Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddhi2011
Yes, dinosaurs won't occupy the full frame much because the 2.40:1 ratio is really a bad choice for tall dinosaurs. Either they will be crouching in the frame, like that Baryonix inside the pipe, or the shots will be extremely wide angled, with too much extraneous and distracting details at the sides while the main characters (including full height dinos) stand in the centre.
I personally find 2,40:1 ratio emotionally less engaging and involving. It doesn't feel intimate and close to me. It feels distant, "out there." Even in the cinemas, which are mostly scope, I find 1.85:1 to be more engaging, focusing my attention to the characters and what's happening in the frame at all times. My eyes don't stray around. As a photographer and having shot a documentary short, narrower ratios feel compositionally more rewarding, real and beautiful. More true to life and less fantastical.
And our eyes have a "taller" field of view, close to the golden geometric ratio which is about 16:10. So, 1.85:1, which is mostly 16:9, feels closer to real-life because of that principle. Same reason why we tend to prefer IMAX 1.43:1 over cinemascope because it feels closer to our field-of-vision.
|
Great, informative post. Thanks.
I do disagree, sort of, with the part here that I quoted. While it may very well be true for the Jurassic films, for all the reasons already stated, I don't think it's really true for a film like
The Counselor which I watched just last night. That's scope and it worked perfectly for how Scott and Wolski wanted to shoot it.
Shots like this didn't have my eyes straying at all:
[Show spoiler]
And landscape shots like this were just perfectly framed:
[Show spoiler]
[Show spoiler]
So, I really think it depends on the type of film one is making. Now I apologize if you referring specifically to a film like the Jurassic films and I misunderstood. Sorry if that was the case.