Does 4:3 make a comeback?

[Bwaak]

Reading an old thread:

Starting in the 90s, when most TV shows were still being shot on film, but when HD TV was beginning to be discussed, some shows had the foresight to switch to 3-perf. Those negatives are closer to 16:9 and when re-scanned, the result can be 16:9 with very little cropping.

Case in point: Scrubs. It has been shot on 16-mm film in widescreen. The DP claimed it was good enough for HD, but back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format (35-mm was an HD format, this was when OTA TV was great), so the show was edited and aired as 4:3 SD. There was one experimental episode of season 5 mastered as HD, and then season 8, I believe. I am still waiting for a full HD 16:9 re-master from the original film reels. I could not care less for Seinfeld, and I got bored with Friends, although I must admit that the HD remaster looks great. Friends was shot on 35-mm.

Why 4:3 Looks So Good (YT video) makes an argument for 4:3. Myself, I've got to like shooting VHS lately, using a tighter shot and not caring about what is on the sides.

Some examples of 4:3 videos that I've watched:

Neal Francis - Changes, (music video, 2021)
Public Service Broadcasting - People, Let's Dance, (music video, 2021)
Fazerdaze - Lucky Girl, (music video, 2017)
Belgrado - Jeszcze Raz, (music video, 2014)
VIDEOCLUB - Roi, (music video, 2018)
I DONT KNOW HOW BUT THEY FOUND ME - Do It All The Time, (music video, 2018)
Roosevelt - Montreal, (music video, 2013)
The Marías - Hush, (music video, 2021)
Frances Forever - Space Girl, (music video, 2021)
Iliona - Si tu m'aimes demain, (music video, 2021)
Jonathan Bree - You're So Cool, (music video, 2017)
Maggie Rogers - Want Want, (music video, 2022)
Alvvays - Dreams Tonite, (music video, 2017)
Fever Ray - Shiver, (music video, 2024)

[Cornucopia]

There can be economic and institutional reasons for shooting, editing, or distributing in whatever aspect ratio, as well as artistic & storytelling reasons.

As far as shot composition & mise en scene, 4:3 tends to emphasize the headshot, the intimate, the compact (or claustrophobic?), while 16:9 and larger increasingly emphasize the natural vistas, the epic, the expansive, and one's reduced place within it. But YMMV.

Yet, due to economic reasons with monitor production, 4:3 won't be making a comeback anytime soon.


Scott

[_Al_]

Some examples of 4:3 videos that I've watched:

Why the heck would I differ if something is 4:3 or 16:9?

It is old TV stuff, it very likely be 4:3, what about it? Ok, even new stuff. It is only in our heads that something must fit to something.

[Bwaak]

Yet, due to economic reasons with monitor production, 4:3 won't be making a comeback anytime soon.

Monitors are not an issue. When watched in a browser window, AR does not matter. When watched on a smartphone, 4:3 is larger then 16:9.

[Sharc]

What's the problem of watching 4:3 on a 16:9 (TV or smartphone in landscape) screen? You get a 'black reference' (RGB 0,0,0) left and right for free
The 4:3 picture can always exploit the x:y smartphone screen in one dimension, but not in both as this would distort (stretch or squeeze) the picture.

[lollo]

What's the problem of watching 4:3 on a 16:9 (TV or smartphone in landscape) screen?

None

The problem is when people mutilate the videos to fit their screen!

[ZacSc]

Case in point: Scrubs. It has been shot on 16-mm film in widescreen. The DP claimed it was good enough for HD, but back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format (35-mm was an HD format, this was when OTA TV was great), so the show was edited and aired as 4:3 SD. There was one experimental episode of season 5 mastered as HD, and then season 8, I believe. I am still waiting for a full HD 16:9 re-master from the original film reels. I could not care less for Seinfeld, and I got bored with Friends, although I must admit that the HD remaster looks great. Friends was shot on 35-mm.

Why 4:3 Looks So Good (YT video) makes an argument for 4:3. Myself, I've got to like shooting VHS lately, using a tighter shot and not caring about what is on the sides.

Certainly someone will be doing 4:3 video. But it won't become popular as long as widescreen monitors are popular. Why make a 4:3 video when most people will choose 16:9 - it's more comfortable and enjoyable for them to watch such a video.

[ZacSc]

What's the problem of watching 4:3 on a 16:9 (TV or smartphone in landscape) screen?

None

The problem is when people mutilate the videos to fit their screen!

Yes, it's the main thing. If a video doesn't show up well on my smartphone or computer monitor, I may not watch it at all.

[4kblurayguru]

semi pro cameras can do 4:3 guide lines for editing later, they can even do guidelines for smartphones, some even allow custom guidelines.

back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format

many stations still don't consider it HD.

i have no problem with 4 3

[Bwaak]

many stations still don't consider [16-mm film] HD.

Twenty years ago, in the time of BBC HD1 and Discovery HD Theater, it was important to showcase digital HD compared to analog SD. Many broadcasters have changed their stance towards 16-mm film and consider it HD now, but ultimately I guess it does not matter anymore, as there is only one OTA broadcasting option left.

I still hope for Scrubs to be remastered in 16:9 HD

[Bwaak]

• First Reformed (feature movie, 2018). Trailer. Blu-ray. DVD.
• Mid90s (feature movie, 2018). Trailer. Blu-Ray. DVD.
• Occupied City (documentary, 2023). Trailer. No physical media available so far.

[netmask56]

Case in point: Scrubs. It has been shot on 16-mm film in widescreen. The DP claimed it was good enough for HD, but back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format (35-mm was an HD format, this was when OTA TV was great), so the show was edited and aired as 4:3 SD. There was one experimental episode of season 5 mastered as HD, and then season 8, I believe. I am still waiting for a full HD 16:9 re-master from the original film reels. I could not care less for Seinfeld, and I got bored with Friends, although I must admit that the HD remaster looks great. Friends was shot on 35-mm.

Why 4:3 Looks So Good (YT video) makes an argument for 4:3. Myself, I've got to like shooting VHS lately, using a tighter shot and not caring about what is on the sides.

Certainly someone will be doing 4:3 video. But it won't become popular as long as widescreen monitors are popular. Why make a 4:3 video when most people will choose 16:9 - it's more comfortable and enjoyable for them to watch such a video.

It depends on context and the script. If it is a heavy dialog script then 4:3 has the effect of concentrating the viewing to the screen actors rather than scanning the countryside either side. There is a learn-ed paper in one of the German film production libraries I read many decades ago called "Concentration versus Expansion" in film and sound. A recent example was "Saltburn". Ideally the 16:9 TV screen should be regarded as simply a canvas to project any aspect ratio but sadly some people think like "I paid good money for a big TV and I want all of it used syndrome!" That's a literal quote, go to the cinema and the black bars are still there but replaced by black velvet panels that slide into place

[Skiller]

Pretty sure I read somewhere most of Scrubs was edited in 480i on some Apple editing station. There are even some shots done in "video-like" 30i on purpose, like the Dr. Acula shots. For an HD remaster it's unfortunately not just a re-scan of the film but basically the whole editing would need to be redone from scratch. Which is possible but time and money are probably a constraint.

That being said I don't mind, I still have plenty of 4:3 screens.

[Bwaak]

A recent example was "Saltburn".

Thanks, I will add it to my list!

Pretty sure I read somewhere most of Scrubs was edited in 480i on some Apple editing station. There are even some shots done in "video-like" 30i on purpose, like the Dr. Acula shots. For an HD remaster it's unfortunately not just a re-scan of the film but basically the whole editing would need to be redone from scratch. Which is possible but time and money are probably a constraint.

There are "video"-like shots on Friends as well, I think it is just the lightning and the shutter speed that gives off this effect. I think that everything has been shot on film. Talking about Friends, it was so massively popular that it was remastered in HD from film, completely re-edited. But they missed extra parts that had been added to the DVD release, about 2 minutes per episode for some episodes. So, Friends DVDs have more stuff than Friends TV and BD. But the picture is so much better in HD, and their stage is huge, which works for HD.

Scrubs has been shot on 16-mm, which technically was not considered HD, but the DP proved it could look as good as any digital HD. They protected for 16:9, I can only hope for HD remaster. It is one of my favorite series.

Ultimately, it is not just the AR, it is the color grading and the sheer resolution. Compare Friends HD and SD on YouTube, and the difference is massive nonwithstanding the AR.

[Bwaak]

A panegyric to 4:3, written by A24, who, not surprisingly, is a producer and/or distributor of the three movies I listed above.

The 4:3 aspect ratio, once the Hollywood standard before getting tossed aside for wider images, is having a moment. ... You’ll recognize the boxier style from A24 films like Andrea Arnold’s American Honey (2016) and Robert Eggers’ The Lighthouse (2019), plus movies such as Kelly Reichardt’s Meek’s Cutoff (2010), and Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014).
...
4:3 has come back around to signal film. “It is part of the argument that there is something about movies today that separates them from television,” J.D. Connor, associate professor of cinematic arts at the University of Southern California, says. “It’s a way to make a cultural argument for the cinema.” Sounds a little pretentious, no? Some people think so.

BTW, I've heard time and again that proper skating movies have been made in 4:3 with the VX1000 and the DeathLens, and that HD, with its higher resolution and wider frame does not work well for a fisheye.

[mibo]

I like all aspect ratios. What I dislike more than you can ever imagine is when something shot in 4:3 is surrounded by blurry images on both the right and left sides, to fill the widescreen frame. I have no words to adequately describe my hate of this practice.

[cornemuse]

FWIW, I have found (quite) a few '235-1' movies that have totally exteranious useless parts (235) in the outer parts of the film where if it was cropped to 4/3, (even some 16/9 films cropped to 4/3), it would be a much better viewing experience.

(makes sense?)

BTW, I have a 'EIZO' 4/3 21.5" monitor which is as tall as my 27" monitor(s) which I bought after my old 4/3 mon died.

Dont use it much now, , , nice monitor though, cost $1,000