Search results

And it could easily be gone in a shot framed at 1.85:1 or 1.33:1 -- just as easily as it could be visible in a shot framed for 2.35:1. What you see (or don't see) is never a function of the aspect ratio; it's a function of what's being included in the shot (or excluded, as the case may be). M.

It's a common misconception that the 2.35:1 frame is best-suited to "epic-style shots". Epic style is a function of subject matter, not aspect ratio. The wider frame can be (and has been) used in many ways for a long time. Check out The Hustler (1961) or In Cold Blood (1967) or Chinatown (1974)...