Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

4:3 is the new cool

For me the project itself usually dictates the preference of aspect ratio. Generally I'd rather pick between 1:85 and 2:40 but 1:33 might have its place for certain looks and situations. Having been "forced" into it for so many years when I would have rather shot widescreen, it's not a ratio that I have much affection for, however. Tends to show a lot of floor, which is rarely interesting.
 
Kubrick preferred to release the home video editions of his films in 4:3 to take full advantage of the resolution and viewing environments of television, hence also the mono sound. He released his films in the cinema at different aspect ratios. On page 452 of The Stanley Kubrick Archives (Taschen Books) Kubrick's own notes on a photo of the Timberline Lodge in Oregon, the stand-in for The Overlook in The Shining, refer to:

"THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1- 1:85 Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area."
 
The 4:3 Ratio carries with it many drawbacks, most of them compositional. When the scale of the viewing environment is larger, like in Imax, the constraints of the frame are removed and the effect is akin to watching a widescreen image. Imax has it's own aesthetic rules to enhance this effect, by composing for the lower third of the frame and allowing enormous headroom in the picture. On a 4:3 television, the effect of the frame are intensified and the compositions lean heavily to the center of the frame or a left or right of center. Rarely do you see an effective use of thirds in 4:3. Imax films on television are incredibly under-whelming because they don't recompose to remove the enormous headroom in the frame.

The best examples of the 4:3 ratio are in the film noir from around the 1940's. The lighting often times diminishes the effect of the hard-edge of the frame and it creates an area of visual intensity that focuses the attention of the audience to specific areas of the frame. Again, a large projected image is needed to get the full effect.

Some of the psychological effects of the 4:3 aspect ratio play well in suspense and horror films. 4:3 limits your natural stereoscopic field of view, creating a sense of voyeurism, hiding, dread, alienation, perhaps even an innate expression of curiosity. It is an intimate aspect ratio, perhaps better suited to character-centered content that deals with introspection, isolation and similar dynamics.

I would choose the 4:3 not on the basis of some autocratic dictate, but rather for how it supports the content that's being presented.
 
Had a friend's son stop by the studio because he is interested in getting into movie production. He's 14 years old. We got talking about what films he likes and about what he shoots with his video camera. When I asked if his video camera was capable of shooting in widescreen 16x9 he replied he didn't know. At first, I thought maybe he's just never gone through the menus to check. But he then said the reason he didn't know is because he wouldn't shoot with it even if it was there. He likes 4:3. A lot of his favorite movies he has watched are in this aspect ratio. And that is what he shoots his stuff in.

Interesting.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
Had a friend's son stop by the studio because he is interested in getting into movie production. He's 14 years old. We got talking about what films he likes and about what he shoots with his video camera. When I asked if his video camera was capable of shooting in widescreen 16x9 he replied he didn't know. At first, I thought maybe he's just never gone through the menus to check. But he then said the reason he didn't know is because he wouldn't shoot with it even if it was there. He likes 4:3. A lot of his favorite movies he has watched are in this aspect ratio. And that is what he shoots his stuff in.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

wait till you show him Star Wars in widescreen

I mean I also grew up in the 4:3 pan scan TV age, where every movie I watched on TV was fullscreen, then I'd shoot 4:3 cause thats what I'm used the seeing as a movie, but since I've been tainted by the glorious framing done in 1:85, 2:40, I'm used to that being the normal film framing, so I'd want to shoot in that
 
Isn't 'Fishtank' Shot at 4:3? I saw it the other day and was pretty certain it was. At the end of the day the ratio you shoot at should be governed by the needs and requirements of the style and dynamic of the story your telling, and the characters within it. The whole reason Laurence of Arabia made pioneering use of anamorphic was for the story.. The massive expanses of desert and emptiness could only truly be conveyed through such an expansive composition... Similarly in Fishtank.. the smaller confined compositions are reflective of the protagonist and her situation... And it still looks absolutley stunning regardless. A brave but massively successful call by Robbie Ryan.

I'd say that if your ever just shooting what looks 'coolest' to make yourself look good, or to make composition easier.. then you run a real danger of not doing a story the justice it deserves..

My tuppence worth anyhow..
 
Robert Sanders said:
I love all aspect ratios. But my favorite is 2.35 anamorphic (and I mean true anamorphic).
Click to expand...

So unless you are talking about pre 1978 cinemascope... true anamorphic is 2.39. Not to be picky, but you went out of your way to say 'true anamorphic'... otherwise I probably would have let it go.
 
Well you can shoot in whatever you want all day long... but since the early 1970's (I mistakenly said the late seventies) SMPTE has stated that the standard in anamorphic cinematography is 2.40, which is 2.39 rounded. But for the life of me now, I can't find where I read that 2.40 is 2.39 rounded... but that is what I believe it to be.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Well you can shoot in whatever you want all day long... but since the early 1970's (I mistakenly said the late seventies) SMPTE has stated that the standard in anamorphic cinematography is 2.40, which is 2.39 rounded. But for the life of me now, I can't find where I read that 2.40 is 2.39 rounded... but that is what I believe it to be.
Click to expand...

Well you can see *HERE* that there ARE differences in the camera aperture for Arri's anamorphic sizing (incorrectly described as 2.30) and the panavision camera aperture size for 2.40.

To make it extra confusing arri's are metric and the panavison size is imperial but when you calculate them back they are different and that's why you get slightly different sizes.

You did say you were being picky... ;-)

jb
 
John Brawley said:
Well you can see *HERE* that there ARE differences in the camera aperture for Arri's anamorphic sizing (incorrectly described as 2.30) and the panavision camera aperture size for 2.40.

To make it extra confusing arri's are metric and the panavison size is imperial but when you calculate them back they are different and that's why you get slightly different sizes.

You did say you were being picky... ;-)

jb
Click to expand...


Oddly enough, it is 2.30.... Unless they messed up the numbers...

They list Arri as:

35mm Anamorphic Projection 2:30 Arri 21 x 18.2 mm
Click to expand...

If we assume the anamorphic lenses are 2:1.... that is 42 x 18.2 which is 2.30 aspect ratio.

I have never shot Anamorphic 35mm on an Arri, so I can't vouch for this... but all I am saying is the numbers you are saying are correctly 'different' are adding up to match the description you called incorrect.

Do the same for Panavision and it comes out to 2.39... which Panavision rounded to 2.40 in the description.

So does Panavision have wrong Arri description and frame sizes?

I'm not trying to start a pissing match, but am genuinely interested in this.

Perhaps the Arri undergoes slight letterboxing or matte during printing, transfer or projection stages to get it down to 2.39...or referenced as 2.40?
 
RE: if you guys really want to be groundbreaking, try shooting 3:4. Turn the camera on it's side. It's like the opposite of wide screen.

Douglas Trumbull beat you to it with his "Theater of Time" film was shot sideways and projected 2.40 tall in Showscan at the Luxor in Vegas. I think it is gone now but it was part of 3 showscan films they had there in the mid 90's.
 
Adam Etherington said:
Isn't 'Fishtank' Shot at 4:3? I saw it the other day and was pretty certain it was. At the end of the day the ratio you shoot at should be governed by the needs and requirements of the style and dynamic of the story your telling, and the characters within it. The whole reason Laurence of Arabia made pioneering use of anamorphic was for the story.. The massive expanses of desert and emptiness could only truly be conveyed through such an expansive composition... Similarly in Fishtank.. the smaller confined compositions are reflective of the protagonist and her situation... And it still looks absolutley stunning regardless. A brave but massively successful call by Robbie Ryan.

I'd say that if your ever just shooting what looks 'coolest' to make yourself look good, or to make composition easier.. then you run a real danger of not doing a story the justice it deserves..

My tuppence worth anyhow..
Click to expand...

"Fishtank" was shot 4:3. Great cinematography by Robbie Ryan, imho.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg1yMOdjyp0
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I have never shot Anamorphic 35mm on an Arri, so I can't vouch for this... but all I am saying is the numbers you are saying are correctly 'different' are adding up to match the description you called incorrect.
Click to expand...

I came across this issue a couple of years ago when I was doing a 4K DI on a 35mm Panavision Anamorphic show that was being scanned on what was then the brand new ARRI scanner.

I noticed it first when the frame and focus charts were coming back *off* from the scans in my tests and it took some research to discover that Arri and Panavision have different physical camera apertures (gates) in their cameras when they set them up for 35mm 4P anamorphic.

I have tried to find some references online, but all i get a confusingly different sizes when i search on camera aperture sizes from both sites. At the time, even the Panavision and Arri guys weren't that clear about it.

Im starting up on a show right now so don't have more time to refind online sources, but suffice to say the point is proved....they both have different ideas about what anamorphic sizes are.....

jb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top