Directing effect of 1:33 (4:3) ratio

[Seonung]

I would like to ask the directors who make films at the ratio of 1:33(4:3) why they make films at the ratio of 1:33(4:3).

Topic

[Roger Deakins]

2:40 could be claustrophobic if you cut the frame with walls on either side.

[dmullenasc]

There’s no right or wrong aspect ratio — I remember the director & DP of “Waterworld” saying that they chose 1.85 over 2.40 because a sailboat on the ocean is a vertical subject… while the director and DP of “White Squall” said they chose 2.40 over 1.85 because the ocean is a horizontal subject!

Composition often either plays with balance or imbalance and I will say that the 2.40 format seems more “modernist” to me because it easier to play with imbalance and negative space in such a wide frame. Whereas 1.37 Academy / 1.33 Silent tends to favor more balanced or even symmetrical framing. Of course there are a ton of exceptions!

“Red Beard”

“How Green Was My Valley”

[amdiwani]

I have yet to shoot a film in 1.33:1 but I certainly plan to do that. Particularly in B&W.

To me, 1.33:1 or 1.43:1 or any kind of box-y aspect ratio makes me feel less claustrophobic especially if it’s framed with extra head space. This preference grew the more I watched full IMAX footage or certain frames from films like “Cold War”. I find the look very pleasing to the eye.

I always thought it would lend the film a kind of calm steadiness. Where you’d linger on shots or just put the camera on a tripod and observe.

My love for a taller frame also comes from my love for still photography. This is how I view my images at the moment so why not carry it into films?

[Author]

Replies