All dramas now using different aspect ratio

I've noticed so many dramas nowadays all use a different aspect ratio, is it 2.4:1? Sorry i'm not too sure how all aspect ratios work, but basically when there are thin black lines top and bottom.

Butterfly is the latest to be shown like this, The Cry also does, and Vanity Fair, bodyguard and many more, including now several Netflix dramas all using it.

I understand its usually done for dramatic and stylistic reasons, so make a drama appear more cinematic, but is this ratio now just the norm for dramas?

2:1 is also a common one, and one Netflix dramas are in.

Star Trek Discovery: Season 1 was in 2:1, but Season 2 will be done in 2.4:1

I've been seeing it a lot recently, the last one I saw use it was Press. The sitcom Stath Lets Flats had little bars on Channel 4. I don't understand the point, personally. How is that miniscule difference in width beneficial for the viewer?

I knew something looked different when I spotted the ITV DOG was somewhat closer to the top of the picture than it normally is.

Still, could be far worse:

I've complained about this on here before but been told it's a "stylistic choice", despite the fact that we already have widescreen TVs. It's not exactly a unique look either now that everyone's using it.

My guess is that in the creators' and directors' attempts to be more cinematic (along with higher budgets allowing them to do such a thing), they've also decided to go with what's in their head to be a "cinematic" aspect ratio. Helping this is the fact that those who really want to be cinematic will probably shoot on actual 35mm film, which apparently is 2.4:1.

Unsurprising perhaps that directors' vanity leads them to do this. Disappointing that those with the final say are approving it.

Are they likely to be filmed in this ratio or cropped to it for broadcast?

Is actually more annoying than the switch from 4:3 to 16:9, though I guess we should be grateful they're not showing them in portrait to be more suitable for phones.

Traditionally 35mm film - the way used for films / TV - is 1.375:1, so very close to 4:3. Anything else was cropped or used anamorphic lenses, including 2.39:1

What annoys me about 2:1 is that it's so close to 16:9 that it won't make any difference to filming.

The only "cinematic" thing about it is that it adds black bars and makes you go "ooh, not all of my pixels are being used, how cinematic." And those black bars will be half the size on a TV that's still set to compensate for overscan, as they all are by default, which makes the whole exercise even more pointless.



Not sure whether I like the idea of 2.4:1 or not for Discovery, but at least it's a big change from 16:9. That will mean different choices by the director/cinematographer.

Not strictly true.

Just because 2:1 is close to 16:9 doesn't mean you can make the link that it won't make any difference to filming.

One reason to shoot 2:1 is to use anamorphic lenses (which will shoot onto a narrower or taller sensor area) to give you a different 'look' (that was a decision taken by the team making Doctor Who this season). Anamorphic lenses give a different shape bokeh and a different 'feel' to pictures, that isn't just related to the aspect ratio of the frame.

There are a number of different ways of shooting 2:1 - and you need to be careful not to jump to conclusions as to which is being used.

Why couldn't you shoot 16:9 with an anamorphic lens? Even if you can't (and I can't think of a good reason why you couldn't), you could just crop the sides off whatever you shoot (which BBC America did for Doctor Who, apparently).

It won't change how shots are framed and planned, is my point. Actors might get to spread out a little bit more, of the zoom might be pulled back a tiny back to keep something in shot, but it's not like it's going to be anything a viewer will notice. Quite a different situation than talking about the change from 4:3 to 16:9, or 16:9 to 2.35:1.