Choosing The Right Aspect Ratio For Your Film

INTRODUCTION

Although we’ve become accustomed to watching online video content, like this video, in a 16:9 format, films can actually be shot and presented in all kinds of different shapes and sizes: or aspect ratios.

These rectangular form factors usually have a horizontal width to them that better mimics the point of view of the human eye.

With all of these different aspect ratios to choose from you may wonder which of them is the best to shoot your next film in. So, in this video I’ll try to aid that decision by first going over some popular aspect ratios that are used in cinema and then explain why using different aspect ratios makes footage feel different by using a few creative examples from some popular films. 

CINEMA ASPECT RATIOS

The dimensions of a 2-D video frame are measured in pixels, which can be simplified and factored down into a fraction. For example this video clip is made up of 1920 horizontal pixels and 800 vertical pixels. When we divide 1920 by 800. We get 2.4. Therefore we say that this widescreen frame has an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

Throughout the history and development of cinema, certain aspect ratios emerged which became standardised choices for capturing and projecting an image. Cinema started before the age of digital editing software: where it’s easy to crop video to any ratio desired.

Back then, the aspect ratio was determined by how cameras captured images onto film. For example, early silent films used the full horizontal length between the perforations of a 35mm film negative, and used the horizontal space of 4 perforations. So each frame represents a picture that is 4 perforations long, also called a 4-perf pulldown. This gave a 4:3 or 1.33:1 aspect ratio. 

Over the years, changes in camera technology created new aspect ratios. When sound was first introduced in cinema it had to be added as a thin strip on the negative and therefore cut into the horizontal space of the 1.33 frame, creating a squarer 1.19:1 aspect ratio.

This was later deemed by the public to be too square, so it was replaced by a wider, standardised 1.375:1 or what was called an Academy aspect ratio. This became the dominant aspect ratio for Hollywood films from the 40s and was popular until the introduction of widescreen.

Partly to address dwindling audience numbers and to differentiate the cinema experience from the 4:3 TV format, a more expansive 1.85:1 aspect ratio was introduced. 

This was shot in the same way using 35mm film and spherical lenses, but this time the top and bottom of the image was effectively cropped until they arrived at a surface area that was closer to three perforations tall, rather than four.

To get an even more expansive, grander looking feel, required the creation of a new format that used a different kind of lens: anamorphic. 

This format still covered the full width of the 35mm frame and used four perforations of height - but it captured this space on the negative using anamorphic lenses which stretched and distorted the image to cover the full frame. 

This squeezed image could later be de-squeeezed until it got back to an image without distortion. De-squeezing it created more horizontal length and produced an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 which is commonly rounded up and called 2.40.     

There are some slightly more niche aspect ratios like: 1.43:1 Imax, 1.66:1 , 2:1, and even the ultra wide 2.76:1 Ultra Panavision 70 ratio. 

But far and above the two most common cinema aspect ratios today are 1.85:1 and 2.40:1. Most cinema releases that are digitally projected are done so using a DCP, which is basically a hard drive with the digital file on it. The two most common aspect ratios for a DCP are either scope - which has a 2:40 aspect ratio - or flat - at 1.85:1. So, getting to any niche aspect ratios requires cropping the video file within one of those two formats.   

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIOS

Now that we know some of the available aspect ratios that can be used, it’s time to talk about what makes these formats different from each other. Like picking a lens and lighting a scene, the aspect ratios that filmmakers choose for their project is also a creative choice.

The reasons for this choice range from more concrete, practical reasons, to more difficult to define, emotional impulses. And, although there are nuances to choosing certain niche ratios over others, the decision of what aspect ratio to shoot in basically just boils down to a choice of how wide or how narrow you want the frame to be.

“My intent was to have the entire movie play in the gigantic 1:43 aspect ratio on a giant Imax screen. Compositionally I really started falling in love with that concept because Superheros as figures tend to be less horizontal. A lot of the work we’re doing is trying to restore the full frame.” - Zack Snyder, Director

One component to this choice are the historical ties that come with certain formats. In the same way that shooting with a handheld camera has ties to the documentary genre and therefore has ties to realism.

Generally, the narrower the aspect ratio is the more old world it feels and the wider it is the more modern it feels. This tie to period is a product of the history we discussed earlier where Hollywood silent films were shot in narrower ratios like 1.33:1.

So a movie like The Artist, uses 4:3 as a pretty obvious visual cue to mimic the aspect ratio of the time period of the silent movie format that the story tells. 

“He was talking like this to say, what about doing a silent movie. I thought he was like maybe doing a silent movie in the modern way but he said, ‘I want to do a movie in the 20s: black and white and silent and square format.’” - Guillaume Schiffman, Cinematographer

Particular aspect ratios can also be chosen to represent footage taken with a particular recording device, whether in a mockumentary style with timecode and frameline overlays like in District 9 or to emulate the point of view of whoever is recording from a smartphone like in Searching.

Some filmmakers have used different aspect ratios within the same movie. For example The Grand Budapest Hotel delineated the three different time periods in the film by shooting them in different aspect ratios. The 1930s scenes were shot in the Academy aspect ratio, the 1960s scenes were shot in an anamorphic ratio and the 1980s scenes used a widescreen ratio.

Other directors, like Christopher Nolan, have used different aspect ratios in their films because they like to use the native aspect ratios of whatever format they are using without cropping it to conform to a common ratio. Dunkirk cuts between some scenes that are shot in the taller Imax format and others shot in the longer 35mm anamorphic format.

From these kinds of more overt rationale for shooting in a specific aspect ratio, we can also choose a frame size in order to exploit its cinematic advantages.

Extremely wide aspect ratios like 2.40 or even 2.76 contain more lateral space. It makes them a better format to layer information within a shot. Multiple planes can be used when framing, to include characters and story elements in the foreground, middle ground and background. 

“When you’re in Mini’s there are always two plays going on simultaneously. There’s the foreground play where the actors are closer to the lens and to the camera and they’re doing their things. But there’s always a background situation and the audience really has to keep track of the foreground play and the background play.” - Quentin Tarantino, Director 

Because a wider screen ratio is able to see more background information it’s better at contextualising the geography of the space in a location. The extra width also lends itself to landscapes and expansive, epic sets to show off the grandeur of the location by expanding it. 

For this reason it’s popularly used to capture big budget epics, with large set pieces with lots of moving parts that requires a certain photographic width to include them.

On the other end, narrower aspect ratios are better for films that deliberately want to withhold context, or frame single characters from a subjective point of view. Son of Saul did this by framing with a narrow 1.33 frame that was glued to the protagonist.

How wide a frame is can also influence the emotions that audiences ascribe to the image. Super wide frame shots of desserts can make them seem vast and unending, while a tight shot of a character in an almost square frame can make a space feel psychologically much more contained and cut off.

“Obviously it’s unusual to have something in this day and age to have something in this aspect ratio. I mean, a confined space obviously felt like 1.33 so that’s what we’re gonna do. I don’t know where I even first heard of 1.19 but I heard about it and was like, maybe this is one opportunity where we can do this…It’s somewhere between 1.33 and 8x10 photography.” - Jarin Blaschke, Cinematographer 

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, choosing an aspect ratio is entirely dependent on the context of the film. Different ratios can be used to invoke historical ties, present a specific recording point of view, differentiate between timelines, be used to accentuate certain cinematic advantages or even create a kind of emotional impact.

Above all, whatever aspect ratio you choose, make sure that the choice is a considered one that leverages this element of filmmaking to further the telling of your story.