It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I really don't get why people (I'm thinking specifically 4bi9 here) use ultra-widescreen formats for ski edits. It seems to me that every shot ends up cutting off a significant part of the subject, and lots of the shots are just composed horribly as such. (See Fig. 1)
Fig 1.
Is there some benefit to ultra-wide that outweighs the losses of almost every single shot cutting off a major portion of the subject that I am unaware of? Or are these guys just trying to seem professional and big-time by using the aspect ratio that hollywood movies are in?
unknowndeathOr are these guys just trying to seem professional and big-time by using the aspect ratio that hollywood movies are in?
This is the reason.
The subject matter should dictate the aspect ratio, and in something as vertical as action sports, there is objectively zero purpose to it. I think it is both empty and compositionally ignorant to shoot 2.35:1 for skiing (or fake it in post).
I've known people to put tape on their LCDs so they can actually film in 2.35:1, but ill admit its disheartening when it's done with little care and concern for the actual content.
Agreed, I think it's a gimmick just to establish a different look. I just watched the last 4bi9 edit and in most of the rail shots the skiers have no heads.
It's a stylistic choice, I like the look of 2.35 over 16:9 but I find myself using 16:9 for most of my edits, if I choose to edit 2.35 i'll usually shoot accordingly, mostly tripod and hand held. Its hard to dial in follows at 2.35 there is no doubt about that, realistically you could film from slightly farther away but thats hard to keep consistent.
It depends what I want to do with the video. The way people watch videos/movies is heavily based on conventions (other videos/movies they have seen.) For example, when you see a fish eye shot at the beginning of an edit, you know what to expect from the rest of it.
A wider aspect ratio is a convention generally associated with professional work (cinema) and less wide ones are associated with home video.
seems to be the trend now. Before this, it was shallow dof. It can look really nice, but not when 90% of the trick is out of focus. Same with wide aspect ratio. It can look nice, especially when the shot was framed with that aspect in mind. What I hate is when people (usually from cropping) cut of legs/skis or heads in the interest of "making it artsy/pro."
But yeah, for skiing it makes no sense composition-wise. Most of the time, I feel like they're not even shooting with anamorphic lenses, and are just crop-letterboxing for the "look". Didn't they originally shoot in that aspect ratio because it saved film or something? just watch any old 1960's western, or Original Star Wars trilogy flicks and it's grainy as hell even during the well-lit day-shots because anamorphic widescreen films used less film area, and hence had less resolution.
I feel like it could be used in long-shots and panoramic shots of mountains or whatever to give a sense of setting, but otherwise it's just dumb. Your'e not shooting a fucking western or some gritty, arthouse flick.. It's action sports. 16:9 that shit.
Part of me has always thought that since mountains=tall and 4x3=tall, 4x3 should be a great aspect ratio for snow sports. But I'll be damned if 2.35 doesn't just look wildly more polished.
But yeah, for skiing it makes no sense composition-wise. Most of the time, I feel like they're not even shooting with anamorphic lenses, and are just crop-letterboxing for the "look". Didn't they originally shoot in that aspect ratio because it saved film or something? just watch any old 1960's western, or Original Star Wars trilogy flicks and it's grainy as hell even during the well-lit day-shots because anamorphic widescreen films used less film area, and hence had less resolution.
I feel like it could be used in long-shots and panoramic shots of mountains or whatever to give a sense of setting, but otherwise it's just dumb. Your'e not shooting a fucking western or some gritty, arthouse flick.. It's action sports. 16:9 that shit.
What I think is being ignored here is a video shot beautifully and letter-boxed into 2.35 was going to look great no matter what same goes for something in 1.85 or 4.3 it's the content not the crop that makes those images so pleasing to the eye.
jibcrew1What I think is being ignored here is a video shot beautifully and letter-boxed into 2.35 was going to look great no matter what same goes for something in 1.85 or 4.3 it's the content not the crop that makes those images so pleasing to the eye.
I'm gonna disagree with you, the crop determines the composition. its not a huge difference but IMO 2.35 is more appealing to my eye personally.
pussyfooterI'm gonna disagree with you, the crop determines the composition. its not a huge difference but IMO 2.35 is more appealing to my eye personally.
I think it depends on the screen. I can't stand black bars on my 25" monitors, but on a >50" tv or projector I can just sit closer and not notice them. The really beautiful thing about the cinescope (and I'm talking about cinema now, not ski edits) is that it completely engulfs you. Your eyes move side to side far more than up/down, so when you see an ultra-wide image that is big enough or close enough you are surrounded, and you're drawn in more. On smaller screens this doesn't happen, you just get annoying black bars.
*DUMBCAN*I think it depends on the screen. I can't stand black bars on my 25" monitors, but on a >50" tv or projector I can just sit closer and not notice them. The really beautiful thing about the cinescope (and I'm talking about cinema now, not ski edits) is that it completely engulfs you. Your eyes move side to side far more than up/down, so when you see an ultra-wide image that is big enough or close enough you are surrounded, and you're drawn in more. On smaller screens this doesn't happen, you just get annoying black bars.
For sure, I understand what you're saying.
I'm a bit bias as well because my monitor at home is 2560x1080 so 2.35 takes up my entire screen, its bad ass. But, I still enjoy 2.35 on my 27" iMac work computer.
Used to be a big fan of the 2.35:1 ratio, but I find myself agreeing with Landis now. 2.35:1 cuts out too much context of the scene above and below a skier. I'm not saying it can't be done, I like how Evan talked about it (the ratio dictates the composition), but 80% of people shooting skiing in the 2.35:1 ratio don't use guides to know where the crop will clip their frame, and at least 50% of that bunch of people has a very vague understanding of how to really compose a shot, so you end up with a very slim margin of folks who are able to make the cinemascope ratio work for skiing.
I just want to point out that for people shooting raw with magic lantern, you have a limited buffer, and therefore, you end upshooting weird aspect ratios to save buffer space and to record longer.
This is so dumb. Whether you shoot wide screen or 16x9 framing is..... FRAMING!!! If you frame poorly at 16x9 you messed up. If you frame poorly at 2:35 then you messed up dont blame it on the acpect ratio. I can agree that maybe having a taler image is more pleasing to the eye to some people. I for one enjoy both. Right now i have been doing alot of 2:35 but next year mabe i will switch it up. Its all about the look. I enjoy dead space in the horizontal area. I like the look wide screen brings.
If you dont like the look thats ok. But a poorly framed image is a poorly framed image. Dont blame it on the aspect and rule out all videos shot at 2:35.
mlzmlz99yeah I think it looks so rad with long lens/tripod shots or whatever, it just doesn't make as much sense with closer shots and follow cams
With anamorphic adapter you can get horizontally wider field of view for follow cams. Also you can get oval bokeh and signature anamorphic look for close shots. Simple cropping also can be usefull for stabilizing/smoothing footage without image quality degrading, for isolating rider from background and making composition better.
x0r0rWith anamorphic adapter you can get horizontally wider field of view for follow cams. Also you can get oval bokeh and signature anamorphic look for close shots. Simple cropping also can be usefull for stabilizing/smoothing footage without image quality degrading, for isolating rider from background and making composition better.
word. are there any videos effectively using that techinque with the 2.35 aspect ratio? I'd love to see some
x0r0rWith anamorphic adapter you can get horizontally wider field of view for follow cams. Also you can get oval bokeh and signature anamorphic look for close shots. Simple cropping also can be usefull for stabilizing/smoothing footage without image quality degrading, for isolating rider from background and making composition better.
I don't know a single ski filmed who's ever used an anamorphic adapter, seems like it'd be a hassle.
