Let’s start with what is an aspect ratio? Oxford Dictionary definition of aspect ratio is ‘’the width to the height of an image or screen’’. In simpler terms, it’s the size of the video or picture that appears on the screen.
Aspect ratio is easy, it’s usually referred to as two numbers, separated by a colon. For example, the old school 4:3 (traditional televisions) or 16:9 (HD format). First number indicates the width of the screen, and the second number the height.
Moving back to 1890, when William Kennedy Dickson, a staff photographer for Thomas Edison decided to revolutionise cinematic world. After a mass production of Kodak cameras Dickson wanted to put his new film to use in a device called a Kinetoscope – a machine that created projectors we know today. Dickson used a 35mm film strip and settled on an image that was 4 perforations high resulting in making well known 4:3 aspect ratio. The sound was recorded separately on a gramophone. In 1909 the Motion Picture Patent Company declared that 4:3 ratio will be the standard for all films that were to made and shown in US.
For a long time, this was a common aspect ratio used by everyone, up to 1929 when synchronised sound came in and there was no space for it on the film strip. In 1932 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences decided that to make room for the soundtrack the image will be cropped of top and bottom creating 11:8 ratio or 1.37:1 which is close to 4:3 (1.33:1). This aspect ratio gained an Academy Ratio name and become a standard film size for the next twenty years. A good example will be Citizen Kane.
(Citizen Kane, 1941)
1950s was a major time for film industry as a little black box, known as television become so popular that they had to do something to attract audience back in front of the silver screen. Since everybody have been watching films in a 4:3 ratio it was unmissable that TV will follow that path and create videos in that ratio. So, film industry decided to go bigger, as that’s something ordinary audience couldn’t get at home.
In 1952, Cinerama was unveiled, a new bigger aspect ratio which was 2.59:1. Projected on a curved screen using three projectors the audience could experience a completely different world. However, this is not the first time a wide resolution was presented. Back in 1927, director Abel Gance decided to go one step further with 4:3 ratio projected Napoleon side by side in the final reel. Unfortunately, you could clearly see the divides between each of the three projected images, so it was far from a seamless image. This was called a Polyvision.
(Napoleon,1927)
Coming back to Cinerama that managed to use the technique in a better way. They have used three cameras recording at a different angle and three projectors set at different angles to achieve 147-degree field of view. It was very difficult to record mainly to keep actors eye line correctly.
That is why film industry kept developing and introduced CinemaScope 2.35:1 which is known as the ‘cinematic look-like ratio’. This is how the letter box effect have been created. They have managed to do it using just one projector and anamorphic lens to create a Cinerama look-like effect, but on a flat screen. This resulted in 35mm film strip being distorted with higher quality as no surface was wasted on the film strip. This led to the projectors being adapted to accommodate the distorted image and make it non-distorted.
Since then, aspect ratios have been used in a variety of ways to create different experiences for the viewers. A great example is Oz: The Great and The Powerful where the director decided to change the ratio from 4:3 to 2.35:1 in the middle of the shot. This created a nice journey from old days to current ones. As well as by taking the props of frame Sam Raimi create a 3D effects making the film more impressing.
(Oz: The Great and The Powerful, 2013)
Another great example is Now You See Me 2 by Jon M. Chu. He has decided to use normal 2.35:1 ratio for the whole film, and use 4:3 ratio for the shoots were Morgan Freeman portrays a TV presenter back in 1984 so the ratio will obviously be 4:3.
Many other films followed the same structure, for instance The Grand Budapest Hotel, it starts conventional modern ratio of 1.85:1. The film then switches to 2.35:1 for its 1960s sections, where F. Murray Abraham and Jude Law meet and converse over some delicious looking food. Then changes ratio once again to the old-fashioned Academy Ratio (1.37:1) in the main body of the film.
(The Grand Budapest Hotel, 2013)
Many music videos are following the cinematic look. Katy Perry’s The One That Got Away was shoot in 2:35:1 ratio to make it more film look-like, as well as Lady Gaga’s The Edge of Glory. On the other side Justin Timberlake and Bruno Mars decided to stick to the 4:3 ratio. Mars’ decision was based on the old school look like of the music video, Timberlake wanted to make his look like old TV.
(The One That Got Away, Katy Perry) (The Edge of Glory, Lady Gaga)
(Treasure, Bruno Mars) (Can’t Stop the Feeling, Justin Timberlake)
Coming back to TV’s. As mentioned above many films were recorded in 2:35:1, which means that TV’s couldn’t fit in a square. They come up with solution of expanding the image and cropping the sides, which made the image distorted and importantly audience lost half of the action.
Finally, in the late 1980s, TV was again revolutionized, 16:9 was settled upon. For a while, the BBC and other broadcasters encouraged programs being shot in 16:9 to be careful when framing to keep all the important visuals within a central 4:3 box. This was known as ‘shoot and protect’, and was meant to ensure that the 16:9 TV audience got a lovely full screen image, while the 4:3 audience didn’t lose any crucial information when sections of the image were lost on their TV.
From Dickson’s invention of 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio made a long way in film and television making.
For the second question about the editors, I have chosen Eddie Hamilton as I love the films he has edited, for example: Kingsman or X-Men.
Eddie has 18 years of experience in the industry and has cut over 20 feature films, a wide variety of genres as well as TV dramas, documentaries and award-winning shorts. He pays attention to the character and as revealed in one of his interviews Eddie said ‘’ My main thing when editing is the story and the character, because that’s what the audience sympathies with and everything else is secondary to that’’. Therefore, I think Eddie is a great editor as he knows what the audience wants, he doesn’t just put the shots together, he is crafting the directors vision to create the story.
Before you start editing you need to ask yourself a bunch of questions like: ‘’Which character do you want the audience to identify with? Whose story is this? What plot details must the audience understand so that we don’t lose them?’’ – These are your key points in editing, according to Eddie.
Hamilton’s editing starts usually on the day two of the shoot. He first dig in and throw a cut together before watching all the footage. He will then go through and mix in sound effects to show full potential of a scene.
One of the big films Eddie has edited will be Kingsman: The Secret Service. Going through one of his interviews Eddie said that one of the problems he has faced was the skydive scene. It was around 15 hours of footage and it took Eddie a month to do his first cut, which in the film its only 4 minutes. To make the scene look tense and fast Eddie had to look at many different shots from different cameras, and use for example only ten seconds from each piece of footage. Below I include a sample from the scene.
h
(Kingsman: The Secret Service, 2014)
And this is how the scene looked like on the Avid timeline.
( Eddie Hamilton twitter account)
When watching the film, me as an audience, don’t realise how much work goes into making that scene and the picture above sums that pretty well, as the cuts in skydive scene are nearly invisible as the audience is focusing on the tension created by Eddie.
Third question asked me to reflect on my own editing style, including strengths and weaknesses.
Since I was young I liked to edit small pieces of footage I recorded on my own. Back in the past I didn’t have access to professional editing software, so I was using Windows Move Maker, which I believe is one of the worse editing software’s I have ever used, but it was alright for a beginner.
In year 12, during my media studies I was working on iMovie, which was not a bad editing software. It allowed me to make a fast pace thriller trailer and it worked well.
In year 13, we had to use Adobe Elements, where without proper training I didn’t know how to use it to its full potential. So, my documentary opening didn’t look professional.
The only place I could learn professional editing is university. We are working on the professional software which is the Final Cut Pro and with adequate training I could show my real editing skills.
In my opinion my editing isn’t bad. I always try to follow the script and story board to keep the story as close to directors’ idea as I can. The feedback I was given indicates that some of the shots are too long and I should have cut it few frames earlier.
I will always say to myself that good editing is the one that the audience cannot see. Film or video shout take the viewers to another world, just like a book and if the editing was harsh and noticeable the audience could not focus on the story. I am personally a fan of normal cuts from one scene to another. But I also like to include fades when possible.
Overall, I think my editing is good, I just need to focus more on the lengths of each scene and different angels. As well as, that I need to keep referring to the script to make sure the film or video is made with directors’ vision.