The 2:1 aspect ratio (called Univisium by some) has gained tremendous popularity in recent years. It is now probably the fastest growing format in modern cinema.
I’ve written a lot about other aspect ratio In the past, but not until today, the much sought after 2:1 format has not been covered.
While films have technically been shown in a 2:1 ratio for more than 70 years, the format was relatively obscure and only exploded in popularity in recent years. Not only as a form of exhibition, but also as a form of capture.
Today, 2:1 is used more than ever. Its dominance is being felt in almost every type of project – feature films, streaming series, TV content, and even commercials are using it.
Let’s uncover some of the history behind 2:1 and explore why it’s become so popular today.
The history of the 2:1 aspect ratio
The 2:1 aspect ratio dates back to 1953, when RKO first introduced the “Superscope” format. At the time, Hollywood was moving away from 4:3 as the de facto format for cinematography. They want to differentiate theatrical movies from the home viewing experience. The result was a new widescreen format.
RKO Superscope is one of those formats that has an aspect ratio of exactly 2.00:1.
It was a cheaper alternative to other widescreen options of the time – such as widescreen (2.39:1), which required more specialized anamorphic lenses and projection.
But ultimately, Superscope was only used in a handful of movies in the 1950s – almost all of which were produced by RKO. Starting in the 1960s, almost all widescreen movies were shot in either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.
The 2:1 aspect ratio actually disappears without a trace. At least for decades…
Vittorio Storaro
In 1998, the 2:1 aspect ratio reappeared for the first time since the early 1960s. It’s all thanks to photographer Vittorio Storaro, who’s known for his films like Last Tango in Paris, Apocalypse Now, The Last Emperorand countless others.
Storaro realized that a big shift in film exhibition was coming. Most movies are watched on television at home rather than in theaters. In the home television market, standards are changing with the advent of 16:9 HDTV.
Storaro proposed that all films should be shot in what was effectively a compromised aspect ratio. Looks just as good on home TV as it does in the cinema.
His answer is 2:1 University.
Here’s how he explained it in his original proposal:
“These days, any film, no matter how big or small, successful or not, has a longer life on the electronic screen after a brief stay on the big screen. Today, answer prints are made for these two different media. … With this With two different media, essentially two different aspect ratios, each of us (directors, production designers, cinematographers, cinematographers, etc.) faces the nightmare of compromising the composition of our images through the viewfinder, camera or. monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject.
While Vittorio Storaro’s vision was clear, few other filmmakers adopted Univisium as a capture or exhibition format.
Starting in 1998, Storaro himself shot nearly every one of his films in the 2:1 Univisium format. But despite his push, it still hasn’t been adopted on a large scale.
2:1 & Aspect Ratio Renaissance
History will prove that Vittorio Storaro was far ahead of his time.
Over the years, few, if any, filmmakers have considered shooting 2:1. The ratio for movie theaters is 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 and for HDTV is 1.78:1. That’s it.
But then came streaming services. And iPhone. and social media. and a thousand new methods of capture and delivery, completely dismantling any ” standard aspect ratio. By the mid-2010s, aspect ratio became an obvious creative choice.
we started seeing more movies 1.33:1 even 1.66:1and other experimental options – such as using a perfectly square 1:1 aspect ratio.
Although many unusual formats are growing in popularity, none has achieved a 2:1 adoption rate. Not even close.
Today, the 2:1 aspect ratio is almost as popular as 1.85:1. On streaming, it’s likely been overshadowed. If there is any new standard in this era, 2:1 might be it.
Why exactly does this happen?
There are many factors, but the biggest is certainly the rise of Netflix.
Netflix’s role in 2:1 cinematography
Netflix is known for its strict technical standards, including Approved movie cameras.
We can certainly argue about the validity of these standards, much to the dismay of many filmmakers. But it’s undeniable that Netflix’s “rules” are creating a new aesthetic. This is a by-product of their ability to produce content at scale using a strict set of visual guidelines.
Netflix does not restrict filmmakers from using widescreen aspect ratios (such as 2.39:1). However, they do seem to prevent this behavior in the technical guide with this statement:
“Aspect ratios greater than 2.00:1 must be evaluated and discussed with Netflix for approval.”
Note that the 2:1 aspect ratio is exactly what Netflix limits to widescreen without having to jump through extra hoops.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Netflix produces so many titles – from stranger things arrive house of cards Shot in 2:1 ratio. Logically, this could be seen as a compromise between the filmmakers and the studio (Netflix).
2:1 falls squarely between the 16:9 HDTV and 2.39:1 ranges.
To the viewer, it feels relatively wide (serving the filmmakers’ goals), but still fills enough of the frame to provide a rich home viewing experience (serving Netflix’s goals).
For this reason, and perhaps others, this seems to be the middle ground chosen by many works. As a result, 2:1 has become almost the default aspect ratio for Netflix originals.
Personally, when I saw the trailer for the 2:1 movie, I knew almost immediately that I would find it on Netflix.
2:1 aspect ratio outside of Netflix
Netflix has certainly played a huge role in popularizing 2:1 as a capture and presentation format. But these days, it’s almost everywhere – from dramatic features (e.g. jurassic world rule) plays ads and everything in between.
We’ve become so accustomed to watching 2:1 content (thanks to Netflix’s dominance) that this look has become ubiquitous. It entered contemporary film language in a completely organic way.
What may have been a technical choice made by Netflix executives to optimize television presentation has evolved into a stylistic aesthetic that is now sought after at all levels of the industry.
And there’s no way to put the cat back in the bag. I can only imagine that usage of 2:1, both inside and outside of Netflix, will continue to skyrocket in the coming years.
final thoughts
With 2:1 now unofficially accepted as the modern standard, we have another creative tool at our disposal. This really can only be seen as a good thing.
But whether you choose 2:1 for your project is of course entirely subjective. Personally, I don’t particularly like it from a purely creative perspective.
1.85:1 has such a traditional film look that I would choose it over 2:1 in most situations. It’s not that wide, but it’s classic – I like that. If I really want to go widescreen, I usually choose a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, which makes it more eye-catching.
I also really like the 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 shooting ratios. They are all unique and can add a lot of character to the right project.
Still, 2:1 is an excellent choice for many movies and TV series. I may be a traditionalist myself, but this is great for those looking for a modern look.
if there is such a thing this The current aspect ratio is undeniably 2:1.
What are your thoughts on the 2:1 aspect ratio? Please leave a comment below!
For more exclusive content like this, click here to subscribe to my newsletter.
For exclusive filmmaking articles every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here!
