The choice is a personal one. There really is no answer.

The reason you see different aspect ratios is because the
producer. director and DP of each movie makes a decision
based on their own personal preferences.

What ratio seems best for YOUR movie?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Alright, so aspect ratio isn't a really big deal. More than likely, it's more of a gut feeling than anything else when it comes to choosing the aspect ratio of the film. That's what I'm getting at.

Well, it is a pretty big deal, yes. There is an enormous difference between the feel of 4:3, wide and super wide. If you want to play it safe, go with 1.85. If you want to play it really safe, shoot it 4:3 and letter box it. Unless you're shooting a lot of landscape I'd stay away from 2.39

Personally, I like 1.65, but not many people go for it.

I feel your pain when it comes to 1.65 too, Dave. I've always thought of it as being the golden rectangle for movies since the day I learned about the golden ratio. After all, the golden ratio is 1.618(1.62 if rounded out) and the 1.65 ratio comes very very close to it. I wonder why it's not used as much anymore (I wish it were).

Good advice, though.

Choose the ratio that best suits your story. Some "epics" work better wider at 2:35, while other more comedic or dramatic may be closer to 1:85.

Of course you're free to do what you feel is best, however if you have any plans to sell your project to anyone in particular, you may want ask what their delivery specs are and what they will accept.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

May i quickly enquire (with my 1st post) are you talking about filming in 16:9 and then using an Editing Program to letter box it to 1:85 or even 2:35?

Cheers
BR

Good question, Billy.

As of right now, I haven't made anything (That doesn't mean I wont, why else would I be on this site?). I'm planning on pursuing a career as a writer/director. I believe I will probably be working on low-budget/independent movies that will most likely require shooting on a digital camera, so if you're asking me if I'm going to be shooting my movies in 16:9 and then matte the top and bottom for theatrical release, I'd say the chances of me doing that are very good.

In fact, I think I might end up shooting all my films digitally. If I do very well for a writer/director (Which, of course, is hard, but not impossible), I still may end up being a bit of a Rodriguez guy since 35mm is something everybody has experimented with. I want my stuff to be different from the rest of the pack, and one way to do that is to experiment with digital video. It is a new technology, after all, and everybody else seems to have a fear of trying it out because if you don't do it right, it may look bad. It might be crazy for me to do that, but hey, it does make your movies look different, and you could make your own judgment as to whether that's a good reason or not.

I know that some digital cameras are still 4:3, like Panasonic's DVX-100 (At least the older model), but overall, to answer your question, Billy, I'd say it's mostly a yes.

16:9 seems to be the widescreen format that the industry is using as it's default... going for the superwide "Cinemascope" aspect ratio is great if you are doing an epic, but to be honest, that ratio makes getting in for an emotion packed close up really, really difficult.