W G wrote:Well, Doug, the funny thing is that in motion pictures these wider aspect ratios are the norm and they never have a problem composing or finding material that fits.
A part of my motivation is cost and convenience but a huge part is aesthetic. It is a consideration that really needs to be known at the time of seeking out a motif and the vision tuned accordingly.
For me, the jury is out.
In cinema, wide is a great story telling device for sure. The screen is still high enough to maybe not fill our vision but it still contains our attention.
Our vision works most commonly left to right, the ratio works great for left to right motion, for a two person left right dialog and out door panoramic scenes.
Cinema also has set designers that dress the scene to best use an aspect ration.
The letterbox format was built as much around technical and commercial constraints in cinema, than as an aesthetic and story telling device.
What percentage of times it works best in 'as you found it' still photography, might be another matter.
Imax with a clean sheet of paper approach went to 1.43:1 instead of the more common by then 1.85:1
1.43:1 is pretty much the same as the 135 stills ratio of 3:2 or 1.5:1
I like any ration that serves its subject, so its not really about preference.
2:1 is just a pan/stitch or shift/stitch away in digital but I don't find myself doing that a lot in urban environment shots.
Maybe I would with a change of thinking.