2:35.1 is definetly my favorite. The New World and George Washington are beautiful in that aspect ratio, but to be honest I didnt start to take notice of aspect ratios until about a year ago. I really prefer films shot in wide ratios.
“Cinemascope is only good for shooting snakes and funerals” haha!
I love Academy (full frame) ratio (1.33/1.37)! it’s perfect for shooting people, faces, especially for close-ups (there is no comparison)! In black and white it is at its most sublime, there is just something magical/transformational about the ratio which defies rational description … watch ‘Citizen Kane’ or ‘The Mother and the Whore’ and you will know what i’m talking about, or anything by Ozu! and in terms of colour films ‘The Red Shoes’ and ‘’La Collectionneuse’ are just stunning examples, one completely stylised the other naturalistic!
… that is not to say i’m not a great admirer of the classic European ratio (1.66) and of course cinemascope (2.35) ratio but only when it is shot anamorphic and not super 35 (which just isn’t the same), cinemascope was/is at its most powerful in westerns and when it was liberated during the late 60s and 70s! Antonioni’s “Zabriskie Point” would have to be one of the most stunning cinemascope films, his compositions are incredible and Robert Wise’s “The Andromeda Strain” is also a beauty to behold, it incorporates some amazing split screen sequences.
I don’t think I can really choose a favourite. Of course, I like 2.35:1 with all its vast grandeur, but I’d never want to change the aspect ratio away from the desire of the director. A reason I’ve really come to appreciate the Criterion Collection.
I tend to admire 2:35.1 overall but I have personally only shot Flat. I have yet to shoot a project that demanded 2351 in my eyes.
2.35:1 just feels so right. i love the empty space created around the subject and the ways you can manipulate it to open up or close of their personal space.
It depends on what we’re looking at. 2:35:1 works really well for a large cast or landscapes, but seems very strange and stretched out to me if we’re focusing on two people eating lunch in a diner. It also really depends on which lens is used. It’s nearly impossible to get a “true” closeup in 2:35:1 unless the camera is six inches from the actors face, whereas 1:85:1 or less captures close ups very naturally. I prefer allowing the content of the story to choose which scope will properly capture it and neither aiming too high or too low because one just generally prefers 2:35:1 over all else no matter what. With that said my favorite aspect ratio is 1:78:1. It doesn’t feel as clean and standard to me as 1:85:1, but it’s not small academy 1:37 or European 1:66 either. The choice of lens is more critical to acheive a wider look or more refined close. Watch Straw Dogs or Dead Man for good examples of 1:78:1.
I think it often depends on the film and aesthetic quality you are trying to portray as a film-maker and director.
I tend to like 2.35:1 because modern cinemas are designed for this aspect ratio. I also like 1:85 for many other films.
And really, when people are talking about how aspect ratio affects how everything is shot, that’s not exactly true especially considering how much lens selection determines how to shoot a scene. Lens length and focal length are what really affect individual shots and depth of field. Aspect ratio just determines the total size of the composition, which is completely unrelated to what a lot of people are talking about as MARK above me said.
I love this question!!! If you get a serious answer, you know you’re talking to a true cinephile. I’ve always asked the question, “What’s your 3rd favorite movie?”
2:35 is optimal true, but I really get excited when I see 1:33 films in the theater as well. You can do so much with it. The way close ups look in movies like “masculine feminine” or “Citizen Kane” is just immaculate. They are so striking on film in a dark theater. I got so excited when I saw “Elephant” and "Last Days in the theater and saw the screen shorten. The close-ups were great in those too. ditto to Paranoid Park
I’m definitely in the “wider is better” camp. Does anyone else love Wes Anderson’s compositions?
It’s dry comedy shot in scope. It’s fantastic!
I’d have to say either 1.33:1 or 2.35:1
re: Wes Anderson’s use of cinemascope, i think it was most effective in “Rushmore” and has been a bit forced and overdone subsequently, however there were some great sequences in “Life Aquatic”, but he’s become a slave to it now and it’s become a bit stale/repetitive visually, which is perhaps why he wanted to shoot in a foreign country to reinvigorate it …
2.35:1
Depends on the film, and the venue. Once you see an Academy film at the Riverside Studios Cinema in West London, you’ll wonder why anyone bothered to invent widescreen in the first place.
I recently got glasses and discovered that they are almost exactly 2:35:1. I don’t think it’s an accident that this ratio is so pleasing to the eye, and it has to be my favourite.
I also like the 1.66:1 of Super 16 mm. It seems perfect for the films generally shot on the format.
MARK THIMIJAN:–
Straw Dogs and Dead Man are both 1.85:1. Are you sure you mean 1.78:1? This is a TV aspect ratio used to describe 16×9 and I wouldn’t imagine any films are actually shot in 1.78:1.
I recently got glasses and discovered that they are almost exactly 2:35:1. I don’t think it’s an accident that this ratio is so pleasing to the eye
An art historian would argue that 1.66:1 is the closest to the “perfect” ratio (the so-called Golden Ratio). Personally, I think 2.35:1 has as many limitations as advantages – in the hands of a master like Sergio Leone, it’s amazing, but if the director/cinematographer doesn’t have a very good reason for using it, it can look terrible.
wouldn’t imagine any films are actually shot in 1.78:1.
Loads of films are shot in 1.78:1 – especially now that HD cameras are being used more and more frequently (1.78:1 or 16:9 being the standard aspect ratio for widescreen displays). But even before that it occasionally turned up in cinemas: Tim Robbins annoyed projectionists in the 1990s by insisting that Bob Roberts be screened in 1.78:1.
2.35:1, with full frame (i love the 30’s) being a close second, depending on the film.
I’d say 1.66, because it’s the closest aspect ratio to the golden ratio (which would be 1.618), even though 2.35 (and greater) is closer to the aspect ratio in which humans see, and therefore more aesthetically pleasing to view. However, I like 1.66 because it’s wide enough to provide ample visual space within a frame, especially highly panoramic shots, but also it’s not so wide that a vertical composition is not out of the question.
MICHAEL BROOKE:–
I was only referring to the view from humans eyes, not Pythagorus, so art historians and I would safely have no argument. It is interesting that 1.66:1 is so close to the Golden Ratio, I had never noticed this before, perhaps this is why 16×9 and 1.85:1 always seemed a little off to me.
Just to be sure, there’s really no such thing as 1.78:1, it’s just 16×9 expressed as a cinematic ratio for consumers. This is important because 16×9 ≠ 1.78:1 and assuming this one would run into problems during post-production. Bob Roberts is listed on IMDb as 1.85:1 although this may be a mistake. I’m interested to see if any films are really shot at “1.78:1” and not just 16×9 enhanced for DVD.
38-26-32 – oh, I am sorry, was thinking of a different aspect ratio. Anything that ultimately fills my old TV screen – don’t like those thin black lines unless its for Lawrence of Arabia – then I will live with it.
I’m not bothered by differing aspect ratios. As long as I can see the movie the way it was intended to be seen.
1.78:1 is great for mainstream film, and perfect for adult. It’s just enough on the edges to get everything in the room.
Each film requires it’s own cinematographic elements specifically chosen by the director of photography and director. The aspect ratio depends on what best suites the film, not a viewer’s personal preference. As stated before, this also depends on the venue in which the film is shown and the distribution release format.
Ok, time for an education.
Comparing aspect ratios is comparing apples to oranges, both are valid but taste different. Directors use their formats based on their story requirements. Some directors, like Kubrick, mastered the beauty of open frame (1:33) because of his background as a still photographer. He shot 2001 in widescreen 65MM because well, that story was epic.
2:35:1 is really a masking procedure that is only true when shooting in the anamorphic format. Super 35 is the other, which can be recomposed for both 4:3 full frame) and 2:35.1 ratios. The physical size of the film area between the sprocket perforations determines the image’s size. Super 35 It uses the dimensions of 35MM film to recompose the image to any aspect ratio based on the perforations. David Fincher uses super 35 2.35.1 in his films Se7en, The Game, Fight Club.
Anamorphic lenses appropriate more light and sharpness, thus images look grander and depth of field (the focal planes on an image) is wider. Blade Runner is an example of a film shot on anamorphic lenses at 2:39:1. There was no way to create that with 1.85.1, what you gain in height you lose in with, because the prism of each viewing plane requires a different set of framing design.
The full size of 35MM film is 1:33:1, which is the full size of 35MM negative. Formats where introduced to uniform the shooting process, which were settled onto cinemascope (2:35:1) academy (1:33:1 or 4:3) and standard 1.85.1 or 1.78 (which is also the HD standard).
True widescreen is only achieved by the lenses used to photograph the image. IMAX is twice the size of 35MM, so on DVD it would be shown full frame or 1.78. The standard for european formats is 1.66, which use the whole size of the film but matte out the top and bottom to create a wider spectrum.
Ok, technical mumbo jumbo aside, my favorite aspect ratio is 2:35:1. It makes images grander for bigger films, yet it’s wider framing but lower height allows images to be isolated or expanded within. 1.85.1 is great for more character driven films, and is usually the format of choice for dramas and comedy. I think it depends on the director, and his cameraman to determine if the acquisition format suits the story.
Just as lenses create the dimension of the images, formats create the canvas. Spielberg is great with both, and so is Ridley Scott. Most directors leave the format up to their DP, while auteurs have more control over the visual palette of their films. Wes Anderson uses anamorphic 2:35:1 really well, since alot of his shots are symmetricaly precise.
The best compromise between the 2 main ratios (1.85 and 2:35) is Super 35, because it composes for both and uses the full negative to achieve this.
I could talk all and all about aspect ratios but I hope this clarifies some technical terms.
2.35:1 is my favorite. There’s something about it that just makes everything so clearly unreal yet realistic at the same time.
(dreaming in cinemascope is odd)
2.0:1 is mine it combines the wideness of animorphic with the height of the american standard, and i see it as one of them most versatile of formats (apocalypse now was shot on it) and as much as people harp on it 1.33:1 is another fave Kurosawa did beautiful things with it its a shame that it is being replaced entirely…
I agree that ‘favorite’ only matters in the context of the type of film and what the director intends to show. Favorite to me is when I see something in a given aspect ratio, and I walk away impressed at what the director and cinematographer achieved within the chosen format.
If we are talking pure ‘eye candy’, nothing beats either 1:2.35 anamorph or 70mm masked.
@alanedit: That’s a good post you’ve got there, very informative… but the inner pedant in me just keeps reading it over and it’s bothering me endlessly because you haven’t sorted out the difference between “:” and “.” when talking about aspect ratios! “1:33” means something that’s 33 times wider than it is high. What you’re thinking of is “1.33:1”, which means something that is 1-and-a-third times wider than it is high (same as 4:3, but you’ll know that). 2:35:1 means nothing, unless you’re talking about something three-dimensional, and 2:35.1 is, again, something that’s two units high and 35.1 long. Again, it should be “2.35:1”.
Similarly, “2.35.1” and “1.85.1” mean nothing as you haven’t the crucial “:”, which defines what is in ratio to what, and you have two decimal points, which isn’t allowed. What you should probably aim for is just writing the number that is in ratio to 1, which you’ve done several times, eg “1.85” or “1.66”, which is more succinct, or use ratios like 4:3 and 16:9 that don’t involve 1.
Now, of course, none of it is ambiguous in this context and this is just me being a huge pedant, but I can’t help it! :-p
Also, I have this awful habit that I inherited from my European neighbours of using a comma for the decimal point, but it helps me distinguish it from the colon.
And to one of the others, actually 16:9 is the same 1.78:1, just expressed as a ratio to 1 instead of a ratio to 9. I guess you could be really pernickety and say that it’s actually 1.7777777777…..:1 and that 1.78 is a rounding error, but you’d have to say the same about 1.33:1 and 4:3, as 4:3 should technically be 1.33333333…:1.
Anyway, I’m really not bothered about what aspect ratio something is in, I’m more bothered that my equipment displays 1.85 and 1.66 DVD aspect ratios as 1.78, even though the differences are tiny. If I’m watching on a 4:3 TV screen, it bothers me a little bit watching 2.35:1 films because it’s so small on the screen, but they’re much better on a larger TV screen or in a cinema. But nothing beats full-frame IMAX: no competition! :-D
Finlay thanks for pointing that out, I tried simplifying the thing to make it more accessible and less techy, after all don’t wanna bore people with tech stuff. But if it helps the case, sure thing. It was 4am and I was a little sleepy…
The ratio standards are buggy to some degree, since they are constrained by the diagonal measure by which the screen is composed.
Vittorio Storaro developed a unified ratio known as 2.00:1 which is a compromise between 2:39:1 and 1:85, unifying it to the dimensions consistent with the compositional ratio of both without trading one for another. It’s a wider ratio, with more information at the top and similar to the Super 35 example I pointed at.
It is true that some displays overmatte to 1.85.1, maybe switching your display to 4:3 would correct this if it’s a widescreen display everything should be full 16 by 9 on 1:85.1 or 66, and the equivalent of 1:85:1 for 2:35:1 ratios. Hope it helps. Watch the Panic Room special edition DVD for more on aspect ratios and how they translate to television.
L.A.™
I am a huge fan of the widescreen aspect ratio from 2:35.1 to 2:55.1 the wider the better, but also can appreciate the compositioning of a film like the godfather in it’s 1:85.1 aspect utilizing the frame with the drama and very selective imagery. Going all the way to 1:33.1 which most golden age film were shot in. Cinemascope and many of the other format’s which one do you prefer? One day they might even move to shooting in IMAX which i believe goes only as far as 1:85.1 because the screen is just too damn big for a screen the size of a 2:35.1 aspect!