If you’ve followed my blog long enough, you probably know that I’m a bit obsessed with aspect ratio.
They are one of the simplest yet most powerful tools we have at our disposal as filmmakers.
In recent years, the choice of aspect ratio has become far less standardized than it once was. In the early days of film, almost everything was shot in 1.37:1. Later it evolved into 1.85:1 and then into 2.39:1.
Each of these ratios at one time or another became the de facto standard.
2.39:1 remains the most common ratio in modern feature filmmaking. But this is far from the only option. Especially now, a lot of mainstream/big budget games are thinking outside the box.
When I first started, everything was 2.39:1.
At the time, my goal was just to make my project look like a “real movie.” And give them as much production value as possible. So a widescreen aesthetic seems to be the way to go.
But over the years I’ve experimented more with formatting and aspect ratio choices…
This ultimately led to our feature film Psychosynthesis The ratio is 4:3 (1.33:1).
At that time, I was influenced by many French and European classic movies (even some old Hollywood movies), which were all in 4:3.
I like to use a more square frame to capture close-ups. And how it creates a more cramped, almost claustrophobic feeling when used for this purpose.
Of course, when the next feature film comes along (disappearing boy), I also considered shooting in 4:3.
But I also crave new challenges. So I forced myself to think outside the box and choose a new aspect ratio that I’d never used before.
For a while, I thought it would be 1.66:1 – a format I’ve always liked, which is reminiscent of the look of native Super 16mm.
But soon after, this ratio evolved into the golden ratio of 1.618:1. I thought this was an experiment worth trying since it’s never really been used in a movie.
Initially, this is what I planned to use. For this purpose, the entire film was shot in the golden ratio of 1.618:1.
However, the camera I’m using (Fuji X-T4) also records complete 4K DCI images. This will allow me to easily reconstruct the image in post if needed…
About halfway through the editing process, I did just that.
While I found good results in the Golden Ratio edit, something didn’t match the source material.
It doesn’t necessarily take anything away from the movie, but it doesn’t add anything either. Experimental selection only really comes into play if it raises the material above a certain threshold.
So, after months of editing, I completely changed direction and reframed it in 2.39:1 widescreen.
I did this to cleanse my visual palette and see the film through new eyes. I wasn’t sure if I would have locked it to 2.39:1 (I ended up not doing so), but the huge shift from 1.618:1 helped shake things up creatively.
I’ve been keeping the video ratio at 2.39:1 for several months. It looks pretty good in widescreen (as does almost everything), and I could easily keep it that way.
But as I reached the final stages of the film, I couldn’t help but ask myself if there was room for more experimentation.
Before locking anything in, I did some final experiments with different formats. I auditioned 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and even 3.0:1 – all of which were promising in their own way. But nothing feels right.
It wasn’t until I saw the film in its 4:3 aspect ratio that it immediately came to life.
I’ve found a winner.
So far I’ve been avoiding 4:3 for no reason other than that I wanted to do something different from my last film.
But when I actually listened to the material, it was clear to me what would work best for the film. Through the “lens” of the 4:3 format, everything appears noble and cohesive.
Why is this happening? I guess there’s no clear answer other than what feels right.
I love the way it shapes the face. How it creates an unconventional tone without calling attention to itself. It seems to increase the production value by minimizing background details that aren’t important to the story.
Unfortunately, moving to 4:3 creates a lot of extra leg work. I had to go through the entire feature shot by shot and re-build everything to work properly.
But in the end, it’s worth it. Not only did the aspect ratio improve the overall quality of the film, but it also allowed me to create some better edits and transitions (as a result of the reframing process).
For example, there’s a clip in the movie that doesn’t work very well at first. The viewer’s eye is directed to the left side of the frame in shot 1, and then to the right side of the frame in shot 2.
But in 4:3I was able to simply move one lens to the right and the other to the left, effectively placing them in the middle. This creates a smoother cut.
During this reframing process, these types of discoveries are made every day and make the film more refined.
Ultimately, the lesson I learned from this journey is to always let the material speak to you. Never assume you know what is best before exploring all possibilities.
It also enhances the advantages of the 4:3 format. While it won’t suit every movie (or every filmmaker), it does suit my visual tastes and sensibilities well.
It’s worth noting that I did use the old academy standard 1.37:1 aspect ratio to achieve 4:3, rather than the 1.33:1 I used in my previous feature. They are almost identical and practically interchangeable. I chose 1.37 just to satisfy the urge to try something new!
Here is an example of a shot from the movie in various aspect ratios:
golden ratio
widescreen
4:3 Academy
Hope this helps those of you struggling to find the right look for your movie.
Sometimes you lock it in from the start. Other times you need to experiment in a roundabout way, like I did.
It doesn’t matter how you get there.
The only thing that matters is the end product and making sure your formatting choices fit your larger vision.
For exclusive filmmaking articles every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here!
