What aspect ratio should I shoot with, when mixing historical footage?

[Todd Terry]

[ryan elder] “I didn’t want to shoot in 16:9 is I don’t really like the look of it, and feel that it’s not quite wide enough, which is why I thought 1.85:1….”
“

You do realize there there is virtually no noticeable difference in 16:9 and 1.85:1, right?

A 1.85:1 image on a 16×9 screen has only the thinnest thinnest little letterboxing bars… almost nonexistent. On an HD screen it’s only a 21-pixel difference top and bottom.

I would almost defy anyone to look at a rectangle with no other frame of reference and easily be able to tell if it was 16:9 or 1.85:1.

Yes, 2.20:1 is a substantial difference… but 1.85:1…. nah.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, you’re right about that, I was just paying way too much attention to the subtle difference probably. I could shoot in 2.20:1 and do really like that aspect ratio, but that would mean that I would not be able to pan and scan the 4:3 archival footage, cause it’s too wide for panning and scanning 4:3.

So I would have to keep the 4:3 footage as 4:3 without any choice of changing my mind later, unlike an aspect ratio where you can get away with panning and scanning 4:3 and it can still look good, such as 16:9.

[Andrew Somers]

What do you think looks better between switching aspect ratios constantly, vs. having everything framed to one consistent aspect ratio?

Hi Ryan,

This is very much YOUR CHOICE AS A STORY TELLER.

I would suggest that you shoot everything 1.778 (protecting the full 16×9 frame) as this will give you the most flexibility in post. And in fact, this is a decision that will make more sense in post — remember that (unless using anamorphic lenses) that 2.39 is just a CROP of the camera sensor which is typically 16×9.

Of course, there is the issue of do you compose for 1.778, or 1.85, or 2.39? 1.778/1.85 are very close, and if you compose for 1.778, a 1.85 common top crop will often keep the same intent. Also if you shoot full 4K (4096×2160) you have a lot of room to re-compose for a 1920×1080 master.

Also, mixing aspect ratios is commonly done, especially in documentaries. And don’t think that you have to do every shot “the same way”, do what is needed to tell the story and keep the audience engaged. Take a look at some Ken Burns documentaries as an example.

But again, what does the story need at that point? To see the entire 4×3 frame? To be zoomed in tight to a subject inside the 4:3 frame, so that the rest of the frame fills the screen? There are no rules, only what your story needs for the telling.

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Ryan Elder]

Well it’s tough cause I’ve seen documentaries that will pan and scan their archival footage to match their interviews, so I am good with doing panning and scanning, or keeping the original aspect ratios and mixing them. I am good with either or, so I was wondering what most viewers would prefer.

I’ve been thinking about which aspect ratio to compose in. If there is hardly any difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1, then why do so many filmmakers till use 1.85, instead of just using 16:9?

[Andrew Somers]

If there is hardly any difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1, then why do so many filmmakers till use 1.85, instead of just using 16:9?

Thera are two standards for theatrical projection in the United States: 1.85 and 2.39

Nevertheless, filmmakers may use multiple aspect rations, pillar boxing and letter boxing as needed within the 1.85 or 2.39 frame.

Keep in mind that it’s different in some areas of the world. 1.66 is common in Europe for instance, in fact Stanley Kubrick often shot and released in 1.66, going so far as to ship 1.66 projection gates to American theaters.

Some studios mandate “protecting” the full video release frame while composing for 1.85. Universal was big on this during the VHS days, insisting that the full 1.33 image was protected and useable for telecine and video release, even though the theatrical was releasing 1.85 (typically on film, the matte was only applied in the project or, so that 1.85 film would likely screen as 1.66 in Europe.)

If you want an opinion, IMO 2.39 is a bad choice for a documentary where you are going to be using a lot of narrower aspect ratios. 2.39 is great for big kaboom action adventures. In a doc, especially as you are shooting interviews, you want to be more intimate, so 1.778 or 1.85 are better choices for composition.

Best of luck!

Andrew Somers
VFX & Title Supervisor
https://GeneralTitles.com

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, I was thinking the same thing for the interview parts. It’s just in this doc, I am going to be doing some landscape shots as well, and thought 2.39 might look better for landscape, but if I am going to be mixing that with interviews, plus 4:3 archival footage, then perhaps 1.78:1 is an overall happy medium.

So if I choose between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1, I guess I might as well just go with 1.78:1 then, since it’s close, and that is what the camera naturally shoots in?

[Mike Cohen]

Shoot for your intended audience – HD or 4K or whatever, and use the historical footage in a box on a black background or some graphic made to hold it. Zooming in on something that is not scanned from film will result in a blurry image. You might get away with scaling to fit the height, but not the width of HD video.

Good luck.

Mike Cohen

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, thanks, it didn’t look blurry to me when I zoomed on the historical footage. But if switching aspect ratios is best, then I will do that.