Choose: 1.85 or 2.35 perspective?

[Joe G.]

I am concerned that this could be a major decision for a feature film, and that I don't have the background to weigh the pros and cons properly.

With the new possibility of a 4520 wide mode, this would seem to be the best option. The vertical should be something like 1900. That would be acceptable, but can you get a film out with that kind of resolution, and at what price?

What happens when / if the 4520 is squeezed down to 2k? How much clarity is going to be lost in the process?

Also, how does anamorphic factor in? Should the camera use anamorphic lenses, and are there theater projectors that use anamorphic projection lenses?

The other option of 4k 1.85 should have a vertical about 2200px. Is this a better clarity film out than the other?

At each stage of post production, is there a benefit to using one over the other? What about the film out stage in particular?

Have people compared the quality results on film prints in various modes such as these?

My point is to have a final film that can't be identified as "shot on video." I want it to pass for 35mm.

[Patrick Tresch]

My point is to have a final film that can't be identified as "shot on video." I want it to pass for 35mm.

Well... It depends sooo much on your post-production.

I've shot in 4k 2:1 and CC in scratch, output to 2k dpx and scanned to a negative Kodak 5201. You barely notice it was not generated on film.

This also because of the negative 50 asa (and not iterneg with 6 asa)/positive process wich gives you film grain (not much but enough) the scanner was Lasergraphic.

Be sure you protect your high lights or you create a nice fall off wihle CC. It's in the high lights that you see the weak point of the digital media but you can work around.

Don't shoot with 360 shutter angle, the resulting motion blur is "non filmic".

These are not dogma but they are tricks to avoid the "video" or digital look.

See you.

Patrick

PS: format is much more an esteatic choice about composing your framing.

[Tai Wah Lim]

Patrick, funny you mention 360 shutter angle. we were shooting 120fps for slow mo on green screen and the subject - jumping up and down is not really that sharp and give a strobbing illusion that fleak the director out. Using relative mode will automatically adjust the angle to 360 angle for 120fps. It there any other adjustment that need to be make or just have to shoot at lower fps?


Well... It depends sooo much on your post-production.

I've shot in 4k 2:1 and CC in scratch, output to 2k dpx and scanned to a negative Kodak 5201. You barely notice it was not generated on film.

This also because of the negative 50 asa (and not iterneg with 6 asa)/positive process wich gives you film grain (not much but enough) the scanner was Lasergraphic.

Be sure you protect your high lights or you create a nice fall off wihle CC. It's in the high lights that you see the weak point of the digital media but you can work around.

Don't shoot with 360 shutter angle, the resulting motion blur is "non filmic".

These are not dogma but they are tricks to avoid the "video" or digital look.

See you.

Patrick

PS: format is much more an esteatic choice about composing your framing.

[Patrick Tresch]

You surely can choose greater shutter speed with slowmo (or smaller shutter angle).

We shot 25p at 1/25 sec wich means 360 shutter angle and the motion blur was closer to what can be acchieved with a video camera (because film camera has it's phisical limitations and can't achieve 360 shutter angle). As we where not "educated" to see such an effect with film, it "naturally" reffers more to a "video look".

Patrick

[Chris Pickle]

Obviously, aspect is a big creative choice, but it also affects distribution in a major way. Especially for "deliverables" on various distribution deals.

When a distributor in a certain market offers a deal, but wants a pan & scan, it will hit you like a ton of bricks. All of your creative worry will be replaced with financial concerns and make or break distribution issues.

I plan to shoot my film in 2:35 but I also understand that I will want to stab my eyes out when they ask for something different. :)

Chris

[Kenn Michael]

The vertical should be something like 1900. That would be acceptable, but can you get a film out with that kind of resolution, and at what price?

Did you see Superman Returns, Zodiac or 21 in the theaters? What did you think of those films image-wise?

All three of those films were shot at HD resolution with cropped vertical to about 803 lines.

Shooting 4K and scaling down to 2K for 2.39:1 you would still have more lines than those films. Since most movies are done with 2K DIs, doing a 4K DI with a vertical crop of 1716 lines (or 4.5K with 1923 lines - or whatever it ends up being) should look phenomenal.

[liquidigital]

At this point, with this technology, I wouldn't worry too much about resolution anymore.

A strong story, production design, good casting, clean sound, good lighting, strong editing, all of these things mean so much more than resolution in making the final product look filmic.

If you get a chance, check out "The Counterfeiters." It won the Oscar for best foreign film. Shot on Super-16. Grainy as hell and I loved it, and I forgot about what it was shot on about a minute into the movie, because the eyes tend to get forgiving when the story is engrossing and all the other elements are there.

[Joe G.]

Thanks for the input. Still not sure that 2.39 will hold up because of the 850 lines of vertical in the final output. I was hoping for an option that allowed more vertical resolution in the end. Something about anamorphic stretching.

Wouldn't 1.85 be superior then, given that at some point when blown up large, the limited resolution DOES become noticeable?

[David Mullen ASC]

It will hold up, no problem.

Also note that by recording to 35mm anamorphic, you are using more of the print area, which is enlarged less than the 1.85 area of a print to fill a screen of the same height, so while you may be using fewer pixels, the print image is generally less enlarged, so it's a wash in terms of which looks like it has more resolution.

Even with F900 HD material, I've sent the same images out to film both to 1.85 and cropped and stretched to 2.35 and the sharpness was about the same, the only difference I really saw was that some noise artifacts were more visible in the 2.35 version because of using fewer pixels. But honestly, the overall quality was about the same.

[Joe G.]

"...some noise artifacts were more visible in the 2.35 version because of using fewer pixels."

That's EXACTLY what I was (am) worried about.

2.39 CROP

2048 / 2.39 = 857 px vertical

857 x 2048 = 1,755,136 pixels total

1.85 CROP

2048 / 1.85 = 1107 px vertical

1107 x 2048 = 2,267,136 px total

Gain of 512,000 pixels, per frame, or 22.5%, if I did the math correctly.

This could definitely make the difference, considering all the different film lighting and contrast situations that end up in a feature film. Factor in a crew that isn't at the top of the totem pole, learning new technologies, etc. I believe that 1.85 is the safer choice, as it will reduce one risk factor, if only by 22%.

Am I wrong?

[Robert Sanders]

If I tore my hair out over every single pixel...well...I'd be even more bald! LOL!

Seriously. 2K looks good printed to film. Shit, 1080P 2.35 (816px tall) looks pretty good printed out. Christ, 4K RED footage has to look AMAZING printed out!!

I'm not exactly sure why you're so gun-shy about printing 2.35 RED footage. All 2.35 formats push the origination medium pretty far regardless. Super35 either has to go through an optical or a 2K scan. Anamorphic is fraught with lens anomalies. 1080P is scarily short on resolution.

[10s]

"...some noise artifacts were more visible in the 2.35 version because of using fewer pixels."

That's EXACTLY what I was (am) worried about.




You might want to go visit a lab and watch their demos of 720 & 1080 prints... they look great! In fact many people like the 720p over 1080p because it smooths the picture and takes skin blemishes away, (somewhat). 1080 is sharp, 3k, 4k, 5k must be amazingly sharp prints, I've yet to see any. For an audience, most movies look fine at 720; you have nothing to worry about with 3k resolutions & beyond other than actors worried about skin flaws...and this is a serious consideration, afterall, who wants to look bad on the big screen?

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you should shoot a test and see for yourself.

I like the 2.35 frame enough to fight for it on many projects.

The truth is either you are passionate to shoot 2.35 or you are not. If you are not, then you might as well shoot 1.85. If you are, then nothing should be able to talk you out of it, certainly not the loss of a few pixels.

Many Genesis movies were released cropped to 2.35 from a 1920 x 1080 HD recording -- "Flyboys", "Superman Returns", "Forbidden Kingdom"... Many F900 and F950 movies as well such as "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

If those major movies were willing to crop 1920 x 1080 to 2.35, then why are you so worried about cropping 4K to 2.35???

[Chris Pickle]

I think you should shoot a test and see for yourself.

I like the 2.35 frame enough to fight for it on many projects.

The truth is either you are passionate to shoot 2.35 or you are not. If you are not, then you might as well shoot 1.85. If you are, then nothing should be able to talk you out of it, certainly not the loss of a few pixels.

Many Genesis movies were released cropped to 2.35 from a 1920 x 1080 HD recording -- "Flyboys", "Superman Returns", "Forbidden Kingdom"... Many F900 and F950 movies as well such as "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

If those major movies were willing to crop 1920 x 1080 to 2.35, then why are you so worried about cropping 4K to 2.35???

Hi David,

Could you speak to your thoughts on 2:35 over 1:85 from a creative choice? I assume there are creative choices per the specific project, but generally how do you view it?

Your insight is greatly appreciated as this is a major decision I'll soon be making.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Mullen ASC]

I like 2.35 for a number of reasons.

#1 Most indie movies are 1.85, so 2.35 lifts the movie (a little) out of the "low-budget" feeling that many indies have, gives them some "scope" so to speak.
#2 I like retaining as much of the surrounding space in the frame around the character, so 2.35 frames even in close-ups include other objects and parts of the room.
#3 The 2.35 frame is a bit wide and awkward, which lends itself to more abstract and "modern" framing due to the greater ability to emphasize negative space and imbalance in the frame.
#4 You can often frame a scene tighter and yet hold people in 2-shots, so sometimes you need less coverage of a scene.

Downside: more things and characters are in the frame, so often dialogue scenes are "dirty", both characters are in both angles, it's harder to get a "clean" close-up when two people are next to each other, so matching becomes more important. You need to think more about production design and location to take advantage of the wider frame. You have to "think" in terms of 2.35.

[Chris Pickle]

I like 2.35 for a number of reasons.

#1 Most indie movies are 1.85, so 2.35 lifts the movie (a little) out of the "low-budget" feeling that many indies have, gives them some "scope" so to speak.
#2 I like retaining as much of the surrounding space in the frame around the character, so 2.35 frames even in close-ups include other objects and parts of the room.
#3 The 2.35 frame is a bit wide and awkward, which lends itself to more abstract and "modern" framing due to the greater ability to emphasize negative space and imbalance in the frame.
#4 You can often frame a scene tighter and yet hold people in 2-shots, so sometimes you need less coverage of a scene.

Downside: more things and characters are in the frame, so often dialogue scenes are "dirty", both characters are in both angles, it's harder to get a "clean" close-up when two people are next to each other, so matching becomes more important. You need to think more about production design and location to take advantage of the wider frame. You have to "think" in terms of 2.35.

Thanks David,

Does 2:35 cause more "deliverables" issues than 1:85? It must be heartbreaking for a filmmaker to be asked to deliver a 4:3 version of a 2:35 film, but I see it all the time--even big Hollywood films when broadcasted on TV.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, the 4x3 pan & scan version is awful to make. I don't look at it...

The thing is that it only makes sense to shoot for 2.35 if you plan on projecting the image. For straight to DVD work, stick to 16x9 or 1.85.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Thanks David,

Does 2:35 cause more "deliverables" issues than 1:85? It must be heartbreaking for a filmmaker to be asked to deliver a 4:3 version of a 2:35 film, but I see it all the time--even big Hollywood films when broadcasted on TV.

Cheers,
Chris

I'm seeing more and more letterboxed films on SDTV.
Even some TV Shows are 16:9 letterboxed.

I guess one solution would be the Director along with the DP to search for framings that would work both on 2.39 and 1.85/16:9.

But 4:3 is a radical change, thank god it's dying now... I guess.

[Chris Pickle]

Sure, the 4x3 pan & scan version is awful to make. I don't look at it...

The thing is that it only makes sense to shoot for 2.35 if you plan on projecting the image. For straight to DVD work, stick to 16x9 or 1.85.

Now that's very interesting, since in reality, most indie films will never be projected. At most, maybe a digital projection at a festival, or at really most, a quickie "festival" or "4 wall" print from the 720 or 1080.

I think most indie / low-budget filmmakers tell themselves it will--or at least hope it will, but we all know the reality.

If after a truthful gut-check on the real odds of projection, you felt your primary distribution would be TV and DVD, would you suggest a filmmaker should go to 1.85, even if they like 2.35 better?

Do you think 1.85 is a "wiser" choice for that?

I know we may be ultimately talking about creative choice...but I can't help but wonder on the distribution issues.

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

Chris

[Jeff Coatney]

The thing about 2.35 is, it's really a theatrical format and it requires that the audience be given enough time to view the frame cut to cut in order to achieve it's best potential. I don't think it's that successful a format when used handheld or with high tempo cutting. Long, fluid tracking shots and good steadicam work look nice in 2.35, but in the hands of a smash cut MTV editor, your eye is led kinetically through the frame and your field of view narrows based on the movement of the action. I think it is also difficult to achieve a real sense of intimacy with the actors in 2.35 sometimes, because as David points out, you tend to have more of the surroundings in the frame. I think it maintains an emotional distance between the audience and the actors, because it becomes somewhat disconcerting to push in on someone's face too closely in 2.35. I don't get those reactions in 1.85.

It's important to note that I'm basing my opinions on a theatrical presentation. I hate 2.35 letterboxed on DVD, first of all, you lose the scale of it unless you have an 8 foot screen. Most people that will see the film on DVD have much smaller viewing environments. Since the film will be in the theatre for a week or two and then on DVD (or whatever) for years and years, why not give the film it's best chance at finding an audience in the arena or venue where the most people will discover it?

I love 2.35 in the theatre, it's great, who doesn't. But IMHO, all the scale and gravitas that aspect ratio is suited for when the image overwhelms you, is utterly lost when it's letterboxed on a 42 inch plasma. I've seen films that use it just for the sake of using 2.35 when the story, tone and environment they're shooting in is best suited to 1.85. Kinda like "Look at this EPIC day care center we shot!"

I love discussions like these, they are very enlightening, I am in the same line of work. I just delivered a pitch reel for a feature in 2.35 and the director asked my opinion on this specific issue. I told him that if you are shooting in 2.35, make sure your subject is important enough to deserve 2.35. 2.35 has presence and gravitas and scale and if those characteristics are important in your project, go for it. I don't think it's a very "intimate" aspect ratio.

[Chris Pickle]

The thing about 2.35 is, it's really a theatrical format and it requires that the audience be given enough time to view the frame cut to cut in order to achieve it's best potential. I don't think it's that successful a format when used handheld or with high tempo cutting. Long, fluid tracking shots and good steadicam work look nice in 2.35, but in the hands of a smash cut MTV editor, your eye is led kinetically through the frame and your field of view narrows based on the movement of the action. I think it is also difficult to achieve a real sense of intimacy with the actors in 2.35 sometimes, because as David points out, you tend to have more of the surroundings in the frame. I think it maintains an emotional distance between the audience and the actors, because it becomes somewhat disconcerting to push in on someone's face too closely in 2.35. I don't get those reactions in 1.85.

It's important to note that I'm basing my opinions on a theatrical presentation. I hate 2.35 letterboxed on DVD, first of all, you lose the scale of it unless you have an 8 foot screen. Most people that will see the film on DVD have much smaller viewing environments. Since the film will be in the theatre for a week or two and then on DVD (or whatever) for years and years, why not give the film it's best chance at finding an audience in the arena or venue where the most people will discover it?

I love 2.35 in the theatre, it's great, who doesn't. But IMHO, all the scale and gravitas that aspect ratio is suited for when the image overwhelms you, is utterly lost when it's letterboxed on a 42 inch plasma. I've seen films that use it just for the sake of using 2.35 when the story, tone and environment they're shooting in is best suited to 1.85. Kinda like "Look at this EPIC day care center we shot!"

I love discussions like these, they are very enlightening, I am in the same line of work. I just delivered a pitch reel for a feature in 2.35 and the director asked my opinion on this specific issue. I told him that if you are shooting in 2.35, make sure your subject is important enough to deserve 2.35. 2.35 has presence and gravitas and scale and if those characteristics are important in your project, go for it. I don't think it's a very "intimate" aspect ratio.

Thanks for such a thoughtful reply. I too am fascinated by the subject. I want very badly to shoot 2.35 on my low-budget film, but I know that my thoughts are driven somewhat by the romance of it and not just what is best for the project, or distribution options and such.

My film will have lots of handheld--not too frantic, but handheld none the less. There will be some opportunity for nice wide beautiful stuff, but I need to remember the emotional connection to the characters as well. So you make a good point.

Cheers,
Chris

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it's OK to shoot in 2.35 even for limited projection in film festivals or a few theaters. I always believe that if you achieve the maximum effect for the viewer in a movie theater, then it tends to play fine on DVD later anyway, and you've created some momentum for the film by impressing the few, perhaps, people who saw it projected.

I think it's a bad idea to deliberately make your theatrical version weaker simply because it will play better on TV later, even if more people ultimately will see it on TV. That goes against my very nature and philosophy, which is to make the theatrical experience as good as you can make it for the viewer. TV tends to take care of itself.

But again, this supposes some level of projection. If there is no chance of projecting this image for an audience, then don't bother with 2.35 unless the subject matter really benefits from that shape compositionally.

And I think there are cases, not just epics, where the 2.35 frame is a better choice artistically. Modernist tales of alienation like "The Parallax View" or "Klute" for example -- Gordon Willis did some great work in 2.35 that was not for epic movies. Here are some examples, though I didn't get the 16x9 squeeze out correctly:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/parallaxview4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/parallaxview5.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/parallaxview6.jpg

[Robert Sanders]

Well, thankfully VHS is dead and buried (for the most part). No one's renting or buying movies on VHS anymore. And now that digital TV is about to switch over 16x9 is the new "common denominator". So for me personally I don't think of "full frame 4x3" as a deciding factor on formats anymore.

i watch a lot of HBO-HD and have noticed that there's no real consistency between the way 2.35 movies are broadcast. Some are presented 2.35 letterboxed and others are full frame presentations.

i noticed that anamorphically shot 2.35 movies are usually a 16x9 center cut of the 2.35 frame (since there's no additional vertical picture information). Super35 movies seem be presented full-width, allowing for a taller frame (Spider 2's presentation showed more picture information top and bottom than the 2.35 matted version). Anamorphic films like Transformers seem to hold up very well center cut and cropped. However, I felt the full frame 16x9 version of Serenity made the movie feel more like the TV show and the 2.35 letterboxed version felt much more "theatrical".

So it's a bit of the wild west out there in terms of broadcast deliverables. I'm sure if you querried HBO they'd ask for full frame 16x9 deliverables and probably don't care if it's center cut or P&S. But there doesn't appear to be a hard/fast rule on the matter since other features have been presented letterboxed.

This brings up an interesting dilemma for myself. I'm on the verge of selling my film to a major cable broadcaster. We shot our film 16x9 HD with 2.35 framing. While we made sure the top and bottom of the frame were as clean as possible, I'd HATE to have to release the film unmatted (the compositions would go to hell). Theoretically I could zoom in and extract a 16x9 center cut from the 2.35 frame (816px tall), but I'd only be able to deliver a 720P master. Most broadcasters want 1080.

It was probably foolish to frame a straight-to-DVD film in the 2.35 aspect ratio. But I'm so passionate about that frame shape it is very difficult to try and imagine shooting in any other format. To make matters worse I particularly adore the anamorphic look. And yes, 16x9 is just not wide enough for my taste (I'm a freak, I know).

Oy. So many options. So many deliverables.

[Daniel García]

I really do not want to hijack this thread so please excuse me if this is off topic, but I really wanted someone with experience to give their take on this matter that I'm wondering about.

The Dark Knight. I've only seen the 2.35/35mm/regular version. And one thing that boggles me is how it telegraphed me a special feeling of verticality, despite being the widest format available. It often felt like a very tall movie, and I don't really know how to adecuately put it into words.
I guess there were many factors into account... the use of framing, action lines (the trailer flipping), wide angle lenses (?), the chicago skycrapers, etc.
Also, fitting the Imax frames into the anamorphic version must have caused some headscratching all the way from the DP to the editor.

Here's a very interesting blog post (http://fxrant.blogspot.com/2008/07/converging-lines-dark-knight-part-1.html) that touches some of this.
What are your thoughts on this? Any specific insight or techniques?

[Joe G.]

Personally I found the Dark Knight too distant and not intimate at all. And it didn't work for me. A lot of that was direction, script and acting. But, it's hard to ignore that 2.35 working to keep a distance from the characters, and noting that if it didn't work in that instance it's a relevant example.

I guess I'm going to have to consider 1.85 as the preference unless there's a very compelling reason not to use it.

You feel closer to the characters, and that is not to be underestimated.

[Harrison Diamond]

If you see TDK in IMAX, there are a lot of scenes that gain that intimate feel (they didn't just use IMAX for action sequences) when it cuts to the IMAX aspect ratio, which is much much taller. I definitely feel that 1.85 would be my preference for a more intimate feel.

[10s]

I understand Spielberg shoots only 1.85 now because he feels it's closer to how we humans see. He talked about how we see up and down quite a bit beside left to right, so 1.85 is his choice. Personally I like 2.39 for the wide expanse of the Epic feel, [that's if you happen to have a set full of interesting & appropriate BG] but 1.85 is easier to frame & works great for most features. To each his own!

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think Spielberg just picks what he thinks is appropriate for the film his last 2 films Munich and Indiana Jones were both 2:40:1 films one super 35 the other anamorphic.
I've also herd he likes to shoot 1:85 because he can frame it up faster but who knows.

[Jason Murphy]

What? No love around here for 1.66:1?

[Harrison Diamond]

I guess not Jason... All you'd really need to do would be record 4K 16x9 and then crop down to 3840 (quad HD) width or thereabouts while maintaining the full height.

[Robert Sanders]

I think Spielberg just picks what he thinks is appropriate for the film his last 2 films Munich and Indiana Jones were both 2:40:1 films one super 35 the other anamorphic.
I've also herd he likes to shoot 1:85 because he can frame it up faster but who knows.

Yeah, I read that he likes to shoot 1:85 because he can shoot a lot faster. But at the time of that article I don't think he'd ever shot a Super35 feature. Only anamorphic. And I can understand how shooting anamorphic might slow you down a little (bigger lighting packages take more time to tweak, the lenses are huge and heavy, and there's no room for headroom correction in post).

Since the time of that article he shot Minority Report and Munich in Super35. I wonder if continuing to use spherical lenses (but with 2.35 framing) allowed him to shoot as fast he usually likes to? I wonder if returning to the anamorphic format on Raiders frustrated him?

Unfortunately, not too many industry magazines ask questions I'm interested in. Spielberg used to be the MASTER at widescreen composition and framing. It was one of the reasons I studied is work so closely in film school. I was disappointed when he started shooting 1.85 almost exclusive right after Schindler. I really really wanted Saving Private Ryan to be a huge widescreen epic. It wasn't. And it still bothers me to this day. LOL!

[Zk2007]

Sure, the 4x3 pan & scan version is awful to make. I don't look at it...

The thing is that it only makes sense to shoot for 2.35 if you plan on projecting the image. For straight to DVD work, stick to 16x9 or 1.85.

Hi David. It's probably something stupid that just came to mind, but how feasible would it be shooting for 1.85 while "protecting" to 2.35 when using 1920x1080? That way one could maybe get the best of both worlds?
I know it wouldn't be a walk in the park because 2.35 is quite tricky to compose, but I guess it could be doable. So you could have 2.35 for projecting and 1.85 for DVD. I remember I shot a short once all composed to 1.85 and in editing I decided to letterbox it to 2.35 and it ended up working quite nicely. But what would be the ins and outs of actually consciously shooting for 1.85 while protecting to 2.35 in your opinion?

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Hi David. It's probably something stupid that just came to mind, but how feasible would it be shooting for 1.85 while "protecting" to 2.35 when using 1920x1080? That way one could maybe get the best of both worlds?
I know it wouldn't be a walk in the park because 2.35 is quite tricky to compose, but I guess it could be doable. So you could have 2.35 for projecting and 1.85 for DVD. I remember I shot a short once all composed to 1.85 and in editing I decided to letterbox it to 2.35 and it ended up working quite nicely. But what would be the ins and outs of actually consciously shooting for 1.85 while protecting to 2.35 in your opinion?

If you're going to shoot 2.35 stick with 2.35 I hate it when I get a dvd that was supposed to be 2.35 and it's now 1.85 for some reason.

[Zk2007]

If you're going to shoot 2.35 stick with 2.35 I hate it when I get a dvd that was supposed to be 2.35 and it's now 1.85 for some reason.

I was more thinking the other way around. Shoot 1.85 with the possibility of tightening it up later to 2.35 for projection only.

[Zk2007]

The thing about 2.35 is, it's really a theatrical format and it requires that the audience be given enough time to view the frame cut to cut in order to achieve it's best potential. I don't think it's that successful a format when used handheld or with high tempo cutting. Long, fluid tracking shots and good steadicam work look nice in 2.35, but in the hands of a smash cut MTV editor, your eye is led kinetically through the frame and your field of view narrows based on the movement of the action.

Tell that to Paul Greengrass. :) The Bourne Ultimatum was 2.35 and the snoopy camera work got me sick. I agree with you.
The thing about 2.35 nowadays is that it is becoming a cliche. Everybody wants to give that "epic" look to their films. You see a whole bunch of DV movies online letterboxed to 2.35 just to look more "cinematic". Hollywood too. Now even comedies and romantic comedies like Mamma Mia are shot in 2.35. It's a miracle that blockbusters like Die Hard 4, Sweeney Todd, Hellboy 2 were shot in 1.85. So I think 2.35 is losing a bit of it's strength and becoming a cliche. Unless when it's real anamorphic. For those few left brave enough to shoot real scope it is still interesting because of all the anamorphic format brings in besides the aspect ratio. But the whole S35 in 2.35 fever is starting to get tiresome.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Blockbusters like Die hard 4 shot in 1.85? Die hard 4 is 2.35 super 35.

[Zk2007]

Blockbusters like Die hard 4 shot in 1.85? Die hard 4 is 2.35 super 35.

Oh, sorry. I had just seen the trailer while watching another DVD and it was 1.85. for some reason. Never caught it on theaters, just seen it once a little while ago. But still. Hellboy 2 and a couple of others are 1.85, which is rare today, very rare. But it just goes to show how common place 2.35 is these days.