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.

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.)

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.

Correction #2: VistaVision was NOT solely 1.85:1. In fact, the aspect ratio could vary between 1.50:1 and 1.96:1, depending on how much of the film frame was used. Some VistaVision films were shot in 1.66:1, others in 1.75:1, others in 1.85:1.

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.

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.

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

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

This is amazing. I learned a lot. Subscribed!

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

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.

What I can't understand is why film producers continue cropping old movies filmed in 4:3 and convert them into 16:9. That's like mutilating important information from the film on the top and on the bottom. And even worse... sometimes, that 4:3 converted into 16:9 is even cropped on the tops and bottom (once again) to make it see like a 2:39:1 film. What's wrong with them? Please, respect original aspect ratio... don't chop a movie.

Awesome presentation! I feel like a student in a college classroom watching this video!

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! 😄

Finally, for me, a definitive explanation of a very confusing subject! Thank you!

Wonderful explanation. Thank you!

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

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.

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

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.

Unmentioned was what happened to widescreen films when they began to be shown on television, which of course used the older aspect ratio. In some countries, the letterboxed format was used, with black bars at the top and the bottom, so that the entire original image appeared. But in the USA, the technique was called "pan and scan", in which the image was shown at its full height so it filled the TV screen, but with the two ends cut off. When action wasn't happening in the center of the image, then you got a slow pan to the left or the right so it was visible. Not only was this annoying, but it destroyed the intent of the creators of the movie. Unfortunately people in the US got accustomed to this, and when letterboxed movies began to be shown that way, there was whining and complaints about those terrible black bars on the screen and the little skinny image in the center. Oh well.

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

Concise explanations with a great ending: "Use these tools to make something great."

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

I started this video and at first I was like, uh oh, I don't think I can handle this guys voice. Thought I might fall asleep. But I absolutely LOVE this video. Definitely subscribing

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.

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!

This is an incredibly complete, accurate, and fully entertaining view of this amazing topic. It explains it all so simply, so matter-of-fact. Fantastic!

Okay, this is some seriously awesome stuff! As a history buff, and the historian for my American Legion post, I found this highly entertaining along with being educational. I shall subscribe and watch them all!

Excellent job ! Every filmmaker should watch this !

Loved this. Thanks. Especially at 16:25 and pausing to see all the shapes together for comparison.

Got to agree with some of the comments below, nice easy relaxed but informative presentation by John Jess. Thank you.

The most cogent explanation of this, and its history, I've ever experienced. Thanks!

One cold rainy day late winter early spring 5th grade class trip to a theatre in Montclair NJ, The movie? 2001 A Space Odyssey in cinerama, I'm guessing 1969 maybe, Absolutley blew me away as a kid what an experience, I still have the souvnier book, the curved screen was incredible.

Excellently thorough overview of this aspect of visual history. I especially appreciate the great use of film clips. Bravo.

Once again: something I thought I knew a lot about and I get taught dozens of things. Fantastic! That 3 camera setup for ultra wide screen is like a modern day 360 camera!

Have watched most of your KZfaq videos and have enjoyed all. Thanks for posting.

Enters the digital screen. It’s a shame that in spite of the high engineering works, science and arts spent to achieve realism and aesthetics by optical scientists and engineers in the visual productions, it is dismaying to see most people are happy viewing distorted images on their digital screens. For almost two decades following the introduction of digital television and the broadcasting of digital signals on the air, most TV stations continue to transmit their programs in 4:3 format for CRT picture tubes. The viewers watch their 4:3 shows in 16:9 screens. The images are stretched sidewise with the people shorter, broad shoulders, fat faces and flat rounds. Surprisingly, people do not mind the distortion and if you adjust the image to normal, they are bothered by the black spaces at the sides. Shame for all the arts of the Vista Vision and Panavision

Lovely to listen to a real expert.

Yet again. Fantastic and entertaining delivery.

The thing about the 16:9 ratio being a compromise between the old TV ratio of 4:3 and the cinematic ratio of 2.20:1 is that nowadays programmes shot in 4:3 and archive material in 4:3 is treated very badly by modern TVs and broadcasters. Not every TV automatically pillarboxes 4:3 content, so you end up with a stretched picture (I have a Samsung TV which automatically changes aspect ratio on its analogue, SD SCART input, but not on its HDMI input, so if I watch a programme in 4:3 SD, I have to switch over to the SCART input, because incorrect aspect ratios bug me) and all too often when broadcasters want to insert old 4:3 archive material into a modern programme or even a news report, they'll crop the screen to fit rather than pillarbox it, giving a picture that isn't stretched but instead has bits cut off to fit the shorter picture (the BBC do this often) Even towards the end of analogue broadcasting (certainly in the UK) broadcasters actually came up with another compromise aspect ratio of letterboxed 14:9 for programmes shot in 16:9 for analogue transmission so they didn't have to letterbox too much, except that for certain programmes from the 1990s and 2000s the 14:9 version seems to be all that's available for the rerun, meaning even today you'll see reruns in 14:9, broadcast letterboxed in 4:3, stretched out by certain TVs to fill a 16:9 screen, which, as you can imagine, is ugly.

This video is really a great cinematography class !! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge, WE really appreciate it. cheers and please keep it up :D

Absolutely amazing! Extremely well researched and presented. Thx!

You guys are so awesome I've learned most of this already and I had to watch it because of your awesome presentation! I love you guys!

Thanks John... very informative and entertaining

Brilliant videos on your channel John, keep them coming!

Such a great put together video. Thank you 👏

I've been watching these during post-production on a short while taking breaks. Great stuff, guys. It's good stuff for a 17 year old.

So much knowledge for free. Thank you for doing this. You helped me shaping my career as an artist.

Marvellous. There’s the trend in recent years for 2:1 especially in 4K and streaming services and new dramas

An excellent, excellent history of cinema. While it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, I found it very engaging and a well-performed, well-illustrated story. I will recommend this to anyone who wants to learn about film technology over more than the last 100 years.

Your guys had clearly explained about the aspect ratio. Thank you very much.

I just learned something! Thank you for the insight into that subject! It was very interesting and very well presented!

A very instructive video with just a few mistaken and glossings over. The first aspect ratio of CinemaScope was not 2.35:1 (that came later) and shooting of 70mm films was (in America) done on 65mm negative film. They were then projected (in suitably equipped cinemas) from 70mm film prints. (The extra 5mm carried the surround sound multi-channels.) But it gets across the important points very well. I like this series.

Excellent! Very informative, straightforward explanation of the history of film aspect ratio. Subscribed!

Best video i've seen on aspect ratio. Keep the good work up bro.

Great video, I'm totally addicted to your channel.

thank you, very well explained.

Wow! A Tour De Force in aspect ratio history! BRAVO! SBF

This video is fantastic. Thank you!

I could watch John for days. Thank you!

Brilliant! One of the best things i have seen on KZfaq.

Very cool. Answers so many questions

Thanks for this, John. So interesting and well presented.

This was a much better summary than ones from film study textbook. Thank you.

Excellent presentation, thoroughly enjoyed the upload. Well done !

Great video! Something the average person justs take for granted and yet is so fascinating to learn about, thanks!

Brilliantly explained! Cheers

I think you should also talk about aspect ratio and home video because we put up with pan and scan for a long time to make the picture fill our screens. You could give examples like how horses are cut out of the chariot race in Ben Hur or how a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has cuts between Indy and his father talking to each other when it's supposed to be both in the same static shot. Then there's all the scenes where someone is talking and you can't see them.

Informative as per usual. Thanks a lot.

I got more out of this video than some of my college classes. Thanks for uploading great content.

Just ripping off a comment below, but you ARE the VSauce of filmmaking! Wonderful content!

Love your videos

Extremely informing and fascinating, Thanks for making this video.

Wow, incredible video! Learning about the 16:9 compromise there blew my mind! Thank you good Asian sir!

This is very informative and very interesting. I cannot say that it cleared everything up for me, and I'm glad I won't be tested on it, but it answered a lot of the questions I had. By the way, I'm 60 years old, and I was raised on the aspect ratio of television, which is, to me, the standard. Thank you for making it and for posting it here on KZfaq.

this is one of the best videos i watched on youtube..thank you!!!!

I'm really loving these!

Really amazing! Thanks for the valuable information..

These videos about filmmaking history are AWESOME! Thank You very much,

your tutorials are great,,,very helpful and perfectly described....

Fantastic. Cheers guys. Incredible presentation. Subscribed.

Best explanation ever.

I take notes when John is talking. Oh my! It's like I am all over at the University classrooms. :D

Very informative and very well presented. Thank you.

Many many thanks for the effort! Cheers to knowledge!

Brilliant explanation!

Wonderful, thank you.

Thank you, John Hess, for your thorough analysis of an intriguing subject. One technical aspect that always seems to allude filmmakers.... DREAMS. That ethereal product of the human mind subconsciously creating images in an aspect ratio no film or video camera will ever truly capture. I've always wished their was a camera that could capture dreams. So many of mine were low on plotlines and heavy on atmosphere. How I wish there was a device that could have saved my dreams from childhood to early adult years. Oh well....🇵🇷🇺🇸😎

Great presentation! You guys keep up the great work!

Very interesting and informative. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks so much for this crash course! Learned a lot.

16:9 is a compromise, but also a mathematical reference, 'cause it's 4:3 squared. The next 'natural' exponential step (the third power of 4:3) is 64:27, equal to 2.37:1 (cinemascope). The format was also approximated and renamed 21:9 by Phillips which makes some 'cinematic' monitors with that aspect ratio.

Really good - well presented and interesting, even for non-film makers. Thanks

This is definitely my 'go to' video to bridge the gap of understanding for those not-in-the-know. You have saved me many blue faces.

Excellent explanations!

Man, I love you, I love your videos and the way you explain things ❤️

very clear explanation, thank you

Well done man, such a nice job

you have the most informative, indepth, well produced, historical, entertaining videos on cameras and filming/video on youtube that I can find.. can you do a video about your history? it would be cool to know in the same video style how you came to know what you know and got to where you are now! thanks again