Chapters: 00:00 What is Aspect Ratio? 01:05 Vittorio Storaro Proposes 2:1 (Univisium) 02:012:1 Aspect Ratio Explained 02:55 How Ari Aster Uses 2:1 (18:9 Aspect Ratio) 03:182:1 in Jurassic World 03:35 How David Fincher Uses 2:1 04:062:1 in Stranger Things 04:53 Recap - 2:1 for Your Next Project
Literally all technical knowledge that I have of film has come through this channel mostly. For those who can't afford to go to a film school or don't have a mentor , it's a blessing.
@@lucyg2809 I am watching this and learning how to film now because of covid. I normally shoot videos of local bands performing in the Summer to promote the bands but that didn't happen this year.
Notable films that were shot in Univisium or 2.00:1 aspect ratio: 1. The Last Emperor (1987) 2. Tango (1998) 3. Picking Up the Pieces (2000) 4. Jurassic World (2015) 5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny (2016) 6. Café Society (2016) 7. The Girl with All the Gifts (2016) 8. 20th Century Women (2016) 9. The Book of Henry (2017) 10. Wonder Wheel (2017) 11. Hereditary (2018) 12. Bloodline (2018) 13. A Simple Favor (2018) 14. Green Book (2018; first winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture to use the aspect ratio) 15. If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) 16. Murder Mystery (2019) 17. Men in Black: International (2019) 18. Midsommar (2019) 19. A Rainy Day in New York (2019) 20. Last Christmas (2019) 21. The Assistant (2019) 22. Lady and the Tramp (2019) 23. The Knight Before Christmas (2019) 24. Togo (2019) 25. Dolemite is My Name (2019) 26. Spenser Confidential (2020) 27. Stargirl (2020) 28. Work It (2020) 29. Project Power (2020) 30. The Broken Hearts Gallery (2020) 31. Secret Society of the Second-Born Royals (2020) 32. Hubie Halloween (2020) 33. Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)
The 1958 kaiju film Varan is also one of the very first films to use this aspect ratio. It was shot in Toho Pan Scope, an early implementation of the 2:1 aspect ratio. Godzilla, King of the Monsters! from the same crew was also reformatted to this aspect ratio when it was re-released in Japan with the American cut (the film was first released in Japan under the title Godzilla in 1954 in the Academy ratio, then re-edited for an American audience in 1956, still in the same aspect ratio, the American cut was then re-released in Japan with a Toho Pan Scope widescreen presentation in 2:1).
Christopher Nolan is absent from this list of directors who embraced the 2:1 aspect ratio, because he doesn't believe in making movies look like things meant for television. He said in the old days even when watching a movie on television, you knew it was a film because it had certain properties that things made for TV didn't. You knew instantly cinema from news, from made for TV movies, from sitcom, from soap operas. Today it all sort of blends together and Nolan argues that psychologically, this devalues cinema and I think at the very least it is a very interesting perspective.
That's a good observation - Nolan is very disciplined in his filmmaking principles so it is unlikely he would use an aspect ratio designed as an 'ideal middle ground'
He uses 1.85:1 or 1.43:1(the original ratio shot) for his IMAX presentation but yeah he really wants to emulate the theatrical experience within the small screen
I’ve always thought that 2:1 was the best way to go, and for One very important reason NOT covered in this video: HUMAN BIOLOGY. Although the average human range of sight, or field of view extends out to 210° x 160° at its max limits, the majority of this range is made up peripheral vision. Our “Symbol Recognition” Field of view is only 60° by 30°, which is, of course, A 2:1 ratio. So just one extra very important reason we should all push for this to be the standard in the future! 🍻
I love how in Westworld season 2 the aspect ratios are changing. People who watched it will know why. Also, since Christopher Nolan uses IMAX wherever he can, it also changes the ratio and i think those are the best aproaches, depending on your scene and what you wanna highlight.
While I like the idea of a changing aspect ratio in theory, I've yet to see it used where it doesn't pull me OUT of the story by calling attention to itself instead of deeper into it. I prefer (and utilize) a deliberate aspect ratio for the duration of a project, my fav being 2:39 (but I can get behind 2:1 and even 16:9 depending on the platform).
As a filmmaker and someone who thinks about aspect ratios, I think it’s funny that didn’t notice Nolan’s and Anderson’s changing aspect ratios the first time I watched their movies
FYI, Universal adopted the 2:1 aspect ratio in 1953 to compete with widescreen formats coming out at the time. The Glenn Miller Story, Universal 1954, was shot in 2:1 anamorphic to 35mm. I'm just mentioning this because this format has been around a long time but has become popular again.
If you haven’t seen his other film it comes at night he slowly changes the aspect ratio during the climax of the film. Barely even noticeable but so effective
@@Matthew_Robert_Vincini The aspect ratio actually changes multiple times in It Comes At Night, and it's brilliantly used to play with the psychological element of the film.
I love the look of old Cinemascope (which was shot in 2.55:1 with anamorphic lenses) and I use a simplified 2.5:1 (or 5:2) in all of my own projects. I feel that today, with all the digital cameras and stuff, you can literally use any aspect ratio, just put black bars before you send it to someone who wants 16:9 for technical reasons.
@Aggressive Filmmaker I'm not saying you should change your aspect ratio after the fact. I always shoot with the aspect ratio already in mind. I'm just editing within this aspect ratio and put in black bars in the end, if someone need the video in a specific aspect ratio (eg. shooting and editing in 2,4:1 and putting in black bars for a 1920x1080 render)
Why don't you have 5 million subscribers by now? Your channel are RIDICULOUSLY better than so many other movie channels on RUclips. The greats never get the recognition they deserve...
It's like y'all read my mind! I don't have much knowledge of aspect ratios but came to the conclusion on my own to use 2:1 for my short. It seemed perfect but I couldn't point out why the others weren't working as well. Thank you for clarifying that.
Another practical factor: early Netflix rules denied filmmakers using 2.39, so 2:1 was a compromise ratio. Netflix rules have loosened over time (as competitors like Apple and Amazon allow full 2.39) so some recent projects use a 2.2:1 ratio. It’s all about making TV look as cinematic as possible, like you say.
The last movie that I saw was The Broken Hearts Gallery, which was shot in Univisium 2:1. It filled up the 1.85 screen perfectly with very small letterboxing that's unnoticeable.
This is kind of a crash course for any creative people who are fond of film making. The level of research and presentation that is being shown here is something else. Glad I have stumbled upon this channel in RUclips. Yay!
All my recent projects have been 2:1. I love the look of it, as I'm very much a fan of cinematic "Wide screen", I don't have to lose that when shooting 2:1
but but but but... i love 2.76:1 !!! :( xD i'm learning so much with this channel, in a future i'm going to use Binder for my projects, the only way i could say "thanks" for my learning process
Few chanels blend enormously useful content with highly relevant advertising as good and seemingly effortless as Studio Binder. Whenever I return to one of your videos, I feel guilty for still not having signed up to your service. xD One day... ;)
As someone who worked for many years as a projectionist in multiplexes at the end of the age of film, it was always my feeling that the infrastructure meant that Scope (2:39:1) was the superior format for film, and Flat was superior for digital. This is because most theaters were formatted to fit Scope, and would pillar box in to flat for film. And once theaters were retrofitted to digital they were typically designed around Flat and letterboxed in for Scope. That would be to compare 2048 × 1080 vs 2048 × 858 at 2k. The projector's width would be fixed and you would simply lose resolution in Scope. ~20% resolution on its own wouldn't make all that much difference, but that much screen size can really change the feel of a theater from being immersive to being static, and vice versa. Each of them absolutely has their own feel and can influence perception, but the unoptimized format is always fighting somewhat of an uphill battle. I can see how having visible letterboxing on a 16:9 TV can make people feel like the content they are watching was intended for a wider screen, and thus feels more 'cinematic,' but I don't think it means the ratio is inherently better or 'more cinematic,' than a native 16:9. The difference is just enough to have the letterboxing be present to say 'this is not your typical TV program.' The letterboxing actually means more than the ratio. I would guess that if you showed 2:1 on a native 2:1 monitor vs 16:9 on a native 16:9 you would see very little impact on the audience.
The 1:78 is very close to 16:9 and the letterbox is tiny. But how important are letterboxes for movie feeling on TV? Does common viewers think about that?
In the '50, because of (or thanks to) the arrival of the television, the movies go widescreen (like the CinemaScope 2.55:1). Between 1954 and 1957, the 2:1 aspect ratio was one of the many widescreen aspect ratios and was called " SuperScope " (or RKO Scope). Few movies were filmed with it like 'Vera Cruz' (Robert Aldrich, 1954) and the original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (Don Siegel, 1955)
I don't like the idea of a "standard" aspect ratio as such. One of the advantages of making films in the digital age is that we can use any aspect ratio we want, and it won't cause any problems when displaying it. Some projects work best with taller aspect ratio, as something like 4:3 gives a claustrophobic feel; we can't see much to the sides of our characters. A wider aspect ratio, such as 2.39:1, or even wider (Ben Hur, Hateful Eight) allows the environment to take a much more active role in the storytelling. Now, I'm not saying that 2:1 isn't a good compromise or a nice format in its own right -- it is -- but the idea that "all" films and TV shows should, or will, be using it in the future is terrible. It puts restrictions on how a filmmaker can tell their story, and it will only hinder creativity. So no thanks, keep making films in the aspect ratio best suited to your vision. Also, the main reason it's gotten popular lately is because most phones have 2:1 screens, and I don't see the point in catering to people who watch movies on their phones.
Exactly. I can't think of anything more creatively stifling than being forced to meet some universalist standard. Why not make all clothes the same color? And just make them look all the same, too? Hell, why not just treat every person as if they're exactly the same as the next. We can ditch names and just use numbers instead. Universalist standards are for megalomaniacal Socialists.
This is why I designed my first short film to be a 16x9 aspect ratio, and my next short is going to be 2:1. I know that they are going to have a very limited theater run, if any, so I design them to be viewed on 16x9 screens.
I was thinking the same thing. But first House of Cards came out when most phones were 16x9. I think the aspect ratios of modern smartphones helped make it more ubiquitous, but it started as stated in the video.
@@Oceansta Hardware is evolving to larger screens, but wider smartphones are not comfortable for an average hand size. A few years ago 7" was a tablet not a phone, now phones has grown way beyond 6". This may not dictates the content, but can help a certain format of that content go more popular.
I think it has to be mentioned too that so many of these projects are from Netflix, a service which has a vested interest on its content being enjoyed on a variaety of devices. Chiefly among them being phones. 2:1 fits perfectly onto modern 2:1 phones. And if you're Netflix, and your own movies fit perfectly onto peoples devices, where as others will either have to have bars, or pinched in, then it presents a psychological leaning that the quality of these shows/Movies may be better than those not made by Netflix
2:1 is great aspect ratio both for tiny spaces and vast exteriors. You can film cut-to-cut dialogue scenes or show everything in one frame. It's both universal and unique.
It really is a compromise and neither excels on the small screen or the large screen for visuals. The 2.39:1 ratio does not suit tv for legacy broadcast programs so such a screen in the living room would only be good for cinematic movies.
It’s funny, I have unknowingly been using 2:1 in my own projects because it just felt… right. I use a 1.85:1 preset but it never felt like enough and 2.39:1 feels a little too much sometimes, so I would set it to 1.85:1 and increase the Letterboxing a little bit, probably hitting about 2:1.
best video about aspect ratio. well done. one thing we have to know is this 2:1 is based by 16:9 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio of our modern displays. if displays stay with this aspect ratio, then 2:1 is good.
The funny thing is that the Aspect Ratio that has historically been used by cinema as a middle ground is 1.85:1 This was because it is between the boxy 1.33:1 (early cinema, as well as old TVs) and the very wide 2.35:1 / 2.39:1 This creates a kind of “rivalry” between the 1.85 and the 2:1. However, both are great compromises between width and height, with the only difference being that the first is a little taller, while the second is a little wider.
Great video article - very informative. I will definitely look at the 2:1 ratio when making my next short films. Some great film clips too to support your points.
Thank you! Although it looks good with some scenes, always found 2.4:1 has a feeling of holding back from seeing the whole world. It feels like looking from a window, takes away from my connection to the characters. 2:1 seem much satisfying and doesn't have the same disconnection in my end.
The 2:1 aspect ratio was first experienced by cinema audiences in 1955. It was the ratio preferred by RKO, and they labelled it 'SuperScope' (Later on, 'RKO Scope'). In most releases, this ratio was achieved mainly by 'pillar-boxing' a 2x anamorphic squeezed image. I believe that, initially, some prints made full use of the frame area by utilising a 1.5:1 squeeze. Such prints required a unique non-standard anamorphic lens and were never released here in Australia.
Currently favourising 21:9, but honestly, I would not mind 2:1 becoming a new standard, as that would still give me an immersive feeling in gaming and would mean that my resolution is always supported while it also proves to be a nice ratio to watch TV / movies at. Sadly people seem to be afraid and downtalk everything that is not 16:9.
@@tfste It's actually quite the opposite, a narrow monitor is good for working with text because we read from the top of a page to the bottom. If you put a 16:9 screen in portrait mode there is a lot of wasted space when doing word processing. 16:10 and 4:3 are better for this purpose. 16:10, 3:2, and 5:4 are also good for fullscreen work and 16:10 and 3:2 are nice for side by side editing.
Hi very excellent video and thank you for this I see that recently more and more new tv series on Netflix are 2 to 1 I have a very good feeling watching them I feel a positive improvement vs 16/9 It's subtle but quite evident I don't miss very much the wide aspect ratio Very good move for Netflix Of course when the portrait of a landscape is fundamental there's no substitute for wide format I refer to movies like Apocalypse now or The Gladiator However a mix of 2/1 and wide could work quite nice depending on the scene 2/1 more intimate 2.35/1 more ambiental
I loved the aspect ratio used in the Joker(1.85:1) and 2:1. It feels much more immersive and lifelike as opposed to viewing a "Movie" with the 2.35:1 ratio. Plus 2:1 fills up more of the TV screen which makes for a better home viewing experience IMO.
The problem here is that most people have not seen a movie in native 2.39:1 in a cinema so they do not understand what it means. In a home setting you are never going to understand what 2.37:1 looks like unless you have a anamorphic lens with native signal. I have it on my home theater for certain movies and everybody that can see it thinks it is stunning. 65mm film in 2.39:1 is an amazing experience in a theater but very few people have had that. Ben-Hur in 2.76:1 is a sight to behold.
Last week i watched "ballad of buster Scruggs" and kept thinking how it was one of the finest looking films shot on that aspect ratio Today i see this in my feed
One crucial element this video leaves out is the history of widescreen and the importance of anamorphic lenses in determining these ratios. In the early days of film, there was something of an arms race to have the widest films (think How the West Was Won). But rather than crop the image (and waste precious film) or stitch together multiple cameras (Cinerama), a solution came about to squeeze the horizontal plane of an image through an anamorphic lens. Given that the standard celluloid film size was 4:3 (or 1.33:1) Super 35, when paired with a 2x anamorphic lens, it would result in a de-squeezed 2.35:1 aspect ratio. But most importantly with this video, part of the reason behind a 2:1 aspect ratio comes from 2:3 (or 1.5:1) sensors (the standard size for digital photo sensors). When paired with a 1.33x anamorphic lens, the image stretches out to approximately 2:1. This eventually made its way to cinema and has been growing in popularity ever since.
I love this video so much.If you don't mind,I would like to ask your permission to share this video to the other website in China for the embarrassing reason that RUclips is blocked from accessing in China.Of course, I will give sources of the original website.Thank you very much!!!
It’s still not for me. Yes a few shows like the ones you mentioned have used 2:1 somewhat well but I feel like in its trying to do both it doesn’t achieve either. Most DPs except for the once you mentioned don’t have a clue for how to frame for it. Making the image feel clumsy. I find scope or flat to be much more satisfying and I don’t mind latter boxing at all.
Its called Univisium. I would say that it have its roots at 1.85:1 classical S35 film format. The same as DCI 2048x1080 for "HD" and the same as DCI-4K 4096x2160. It definitely have 1.85:1 dynamic.
That 185 shot of Jurassic Park is my jam. Use the right aspect ratio for the shot. Ang Lee straight up changes ratio mid movie. Universal images = limits. Use it if it’s right too.
Netflix now allows us to choose between 2 aspect ratios, or is the movie/serie that offers that feature? We can choose the type of experience that we want?
Actually some of the 2:1 directors are now switching to 2.2:1 because visually 2:1 is not wide enough for some shows. x1.33 squeeze anamorphic lenses from manufacturers like Hawk give just the amount of squeeze to 4:3 and 16:9 sensors. 2:1 has been around for quite a while now, this video is a bit late to the game. Examples of 2.2:1 shows are Lost in Space season 2, Mindhunter, Ozark season 2 (the season switched to Sony Venice from Panasonic varicam).
0:29 that’s a general misconception that for some reason they keep teaching on modern film schools and youtube tutorials. If you think that you are getting a wider picture by using 2.39:1 format you are making a mistake. Remember when DVD came out and gave us a complete wide screen picture at home for the first time, but we still had squared Tvs and we saw “black bars” on top and bottom of the screen, which we thought they were obstructing the picture, that they were cropping it, and therefore we were watching less of it? Remember how by watching details that we never saw before on the sides of the picture of our favorite movie made us realize that we were actually watching more of the picture and not less, the actual entire frame of it, but in a smaller scale that fitted our TV, and therefore those we thought were black bars were in fact just an empty area of the TV? Well, the opposite is now with film and digital cameras, where you now see black bars, there used to be an image before, but for some "artistic reason” the director decided to get rid of it . He did not added more picture on left and right as they told us, and this is why: The format 2.39:1 is not wider than 1.85:1, Its narrower. It has the same width in grains or pixels that 1.85:1 but its height was either squeezed via anamorphic lenses, or cropped on top and bottom in post production to make it appear "wider". So it’s width is objectively equal but the overall image is smaller. Unless you use a 65mm film camera to capture it, which hasn't been the case in most films that use that format and end up loosing image at the end on top and bottom. Let’s just compare Jurassic Park to Jurassic World, and then compare Jurassic World with Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom which decided to go 2.39:1 just because his director wanted to, instead of keeping the previous taller formats, the result was horrible claustrophobic frame with a lot of empty areas on left and right of the picture that could not capture the majesty of landscapes and dinosaurs on the same frame. The 2:1 format is bigger than 2.39:1 but is still smaller than 1.85:1, yet the 3 of them have the same width.
I always used 16:9 cause it is the closest to 2:1 actually which in other words would be a 16:8. Now I am going to use 2:1 aspect ration because I never liked wider ratios. They never made much sense for me. But in the end it all depends on the story you want to tell. It's likte the lighhouse, it has an aspect ration of 4:3 and it serves it's purpose even it came out last year.
The problem with shooting movies in this ratio is that movie theaters can't mask the image to 2:1. They are cropped to fill their 1.85:1 screens. If they aren't cropped then you have letterboxing bars at the top and bottom which defeats the purpose of the cinematic experience of no negative space on the screen. IMAX and Dolby don't have masking on their screens but they make up for it with superior picture and sound. Just food for thought.
![Ultimate Guide to Camera Movement - Every Camera Movement Technique Explained [The Shot List Ep6]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IiyBo-qLDeM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Ultimate Guide to Camera Movement — Every Camera Movement Technique Explained [The Shot List Ep6]](/img/tr.png)
Chapters:
00:00 What is Aspect Ratio?
01:05 Vittorio Storaro Proposes 2:1 (Univisium)
02:01 2:1 Aspect Ratio Explained
02:55 How Ari Aster Uses 2:1 (18:9 Aspect Ratio)
03:18 2:1 in Jurassic World
03:35 How David Fincher Uses 2:1
04:06 2:1 in Stranger Things
04:53 Recap - 2:1 for Your Next Project
What do you think of this 2:1 ratio in still photography?
03:35 M. night shyamalan Mostly Use this Aspect Ratio in his Movies Sixth sense, Village The Visit ,The Happening , Signs
@@vigneshwaranwaran8282 Interesting
StudioBinder Want to Talk About American Gangster.. Movie..
Great video! What about an entire video dedicated to IMAX? I would definetly watch that!
Literally all technical knowledge that I have of film has come through this channel mostly. For those who can't afford to go to a film school or don't have a mentor , it's a blessing.
That's what we're hear for!
I've met mr. Storaro in his school set in Laquila italy. He is a great artist and a very humble man
Lucky for you!
The incredible thing whas that many poeple didn't know him and what I did
Good for you! Must have been a great experience :)
This channel helped me a lot in filmmaking 😌 can’t thank studiobinder enough ❤️
Happy filming!
StudioBinder except I can’t film anything because of covid 😂
@@lucyg2809 I am watching this and learning how to film now because of covid. I normally shoot videos of local bands performing in the Summer to promote the bands but that didn't happen this year.
@@lucyg2809 I feel ya. Try to think about what you can shoot alone on your phone.
Notable films that were shot in Univisium or 2.00:1 aspect ratio:
1. The Last Emperor (1987)
2. Tango (1998)
3. Picking Up the Pieces (2000)
4. Jurassic World (2015)
5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny (2016)
6. Café Society (2016)
7. The Girl with All the Gifts (2016)
8. 20th Century Women (2016)
9. The Book of Henry (2017)
10. Wonder Wheel (2017)
11. Hereditary (2018)
12. Bloodline (2018)
13. A Simple Favor (2018)
14. Green Book (2018; first winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture to use the aspect ratio)
15. If Beale Street Could Talk (2018)
16. Murder Mystery (2019)
17. Men in Black: International (2019)
18. Midsommar (2019)
19. A Rainy Day in New York (2019)
20. Last Christmas (2019)
21. The Assistant (2019)
22. Lady and the Tramp (2019)
23. The Knight Before Christmas (2019)
24. Togo (2019)
25. Dolemite is My Name (2019)
26. Spenser Confidential (2020)
27. Stargirl (2020)
28. Work It (2020)
29. Project Power (2020)
30. The Broken Hearts Gallery (2020)
31. Secret Society of the Second-Born Royals (2020)
32. Hubie Halloween (2020)
33. Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)
They still use this trash in 2022? worst aspect ratio.
The 1958 kaiju film Varan is also one of the very first films to use this aspect ratio. It was shot in Toho Pan Scope, an early implementation of the 2:1 aspect ratio.
Godzilla, King of the Monsters! from the same crew was also reformatted to this aspect ratio when it was re-released in Japan with the American cut (the film was first released in Japan under the title Godzilla in 1954 in the Academy ratio, then re-edited for an American audience in 1956, still in the same aspect ratio, the American cut was then re-released in Japan with a Toho Pan Scope widescreen presentation in 2:1).
Now believe it or not but i don't think those films quality was dependent on the aspect ratio
LAST EMPEROR was shot in 2:40 ratio and later cropped to to 2:1 for DVD, something that pissed off every fan of the film.
Christopher Nolan is absent from this list of directors who embraced the 2:1 aspect ratio, because he doesn't believe in making movies look like things meant for television. He said in the old days even when watching a movie on television, you knew it was a film because it had certain properties that things made for TV didn't. You knew instantly cinema from news, from made for TV movies, from sitcom, from soap operas. Today it all sort of blends together and Nolan argues that psychologically, this devalues cinema and I think at the very least it is a very interesting perspective.
That's a good observation - Nolan is very disciplined in his filmmaking principles so it is unlikely he would use an aspect ratio designed as an 'ideal middle ground'
He uses 1.85:1 or 1.43:1(the original ratio shot) for his IMAX presentation but yeah he really wants to emulate the theatrical experience within the small screen
Honestly I dislike his use of switching between formats. I find it incredibly distracting.
Hey I never liked Nolan. He is only a great technical director but in no means I see him as a great storyteller. It is just my opinion.
Stephane Gregory Dan : You clearly never seems the Prestige or Inception. Those had great storytelling
2:1 aspect ratio will perfectly fit to my phone screen.
I hope you're not watching movies on your phone though
*David Lynch wants to know your location*
Agreed. Irishman looks great in portrait mode in particular.
Thats why I think that 2:1 will be the new standard in the near future
Lol that is another consideration
I’ve always thought that 2:1 was the best way to go, and for One very important reason NOT covered in this video: HUMAN BIOLOGY.
Although the average human range of sight, or field of view extends out to 210° x 160° at its max limits, the majority of this range is made up peripheral vision. Our “Symbol Recognition” Field of view is only 60° by 30°, which is, of course, A 2:1 ratio.
So just one extra very important reason we should all push for this to be the standard in the future! 🍻
That's a great point!
That's why 2:1 feels so immersive! Great point and piece of information, thank you
Ive heard that 1.66:1 comes closest du the real human vision
Interesting concept, but I find it hard to believe that our eyesight might really be like a 2:1 ratio.
@@Leprutz idk about the legitimacy of it but as they said they don't mean the whole field of vision, periferal vision is excluded
Thanks for the breakdown, I find aspect ratios really fascinating and this was a neat bit of history!
Glad we could help!
I love how in Westworld season 2 the aspect ratios are changing. People who watched it will know why. Also, since Christopher Nolan uses IMAX wherever he can, it also changes the ratio and i think those are the best aproaches, depending on your scene and what you wanna highlight.
I think the most obvious use of that approach is Wes Anderson in The Grand Budapest Hotel.
While I like the idea of a changing aspect ratio in theory, I've yet to see it used where it doesn't pull me OUT of the story by calling attention to itself instead of deeper into it. I prefer (and utilize) a deliberate aspect ratio for the duration of a project, my fav being 2:39 (but I can get behind 2:1 and even 16:9 depending on the platform).
On a 16:9 tv set it really should only be 16:9 for tv programs.
As a filmmaker and someone who thinks about aspect ratios, I think it’s funny that didn’t notice Nolan’s and Anderson’s changing aspect ratios the first time I watched their movies
Thanks for producing rlly educational high quality content... i loveee all of your videos...
Thanks for watching!
FYI, Universal adopted the 2:1 aspect ratio in 1953 to compete with widescreen formats coming out at the time. The Glenn Miller Story, Universal 1954, was shot in 2:1 anamorphic to 35mm. I'm just mentioning this because this format has been around a long time but has become popular again.
This channel is my favourite channel.. so informative
Glad to know our content is helping!
Keep it up like that, there's so much demand for this type of content! Would love to see something on how to start learning VFX from home
Film riot has a lot of VFX tutorials on their channel
Thanks for the feedback! That's definitely something we'll consider
I love how Waves exhibited retracting and expanding aspect ratios to accentuate the narrative.
A very creative use of aspect ratio for sure
If you haven’t seen his other film it comes at night he slowly changes the aspect ratio during the climax of the film. Barely even noticeable but so effective
@@Matthew_Robert_Vincini The aspect ratio actually changes multiple times in It Comes At Night, and it's brilliantly used to play with the psychological element of the film.
@@zackmichelson9337 I have to rewatch it!
It's a trademark from T.E Shults since his first feature film "Krisha (2015)".
I love the look of old Cinemascope (which was shot in 2.55:1 with anamorphic lenses) and I use a simplified 2.5:1 (or 5:2) in all of my own projects. I feel that today, with all the digital cameras and stuff, you can literally use any aspect ratio, just put black bars before you send it to someone who wants 16:9 for technical reasons.
@Aggressive Filmmaker I'm not saying you should change your aspect ratio after the fact. I always shoot with the aspect ratio already in mind. I'm just editing within this aspect ratio and put in black bars in the end, if someone need the video in a specific aspect ratio (eg. shooting and editing in 2,4:1 and putting in black bars for a 1920x1080 render)
@@TripleTSingt "put in black bars in the end". Please tell me that you don't actually put black bars into it before rendering out...
That’s fairly common. Especially if you plan to animate them in or out.
Another gem from the studio binder team.
❤❤ Love you guys.. You ppl are just astounding.
A fellow cinema lover.
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching :)
i remember when my friend and i used to put random bars on our shortfilms to make it more cinematic. we were 10 years old back then
Why don't you have 5 million subscribers by now? Your channel are RIDICULOUSLY better than so many other movie channels on RUclips. The greats never get the recognition they deserve...
It's like y'all read my mind! I don't have much knowledge of aspect ratios but came to the conclusion on my own to use 2:1 for my short. It seemed perfect but I couldn't point out why the others weren't working as well. Thank you for clarifying that.
Good call! Congrats on finishing the film
Another practical factor: early Netflix rules denied filmmakers using 2.39, so 2:1 was a compromise ratio. Netflix rules have loosened over time (as competitors like Apple and Amazon allow full 2.39) so some recent projects use a 2.2:1 ratio. It’s all about making TV look as cinematic as possible, like you say.
I just want to say thank you for dishing out such well thought out topics. Your explanations are also quite easy to grasp. Thankyou!
That's great to hear! If there are any topics you want covered, feel free to put it in the comments :)
This channel contents are masterclass 💖💖💖
We appreciate the feedback!
@@StudioBinder thank you for reply. Is it possible to make something about documentary film making please.
Nice this was super useful 👌 thanks 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾#keepfilming
You're welcome!
So will you be adding 2:1 to your storyboard tool? I’d love to see custom aspect ratios for the various social publishing ratios and classic ones too.
Thanks for the feedback! If we get enough requests for a new application, then it'll be considered in future updates!
@@StudioBinder Please! that would be awesome!!!!
Great idea. Would love this option.
The last movie that I saw was The Broken Hearts Gallery, which was shot in Univisium 2:1. It filled up the 1.85 screen perfectly with very small letterboxing that's unnoticeable.
This is kind of a crash course for any creative people who are fond of film making. The level of research and presentation that is being shown here is something else. Glad I have stumbled upon this channel in RUclips. Yay!
Glad to have you on board!
The production quality of this content is insane. Best film channel I know.
That's great to hear! We appreciate the feedback
All my recent projects have been 2:1. I love the look of it, as I'm very much a fan of cinematic "Wide screen", I don't have to lose that when shooting 2:1
These videos are so useful, thank you!
Glad we could help!
This is very informative! Been looking for a perfect aspect ratio and found this!
This channel is amazing, really love these breakdowns. Thanks!
We appreciate the feedback!
This aspect ratio would be great for all future TVs.
Best film related channel
We appreciate that!
Very Interesting I think it could Be the perfect aspect ratio I'm surprised it's not more popular Great Video Thanks
Thanks for watching! It's definitely growing in popularity
but but but but... i love 2.76:1 !!! :(
xD i'm learning so much with this channel, in a future i'm going to use Binder for my projects, the only way i could say "thanks" for my learning process
Few chanels blend enormously useful content with highly relevant advertising as good and seemingly effortless as Studio Binder. Whenever I return to one of your videos, I feel guilty for still not having signed up to your service. xD One day... ;)
We'll be waiting! 😬
I’ve been using 2:1 on all my RUclips videos for a while now. Happy with it
Douglas Sirk (who Aster credits as an inspiration for using 2:1) was using 2:1 as early as the 50s as his go-to ratio.
Yup, the ratio was used as early as the 50s, and Storaro brought it into the mainstream discussion again as a television-film compromise
The production on the videos are great. Keep it up.
Personal opinion, but I feel sometimes aspect ratios can tell a story too. I think The Grand Budapest Hotel is a great example.
Indeed, Wes certainly is a talented filmmaker.
As someone who worked for many years as a projectionist in multiplexes at the end of the age of film, it was always my feeling that the infrastructure meant that Scope (2:39:1) was the superior format for film, and Flat was superior for digital. This is because most theaters were formatted to fit Scope, and would pillar box in to flat for film. And once theaters were retrofitted to digital they were typically designed around Flat and letterboxed in for Scope. That would be to compare 2048 × 1080 vs 2048 × 858 at 2k. The projector's width would be fixed and you would simply lose resolution in Scope.
~20% resolution on its own wouldn't make all that much difference, but that much screen size can really change the feel of a theater from being immersive to being static, and vice versa.
Each of them absolutely has their own feel and can influence perception, but the unoptimized format is always fighting somewhat of an uphill battle.
I can see how having visible letterboxing on a 16:9 TV can make people feel like the content they are watching was intended for a wider screen, and thus feels more 'cinematic,' but I don't think it means the ratio is inherently better or 'more cinematic,' than a native 16:9. The difference is just enough to have the letterboxing be present to say 'this is not your typical TV program.' The letterboxing actually means more than the ratio. I would guess that if you showed 2:1 on a native 2:1 monitor vs 16:9 on a native 16:9 you would see very little impact on the audience.
The 1:78 is very close to 16:9 and the letterbox is tiny. But how important are letterboxes for movie feeling on TV? Does common viewers think about that?
hands down to my favourite channel.
Cheers!
In the '50, because of (or thanks to) the arrival of the television, the movies go widescreen (like the CinemaScope 2.55:1).
Between 1954 and 1957, the 2:1 aspect ratio was one of the many widescreen aspect ratios and was called " SuperScope " (or RKO Scope).
Few movies were filmed with it like 'Vera Cruz' (Robert Aldrich, 1954) and the original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (Don Siegel, 1955)
I don't like the idea of a "standard" aspect ratio as such. One of the advantages of making films in the digital age is that we can use any aspect ratio we want, and it won't cause any problems when displaying it.
Some projects work best with taller aspect ratio, as something like 4:3 gives a claustrophobic feel; we can't see much to the sides of our characters. A wider aspect ratio, such as 2.39:1, or even wider (Ben Hur, Hateful Eight) allows the environment to take a much more active role in the storytelling.
Now, I'm not saying that 2:1 isn't a good compromise or a nice format in its own right -- it is -- but the idea that "all" films and TV shows should, or will, be using it in the future is terrible. It puts restrictions on how a filmmaker can tell their story, and it will only hinder creativity. So no thanks, keep making films in the aspect ratio best suited to your vision.
Also, the main reason it's gotten popular lately is because most phones have 2:1 screens, and I don't see the point in catering to people who watch movies on their phones.
Exactly. I can't think of anything more creatively stifling than being forced to meet some universalist standard. Why not make all clothes the same color? And just make them look all the same, too? Hell, why not just treat every person as if they're exactly the same as the next. We can ditch names and just use numbers instead. Universalist standards are for megalomaniacal Socialists.
"Ben Hur" watched on an 4:3 television looks awful. The letterboxes covered half of the screen.
@@thorstenjaspert9394 Yes, but thankfully 4:3 television sets are a thing of the past.
2:1 would be a nice native aspect ratio for television screens.@@BrokenFrameProductions
This is why I designed my first short film to be a 16x9 aspect ratio, and my next short is going to be 2:1. I know that they are going to have a very limited theater run, if any, so I design them to be viewed on 16x9 screens.
Man I love you guys again and again
That means our videos are working! 😂
it's more popular due to phones being 19:9 and 18:9
That's an interesting take, could definitely be playing a role
I was thinking the same thing. But first House of Cards came out when most phones were 16x9. I think the aspect ratios of modern smartphones helped make it more ubiquitous, but it started as stated in the video.
Content dictates hardware. Not the other way round.
@@Oceansta Hardware is evolving to larger screens, but wider smartphones are not comfortable for an average hand size. A few years ago 7" was a tablet not a phone, now phones has grown way beyond 6". This may not dictates the content, but can help a certain format of that content go more popular.
@Nicolás B that's why you decide as a creative
Thanks alot STUDIO BINDER for this SOLUTION.
Happy to share this information!
I think it has to be mentioned too that so many of these projects are from Netflix, a service which has a vested interest on its content being enjoyed on a variaety of devices. Chiefly among them being phones. 2:1 fits perfectly onto modern 2:1 phones. And if you're Netflix, and your own movies fit perfectly onto peoples devices, where as others will either have to have bars, or pinched in, then it presents a psychological leaning that the quality of these shows/Movies may be better than those not made by Netflix
2:1 is great aspect ratio both for tiny spaces and vast exteriors. You can film cut-to-cut dialogue scenes or show everything in one frame. It's both universal and unique.
That's a good point! Definitely a versatile aspect ratio
It really is a compromise and neither excels on the small screen or the large screen for visuals. The 2.39:1 ratio does not suit tv for legacy broadcast programs so such a screen in the living room would only be good for cinematic movies.
And therefore utterly boring as is typical of most universalist principals.
@@MiaogisTeas Aspect ratio as "boring"?:))
Ah i know now what aspect ratio i am gonna use for my next project.
😉 Good luck!
This channel is gold
Thanks for the informative videos! You guys rock!
It’s funny, I have unknowingly been using 2:1 in my own projects because it just felt… right. I use a 1.85:1 preset but it never felt like enough and 2.39:1 feels a little too much sometimes, so I would set it to 1.85:1 and increase the Letterboxing a little bit, probably hitting about 2:1.
It forms exactly 2 squares. 1:2 is simply a beautiful, harmonious frame. It offers a lot of space vertically but it is also sufficient horizontally.
Hey Studio Binder, Wonderful information. Thanks a lot.
Our pleasure! Glad it helped :)
This was a fantastic video!
We appreciate it! Thanks for watching :)
best video about aspect ratio. well done. one thing we have to know is this 2:1 is based by 16:9 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio of our modern displays. if displays stay with this aspect ratio, then 2:1 is good.
The funny thing is that the Aspect Ratio that has historically been used by cinema as a middle ground is 1.85:1
This was because it is between the boxy 1.33:1 (early cinema, as well as old TVs) and the very wide 2.35:1 / 2.39:1
This creates a kind of “rivalry” between the 1.85 and the 2:1. However, both are great compromises between width and height, with the only difference being that the first is a little taller, while the second is a little wider.
Great video article - very informative. I will definitely look at the 2:1 ratio when making my next short films. Some great film clips too to support your points.
This is a well explain info, StudioBinder always never disappoint me 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
the writing in this video is great but that editing is amazing
21:9 is still not so popular among You-Tubes, but we try... :)
not a good idea since most screens are 16:9
My monitor is 21:9, and I'm always happy when a RUclips vid turns out to fit my screen.
Been using 2:1 for all my relevant projects for year and a half now
That's great! What made you come to that decision?
Thank you! Although it looks good with some scenes, always found 2.4:1 has a feeling of holding back from seeing the whole world. It feels like looking from a window, takes away from my connection to the characters.
2:1 seem much satisfying and doesn't have the same disconnection in my end.
This is all about ratios so you should be using ":" rather than "/".
@@AtlantaTerry I didn't notice the difference, thank you.
I don't agree, but I do understand what you are saying!👍
Goes to show how significant aspect ratios are, even though they're not the first thing most people think of when assessing a film
For me, the sides from left to right are more interesting than top to bottom.
The 2:1 aspect ratio was first experienced by cinema audiences in 1955.
It was the ratio preferred by RKO, and they labelled it 'SuperScope' (Later on, 'RKO Scope').
In most releases, this ratio was achieved mainly by 'pillar-boxing' a 2x anamorphic squeezed image.
I believe that, initially, some prints made full use of the frame area by utilising a 1.5:1 squeeze.
Such prints required a unique non-standard anamorphic lens and were never released here in Australia.
There's a movie from 1930 that uses the 2:1 aspect ratio. It's called The Big Trail and stars John Wayne. Pretty good movie too.
Very informative. Dope.
Good to hear!
Currently favourising 21:9, but honestly, I would not mind 2:1 becoming a new standard, as that would still give me an immersive feeling in gaming and would mean that my resolution is always supported while it also proves to be a nice ratio to watch TV / movies at.
Sadly people seem to be afraid and downtalk everything that is not 16:9.
A narrow monitor is not good for working on.
@@tfste It's actually quite the opposite, a narrow monitor is good for working with text because we read from the top of a page to the bottom. If you put a 16:9 screen in portrait mode there is a lot of wasted space when doing word processing. 16:10 and 4:3 are better for this purpose. 16:10, 3:2, and 5:4 are also good for fullscreen work and 16:10 and 3:2 are nice for side by side editing.
Thank you and have a great day.
Hi very excellent video and thank you for this
I see that recently more and more new tv series on Netflix are 2 to 1
I have a very good feeling watching them
I feel a positive improvement vs 16/9
It's subtle but quite evident
I don't miss very much the wide aspect ratio
Very good move for Netflix
Of course when the portrait of a landscape is fundamental there's no substitute for wide format
I refer to movies like Apocalypse now or The Gladiator
However a mix of 2/1 and wide could work quite nice depending on the scene
2/1 more intimate
2.35/1 more ambiental
Thanks this was awesome.
I loved the aspect ratio used in the Joker(1.85:1) and 2:1. It feels much more immersive and lifelike as opposed to viewing a "Movie" with the 2.35:1 ratio. Plus 2:1 fills up more of the TV screen which makes for a better home viewing experience IMO.
The problem here is that most people have not seen a movie in native 2.39:1 in a cinema so they do not understand what it means.
In a home setting you are never going to understand what 2.37:1 looks like unless you have a anamorphic lens with native signal. I have it on my home theater for certain movies and everybody that can see it thinks it is stunning.
65mm film in 2.39:1 is an amazing experience in a theater but very few people have had that. Ben-Hur in 2.76:1 is a sight to behold.
Last week i watched "ballad of buster Scruggs" and kept thinking how it was one of the finest looking films shot on that aspect ratio
Today i see this in my feed
All part of the plan 😮
One crucial element this video leaves out is the history of widescreen and the importance of anamorphic lenses in determining these ratios.
In the early days of film, there was something of an arms race to have the widest films (think How the West Was Won). But rather than crop the image (and waste precious film) or stitch together multiple cameras (Cinerama), a solution came about to squeeze the horizontal plane of an image through an anamorphic lens.
Given that the standard celluloid film size was 4:3 (or 1.33:1) Super 35, when paired with a 2x anamorphic lens, it would result in a de-squeezed 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
But most importantly with this video, part of the reason behind a 2:1 aspect ratio comes from 2:3 (or 1.5:1) sensors (the standard size for digital photo sensors). When paired with a 1.33x anamorphic lens, the image stretches out to approximately 2:1. This eventually made its way to cinema and has been growing in popularity ever since.
I love this video so much.If you don't mind,I would like to ask your permission to share this video to the other website in China for the embarrassing reason that RUclips is blocked from accessing in China.Of course, I will give sources of the original website.Thank you very much!!!
Very helpful, thank you
Your welcome :)
Your videos are great 🙌
Thanks for watching!
Shoot 3:2. Display theatrically in 3:2 IMAX then crop a little to16:9 at home keeping width of the wider aspect ratios but gaining extra height.
It’s still not for me. Yes a few shows like the ones you mentioned have used 2:1 somewhat well but I feel like in its trying to do both it doesn’t achieve either. Most DPs except for the once you mentioned don’t have a clue for how to frame for it. Making the image feel clumsy. I find scope or flat to be much more satisfying and I don’t mind latter boxing at all.
love the vid, great advise. that being said shouldn't you have rendered out this video in 2:1 to go with the theme of the video
That was a like a video game version of "Twist of Fate" by Olivia Newton-John playing at the end of this video in the background.
Its called Univisium.
I would say that it have its roots at 1.85:1 classical S35 film format. The same as DCI 2048x1080 for "HD" and the same as DCI-4K 4096x2160. It definitely have 1.85:1 dynamic.
Yup we mention it in the video!
Supr video keep it up studio binder❤
We put out a new video every Monday!
That 185 shot of Jurassic Park is my jam.
Use the right aspect ratio for the shot. Ang Lee straight up changes ratio mid movie. Universal images = limits. Use it if it’s right too.
So I'm not including Netflix Originals that has 2.00:1 but how many movies are there that has 2.00:1 aspect ratios?
Netflix now allows us to choose between 2 aspect ratios, or is the movie/serie that offers that feature?
We can choose the type of experience that we want?
I'd stick to 16:9. not everybody has Ultrawide Screen 21:9 TV.
I don't think you understand the video
Another useful video for me
Thankq
Actually some of the 2:1 directors are now switching to 2.2:1 because visually 2:1 is not wide enough for some shows. x1.33 squeeze anamorphic lenses from manufacturers like Hawk give just the amount of squeeze to 4:3 and 16:9 sensors. 2:1 has been around for quite a while now, this video is a bit late to the game. Examples of 2.2:1 shows are Lost in Space season 2, Mindhunter, Ozark season 2 (the season switched to Sony Venice from Panasonic varicam).
0:29 that’s a general misconception that for some reason they keep teaching on modern film schools and youtube tutorials. If you think that you are getting a wider picture by using 2.39:1 format you are making a mistake.
Remember when DVD came out and gave us a complete wide screen picture at home for the first time, but we still had squared Tvs and we saw “black bars” on top and bottom of the screen, which we thought they were obstructing the picture, that they were cropping it, and therefore we were watching less of it?
Remember how by watching details that we never saw before on the sides of the picture of our favorite movie made us realize that we were actually watching more of the picture and not less, the actual entire frame of it, but in a smaller scale that fitted our TV, and therefore those we thought were black bars were in fact just an empty area of the TV?
Well, the opposite is now with film and digital cameras, where you now see black bars, there used to be an image before, but for some "artistic reason” the director decided to get rid of it . He did not added more picture on left and right as they told us, and this is why:
The format 2.39:1 is not wider than 1.85:1, Its narrower. It has the same width in grains or pixels that 1.85:1 but its height was either squeezed via anamorphic lenses, or cropped on top and bottom in post production to make it appear "wider". So it’s width is objectively equal but the overall image is smaller. Unless you use a 65mm film camera to capture it, which hasn't been the case in most films that use that format and end up loosing image at the end on top and bottom.
Let’s just compare Jurassic Park to Jurassic World, and then compare Jurassic World with Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom which decided to go 2.39:1 just because his director wanted to, instead of keeping the previous taller formats, the result was horrible claustrophobic frame with a lot of empty areas on left and right of the picture that could not capture the majesty of landscapes and dinosaurs on the same frame.
The 2:1 format is bigger than 2.39:1 but is still smaller than 1.85:1, yet the 3 of them have the same width.
Very informative, but how does one film aspect ratio in camera? Matte boxes, digital camera sensor, or post?
in camera would be the settings inside your camera or using anamorphic lenses
I wish TVs would move to a 2:1 standard.
Can y'all please come out with a studio binder APP????
It also depends upon lenses with which we are shooting, right?
Not with lenses in general, but that is the case with anamorphic lenses
Came here after watching Vittorio Storaro's first 2:1 Project Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
I always used 16:9 cause it is the closest to 2:1 actually which in other words would be a 16:8. Now I am going to use 2:1 aspect ration because I never liked wider ratios. They never made much sense for me. But in the end it all depends on the story you want to tell. It's likte the lighhouse, it has an aspect ration of 4:3 and it serves it's purpose even it came out last year.
Isn't "16:8" called 18:9?
2:1 is the best. It has become a deciding factor whether to watch a show or not in Netflix for mr
The problem with shooting movies in this ratio is that movie theaters can't mask the image to 2:1. They are cropped to fill their 1.85:1 screens. If they aren't cropped then you have letterboxing bars at the top and bottom which defeats the purpose of the cinematic experience of no negative space on the screen. IMAX and Dolby don't have masking on their screens but they make up for it with superior picture and sound. Just food for thought.
SO GOOD!