Hi /p/, video noob here. There's a LOT of aspect ratio

Wider ratios convey a sense of scale. More square ratios.. don't.

Take kill bill - when the bride is in the coffin, QT switches to a 4:3 to convey a feeling of claustrophobia. But when he made hateful 8, he went for 2.76:1 70mm.

>>2927061
ok so when shooting landscapes, i should use a wider aspect ratio?

>>2927085
You know not only is Google a fucking thing, there's also a stupid questions thread and a video thread.

>>2927053
if you are a beffiner stick to 16:9 to fit most displays

>>2927087
You know, for every stupid question there's someone who's willing to spitball and/or bloviate on that same topic. Let the two meet.

>>2927085
No.

Changing aspect ratio will not make your work better. It's okay anon, it's a very common misconception to make.

File: Capture.png (726KB, 896x503px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 896x503px

>>2927179
Op here.

I don't want to make my work better by adding letterbox, just wanted to know how the aspect ratio affect the feel, I hope i'm clear here

I want to make a little movie of my trip in Iceland, I have very nice videos filmed with my RX100 (which work super nice btw).

So here's a sample with 2,35:1 aspect ratio

>>2927253

that looks beautiful anon. post the link if you have any.

File: Capture.png (825KB, 894x504px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 894x504px

>>2927179
>>2927253

I think i'll stick with the 2,35:1, as 16:9 doesn't have this cinematic look i'm searching for, and 2,79:1 doesn't have enough space to clearly see the landscapes.

>>2927258
Thanks, I just started editing today and I reaaaaly don't know how much time i'll spend on this. But I guess I'll post a link here on /p/ when it's finished.

>>2927259
>>2927253
The cinematic look doesn't come from the aspect, but rather the explicit letterboxing that comes from composing in a more narrow aspect. A common 16:9 picture can look more cinematic by being composed in a 4:3 aspect so the reason isn't aspect.