its actual ratio.

But film-ignorant vidiots aside, simple letter-boxing in post without proper composition during shooting is also worse than adaptive letter-boxing in post which is similar to pan&scan for 4:3. Adaptive letter-boxing in post means to adapt the image's position of each single shot below the letter-boxing mask, based on its visual content. If the main action is happening behind the upper black band, move the image down. Vice versa if the action is behind the lower band. Best thing is the audience won't notice all that adaptive positioning of your footage in post because it's all masked by the letter-box.

Hey, super8man, why don't you go back to our bmx boy's bikes and giant slotcar tracks you've built in your basement because you're a loser?

I didn't know being a loser means to have fun?

[filmbuff]

Everytime I look at a "widescreen" image, I keep thinking it would be nice to see the WHOLE picture...you know, the area in the black bands above and below the 4:3 square.

I have a boom mic fetish too :?

Seriously though there have been times watching a movie on dvd and it just screams forced matte to make it "widescreen" for the 16:9 nutballs out there. I know George Romero's early work in 16mm has all been cropped to "widescreen" even though its obvious that they were framed 4:3.

[timdrage]

I'm really obsessive about watching things the right ratio on widescreen TVs... can't understand how so many people seem to be happy to watch 4:3 stuff stretched out to 16:9 so everyone's munchkins!

[timdrage]

Hey, super8man, why don't you go back to our bmx boy's bikes and giant slotcar tracks you've built in your basement because you're a loser?

Yeah Super8man, get a real grownup hobby already! Like... uh, let me see... trolling super-8 messageboards under a series of increasingly unimaginative and unconvincing fake personas maybe? :roll:

[steve hyde]

Edit: nevermind - I figured out how to do it.

[tlatosmd]

I wonder what those two forum members opting for Crazyscope exactly have in mind?