Why does this have so few views!? This was brilliant. Great work my friend. I assume this is mainly for creators, but this video should be required watching for anyone looking to build a dedicated home theatre with a projector. People need to understand the "why" of aspect ratios and just not jump to 2.4 because it's more "epic".
Because most people coming to the channel are not doing the filming so don't see the necessity of understanding this. So they'll watch the other videos on this channel, not knowing what they are missing. It's sad there aren't as many viewers as there should be. A good understanding of this tells you how to make changes in the NLE for the aspect used to accentuate the framing with masking for DOF, contrasting, darkening, color grading, relighting and many of the other tools you have in programs like Resolve. Those tools can be used to focus the viewer's attention where you want. Leading lines aren't the only way to direct a viewer's attention.
I’ve just discovered your channel recently. Since then I’ve been watching all of your content from the newest until this one. Oh boy! This is hidden gem ! Thank you guys! Keep going please. Amazing job!
@sdk407 Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed it. It's also hosted on Film Editing Pro's channel too. You might enjoy our 'What Drives the Cut' series: ruclips.net/video/MP1ezQ9ahXw/видео.html
Fantastic presentation and very interesting and informative. Aspect ratios are a fascinating area of study and you have more than done the subject justice.
Great in depth video thoroughly enjoyed it. Liked! *_Would have still liked to have a touchpoint to the more popular way to name the ratios (4:3, 16:9, 21:9...)_*
Thanks for watching and commenting. The cool thing about using 1 as the common denominator is it makes it easier the compare different aspect ratios against each other without having to do maths!!!
Excellent content!!! Very informative. "Good films/videos are all about story. A frame is the window through which we experience the story." Loved it!!! Your content deserve more views than it is now. Regards, Vignesh A
So I have a question? Film aspect ratios that optimised the picture width ratio either used a different ratio image on film or they compressed the width using lenses which was known as anamorphic. This produced a wider image on projection with similar lenses though some reflections and light spots appeared elliptic due to the lens. My question is this, When a 1920x1080 image is sent electronically is it squeezed and expanded or is the transmitted image the 16x9 ratio. Most hdtvs have a setting of normal and full. Normal is used for 4x3 and full for 16x9. If it is squeezed is this an anamorphic process as no optical manipulation is done? As a follow up which aspect ratios are supported in ATSC or DVB?
The explanation you gave and the visuals i saw it is relevant to me. I want to made a documentry videos like Johnny Harris. (At the start of your video what i saw is really what i need to learn) Please make a video on how to make a documentary like lemmino,vox, Johnny Harris using davinci resolve.
Those super narrow and super wide aspect ratios are so beautiful though! Don't forget, a lot of 'widescreen' imagery is shot with anamorphic lenses. So a 2:1 sensor would be prohibitive. Taller sensor sizes like 3:2 are actually more useful.
@@ThoseStairsTheFirst You can crop any sensor to a desired aspect ratio. Lot's of cinematographers shoot 'flat' 2.39. Nowadays, choosing to shoot anamorphic is more to do with the aesthetic qualities it delivers rather than the aspect ratio. Some people even shoot with anamorphic lenses yet crop it to 1.78 or 1.33.
In filming, widescreen is great for capturing large environments, or epic scenes of lots of people. They are poor for intimate closeups where things in the sides of the frame can be distracting from the character in focus. Some genres like sitcoms are genuinely worse in widescreen, where the background is almost always just a prop to the acting.
Please check out some of my other content over on Film Editing Pro's RUclips Channel. We've just released an amazing series all about the humble cut: ruclips.net/video/MP1ezQ9ahXw/видео.html
Great piece. Seems like films are getting wider. I just finished a film with an aspect ratio of 2.88:1. Large format anamorphic supernatural mystery called IMPURATUS starring Tom Sizemore. After a few shots on day one, my eye became accustomed to this wide screen and production embraced the frame. Very interesting to work in this field of view.
FilmEditingPro.com are about to release an awesome course on creating motion graphics. Join their mailing list and subscribe to their RUclips channel so you can be notified when it comes out.
I was soooo focused in on this doc until 5:09 then I’m all like “IT WAS ALL A DREAM I USED TO READ WORD UP MAGAZINE, SALT AND PEPPA AN HEAVY D UP IN THE LIMOUSINE HANGING PICTURES ON MY………” Oh oh wait hol’e up what was he saying? DAMN my attention span 😅😅😅
I still think it's beyond stupid that streaming and network TV shows are shown in a faux cropped 2.4 widescreen ratio. No one has a 2.40 TV so why give up 40% of the image? In the old days, wide screen movies were panned and scanned to fit 1.33x TV's. New material for TV should not be 2.4. That's just stupid.
Hello, we can sympathise with that perspective. I'm not sure what you mean by faux 2.4 crops? Most content shown in 2.4 has been specifically framed for that aspect ratio. Pan and scan can be problematic when it repurposes material that is designed for a different aspect ratio. In some instances it can badly distort the creative intent. Remember the 16:9 TV's we use have a shape that is in part designed for showing 2.4 content. We equally love seeing content that's shot in other aspect ratios too though. Thanks so much for watching. Appreciate having you here.
What you are encountering is a hangover from the Media Industries before the 1990’s. At that time TV was seen as a downmarket sausage factory by the actors and others involved in making real movies. A movie actor did not do television. There was then a slow change of attitude partly driven by program types such as mini series which had better writing and higher production values and partly by new technologies that introduced hd images to television. As this happened many producers wanted to give their projects more “class” so they used a format that they thought made it appear to be a real movie. In the 1980’s a number of tv productions made for tv in the USA that were shown theatrically overseas. So it is still done to look classy and cool. Very few tvs are wider than 16x9 but a number of computer screens are 21x9 and some are curved. I have long thought about buying one to watch el cid or ben hur on ultra blu ray. I am just grateful tv companies have not tried to put commercials in the letterbox black bars…yet
@ I am referring to Streaming content. For example Star Trek Strange New Worlds or Jack Ryan are not shot 2.4 with anamorphic lens. They are 1.85 and cropped to look like 2.4. Season 1 of Jack Ryan was 1.85. Then they added the bands for fake 2.4. That is what infuriates me and I find it stupid. Thanks
@@viciouspoodle5543 Ah, I see what you mean. We sympathise. Here's some further thoughts that you might find helpful though: It's not necessary to shoot anamorphic to justify a 2.4 aspect ratio. It's only 'fake 2.4' if it's not the cinematographer's intended aspect ratio. A cinematographer is not obliged to shoot open gate, nor at the sensor's native aspect ratio. For example 1.85 is often extracted from a 1.5 sensor. The 2.4 Cinemascope you mentioned is not at a sensor's native aspect ratio (even with the squeeze accounted for). And many cinematographers prefer to shoot a 'scope' aspect ratio but with spherical lenses. Also, different Jack Ryan seasons have had a variety of different aspect ratios, but none of them have been 2.4 (or 2.39 or 2.35) yet: www.imdb.com/title/tt5057054/technical/ It's great that it's becoming more common place for filmmakers to shoot a variety of aspect ratios, and not just go for 2.4 because it's 'cinematic'. Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to engage in the comments.
RE: capturing video on phones in portrait mode.... "It's great for people, because they are tall and thin..." Ahahahahaaaa. You haven't been around people lately. Or, maybe you haven't been to the USA.
The decision to make TVs 16:9 as a compromise is a terrible failure. It means that movies in the ratio of 2.35/2.40 etc have to be viewed letterboxed resulting in a picture size SMALLER than the 16:9 tv, completely destroying the impact of what is intended to be a larger format with a LARGER viewing area, not smaller. It seems ludicrous that no matter how large someones 16:9 TV is, when they come to watch some widescreen spectacular such as STAR WARS the picture will be smaller than their usual 16:9 viewing size. If TVs were 21:9, as mine is, this problem does not occur. If I change from watching something in 4:3 to 16:9 to 21:9 (2.35/2.40) the viewing area increases as intended with the final size completely filling the screen. The difference compared to a 16:9 tv is awesome.
Fascinating and very enjoyable. BTW, I noticed that (10:52) Seven Brides for Seven Brothers has become Seven Brothers for Seven Brides. Was this an error, or a cultural/regional difference in the title?
@@team2films as a (very) old man who first started attending the cinema in the 50s there are two things that are brought to mind from your dissertation. The amazing sound of the Todd-AO films which used an aspect ratio of 2.20:1 but with six(?) audio tracks on the 70mm film. South Pacific was an absolute audio treat to the naive ears of the post-war generation who had no experience of quality audio outside the concert hall. I’m also reminded that cinemas often showed an A (category) film with high production values and wider ratio and a B film of lower production quality and ‘traditional ratios’ in a double programme, there was the inevitable, and interminable, grinding of the curtain motors as the curtains were drawn/opened to expose more, or less, of the screen to cater for the differing aspect ratios. This was often accompanied by jeers from the impatient cinema goers (at least in British cinemas of the 50s/60s).
Why does this have so few views!? This was brilliant. Great work my friend. I assume this is mainly for creators, but this video should be required watching for anyone looking to build a dedicated home theatre with a projector. People need to understand the "why" of aspect ratios and just not jump to 2.4 because it's more "epic".
Thanks Larry, really appreciate your comment. It's anyone who enjoy's cinema! Feel free to share it. Hope you have a good day.
I have to agree. This is the best and most in-depth explanation and exploration of aspect ratio I have ever seen. Thank you!
Because most people coming to the channel are not doing the filming so don't see the necessity of understanding this. So they'll watch the other videos on this channel, not knowing what they are missing. It's sad there aren't as many viewers as there should be. A good understanding of this tells you how to make changes in the NLE for the aspect used to accentuate the framing with masking for DOF, contrasting, darkening, color grading, relighting and many of the other tools you have in programs like Resolve. Those tools can be used to focus the viewer's attention where you want. Leading lines aren't the only way to direct a viewer's attention.
This should genuinely be a standard go to for any film school. Bravo. 🤘🎬
Thanks Richard. Kind of you to say.
This is fantastic. I have to point out that the narration is paced beautifully. Interesting and engaging. More of this please.
So glad you enjoyed, thanks for commenting.
A fascinating presentation. The power of aspect ratio-choose wisely. Bravo!!!
Thank you kindly!
I’ve just discovered your channel recently. Since then I’ve been watching all of your content from the newest until this one. Oh boy! This is hidden gem ! Thank you guys! Keep going please. Amazing job!
Thanks Adriano. It’s great to have you here, glad you enjoyed the video. It was one of our first!
I love aspect ratios more than anything, and I must say this is easily one of the best videos I've seen on the subject. Cheers!
Thanks so much!
Deserves way more views. Best Video I've found on this topic.
@sdk407 Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed it. It's also hosted on Film Editing Pro's channel too. You might enjoy our 'What Drives the Cut' series: ruclips.net/video/MP1ezQ9ahXw/видео.html
Love ur editing and info - got this on loop
Thanks so much! Glad people are still enjoying this video.
Found this on reddit. Great job Team 2 Films! This video is both entertaining and informative.
Awesome, thanks for watching.
Excellent Explanation! Absolutely stunning work goes into these tutorials and educational content! Thank you guys!
Our pleasure Pierre. This was our first explainer video we ever made, so glad it's still being watched and enjoyed.
Put aside the amazing information and history behind aspect ratios, this video is laid out really nicely, hope you have a nice day
-Shelby
Thanks Shelby
Wow this is such amazing content. Well put together, extremely well presented. Extremely insightful. Love learning the history of the aspect ratios.
I'm so glad! Hopefully you will never look at a rectangle the same way again :)
Fantastic presentation and very interesting and informative. Aspect ratios are a fascinating area of study and you have more than done the subject justice.
Thanks so much. Glad this video is still being enjoyed.
SORRY I HAVE TO COMMENT AGAIN. This is the best video on aspect ratio i have ever seen in my life. thank you for making this! Inspirational!
Great to have you here. Thanks so much for your kind comment. Glad you enjoyed the video.
Great lesson, very impressive work! Mine-en-scene explanation is really interesting! Also graphic elements is so accurate and intellegent
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it.
Absolutly loved it!!! I want to see more of this. Great for storytelling!! ❤️❤️❤️
Thank-you Linus. Glad you enjoyed it :)
Great in depth video thoroughly enjoyed it. Liked!
*_Would have still liked to have a touchpoint to the more popular way to name the ratios (4:3, 16:9, 21:9...)_*
Thanks for watching and commenting. The cool thing about using 1 as the common denominator is it makes it easier the compare different aspect ratios against each other without having to do maths!!!
This was so good! I learned something today \o/ Thank you, this was so enjoyable and informative.
great video! really educational
spectacular video
Your video left me speechless! Wow, what a great and inspiring summary of the history of aspect ratios.
Thanks so much. Appreciate you watching it and taking the time to comment.
That was really cool. Thank you.
You are welcome!
Excellent content, very practical and informative. Thank you. Subbed.
Awesome, thank you!
The best, interesting, and well made demontrsation i have seen . 1000 Thanks
Thanks so much. Appreciate you commenting.
very well done
thanks!
This film was so well produced and full of great content. No need for lecturers to teach aspect ratio any more... Just let your students watch this.
Wow! That was captivating.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Appreciated.
So beautiful! Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
Beyond Excellent!
Thanks so much Sam.
Excellent content!!! Very informative. "Good films/videos are all about story. A frame is the window through which we experience the story." Loved it!!! Your content deserve more views than it is now.
Regards,
Vignesh A
Thanks Adavi :)
so much efforrt went into this! this is art man.
Thanks! It was a fun project, and yes, a lot of effort too.
Amazing video!
Thanks!
So I have a question? Film aspect ratios that optimised the picture width ratio either used a different ratio image on film or they compressed the width using lenses which was known as anamorphic. This produced a wider image on projection with similar lenses though some reflections and light spots appeared elliptic due to the lens. My question is this, When a 1920x1080 image is sent electronically is it squeezed and expanded or is the transmitted image the 16x9 ratio. Most hdtvs have a setting of normal and full. Normal is used for 4x3 and full for 16x9. If it is squeezed is this an anamorphic process as no optical manipulation is done? As a follow up which aspect ratios are supported in ATSC or DVB?
OMG! How come this vídeo only has 1k views???
Maybe poor choice of aspect ratio?!
Hahaha. Thanks :) It's also shared over at filmeditingpro (ruclips.net/user/FilmEditingPro). Check it out for all things editing related.
This is amazing
The explanation you gave and the visuals i saw it is relevant to me. I want to made a documentry videos like Johnny Harris. (At the start of your video what i saw is really what i need to learn) Please make a video on how to make a documentary like lemmino,vox, Johnny Harris using davinci resolve.
Aspect ratios below 1.66:1 and above 2.35:1 are limiting. The new TV and camera sensor standard should be 2.00:1.
Those super narrow and super wide aspect ratios are so beautiful though! Don't forget, a lot of 'widescreen' imagery is shot with anamorphic lenses. So a 2:1 sensor would be prohibitive. Taller sensor sizes like 3:2 are actually more useful.
@@lbarnard86 Are anamorphic lenses necessary with a wider sensor? What's the widest aspect ratio that doesn't require anamorphic?
@@ThoseStairsTheFirst You can crop any sensor to a desired aspect ratio. Lot's of cinematographers shoot 'flat' 2.39. Nowadays, choosing to shoot anamorphic is more to do with the aesthetic qualities it delivers rather than the aspect ratio. Some people even shoot with anamorphic lenses yet crop it to 1.78 or 1.33.
In filming, widescreen is great for capturing large environments, or epic scenes of lots of people. They are poor for intimate closeups where things in the sides of the frame can be distracting from the character in focus. Some genres like sitcoms are genuinely worse in widescreen, where the background is almost always just a prop to the acting.
Yeah, good point! Thanks so much for watching.
THIS IS GOLD THANK U
Your comments inspire us! Thank-you.
bring up another one
Please check out some of my other content over on Film Editing Pro's RUclips Channel. We've just released an amazing series all about the humble cut: ruclips.net/video/MP1ezQ9ahXw/видео.html
Great piece. Seems like films are getting wider. I just finished a film with an aspect ratio of 2.88:1. Large format anamorphic supernatural mystery called IMPURATUS starring Tom Sizemore. After a few shots on day one, my eye became accustomed to this wide screen and production embraced the frame. Very interesting to work in this field of view.
So cool! Thanks for watching.
very nice
Thanks :)
This video is gold for filmmakers.
Thank-you Luis :)
Really great video! Much more to be learned here than solely dumb technical numbers.
Thanks so much. Appreciate you watching and taking the time to leave a comment.
nice!
my only question...how did you make these motion graphics? please can you teach me?
FilmEditingPro.com are about to release an awesome course on creating motion graphics. Join their mailing list and subscribe to their RUclips channel so you can be notified when it comes out.
2.40:1 Has always been the best in my opinion, I love that look!
Thanks for watching.
I was soooo focused in on this doc until 5:09 then I’m all like “IT WAS ALL A DREAM I USED TO READ WORD UP MAGAZINE, SALT AND PEPPA AN HEAVY D UP IN THE LIMOUSINE HANGING PICTURES ON MY………” Oh oh wait hol’e up what was he saying? DAMN my attention span 😅😅😅
Hahah! Glad you enjoyed the first 5 minutes :)
Epic video
Thanks Matka!
insane
Thanks!
I still think it's beyond stupid that streaming and network TV shows are shown in a faux cropped 2.4 widescreen ratio. No one has a 2.40 TV so why give up 40% of the image? In the old days, wide screen movies were panned and scanned to fit 1.33x TV's. New material for TV should not be 2.4. That's just stupid.
Hello, we can sympathise with that perspective. I'm not sure what you mean by faux 2.4 crops? Most content shown in 2.4 has been specifically framed for that aspect ratio.
Pan and scan can be problematic when it repurposes material that is designed for a different aspect ratio. In some instances it can badly distort the creative intent.
Remember the 16:9 TV's we use have a shape that is in part designed for showing 2.4 content. We equally love seeing content that's shot in other aspect ratios too though.
Thanks so much for watching. Appreciate having you here.
What you are encountering is a hangover from the Media Industries before the 1990’s. At that time TV was seen as a downmarket sausage factory by the actors and others involved in making real movies. A movie actor did not do television. There was then a slow change of attitude partly driven by program types such as mini series which had better writing and higher production values and partly by new technologies that introduced hd images to television. As this happened many producers wanted to give their projects more “class” so they used a format that they thought made it appear to be a real movie. In the 1980’s a number of tv productions made for tv in the USA that were shown theatrically overseas. So it is still done to look classy and cool. Very few tvs are wider than 16x9 but a number of computer screens are 21x9 and some are curved. I have long thought about buying one to watch el cid or ben hur on ultra blu ray.
I am just grateful tv companies have not tried to put commercials in the letterbox black bars…yet
@@richjames2540 Thanks for watching and joining the comments :) Great to have you here.
@ I am referring to Streaming content. For example Star Trek Strange New Worlds or Jack Ryan are not shot 2.4 with anamorphic lens. They are 1.85 and cropped to look like 2.4. Season 1 of Jack Ryan was 1.85. Then they added the bands for fake 2.4. That is what infuriates me and I find it stupid. Thanks
@@viciouspoodle5543 Ah, I see what you mean. We sympathise. Here's some further thoughts that you might find helpful though: It's not necessary to shoot anamorphic to justify a 2.4 aspect ratio. It's only 'fake 2.4' if it's not the cinematographer's intended aspect ratio. A cinematographer is not obliged to shoot open gate, nor at the sensor's native aspect ratio. For example 1.85 is often extracted from a 1.5 sensor. The 2.4 Cinemascope you mentioned is not at a sensor's native aspect ratio (even with the squeeze accounted for). And many cinematographers prefer to shoot a 'scope' aspect ratio but with spherical lenses.
Also, different Jack Ryan seasons have had a variety of different aspect ratios, but none of them have been 2.4 (or 2.39 or 2.35) yet: www.imdb.com/title/tt5057054/technical/
It's great that it's becoming more common place for filmmakers to shoot a variety of aspect ratios, and not just go for 2.4 because it's 'cinematic'.
Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to engage in the comments.
RE: capturing video on phones in portrait mode.... "It's great for people, because they are tall and thin..." Ahahahahaaaa. You haven't been around people lately. Or, maybe you haven't been to the USA.
Hahahah! It’s all relative right!? Thanks for watching. Stay healthy :)
@@team2films This is a great video. Thanks!
The decision to make TVs 16:9 as a compromise is a terrible failure. It means that movies in the ratio of 2.35/2.40 etc have to be viewed letterboxed resulting in a picture size SMALLER than the 16:9 tv, completely destroying the impact of what is intended to be a larger format with a LARGER viewing area, not smaller. It seems ludicrous that no matter how large someones 16:9 TV is, when they come to watch some widescreen spectacular such as STAR WARS the picture will be smaller than their usual 16:9 viewing size. If TVs were 21:9, as mine is, this problem does not occur. If I change from watching something in 4:3 to 16:9 to 21:9 (2.35/2.40) the viewing area increases as intended with the final size completely filling the screen. The difference compared to a 16:9 tv is awesome.
Thanks for watching.
0:37 i think you mean... *a s t a c k o f p e r f o r a t i o n s*
?
@@team2films it's a joke because in minecraft 64 = a stack
sorry for confusion lmao
@@Darrk_77 Ahhhhh :) Thanks for the explanation
Fascinating and very enjoyable. BTW, I noticed that (10:52) Seven Brides for Seven Brothers has become Seven Brothers for Seven Brides. Was this an error, or a cultural/regional difference in the title?
Whoops! That’s a typo. Sorry! Thanks so much for watching and commenting
@@team2films as a (very) old man who first started attending the cinema in the 50s there are two things that are brought to mind from your dissertation. The amazing sound of the Todd-AO films which used an aspect ratio of 2.20:1 but with six(?) audio tracks on the 70mm film. South Pacific was an absolute audio treat to the naive ears of the post-war generation who had no experience of quality audio outside the concert hall. I’m also reminded that cinemas often showed an A (category) film with high production values and wider ratio and a B film of lower production quality and ‘traditional ratios’ in a double programme, there was the inevitable, and interminable, grinding of the curtain motors as the curtains were drawn/opened to expose more, or less, of the screen to cater for the differing aspect ratios. This was often accompanied by jeers from the impatient cinema goers (at least in British cinemas of the 50s/60s).