The Changing Shape of Cinema: The History of Aspect Ratio

Aspect Ratio is one of many choices you make when deciding how to shoot your film. Explore some basic tips on how to visualize your desired ratio and some helpful composition techniques before diving in and creating your own film that explores different aspect ratios.

If you have any further questions be sure to check out our questions page on Filmmaker IQ:

[Arundodonax]

My wife and I watch White Christmas each year, and this year when the "VistaVision" screen popped up at the beginning I, having learned all this from your video, began to explain to her all about the images being captured on filmed turn on its side and so forth. "That's nice, dear" is what I got. Oh well, I enjoyed understanding what I was watching. Great video.

[eftorq]

Came here from Film Riot. That was so informative and well made!
Thank you for making knowledge this interesting.

[richardperhai]

A few corrections: CinemaScope was originally 2.55:1 Adding optical and magnetic soundtracks reduced the image later. Todd-AO was at 26 fps for the first two and was meant to be shown on a curve screen - this was abandoned after Todd's death making it a flat screen process exactly like Super Panavision MGM Camera 65 dd not become Super Panavision or Panavision/70. Those were separate. It became Ultra Panavision, used in a few films for 70mm Cinema, before being dropped in 1966. It was revived for "the Hateful Eight" and the actual Ultra Panavision lenses are still used, although not displayed in anything other than the current 2.40:1 (The last two Avengers films, for example, include the Ultra Panavision logo.)

[teadm]

The first Cinemascope aspect ratio was 2.55:1 not 2.35:1. After both magnetic and optical soundtracks were included on theatrical prints from 1957 on, the aspect ratio changed to the less wide 2.35:1 to accommodate the two types of soundtracks. Also, Vistavision was photographed at a 1.5:1 aspect ratio (same as still photography), then cropped during projection to 1.85:1.

[richardsisk]

I watched this 10 years ago. It’s still the best video on the subject. Thanks John Hess.

[chompet]

This is amazing. I learned a lot. Subscribed!

[Salisbury]

This was deeply fascinating. I love old films, particularly the epics from the 1950s and 60s. I never realized aspect ratio played such a large role in these classic films. Excellent presentation.

[walwin]

This is incredible. Love your presentation and I've learnt so much. Thanks :)

[BillAllanWorld]

I have shown this video to my high school media students every semester for many years now. It is superb, and so is all of the content on this channel.

[arjaegonz]

I'm really amazed by how this topic is very well-discussed in detail, for I have only known the basics of aspect ratio, but this video definitely gave me a new understanding on its history and formats. Thank you for this! 😄

[ditarf]

The best explanation I've ever seen. Congratulations and thank you for your work.

[freepictures]

Almost ten years later and this is the most comprehensive and effective exploration of the aspect ratio. Thank you for you service 🙏🏼

[neonknights]

Correction: In 1953, CinemaScope started with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, utilizing the full silent 35mm frame with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze (the first few Scope films, including "The Robe" were shot in this ratio). However, very soon, they decided to add magnetic sound strips on the frame, which reduced the ratio to 2.55:1. In 1957, they further reduced it to 2.35:1. So, CinemaScope films between 1954 and 1956 (and some in 1957, like "The Bridge of the River Kwai") are actually in the 2.55:1 ratio. The 2.35:1 only came from 1957 onwards.

[swagattttt]

Came here from IMDB. This video was linked in the FAQ section of The Hateful Eight. Very informative video.. Subscribed.

[nomadben]

Great video, John! Just one correction - VistaVision uses the same 3:2 or 1.5:1 aspect ratio of 35mm still cameras, not 1.85:1 as stated in the video.

[chriskeyser]

John Hess could explain grass growing and I would be completely enthralled. Excellent work.

[samcogheil]

Yet again. Fantastic and entertaining delivery.

[DaveTexas]

This is such a fascinating topic! I love how, even today, different aspect ratios are used to evoke different responses to an image. In the most recent season of Westworld, the aspect ratio would shift from the standard aspect ratio to a wider aspect ratio depending on whether we were in the real world or in one of Bernard’s many simulations. Other shows have done similar things.

Back when I was in college studying film and television production — mid 1980s — one of our professors showed us The Graduate, projecting it from a rented theatrical film print. He also paid to have a widescreen version of it transferred to VHS for his own personal use. Why? The VHS version of the film that was commercially available was a pan & scan version. The professor showed us the ending in which the two characters are sitting next to each other in the back seat of the bus. In the widescreen version, you see both their faces at the same time as each looks at the other, with different emotions reading on their faces as they sit there. In the pan & scan version, you only see one face at a time, cutting back and forth between the two. By doing this, you miss the other character’s reaction to each glance. It totally changes the ending of the movie, and not in a good way.

A couple of years after this, I bought my first LaserDisc player. Some titles were being issued in letterbox format on LaserDisc and I wanted the widescreen versions! I’d invite people over to watch movies at my place, but there would always be someone who complained about the black bars. They’d say they didn’t like seeing less of the picture, to which I’d respond by telling them that they were seeing MORE of the picture. They could never grasp that concept, though, no matter how I tried to explain it.

Funny enough, however, was my discovery that some films were shot using a standard 35mm image and masked for widescreen screenings in theaters. The home video releases were of the unmasked full frame, so you actually saw more of the picture in the 4:3 version. Field of Dreams was one of these. I owned both a 4:3 version and a widescreen version of it, although I only ever watched the 4:3 version.

[JoseyWales]

Epically good video on the subject, stunning images from those old movies specially _How the west was won_, _Ben-Hur_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_. Thanks a lot!

[sammygoris]

John - Fantastic video. Many people could've read the history of this, but not in such an intriguing way. Thanks for taking us through the history in an incredible 18 minute video.