Aspect Ratio - 16:9 vs. 4:3

T

turtlesinautumn

Active member
Hi!
Over the years, I have shot in both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios. I'd like to have a standard now, so I'm wondering if any of you have a preference, and why. Please let me know.
 
16:9 all the way for me. Occasionally, I go up to 2.35:1. No reason other than I like the aesthetics more than 4:3. 4:3 seems "blocky" to me. How's that for technical?
 
Given that most DVDs and TV broadcasts and pretty much all new TVs are now 16:9, that's what I'll be doing from now on. I was forced to try 16:9 for the first time earlier this year, and it wasn't nearly as painful as I'd feared.
 
clang said:
Given that most DVDs and TV broadcasts and pretty much all new TVs are now 16:9, that's what I'll be doing from now on. I was forced to try 16:9 for the first time earlier this year, and it wasn't nearly as painful as I'd feared.
Click to expand...
Excellent, thanks.
 
16:9 is the present and the future. 4:3 is the past. 4:3 is a left-over of vacuum tubes (aka CRTs). Since there aren't any CRT TVs being made any more, why continue with the CRT linked aspect ratio?
 
4:3 (1:33:1) video closely matches the cinema standard of the time (1930's/40's) of 1.37:1 which is called "Academy Ratio". 1.37:1 and 24 fps was selected as the standard for motion picture presentation as the Academy Ratio gave room on the film print for the optical sound track and 24fps moved at a rate fast enough to give the minimum fidelity for the sound (90 feet/sec). After 1952 wide screen aspect ratios began to be the norm for cinema presentation, and, after a while kind of settled down to the standard of 1.85:1 for films shot with spherical lenses and, around 2.35:1 for films shot with anamorphic lenses. 16:9 video (1.77:1) was adapted as a compromise aspect ratio for high def video and I think that it is a very good choice.

I never much cared for 4:3, even though I shot on it for a very long time. If given the chance, I would always try to go for a letter boxed finish, by masking the 4:3 video in post. I like 16:9. It is not uber wide, like 2.35:1, and is much easier, for me, to compose with. While I think that 1.85:1, or a little bit wider, matches the human eye field of view better, 16:9 is very, very close.
 
David G. Smith said:
16:9 video (1.77:1) was adapted as a compromise aspect ratio for high def video and I think that it is a very good choice.
Click to expand...

1.77:1 is also close to a 'traditional' european format of 1.67:1.

I have not been 'impressed' with the examples people have posted of 2.39/2.40 (the subject of another thread...), which basically is cropped down from 16:9, or used an anamorphic lens. Some may think of it as a 'coolness' factor, but for me it seems far to narrow in height... and too wide for many types of 'stories' that most people shoot that have been posted...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
1.77:1 is also close to a 'traditional' european format of 1.67:1.

I have not been 'impressed' with the examples people have posted of 2.39/2.40 (the subject of another thread...), which basically is cropped down from 16:9, or used an anamorphic lens. Some may think of it as a 'coolness' factor, but for me it seems far to narrow in height... and too wide for many types of 'stories' that most people shoot that have been posted...
Click to expand...

I agree, watching "Once Upon a Time in the West" in it's original Techniscope aspect ratio of 2.39:1 is one thing and watching a 16:9 video cropped to 2.35:1 of another mediocre band is quite another.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
1.77:1 is also close to a 'traditional' european format of 1.67:1.

I have not been 'impressed' with the examples people have posted of 2.39/2.40 (the subject of another thread...), which basically is cropped down from 16:9, or used an anamorphic lens. Some may think of it as a 'coolness' factor, but for me it seems far to narrow in height... and too wide for many types of 'stories' that most people shoot that have been posted...
Click to expand...

The wider aspect ratios like 2.35 and 2.40 are more of a stylistic decision nowadays for filmmakers who want that vast, expansive frame to play and compose with. As a cinematographer, I feel like 1.78 and 1.85 feel "natural" to me - but 2.35 and 2.40 feel "epic" for lack of a better word.
 
Finnegan said:
The wider aspect ratios like 2.35 and 2.40 are more of a stylistic decision nowadays for filmmakers who want that vast, expansive frame to play and compose with.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think they are. I mean, the choice to use them is clearly a stylistic decision, but the ratios themselves weren't picked because of their artistic merit.

The aspect ratios around 2.39 were mostly the result of the area available on 35mm film, the pull down, and the physics of anamorphic lens design. It's very difficult to build a projector with variable mechanical pulldown. Back before widespread computer control, you'd have been pretty much stuck with 2, 3, or 4 perf pull down for 35mm film transport (a tradition that continues through the present time). Panavision gives a pretty good explanation of where the wide screen aspect ratios come from.

My personal favorite aspect ratio for feature films is 2.2:1, which is what you get from 65mm film and its 5 perf pull down. This ratio is very close to sqrt(5) : 1, which shows up a lot in nature and has been used for millenia in art and architecture around the globe. Something about it "feels right." And this feeling spans cultures. And it is, of course, related to the golden ratio of (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2, or about 16:10 (not 16:9 unfortunately). The golden ratio is even more wide spread, and shows up in nature everywhere, including in the bone structure of the human face. No wonder it "feels right".

Some examples of feature films shot at 2.2:1 include 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Baraka.
 
J Davis said:
nothing wrong with 4:3 just make sure its imax res !!!!! :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have no personal favorite, whatever fits the story/location best. It would be interesting to really try and make a film where you change the ratio as not a gimmick but narratively.
 
Bruce Watson said:
Actually, I don't think they are. I mean, the choice to use them is clearly a stylistic decision, but the ratios themselves weren't picked because of their artistic merit.

The aspect ratios around 2.39 were mostly the result of the area available on 35mm film, the pull down, and the physics of anamorphic lens design. It's very difficult to build a projector with variable mechanical pulldown. Back before widespread computer control, you'd have been pretty much stuck with 2, 3, or 4 perf pull down for 35mm film transport (a tradition that continues through the present time). Panavision gives a pretty good explanation of where the wide screen aspect ratios come from.

My personal favorite aspect ratio for feature films is 2.2:1, which is what you get from 65mm film and its 5 perf pull down. This ratio is very close to sqrt(5) : 1, which shows up a lot in nature and has been used for millenia in art and architecture around the globe. Something about it "feels right." And this feeling spans cultures. And it is, of course, related to the golden ratio of (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2, or about 16:10 (not 16:9 unfortunately). The golden ratio is even more wide spread, and shows up in nature everywhere, including in the bone structure of the human face. No wonder it "feels right".

Some examples of feature films shot at 2.2:1 include 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Baraka.
Click to expand...


Well, If I had my "Druthers" I would definitly shoot 5 perf 65mm, for 70mm presentation... But..... well you know the answer to that. As far as the golden ratio goes, while it is still very important to nature and the studies of aesthetics, I thought I read a study once where, in a study of great master paintings, it really wasn't used as much as previously thought. For practicality, I think 16:9 is a pretty good comprimise, and I still preferr it to 4:3. I do think that the notion of using the aspect ratio that fits the subject is important. I have seen 4:3, cropped in 16:9 and even 1.85:1 frames, to replicate old home movies, and it works very well.
 
David G. Smith said:
As far as the golden ratio goes, while it is still very important to nature and the studies of aesthetics, I thought I read a study once where, in a study of great master paintings, it really wasn't used as much as previously thought.
Click to expand...

Depends on what is being discussed...

Framing, was pretty 'haphazard'. There was no Academy of Canvas Sizes... furthermore, for 'wall' art, like frescoes, it pretty much followed the wall and proportions it was constructed with, or subdivided into...

Internal 'composition', at least in the Renaissance, often did have 'golden mean' relationships, or phi relationships... that because in the same period there was a 'rediscovery' of Greek mathematical principles, along with a 'vogue' of Vitruvius not only for physical architecture, but also architecture as well as other representions in paintings.
 
Last edited:
PhilJackson said:
Exactly. I have no personal favorite, whatever fits the story/location best. It would be interesting to really try and make a film where you change the ratio as not a gimmick but narratively.
Click to expand...

that would be cool. it'll be a gimmick once someone does it tastefully. then all the copy-cats think changing the aspect ratio is what makes it cool, not the context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top