![]() There are actually some technical benefits to this aspect ratio but they generally apply to film only and with the move towards digital recording and presentation, while by no means total (if ever likely to be), these benefits are questionable. In the cinematographer's opinion, as all films will be one of the two formats, he suggests a common aspect ratio compromise of 2.00:1 (mathematical average of 65 mm 2.20:1 and HD 1.78:1) be adopted for all films, 65 mm theatrical, HD theatrical and television. Storaro opines that, in the future of cinema, all films will be photographed in either high-definition video for small, intimate digital projection theaters, or in 65 mm for "big audience. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject." Today the Answer Print is made for both of these two different media.Having these two different media, with essentially two different aspect ratios, each of us (Directors, Production Designers, Cinematographers, Camera Operators, etc.) shares the nightmare of compromising the Composition of the Image. In 1998, cinematographer Vittorio Storaro announced his plans for a new film format, originally to be called Univision, in an interview with International Photographer magazine, As Storaro stated in his written proposal "Recently, any movie - no matter how big or small, successful or not - will, after a very short life on the big screen, have a much longer life on an electronic screen. The implication with this 2:1 size is that it will be a compromise that all films and TV shows can use so that we don't have dozens of different aspect ratios. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. Apparently 2.00:1 is called " Univisium".ฤก6:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |