2.35 1 Vs 16 9

vyoufinder • Senior Member • Posts: 1,978

ii.76:1 vs. 16:9 Which do you prefer?

Aug 20, 2020

2.76:1 offers possibilities for radical compositions, has a "cinematic" and retro look that is trendy right now, and fits some landscapes well.

2.76:one exemplified in Battle of the Burl

It can likewise crusade issues

It looks like the cinematographer did everything possible to get the shot, even skewing the map simply right and however isn't ideal.

sixteen:ix fits just about every screen out there, whether in a theater or on a phone, it's probably 16:9, and video sites expect it. It looks good on the screen without any black bars, and fist most scenes well.

modified to 16:9

When viewing fullscreen, which do you prefer? Is the 2.76:1 adding to or taking away from your viewing feel for new films on sixteen:nine formats screens?

What do you all call back on the thing? For a curt picture show in detail. If used properly, volition information technology benefit the viewer's experience or be a distraction?

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

--
Your focus is your reality

Sony a7S Sony a7S III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.viii Olympus 1000.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.eight Sony FE 28mm F2 +428 more

jjdp • Contributing Fellow member • Posts: 583

Re: 2.76:i vs. xvi:nine Which do you prefer?

As an amateur, two.35:1 gives me some leeway vertically since I don't ever nail the framing. And I def prefer the look.

I don't see what the issue is in your example. I call back the tanks on the map look better in the cropped version. The lesser right tank looks much more stretched out and doesn't add anything imo.

EDIT: I just realized you fudged those xvi:9'southward. 😂 I was kinda wondering where y'all got that instance from, because afaik cropping is commonly done on the sides to fit TVs. I still don't call back an actress tank on the bottom would add anything, fifty-fifty if information technology were really at that place.

Dotes • Forum Member • Posts: 68

Re: 2.76:1 vs. sixteen:9 Which do you prefer?

2.76:1 is a very rare ratio. Other than Tarantino's Ultra Panavision and a couple more, you won't see it present. The widest in circulation currently is ii.39:1.

Here is a discussion on aspect ratio implications that I enjoyed reading: https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/picture show-video-attribute-ratio-artistic-pick/

OzRay • Forum Pro • Posts: 19,428

Re: two.76:ane vs. 16:ix Which do you adopt?

Noah Thousand • Regular Member • Posts: 128

sixteen:9 was a compromise

In reply to OzRay • Aug 25, 2020

OzRay wrote:

This is something to note:

https://www.youtube.com/picket?v=aFrFbw3w_cw

Like they say 16:nine was a compromise due to all the 4:3 content at the time.

two:1 is a better compromise IMHO, and wider aspect ratios are more immersive. I wouldn't go to a higher place 2.4:i though.

A little off topic. I bought a big 16:9 monitor and dislike it because of the elevation. If I had to exercise it over I'd go an ulta-wide monitor (21:9).

Andrew S10 • Senior Member • Posts: i,734

Re: 2.76:ane vs. 16:nine Which do you adopt?

Hither's Battle of the Bulge'southward attribute ratio according to IMDB: ii.20 : one (70 mm prints), 2.76 : one (negative ratio), ii.35 : ane (35 mm prints).

Ultra broad aspect ratios make sense for epic movies like Ben Hur & Mutiny on the Bounty, merely non for everything.

I saw a music video shot in 16:9 aspect ratio with a two:1 anamorphic lens, which yielded a very wide aspect ratio, and I thought it was totally the wrong look for the music video.

two.35:ane or 2.39:1 are pretty common in movies, but some are ane.85:i. I think one.85:ane is a good aspect ratio for commercials and documentaries.

eFilm • Senior Member • Posts: 2,033

Re: 2.76:1 vs. 16:9 Which practice you prefer?

In reply to OzRay • Aug 27, 2020

OzRay wrote:

This is something to notation:

https://www.youtube.com/lookout?v=aFrFbw3w_cw

To answer the question in the end of the video, yes, I could consider information technology for a future project, and I kinda like the 2:1 ratio. Although the archetype Academy ratio is fairly close.

What I'll end up using, all the same, depends on the story itself, the intended platform and audition of the projection and such, the usual things.

As for the question in the OP, which one of those I prefer is a moot point. It depends. It is kinda the 'incorrect' question to focus on before even defining what the projection is all about.
It's the kind of item that will go sorted along the fashion as yous start planning your new project. Including details similar lensing, which is also typically defined by the story.

As a rule of thumb, avert climbing the tree with your backside up. When in doubt, and/or when producing generic/coincidental content for more often than not web, in most cases you might as well use the current Television screen and Hard disk drive/UHD standard, which nowadays happens to be 16:nine. If you lot're shooting a short or a characteristic moving-picture show for theatrical release, so it'southward a slightly different story.
For short or feature films in particular, in most cases I'd probably get for something like 1.85:1 or whatsoever. Going wider than 2:one would be a special case, depending on the aforementioned things.

As cheesy as it may audio, "let the story tell you in what format it wants to be told."
More frequently that non an attribute ratio called but for the sake of using a particular attribute ratio rather than based on the story, platform and content thing will prove up every bit a lark. That is, not necessarily in a good way.

OP vyoufinder • Senior Member • Posts: 1,978

Re: 2.76:1 vs. sixteen:ix Which practice y'all prefer?

In reply to eFilm • Aug thirty, 2020

eFilm wrote:

OzRay wrote:

This is something to notation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrFbw3w_cw

To respond the question in the end of the video, yep, I could consider it for a hereafter project, and I kinda like the 2:1 ratio. Although the classic Academy ratio is adequately close.

What I'll end upwardly using, nevertheless, depends on the story itself, the intended platform and audience of the project and such, the usual things.

As for the question in the OP, which one of those I prefer is a moot point. It depends. It is kinda the 'wrong' question to focus on earlier even defining what the project is all about.
It'due south the kind of detail that volition get sorted along the mode as y'all start planning your new project. Including details like lensing, which is too typically defined past the story.

As a dominion of thumb, avoid climbing the tree with your backside up. When in uncertainty, and/or when producing generic/coincidental content for more often than not spider web, in about cases you might as well use the current Television screen and Hard disk/UHD standard, which nowadays happens to be sixteen:9. If you're shooting a short or a characteristic film for theatrical release, then it's a slightly dissimilar story.
For short or characteristic films in particular, in most cases I'd probably go for something like 1.85:one or any. Going wider than ii:1 would exist a special example, depending on the aforementioned things.

As cheesy as it may audio, "let the story tell you in what format information technology wants to be told."
More ofttimes that not an aspect ratio called simply for the sake of using a detail aspect ratio rather than based on the story, platform and content matter will prove up equally a distraction. That is, non necessarily in a adept way.

This is pretty much the conclusion I came to. I decided that I would take shot it broad if the subject chosen for it but explained to the producer that it didn't fit the subject area and certainly not the xiv,000' peaks to valley compositions we had for our most eye-candying shots.

I ended up shooting it 16:9. They were going for a "cinematic await" but for our subject matter and story, that meant 16:ix. Instead they agreed with me using a few grapheme lenses and some proven compositions along with plenty of wide open up fast lenses, and I, the producer, and crew discussed it afterward feel confident that we succeeded (I just got dorsum.) There's no uncertainty that it was the right selection. I would accept felt like I were betraying myself if I allow myself get talked into shooting in some trendy attribute ratio instead of making the best motion-picture show I could, fifty-fifty if it meant disarming them to modify the attribute ratio (while risking losing the job.) The producer ended up being the type to listen to artistic reason and let me shoot it nevertheless I wanted. It served him well and I know he doesn't regret information technology.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

Sony a7S Sony a7S Iii Olympus One thousand.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 +428 more

eFilm • Senior Member • Posts: 2,033

Re: 2.76:ane vs. 16:9 Which do you prefer?

Congratulations, sounds similar a job well done.

Re: 2.76:i vs. sixteen:9 Which do you prefer?

I like xvi:nine for no ameliorate reason than it's the best fit for my display devices. But really, any horizontal format beats the cr@p out of these awful portrait-manner and foursquare cellphone videos that seem to exist flooding the internet...

OP vyoufinder • Senior Member • Posts: 1,978

Re: 2.76:one vs. 16:9 Which do you adopt?

Sean Nelson wrote:

I like xvi:9 for no improve reason than it's the best fit for my display devices. But really, any horizontal format beats the cr@p out of these awful portrait-mode and square cellphone videos that seem to be flooding the internet...

I don't know why this is on YouTube (lcopyright?) but:

https://youtu.exist/Fv6eBvCqSw0

...Might sway your opinion of the square format. I totally get what yous are saying and agree, just simply to throw out an exception..

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

Sony a7S Sony a7S Three Olympus G.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.eight Olympus One thousand.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Sony Fe 28mm F2 +428 more

OP vyoufinder • Senior Member • Posts: 1,978

Re: 16:9 was a compromise

In reply to Noah G • Sep 1, 2020

Noah Grand wrote:

OzRay wrote:

This is something to note:

https://www.youtube.com/picket?5=aFrFbw3w_cw

Similar they say 16:ix was a compromise due to all the 4:3 content at the time.

2:one is a better compromise IMHO, and wider aspect ratios are more than immersive. I wouldn't become to a higher place 2.4:1 though.

A little off topic. I bought a large 16:ix monitor and dislike it because of the tiptop. If I had to do information technology over I'd get an ulta-wide monitor (21:9).

I did a lot of looking into the 2:1 attribute ratio and.. I call up I will play with information technology and possibly shoot my next like project using it. It feels very natural to me and I tin think of many instances where I wished I had an extra just little bit of width for a composition, but not an enormity of information technology. I think I could feel very natural shooting 2:1 ratio.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

Sony a7S Sony a7S III Olympus G.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus G.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 +428 more than

Markr041 • Veteran Member • Posts: 9,758

I've Switched to Producing and Shooting 2.40:1 Videos

I exercise think the widescreen is more immersive. Just information technology is critical to shoot in widescreen, not just shoot in standard sixteen:9 and slap on horizontal bars in post. By that I hateful, one has to frame for widescreen in the field and for this frame guides on the camera's lcd or viewfinder is essential.

I have seen besides many videos in which heads are sliced in part and other essential elements/subjects partially-hidden considering of bad framing in the field. Cut-off subjects makes widescreen await inhibiting rather than freeing. Framing is critical.

This exam video was framed for widescreen:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic LX100 Sony RX100 IV Panasonic ZS100 Olympus TG-5 +fourteen more

OP vyoufinder • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,978

Re: I've Switched to Producing and Shooting 2.forty:1 Videos

In reply to Markr041 • Sep 1, 2020

Markr041 wrote:

I do retrieve the widescreen is more immersive. But information technology is critical to shoot in widescreen, non merely shoot in standard 16:9 and slap on horizontal bars in post. By that I mean, one has to frame for widescreen in the field and for this frame guides on the photographic camera's lcd or viewfinder is essential.

Aye, of grade. Non but that, just earlier I become attempting a project of any importance, I will do framing for 2:1.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

Sony a7S Sony a7S III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus K.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Sony Iron 28mm F2 +428 more

Re: 2.76:1 vs. 16:9 Which practice you lot adopt?

ane

I'm an artiste so I exercise 40:1. You take to squint actually hard. But that'southward fine art, baby.

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Sigma 85mm F1.4 Fine art Canon PowerShot G16 +21 more

Re: two.76:1 vs. 16:9 Which practise you lot prefer?

vyoufinder wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

...whatever horizontal format beats the cr@p out of these awful portrait-mode and foursquare cellphone videos that seem to be flooding the internet...

I don't know why this is on YouTube (lcopyright?) but:

https://youtu.be/Fv6eBvCqSw0

...Might sway your opinion of the square format. I totally get what you are saying and agree, simply just to throw out an exception..

That's not square, it'due south approximately 1.27 : ane. And I didn't come across anything in it that couldn't work just as well if it was composed for and shot at a wider ratio.

I'g not saying that portrait or square format productions can't await skilful in their own right, I just detest seeing all the space wasted on my 16:9 displays. Especially when they fill in the left and correct margins with blurry, enlarged copies of the central frame.

Markr041 • Veteran Member • Posts: 9,758

Re: 2.76:1 vs. xvi:9 Which exercise you adopt?

rmexpress22 wrote:

I'grand an artiste and then I do 40:1. You take to squint actually hard. But that's art, babe.

I agree that many who use wide aspect ratios do so because they are aping cinema, so they think that makes their video per se art. Merely, as I said, I think the wider aspect ratio than 16:9 looks better, for almost whatever type of video, even on 16:ix screens (althouih many smart phone screens are wider than that).

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic LX100 Sony RX100 IV Panasonic ZS100 Olympus TG-5 +xiv more

OP vyoufinder • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,978

Re: ii.76:1 vs. 16:nine Which do you prefer?

rmexpress22 wrote:

I'one thousand an artiste and then I practise twoscore:1. Yous have to squint really hard. Only that'south art, babe.

Eggzaktly. I like the fashion you lot put that.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

Sony a7S Sony a7S III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus Yard.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.viii Sony FE 28mm F2 +428 more

eFilm • Senior Member • Posts: 2,033

Re: two.76:1 vs. 16:ix Which practice you adopt?

vyoufinder wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

I like 16:9 for no better reason than it'south the best fit for my display devices. Only actually, whatsoever horizontal format beats the cr@p out of these awful portrait-mode and square cellphone videos that seem to exist flooding the cyberspace...

I don't know why this is on YouTube (lcopyright?) simply:

https://youtu.be/Fv6eBvCqSw0

...Might sway your opinion of the square format. I totally get what yous are saying and agree, but just to throw out an exception..

An exception of what?
That film has nothing to do with square format, particularly the mod mobile formats he was referring to. That'southward not even that close to a foursquare in the offset place, information technology's closer to 4:3, the standard aspect ratio of traditional TV. Possibly shot on 16mm picture show stock.

Back in the mid 70'due south when that film was done a colour TV was the "cellphone screen" of the 24-hour interval. Everybody was watching it, fifty-fifty became obsessed with information technology, much similar some peeple are with phone screens today. People would stay home watching TV rather than going out to the movies. So that motion picture has simply been made to conform to the dominant screen of the solar day.
Information technology may accept as well been chosen to highlight a kind of subtly constrained experience, a trick that is existence used in some indie films even today. Has it been a solid foursquare, that wouldn't have quite worked, though. Which is why no one used i:1, unless information technology was a PiP frame in an advertising or something. Even today it's by and large used for ads and other brusque form content for the phone screens.

Anyway, TV productions aside, most real motion pictures of that era were still being shot on 35mm or 70mm film stock in wider aspect ratios, anyway. No one wanted to lookout a frame similar that exterior the boundaries of the Goggle box. With but few exceptions. The point being the story, the intended audience and the platform dictate the aspect ratio.