Jump to content
Brent Gudgel

Aspect Ratio - Any 2.35 doc examples?

Recommended Posts

I know docs are normally presented in 16:9 or maybe 2k. Anyone know of docs that have been presented in 2.35:1 or a similar wider screen aspect? I can't think of any examples but I'd like to find some if they exist.

More details - I'm working on something with a lot of landscapes which in narrative would be 2:35, but it's a doc. We're debating between 16:9 and 2:35. Target initially is theatrical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Australian Image (Ray) said:

Shouldn't the story drive, or influence, the format? Mind you, a 2:1 ratio accommodates most presentation formats.

Yep, of course. But in documentary it seems that there are different rules and the standard is 16:9 no matter what the story is. So, I'm wondering what 2.35:1 references are out there or if it's just rarely ever done in docs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched some videos on YouTube that I would classify as documentaries (can't give you links) and they have been in wide format.

I believe that 'rules' are only there to offer guidance if unsure of things, they don't represent a must follow. Just look at some of the great directors that don't follow any rules (other than their own) when it comes to their films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16-9 is the standard for broadcast .. presumably you are not shooting anamorphic to get your 2.35-1.. and going to do it in crop ..   I would look into you future sales plan first .. some might not want cropped 2.35.. or if there is a production company they will tell you anyway ..   you could do a "common top" and play safe ..  the rules of aspect ratio are not really just guidance .. they will be set by the production company or the producers and not just the DP,s call.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Robin Probyn said:

 the rules of aspect ratio are not really just guidance .. they will be set by the production company or the producers and not just the DP,s

That's true if the project has been commissioned, but if it's a personal project, then I'd be inclined to use a format that suits the narrative. If the project has lots of grand vista, you may not want that to be compressed into a 16:9 ratio.

That's why I noted the 2:1 ratio, as it supports grand vistas, but can be made into a 16:9 without losing too much of the grand vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Australian Image (Ray) said:

That's true if the project has been commissioned, but if it's a personal project, then I'd be inclined to use a format that suits the narrative. If the project has lots of grand vista, you may not want that to be compressed into a 16:9 ratio.

That's why I noted the 2:1 ratio, as it supports grand vistas, but can be made into a 16:9 without losing too much of the grand vista.

Yes thats true sir .. for sure go for what best suits .. Ive noticed on Netflix there seems to be quite alot of docs in what looks like some sort of crop ... another thing that seems to be "in vogue" is interviews with a down the barrel eye line ..  really noticed that alot as it used to be quite un usual .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 1:48 AM, Brent Gudgel said:

Yep, of course. But in documentary it seems that there are different rules and the standard is 16:9 no matter what the story is. So, I'm wondering what 2.35:1 references are out there or if it's just rarely ever done in docs.

Are you planning on distributing it online or trying to sell it to a broadcaster? I've shot projects in both 2.35:1 and 16:9 and even 5:1. All of them have positive and negatives. 2.35:1 or even shooting anamorphic can be great for some projects or shots, but It can be terrible for others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot plenty of docs and doc style content in 2.35:1, here's a few examples.

Ultimately I'd say its down to personal choice and what's best for the project. I picked 2.35:1 in these examples as it was my preference and suited the style of both pieces.

Hope that helps...!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 1:17 AM, Brent Gudgel said:

Target initially is theatrical.

Do check requirements of any festivals you plan to submit to, as well as DCP specs.

Many may be fine with whatever format, but some may be fussy.

You may find capturing in 16:9 (but framing for 2.35:1) and then editing for 2.35:1 a safer option, so, if necessary, you can re-edit for 16:9 later down the line if required (may involve re-doing some “pan and scan”, but with the vertical alignment). Unless of course you’re shooting anamorphic, then you can’t do this and will need to crop your master heavily to create a 16:9 version.

Also consider that, if theatrical release is intended, it’s unlikely to be 16:9, but rather DCI 4K or DCI 2K (1.89). So, if you can shoot in one of those formats instead of UHD/HD, then do! The few pixels of extra width will help you anyway if you’re going for a wider look, and will mean slightly less cropping of the height is needed (you’ll need to work out the correct crop to cut a 2.35:1 portion out of 4096x2160 or 2048x1080).

Agree that creative intent is a part of choosing what to do here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Günther Göberl. I'm not sure what it is, but anything especially to do with landscapes always appeals to me more when it's in a wide format. That project, for me, would not have had the same impact in say a 16:9 format, it would have had a made for TV impression.

My view is do what you want, not what someone else dictates. And if some festival dictates a format that kills your creativity, and all that you're then doing is making a film to suit the festival, why even bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Topics

  • New Posts

    • Does the C70 have punch-in focus magnification during recording?
    • And just a comment on the ergonomics of the camera. It's incredibly chunky, so I wonder how comfortable it'll be to hold for any length of time, especially for those with small hands. More so if using the flip screen and trying to access the side buttons. One other thing is that some people will want a cage for this camera and with all the buttons, flip out screen, air intake etc, I think cage manufacturers are going to have an interesting time making a functional cage for this camera. Of note is that with just about every camera released so far, cage manufacturers have released a cage design just a few days after the camera has been formally released. I couldn't find anything for the C70.
    • I don't think you read what I wrote, so I'll try and make things a little clearer: - A single Canon LP-E6N (rated at 14Wh) gives me 52min recording time, so 3 x LP-E6N (42Wh) would give me 156min recording time. - One IDX NP-F970 (rated at 48Wh) gives me 188min recording time. - A single LP-E6N (in-camera) and one IDX NP-F (on-camera) gives me a total of four hours recording time (and it's hot swappable). - One BP-A30 (rated at 45Wh) gives the C70, as you say, 175min of recording time (and doesn't look hot swappable). As far as recording time goes and battery life, this is close enough to an apples with apples comparison. I have no idea what power draw difference there are when it comes to BRAW and whatever format the C70 is using for 4K, but someone might have an idea. I raised the issue because even now in one of the C70 YouTube reviews, the BMPCC4K is bagged for poor battery life while the C70 praised on its battery life. The BMPCC4K will ostensibly run for just as long as the C70 with the same capacity batteries. I should have added that you are looking at the batteries based on MAh, not Wh. The NP-F batteries are 7.2V while the BP-A batteries are 14.4V. You have to convert each battery to its Wh capacity. Why do you think all V-mount batteries are rated at Wh, not MAh?
    • I have looked at cloud based options myself too and have largely concluded it's still more cost effective to manage your own backups on local drives, and of course much easier should you need to access something from the archive. A friend of mine does use Dropbox with unlimited storage (costing around £450/year), though he initially had problems getting them to honour the 'unlimited' part. I looked into Google Drive before too, but I think even though they have unlimited storage with the 5 users I'm fairly sure they still charge you per GB/month don't they? Then Backblaze has the 30 day thing which is a bit of a pain. I'm considering getting a NAS that powers itself on and off daily for this purpose though, then even if I went away for a few months the backup should still be operational.
    • Does Canon C70 have an OLPF filter on it?
×
×
  • Create New...