Personally, I am (and always have been) a fan of 4:3. As the years went on though, it became less and less popular to shoot 4:3, and by the early 2010s it was practically seen as a taboo.īut something has changed in the last couple of years… We’re seeing a resurgence of the classic 4:3 format, with more filmmakers embracing it on feature length narratives. This is something we haven’t seen on a large scale for ages. This of course didn’t immediately make the 4:3 aspect ratio extinct, as there were plenty of legacy systems still running 1.33 programs (some still are), and not every consumer jumped on the widescreen/HDTV bandwagon right away. No longer was widescreen a format only for film, but now it was a television format too. For decades, the wider formats (1.85 and 2.35) were seen as “movie formats” and 4:3 was seen as a “TV format”. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that 16:9 (1.78) televisions hit the market in masses, and changed the aspect ratio game forever. What was once the standard aspect ratio of motion picture film, began to fizzle out as early as the 1950’s when various widescreen formats were introduced, such as cinemascope.īut even as film moved away from 4:3, television still hung on to the aging format long after. For years, the classic 4:3 (or 1.33/1.37) aspect ratio has been on life support.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |