Return to Answer

Apparently 2.00:1 is called "Univisium".

16:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. 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.

From the above linked Wikipedia page:

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. 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. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject."

 

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... large screen" films. 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.

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... particularly considering that the shows you mention were shot digitally, generally on the RED.

It's worth noting that the creator of this concept also prescribes shooting in 25 fps (rather than the standard 24), which simplifies conversion to PAL and SECAM without making NTSC conversion significantly more complicated.

In general, while he has made films using this aspect ratio, outside the shows you mention and A Series of Unfortunate Events, few major productions have used this aspect ratio.

If you'd like to read what Storaro himself said about this in full, his article (in PDF format) can be found here.

Apparently 2.00:1 is called "Univisium".

16:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. 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.

From the above linked Wikipedia page:

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. 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. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject."

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... large screen" films. 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.

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... particularly considering that the shows you mention were shot digitally, generally on the RED.

It's worth noting that the creator of this concept also prescribes shooting in 25 fps (rather than the standard 24), which simplifies conversion to PAL and SECAM without making NTSC conversion significantly more complicated.

In general, while he has made films using this aspect ratio, outside the shows you mention and A Series of Unfortunate Events, few major productions have used this aspect ratio.

If you'd like to read what Storaro himself said about this in full, his article (in PDF format) can be found here.

Apparently 2.00:1 is called "Univisium".

16:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. 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.

From the above linked Wikipedia page:

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. 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. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject."

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... large screen" films. 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.

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... particularly considering that the shows you mention were shot digitally, generally on the RED.

It's worth noting that the creator of this concept also proscribes shooting in 25 fps (rather than the standard 24), which simplifies conversion to PAL and SECAM without making NTSC conversion significantly more complicated.

In general, while he has made films using this aspect ratio, outside the shows you mention and A Series of Unfortunate Events, few major productions have used this aspect ratio.

If you'd like to read what Storaro himself said about this in full, his article (in PDF format) can be found here.

Apparently 2.00:1 is called "Univisium".

16:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. 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.

From the above linked Wikipedia page:

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. 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. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject."

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... large screen" films. 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.

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... particularly considering that the shows you mention were shot digitally, generally on the RED.

It's worth noting that the creator of this concept also prescribes shooting in 25 fps (rather than the standard 24), which simplifies conversion to PAL and SECAM without making NTSC conversion significantly more complicated.

In general, while he has made films using this aspect ratio, outside the shows you mention and A Series of Unfortunate Events, few major productions have used this aspect ratio.

If you'd like to read what Storaro himself said about this in full, his article (in PDF format) can be found here.

Apparently 2.00:1 is called "Universium".

16:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. 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.

From the above linked Wikipedia page:

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. 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. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject."

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... large screen" films. 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.

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... particularly considering that the shows you mention were shot digitally, generally on the RED.

It's worth noting that the creator of this concept also proscribes shooting in 25 fps (rather than the standard 24), which simplifies conversion to PAL and SECAM without making NTSC conversion significantly more complicated.

In general, while he has made films using this aspect ratio, outside the shows you mention and A Series of Unfortunate Events, few major productions have used this aspect ratio.

If you'd like to read what Storaro himself said about this in full, his article (in PDF format) can be found here.

Apparently 2.00:1 is called "Univisium".

16:9 (1.77:1) is common for TV shows but films tend to have wider aspects - 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Because they're used for films, they have a "cinematic" feeling. 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.

From the above linked Wikipedia page:

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. 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. Looking through a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject."

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... large screen" films. 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.

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... particularly considering that the shows you mention were shot digitally, generally on the RED.

It's worth noting that the creator of this concept also proscribes shooting in 25 fps (rather than the standard 24), which simplifies conversion to PAL and SECAM without making NTSC conversion significantly more complicated.

In general, while he has made films using this aspect ratio, outside the shows you mention and A Series of Unfortunate Events, few major productions have used this aspect ratio.

If you'd like to read what Storaro himself said about this in full, his article (in PDF format) can be found here.