[Adam Rosenberg]

That makes sense, but in this particular case the layer is an Illustrator layer that extends exactly to the edge of the Artboard. It snaps automatically to the edge so I know it’s exact. Yet it still has a slight gap when repeating with RepeTile.

[Adam Rosenberg]

Yes I plan on rendering 16:9 with a letterbox.

I’ll admit I did not consider aspect ratios prior to shooting. After watching the footage I thought it could benefit from a wider AR. So I will reframe my shots to make them work within their new AR, and next time I will be sure to consider ARs prior to shooting.

[Adam Rosenberg]

Thanks for the info everyone! To give some background info on my original question: I shot a short film, 16:9 AR, and have been playing around with cropping to give it different looks. I feel like 1.85 is not wide enough, and 2.35 is too wide, and there doesn’t seem to be a standard AR in between the two. So I started making my own that felt right to me, but got to thinking that I was doing something “wrong” by not using a standard AR, which is why I posted my original question.

It sounds to me like standard ARs are standard due to technical origins and cinematic tradition. Therefore using a non-standard AR is ok as long as it is a creatively and artistically justified decision.

[Adam Rosenberg]

Thanks Jason, but I’m more concerned with why these standards are standard. Why 2.35 and not 2.33 or 2.37? Did someone standardize these ratios, or are they based on traditions of old film/camera technology? Obviously there are different emotional/compositional/dramatic responses a viewer can have with each ratio, but is there any good reason not to stray from these very specific standards?

[Adam Rosenberg]

Awesome. Thanks so much for the advice everyone!