Should I use 1.85:1 or cinemascope?

Question

Accepted Answer

1.85:1 and cinemascope (2.39:1) are both theatrical formats. Here's how to choose between them.

**Quick Answer:**

**Use 1.85:1 if:**
✅ Making dramatic/character films
✅ Lots of close-ups needed
✅ Dialogue-heavy scenes
✅ Limited budget
✅ Mixed genres
✅ Easier equipment availability

**Use 2.39:1 (Cinemascope) if:**
✅ Making epic/action films
✅ Want ultra-cinematic look
✅ Emphasizing landscapes
✅ Big budget production
✅ Established for ultra-wide
✅ Professional cinema team

**Detailed Comparison:**

| **Factor** | **1.85:1** | **2.39:1 (Cinemascope)** |
|---|---|---|
| **Width** | Moderate wide | Ultra-wide |
| **Best for** | Drama, mixed | Action, epic |
| **Framing** | Easier | Requires planning |
| **Close-ups** | Natural | Difficult |
| **Landscapes** | Good | Excellent |
| **Dialogue scenes** | Excellent | Challenging |
| **Equipment cost** | Moderate | Higher |
| **Streaming handling** | Better | More letterboxing |
| **Theater standard** | Yes | Yes |
| **Film festivals** | Standard | Professional |

**Aspect Ratio Breakdown:**

**1.85:1:**
- Width is 1.85× height
- Slightly wider than 16:9
- More moderate
- Less extreme

**2.39:1 (Cinemascope):**
- Width is 2.39× height
- Significantly wider than 16:9
- Extreme wide
- Very cinematic

**At 1080p height:**
- **1.85:1:** 1998 × 1080
- **2.39:1:** 2580 × 1080
- Difference: 582 pixels wider

**Why Choose 1.85:1:**

**Better for Framing:**
- Easier character placement
- Natural head room
- Two-shots work well
- Three-shots possible
- Conversational scenes comfortable

**Practical for Production:**
- Easier to frame actors
- Less specialized equipment needed
- Smaller crew can manage
- Standard editing easier
- Post-production simpler

**Audience Experience:**
- Feels cinematic (but not extreme)
- Less disorienting
- Focus on characters
- Professional appearance
- Comfortable viewing

**Budget Friendly:**
- Less specialized equipment
- Standard cinema cameras work
- Shorter learning curve
- Less specialized post-work
- More cost-effective

**Better for Mixed Content:**
- Works for all genres
- Versatile framing
- Action and drama both work
- Comedy translates well
- Flexible format

**Why Choose 2.39:1 (Cinemascope):**

**Epic/Cinematic Feel:**
- Ultra-cinematic look
- Fills theater dramatically
- Epic atmosphere
- Grand presentation
- Immersive experience

**Landscape/Scale:**
- Perfect for wide vistas
- Epic outdoor scenes
- Impressive locations
- Scope and scale
- Environmental storytelling

**Action Sequences:**
- Room for movement
- Dynamic compositions
- Multiple elements visible
- Battle scenes work
- Chase sequences shine

**High Budget Productions:**
- Studios expect it
- Premium feeling
- Professional standard for epics
- Blockbuster expectation
- Awards-contender format

**Established Epic Tradition:**
- Expected for big stories
- Audience expects it
- Historical precedent
- Professional standard for epics
- Iconic format

**Decision Framework:**

**Choose 1.85:1 for:**

- Character-driven drama
- Intimate stories
- Dialogue-heavy films
- Independent cinema
- Mixed-genre films
- Budget-conscious productions
- First-time filmmakers
- Festival submissions

**Choose 2.39:1 for:**

- Epic/adventure films
- Large-scale action
- Landscape-heavy stories
- High-budget productions
- Established filmmakers
- Blockbuster aspirations
- Visual spectacle films
- War/battle films

**Genre-Specific Guidance:**

**Drama:**
→ 1.85:1 (better for actors)

**Action/Adventure:**
→ 2.39:1 (better for scope)

**Comedy:**
→ 1.85:1 (easier framing)

**Thriller:**
→ Either (both work)

**Documentary:**
→ 1.85:1 (practical)

**Horror:**
→ 1.85:1 (psychological)

**Sci-Fi:**
→ 2.39:1 (cinematic/futuristic)

**Historical Epic:**
→ 2.39:1 (grand scale)

**Intimate Indie:**
→ 1.85:1 (personal)

**Streaming Consideration:**

**Important Note:**
Both ratios get letterboxed on most streaming platforms:

**1.85:1 on 16:9 screen:**
- Adds black bars top/bottom
- Less extreme bars
- Better ratio match

**2.39:1 on 16:9 screen:**
- Adds thicker black bars
- More noticeable bars
- Very black bar heavy

If streaming is primary: Consider 1.85:1

**Budget Impact:**

**1.85:1 Costs:**
- Standard cinema cameras
- Regular lenses
- Standard post-production
- Easier scheduling

**2.39:1 Costs:**
- Specialized equipment
- Anamorphic lenses (if desired)
- More technical post-work
- Requires expertise

**Key Takeaway:**

Choose **1.85:1** for most films, especially dramas, character-driven stories, and mixed-genre work. It's the practical professional standard. Choose **2.39:1 (cinemascope)** only for epic, action-heavy, or visually spectacular films with sufficient budget and team expertise. Both are professional theatrical formats; 1.85:1 is more versatile, 2.39:1 is more extreme.

Factor	1.85:1	2.39:1 (Cinemascope)
Width	Moderate wide	Ultra-wide
Best for	Drama, mixed	Action, epic
Framing	Easier	Requires planning
Close-ups	Natural	Difficult
Landscapes	Good	Excellent
Dialogue scenes	Excellent	Challenging
Equipment cost	Moderate	Higher
Streaming handling	Better	More letterboxing
Theater standard	Yes	Yes
Film festivals	Standard	Professional

Quick Answer:

Use 1.85:1 if:

Use 2.39:1 (Cinemascope) if:

Detailed Comparison:

Aspect Ratio Breakdown:

1.85:1:

2.39:1 (Cinemascope):

At 1080p height:

Why Choose 1.85:1:

Better for Framing:

Practical for Production:

Audience Experience:

Budget Friendly:

Better for Mixed Content:

Why Choose 2.39:1 (Cinemascope):

Epic/Cinematic Feel:

Landscape/Scale:

Action Sequences:

High Budget Productions:

Established Epic Tradition:

Decision Framework:

Choose 1.85:1 for:

Choose 2.39:1 for:

Genre-Specific Guidance:

Drama:

Action/Adventure:

Comedy:

Thriller:

Documentary:

Horror:

Sci-Fi:

Historical Epic:

Intimate Indie:

Streaming Consideration:

Important Note:

1.85:1 on 16:9 screen:

2.39:1 on 16:9 screen:

Budget Impact:

1.85:1 Costs:

2.39:1 Costs:

Key Takeaway:

Related Resources

Ready to Calculate Aspect Ratios?