Aspect ratios explained | How do aspect ratios work? | Why do some movies and shows have black bars

[@garybarham3992]

This is by far the best explanation of aspect ratio by showing real examples and overlays. Great job, you have a new subscriber.

[@MovieUniversity]

Thank you!

[@JacobGittes]

The video is actually somewhat misleading. It doesn’t demonstrate how much wider 2.39:1 actually is. Every side by side comparison shows two images of the same width. If a movie photographed in 2.39:1 is presented properly in a theater, it will be shown on a significantly wider screen than the more narrow formats.

[@JacobGittes]

The difference is height is also exaggerated as well. The Nolan examples are a rare situation. The images shown in 2.39:1 from Dunkirk have been cropped from IMAX 1.43:1. They weren’t intended to be seen in 2.39:1. Which is why so much information is missing on the top and bottom. That wouldn’t be the case if a movie were specifically photographed in 2.39:1. You would be gaining information horizontally while only having a minimal loss on the top and bottom.

[@GMitchell2012]

@@MovieUniversity Why the cut?

[@madfinntech]

As a moviebuff I want always to see as much of the original frame as possible. I don't care about aspect ratio, if it's "boxy" then it is. As long you don't crop anything out or at least the smallest amount possible.

[@tony757]

I’d have thought as a movie buff you would want to see the movie exactly as the directors and the cinematographers framed the shots to be seen, even if that means they deliberately crop it.

[@jeffreywoltz5547]

My sentiments exactly. I have the movie Heavy Metal on VHS and DVD. After viewing both formats, I definitely saw the difference. The DVD which is in 'widescreen' is just the VHS format with black bars over it. This was done with the 4K Blu ray as well.

[@shijoejoseph2011]

​​​​@@jeffreywoltz5547 same i read for The Shining; that since Kubrick preferred 1.33:1, initial DVD was made that way. When they make a widescreen version, usually stuff gets cropped at top and bottom (I noticed the same with Pirates 2 VCD and DVD but although Pirates 2 was a widescreen film, i wondered why they couldn't rescan and release more picture on Blu-ray, just as James Cameron did with Titanic's 3D). What and how the director intended is how its home media ought to be. Also what that crackpot Canadian director did to both his Dune films on Blu-ray was garbage of the most spectacular kind!

[@lanijordan4250]

It has been a while since Zack Snyder's Justice League's aspect ratio appeared on our screens, I have to say. And with Wonder Woman and WW84 being 'filmed', that's a problem, because the entertainment industry of today is really stubborn about showing movies the way they were supposed to be shown. Not to mention that IMAX Enhanced hasn't even made it to streaming services such as HBO Max

[@georgezee5173]

Nah, Snyder's lying about the format. It's just a gimmick to have people talking about his movie. Like the black and white version of the same film (funny how the first trailer for the Snyder Cut was realised in 1.33:1 and black and white... until it was deleted by WB themselves). His Snyder Cut is 1.33:1, which is not IMAX aspect ratio (the latter is a bit wider than that), and on top of that there're lots of shots that are basically the original 1.85:1 trimmed down from the sides.

[@aamarrahman8631]

@@georgezee5173 nah you're the liar here ... 90% of zsjl are intended 1.33 originaly. only few scene that reframed, and thats not like you say it crop from 1.85 to 1.33. It just zoomed in from original frame, the aspect still the same. Just like Charlie's Angels have, it manage to have 2 different aspect ratio from original frame, in 1.78 we get the taller frame, and 2.35 we get wider frame in exchange... it isn't 2.35 is croped from 1.78, but both aspect ratio is cropped from original 1.33, so it has different field of view.

[@Art-is-craft]

They are meant to be shown in a cinema. Your small Home Screen will not cut it.

[@SirYodaJedi]

⁠@@georgezee5173 Snyder shot the movie in 1.33 on 35mm film *because it was cheaper* (and still is) than shooting in 1.43:1 on 70mm IMAX film. The intent was that it would be cropped slightly to 1.43:1 for IMAX, as well as more significantly to 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 for the regular theatrical and home video releases.

[@zperdek]

I knew it! I remember time when on my old 4:3 crt tv, Lord of the rings looked way more detailed than on new 16:9 fhd tv. They cropped it too much for widescreen broadcasting.

[@zperdek]

@Rich Perez It's bigger chance that channel that is broadcasting it in my country, is using cropped version for 16:9 TVs from the original 4:3 release they bought after year 2000. I could watch some new release now of course but that TV version has so good dubbing in my language. And it's part of my childhood this way.

[@Luizanimado]

Watching Better Call Saul, I realized how beautiful 16:9 can be, these days I get pretty excited about 16:9 movies, especially considering that I watch most movies in my house

[@mastervang2058]

I have always preferred 16:9 movies. If you want to watch it at the theather them go ahead watch it in cinema scope but if ita a blu ray which will be watched at home where 99 percent of the people do not have a screen that size the studios should release it in 16:9. Why cater to the 1 percent when you can get a full screen with 99 percent of tvs and projectors. I remember when they use to remaster vhs tapes to fit a 4:3 screen . Why can't they do that now with 16:9.

[@bonoki3870]

this is my whole reason why: 1, i love going to the cinemas. 2, iam not interested in streaming services. beyond the whole cinema experience, viewing, not only what the director intended, but how it needs to perceived while sitting in the auditorium. you can not get that same effect on a Tab or mobile device screen. no matter the telly size, 65 inches or bigger; or the type of audio equipment attached to it, your are still missing elements of the film... unless you saw that same feature in cinemas. i do understand that we have come a very long way in technology to over look these things, but because you have best audio/visual appliances & smart devices, doesn't mean you're getting the best viewing... but thats just me. this is also why i love your channel. you discuss segments that, not only interest me, but further proves my point on the choices i make. continue the great work.

[@BigShotCritic]

Very good quality explanation of this. I'm forever sending my viewers here for a detailed explanation of aspect ratios.

[@MookieKramer]

Fantastic video. Liked and subscribed. Thank you for this gem!

[@tabe8850]

Thanks for this video. I always understood why the black borders happened on my tv screen, but I never understood why it is not completely standardized today. I honestly assumed 4:3 was a limitation of old TVs and movie theaters wanted to fit more seats, which is why theater screens are wider. It seems the answer is marketing and/or the “director’s vision.” I’m waiting for the 1,000,000:1 ratio and having artsy people proclaim it as groundbreaking vision and a bold artistic statement. Meanwhile, the majority of us will complain. Actually, 1:1,000,000 would be even bolder. The movie would be called “Blind Cat in the Sun”

[@tmntvspr]

Oppenheimer is the first fully IMAX film, and invented B&W 70mm film for that film

[@MovieUniversity]

Oppenheimer is NOT shot entirely in IMAX 65mm. All of the dialog heavy scenes are filmed with 65mm panavision cameras because current IMAX cameras are too loud to record dialog. However, you are correct that B&W IMAX film was created just for Oppenheimer. Note: IMAX film is 65mm. NOT 70mm. Cameras shoot in 65mm and the final product is blown up to 70mm for playback in theaters.

[@Art-is-craft]

@@MovieUniversity Surprised the do not develop a VistaVision at 1.66 to 1 to film those dialog scenes. As VistaVision would just be at the limits when on 15/70 theatre sized screen. Blowing it up to 15/70 would result in a more natural fit.

[@viciouspoodle5543]

No, a 1920's John Wayne movie (the Big Country I think??) was shot 70MM B&W with a 2.0x aspect ratio, a 100 years before Oppie. Oppie wasn't the first 70MM B&W by a century.

[@Lag22987]

Give me my 1.43 format I want the original look instead of using the whole TV

[@CrimsonVision-v1j]

Let me tell you, being able to watch BVS in the Imax ratio is AMAZING.

[@Art-is-craft]

99.99% of viewers do not want it for the home. They want something closer to the tv set.

[@vgmaster9]

How about an aspect ratio that combines the height of IMAX and the width of Polyvision (Napoleon's format)?

[@GorositoTV]

great as always... congrats

[@HARI_PRAVEEN]

Thanks for the video I got more information from this.....and keep going.heartfull ❤️thanks from INDIA....❤️❤️❤️

[@MovieUniversity]

My pleasure 😊

[@CBromfield]

Thanks for this, recently I had noticed, Turner Classic Movie, has changed aspect ratio....and it is terrible. It looks like I'm looking at a classic film on Instagram. It seems they are trying to fill the screen with the film, but if you love classic movies, you are accustom to the black bars on top and bottom, the viewer was at least seeing the entire film without edges being cut off. Not sure why they have done this but it's a BAD idea. I didn't know the technical terminology (have to watch this a few 100xs). This is a good lesson and you have presented some other info that I didn't know. Thanks

[@MovieUniversity]

My pleasure!

[@TheFbiFilesRepeat]

Blackbars to me is part of the film, i love em

[@b991228]

The difference in aspect ratio is not about just black lines and cropped edges. Aspect ratio totally changes the composition of how an audience sees fore-ground, middle-ground and background. What is the intention of the scene? Is it to illustrate Kane’s hand dropping the snow globe, the face of Deep Throat in the parking garage or the attacking helicopters in Apocalypse Now? You will have a whole different set of problems with composing these scenes depending on the aspect ratio.

[@Art-is-craft]

It only matters at the cinema at home the sets are 16:9.

[@bloodstarkidlander9159]

Minor correction: Zack shot Justice League on 1.33:1 stock, and intended to crop to 1.43:1 for IMAX before everything involving his departure and the movie famously changing in more drastic ways beyond the aspect ratio occured, after much strife and compromise with the studio over things such as the ratio. ZSJL was presented in the full 1.33:1 for its release, as I'm sure we're all aware by now. I love this video so much. Thank you for spreading this information. Easy to point to this whenever an ignoramus complains about "not wanting the sides chopped off."

[@MovieUniversity]

Great catch! Thank you.

[@GringoXalapeno]

Maybe he should have filmed it in vista vision

[@kanthimathimagesh6411]

If I become a director I will shoot in the 2:1 aspect ratio.

[@Robinem]

Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol did the same aspect ratio change as Hunger Games catching fire for one of its action scenes. The all 2:39:1 aspect ratio version was the one that was released on home media but clips of it can still be found online. It was the scene used a lot in marketing and on the posters and dvd covers where he’s climbing the walls of that skyscraper. The image pulls out the same way as he’s walking to a broken window ledge.

[@aleusgaming9482]

This is actually the case with a lot of movies shot on imax film. Some movies, mainly Chris Nolan movies have their blu rays extend to 16:9 but Pretty much the Only movies to have their full frame 70mm imax film scenes released was The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, and was only released to the collectors edition

[@Otokichi786]

I would see widescreen movies on TV start or finish in widescreen, with black bars top and bottom. This didn't bother me much until a WTBS broadcast of "Mister Roberts" (1955). An interior scene that used the complete 2.55:1 ratio, where three actors talk to each other. I could see two actors but hear a third as they "talked to empty air" under "pan & scan." That was enough to make me a Letterbox fanatic. Laserdiscs were in "fullscreen" or "letterbox" ratios, while VHS was only "fullscreen." When DVD came along, movies marketed to kids were "fullscreen" for the longest time. (A number of cable TV companies like IFC and FX also do "fullscreen" today, noting that "this film has been altered to fill the screen.")

[@raymondwalker2752]

An interesting compilation. Thanks. My constant irritation is seeing Academy Ratio made to fit the 16:9 tv screen. Not only is top and bottom frame information lost, but Composition is destroyed and 16mm film transmission has too much loss of resolution. Far better is the retention of side bars, that the mind can ignore and the picture look crisp.

[@Art-is-craft]

That is why movies intended for cinema simply will not work on a Home Screen.

[@faisalbajwa1568]

I have a Sony 75XG9505 and its got Imax Enhanced mode. Your video is should be watched by anyone before they buy a tv as its so useful and informative. I watch tv on a 65 inch but for films I watch on the 75 inch tv as it has no black bars which is better than going to the cinema.

[@MovieUniversity]

Thank you! Please share with everyone.

[@kalyanvejalla]

I literally own that exact same interstellar film cell you showed at 2:46

[@thewickedwanderer]

Thanks man, really diggin your channel!

[@MovieUniversity]

Thank you!

[@piusgyagenda]

Great video

[@SuperCartoonist]

11:00 Why not let the consumer have a choice on what aspect ratio they want to see the movie? I mean if anything was made in open format, I would like to see what is mostly available on the film. Well, I understand if a boom mic or lights was in the shot and the directors and producers wouldn't want us to see that, but I want to see everything that was meant to be seen. I don't care if there black bars on the side or top to bottom, I want to see the full 4:3 or 16:9 images.

[@backtoklondike]

In Imax movies case it's because they own the rights to the format so they want compensation for that but some studios are unwilling to do that. It took a long while for Disney to negotiate a deal with Imax to show that version in Disney plus in spite of Avengers Infinity war and Endgame being entirely shot in imax. And Dunkirk is only shown in imax on the 4K bluray because that's the version Warner wanted to show the movie on.

[@SuperCartoonist]

@@backtoklondike They don't own the right to a format, because I can make that format in my backyard.

[@Rilumai]

@@SuperCartoonist "Why not let the consumer have a choice on what aspect ratio they want to see the movie?" Because it's not your movie. Filmmakers are artists. It'd be like saying a painter should paint on a 20 x 24 inch canvas because that's the size I want in my house. "...but I want to see everything that was meant to be seen." You are seeing everything that was meant to be seen. Movies are usually framed wider than how they're intended to be seen, so adjustments can be made in post-production.

[@SuperCartoonist]

@@Rilumai I was being sarcastic in the question.

[@Rilumai]

@@SuperCartoonist I sure hope so, because that's not the first time I've seen someone ask that question.

[@Jayu_Bro]

This is also important for foreign movies with subtitles to be shot in all aspects ratio , because subtitles are partially hidden due to aspect ratio in theatre big screen...

[@lajollaseal]

Well done Lambo- I knew you when 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@daliilars3350]

I didn't know this needed explaining...

[@graced1338]

Going back and watching 1.33 is a revelation. As long as it isn't pan and scan, the old 'full-screen' was way better than widescreen snobs give it credit for.

[@MovieUniversity]

Why do you say that?

[@Art-is-craft]

1.33 is going backwards.

[@dmac5472]

Lol I was watching AirWolf on tubi tv, noticed the bars. Thought about all the other older tv shows that had a similar look and had to find the reason why. I noticed that TNA/Impact wrestling fills in that black bar space with their logo on Pluto TV.

[@treasey8655]

What's the point of imax? I thought we shoot movies in 2.39:1 because it looks epic and mimics the view of our eyes, imax looks similar to 4:3 so i don't see any reason to use it. Am i wrong? An answer would be greatly appreciated :)

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

Because 4:3 is cool..... Ever see Stalker?

[@valterspatriks8752]

It depends on what you want to achieve. What you want the meaning for the scene to be, what you want audience to see. IMAX can make scene feel grand.

[@treasey8655]

@@valterspatriks8752 i guess you're right

[@ChristofferETJ]

Because even rectangles are circular. No, that's not right. But we started with a nearly square image, transitioned to wide images for the added immersion. And now when it's not practical to go any wider, we go taller "for the added immersion". So we've come full circle. In other words, it's a gimmick. I have no strong preference for any aspect ratio. I just wish for consistency within a film.

[@kuyedoluwamu1812]

Beautiful video

[@raymondwalker1358]

There is an obsession with mainstream tv to have an academy ratio archive footage fill 16:9 rather than use side legs. This requires cropping of top and bottom of the frame and so a0 loses frame information, b) destroys composition, reduces image clarity, exaggerates movement on hand-held shots. In fact there is no benefit in using the full screen width. We need to educate tv directors.

[@JRBowling1997]

@0:17 I remember this was common on air force base movie theatres at least the one I went to. Sometimes the bar on the sides would widen bigger to make it look full screen. Most of the time it would be like this... and it drove me nuts. However... on a navy base not to far never had this issue. Maybe because the projector was newer? Idk

[@MovieUniversity]

Maybe because the Air Force base had more money? haha

[@JRBowling1997]

@@MovieUniversity newer movies never do this anymore right? Where the black boxes are on left and right of the screens?

[@MovieUniversity]

@@JRBowling1997 Some do. A recent example is Zack Snyder's Justice League.

[@JRBowling1997]

@@MovieUniversity one more question. I Even noticed the air.force base also did made a pop bip noise... and it would show a black dot for a second on the side of the screen. Why did it do that every now and then?

[@MovieUniversity]

I couldn’t tell ya. You’d have to ask a technician who works there.

[@ThomasSirHandel]

Black bars on the top and bottom are annoying. Just do what the first Cars movie did and have a full screen version (with the extra detail) and a theater version.

[@tycooper7780]

aspect ratio is width divided by height. When you are filming with anamorphic lenses with a 1.33 desqueeze factor, shot originally 3840x2160, the new resolution becomes 5107x2160. Now, with the resolution, if you calculate the aspect ratio, it is 2.36:1. So, is this the number you give the theatre or do I round it to 2.39:1 to the popular ratio?

[@svenkamog2232]

Only one to explain it probably 😁 well done...

[@MovieUniversity]

Thank you!

[@Apxo1014]

Quick question - why couldn’t Nolan film in 1.33:1 if he wanted the full frame effect for Dunkirk?

[@MovieUniversity]

IMAX ratio is 1.43:1

[@NKBPICTURES]

@@MovieUniversity 😂

[@neilmarktaylor4386]

Well ben hur was filmed on 65mn film using the anamorpic lens giving the ultra wide format

[@fernandolopezalvarez2007]

hello, amazing video I hace a question, Is it worthy to see Dune in Imax?

[@MovieUniversity]

I would not recommend seeing it in IMAX. Dune is shot with digital IMAX cameras which means the image resolution is not as high as IMAX film cameras. The imagery will no doubt look amazing, but since it's NOT IMAX then you should see it in another premium theater such as Dolby Cinema or THX Ultimate Cinema.

[@mercywachira5841]

I really hate the top and bottom black bars, especially when they're in TV shows and movies that weren't released in theatres. They just waste space on my TV screen

[@jaydoubleu3419]

I have a few dvds that say widescreen But only play with 4 black bars around the picture how do I stop that and the bars are like this two going up and on the left and right and sand another gong across the top and bottom all on one dvd

[@SirYodaJedi]

It means the DVD authorer didn't correctly encode the video as anamorphic widescreen, instead encoding it as 4:3 with black bars. The only thing you can do is crop the picture on your playback device… or buy a newer release if available, such as a Blu-ray.

[@jaydoubleu3419]

@@SirYodaJedi it’s smaller than full screen or 4:3 And I’m waiting for the blurays to be released

[@SirYodaJedi]

I mean that the video is encoded as 4:3 with black bars on the top and bottom, and the player adds black bars to the left and right to make it 16:9. And yeah, unfortunately some movies are only available on (sometimes subpar) DVD, ergo the "if available".

[@mixdown78]

@Movie Universe, as a side-Fact, as we have experienced these days, the 1.43 IMAX 70mm Theater-Geometry / Ratio has the most immersive Effect of the Formats, even more than big 1.9 Ratios like IMAX Leonberg, because the hight is so important for the effect. (The 1.43 Ratio has nothing to do with the old TV 4:3 Standard)

[@Art-is-craft]

No it does not have the most immersive. A cinema with a large 2.4 to 1 will wipe the floor with.

[@volpedo2000]

I wonder if this debate will be settled some time in the future when we will be able to afford wall-to-wall micro led screens. Directors will be able to pick any aspect ratio and we’ll still retain a massive image.

[@Art-is-craft]

It will not look as good as film.

[@volpedo2000]

@@Art-is-craft what does the film vs digital debate have anything to do with aspect ratio. Also do you regularly watch films and TV on a film projector?

[@Art-is-craft]

@@volpedo2000 I have not been able to regularly watch movies on film projectors for decades. With film the aspect ratio is like a force multiplier. In an out doors movie ratios from 2.2 to 2.8 to 1 look amazing and the color tone of film really makes it look very artistic in a way that digital cannot it dies it at minimum of 8k resolution.

[@kevinsupreme_ph36yearsago59]

2.0:1 or 18:9 aspect ratio is perfect.

[@moritzstrohriegel8724]

i have a question: imagine you would film something in the middle of a room in a wide ratio with two door barely visible left and right in the picture. now imagine filming from the same place with something like 4:3. is it a) you can’t see the doors because there are not filmed in that situation? or b) you can see the doors because the image is just squeezed into a smaller place?

[@Ghosthound_X]

I was watching Transformers The Last Knight on TV the other day and it was annoying how much the aspect ratio would randomly change

[@sebastiangerlic]

Hi...It is possible to have a 9:1 video playing on youtube without black up and down??

[@jeanp.5929]

Two years later, I've finally seen a movie in the 2.76 aspect ratio. That movie is...,"The Creator."

[@Art-is-craft]

It really needs to be watched at the cinema or a large Home Screen.

[@NoelEmmanPader]

What is the difference between shooting a Movie, a Documentary or a Music Video? In terms of aspects ratio why is Music Videos go beyond 2.39:1 or 2.76:1 and why artistic intent rather than viewing experience is the purpose on MV aspects ratio?

[@MovieUniversity]

It all comes down to the directors and singers intent. They're choosing to shoot wider in those cases.

[@NoelEmmanPader]

@@MovieUniversity it this had to do is Psychology?

[@MovieUniversity]

no

[@tristan_840]

Music videos specially with dancing shots are a lot better if it's wide as it include more dancers in the frame.

[@Lag22987]

Does Avengers 3 and 4 were not completely filmed in IMAX?

[@Horos_de_Vega]

They were filmed on IMAX... digital. Not 70mm. Aspect ratio is 1.90 at best. Not “true” imax.

[@MovieUniversity]

As @Actarus said, Avengers Infinity War and Endgame were shot using the IMAX & Arri digital cameras. Reportedly, the Arri cameras have a unique aspect ratio for IMAX of 1.9:1 and have the IMAX sticker on the side. They're also physically half the size of an IMAX film camera.

[@JackFrost--5]

imo the two best ARs are: 1.38 academy & 2.0 univisium

[@jvnrjkumri9866]

Can u please explain iam seeing marvel movies by using 4 way zoom in my tv Is this similar to imax enhanced?

[@ArnoldTohtFan]

Why don't they just make the dimensions of the film cell identical to the desired aspect ratio? I also think it's ridiculous that IMAX is so boxy. It would work so much better as 1:85:1 (adjusted for scale, of course).

[@GringoXalapeno]

Short answer cost and quality

[@GringoXalapeno]

To make imax 16:9 it probably would need to be 20 perf and would make imax film very expensive

[@srujangowdad3503]

Please make a video about RDX

[@Theophan123]

So this is ultimately a question of end-user watching experience. Do you want your audience to watch your movie in cinemas or at their homes via streaming services?

[@MovieUniversity]

What does that have to do with aspect ratios?

[@9latinumStudioz]

Dirty game 🤦

[@frostbitepokin9520]

The last knight was horrendous to watch with the aspect ratio change

[@MovieUniversity]

I think this the first time I’ve ever seen/heard someone say that.

[@ChristofferETJ]

I fully agree that aspect ratio changes mid film are jarring, unnecessary, and indeed horrendous to watch. In most cases. I love The Grand Budapest Hotel and its transitions. But there are fully thought out artistic reasons for those (akin to the transition to colour in Wizard of Oz), not "sell IMAX tickets" reasons.

[@andersistbesser]

To me the imax ratio looks best and i shoot everything in 4.3 always. I like the transformers i dont care about ratios and use many of them in the movie thing as well. Its damn cool and it does not hurt the movie at all. I find the changes look really interesting

[@GreatDXR]

My dad explained this to me as a child and I think I'm one of the few who understood this over 50 years ago! Even with this fantastic presentation people still do not want to see black bars anywhere on their TV. The solution here would be a TV that is able to physically (or appear physically) to change it's aspect ratio on the fly. Remember that you heard it here first. LOL

[@job3rg]

Is it possible to show all the film aspects in a one frame/picture?

[@MovieUniversity]

Yes, you can, that's why the images are reduced to fit your TV. =D However, if your question is, why can't they just zoom out to show more? They can obviously zoom in out to show more images, however when you do that, you lose picture quality. The pan and scan method that I mention in the video showed the sides being cut off and then the desired parts enlarged to fill up the entire screen. When you do that you lose picture quality.

[@chriscartoons32022]

First, I know this is gonna be interesting.

[@trevorriches136]

10:40 actually, this is false. Christopher Nolan chose to shoot only about 30% of Dunkirk on 5-perf 65mm in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio because the 70mm IMAX cameras were too loud to film some dialogue scenes, specifically the ones on the boat. The rest was shot on IMAX. It had nothing to do with budget.

[@justbecause3187]

The stupid thing about this is that while we might view the world in wide screen, human bodies and human faces tend to be oriented in a more vertical direction. Most of the time it's fine when movies that are primarily intended to be viewed at the cinema are shown in a wider 2.35:1 ratio, but in my opinion it very rarely makes sense to go beyond that. TV shows on the other hand should be restricted to something closer to the aspect ratio of the standard TV screen, that being 16:9, but i suppose i can live with some very minor variations from that.

[@Icewallohcome]

So pretty much marketing to get us in theaters to spend more money. What a suprise.

[@Andy_187]

I would love to see some of the modern blockbusters like Dune or Top Gun Maverick get a pan and scan 480p "full screen" release 😂

[@RobertK1993]

1:43:1 IMAX is the best

[@Art-is-craft]

No.

[@DC_R]

As much as we pay for these damn TV's it should do it on it's own.

[@michaelwyckoff7593]

I hate those black bars on the top and bottom and especially on the sides. I know many people don't do it but I ZOOM them out. I use zoom from the picture settings because I just can't deal with those black bars at all.

[@MovieUniversity]

Interesting. I might give that a shot sometime to see if I like that. But when you zoom in you're losing picture on the sides though. . .

[@michaelwyckoff7593]

@@MovieUniversity yes you are I agree with you. But for me I've gotten used to it because I did it a lot when I had smaller screen TV's. Yes you do lose some of the picture but given a choice I'd rather that then those black bars. I watch a lot of old westerns and most of them have those side black bars. Bottom line I've gotten used to the zoom mode for those situations. I don't zoom everything I watch just basically the old westerns. It's a matter of choices.

[@LeonBosset]

I don't agree about the difficulty of finding widescreen AR's in the 90's. Most DVD's I bought have it.

[@kalebv1161]

So Just to confirm because I'm a bit slow, Zack Snyder justice league will be in the same format we see in the trailer rn?

[@MovieUniversity]

Yes, that’s what I’m tracking. Not sure about the non IMA scenes.

[@kitcat2449]

I thought the black bars were there just to make the movie look like a professional movie XDDD

[@MovieUniversity]

Unfortunately, a lot of armature film makers will put black bars into their videos not understanding aspect ratios.

[@faisalbajwa1568]

Thank God I have imax enhanced on my tv and no black bars

[@borg386]

So what's the solution to get rid of the black bars? Are we stuck with this nonsense just because a director or producer wants it to be that way? Is there adjustments on modern TVs to eliminate this stupidity?

[@borg386]

@wilko3491 Thanks, and of course, you are right, unfortunately.

[@SneakyShelf00]

​@borg386 why would you intentionally distort or cut off the image? What you see is usually the full image

[@borg386]

@@SneakyShelf00 but why doesn't that image fill the whole screen to start with so we don't have to cut off the image? They might as well make tvs skinnier if part of it is not even bring utilized.

[@SneakyShelf00]

@borg386 well because aspect ratios are like canvases. The artist can choose whichever aspect ratio/canvas they want. However the reason that TVs are the way they are is because when we switched to digital broadcasting, a new standard had to be made. This new standard is essentially a compromise between the 4:3 aspect ratio of old CRT television and the 2.39:1 aspect ratio which is the cinema standard. No matter which aspect ratio you choose to make televisions in, compromises will have to be made, and I'd much rather preserve the integrity of whatever I'm watching rather than distort it

[@borg386]

@@SneakyShelf00 OK, thanks so much for taking the time to explain this to me. I'm obviously not happy about it, but now I know. Peace from Florida USA 🇺🇸 .

[@thundereagle97]

Movie companies really need to start making movies that can be experienced the same at home and in a theater. Cinemas are already on a decline

[@anataskova987]

We had 4:3 which was fine, but they wanted to give us more horizontal view so we got 16:9 which is definitely better. Then they decided we need even more horizontal view, and with IMAX they decided we basically need to go back to 4:3. It's so stupid! Just film everything in 16:9. If you need to capture more horizonal or more vertical, just zoom out! I hate the black bars! When I buy a TV, I expect the movie to fill in the whole screen. For some reason videogames don't have this stupid issue.

[@mikekaye3874]

I really enjoyed when Nolan chose to use IMAX with Batman. But I did't feel that the IMAX was placed or became an actual character or part of the movie as well as BATMAN V SUPERMAN. And had the best continued multiple watch of how well it was used in THE GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY in 3D. I own these all in 3D except NOLAN's BATMAN. And project them on a huge home theatre screen. - Toronto, Canada. PS: I would love to see a documentary on 3D and what happened. Really to 3D home bluray releases in NORTH AMERICA, About a week before FROZEN was released. It was pulled from being places on shelves, and for weeks all advertisements and package deals were for nothing. Since Disney owns Marvel, Star Wars, and now FOX. 3D Blurays have not be available in North America and I have had to get mine oversea's where they are still releases. I did major research to find out why this is. But have not found any solid proof or discussions about it. I wonder what you would come up with. Thanks.

[@cinemaipswich4636]

Lawrence of Arabia is a wide-screen cinematic masterpiece. Only film at a cinema can give us this movie, the way it should be shown.

[@SeanFanelli]

We need a video explaining consessions prices. The whole "wow I could buy a house with this money!" joke is so damn annoying

[@MovieUniversity]

Sean, if you watch this video I think your answer will be covered. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b17TgXVtas17aLM

[@tonymcneil]

Its IMAX 3D Frame Breaks.

[@vtrip_]

i hate the changing of aspect ratios in movies because some scenes are shot in IMAX. thanks Christopher Nolan.

[@Art-is-craft]

He is using the best available to him. If there was 35mm cinema projectors he may select differently

[@scottyee707]

I really wish they made ultra wide 4k tvs so I would have no black bars on my movies but will just have to use projectors I guess... TV who cares.

[@MovieUniversity]

It would be nice! I actually edit video on my 34 inch ultra monitor. While I don't normally watch movies on it, it's nice when I do watch movies shot in 2.35:1 and there are no black bars.

[@9latinumStudioz]

It seems like anything with 🦇 or going against the establishment is jacked up 🤦

[@tirsomorales750]

Digital IMAX’s aspect ratio is 1.9:1.

[@Chitchatjf2]

I am a VERY STRONG proponent of OAR! The 4:3 reformatting of the original Star Wars in 1983 was done to mY knowledge AT ILM by cinematographers INVOLVED IN the original film I woukld noty be surprised of George Lucas himself wasn't involved The 16:9 reformatting of the Star Wars movies by TBS/TNT was a disaster -even doing the reformatted version on Turner Movie Classics

[@MovieUniversity]

Based on my research, Lucas was in charge of ALL restoration until Disney took over. If you have a link stating otherwise please share. There are various fan groups who are devoted to the original 70s/80s theatrical cuts and have persevered them for viewing.

[@nathanthesubzeromangold4615]

4.3 aspect ratio is quite famous movie picture the way how the vhs tapes Home Videos were from out a long time ago making a great way on a DVD home video I changing it everything it's more Just Like VHS Home Video Entertainment for DVD picture. To be very honest I think 4.3 show is one of my favorite TV pictures of all time since when it was quite famous on VHS The good way to put on a DVD

[@vikramjio7651]

i call it filling black bars on tv, it means alredy tv serials alredy in imax ratio 😂

[@terencemcculloch3294]

Film frame not film cell.

[@JayInDecent]

My favorite has always been1:85:1

[@Art-is-craft]

I think it is the closest cinema representation that will work at home.

[@RobertK1993]

2.40.1 is the best

[@Nothing-fd3jo]

I Hate That Im Watching MCU Now Im Not Frever Watching Have F*ck*ng Black Bars

[@shijoejoseph2011]

On your regular flat telly common everywhere, the European / British format of 1.78:1 fills the whole screen, whereas 1.85:1 leaves a thin pair of bars, and 2.39:1 leaves behind such an entitled pair of bars (2.75:1 and upwards of Ben-Hur makes us wonder why...just why). If they could rescan and release more video at top and bottom (James Cameron did that with Titanic's 3D - the most picture it has ever had), that would be awesome. And if a full-screen / 1.33:1 would still give more video for an IMAX film on widescreen telly, just release it that way on Blu-ray / 4K because 2.39:1 or even 1.78:1 widescreen in this case means cropping out more from top and bottom. Simple common sense or visual sense but it seems to be lacking with folks who release home media and director (what that crackpot Canadian did with both his Dunes on Blu-ray / 4K were spectacular monstrosity of the worst kind).