oreodrum.blogg.se

Today, practically every film we see – whether it’s a $200MM blockbuster or a $2,000 micro-budget indie – is finished in 2.35. This gave the format a certain je ne sais quoi that to this day is associated with bigger budget, higher-end productions. But over the past couple of decades, it’s become accessible to the masses thanks to higher resolution digital cameras (that can easily be masked/cropped to 2.35), cheaper anamorphic lenses, and the general democratization of filmmaking as a whole. When 2.35 (or 2.39) was first introduced, the technology was reserved for the largest scale motion pictures. It’s a gorgeous ratio with anamorphic roots, and will continue to be the most common aspect in film for the foreseeable future. It goes without saying that the most popular aspect ratio in cinema today is 2.35. In my opinion, it can be boiled down to a few key factors – So what exactly is it about this aspect ratio that is causing it to have a resurgence right now? Television content, music videos, commercials, and even digital projects are using 4:3 in numbers we haven’t seen for many years. Obviously 2.35 is still the gold standard, but there’s been a mini explosion of filmmakers that are now embracing the once-taboo format, which I find quite fascinating.Īmerican Honey, Son of Saul, and First Reformed are a just a few of the many features that have recently utilized 4:3/1.33 –Īnd it’s not just feature films that are benefitting from the format. Whatever the case, it’s always caught my attention – so much that I plan to shoot my next film in 1.33 as I think it will be the best choice for the story.Īs I’ve been doing some homework and seeking out inspiration for my next film, I couldn’t get over how many contemporary films have turned to 4:3. Maybe it’s because so many of my favorite films were old classics shot on 35mm or 16mm in 1.33, or maybe it’s the way in which the square-ish frame can inspire unique framing choices. Personally, I am (and always have been) a fan of 4:3. As the years went on though, it became less and less popular to shoot 4:3, and by the early 2010s it was practically seen as a taboo.īut something has changed in the last couple of years… We’re seeing a resurgence of the classic 4:3 format, with more filmmakers embracing it on feature length narratives. This is something we haven’t seen on a large scale for ages. This of course didn’t immediately make the 4:3 aspect ratio extinct, as there were plenty of legacy systems still running 1.33 programs (some still are), and not every consumer jumped on the widescreen/HDTV bandwagon right away. No longer was widescreen a format only for film, but now it was a television format too.

For decades, the wider formats (1.85 and 2.35) were seen as “movie formats” and 4:3 was seen as a “TV format”. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that 16:9 (1.78) televisions hit the market in masses, and changed the aspect ratio game forever.

What was once the standard aspect ratio of motion picture film, began to fizzle out as early as the 1950’s when various widescreen formats were introduced, such as cinemascope.īut even as film moved away from 4:3, television still hung on to the aging format long after.

For years, the classic 4:3 (or 1.33/1.37) aspect ratio has been on life support.