The classic 4:3 (or 1.33/1.37) aspect ratio has been maintained for many years. As early as the 1950s, with the introduction of various widescreen formats such as CinemaScope, the once standard aspect ratio for motion pictures began to fade away.
But even though movies no longer use the 4:3 format, television has retained the aging format for a long time. For decades, the wider formats (1.85 and 2.35) were considered “movie formats” and 4:3 was considered the “television format”. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that 16:9 (1.78) TVs became widely available and changed the aspect ratio game forever. Widescreen is no longer just a format for movies, now it’s a format for television as well.
Of course, this doesn’t immediately make the 4:3 aspect ratio go away, as there are plenty of legacy systems still running 1.33 programs (some still do), and not every consumer will jump on the widescreen/HD TV bandwagon right away. However, over time, 4:3 shooting became less and less popular, and by the early 2010s, it was almost considered a taboo.
But over the past few years, things have changed… We’ve seen a resurgence of the classic 4:3 format, with more and more filmmakers adopting it for long-form narratives. This is something we haven’t seen on a large scale in years.
Personally, I am (and always have been) a fan of 4:3. Maybe it’s because many of my favorite movies are old classics shot in 1.33 in 35mm or 16mm, or maybe it’s because the square frame can inspire unique framing choices. Regardless, it always caught my attention – so much so that I planned to shoot my next film at 1.33 because I thought it would be the best choice for the story.
As I’ve been doing some homework and looking for inspiration for my next film, I can’t figure out how many contemporary films have been converted to 4:3. Obviously 2.35 is still the gold standard, but I find it interesting that filmmakers are now embracing this once taboo format.
America’s Dear Son of Saul, and first reformed church These are just a few of the many features that have been using 4:3/1.33 recently –
It’s not just feature films that benefit from the format. TV content, music videos, commercials, and even digital projects are all using the 4:3 ratio, something we haven’t seen in years. So what exactly is causing this aspect ratio to be back in fashion now?
In my opinion, it comes down to a few key factors –
The democratization of 2.35
Needless to say, the most popular aspect ratio in movie theaters today is 2.35. It’s a gorgeous proportion that comes from anamorphic widescreen, and will continue to be the most common aspect of cinema for the foreseeable future.
When 2.35 (or 2.39) was first introduced, the technology was reserved for the largest-scale movies. This gives the format a certain i don’t know what To this day, it’s still about bigger budget, higher end productions. But over the past few decades it has become democratized thanks to higher-resolution digital cameras (which can be easily masked/cropped to 2.35), cheaper anamorphic lenses, and the general democratization of filmmaking as a whole.
Today, almost every movie we see—whether it’s a $200 blockbuster or a $2,000 micro-budget indie—is done in 2.35. While this obviously doesn’t diminish the format in any objective way, I do wonder if the “appeal” of 2.35 has lost its effect on some independent filmmakers. What was long unachievable has now become commonplace… and to some extent this is certainly one of the (many) factors leading filmmakers to experiment with other aspect ratios.
2.35 used to stand out from the crowd, but now it’s the crowd… Which brings me to my next point –
4:3 Differentiate work
Around the same time, 2.35 began to gain traction with the masses, as did filmmaking as a whole. Thanks to cheap/free editing software and cheap cameras, today’s independent film market is flooded with content that’s nearly incomprehensible. Everyone with an iPhone and a laptop can (and is) making short and feature films…and while this is incredible in many ways, it also makes it much harder to cut through the noise.
Consider the number of submissions to film festivals over the past few years as a proxy for how the industry has changed over the years –
According to the image above (from guerrilla representative)Back in 1992, as long as you submitted around 250 films, your chances of getting into the Sundance Film Festival were about one in two. That’s a 50% chance! This year, the Sundance Film Festival received more than 13,500 submissions, and a filmmaker’s chance of participating was less than 1%.
With so much content on the market, it’s harder than ever for filmmakers to make their work stand out. It’s no longer enough to just have a good story and strong production values. That might have launched your career back in 1992, but not today. For an independent film to stand out in 2018, it needs to be extremely unique and special enough to stand out.
Is it any wonder, then, that so many filmmakers are now going the other way and using a once-endangered format (such as 4:3)?
Of course, aspect ratio by itself will never make any movie great, nor will it help any movie get into film festivals. But it does represent a larger idea of doing things differently. This is something that’s on every budding filmmaker’s mind these days, so in that regard it’s no surprise that 4:3 is being revisited.
Retro style is in vogue
Another big change now is that the retro look is very “exist” at the moment. in the most recent blog post, I have written about how motion picture film has experienced a resurgence in recent years, such that film stocks and printing prices have increased by nearly 30% due to increased demand. It’s not just professional celluloid – even Polaroid cameras are making a comeback and are actually more popular than ever.
Whatever the reason, the retro/vintage/nostalgic look is very popular right now, and filmmakers are definitely feeling its effects…many of them are employing various strategies to make their digital footage look less 21st century . from careful use lookup table To use a digital cinema camera with vintage glass and Pro Mist filters, we tried just about everything to make our clinical digital footage look more cinematic.
With that in mind, it’s no surprise that the 4:3 aspect ratio is part of this discussion. There’s no denying the nostalgic quality of this format, which has become ingrained in us after decades of consuming content. In some ways, 4:3 has come full circle—first as a film format, then as a television standard, and now as a return to its origins in narrative feature filmmaking.
There’s no better way to frame a face
So far, we’ve touched on some of the surface qualities that might attract filmmakers to 4:3. But at the end of the day, even if a filmmaker is attracted by a retro look or the format’s ability to differentiate their work from the next, that’s just an entry point.
What ultimately makes most filmmakers actually adopt the 4:3 format are the aesthetic benefits, namely the framing options. I could write an entire article on how various aspect ratios affect framing and the advantages of each format, but for the sake of this post, I’ll just focus on one key factor: framing the face.
The movie is about people, not scenery. Unlike epic landscapes, which require a wide aspect ratio, figures (or more specifically, faces) require a 4:3 aspect ratio. The reason is simple: heads take up more of the screen at 1.33 than at 2.35. A normal close-up at 2.35 will leave a lot of white/negative space on the other side of the frame. This is certainly an excellent artistic choice for a given project, but it doesn’t highlight the actor’s micro-expressions as much as a 4:3 frame would.
4:3 helps us develop a more intimate connection with the characters. In a sense, it feels more natural, and for character-driven productions, it can provide an effective way for the audience to zero in on the subtleties of the performance.
There are countless other aesthetic benefits to 4:3, not the least of which is how powerful it can be at creating a more closed/claustrophobic look…but we’ll leave that for another article.
final thoughts
Do I hope we continue to see 4:3/1.33 movies grow? Absolutely. Do I think it will be as dominant as it was in the last century? No chance… 4:3 is definitely popular now, but it’s still only a small percentage of the movies made today. That said, I’m glad it’s no longer considered taboo and is another creative tool that filmmakers can feel safe taking out of their toolbox.
The internet and social media have also opened the floodgates in terms of formats and aspect ratios. Who would have thought ten years ago that the vast majority of home video footage would be shot in portrait mode? Or will the 1:1 square aspect ratio make a comeback? Not me of course…but there’s no doubt that the transmission medium is now affecting the content itself, and 4:3 is a good example of that.
I think this is an eye-opener for content creators. While many people once thought they needed to adhere to certain guidelines (formatting, aspect ratio, etc.) in order to meet “professional standards,” we now realize there is no such thing. Of course, most of us will continue to shoot most of our productions in 2.35, but when a movie like this ghost story Spread out with a square aspect ratio and rounded corners, we can’t help but find ourselves mesmerized.
What do you think? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below 4:3…
For exclusive filmmaking articles every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here!
