Most likely your images aren't getting "cut," but rather, the 3:2 aspect ratio is being "shrunk" so that the top and bottom fit into a 16:9 or 4:3 canvas without cropping anything off. If you want your images to fully fill the "frame" of the video without letterboxing or pillarboxing, you'll have to crop your images, unfortunately. (That, or squash them, which, I wouldn't recommend)

This can easily be done (albeit, slowly - going frame by frame) in a free program such as GIMP (or even a purchasable counterpart). I do this all the time to achieve different aspect ratios just as one would purchase different sized canvases for painting.

For what it's worth, instead of cropping images one-by-one in GIMP you could import the whole sequence of images into an editor like VirtualDub (which is free) and use a crop filter that applies to all of the images at once. From there you can export the sequence of cropped images or just go ahead and render a video file.

If you are determined to stick with a photo-editor, I know GIMP has a batch mode that should let you apply a crop across an image sequence in a similar fashion; I'm just not sure how friendly it is. Looking at the documentation, unless you want to install a custom batch GUI plugin you'll need to know some scripting to make use of it.

You can definitely find a better solution than cropping each frame individually. That sounds like torture!

You should be able to change it in your camera. And then your camera will crop it. But if not, sounds like you have some good ideas for cropping it later.

Hope that helps
OsomStudios

What's wrong with the 3:2 aspect ratio? Sure, they'll be pillarboxing on the sides of the youtube video (assuming that you intend to upload your animations for all to see there), but, there's pillarboxing on classic (pre 50's) movies as well. It seems that you're cropping just to fit to a standard set by computer screen manufacturers. Why not experiment with this odd ratio for a film?

True.

Although, from sebas's first post, it seems that he was worried that he was losing part of the picture, due to the black bars. But, in fact, cropping to another aspect ratio would actually cause him to "lose" the top and bottom of a 3:2 image.

I didn't really want to bring up framing, and how it's best to know what aspect ratio you want your film to be in from the beginning - so you can mask (or crop) bits of the frame out later to your desire. It may be necessary to mention, however. If he's framing to 3:2 when shooting, cropping to 16:9 or 2.35:1 won't particularly look good, as this will change the framing.

If you're used to shooting at 3:2, and have framed shots really well in this ratio, why not use it? Changing to another ratio, while it is your choice, would require a change in framing. If you've already taken pictures in 3:2, you may have to reshoot, depending on how harsh the cropping is.

I usually shoot at 4:3 on my camera (although, I have occasionally used it's 3:2 setting as well), but even then, I'm not framing to 4:3... I frame things specially, so no "useful information" is cropped off when I cut the ratio down to a wider standard.

If you can't shoot anything other than 3:2, but want 16:9 (or another, wider aspect ratio) then I'd recommend you take some test frames, just to see how much will be cropped off so you can visualize this when filming. I used to put some duct tape over the top and bottom of my camera's screen to aid in this. I don't do that now, though, because I've acquired a pretty good knack for guessing just how much of the base frame will be cropped by the final export/upload.

Exactly