I’m sick of the 16:9 (1.77:1) screen ratio that’s so prevalent these days. Is that a strange opinion to have? Probably. So what if our new TVs and monitors all have a 1.77:1 aspect ratio? Do we need to shoot everything to match it? (Of course, our cameras by default shoot in that ratio for us.) There’s a kind of visual laziness creeping in everywhere I look.
Let’s turn to motion pictures for a moment. Directors and cinematographers work together to choose the best shooting format for a particular project. Some prefer certain formats over others. (For example, all of John Carpenter’s films are shot in Panavision, an anamorphic format that results in a roughly 2.40:1 aspect ratio.)
It used to be that anything that was shot wider than 4:3 (the old analog television ratio) seemed more “cinematic”, but now with the abundance of high definition footage floating around the Internet, it seems that even 16:9 is becoming visually boring.
As you look at the movie stills included in this post, you’ll notice that they are all in the 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It is my opinion that this ratio provides the greatest opportunity for “visual storytelling” in a single frame, although I can’t tell you why I think that. What I do know is that my next project will be shot 2.40:1. If I had an unlimited amount of money (or just a really high limit), I’d shoot it with anamorphic lenses, but that’s not realistic for now.
So the next time you watch a video, whether on YouTube or through Netflix, take a moment to determine its aspect ratio. If you’re a filmmaker or photographer, stop to question why you’re shooting in a particular ratio. Is it deliberate, or just convenient?
