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

I remember my stupid fascination of the 1:1.78 frame in the 90ties. Just because we could letterbox the 4:3 format we thought it looked cooler.
As I have matured as a DP(doing it for 20yrs and maturing late;-) I have come to the conclusion that the 16:9 frame is the worst possible format. Allmost nothing works perfectly in that frame...its allways inbetween.
I LOVE 4:3 for commercials and relish the occations when I can still shoot it, in forexample, eastern Europe. The "off/odd" framing possibilities are endless.
Just have a good look at the first seasons of "Six feet under". That is in my opinion a stellar example of how this frame is best utilized.
I have shot several features in 1:2,40 and it is challenging, but soooo much easier to do a nice framing than with 1:1,78.
So my favourite aspect ratios are 1:1,33 and anything above and including 1:2.
Best
JJ DP
 
Todd Norris said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he was the first to start doing it but I love how Wes Anderson shoots people straight-on, smack bang in the centre of the frame. Very exciting composition, the sides of the frame become like an extension of the subject. Interesting solution to the problem of a stale cinematic language.
 
JOIN ME!!!!!!! when was the last time you offered a client 4:3 as an option?[/QUOTE]

they bleedin ask for it in lebanon. there's no HD. no 16:9.

blows.

but 4:3 is cool I shoot super8mm.

I don't wanna screw up my camera gate and max it i don't like that.

I'll help.
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
I remember my stupid fascination of the 1:1.78 frame in the 90ties. Just because we could letterbox the 4:3 format we thought it looked cooler.
As I have matured as a DP(doing it for 20yrs and maturing late;-) I have come to the conclusion that the 16:9 frame is the worst possible format. Allmost nothing works perfectly in that frame...its allways inbetween.
I LOVE 4:3 for commercials and relish the occations when I can still shoot it, in forexample, eastern Europe. The "off/odd" framing possibilities are endless.
Just have a good look at the first seasons of "Six feet under". That is in my opinion a stellar example of how this frame is best utilized.
I have shot several features in 1:2,40 and it is challenging, but soooo much easier to do a nice framing than with 1:1,78.
So my favourite aspect ratios are 1:1,33 and anything above and including 1:2.
Best
JJ DP
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more or word it better... same experience even when drawing in animation... its awkward, i wish it were 16 by 6
 
spitfire44 said:
4:3 sucks unless it's Kubrick.

Eric
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Stanley could rock any aspect ratio! But notice how much he utilizes symmetrical vertical compositions, which work well in 4:3.

It's a damn shame to think that if he smoked less there might have been one more picture in him... But then there are so many healthy directors producing garbage...
 
all you out there working professionally know that sometimes if not most times you don't get a choice to shoot an aspect ratio. I just shot a commercial for a German production company and agency for the Polish market....we shot S35mm.....full open gate and I held (just in case the director wanted to cut something for himself later) for 1.78...
Poland uses 4:3 as their standard and the client as they stated, pays for every bit of screen space, so we had to shoot 4:3.. they said 16:9 is for those new TV's....our target market and most of Poland don't have this type of set....yet. So they want to all the screen real estate.
there are some countries that only recently require 16:9 broadcast copies...so in that case you shoot only widescreen.

I still prefer 16:9 or 1:85 or other more natural aspect ratios, but it is very much the truth....certain creative aspects will also dictate the ratio.

just my thoughts,
Eric
 
spitfire44 said:
all you out there working professionally know that sometimes if not most times you don't get a choice to shoot an aspect ratio. I just shot a commercial for a German production company and agency for the Polish market....we shot S35mm.....full open gate and I held (just in case the director wanted to cut something for himself later) for 1.78...
Poland uses 4:3 as their standard and the client as they stated, pays for every bit of screen space, so we had to shoot 4:3.. they said 16:9 is for those new TV's....our target market and most of Poland don't have this type of set....yet. So they want to all the screen real estate.
there are some countries that only recently require 16:9 broadcast copies...so in that case you shoot only widescreen.

I still prefer 16:9 or 1:85 or other more natural aspect ratios, but it is very much the truth....certain creative aspects will also dictate the ratio.

just my thoughts,
Eric
Click to expand...

Well, of course. It's the advertising business, if the client wants a standard definition advert you give them an SD advert after all they are paying you a lot of money. You could always shoot 3 perf framing for the 4:3 area in the center like TV shows tend to do after all shooting 3 perf is cheeper then shooting 4 perf and the client wouldn't know the difference but that's just what I would do.
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
I remember my stupid fascination of the 1:1.78 frame in the 90ties. Just because we could letterbox the 4:3 format we thought it looked cooler.
As I have matured as a DP(doing it for 20yrs and maturing late;-) I have come to the conclusion that the 16:9 frame is the worst possible format. Allmost nothing works perfectly in that frame...its allways inbetween.
I LOVE 4:3 for commercials and relish the occations when I can still shoot it, in forexample, eastern Europe. The "off/odd" framing possibilities are endless.
Just have a good look at the first seasons of "Six feet under". That is in my opinion a stellar example of how this frame is best utilized.
I have shot several features in 1:2,40 and it is challenging, but soooo much easier to do a nice framing than with 1:1,78.
So my favourite aspect ratios are 1:1,33 and anything above and including 1:2.
Best
JJ DP
Click to expand...

I agree with you JJ.

Now I understand why when I try to frame stuff on my HDV camera the framing never looks quite nice, but a slight crop and framing for that will look way better.

The standard should've been 2:1, but then we artistic snobs wouldn't impose black bars as we always tend to...

:)
 
2.40:1 makes it easy to achieve interesting composition within the two dimensional space of the frame. It's possible to create interesting composition within a 4:3 frame, but you have to really work at it. One of the things that makes some of the composition in e.g. Citizen Kane (mentioned before) so amazing is that shots are composed in a deep 3D space, which can work better in a taller frame, but is very challenging to pull off both technically (you need to throw around a lot of light to get that deep focus) and from a creative standpoint.

Deep focus arguably also doesn't work quite as well in color as in black and white, unless you're very careful about what's in your frame, because brightly color background objects can become distracting if you don't throw them out of focus.

IMAX is 4:3, of course, but IMAX screens are designed to fill a larger potion of your field of view than typical movie screens. Like, nearly all of it. Composition works differently under those circumstances, so the fact that 4:3 works well for IMAX doesn't really let you draw any general conclusions.

As for 16:9... well, it's not a bad format. I prefer composing in 16:9 to 4:3. But my understanding is it was chosen as a technical compromise rather than for aesthetic reasons -- it's 1.78:1, which puts it between the American widescreen theatrical standard of 1.85:1 and the European widescreen theatrical standard of 1.66:1. So it shouldn't be too surprising that it's not precisely ideal.
 
I'm still using 4:3 (Canon XL1) but waiting for the new RED camera... And with the FF35 you can still shoot 4:3 if you like it so much...
If I can sqeeze it down to 2.35:1 I will sqeeze it down. BUT 16:9 will do.
And after looking at the examples, you can beter change them to 16:9. Less unwanted details.
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
i want 4:3 to die personally
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm glad that clients are finally getting it with regards to shooting wider formats. Now,if I could only ban the phrase "....and protect for 4:3".
 
jenningsp said:
JOIN ME!!!!!!! when was the last time you offered a client 4:3 as an option?
Click to expand...
You might have something! Everyone clamours for shallow DoF to eliminate unwanted backgrounds, or to emulate the limitations of 35mm lenses. Maybe the 4:3 format is useful, also to eliminate unwanted subject matter ... and to enable "better/cheaper" set design. But I do think the average viewer wants to "fill" that new big screen, else why have it?
 
Todd Norris said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quiet funnily, a couple of days ago I started a thread in the SHOT ON RED section asking if someone had tried shooting (cropped) 4:3 with RED, addressing these very same issues (vertical composition instead of horizontal). No-one replied.

My favourite format is either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1\16:9, as I think they offer the best compromise between wide and tall. 2.35:1 looks great but it is impossible to be filled with a single subject\object (unless you're doing some super-close-up Sergio Leone style).

I've seen many cool stuff being framed in 4:3 - it's a different mindset and I love it.

As an example, check this old & cool commercial out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrhDinWwoyQ - look at the frame at 0:05!
 
Chris Newman said:
9:16 tallscreen is the way to go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xxfseM9IQ
Click to expand...

Actually I've thought about this before, because like it was mentioned in the previous post
Open your eyes. Stare at a single point straight ahead of you on an empty wall. Place imaginary "markers" at the four corners of your peripheral. Now connect the dots. What shape is it?
Click to expand...
We see in 'rectangles' so for a screen to work in the same way your vision does it should fill your view from left to right and have lots of room at the bottom and the top, for you to look up and down.

So I vote for really big tallscreen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top