Choosing The Right Aspect Ratio For Your Film

There are a host of different standardised aspect ratios out there that filmmakers have used. From the almost square 1.19:1 to the extreme widescreen 2.76:1. In this video I'll go over a few of the most popular aspect ratios used in cinema and unpack some of the rationals for shooting in different ratios.

MERCH:

SOCIALS:

GEAR:

Marion - 'Future Beginnings'
Cong Fusion - 'Rush'
Port George - 'Linda'
Andreas Arvidsson - 'Something New'
Liquify - 'Midnight Lofi'
Port George - 'Jennell'
Yestalgia - 'Memos'
Wray Neon - 'Forming'
Chill Winston - 'The Truth'

0:00 Introduction
0:57 Cinema Aspect Ratios
5:04 Squarespace
6:07 The Effects Of Different Aspect Ratios
11:44 Conclusion

DISCLAIMER: Some links in this description are affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with these links I may receive a small commission without an additional charge to you.

Thank you for supporting my channel so I can continue to provide you with free videos!

[bowserjjumetroid]

A correction on Dunkirk's cinematography: The widescreen frames of the film were shot in 2.20:1 65mm open gate with spherical lenses, not 35mm anamorphic. Nolan has switched between IMAX and 35mm anamorphic before, as with The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar, but since Dunkirk and even for the upcoming Oppenheimer, he's used only 65mm film.

EDIT: Original comment mentions the use of IMAX for Inception. This isn't true, as some scenes used Panavision 65 cameras, not any IMAX was shot.

[tylerhenry]

Nothing but love for you as you know. One quick correction: all of leone’s films were shot on spherical lenses with 2-perf film. Creating 2.35:1 with technoscope processing.

[kiju]

A little correction since you show the good, the bad and the ugly as examples of anamorphic when they weren’t shot on anamorphic, they were shot on spherical 2 perf 35mm, granted all the prints for cinemas were anamorphicided to 4 perf so they can be projected like any other movie, but it was recorded on 2 perf. This was called techniscope since it was technicolor who created this method

[jmalmsten]

There are some nitpicks to be done here. Firstly, the chronology. Yes, there was 1.37:1 until the mid 50's but... a lot of shenanigans went on. And 1.85:1 came after Cinemascope and other formats duked things out.

Also, using Sergio Leones films for Scope is a bit of a mistake, I think. Sure, the prints were scope-compatible by design. But the cameras used 2 perf pulldown and non-anamorphic lenses to save on production costs. Only during printing were they stretched vertically to fit the Scope projectors. And as they usually could use faster and more sharp lenses, they usually had a clearer image compared with real scope features despite using only half the film. And as others have pointed out. The wider scenes in Dunkirk, like Tenet after it, uses 65mm 2.2:1 film as Nolan has practically abandoned the 35mm format completely for the foreseeable future.

And... DCP's do have those two ratios standardized yes. Scope and flat, that is. But essentially. There's nothing stopping distributors from using the full 1.90:1 DCI max resolutions in most theaters. But as far as I know. Only digital IMAX uses that ratio.

It especially annoys me when filmmakers use 2.20:1 and the distributors put that in a 1.85:1 frame and then theaters see the notation on the harddrive to use FLAT on the Scope shaped screen. So you end up with a windowboxed final image on screen that is almost half the available size.

[jgbvoice]

Great video as always. However, I wouldn't consider IMAX to be a niche ratio considering it has a proprietary film stock, and Dunkirk certainly wasn't cropped from 1.85 to achieve 1.43. IMAX film is a native 1.43 as it is 15perf horizontal. If anything, most 1.43 IMAX theatrical releases have to be cropped to 16:9 for home media, so I think scale of IMAX has been really understated here.

[hansmatoscamac]

Sergio Leone's movies were shot on Techniscope, this means a 2 perforation used per frame.

[BayAreaMotorcycleCommuting]

Outstanding work, as always. Thank you for sharing your knowledge - I have nothing to do with the film industry, but I watch every one of your videos as soon as they're posted - very informative and well-presented

[capededitor]

1:66:1 is possibly the best aspect ratio, I always used it on film projects I created and I plan on continuing it!

[koklusz]

ZSJL is a bad example of 1:33:1 movie because all principal cinematography was done with 1:85:1 extraction in mind, and showing full frame with all the negative space on the top and bottom was something Snyder decided on a whim years after the fact. So only a handful of scenes shoot (or rendered) exclusively for Snyder Cut are actually in 1:33:1, rest of the movie is really an open mate.

[petergivenbless]

I remember going to see 'Brainstorm', the film about VR recording of experiences directly to and from the brain, by Douglas Trumbull, which was intended to show off his Showscan process (which was shot on horizontally exposed 65mm film at 60 fps for optimal fidelity) but unfortunately had to opt for simply switching between "flat" widescreen and anamorphic cinemascope for the 'Brainstorm' sequences in cinema releases, but it was still quite effective with the screen "opening up" for the VR shots!

Showscan was never adopted but some earlier processes tried simillar innovations; like the original Cinemascope which used 3 cameras/projectors and a curved screen, and Todd AO which was a 65mm process shot at 30 fps.

[alexandertheaverage]

Top Gun Maverick did a great job with the utilization of aspect ratios to immerse viewers in the cockpit of the fighter jet.

[AlleyKatPr]

I'm glad that someone understands aspect ratios, as there are some people who STILL say "16 by 9" when they are not stating the aspect ratio of "1.78:1".

1920x1080, is actually 1920 DIVIDED by 1080, which gives you 1.78:1, as is 3840x2160.

This is more for displays than for projected images, but, it is important to also know that for broadcast deliverables to Netflix and Hulu (for example) as they have VERY specific requirements for codecs and aspect ratios.

Another CRITICAL point is the use of the term "4K", as there are many different examples, yet, the actual "K" part of this is a multiple of "1, 024"...so, "4K" would be 4, 096 (1, 024 X 4).

If someone asks you to deliver them a "4K" product, it is important to know which variation, as DCI 4K is 4, 096 horizontal lines, NOT 3, 840 lines, is tghis gives a "K" rating of 3.75K.

Yes, you read that right, all those so called "4K" televisions and monitors, are probably just 3.75K.

Sorry.

[kevinsupreme_phyearsago]

2:1 or 18:9 was the perfect balance of 2.39's wideness & 1.85's height.

[Kamikaze]

I didn’t realize until wider screen became the norm that square and now vertical videos gave / give me migraines/ headaches.

[bojkberet]

Thank you. I needed a video on this. Great channel.

[PossumReviews]

I watched The Blair Witch Project on HBO Max recently. They cropped it from 1.33 to 1.89, which kind of defeats the purpose of feeling like found amateur video shot on a Hi-8 camera from the '90s.

[wotfanedit]

Just came by to drop a personal anecdote about what a big difference the aspect ratio makes to your perception of a film. As a project I made a fan edit of Amazon's Wheel of Time TV show into a film. I choose to crop the original footage from 1920x1080 (16:9, 1.78:1) to 1920x880 (2.2:1) to give it a more cinematic look, just about the tightest crop I could get away with without having any frame look cramped. From all the feedback I received people REALLY noticed the difference, which is surprising since it's usually such an invisible part of the film (literally!). Just made me realize what a big difference out makes.
Much love from 🇿🇦

[StafonSalon]

16:9 good for tv, 2.39:1 good for commercial films on dvd and widescreen monitors. 1.43:1 good for imax theaters. 9:16 good for phones (but annoying on anything else). 4:3 outdated, old and reserved for wizard of oz.

[notcooljustlame]

I learn so much from the comments and the video. A twofer!!

[Drunken_Hamster]

I'll watch anything as long as it's not "shot safely" and then cropped. Decide what you want, how you want it, and why, then compose for that shape. If you want the 2x anamorphic look, but in 16:9, then either set the camera to 8:9 or compose the shot with the intent to crop the excess off. Whatever you do, if I know or suspect that there's a version that exists that is uncropped and would ADD to the experience, I will want THAT version, and will be pissed if I can't get it.

Especially if you crop something into being wider than it was when filmed, and release the cropped-wide version (chopped off top and bottom) as the physical release. Stupidest move ever to release a cropped version that's very short to a consumer market full of 16:9 screens.