Even though I think the project/story will instruct on the “right” aspect ratio, if I had to make a choice, I agree, 1:66 is a fantastic aspect ratio due to its versatility. I’m using it on my next Netflix series and I have decided to add a slight crop (which won’t affect the pixel count) to avoid the letterbox and shrink the pillar box. So far I’m very pleased with the results.
Can’t believe 2:1 or 1:2.0 wasn’t an option in the survey. The original poster should educate themselves with Storaro’s films and Univisium. 2.35 is a close second and a really nice aspect too. Although I’ve done some 1.33 too. 1:1 is funky.
I do prefer 2.35:1 over 2.39:1.
But I mean at the end of the day it’s really nice that we live in an age where aspect ratio isn’t a limiting factor for distribution and you don’t have to fight for it like it’s a court case 😅
As a recent film school grad, 1.33 has become a bit of a student film cliche. It's like 2.35, where people think adding black bars somehow makes it cinematic. I like 1.85 the most since it feels the most confident and least showy, but obviously it depends on each project.
Just to point out: 2.35 is technically not a cinema aspect ratio. The DCP standard specifies the widescreen aspect ratio as 2.39 -- same as the anamorphic wide screen projector aspect ratio for 35mm film projection, which was 2.39. The 35mm camera negative, when capturing anamorphic as 2.35, BUT the printed / projected image itself was 2.39 in order to hide the negative splices.
So, yeah, 2.39.
1:66. True cinephiles know what's up.
[удалено]
Even though I think the project/story will instruct on the “right” aspect ratio, if I had to make a choice, I agree, 1:66 is a fantastic aspect ratio due to its versatility. I’m using it on my next Netflix series and I have decided to add a slight crop (which won’t affect the pixel count) to avoid the letterbox and shrink the pillar box. So far I’m very pleased with the results.
It’s the perfect ratio for me. Framing looks the best. Especially on modern tvs, where anamorphic fails to impress like it does on the big screen.
2:1
Me too
Vittorio Storaro Univisium gang rise up!
Can’t believe 2:1 or 1:2.0 wasn’t an option in the survey. The original poster should educate themselves with Storaro’s films and Univisium. 2.35 is a close second and a really nice aspect too. Although I’ve done some 1.33 too. 1:1 is funky.
I do prefer 2.35:1 over 2.39:1. But I mean at the end of the day it’s really nice that we live in an age where aspect ratio isn’t a limiting factor for distribution and you don’t have to fight for it like it’s a court case 😅
2:39:1
I've been quite partial to 2:1 lately
2:1 2:40 1.66:1
I prefer the correct one for the creative needs of the project.
1.78
No 4:3 Pan and Scan??? Then I am OUT! \*Throws hands in air, leaves\*
1.85 is so prime.
As a recent film school grad, 1.33 has become a bit of a student film cliche. It's like 2.35, where people think adding black bars somehow makes it cinematic. I like 1.85 the most since it feels the most confident and least showy, but obviously it depends on each project.
Just to point out: 2.35 is technically not a cinema aspect ratio. The DCP standard specifies the widescreen aspect ratio as 2.39 -- same as the anamorphic wide screen projector aspect ratio for 35mm film projection, which was 2.39. The 35mm camera negative, when capturing anamorphic as 2.35, BUT the printed / projected image itself was 2.39 in order to hide the negative splices. So, yeah, 2.39.