4:3 is the new cool

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

Um.

There was this film maker named Stanley Kubrick. He released and shot all of his films (some of them classics) in 4x3 with mono soundtracks to reach the widest possible audience.

What are you talking about? A Space Odyssey was 2.20:1 - it actually says that on imdb, which you've referenced. In fact Kubrick's films span the whole range of common formats (again, check imbd). Obviously in the early days he was shooting academy ratios, and in later films he favoured the full 35mm frame but matted to strange ratios, like 1.37:1 for Full Metal Jacket and The Shining, and 1.66:1 for Eyes Wide Shut. Allegedly he gave specific instructions to each cinema to ensure these odd ratios were observed, but if you've ever worked as a projectionist (which I have) you'd know it'd be pretty unlikely that his requests were honoured.

In any event it's not really relevant. We can provide all the reasons and references we want, but that doesn't change the fact that no aspect ratio is better than another, they can all be beautiful if used appropriately, and the reasons particular ones are more common than others is simply because standards develop and it is makes more sense to adhere to a standard. Film and television are primarily created as commercial products for mainstream consumption.

I hope most of you are aware that the vast majority of cinemas are only equipped to play films in either a 1.85:1/widescreen or 2.35:1/cinemascope ratio. This relates to specific lenses and masking plates on the projectors. To exhibit a film in 4:3 for example, whilst not impossible, would cause considerable nuisance to the projectionist, and cinema management. In other words they're not gonna like it, and if they're not gonna like it, distributors are not gonna like it, right? Plus you have the 'consumers' who are not gonna like it cause they're used to wider formats, and generally they don't like change at the cinema.... after all, these are the same people who go along and pay money to see the latest Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson or Matthew McCona-whatever rom-com. (Having said that, you'd be amazed at how many people will sit through a film that's accidentally playing in the wrong ratio, or out of focus, or even with the lights still on in the theatre(!) and not notice or care enough to complain.)

I totally agree with CinemaTechnic that many standards, like the NTSC field rate and the audio cd sampling rate, are silly and anachronistic, and could be improved. But aspect ratios? Come on, none is really better than the other. Sure, people may favour something that more closely resembles the golden ratio or their stereoscopic vision or whatever, but so many great films have been beautifully shot in 4:3. Ideally, the filmmaker should be free to choose whichever ratio they so desire (and be held to the same accountability as any other artistic decision they make, ie. the marketplace). In fact with digital projection, which seems an unstoppable evolution, a whole variety of different theatrical exhibition ratios is theoretically possible.

 

[David Battistella]

I totally agree with CinemaTechnic that many standards, like the NTSC field rate and the audio cd sampling rate, are silly and anachronistic, and could be improved. But aspect ratios? Come on, none is really better than the other.

I do not think i said one was better than the other.

Sure, people may favour something that more closely resembles the golden ratio or their stereoscopic vision or whatever, but so many great films have been beautifully shot in 4:3.

This is why i cited the Kubrick example(s) that a mainstream film maker made those creative choices.

Ideally, the filmmaker should be free to choose whichever ratio they so desire (and be held to the same accountability as any other artistic decision they make, ie. the marketplace).

Agree.


David

 

[Elyse]

you can see so much more with 16x9, though!

i think this is a bit silly.

 

[David Battistella]

you can see so much more with 16x9, though!

i think this is a bit silly.

Agreed..

David

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Stanley wasn't all 1.33!

Stanley wasn't all 1.33!

Um.
There was this film maker named Stanley Kubrick. He released and shot all of his films (some of them classics) in 4x3 with mono soundtracks to reach the widest possible audience.

LOL! I knew this was coming... guess what I *LOVE* Kubrick. Did you travel overseas to see the Stanley Kubrick Archives exhibit? (I saw it in Ghent Belgium in Jan '07)? Do you have the €150/$200 Taschen Stanley Kubrick book that comes with a piece of film from a 70mm print? How many people have you met that personally knew or worked with Kubrick?

...Just showing off a bit, I'm sure you're a fan too.

I'm not sure why Stanley wanted to have all his films shot in standard 35mm released on DVD or Laserdisc in 1.33. But I think it had less to do with the aspect ratio and more to do with showing the entire capture film frame.

But Keep in mind: All of Kubrick's films after Dr. Strangelove (a personal favorite) were released theatrically in widescreen. Also both Spartacus and 2001 were "anamorphic" widescreen (Technirama {1.5:1 x 1.5 squeeze = 2.25:1} and 2.2:1 Super Panavision 70mm respectively).

Got to go... keep posting...

 

[Jonas Nyström]

4:3 is the new cool - well, it's not. period.

 

[J.R. Hud]

From the site

Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/

Lot's of fun trivia on this site regarding this subject.

But yeah, 4:3 sucks.

 

[jon erwin]

Some of DARK KNIGHT was done in 4:3. IMAX baby! That's the ultimate 4:3

As for me., the wider the better. I just find that a 16:9 r even 2.35:1 image is so much more romantic and offers a lot more possibilities for unique frames.

BUT a lot of music video directors I know are making the treck back to 4:3 and it's pretty cool sometimes...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

the key word is some, it was still framed so it wouldn't look weird in 2:40:1

 

[Robert Sanders]

I love all aspect ratios. But my favorite is 2.35 anamorphic (and I mean true anamorphic). 4x3 can be cool on the right project, particularly in B&W. 16x9 HD shows like Entourage, Sopranos, Rome look amazing in that aspect ratio.

I do think 2.35 has lost a little of it's uniqueness. When James Cameron ushered in the S35 craze the flood gates opened and suddenly a lot of filmmakers were shooting widescreen (like Scorsese). Now that we're seeing comedies shot 2.35 I wonder if that format has any real unique quality to it like it used to?

Which is why I always revert back to anamorphic. I love it because you have to suffer a little to shoot in that format. Like David Mullen said, with anamorphic you can "feel" the edges of the frame. It's just ... special IMHO.

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

IMAX is not 4:3 baby! It's 4.3:1 (1.43:1)
Je ris mon mauvais rire!

 

[Patrick Jennings]

i see 4:3 as being like waist high pants. it was the norm in the 80's then went out of fashion. now only the cool trendy young people are wearing them. and you can only pull them off if you're super hot. but it is slowly becoming more and more popular.

a lot of people secretly like the look of of waist high pants but are afraid to buy them incase their friends bag them.

music videos are the first place 4:3 will come back in a big way. coz cool trendy hot people are in and make them

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I do not think i said one was better than the other.

Mate I know you didn't, I was responding to CinemaTechnic and everyone else who says 'x is definitely better than y'.

This is why i cited the Kubrick example(s) that a mainstream film maker made those creative choices.

Yes but you weren't actually correct in your assertion, as I explained Kubrick used a variety of different ratios.

But anyway I do agree this is a silly discussion. I think the original poster intended it to be a light-hearted discussion on the merits of 4:3 cinematography.

Whenever something like this comes up, it inevitably prompts some people to make the ridiculous assertion that one ratio is inherently better than another, rather than just stating their personal taste and reasons. This always irritates me.

People use bogus logic like 'it's been proven that a majority of people prefer something that follows the golden ratio....' Whilst it's a dubious statement to begin with (let's see some proof); it's a fallacy to conclude from this 'logic' that one ratio is better than another. It's akin to, for example, citing a study that shows a majority of people prefer the colour blue to red, and concluding from this that blue is inherently more beautiful than red.

Sorry David I didn't mean to be putting words in your mouth, my comments are directed at the broader discussion on this topic.

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

i see 4:3 as being like waist high pants. it was the norm in the 80's then went out of fashion. now only the cool trendy young people are wearing them. and you can only pull them off if you're super hot. but it is slowly becoming more and more popular.

a lot of people secretly like the look of of waist high pants but are afraid to buy them incase their friends bag them.

music videos are the first place 4:3 will come back in a big way. coz cool trendy hot people are in and make them

Well put!

I like your point about music videos, but I feel it could go either way.

The real reason most people will shoot/deliver in 16:9 these days is because it's become the standard and by comparison 4:3 will make the product appear amateurish, no matter how much it was an artistic decision.

Ironically, I think 4:3 could only become 'cool' again if the image were matted, ie. there was a black margin around the top and bottom, and with curved rather than right angle edges, kind of like retro photographs.* This will be necessary to indicate that the 4:3 was a conscious aesthetic decision, rather than a failure to work in the accepted 16:9 standard!! (Plus, if you saw a recently made music video on tv in 4:3, you'd assume the station mistakenly cropped it, not that it was delivered that way.) Perhaps we will start to see new twee videos for indie pop bands, with skinny jeans and lots of primary colours, framed this way!

Things like this always make me feel a bit disgusted with pop culture :glare:


* I feel I should declare I have in fact used such a matte on a music video, albeit it was in 16:9, but I did it to give it a retro feel. So there you go, I disgust myself :sarcasm:

 

[Patrick Jennings]

Perhaps we will start to see new twee videos for indie pop bands, with skinny jeans and lots of primary colours, framed this way!

damn. i knew i should have put primary colours into my clip

i dig the matte idea though. i might steal it. by the way i'm also in melbourne australia!!! wooo! ....can i have a job?

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

i dig the matte idea though. i might steal it.

take it, its yours! in fact you wouldn't be the first person to copy it from me... not like i invented it or anything, but it'd be cool to start a trend

by the way i'm also in melbourne australia!!! wooo! ....can i have a job?

i thought those beers on the amps looked familiar - they're coopers aren't they! but what makes you think i can give you a job - mate, i need a job! :tongue: sounds like we're both in the same boat, making low budget music videos!

seriously though, if you own and hire out your own RED, i definitely might be able to give you some work...

 

[Patrick Jennings]

of course they're coopers! they're the best.

no red.. too poor i do have a dvx100 w/ SGpro and a decent Nikon lens kit though. it's perfect for music vids. coz you only need SD. at least that's what i tell myself when i see all my friends with HD cams...

 

[Todd Norris]

Let's not forget that almost every movie made prior to the mid 1950's was shot in 4:3. Orson Welles and Gregg Toland shot "Citizen Kane" in 4:3. Many other of Welles' films are 4:3. The compositions in his version of "Othello" are staggering. Take a look at John Ford classics. The iconic imagery of Monument Valley was often captured in 4:3. Eisenstein movies, and films like Murnau's "Sunrise" make one drop to their knees in humility because of their amazing compositions. Again, 4:3.
To be fair, I personally prefer the 2.35:1 look, but I'm constantly amazed by how filmmakers used the frame in the days before widescreen. It's not the same as the 4:3 "TV show" look we are so familiar with. It's a different mindset. Many directors shot from high angles, divided the frame into quadrants, and actually had people framed in the bottom half of the screen while having background action framed at the top of the screen above them. Very interesting, unusual stuff that doesn't work in widescreen.
Personally, there have been times when I've framed a close-up of an actor in 1.85:1 or Scope, and wished I could change the shot to 4:3 because it fits the human face so much better. With widescreen, you must either chop off the top of the head, or frame them to one side and then decide what compostional element to include on the other side of the frame for balance. That's part of the charm of widescreen, but sometimes you just want a face and nothing else! 4:3 TV is very good for this.
Let's not forget that widescreen formats were created out of economic desperation...to combat television's grip on the public in the 1950's. Before that, master cinematographers were cranking out beautiful imagery in 4:3 everyday.
There's also Fritz Lang's quote that widescreen is "only good for snakes and parades". Funny stuff. David Lean would disagree, I'm sure. But that reminds me: Lean shot "Oliver Twist" and "Great Expectations" in 4:3 and there are shots in those that will blow your mind.
So while I prefer to shoot 2.35:1, I will not hesitate to take up arms and join the 4:3 revolution!!

 

[David Battistella]

Sorry David I didn't mean to be putting words in your mouth, my comments are directed at the broader discussion on this topic.

It's all cool. This is one of those threads that can start people into theory, which always livens things up.

David

 

[M Hsu]

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.

I'm joking, but it won't surprise me when someone actually goes and does it and finds a reason to frame that way.