Why 4:3 Looks So Good
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 05. 2024
- Get 10% off your first purchase at www.squarespace.com/karsten !
Patreon: / karstenrunquist
---
Merch: teespring.com/stores/karsten-...
Instagram: / karstenrunquist
Twitter: / runquistkarsten
BUSINESS INQUIRES:
karsten@solaromgmt.com
Thank you for watching! :) - Krátké a kreslené filmy
An essay about 4:3 format rendered in 4:3 sponsored by SquareSpace
Perfect
Yes.....perfection
Oh yeah. It's all coming together
4:3 is not a square
@@boskee close enough
i cannot explain how satisfying it was to have a youtube video completely fill my ipad screen
"Our 4:3 screen is a new innovation in framing and UI, something never done before."
Fold4 user here, same, it's so satisfying
what is a fold4...@@Alexus00712
What did he intend with the white border though 😂
It feels much better watching 4:3 videos vertically on your phone, really cool
Another important point is that 4:3 isn’t necessarily a “smaller” image, depending on the context. A film with scenes shot and viewed on IMAX will become much taller during those scenes, so that 4:3 scenes feel massive and immersive, and standard scenes short and narrow by comparison.
IMAX is actually slightly wider than 4:3 I think it’s 4:43 actually but I’m not sure
@Jack Django its wider. Short screen would be taking top and bottom off, with wide screen they added pixels to the sides so its wider
You can really feel that difference when you compare the way Nolan frames for IMAX and they way Denis Villeneuve used the full height of the IMAX frame for Dune. Villeneuve was inspired by 4:3 home video and framed certain scenes using the full height of the 1.43:1 frame to achieve a more psychological look at the characters. Nolan mostly uses common center for the widescreen extraction of the IMAX frame. This way he makes it feel more epic and more contextual. He doesn't look into the psychologically of the characters as much as he's placing them in the world.
@Jack Django Indeed, a 4:3 IMAX screen is a bit bigger than a 16:9 iPhone “widescreen”
Not to mention each human eye is a perfect sphere, so 4:3 comes closer to the eyes.
I'm so glad you actually rendered in 4:3 and didn't just stick two black bars on the side of the screen, I hate it when youtubers do that because it often doesn't format right on my tv.
The way Karsten creates his videos are so soothing for me. Honestly, if I need to relax and experience something therapeutic, I always come to his videos. His format is so... distinctive and heartwarming.
i appreciate that a lot, thank you
Exactly
Well said, I agree completely
I was feeling numb today. With a lot of anxiety afterwards. And I listened to some music. Took a shower and then I was like: I think I want to watch a Karsten video. And he uploaded this one. Now I feel better. It's funny I guess because I never made it conscious until I read your comment. So anyways I hope you feel better. And thank you Karsten. By the way I was eating cereal and for a moment I thought I spit some to my screen and I thought your logo in the square was some cereal. So apologies for look at you as a cereal just for a second.
exactly
4x3 isn’t smaller. It’s just a different shape
You could even argue it is bigger, depending on how it is composed.
Maybe its subtle math joke..
4x3 = 12
16x9 = 144
Not true whatsoever
@@TheHMan Exactly. If we viewed 4x3 on a rectangle screen or 16x9 on a square screen; many of the pixels go unused and the image is literally squeezed down, thus "smaller"
@@MaybeGodwillsaveMe you could say 16:9 is 4:3 with less space on top and bottom
OR
That it is extended on left and right
Ether way
It depends on the screen
4:3 is beautiful to look at for intimate scenes but when it comes to action, i do find widescreen to serve the purpose better. The big box narrows you down on what is on the screen, it leaves your eye no room to escape, it makes you face what is happening in a brutal and unfiltered manner. The widescreen on the other hand, offers breath, scale, openness, a sense of something bigger. Every eye is more or less susceptible to these differences, one might not care about the limitation of the square box, one might hate having big black bars on the sides, others don't even care about the difference, but for me, the two methods serve different purposes.
You should go to a GT IMAX theatre.
Wide-angle photography works great in 4:3. Widescreen should be called shortscreen it is just cutting off the top and bottom of what the lens can see. Widescreen films are constantly cutting off the top and bottom of peoples faces. IMAX is 3:2 and benefits from the taller image filling more of your vision.
that's because old 4:3 tva weren't so big. But 4:3 is definitely more immersive than 2:1. 16:9 is oksh but 4:3 is the best.
watching this on a 4:3 CRT monitor, it was pretty shocking to see a modern video in this aspect ratio, and I goddamn love it.
I really love 4:3. It feels like everything is compact, sometimes restrictive, sometimes intimate and in order.
I love this because the iPad support 4:3
It’s not more restrictive. You can take a widescreen video and add more to the top and bottom
i like it because it's nostalgic. reminds me when TV used to be 4:3 instead of the common 16:9. it feels home-y
It feels like everything on screen serves a purpose because it does when there is such limited space to set a tone on screen
@@ProDudeFilmsGaming It’s not more limited though. You can take a widescreen video and add more to the top and bottom
Very awesome video!
Hi again!
4:3 is somehow is perfect enough for human eyesight to focus directly, because every content is like packaged perfectly on one display. Widescreen is like having blurry side and kinda dizzy to focus.
I like 4:3 because I feel like it resembles the aspect ratio of my sights focus area. Whenever I watch 16:9 I often look around the scene which makes it immersive, but sometimes I feel like I am missing out on some details because there is so much to see on such a wide screen.
To me personally, 4:3 feels more personal and intimate as you described.
human vision is in roughly 4:3, that’s why i like it too
sight's*
@@pineapplevlogs1267 5:4, pretty close
16:9 was a mistake, it's a good for nothing middle ground.
The 4:3 aspect ratio keeps reminding me of medium format film photography
Reminds me of Polaroids, when you flip through your parents photo albums and see their life laid out in little cubes of moments frozen in time 👀
Makes sense, seeing how 6x4.5, the most accessible medium format... format, is 4:3
Yep, its squarer than regular 35mm
Another common ratio of medium format film is 3:2, as people opted for 6x4in (15x10cm) prints more often than not. 3:2 ratio monitors/laptops are an absolute joy to use too.
@@reggiep75 I rarely see cameras that can shoot 6:9 negatives though
Waiting till ultra wide 4:20 aspect ratio drops
The true "peeking through a mail slot" experience
That would actually be ultra “tallscreen.”
ultra high screen
@@km099 I can't tell you how fucking mad I am that I didn't think of that.
@@TheHMan I like yours better
Quick correction, It wasn't technical constraints that made 4:3 the standard for film, 4:3 35mm film was already produced for still photography, and that was chosen for the first film cameras for cost reasons. Also, there were other formats available, just less so. In 1929 there was 2:1 widescreen 70mm Grandeur film
What was that 2:1 1929 movie?
4:3 can create more balanced images much easier, there's a much larger relationship you can have with subjects and corners, and it allows for much more freedom to play with different ways of breaking an image down from golden ratios to perfect centering to boxes to diagonals, which is either more complex in wider formats or straight up impossible.
"Go watch a movie in 4:3 and form your own opinion."
Great idea! Will do!
* turns on pan-n-scan version of Ben-Hur *
the horror
I don't even watch movies, I just love your thoughtful discussions on them. Your passion for filmmaking is enough to keep me coming back
I don't even watch videos. I just like your comment. Your passion for typing is enough to keep me reading.
@@glendarjj3991 I don’t even read comments. I just like your reply, your passion for adding to what others say just keeps me coming back.
@@acbeifus I don't even read replies to comments. I just like your reply to a reply, your passion for adding to additions just keeps me coming back.
@@shade0636 I don't even read replies, I just like randomly replying to replies without knowing what they're about. Your passion to write replies even though I don't read them is what keeps me coming back
I don’t even read I just love the light
As someone who shoots a lot in many different aspect ratios, i will say that the times where I shot in 4:3 made me think a lot more creatively/thoughtfully about my shot composition. ALL of a sudden every single part of the frame feels like it has to be used with more intent, and while that's still certainly true of widescreen, it feels a lot more restricting in 4:3( in a good way).
I grew up with the 4x3 ratio in everything I shot with a video camera. Widescreen seemed like it often cut off people's hair or neck and I never understood that.
Im glad to see it is still considered a valid format even professionals will use.
“Now this movie, if you watched my video last week, you know I just love it” Ah yes how could I forget the wonderful Ida analysis in the “ranking avatar characters” video
I like 1:1.33 too like in the lighthouse, using these aspect ratios properly can elevate the story
My own experience with appreciating 4:3 actually came with revisiting an old favorite. I finally re-watched Neon Genesis Evangelion when it released on Netflix and the aspect ratio, along with the cel animation of the production brought a unique warmth and physicality that the new Evangelion movies didn't have (still love the new ones, don't get me wrong).
Finally, a video that uses up my whole 4:3 vga monitor!
Same! I'm really happy whenever I find a video that takes up my entire CRT TV
Great take! In Dan Murell’s review of 4:3 Justice League, he mentioned how that aspect ratio lends itself to superhero movies because it lets the heros really fill up the frame like larger-than-life figures when they’re all standing beside each other in shots. Just another cap in the feather of 4:3 as a cinematic tool
I remember the Justice League TV show was an early adopter of widescreen!
Bringing up superhero movies in a video like this is like bringing up Chris Chan’s creations when talking about stuff at the Louvre.
4:3 also enables you to view videos in full while scrolling comments in landscape mode
On the DVD commentary track for Family Guy Blue Harvest, Seth McFarlane commented on how much he likes the 4:3 ratio as well.
Love this. As a photographer, 4:3 is my favourite ratio. Composition works so great. I try to switch between ratio’s depending on the composition, but I always come back to the 4:3. I have to watch more movies now.
Hey Karsten, any updates on the short film? I can’t wait!
i want updates too!
finished the cut, currently being sound mixed and color graded! hope to have a little festival run with it and then posting online as soon as i can
@@KarstenRunquist YEEEEEEEEEEEEAYYYYYY!!!!
@@KarstenRunquist what about the indiegogo rewards? any timeline on those? excited for the short film :)
HYYYYYYYPE
4:3 can be less visually overwhelming, which I like. It also feels cozy, like digging out an old comfort movie.
4:3's weakness is that the subjects are either tight or in the distance. 16:9 gives the filmmaker more space to show additional information in the shot while still having a character at thirds. Creating visually appealing 4:3 shots is significantly harder but your characters can communicate more emotion in 4:3.
Personally I think the recent trend of 4:3 films might have more to do with an increasing number of expressionist and naturalist films that are able to utilize the strengths of the format. I'm just worried that it will be over hyped and is used on films that should have been shot on 16:9, like Justice League for example.
Couldn't you just make that same argument about a vertical 9 : 16 ratio giving the filmmaker more space to show additional information in a shot about, say, rock climbers? It just doesn't sound that universally applicable either way. Besides, if we're talking about raw space, 4:3 provides more area per unit perimeter than a less square ratio. But that also doesn't matter much, either.
Except all the displays are much larger nowadays. If the display is so large, further away shots can look just as close to the eye. And that's the whole promise of IMAX really.
If you are in VR, even further objects can look closer up. Which is hard to explain but definitely try taking a screenshot in VR and view it on flat screen later when you got the chance. You'll know what I mean.
@@delphicdescant It's about the size of the display, not the aspect ratio. The popularity of whatever aspect ratio is pretty much just the result of technical limitation on how large the display can be made in a reasonable cost at sometime and that's it.
@@delphicdescant The “aspect ratio” of the human eye is around 5:3 so it is nearly identical to 4:3. In 16:9, if the viewer is watching a character positioned at thirds, the other half of the screen falls into the periphery, creating a sense of space and provides additional information like reactions or characters entering frame.
For example, the standard over-the-shoulder shot can be awkward to frame in 4:3. With the lack of horizontal space the subjects are too close, too small, or you can only show a little of the foreground character. And if the foreground subject is too close, if they move at all, the shot can be easily ruined. Now if the subject is in center frame or multiple things are happening at the same time, then 4:3/IMAX is great. But standard dialogue scenes aren’t framed this way.
As for 9: 16, there just isn’t anything happening above or below the subjects normally since points of interest are generally along the ground line. It would be fun to shoot a fashion documentary in 9: 16 or maybe an alien invasion movie if the sky is always doing something interesting. But it’s just not practical for most situations. When you watch vertically shot videos on CZcams the camera normally frames the full body of the subject which is not really needed for most situations.
Wide-angle photography works great in 4:3. Widescreen should be called shortscreen it is just cutting off the top and bottom of what the lens can see. Widescreen films are constantly cutting off the top and bottom of peoples faces. IMAX is 3:2 and benefits from the taller image filling more of your vision.
I shoot most of my photography in 4:3 because I like how it looks and it focuses the shot way more on the thing I am taking a picture of compared to 16:9 or 21:9. I use other aspect ratios if they fit the subject, but I default to 4:3 because it seems to always work.
This is easily one of your best videos! Short, sweet, passionate and cozy
I use 4:3 in competitive FPS games (without stretching the frame to 16:9, that's another type of argument entirely) because such a "square" viewport just works better for me to focus on the center of the screen (crosshair) and where i aim at.
Maybe that also somewhat relates to that "intimacy"...
I both agree and disagree. Although yes you can get more focus on where you're aiming, you're more easy to sneak up on with a lower field of view.
@@Maddiedoggie Why lower field of view? Do you mean horizontal? Maybe he has same horizontal and even bigger vertical than others? It is just scaling and magnification IMO.
@@alexmartian3972Depends on how the game handles it
Watching this on the large (4:3) iPad Pro is honestly an experience. Love watching older content on this device because of the 4:3. But at the end of the day I still feel like 16:9 or thereabouts is the sweet spot.
SAME! Especially with the rounded corners it makes content look so good as it takes full advantage of the display
@@Void-im9hg Never Zoom in! 🥲
I still was using a HD crt monitor for my computer for a while. I learned that 4:3 is awesome. Playing full frame minecraft in HD on that monitor was a new experience, it felt like I was being pulled into the game. Enjoying 4:3 movies and videos became something that felt more genuine, and more enjoyable perhaps. Thank you for this video, it was a great insight to 4:3 and I agree that it is and should have a bigger comeback.
I've always associated a 4:3 image with VHS tapes and early potato-quality CZcams; so when we started being able to see things in high resolution/detail in a square format, it made brought back the nostalgia factor without also bringing back the limitations in quality of the day.
Film has always been very high resolution and was 4:3 long before it was anything else.
I work in post, I actually got to work on First Reformed, Da5 Bloods, and I’m Thinking of Ending Thing. There’s a super interesting conversation going on around aspect ratios-specifically in streaming television, and the use of 2.0 instead of 1.78 rather than full 2.39 or 1.33
Yeah 4:3 is a really interesting choice that I'm enjoying seeing in general. My favorite use of it recently is definitely The Lighthouse, because it makes you feel cramped in the space w/ Pattinson and Dafoe, but also during darker scenes, the edges of the shot bleed into the black sidebars of your screen, creating a really cool effect, and that effect I feel like ties into the ending thematically but my thoughts still aren't fully formed on that yet lmao, I gotta watch that film again
neat touch that this video is in 4:3 as well
Ah, The Nightingale, a great movie I never want to rewatch ever again.
Me still having a 4:3 PC monitor enjoying the video very much. How nice it is to have a filled out picture.
I've always loved the 4:3 aspect ratio, my family has this VHS-C camcorder that records in 4:3 and there are quite a few videos of me as a baby in that aspect ratio that look oddly artistic and satisfying to watch. I love and respect movies and tv shows that use 4:3, and I feel that more often than not movies (and or tv shows) shot in fullscreen visually look a bit more pleasing than those that are shot in widescreen.
I love watching open matte movies on my Trinitron. Recently re-watched the Back to the Future trilogy and it was incredible. Glad academy ratio is coming back.
Open matte Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory off LaserDisc rocks
@@danieldaniels7571 never knew there was an open matte version! I'll have to find a copy on DVD
Seeing Cold War in a cinema was where I discovered the true beauty of 4:3. It really helps me focus on the actual shot compositions, some of which were the best looking and most interesting I’ve seen in any movie.
It's easy to forget that there's one new thing for 4:3 which was not practically available before: better resolution.
With analog TV resolution the shots needed to be very tight or details would be lost. Doing such compromises is not needed anymore as we have larger screens with vertical resolution of 1080 and above.
4:3 is just so lovely. And it's so nice to watch on a display meant for 4:3 as well.
I think why I enjoy 4:3 so much (watching and using it) is because it almost always feels so intentional, in part because you kinda have to think about framing more. Wide shots have a art to them but it kinda just feels like it’s showing you what’s going on, more taking in information then it feeling like an art. Of course that’s subjective and theres ton of artsy stuff shot in wide but never as much as 4:3…
Really loved this vid! You explained something (aspect ratio) which I didn’t know much about really concisely and with passion and made me notice and care about aspect ratio in the things I watch without making it “snobby” or “things only film bros know.”
Idk what would be worse, whatever a film bro means or having to deal with someone who uses the term 'film bro'.
@@MaybeGodwillsaveMe If you don't know who the sucker is at the poker table it's probably you
Aspect ratio seems like the time signature of cinematography. Your choice is informed by how you compose your shots just like in music where your time signature influences how things like melodies will be delivered.
4:3 fits perfectly on my ipad. sooooo satisfying
4:3 looks good in films that already have the somewhat nostalgic vibe. I like to see 4:3 in artsy films like ones by Wes Anderson sometimes, and even loved the 1:1 aspect ratio of the French film 'Mommy'. However, using it for modern sci-fi or action is constraining for the filmmaker.
Mommy is on my watch list for this fall. I have to watch it. Heard it's really good
Actually, Mommy is French Canadian (from Quebec) and the accent is very different from metropolitan French!
I think the way Zack Snyder used it in Justice League was remarkably well done. It really makes each frame feel like a comic book panel and the scale of each of its characters get to be truly demonstrated, adding to that "larger than life" feeling that superheroes naturally lend themselves towards.
Same. That shot of Darkseid at the end in particular I can't imagine would work in a wider ratio. In 4:3 he towers over the frame and looks gigantic.
I think it definitely emphasizes size and scope in the film but doesn’t do much outside of that. The film would relatively feel the same in 16:9. Sure some shots may be perceived differently but for the most part Snyder kind of used it in a very weak way in my opinion.
That's because it was originally framed for 1.85, Snyder decided he preferred academy ratio in post.@@Keizi
@@dangerousmothafucka1741 I can tell
To me 4:3 gives of a postcard aesthetic; intimate and focused. If film makers want to create that kind of experience to viewers, I don't see why not. The only usage that irk me recently was Zack Snyder's Justice League since what it has going for was the epicness (& we know it looks better because we've seen it look better), but I still think creators should do whatever they want with their art.
I love how kind and level he is with his arguments. He doesn't rage or attack the opposing argument---heck, he even says he accepts the opposing argument. I love that, it's a refreshing break from the many, many video essay-ers who use their videos as rant seshes.
As a photographer, I use different aspect ratios depending on subject and what I want to show. Sometimes, I crop my photos to 16x9, sometimes to 3:2, sometimes to 4:3, sometimes to 1:1, and sometimes to non-standard ratios. And yes, sometimes in landscape and sometimes in portrait mode.
4:3 has its uses, but I'd also love to see 1:1 productions, and hey, why not portrait mode videos? Although I find 9x16 to be too tall, 3:4 is a much more pleasing aspect ratio for portrait, but again, it depends on the subject.
As someone who watches 90% of my media on my iPad I would love more media to be in 4:3 so there would be no black bars and make use of the whole screen.
I like all aspect ratios. They all have their place as a specific tool in the filmaker's toolbox.
I'm glad I came here, I usually take photos and videos in 4:3, pretty cool to see how how filmmakers use it.
I love 4:3 for video games. 16:9 definitely has its uses, but It sucks that it is the standard now
I do think there should be an option to change the aspect ratio in streaming services in case you want to watch an old film/tv show that has been stretched out
Edit: I meant was when studios say the made it hd and all they did was take 4:3 and crop it to fit 16:9
What director has ever intended to have their movie or show be stretched out???
@@oscarzavitz1147 apologies I meant was when studios say the made it hd and all they did was take 4:3 and crop it to fit 16:9
@@Jdudhhsuxbsksj oh I see what your saying, yeah I definitely agree
I really dig this aspect ratio for the use of creating content! It's unique! 😁
I like 4:3 for it's clearer image on resolution dedicated displays and it's greater viewing experience in pportai mode viewing on youtube.
4:3, 3:2 and square are also cool ways to watch a CZcams video like this with your phone vertical. it does make it pretty small, but it lets you have comments and stuff like that open while still watching the whole frame. Has kind of a nostalgic feel.
Good job on this video! And I would be remiss not to congratulate you on using Squarespace as a sponsor on a video about a much closer to square aspect ratio 😂
When talking about that ratio I think people almost always forget that film stock still to this day is 4:3. If a movie shot in 1.85:1 it’s still using a 4:3 outer frame and then hard matted. And if it’s 2.39:1 it’s either cropped from a Super 35 frame or it’s shot anamorphic, in which the native anamorphic 2.39:1 frame comes from stretching out a 4:3 film frame with the anamorphic lens. The 4:3 aspect ratio is the backbone of cinema and it will never go away. Even more and more digital cameras these days shoot in 4:3 or a similar ratio so you can use anamorphic lens properly and get a more expansive frame to crop down from. It’s eternal
I really loved the part at 1:28. Comparing a 4:3 scene from Twin Peaks, the series, right next to a scene from Twin Peaks, the movie. Damn cool.
Nice stuff!
I love this look in film it just looks so sweet and nice looking whenever I see it on the tv or on the big ass screen!
great video, i was planning to shoot my next short film in 4.3, this video helped
4:3 just looks personal, and that's all I need when I watch a film.
I stumbled upon this video totally by chance , and I just realised , 4:3 really does pull me in a way like that director said !
I always just think about retro video games when 4:3 is brought up, and as someone who grew up with a PS2, it feels very nostalgic and comfy.
It’s so satisfying watching this on iPad fullscreen.
Fun Fact: 4:3 has also been used in video games in until the late 2000’s. 4:3 in games has rarely been used since.
what is the reason? lack of driver and game optimization? or it's inherent to the form devices are manufactured?
@@ignacio4244 Most TVs and computer screens are widescreen, so people will complain if any other aspect ratio is used in a game regardless of what suits it best.
Painstakingly typed out a thing in Firefox using Virtual Desktop one letter at a time with an onscreen VR keyboard only for me to sadly hit a key and refresh the page sooo getting the "went to the computer" racecar "fk my memory" version:
- Unity 60FOV = Everyone else's 90FOV
- Gamers will still go "ooga booga karen reee" if they can't turn Unity up to 90 to "fix" this EVEN WHEN THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT prior to finding out (See: Risk of Rain 2)
- 4:3 represents a gain of 25% performance over 16:9, the Series X is at least 2x the power of the Xbox One (12CU vs 52CU, 1.23TFlops vs 12.16TFlops) so this is a major and multiplicative advantage.
You will, nonetheless, never get a gamer to agree to playing your game in 4:3 if it's a 3D game - Pixel art games are acceptable in this regard, but for non-niche 3D Games this isn't the case. The Windows XP, N64, PS1, Xbox, Gamecube, PS2, Xbox 360, PS3, Dreamcast - those were all relics and had awful games that no one ever goes back to yearly for a quick fix of good cozy nostagia driven immersive and personal enjoyment. There is no value in 4:3, let me live out my fishbowl 180 degree FOV fantasy - a cool gamer who will 1 star review bomb the crap out of you lol
Nintendo uses 70 FOV for many of their games. With research and testing I've found that 55 - 75 FOV is the best standard for REAL world scenarios and to avoid distortion. Gamers are paying customers so I won't force them to eat what I cook, but the heathens don't have a fully immersive curved to perfection ultra-widescreen monitor or Virtual Desktop set to the same parameters, so for now afaik only the Rocket League gamers will understand that you LOSE depth perception and SPATIAL awareness when you crank FOV up -.-
Typical Gamer Karen: *Plays Mario 3D World at 70 FOV* :D *Plays Risk of Rain 2 at 90 FOV* :D *Finds out it was 60 the whole time but it's basically 90* "THIS IS TRASH ONG WTF IT MAKES ME FEEL SICK SO MOTION SICK ONG CAN'T EVEN PLAY THIS WOOOOOO NAUSEA BLEGH"
So.. again. Karen ruins my nice things.
I imprinted on Leslie Halliwell's Film Guide back in the 1970s when I was first digging into the history of the cinema and he was a huge advocate for the old Academy ratio and hated widescreen. At the time it seemed like an odd and very out-of-step criticism but apparently he was behind the times and ahead of the times, at the same time.
thanks for uploading this in 4:3
i was able to watch something for once in true full screen on my ipad
I've noticed in all the hallway shots you've used here, it makes them feel taller and less cramped.
I made my first film in 4:3 because it helped covey the emotion of the character
CS players have known this for years. It's about time cinema caught up
wait till they learn about 4:3 stretched.
iPads also use 4:3 mostly.
4:3 makes everything feel tall, like the centre has been pushed in and everything just rolls your attention towards the centre.
Very well said! I kind of always saw films made in 16:9 and 4:3 either old or kind of unprofessional until I saw Grand Budapest Hotel. After that, everything changed. I like your points you raise about what exactly 4:3 does and how it can work for a film. Well done!
Not a single mention of Xavier Dolan's Mommy? Literally uses the aspect ratio as a narrative device in the character development and progression of the plot in a pretty astonishing way (came out of nowhere for me).
Its simply another tool for filmmakers to use, and I love that they're given the space to finally be comfortable using it
Good format - concise and informative- many essays go on for too long
4:3 is warm, and more of a horizontal oval than widescreen
I love having the mentality of 'why not both?' rather than having one over the other. Awesome video!
wandavision had that same idea lol
There's a good swath of movies out there made with that in mind. Either shot in 4:3 but framed in such a way that you could pan and scan them down for the theatrical release, or shot in a wide resolution but framed in such a way that you could pan and scan them down for a TV release. Movies with two equally intended viewing experiences. Which is pretty cool.
I’m really happy for the new rise of 4:3 because there’s so many ways you can tell so much out of a small space :)
Is 4:3 narrower, or is it taller?
@@Tadfafty Taller but not necessarily narrower. If a film is shot on 35mm it will be boxy by default and you get the most out of the image leaving it uncropped. But it is usually cropped to 2.39. If you take Batman v Superman which had scenes shot on IMAX the recent remaster retains the IMAX aspect ratio for the scenes it was used. In this case the original was cropped to look wide from the original boxy IMAX aspect ratio so you're getting more top and bottom and not losing any width by going to 4:3.
@@willmorrell488 Aha.
I've been thinking of using 4:3 in a project recently on the grounds that it feels like it fits a lot better for confined spaces and, to contradict that, more big vertical spaces.
There's just so much where I feel like I'd be showing too much dead-space to include something that's tall if I was using widescreen, be it something massive, or a tiny shaft sorta area.
I think Fullscreen is still very much an apt name for 4:3 in that regard. You're getting the full image without having to stand too far away or noclip through a wall.
oh my god the framing of the shots you picked is beautiful and i'm not usually someone who notices or pays attention to these things.
4:3 really seems to lend itself well to capturing faces or rooms with stationary cameras
Can't believe you didn't at least mention Zach Snyder's Justice League, just for the simple fact that it introduced 4:3 into the mainstream. I would honestly love to see more superhero movies in that style, gives them a grander presence since their full bodies take up more of the screen.
100% agree with you on that. 💯
Before I clicked on the video I very bluntly said to myself, "I'd be disappointed if this isn't in 4:3." and oh to my surprise I'm actually genuinely impressed with this video.
soothing to the hands to be able to watch this video with my phone in landscape and not having to awkwardly hold my phone at the edges, I can just frame it with my hands! There are so many things to love about 4:3, it has many wonderful niches
Thank you for making this an actual 4:3 video
The most appropriate Square Space sponsorship
new drinking game:
take a shot every time Karsten mentions First Reformed in a video
I agree First Reformed’s use of 4:3 is one of my favorites as well! Great video 🙌🏼
I really love how the CZcams mobile app makes a 4:3 for vertical mode
It's really interesting coming to the conclusion that both 4:3 and 16:9 can work alongside each other to tell quite different stories, I totally agree
I do wonder if we might see any different aspect ratios evolve in the future such as vertical (I doubt it but it would be interesting to see)
tiktok videos, basically
I think it depends on the theater where you watch 4:3 and it’s curtains. I remember seeing The Lighthouse at an AMC and there was no curtains and it felt like I was missing something
You were missing something. There is a reason we don't use 4:3 ratio. Film NEVER used it before until recently.
@@MaybeGodwillsaveMe Um yeah... film used the 4:3 aspect ratio all the time "before now". Film stock (focusing on 35mm), is made in a way where the "native" aspect ratio for a full 4 perf exposure is the academy ratio (when using sound on film with the optical track). The academy ratio is a 1.375:1 aspect ratio which is very close to the 1.33:1 or 4:3 AR used in NTSC broadcast. A 4 perf exposure is more expensive, however it allows the filmmaker to use a full frame without any other techniques, (which was a limitation of the film stock at the time). There was no anamorphic lenses or super 35 standard that more modern films used in the latter 20th century. You may wonder how the same 35 mm stock used in the 40s can be used to make big blockbusters in 2.39:1 cinemascope. These methods use anamorphic lenses and squeezing techniques to fit a wide-screen image into the full 4perf frame of the film stock. Then the projector would un-squeeze the picture into the wide-screen video unaltered. Another method that is more cost effective is the super 35 format. This method uses the full film stock and optical audio track to shoot what's called "common top". Common top is when the full film stock is used to shoot the scene, then after the fact, a matte is placed blocking the unwanted frame to make the aspect ratio intended, such as 2.35, 2.39, 1.85, etc. If the area outside of the main framing is protected for open-matte, home video releases can use the whole 4:3 stock area instead of having major letterboxing without pan-scanning the image.
So in true, 4:3 was always used, and always will be used in media shot on film. This majorly crosses over to digital sensors on digital cameras. You may be surprised to know that most sensors are close to 4:3, especially cinema cameras. This allows the flexibility of taller aspect ratios for the filmmaker and shares the same principles of matting in film production.
Edit: I will also add that your take on 4:3 is more biased from the screen you watch it on. A 1.78:1/16:9 television makes 4:3 ARs seem very small, when in fact they are very tall and have very good uses in film for the aesthetic they wish to punctuate. It's like saying the fallacy that 2.39:1 is smaller than 1.78:1 because you always more than likely experienced letterboxing when viewing media shot in wide-screen. When in reality a wide-screen film is wider and grander than a flat AR like 1.85:1.
Your video looks perfect on my foldable phone in 2023!
i have an ipad pro so this vid format makes me very happy. Thank you for this Video ❤