Do most films pick the wrong aspect ratio?

[URBONED]

I'm glad you point out the freedom to choose what you want. Aspect ratios existed for technical reasons when shooting and projecting on film, so one upside to digital is there is now no necessity to have your film play in a particular aspect ratio. 16:9 is really the only limitation you need to work around now, knowing that the large majority of screens are this size means that what ever aspect ratio you choose is going to fit into that screen size, so it acts as a sort of guideline to work around.

[DGaryGrady]

Some minor quibbles and additional information: 4:3 and Academy ratio are distinct. The 4:3 ratio was developed by William Dickson for Edison and became the de facto standard for silent films starting in 1892 and was also adopted for standard definition television during the 1920s. The addition of optical soundtracks taking up some of the picture area led to the Academy standard (introduced in 1932 that essentially reduced both the width and height of the frame by 2 mm). This was 1.375:1 (usually written 1.37:1), slightly wider that 1.33:1. Surprisingly, in terms of the projected image, it was the norm for only a little over 20 years.

In the early 1950s, the original 3-panel Cinerama pioneered a wider aspect of 2:59:1, and this was followed by Fox's anamorphic CinemaScope (a rebranding of an earlier European format that had never caught on). CinemaScope was originally 2.55:1 but soon changed to 2.35:1. (Some films were shown in both ratios.) SMPTE changed the anamorphic standard slightly to 2.39:1 in 1970.

The popularity of widescreen films soon led to the introduction of 5:3 (1.66:1) and 1.85:1 (a ratio first used by a number of films in the silent era). These were achieved by masking a non-anamorphic Academy ratio print during projection. In fact, the celebrated western Shane was shot Academy but released for projection in 1.66:1 so it could be promoted as a widescreen film.

Larger format 70 mm films (Todd-AO and Super Panavision, which were in practice essentially identical) used an aspect ratio of 2.21:1. A number of 70 mm productions were shown as "Cinerama" in Cinerama theaters. Ultra Panavision added a slight anamorphic squeeze to achieve a ratio of 2.76:1, the widest standard to see significant use.

The 16:9 ratio of HDTV was chosen as the geometric mean of 4:3 and 64:27 (the latter halfway between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1), which minimizes the area used by black bars when viewing almost any common aspect ratio. But when the HDTV standard was being developed, there was a lot of support for 2:1, notably in the pages of American Cinematographer magazine.

The 1.9:1 ratio is not full-frame 16:9 but rather the full DCI digital cinema standard picture (4096 x 2160 pixels in 4K projection). As you mention, this is usually cropped to either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, but digital IMAX uses the whole 1.9:1 frame. It's also very close to 2:1, which if I'm not mistaken is also the widest ratio Netflix allows for original productions. Some theatrical features have been released in 2:1 as well.

The Wikipedia article on Motion Picture Film Formats lists a lot of other less-common ratios, some of which did see some studio support over the decades.

[hellotorin]

That's why Zack Snyder's Justice League 4:3 aspect ratio was great. It made all of the heros and elements seem much bigger and you feel more focused on them. In a wider aspect ratio they may seem smaller.

[WolferOOO]

I personally really like the 2:1 aspect ratio. I find it is a great balance between the full picture of 16:9 and the cinematic feel of cinemascope! I don't think you really lose all that much information going down to it from 16:9 so if it's something that is meant to be dramatic (like a film) i always love to see something in 2:1 :)

[jonnyclay]

I use 4:3 for sooo many of my videos. Often use it to relay intimacy. Also love how the human figure is composed in it, it's just so great.

[conradhendricks]

In the 2018 series Homecoming, with Julia Roberts, there is some clever use of aspect ratio to drive the story telling. Really enjoyed how that worked.

[brunobilandzija]

I agree, many films have mindlessly chosen wide aspect ratios because it's popular and ostensibly cinematic. But one huge disadvantage of 2.39 and other wide formats is that it forces directors to use a lot of medium close ups and close ups, and when there is a moment that really warrants a close up, it has no effect since it's overused.

[MeerkatChris]

Honestly, it's shallow, but 2.39:1 is almost always my preference when watching films. The letterboxed crop and the added contrast as a result of the bars being added on a 16:9 screen really 'feel' cinematic to me. Without, it nearly always immediately feels 'lesser' and much more TV-like. It's the same as how watching content that isn't 24fps never immerses me the same way...

HOWEVER, it is still a preference at the end of the day and I usually get used to 16:9 or even 4:3 within minutes. I have gone for 16:9 on my own short films in the past that play out more indoors or are much more 'personal' character-driven stories, as it can help give a more claustrophobic feel. But, I'd be lying if I pretended that I didn't have a strong bias towards 2.39:1 regardless! 😅

[Luizanimado]

After watching Better Call Saul, I realized how superior 16:9 is when used correctly, it's perfect for pretty much everything, close up, landscape, everything looks beautiful.

While a 21.9 movie, even when made specifically for that, it gets weird and a lot of scenes look like they've been cut.

[andresjacome]

"Are you saying the black bars are part of the aesthetic of the movie?"
"Yes. And I am tired of pretending they're not."

[har]

Definitely love Snyder's choice of 4:3 aspect ratio in Justice League as the superheroes looked bigger on screen and more cinematic.

[verygoodfreelancer]

love to start my morning with aspect ratio math

[rahulprakash]

Great video 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼Minimal Aspect ratio changes have been used in films to tell the story in a betterway.. But over use of it may affect the viewing experience of the audience.

I dont think audience will support back and fourth shifting from 2.39 to 4:3

[CameronKiesser]

I love movies with negative space. That IMAX look is just so immersive.

[thebrandalorian]

Straight to the point, informative, and not wasting video time trying too hard to be clever. Much appreciated.

[Theomite]

I figure it's more of a Z-axis consideration given what lens selection you have.
1.85 is great for 3/4-angle diagonal compositions with spherical distortion or augmentation because it has a great vertical/horizontal space for flexibility with the Z-axis and foreground.
2.35 usually only works with Anamorphic because of how it equalizes the horizontal portion without bending the edges the way it would happen in a trad setup; also, you don't have to worry about the incredibly shallow depth of field as much because the composition allows for more medium shots at various angles, and giving both extreme closeups and telephoto shots a LOT of character.
Academy gives you this wonderful "negative arch" where the character can be presented in full without being too close and the negative space "arches" around the character to become a frame within a frame. It doesn't do the Z-axis much to do but the Y-axis allows for this magnificent headroom that 1.85 and 2.35 just can't really nail.
Kubrick found the sweet spot for this: he composed for 1.33 but masked it for 1.85 so it could be projected in flat. But if you watch the 2001 DVD versions of THE SHINING, FULL METAL JACKET, and EYES WIDE SHUT, you can see how this binary ratio framing really helps present the frame in a best-of-both-worlds sort of balance. The headroom really stands out in a dynamic way with THE SHINING.

[nicholashartmann]

I love films that are brave enough to use extremely obvious camera turns/paths or turn around a "technical limitation/issue" and make it fit the story or mood you want to convey. An extreme example of the freedom today's tech gives you. Your character is driving a high speed car and the sun is setting behind them. You want to accentuate the fact that they turn the lights on for some reason. Drastically and quickly move in with your camera on the shoot to fill the entire width of the frame with just the cars lights. Simultaneously pull black bars from top and bottom to create an extreme aspect ratio of say 4:1. Also think about pre planning these types of compositions before your shoot.

[samwallaceart]

People forget wide-screen 2.39:1 was popularized by the grand epics and westerns of the 60s which were all about making the audience feel small in wide expansive landscapes and setpieces; think _Once Upon a Time in the West_ or _Lawrence of Arabia_ where the scenery was just as much a character as the actors. It lends itself to showcasing flat expanses like deserts but not so much to faces shouting at skyscrapers.

[utopianvisionary]

one thing i’d like to mention is more people need to UPLOAD in 2:1 on youtube i think. it doesn’t matter if your frame is 16:9 or narrower, but if it’s greater, the 2:1 frame perfectly fits on all the new smartphones. on iphones, it’s the biggest frame you can get without having the notch at the top in the shot. too many people upload their scope ratio videos as 16x9, which isn’t making the most of the screen. other “experts” will tell you to upload 2.39 to youtube in exactly that without bars, but that expands too far and has the notch in the video. 2:1 is perfect because it expands to the maximum width, and on 16x9 monitors it shows the same as it would if uploaded the other two ways mentioned.

[GlennDavey]

So many movies need to be taller, they fell in love with widescreen too much