Dark Shadows - Aspect Ratio Question

[Dominik Muench]

Hi Guys,


finally got around to seing the new tim burton movie dark shadows yesterday, loved bruno delbonnels lighting but what I found odd was the choice of aspect ratio, the cinema I watched it at showed the movie in a 1,85 ratio, which for a movie of this magnitude seems a bit strange to me. why not 2,4:1 ? the only reason I could think of was to favor the production design and actually show off more of the sets. Does anyone have more information about this ? im really curious.

[David Mullen ASC]

Almost all of Tim Burton's movies have been 1.85 with very few exceptions. You can show off a set in either 1.85 or 2.40 (or even 1.33), it just depends on how vertical versus horizontal the design is.

1.85 is a more "classical" ratio than 2.40, which probably suits Tim Burton's sensibilities as an illustrator better.

[Ryan De Franco]

PG-13 animation = bring the family = 1.85:1

I'm sure I'm forgetting some awesome 2.35:1 animated features.

[Matt Ryan]

Isn't this based on an old tv series? so 1:85 is closer to tv aspect if they were trying to match the look and style.

[David Mullen ASC]

I looked over Burton's IMDB credits -- it appears that "Mars Attacks!" is his only 2.40 movie.

[Marc Wielage]

loved bruno delbonnels lighting but what I found odd was the choice of aspect ratio, the cinema I watched it at showed the movie in a 1,85 ratio, which for a movie of this magnitude seems a bit strange to me. why not 2,4:1 ?

I believe this was a case where they were concerned about picture height, which has more impact in 1.85. Bear in mind that most American multiplexes use the same left-to-right screen size for different films, so a 2.40 film will essentially be "letterboxed" in most theaters. Burton's Batman films were also 1.85; other directors looking for picture height, like Spielberg with Jurassic Park, made the same choice.

The surprise for me was that Dark Shadows was shot on film! It's definitely got a look -- very desaturated and muted. It's very dramatic when Eva Green comes into the movie, because many of her scenes have lots of saturation (particularly when she has the bright red convertible and wears the red dress). The production design on the movie is outstanding, everything you would expect.

Aspect ratio is just one of many choices available to the cinematographer. None is necessarily good or bad -- it's just a choice. I say it's like picking a frame size for a canvas; you still have to fill the canvas with art.

[Dominik Muench]

thanks for the quick reply guys.

you're right as usual david, the sets in that movie have very high ceiling heights and I guess the aspect ratio helped to show of the vastness of the mansion where most of the story takes place.

Marc: wow would not have guessed film. I absolutely loved the colours and the lighting, it seemed they used some sort of softening/diffusion filter for a lot fo the scenes as well.

[Dominik Muench]

plus I guess another advantage of 1,85 is a bigger image area for VFX as compared to 2,4:1 ? unless shot in anamorphic.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can always intellectually justify 1.85 or 2.40 -- I remember that the director of "Waterworld" chose 1.85 because he said that a boat on the ocean was a vertical subject, but soon after that, Ridley Scott chose 2.40 for "White Squall", probably because boat or not, the ocean itself is a horizontal subject. Truth is that if you want to frame a vertical boat in 2.40, you just back up the camera...

People are essentially vertical subjects and thus a person tends to fill a taller frame better than a horizontal one, but a horizontal frame shows off the area on each side of the person better (and shows groups of people better.) Like I said, you can make most aspect ratios work for you.

[John O'Callaghan]

I looked over Burton's IMDB credits -- it appears that "Mars Attacks!" is his only 2.40 movie.

As was his barely watchable remake of "Planet of the Apes," shot in anamorphic Panavision.