Happy 1-year birthday to you and your exploration into the diverse world of film formats! It’s fascinating to witness the resurgence of 4:3/1.33 films and their newfound acceptance in the creative realm. The ever-evolving landscape of the internet and social media has indeed played a pivotal role in reshaping our expectations, challenging conventional norms, and giving rise to innovative storytelling.

The democratization of content creation, fueled by diverse formats and aspect ratios, has empowered filmmakers to break free from traditional constraints. The prevalence of portrait mode and the unexpected return of the square 1:1 aspect ratio highlight how the delivery medium is now shaping the content itself. This shift has been eye-opening for content creators who once felt confined by rigid guidelines.

While 4:3 may not dominate the film industry as it did in the past century, its resurgence signifies a refreshing willingness among filmmakers to experiment and embrace unconventional approaches. A Ghost Story, with its square aspect ratio and rounded corners, serves as a prime example of this creative exploration. It’s heartening to see filmmakers stepping outside the bounds of what was once considered “professional standards.”
See more!
https://retroandclassicflixs.com/

As the cinematic landscape continues to evolve, it’s clear that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Filmmakers are now free to choose formats and aspect ratios that best serve their artistic vision. So, here’s to the continued celebration of creative freedom and the exciting diversity that 4:3 brings to the cinematic experience!

This reminds me of the Dogme95 movement of the 90s. One of the rules; your movie had to be shot on Academy 35 mm. I am conflicted about the idea. I guess if you have a reason or a need, some of which you have explained. Marvel’s WandaVision is an amazing use of switching formats. It also drove and enhanced the story. It was brilliant. Overall, I can’t see how it can help drive most stories. Most importantly, as some have stated, the delivery method that most people are going to watch your finished movie on, the format is going to aggravate them. The art side of me loves it. With movies such as The Brown Bunny taking it to the extreme. As a consumer, I can’t really get behind it. It is a step backward, just like Dogme95. Even Lars von Trier said Dogme95 should be rebelled against. I love the shakeup of the system though. American Honey is another good example

1:2.35 is idiotic.

1:1.66 is close to ideal.

Leave 4:3 where it belongs in the past, and make wide screen televisions extra wide, just like Philips did in 2009.
I don’t watch anything in 4:3, it makes programmes boring to watch, been there in the early 60’s, to the late 90’s it was substandard then and it’s substandard now. I should think the general public wouldn’t want that either, we’ve come so far with technology and enjoy a superior experience whilst watching television these days. Why go back to something that is to many younger people just a curiosity. It’s like going back from a Tesla to a Ford popular from the 60’s.
I have an iPad that is 4:3 and it’s annoying that Apple hasn’t made these with at least 21:9.
As stated 4:3 is for niche purposes, let it stay that way, and who wants Polaroid with its substandard images!

That’s Vera Cruz 1954. Sorry for typo!

I have just watched ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’, and frankly I found the aspect ratio to be the worst part of the experience. For four hours and two minutes I sat there with two thoughts in my mind… “Why is this bloody film in such an old format”, and “why can’t he film it right”. Did I enjoy the story? No I was too distracted by the bloody stupid old fashioned format! (Actually the last thought that I had of this film was “What a bloody awful rendition of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah”, and yes I do know it was a tribute to his daughter, but really… at least use the original artist, or pick someone who can actually sing!)

As a viewer of old fashioned TV, I grew up with the 4:3 format, and even the country that I lived in, only had a black and white TV service, so much of my youth was taken up with “TV Format” in monochrome. While it was good for that era of viewing, I still consider the “Widescreen” a more beneficial format. Akira Kurosawa was and is recognized as one of the greatest film makers ever, and he proved that framing can be done using any format ratio. Many of his characters were filmed in long shot to emphasize aspects of their character by using subliminal ideas in the background surrounds of the characters’ close-up, very much to good effect. It isn’t the format that makes the framing, it is the film-maker. If you do not want the background surround to become a distraction then shoot it out of focus, or place the character against the background over-lit to white-out the surround, or go the opposite way and place the character against a background so dark it leaves you no other choice but to focus on the character. That’s good creative film-making.

I suspect the resurgence of the 1:33:1 format has more than a little something to do with the IMAX screen format which is basically taller than a conventional cinema and thus the film either looses the sides or they film it in a square format. Many people also have taken to using their cell-phones as cameras and stupidly hold them upright, thus filming an upright slit that I find more distracting than entertaining. I’ve seen some clever funny videos where some-one comes along and slaps those idiots upside their heads for holding the camera wrong, which I thoroughly approve of, and should be done for a great many other stupid blunders.

While I will and do love watching old movies and TV series (the bulk of my viewing is of my old favorites, as many new shows are just so bad these days, too much soap!) I feel the experience of a big screen movie needs to be widescreen. It provides more spectacle and depth. The human eye is designed to see peripherals and not just focus on a narrow square in front of you. As for films being only about people… I beg to disagree. Many decently made films actually use the landscape as a character. It is just lazy film-making to ignore the edges of the world.

And although it is off topic here, I feel I must mention that while on the Lazy “Artistic” film-makers subject, what about those lazy so-and-so’s who use bloody stupid camera shake to “enliven” a scene or “add kinetic energy” to an action scene, to them I say that it is no excuse for not doing the job properly and using clever editing and, dare I say it, actual Choreography to achieve a great film sequence. It makes me sick to see such stupid and lazy ways that they make films these days. It really does. When I still went to public cinema’s, I got to the point where I would just walk out if they started using camera shake. A terrible idea garnered, I believe, from that most terrible of movies ever made, ‘The Blair Witch Project’, which was a “Fad” “Artistic” film that I walked out on because it was just so bad. And just so as you know just how bad I felt it was, it was actually the first film I ever walked out on.

Good film making is about using the resources that you have to make the best and highest quality film that you can make. So long as you are true to your idea and source material, then being creative is using light and movement, mixed with proper sound-scapes to make an audience believe what they are seeing, to take them out of themselves for an hour or two. To make a film that you can walk away from knowing you have just seen the world through someone else’s eyes.

Wide screen (ratio greater than 1:1.66) is an abomination dreamed up by the movie studios (particularly 20th Century Fox) in the early 1950s to try to draw viewers to theatres and away from their comfy homes and TVs. I have always hated it. It’s great for movies about snakes, submarines, whales, pencils, etc.

It’s so stupid!

Hey Noam, I appreciate your perspective on this.

I’m a TV news and Long format Video Editor. I have to say, that despise this 4:3 resurgence with every fiber of my being! I feel like we’re taking a step backwards by trying to squeeze our vision, after it’s been broadened, back into a square box.

I just spent a week editing a promo for a Show in 16×9. I was later informed that we had to re-edit the promo for Square video for social media. I ended up butchering the promo because I wasn’t simply allowed to resize the video, but in fact had to cut out chunks of video to just focus on the host. To say I was pissed is an understatement.

Using 4:3 as an artistic tool in movies in fine. In terms of social media, I feel like catering to people who are too lazy to turn their phones on the side to get 16:9 video.

I apologize for the rant, but I thank you for you insight into this resurgence.

Let’s face it. All of that is explain it away nonsense. The REAL reason 4:3 is making a comeback is because TVs ditched the format to be more like film. That was the number one reason film went to wider formats in the first place to differentiate it from television (lest cinema be destroyed). Now they’ve got the same problem they had in the 1940s and 1950s. People can watch widescreen at home.

Why BOTHER to go to the movie theater anymore with mega-high prices on both tickets and snacks, people kicking your seat and the occasional lunatic that starts shooting in a crowded theater? Why bother when even a UHD 65-75″ screen is now not only commonplace, but DIRT CHEAP compared to the 1980s and 1990s when a large screen was rare or at least uncommon and a quality CRT projector could cost $25k or more. I just bought a 4K/3D projector with power memory zoom for $1600 and a 115″ 2.35:1 tensioned electric screen for $960. For $2560 (plus sound system), I can watch 2.39 and 2.35:1 movies at home with no or almost no black bars at a distance of 9 feet (thanks to HD and UHD) that looks INCREDIBLE and 3D movies fall into my lap. With my 11.1.6 Atmos/X/Auro-3D sound system installed and with super comfy power reclining massage chairs for every seat in three rows, WHY ON EARTH would I want to go to the cinema??? I wouldn’t and I don’t.

Sure, not everyone can afford to do that and dollar theaters (which are typically now more like $3-4, which used to be the regular matinee admission price when I was younger) are still popular, but I can easily imagine some new theaters opening like the movie houses of old with GIANT 4:3 screens and less width with more rows and a balcony (what good is 4:3 in a theater optimized for 2.39? It looks just as ridiculous as it does at home now). How many movie theaters have balconies nowadays with the advent of stadium seating? Fancy theaters with “outdoor decor” and stars on the roof used to be commonplace, but are now a true rarity. What is old is new again. Next you’ll be seeing a remake of Casablanca in 4:3 for authenticity and it’ll need an authentic 4:3 theater to view it in.

Sadly, this will put home systems right back into the hell hole of 4:3 we finally escaped and yet people like YOU want MORE of it. Screw 4:3. Until I grow a single cyclops eye, 2.39 and even 1.85 will make far more sense to my feeble brain. If I want to watch M.A.S.H., Night Court or Cheers reruns, I’ll tolerate 4:3. Otherwise, good riddance.

Hi Noam, how are you?

I was actually doing some research on how to shoot in 4:3 and 2k (regarding cameras).
I found out that the Arri Alexa mini has an option for 4:3. Somehow everyone talks about using anamorphic lenses when shooting 4:3 with this camera and I’m a bit confused about that.
I’m guessing if I don’t use anamorphic lenses i’ll get a different angle of view?

Is it gonna raise my production budget up too much if using this set-up?

Do you have any insights to share about this?
Thanks, Sofia

Thanks for writing such thoughtful articles Noam, one of the only film blogs I actually pay attention to!

Great article. We just wrapped our first feature film and the director and d.p. went with a 4:3. The producer fought against it but the director ultimately won out.

Really nice blog here that has made me think about how I might frame my feature project.

Thanks

Tom