FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND FILM ASPECT RATIOS MIGHT TANK YOUR FIRST FILM

Indie films suffer all the time due to first time film makers failing to use proper film formatting when they present their first project, whether its a film released on the internet or their film trailer released for anyone to see on an international level, making an impression on people [and indie judges] will come from how you present your film. This blog is presented to you from the notes of any first semester of film school. Your knowledge of Aspect ratios and compression etiquette can help you make the first best impression at the start of your presentation...so take notes!

Aspect ratios in film and television have changed over the years, but the one thing that stays consistent is people's desire to create and show their work in the proper format. So if you're making movies, short films, commercials, TV shows, or just shooting with friends, make sure you know the aspect ratio where you're going to upload or project. 

Whether you're watching a show on your iPhone, setting up your new 70in 4K television, or sitting your butt in a theater, aspect ratio matters. The aspect ratio refers to the size of the image displayed on your screen. While this sounds technical, aspect ratios can help storytellers add another layer to their repertoire. Also, for independent filmmakers and huge studio directors, the right aspect ratio can attract more viewers and create a buzz around your film or TV show. 

There's a lot to learn when it comes to aspect ratios. Like which aspect ratios matter in social media and which aspect ratios make sense for Netflix and Amazon versus theatrical. The aspect ratio of an image describes the width and height. It's usually written as two numbers separated by a colon, as in 16:9. It can also be written with an “x” between the numbers. Like 3x4.

 

Aspect ratios have changed over time, depending on what people use to view media. As screens got bigger, aspect ratio adjusted. As they got smaller, it continued to happen. Over 100 years ago, the very first films were projected in 4:3. The standard film strip was run through a projector and light behind it through the image onto a wall. The 4:3, or 1.33:1, was the literal measurement of the strip.

As film evolved, so did the aspect ratio. Film strips eventually became 1.37:1, and that became the standard for cinema across the globe. 1.37:1 was the ratio officially approved by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1932. They made it the standard and people started calling it the Academy Ratio. In the 1950s, TV became ever more popular. People started going to the theater less, and theatrical distributors knew they needed to make a change. So they went even bigger, with Cinerama.  

Cinerama was the first widescreen format to be introduced after the Academy Ratio became a standard in 1932. It involved projecting images from three synchronized 35mm projectors onto a deeply-arced screen. It utilized aspect ratios of 2.59:1 to 2.65:1 to make images seem huge.

CinemaScope used aspect ratios of 2.35:1 to 2.66:1. It only had to use one projector to get the image on the screen, so it was preferable to Cinerama. Developed by Earl Sponable, who was the head of research at 20th Century Fox, CinemaScope was last used in 1967, the term "scope" is still used by projectionists and filmmakers to refer to any movie that uses anamorphic lenses or with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 or more.

It's funny to think that even in the 1960s, theaters were trying to find a way to get people to watch less television and to come to the movies. Especially since we're having similar troubles today. Nowadays, if you want to go to the theater to see something projected, you can choose from 35mm or the much larger 70mm.

70mm has caught back on recently, since Tarantino, Nolan, and Paul Thomas Anderson have all elected to have their films projected in the huge format. 70mm boasts an aspect ratio of 2.76:1 – twice as large as the standard 35mm film. 70mm was what put Ben-Hur on the map in 1959, and now it's a way that filmmakers are getting people out to see the spectacle. 70mm is often combined with IMAX formats. 

The modern IMAX design uses 70mm film that is shown horizontally with a massive 15 perforations per frame, giving it approximately six times the resolution of 35mm film. The average IMAX screen size is approximately 72' x 50' (22m x 16m), which is significantly larger than traditional movie screens of approximately 50' x 20' (16m x 6.1m).

TV boxes were 4:3 until widescreen televisions debuted in the 2000s. Many older programs had to convert their 4:3 shows to 16x9. But people who watched movies on TV rejoiced. The theatrical experience had finally come home. And as TVs grew in size, aspect ratios began to reflect the change.

So now we're in the digital era. We don't have to rely on the size of the film stock to reflect our aspect ratio. And if you have the money to shoot in 70mm, you still might not want to. People are creating lots of different media content. We're shooting shorts, digital series, movies, TV shows, commercials, Instagram videos, Facebook posts, and Snapchats. 

If you're going to do it for the 'gram, you should do it with the right aspect ratio. Instagram has specific guidelines for what works on its site. 

1. Square (1:1)
2. Standard Horizontal (16:9)
3. Alt Horizontal (1.91:1)
4. Vertical (4:5)

We all love to shoot stuff to post on Facebook. Whether its the trailer for your new venture or a web series, you want people to be able to like and share the best content. Facebook supports:  

1. 16x9
2. 9x16
3. 4x5
4. 2x3
5. 1x1

You can upload phone videos, movie trailers, and fluidly share videos from all other social channels if they occur in the aforementioned formats.

Like Facebook, Twitter is a great place to get your message out there. It's great to get retweets and social engagements. Twitter is one of the best places to get your message put to the people and to interact individually. Twitter supports the following aspect ratios: 

1. 1x1  1200 X 1200
2. 2x1 1200 X 600
3. 3x2 1200 X 800

So here's the deal: lately, some streaming services have been cutting off almost 25% of movies by reformatting them to fit 16x9 televisions. While this practice is supposed to stop, with letterboxes being added to share the proper format, you should still be aware. If you're creating content for Netflix, Amazon, or HBO, you should know their aspect ratios. That way you'll know how your work is presented on the screen.  

Netflix, Amazon and HBO shows almost everything in 16x9. So if you're trying to watch a movie that's natively in 2.39:1, you're going to get the black bars. They also have been known to use 2:1 aspect ration. This aspect ratio is also used in many new Netflix series and is less wide than scope, but still gives the viewer the sense of a wide screen.

Okay, we've gone through lots of different kinds of aspect ratios, but now it's time to talk about how aspect ratio can help your story. Think about how Christopher Nolan used IMAX and 70mm to give Dunkirk the largest aspect ratio possible.  Making Dunkirk huge wasn't just to drive people to the theater. It was to envelop audiences in the heat of battle, to make them feel the pressure of these men, and to give the entire story scope. 

Squeezing that movie into a more boxy proportion makes you feel the claustrophobia of the world we're in. We're under pressure and going through our passion with Reverend Toller. It also gives the movie a more classical feel. It's a throwback, like the church, and an homage to Hollywood of yesteryear. 

Your aspect ratio is not just a mathematical tool. It's also a way to enter your story and add another layer. First time film producers should consider a director that knows the required formats to any project that lands a prospective film project. It takes more than learning the lingo to get your film in the right Aspect Ratio to impress the right people. Don't shoot a film just to shoot it on video, learn to do the shit the right way before you come off looking like some amateur idiot in the local Indie Film Scene. So think about what you really want to do before you start shooting!

Good luck out there!

D. R. Quintana
Director/Producer

WHAT DOES "OFFICIAL SELECTION" ACTUALLY MEAN IN FILM FESTIVALS?

 Yeah, it's that time of year again when Indie film teams across the country start submitting their projects into film festivals across the internet. Many of those teams are filled with the overwhelming urge to get an awards laurel stamped on their indie movie poster as "evidence" that something they filmed was produced with "professional prowess." Chins are often held higher with every new laurel that is set on their poster, like an award pendant that is proudly pinned on the chest of a soldier in front of his unit, because he was the guy who went out of his way to do the job, who did his job without complaint and left his family for months while he was on deployment. But is simply receiving a laurel for an "official selection" really something to brag about? Do these awards actually help an indie film reach the next level of success?...No, not really.

Seriously, getting selected just means that someone paid for the admission fee and the check cleared, the indie film submitted by a team hasn't been reviewed at any point of the acceptance procedure. It's not like there's a group of judges that watches each submission and says, "Oh yeah, this one HAS to be in our festival!" - But I am sure that there are films on the submission line that ARE expected to raise eyebrows if the right name is listed in the credits. For now, for anyone to brag about their film "being selected" for this or that festival is like someone getting an award laurel for filling out an application for a 5K run that won't start for another month. Remember, "selection" films are not reviewed for required film format, legal paperwork, legitimate film making experience...nothing. As a matter of fact, a large quantity of films aren’t even previewed by judges.

Furthermore, members who pay for their film being submitted to a festival, must also pay extra fees for "nominations" in their own application. That's right, studio teams have to pay cash and submit for their own nominations! Positions that are paid for consist of various genres film categories for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Producer, Best Director, etc, etc, etc. And again, judges for these festivals don't recognize "instant performances" in every indie film that was entered or selected and giving them awards for their performances. Plus there's no reassurance that all of the films submitted into a film festival are even previewed by final judges at all. I've known all about these "festival follies" for many years; and a solid reason why I never entered into film festivals since I began working on my own indie film productions.

Super-duper amateur film makers tend to jump on the "excitement band wagon" and have a proven record of thriving on their initial success of simply being entered in a film festival. These idiots often release trailers on YouTube [which is a big no-no during the submission process] and try to prove that viewers numbers prove that the film has a large sized group of fans [apparently outside of the film teams line of family and friends] who are interested in seeing the big movie they just finished putting together. 

 

Film teams who boast of having an "editor from LA" ready to take over the projects post production, claim to have one just in case their initial submission turns out to be a bust; I'm not sure why a film team wouldn't have such phenomenal access to an established post-editing credential and not use that person on all of their film projects? - Seems a little odd, wouldn't one think? Oh my oh my, the cracks that slowly but surely begin to form when the truth about someones low-life integrity about knowing absolutely nothing of the film industry begins to show.

It's a known fact that meta-data has proven the members of how an indie film team love to watch their own films over-and-over again, trying to help build the numbers of the viewing counter on their YouTube account. These issues were investigated on in the Quantum Storm .357 E-Magazine [QSE .357] Issue 5, a few issues back, where we proved in a studio video investigation on how to check someones meta-data on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and any other online platform, to see what the real outside viewers numbers were to a film teams "successful" trailer or full feature film. When internal numbers are removed from the equation of viewers, industry professionals will know what the real numbers of views are; and trust me, they do look at all of the meta-data they can on any project submitted to them.

What I honestly like to see are the amateur first time leading indie actors who also enjoy the ride of tasting success through the fruits of their limited experienced performances; most of whom have never really worked on a real production or were never educated on set through experienced directors or assistant directors. Most of these people will never see the light of day as a lead or supporting role on a film project that is a step up from the film they just finished. Most are complete no-bodies who are given roles and promises of "riches to come" when they "ring that bell" of success. And unfortunately, where there is one; there is also a slew of other cast and crew members who are on that ride of just hoping that the film was "selected" by the film festival in question.

I like watching indie movie trailers. Seriously, I enjoying watching them as much as I liked being a child and walking though the toy aisle of a grocery story, looking at all of those hollow plastic cars and airplanes, saying to myself then, "Why would anyone want to buy that crap?" - Amateur indie film trailers are the same. They often boast of "film producers" you've never known [or truly want to know], credits are displayed on top of actors performing their parts, the sound is bad, the nauseating music selection is as horrific and reoccurring as the swishing sound of the ocean being replayed over and over and over. Plus I like the fact that right away, even an unbiased outsider will tell you that someone in that film production never made a film trailer in their life...but it looked like certain people in their group HAD to be presented in it; you know, people that you've never seen before in any film what-so-ever, except in their own film community.

Most normal people [like me] can see it now...a group of amateur indie film makers huddled around in prayer, waiting for that one film festival to accept their film after the entry fee was paid...waiting for the approval email that their film is IN; with some director or indie "film producer" whose already prepared a laurel to post on his or her Facebook page, just waiting for the moment that he can hit the post key. Once the news gets out, the laurel is passed out to their small team of actors an the hype begins. There's no reality but the fact that an entrance fee was paid and now the next big step in the festival process is about to begin, but this time, the next round will prove who is truly the experienced film maker from the people who just put something together with camera and no real idea of how to use them.

And even IF the film wins an award or two, what is the next step for the amateur film makers? Do they post another link on their Facebook page to show the film to the outside "millions of local fans" who are dying to see their film? Has their number one "film producer" ensured that he's paid the yearly subscription to his website to post the film and bring in that lucrative meta-data to provide to future distributors the large numbers of future fans who are wanting to see the film in question? - Something that we introduced on the QSE .357 [Issue 4] is that amateur indie film producers and directors who have no knowledge of what meta-data is or where to get it and are just people who are winging their indie film productions along. But you can bet your ass that after seeing this blog, they'll google it and be the "purveyors of knowledge" the next time you ask them, because they'll have read this blog entry too.

Current Meta Data for QSE .357 E-Mag

The truth of the matter is, if you don't have any experience in promotions, advertising, or proven connections within the indie film circuit, your film will die a sure death of never being seen by anyone that actually matters in the film industry...but hey, there's always another BIG new indie film to make...or perhaps you can be bold enough to pull a "Nanae Volle" and create your own Inde movie award festival and sweep the BIG awards with your super amateur, peace of shit film!

 

Nuff said.

Editorial by D. R. Quintana-Lujan
Editor in Chief

 

 

CONTINUUM [I'll Follow You Down] CRUSHES A FANTASTIC PLOT WITH A WEAK ENDING

🎥🎞MOVIE REVIEW🎞🎥 - CONTINUUM - [PG-13] -Peacock -  This nice little gem from 2013 fell under my scope of reviews shortly after I was doing a copyright search for stories that involved Quantum Time Traveling plots and short stories. The film stars John Paul Rutman, Rufus Sewell, and Gillian Anderson. This film can be found on Peacock under "I'LL FOLLOW YOU DOWN."

The plot is simple but very mysterious, a loving and well respected father is dropped off at an airport by his wife [Anderson] and young son. In previous scenes, the young boy is proven to be pretty intelligent far beyond his years. But the father [Sewell] boards a plane and never returns home. Th son's mother is horribly worried and her love for her husband is without question, but questions arise after his arrival to the city of destination; he's never checked out of his room, his wallet, cell phone, and other items left behind, and the husband has just disappeared. The father has disappeared like a whisper in the wind and his young son has to struggle through life with a damaged mother and a childhood sweetheart who will eventually become his wife.

Years pass and the young boy grows up questioning important decisions in his life, due to the mysterious loss of his father. Rutman - the once little kid also known from the brilliant movie, SIX SENSE - has a love interest that is constantly being put on hold due to his mother [Anderson] still grieving over the disappearance of his father. Eventually the story passes onto the boys grandfather, played by Victor Garber, who tells the young son that his father had stepped through a worm hole and traveled into the past. There are very few details about how the father was able to create the worm hole, but only that he sustained a power source to get him there.

Everything up to this point in the film is pretty believable an understandable. The second half of the story follows a rushed script with no subtle delivery on how the jump in time would be  a mind blowing experience. The film turns to a flashback of the father [Sewell] stepping into a time machine and vanishing in a brilliant flash. From there, the son had also made the trip back in time and confronts his father, eventually forcing to return home and save his wife, plus the spirit of the little boy who was lost without any answers to the big question; "What happened to my daddy?" - But there was no emotion in the delivery of the main story here. The director decided to have Rutman play an angry and determined boy who didn't care about the wonders of time travel, who just wanted his father to come home and put his family back to normal.

In my opinion, the writers lost faith in their script and the screenplay. There was no real character development of any of the characters, save the young boy who was now in love with a childhood sweetheart, both trying to live a life of being parents. The son missed a lot of school, but was too smart for college and apparently progressed though school only by "passing all of the tests." 

The script should have spent more time with the father's ignorance to his families needs and furthermore delivered him showing his son the importance of time travel and how they could witness importance events in history. Instead, the movie delivers a crippling blow to the film by making the son too smart for his own good and taking drastic actions to force his father to go back home and save his family.

What bugged me the most about the time traveling, was there was no real attempt to show details of the 1940s, save a change in clothes, some women walking around, introducing an old restaurant with a guy who wore paper hat and served coffee. There also wasn't a memorable scene in the film that made me want to remember this dud of a production. Rutman tried to be a leader in this film, but the lack of solid character development made him all of the other cast members seem like they were just going through the motions to finish this film.

⭐️⭐️💫 [2.5 of 5 Stars]

THE QUANTUM STORM .357 E-MAGAZINE ISSUE 7 IS RELEASED!

 

THIS ISSUE IS FILLED WITH NEWS OF THE SUDDEN GROWTH OF "LEGENDARY" FIRST TIME FILM MAKER FOOLISHNESS; A SPECIAL VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH AN EXPERIENCED TEXAS BASED PRODUCER/INVESTOR, ACTOR PHOTO SHOOT, &  INDIE FILM REVIEWS!

YOU MUST BE A SUBSCRIBER TO VIEW THIS NEW ISSUE OF THE QUANTUM STORM .357 E-MAGAZINE AND FOLLOW THIS BLOG

 

WE HAD SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS FROM SUBSCRIBERS THIS WEEK!

 

THEY’RE GOING FAST!...

QUANTUM STORM PICTURES

St

udio t-Shirts are now on sale!

 

$10 each. Made of the highest quality cotton shirts. Get yours while they last! 

 

Available sizes S,M,L,XL,XXL,XXXL

Shipping and handling on us!

Thank you for stopping by!