Personal View site logo
Cinemascope 2,35:1 aspect ratio does not make any sense today
  • 45 Replies sorted by
  • Essentially what we're talking about is the Golden Circle/Rectangle (fibonacci) vs The Rule of 3rds. [which for you audiophiles is the same effect as tuning A to 432hz vs 440hz.]

    "A 432hz" is the frequency that nature vibrates at, so some think this tuning is more organic or (correct), however this tuning is SO in sync with our physiology and our minds that it has an overwhelming tendency to sooth and in some cases create a trance like state in the mind... it's rather boring. "A 440hz" clashes with our minds with just enough discord that it excites, and aggravates it without being overly irritating. It activates the mind and forces movement. One cannot remain in a static state of inaction on a physical, emotional, or mental level.

    Likewise, Fibonacci is found all over in nature. Comps created using "The Golden Rectangle" are less interesting than those made with 3rds. They are soothing, calm, ordinary... Beautiful, but in a way that can be processed by the mind and easily moved on from - they are inert. Conversely like A-440's slight variation from 432, Thirds are only slightly varied from "The Golden Rectangle" - Just enough so that 3rds activate the mind. The correct usage of compositional techniques within this "Rule of Thirds" structure are what has created all the cinematic images that have electrified us, left us in awe, and inspired us.

    2.35:1 allows for 3rds and even 4ths, 5ths and sometimes 6ths to have the same effect on us - it's electrifying. Whereas 1.77:1 and 1.78:1 only do so to a much much lesser degree as they are too close to Fibonacci which is a tiny bit over 1.6:1

    1.78:1 is bland and unexciting... inert.

  • Netflix is pushing 2:1. See Stranger Things or House of Cards.

  • how about 2.66:1 with a 2.39:1 extraction ;) hahaha

    1. Framerate Human perception
      • 10-12 fps Absolute minimum for motion portrayal. Anything below is recognized as individual images.
      • < 16 fps Causes visible stutter, headaches for many.
      • 24 fps Minimum tolerable to perceive motion, cost efficient.
      • 30 fps Much better than 24 fps, but not lifelike. The standard for NTSC video, due to the AC signal frequency.
      • 48 fps Good, but not good enough to feel entirely real (even though Thomas Edison thought so ). Also see this article.
      • 60 fps The sweet spot; most people won’t perceive much smoother images above 60 fps.
      • ∞ fps To date, science hasn’t proven or observed our theoretical limit.


    To simulate sitting in cinema front seats, show the movie (just 350K download link below) on the biggest screen you have and get as close as you can until the screen covers your entire field of vision.

  • @shian Oh no, not that hoary old chestnut again!

  • That flicker wasn't a 24fps issue it was a camera technology gate/shutter issue.

  • There's even more reason to use 2.35:1 now than there ever was. Just learn and practice widescreen camera operation technique.

    Watch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, as an example where Leone team of camera operator and focus pullers really know their stuff. The wider the screen, the less panning needed to follow the talent across the screen. Compose the shot, let the talent walk , gently follow-pan just enough to keep that wide scenery and stop.

    The only problem was the 24fps as Clint Eastwood walked and flickered his way across the screen. (Don't sit in the front seats). All that's fixed now with 60fps.

  • @shian

    You mean 2.35:1 was scientifically deducted as optimal?

  • wedges, ratios, and the human brain

  • @shian


    But why not 3:1? or let make it 1:1? It'll be also all about composition.

  • 2.35:1 is all about composition. If you don't get that... time to go to school, or get out of the game.

  • I'm not sure what Cinema you're going to, but they're doing it wrong.

  • Getting the compression of a longer lens with the width of a wider lens is what makes the look so appealing to me.

    Can you show samples where it is really useful and not harming image?

  • Flares and oval bokeh are the least interesting aspect of shooting Anamorphic for me. Getting the compression of a longer lens with the width of a wider lens is what makes the look so appealing to me.

    Of course all of the other attributes are interesting too depending on the situation, but the oval bokeh and flares are stylistic add-ons for me while the compression combined with more horizontal information is something that I would choose to have nearly always if given the choice.

  • So, for TV and Cinema 16:9 is the way to go. If you want the beautiful anamorphic flares and oval bokeh, you can use anamorphic lenses, but better decision is to edit the final movie in the 16:9 aspect ratio.

    You are fully right.

    Also, if you want anamorphic flares (no one of usual viewers really care for oval bokeh) just use good plugins made for it where required.

    But business does not like such approach, it means less stuff to be sold.