To me, there is a magical quality to the 1.66:1 aspect ratio. It has been used to frame countless iconic feature films from the 1950s to the present day, and some would say it is the ultimate happy medium for capturing tight close-ups, vast landscapes and everything in between.
similar 4:3 Aspect ratio (also known as 1.33:1), 1.66:1 comes from classic movies. It was originally introduced as the European widescreen standard, but later reappeared as the original growing aspect ratio of Super 16mm film.
I discuss this in more detail in my recent article on choosing the right aspect ratio for movies.
Although most of my films were shot in 2.39:1, my last feature film was shot in 2.39:1 The native ratio is 4:3 I really like working with non-standard formats.
Doing this forces myself, the crew, and even the actors to think outside the box when it comes to composing or staging. Not to mention, the narrow canvas helped create the tense and enclosed atmosphere I was going for.
I had such a great time working on 4:3 that I’m considering filming my upcoming feature film (shell shock) also adopted this format, but ended up committing to 1.66:1 – which was a surprise even to myself.
I thought it would be helpful to share my thought process for shooting 1.66:1 to give you an idea of whether the format might be a good fit for your next feature film as well.
4:3 VS 1.66:1
For a while, I went back and forth on whether 4:3 (1.33:1) or 1.66:1 was the right choice for my movie. The two formats are very similar in many ways and can have a lot of overlap in terms of creative advantages.
4:3 is narrower (almost square) than 1.66:1, while 1.66:1 is more rectangular and closer to 1.78:1 (standard HD widescreen). But actually, when you look at them side by side, there’s not much difference between the two –
To the average viewer, there is no difference between 4:3 or 1.66:1 – both are unique choices that provide a similar visual experience. Both are significantly different from the standard 2.39:1 widescreen format used in most modern cinemas.
But there are some subtle differences between 4:3 and 1.66:1 that are especially important to filmmakers. They finally got me to switch from 4:3 to 1.66:1, at least for this particular project.
First, each aspect ratio has different origins and thus has been used differently in the historical context of film and television.
For example, 4:3 was the original 35mm film school standard and the television standard for decades before HDTV.
This creates an almost unconscious connection to 4:3 that may harken back to films from the Golden Age of Hollywood, early classic television, or retro 1980s/1990s VHS movies… just to name a few.
1.66:1, on the other hand, has a very different history. It dominated European cinema in the 70s and 80s and has been used in countless independent features/documentaries since then Over 16mm Hit the spot.
1.66:1 is associated with European arthouse films, gritty documentaries, 90s indie films, and various other genres that natively use the format.
Making this distinction helps clarify my own choices about which format is right for my film. While my film is not a period piece, nor is it directly rooted in any of the above genres, it does take stylistic influences from European arthouse cinema and 90s American independent cinema, making 1.66:1 a natural fit.
Do I think 1.66:1 would produce a significantly different end product than 4:3? Of course not.
The differences will be subtle, but still important. Like color correction or sound design, it’s not something the audience will be acutely aware of, but rather something they will feel.
Use 1.66:1 aspect ratio in my feature films
My upcoming features (shell shock) is a dark, gritty, nostalgic genre film. All of these can benefit from the 1.66:1 format.
From a thriller/genre perspective, 1.66:1 works on many levels. It allows for tighter, more intense close-ups because you don’t have to worry about cutting off the actor’s head. The added height also creates the opportunity to utilize vertical space to achieve a more abstract frame, adding to the haunting/suspenseful atmosphere.
Perhaps most importantly, the 1.66:1 aspect ratio is Super 16mm film, This in turn is synonymous with classic genre films of the 80s and 90s. This was a huge asset to the project, as the visual style was partly influenced by that era.
But really, it comes down to intuition. It’s hard to describe it in words, but I just like the feeling of 1.66:1. I loved the potential of this project – one that was experimental in nature and required unique visual challenges.
Is 1.66:1 the golden aspect ratio?
There’s an intangible quality to the 1.66:1 aspect ratio that—at least to me—makes it difficult to compose images with it.
This is especially true compared to wider aspect ratio frames like 2.39:1, which often require more trial and error to adjust.
1.66:1, on the other hand, doesn’t create nearly as much negative space. It lets you point your camera into sharp focus on any subject – even if you use unconventional framing.
The 4:3 aspect ratio has similar advantages when shooting faces, but is far less versatile than 1.66:1, especially when shooting wide-angle shots or landscapes.
As I mentioned above, 1.66:1 is an optimal aspect ratio. It uniquely works with anything you throw at it.
My unscientific explanation for this is based on the “golden ratio” theory.
The “golden ratio” is a mathematical ratio found in nature – it appears in plants, animals and even humans. When this ratio is applied to image composition, design, or other visual media, it can provide a beautiful, organic composition.
As a result, countless artists, photographers, architects, and other creatives have intentionally incorporated the Golden Ratio into their work for decades.
Here are some examples of golden ratio in nature and design –
When rounded to aspect ratio format, the golden ratio is approximately 1.62:1 – very close to 1.66:1. Certainly closer than other aspect ratios.
1.66:1 seems to provide invisible magic, is it the golden ratio? We can never know for sure. But it’s certainly a valid theory, and one I considered when deciding on this format.
Video shot in 1.66:1 aspect ratio
Beyond any technical, historical, or subjective reasons, what really made me fall in love with 1.66:1 was the countless films that used the format so well.
Here are just a few examples of films that would benefit from the 1.66:1 format –
Jackie (2016)
Vovich (2015)
blue valentine (2010)
excellent german (2006)
pi (1998)
fanny and alexander (1982)
new york, new york (1977)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
rear window (1954)
at the seaside (1954)
While the more modern films on this list often adopt 1.66:1 as a stylistic choice, many older films use the format out of necessity or because it was simply the standard of the time.
Regardless, every movie makes excellent use of 1.66:1, whether it’s intentional or a fluke.
Of the movies on this list, Jackie and blue valentine That’s why I shot my next feature film in 1.66:1.
I’ve always loved the cinematography of both films, and for years didn’t realize that both films were shot in the (now relatively blurry) 1.66:1 aspect ratio. This discovery initially sparked my interest in the format and led me down the path of exploring it more deeply.
Once production is over shell shockI will definitely share more experiences about shooting in 1.66:1.
Now, if you want to try a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, you can Download my free letterbox pack here. It includes a 1.66:1 frame (as well as 16 other aspect ratios) to help you find the best format for your next project.
What’s your favorite aspect ratio? Please leave a comment below.
For more exclusive articles like this every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here .
For exclusive filmmaking articles every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here!
