Why is the Academy Ratio Trendy Again?

[@deathanax]

One of the most underrated channels of all time

[@shipaudas]

Grand Budapest Hotel wasn't shot in 4:3 (1.33:1), it was shot in 1.37:1 (the academy ratio), pretty close but not the same.

[@ArthurHuizar]

I always loved 4:3 and I'm glad the KZbin app plays it's 4:3 content without the black boarders like it used to.

[@iansmart4158]

I think 4:3 looks better on PEOPLE is because it more closely mimics the proportions of the typical human body. Seeing landscapes through that is jarring because its like seeing with feeling rather then eyes (which are more similar to 16:9).

[@iMarkStyle]

4:3 ratio is

[@akramsaidi2849]

I've been waiting for this kind of video

[@p.sheffield]

I asked Pawel about his latest film cold war also shot in this format. He said the same thing - more appropriate to the time period but also that these borders or limitations inspire to think about framing and story more

[@urbanachiever54]

My google search "why are filmmakers still using academy ratio?" led me here. Great video, thank you.

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

4:30 - But why the music from Kerbal Space Program? I like it, but why?

[@shlag4life251]

Only five minutes to share actually really interesting stuff! Good job

[@BarnabasTYT]

great introductory video!

[@stpat7614]

I grew up in the era of 4 x 3 television. The great thing about those old films is you didn't have to deal with the sides being chopped off, or having black bars on the top and bottom.

[@PSXDRIVERPLAYERBSTH]

I dunno, it's funny when people say 4:3 shouldn't be used anymore because is old. Well with that logic 2.35:1 shouldn't be either, it's old as well. So is 1.85:1. And 1.66:1 which everyone forgets. Basically anything that's left is 1.78:1 a.k.a. 16:9. Anything other is old. (Unless I have missed something.) I seem to recall not all movies were 1.33:1/1.37:1 in ye olde timme either, I recall some were wider and narrower, closer to 1:1. Plus not all TV shows were in 4:3 in ye olde timme either, some were 1.66:1 (I can give 2 examples right off the bat: Lucky Luke (1990) and Detective Extralarge Season 1 (1991)). Plus the eye argument is interesting, as from what I've heard and have the impression through tests, it's not 4:3, or 16:9 even, but more and less 16:10, being close to the GOLDEN RATIO (approx 1.61:1). Am willing to bet that everyone insisting on 1.78:1 with everything these days don't have a clue about aesthetics and suitable framing, not everything fits to everything. I myself would go with anything between 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 for general use, 1.78:1 feels too wide for that. And if there's those mandatory landscapes they can be wider than those, up to 2.20:1 actually, 2.35:1 feels a bit too wide. And don't use 2.35:1 with the description of "being cinematic". Why only that feels cinematic? Sure it was seen at them theatres, but so was 4:3, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, you name it. Pretty much 1.78:1 is not seen in them theatres, unless indie product. But yeah, why limit art to one aspect ratio when there's always been many of those and always will be? If someone gets mad that I make 4:3 stuff, then... ...it is 4:3, what can ye do. Dunno what the problem with black bars are either. I've seen 2.76:1 through a 1.33:1 TV, it looked fine (well, technically it was a 5:4 aspect ratio'd (remember, PAL DVD is technically 5:4 at all times) 16:9 frame containing 2.76:1 image, but letterboxed to have correct dimensions in 4:3 by the DVD player).

[@allthingsfascinating]

Thanks for existing and pumping in meaningful content. I'm nowhere near you guys, but I'm doing my share.

[@arindamned]

Some scenes of The Grand Budapest Hotel was in 4:3 which brought different dimension to the movie.

[@raidenthenctzenwithinsomni4961]

The Snyder Cut of Justice League is gonna use the 4:3 ratio, if anyone's curious...

[@pannenkoekspek]

Jonah Hill used 4:3 because we remember the 90's through the vx1000.

[@CharlieKnottFilms]

A Ghost Story offers so much depth in its image and all of the purpose its study conveys

[@neoaureus]

My take on this..... This comes a lot from the still photography world....where medium format framing and square format is a compositional tool in itself. Now that digital films are the norm then it's an artistic choice. You will have to go to drawing and painting to understand this. What is the format of the Last Supper, what's the format Titian paintings ...now compositions about geometry ....and the idea of wanting you character in the centre of the frame without excess space on either side means close to Academy Ratio. So more than nostalgia.....nostalgia for whom? Those who grew up with it or who know film history...this aspect of compositional device is in my opinion a more valid choice. Secondly, distortion , anyone who shoots 50mm or 80 mm on a squarish medium format camera knows what this is. It's pretty real and documentary in feel. Go figure why Storraro is cutting up his films, and what formats Coppola , Scorsese and Oliver Stone shot in....everything.

[@robfriedrich2822]

All attempts to wide screen before the 1950's didn't work. One reason was, that the movie theaters had enough costs to install sound systems, so they were not willing to change screen size and projectors. So the Fox Grandeur process disappeared for over 20 years. It needed the competition with television, that wide screen could succeed. Also it forced the transition to color. By the way, movies were pretty late to change from the cheap and dangerous nitro celluloid to self distinguish plastics. But it was never good to sacrifice health and life to save some money. As far I know, Cinerama and Todd AO started with safety film, had never used nitro.

[@Si-Al-Ti]

I wonder how Whiplash would feel like if it was shot in 4:3 or 'academy ratio'. That movie is very claustrophobic as it is

[@clingclanglarry3327]

This is easily one of the best videos Fandor has ever made

[@michaelcooney9368]

Those directors that love film, they haven't kinda really used it to its full potential. If sound can be digital, just once I'd love a filmmaker to make a movie in full, full silent academy 1.35 using modern prime lenses and the largest negative area possible. Kinda the swan song for 35mm and coming full circle presenting in the best image quality you can get out of it.

[@pete49327]

Generally speaking and in most cases, I think the rectangular dimensions of modern computer screens and TVs is ideal and most closely mimics the human field of vision, i.e. 16:9 aspect ratio. Extra wide cinemascope formats is too extreme imo as I often instinctively want to see information above/below the horizontal frame lines, but I guess fine if in a movie theater or imax on huge screens. When I'm sitting just a few feet from my 60" TV, I like to see that real estate mostly full, and especially when only two feet away from laptop screen where it seems such a waste not to use all of the pixels. New movies shot for Netflix are geared for 2:1 I believe, or 18:9 which is a great compromise I think. Great video essay, thanks.

[@nef36]

The reason I like 4:3 is because, at least when watching TV, the cinematography is shot like TV is still on 4:3, despite being in 16:9, so what ends up happening is either A: the shot looks like it was cut off from the top, B: there is a ton of wasted space at the sides, or C: it's just a boring shot of two characters standing across the screen from each other (that would look more dynamic if shot from further behind one of the characters and started a shot - reverse shot sequence.

[@poetsguide]

Not to mention 4:3 seems fit better on social media where the average smart phone user is too lazy to flip their phones horizontally.

[@girmonsproductions]

I never understeand people who don't flip their phones. It should be banned from watching videos vertically!

[@redcomn]

I like 4:3 and yellow subtitles...... I blame my love for retro anime

[@jvstAsYouAre]

I just like 4:3 because I'm too lazy to move my eyes that much

[@NoelEmmanPader]

I have a question if Theatrical Aspect Ratio have a meaning from the surroundings to the character, what about Music Video Aspect Ratio? Why music video doing superwide aspect ratio like Jesse J "I'm burning up" or Taylor Swift "I knew you're trouble" do they have meaning on why made this format being superwide or is it just for experiment purposes?

[@lutello3012]

Damn, this video was made too early to include The LIghthouse!

[@kalyanyadagiri26]

What's the name of the movie in the opening credit sequence of this video ?

[@michaelcooney9368]

When filming 3d honestly 3d in CinemaScope stinks. Stereo photography has eyestrain issues on big screen if convergence is too close, but a narrow scope image, foreground objects can seem to clip if they touch the top and bottom of screen. 3d seems best on a somewhat squareish but very big IMAX like screen, so the edges problem is only at your peripheral vision.

[@harshilldhingra4984]

I think deep focus cinematography looks better in 4:3 than widescreen or anamorphic

[@velinaderilova]

awesome video!

[@khonshu456]

Wes anderson's The Grand Budapest made me loved This Ratio

[@greg1030]

This may be helpful for content creators but, as usual, consumers-particularly cinephiles-get kicked to the curb. At least some of us don't like giving away image size and getting a lot of black nothing in return when having to see 4:3 movie classics (e.g. "Gilda", "Big Sleep") or vintage TV shows on an otherwise superb Sony 16:9 OLED. A ~ 50" 4:3 OLED is the obvious solution, which should be what Pioneer and/or the leading Chinese OLED brands should launch by Christmas, Have your 16:9 OLED in one room to view widescreen content and this TV in another to view 4:3 stuff-with a two channel stereo system, as virtually all 4:3 stuff has no multichannel audio. Forget about asking Sony, LG and Philips; they stopped accepting consumer feedback at their websites long ago. It's different with former Kuro series plasma maker Pioneer and the leading Chinese OLED TV brands (Skyworth, Hisense, Huawei, Konka, Sharp and TCL). All welcome feedback, some even post names and contact info of their marketing VPs. Perhaps small runs of several thousand ~50”- 60” 4:3 OLEDs to gauge market demand may fit in with their manufacturing and distribution practices? Bottom line: If you don't ask you don't get, so let them know that we want a 50" 4:3 OLED by Christmas 2020.

[@TubbyJ420]

the local IMAX screened Interstellar & Dunkirk last month, December is the Dark Knight trilogy. i love that 1.43:1 aspect ratio of full 70mm IMAX film.

[@moissandelaguila3982]

I see a Xavier Dolan's film and I click play

[@TheDavan619]

Son of Saul is the film with the most perfect use of 4:3 in recent time!

[@daemn42]

I feel the same way about 4:3 for movies as I do for Jazz. I can appreciate the artistic message, but only like it in very small doses. Came here from Jack Snyder's Justice League trailer.. Hope #TheSnyderCut isn't all shot in 4:3.

[@Lachiura]

3:53 in favor of wider format, should be instead of wider format.

[@NostalgiNorden]

4:52 What kind of idiot watches trailers like that? You know you can flip the phone to the side right?

[@daemn42]

Not on Instagram you can't, and that's what he was simulating there.

[@claudiareina2689]

brillant!!!

[@fuzzylumpkin49]

I have a 16:9 TV, so I'm used to the movie image either filling the entirety of the screen or being bracketed with horizontal black bars for the wider ratios. Horizontal black bars don't bother me, but I find Academy ratio vertical bars distracting, like watching someone else's TV through a window. I've enjoyed Academy ratio movies projected on to a big screen designed to fit that ratio, but, for me, it doesn't cross over well to modern TV sets, which is what I'm forced to watch movies shot in that ratio on, what with the majority of them never making it to my cinema.

[@eugenechok4013]

get ready for 9:16

[@km099]

Already happening for commercials

[@eugenechok4013]

lol arri making adapters

[@kikispantig]

what about 1:2? it's also emerging

[@neoaureus]

Can someone please please explain this intonation? Is this some regional thing ?

[@Rwienemann2944]

Laurence Anywhere is a masterpiece! And I love 4:3!

[@hoodtube7920]

That upward inflection is really annoying

[@deloreanized]

The only accurate response to this little essay is this: "YES AND NO". YES, sometimes. NO, sometimes.

[@kuttalu]

that's why old home video movies feels more punchier than new wide ratio ones even on a 80" tv

[@travosk8668]

Give me more, bird boy!

[@mayankimmortal]

I was just talking about this to my girlfriend yesterday

[@Eva_Melkhie]

Ah... at first I thought you gonna talk about Xavier Dolan's movies and a clicked so fast.

[@rafaelarezende2631]

Ok, we need some 4:3 smartphones

[@Ryanin2D]

Why do all of the narrators in Fandor videos sound like they're little kids talking to their parents about a cool bug they discovered?

[@hanchenhoste5725]

It's a trend like any other

[@NostalgiNorden]

Tarantino actually used the 70mm to make the movie feel even more claustrophobical. So it works the other way as well. You just need to know how to use it.

[@nef36]

I like 4;3 because I think it looks better.

[@acadia5898]

why am i unsubscribed to you? i was subbed not long ago

[@acadia5898]

great video

[@lemons2300]

I love 4:3, but I absolutely hate pillarbox

[@greg1030]

Same here. Who can bear watching classic movies ("Gilda", "Big Sleep") and vintage TV shows on an otherwise superb Sony 16:9 OLED and suffer with those accursed vertical bars which rob you of image size? The obvious solution is ~ 50" 4:3 OLED from Pioneer and/or the leading Chinese OLED brands, Have your 16:9 OLED in one room to view widescreen content and this TV in another to view 4:3 stuff-with a two channel stereo system, as virtually all 4:3 stuff has no multichannel audio. Forget about asking Sony, LG and Philips; they stopped accepting consumer feedback at their websites long ago. It's different with former Kuro series plasma maker Pioneer and the leading Chinese OLED TV brands (Skyworth, Hisense, Huawei, Konka, Sharp and TCL). All welcome feedback, some even post names and contact info of their marketing VPs. Perhaps small runs of several thousand ~50”- 60” 4:3 OLEDs to gauge market demand may fit in with their manufacturing and distribution practices? Bottom line: If you don't ask you don't get, so let them know that we want a 50" 4:3 OLED by Christmas 2020.

[@SoundBlackRecordings]

It's so funny/weird the way you pronounce A as aye and not uh. LOL

[@suicideme]

That's how it has to be pronounced. /uh/ is for the same kind of person that writes "gimmie, wanna, dunno, etc."

[@flaggerify]

Widescreen fine for snakes.

[@martindeewan686]

Nah, if you want to shoot close-ups just learn from Sergio Leone.

[@thenerdyboii6436]

Or Jonathan Demme.

[@st_orlie]

Sergio Leone is famous for extreme close-ups. Not close-ups.

[@shijoejoseph2011]

1.78:1 is the coolest for films with picturesque spectacle. Otherwise, 1.37:1. On theatre screen as well as widescreen telly, 1.78:1 offers the most video in any direction. Ultimately, content matters; script, framing; sound design -- do not do what Nolan did with Oppenheimer, blasting music at levels higher than dialogues; what a disgusting mess that was! And do not do what Michael Bay does for dialogue scenes; he can do action frames but for the love of God, stop moving the camera too much around orange people in the quieter moments; this slowing down is where the viewer can also catch some breath along with the characters on screen! And when you release your dream project on home media, do not do what that Canadian director did with DUNE; instead kindly open up the matte and give more feed at top and bottom to simulate its IMAX screening at home!

[@seaque.]

I like 16:9 because it feels big i dont like small places

[@basantanandi4562]

WHAT ABOUT instaTV RATIO? 😁😁😁

[@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770]

Personally, I'm a big fan of NOT using a smaller, outdated aspect ratio. People's eyes are horizontal, we see HORIZONTALLY, big ass black bars at the sides are distracting, limiting, and annoying. 4:3 isn't built for our TV screens or for our eyes, it constrains our view, it breaks the immersion, it feels less real. The world isn't viewed as a square.

[@wiegraf9009]

Well that's exactly what these filmmakers said. It cuts off your peripheral vision, which can be unnerving and that communicates something to the viewer

[@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770]

@@wiegraf9009 peoples eyes are HORIZONTAL!

[@Ritermann]

I don't care if it Wide, Square, tall or thin, as long as it fills the whole Screen! I hate seeing Black Bars. No matter the Format. :/

[@cgfischer]

This is one of the worst revivals ever. It may look good in some situations but the amount of music videos that have been produced recently coming with 4:3 just got too much and don't make a real stand-out anymore.

[@antona.1327]

Just shoot it on Iphone and the problem is solved.

[@hugh-johnfleming289]

It's cheap and easy. Even Tarantino can't fill all that space anymore. His work is shit now.

[@kamandi1362]

When you speak, you make every clause sound like a question. I know this upwards inflection is a common affliction amongst millennials, but can you not try to tone it down a bit? It’s excruciatingly annoying.

[@pureoakgaming7148]

@@SignLanguageResources fuckin destroyed him hahaha

[@TommyJonesProductions]

4:3 Seems more like a cheesy gimmick than an artistic choice to me. It's almost as bad as vertical video.

[@abandonedaccount1643]

Tommy Jones yeah

[@girmonsproductions]

just go back to 1890 and tell them to invent wider film coz Tommy doesn't like 4:3.. you cheesy gimmick read some history.